RETIRED G.M. NATIONAL WESTERN SUPPORTS CONSUMER BILL

Charles Walter Sylvester Jr.

P.O. Box 155    La Salle, CO  80645     (970) 284-6874      Farm_Cowboy@msn.com

Dear Colorado House Agriculture Committee, 

Rep. Jeni James Arndt, Chair and Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, Vice Chair, 

Regarding: HB 17-1234 Beef Country of Origin Retail Placard                     April 3, 2017

Please consider this testimony as my support of HB 17-1234, Beef Country of Origin Retail Placard.

Beef products should not be sold as a homogeneous product. Classification of beef as something that’s all in one the same is a huge disservice to Consumers!

There are some differences in cuts of meat: a) Location of the cut on the carcass. b) Breed of cattle the carcass results from. c) Age of animal d) Conditions of the animal – what it’s been fed, health care etc.  e) Delicious meat comes from younger, easy fleshing animals that have been fed well and with proper time withdrawal from such as necessary medicines and feed additives.

Though there are these many differences, the continuity lays in the fact that all beef provides nutrients essential to maintaining diet balance in humans.

Think of these differences this way: Automobile choices. There’s nothing wrong with say, economy cars like a Chevy, Ford or Kia. You can drive them to get you from point A to Z just fine.  

But, if you want a heavy, cushy, comfortable luxury car, which will also get you from point A to Z, you have that choice. You can spend more money and perhaps buy a Lincoln, Cadillac or whatever.

Point being, “You, the Consumer, have a choice.”

An explanation of lesser quality in recent times is the Volkswagen. The company paid millions in claims based on breakdowns etc. due to a “faulty part.” Because it had a label, trace back was easy.

Beef, like automobiles, needs to be sold “accurately identified.”

HB 17-1234 will give you the choice of buying imported beef that may have “faulty parts,” or safe, consistently tender and delicious Born and Raised in the U.S.A. beef!

Lastly,  on a personal note: For years, I’ve been surprised and disappointed to hear individuals who claim to represent cattlemen,  instead, block and testify against every consumer, property and water rights bill that would lawfully protect the valid existing rights of both Cattlemen and Consumers.

Eleven years ago, I developed this diagram of the U.S. Cattle Industry. Since then, I’ve waited for someone to get in my face and shout, “You’re WRONG!” That’s never happen. Therefore, I will stake the claim - - “Time has proven it to be accurate.”

I appreciate and thank Representative Kimmi Lewis and Senator Vicki Marble, for looking out for the Consumer by stepping forward with HB 17-1234.

Your vote YES will give Consumers a choice.                             

Thank you,

Charles W. Sylvester, Jr.  

Weld County, Colorado  

Retired General Manager National Western Stock Show

Co-Founder Good Neighbor Law and Land And Water USA

R-CALF USA SUPPORTS CONSUMER BILL

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America P.O. Box 30715 Billings, MT 59107 Fax: 406-252-3176 Phone: 406-252-2516 Website: www.r-calfusa.com E-mail: r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com

March 31, 2017
The Honorable Jeni James Arndt, Chair House Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee
200 E Colfax, RM 307
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Chairwoman Arndt and Distinguished Committee Members:

R-CALF USA strongly supports HB17-1234, a bill to allow Colorado consumers to differentiate between beef produced exclusively in the U.S. by domestic cattle farmers and ranchers and beef that is sourced from foreign countries.
R-CALF USA is the largest producer-only U.S. trade association representing the U.S. cattle industry. Our voting members are exclusively farmers and ranchers who raise and sell cattle. We do not represent the interests of downstream packers or processors in our nation’s multi-segmented beef supply chain. Hence, our position in support of informing consumers as to the true origins of beef is different than that of conventional groups whose membership and governance includes multinational packers.
As you know, Congress repealed mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) in 2015 only as it applies to beef and pork. Mandatory labeling requirements remain in effect for chicken, lamb, goat, venison, fish and shellfish, fruits and vegetables, macadamia nuts, pecans, ginseng, and peanuts. Thus, beef and pork are now inexplicable outliers of a regime designed to inform consumers as to the true origins of their food. This is disturbing given that about 20 percent of all available beef in the U.S. is imported. Annually, the U.S. imports approximately 3 billion pounds of beef from about 20 different countries as well as about 2 million head of live cattle from Canada and Mexico.
Those countries from which we import beef include Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Chile, Australia, Ireland and Canada, to name a few.
Because HB17-1234 requires only a placard next to beef rather than markings or labels on beef packages, we believe it completely avoids federal preemption by the Meat Inspection Act that governs package labels and markings. Further, the Trade Act of 1930 requires imported beef to be labeled to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S., typically the packer or retailer. Thus, together the packers and retailers know the origins of all the beef sold at retail in Colorado without needing any additional information.
While opponents argue that packers would already be voluntarily informing consumers of the origins of beef if consumers wanted such information, this ignores the fact that consumers are  currently being misled, if not outright deceived. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allows meatpacker to use the “Product of USA” label on beef produced from cattle that were born and raised in Canada, Mexico, or any other country provided the cattle are slaughtered in the United States.
Also, both imported and domestic beef bears a U.S. inspection sticker. Lacking any other countervailing origin information on the package, unsuspecting consumers are led to believe the beef is of domestic origin. In other words, the current system is designed not only to prevent consumers from knowing the true origins of their beef, but also, to prevent them from knowing that they do not already know the true origins of their beef.
R-CALF USA supports HB17-1234 because it also enables competition between Colorado farmers and ranchers and their foreign counterparts that produce lower-cost cattle and beef in those 20 countries mentioned above.
When consumers cannot differentiate U.S.-produced beef from foreign beef, then multinational packers enjoy absolute control over where they will source their cattle and beef to satisfy domestic demand. In other words, the lack of origin information on beef enables packers to bypass consumer buying preferences and to serve to the American consumer whatever beef the packer chooses.
Indeed, in their unsuccessful 2013 attempt to declare country of origin labeling unconstitutional, the multinational packers tried to convince a U.S. district court that, “In short, beef is beef, whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán,” which is a testament to the packers’ contempt for the unparalleled effort that U.S. cattle producer put forth when raising the very best cattle under the very best conditions in the world.
A lack of origin information empowers packers to exploit domestic cattle producers on one end of the supply chain (by using undifferentiated imported product to suppress domestic demand for cattle) and consumers on the other (by charging consumers the same price for beef even when the cattle and/or beef obtained from foreign sources is considerably cheaper).
It is a fundamental truth that a lack of transparency harms competition. When packers and retailers know where the beef they market originated but they refuse to share that information with consumers, the packers’ and retailers’ market power increases while the consumers’ market power decreases. Please support Colorado’s consumers and cattle producers by passing HB17-1234.
Please contact me at 405-670-8157 if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,
Bill Bullard

BEEF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN RETAIL PLACARD

                                              Land And Water USA

P.O. Box 155 La Salle, CO  80645

www.LandAndWaterUSA.com    (970) 284-6874

Dear Colorado House Agriculture Committee, 

Rep. Jeni James Arndt, Chair  - Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, Vice Chair     

Rep. Jon Becker, Rep. Perry Buck, Rep. Jessie Danielson, Rep. Daneya Esgar, Rep. Chris Hansen, Rep. Steve Lebsock   Rep. Hugh McKean, Rep. Lori Saine, Rep. Donald Valdez, Rep. Yeulin Willett                                        

Regarding: HB 17-1234 Beef Country of Origin Retail Placard

Please consider this our wholehearted support for HB 17-1234.

We appreciate and thank Senator Vicki Marble and Representative Kimmi Lewis, for sponsoring a bill that wholly considers the Consumer.

In short, it will provide essential information and food safety to Colorado Consumers!

Our research has borne out the fact that Consumers have become more educated about their food choices. Their appetite for safe, nutritious delicious food equals their appetite for knowledge about it.

Here are some reports:

2007: Consumer Reports poll revealed “92 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from and, in fact, the COOL regulations, as originally conceived, were to apply to meat, fruits, vegetables and peanuts. But legislative battles and political wrangling derailed full implementation of COOL.

For example, groups like the National Farmers Union—a coalition of family farmers and ranchers—fought for COOL labeling, believing Americans would support locally grown and raised products. But alliances of food processors and meat packers, such as the American Meat Institute and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) balked at the burden and expense of complying with such compulsory labeling.”

To our knowledge, since its passing in 2002, COOL was never fully implemented, for NCBA was successful in keeping this critical information from Consumers.

2014: “People overwhelmingly tell Consumer Reports they want to know where their food comes from in national survey after survey after survey.”

Consumers will be able to look over the meat, and see right up front exactly where the beef comes from. This is a service we believe retailers will be happy to provide their customers.

Passing HB 17-1234 will ensure Colorado Consumers an informed choice.

We respectfully ask members of the Agriculture House Committee to please vote “Yes” on HB 17-1234 Beef Country of Origin Retail Placard.

Thank you,

Roni Bell Sylvester

Co-Founder Land And Water USA

www.LandAndWaterUSA.com

EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS IN LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS

M E M O R A N D U M
January 17, 2017
TO: Interested Persons
FROM: Legislative Council Staff
SUBJECT: Public Participation in the Legislative Process Summary Legislative committees are a very important part of Colorado's legislative process.
At a legislative committee hearing, citizens have an opportunity to express their views and have them incorporated into the official legislative record.
In Colorado, every bill receives a public hearing by one of the legislature's committees. This memorandum provides guidance to the public in participating in the legislative process. Role of a Committee
The Colorado State Constitution requires that every bill be heard on its merits. 
When a bill is introduced in either the Senate or the House, it is sent to a Committee of Reference comprised of 5 to 13 legislators for review and public comment. The committee determines if the proposal should go forward in the legislature. After the committee considers any proposed amendments, it may vote to favorably recommend the bill to the Committee of the Whole, refer the bill to another committee, or postpone the bill indefinitely. Committee schedules.
When the legislature is in session, committees generally meet in regularly scheduled rooms at regularly scheduled times. However, they will occasionally meet in different rooms at varying times to accommodate a large audience or remote testimony. Monday mornings (typically 10:00 a.m. until noon) and Friday mornings (typically 9:00 a.m. until noon) are reserved for floor work.
Committees with hearings in the morning meet from Upon Adjournment of floor work until noon. At the chair's discretion, morning committees may also meet from 7:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m.
Afternoon committees generally meet at 1:30 p.m. Click here for links to the committees' schedules and membership lists for the 2017 Legislative Session. Room 029 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784 (303) 866-3521 • FAX: 866-3855 • TDD: 866-3472 leg.colorado.gov/lcs E-mail: lcs.ga@state.co.us
Contacting a Legislator: Contact information for every legislator, including office location, office phone number, e-mail address, and committee assignments, is located in the legislative directory. Tracking a Bill Online bill information. The full text of bills, resolutions, and memorials, and their history, votes, fiscal notes, and committee reports are available online. Bills are named according to the house where there were introduced and the year. For example, Senate Bill 17-001 is the name of the first bill introduced in the Senate during the 2017 Legislative Session. Click here for an explanation of the bill names, or versions, based on where they are in the legislative process. The bill status sheet is used to track legislation as it moves through the General Assembly. Bill scheduling. The chair of each committee determines when a bill will be heard. The House and Senate calendars, published daily, show the scheduled committee hearings and calendared bills. Both the full House and Senate meet in their respective chambers daily during session, generally at 10:00 a.m. on Mondays, and at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday through Friday.
Changes to the published calendar are announced during these floor sessions and tweeted through the committee's Twitter feed. Online Video and Audio Resources Floor proceedings. The Colorado General Assembly's House and Senate live floor proceedings are available in audio and video format on The Colorado Channel. Archived sessions are also available here.
Committee proceedings. All committee hearings are recorded and available live on the General's Assembly's webpage under Live Legislative Audio. In the left-hand column, select Year-Round, House, Senate, Interim, or Other Committees to reveal a list of upcoming committee events.
If the committee hearing is in progress, a link titled "Listen to Event" will be available to the right of the "Calendar" link. Links to archived audio for each committee category are listed lower on the page. Committee Protocol The purpose of a committee hearing is to gather information so that the committee can make an informed recommendation on a given bill or resolution.
Public input is an important part of this process. As elected officials, committee members appreciate hearing the perspective of citizens and organizations on issues.
Preparing to testify. When preparing your testimony, plan to present in less than five minutes and be prepared to summarize the main points in one minute. If you have a personal experience related to the legislation, your story can provide valuable information for the legislators. However, be aware that the bill sponsor may propose amendments when presenting to the committee that may change your position on the bill. If you would like to suggest an amendment, it is best to speak with the bill sponsor prior to the committee hearing. It is a good idea to bring a copy of the bill with you to the hearing, and strongly recommended that you bring copies of your -2- written testimony for the committee members, bills sponsors, and staff. If you are not sure how many copies to bring, 20 copies will be sufficient.
Signing in. Hearings usually start on time, but it is best to arrive 30 minutes early, especially for committees that meet Upon Adjournment. In order to testify, it is important that you sign in at the beginning of the hearing or as soon as possible. Each bill on the agenda will have a sign-in sheet that is located on or near the committee table. Fill out all of the information including whether you are in support of the bill, against the bill, or neutral. If you are not representing an organization, write that you are representing yourself.
If you have any questions, please ask a member of Legislative Council Staff, who wear red name badges. If you have handouts or copies of your testimony for the committee, give these to staff at the beginning of the hearing or before you speak.
Testifying. The order of bills to be heard is posted outside the door of each committee that is meeting. The chair will announce each bill, after which the bill's sponsor will address the committee. The chair may then ask for testimony from proponents and opponents. Hearings are conducted using formal parliamentary procedure.
You may find the following recommendations to be helpful. • Begin your presentation by stating, "Mr. or Madam Chair ___, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is ____, representing ___, and I am here to support/oppose this bill because . . ." • Do not read your testimony word for word. • Be brief and avoid repeating what other witnesses have said. Try to focus on points that have not been mentioned. • At the end of your testimony, thank the committee members and offer to answer any questions. • If a member asks a question, wait for the chair to prompt you, then state your name followed by, "Chair ___, Senator/Representative ____, the answer to your question is . . ." If you do not know the answer, it is always okay to say that you do not know. If you promise to follow-up, be sure to do so in a timely manner. • Do not be offended if committee members come and go during a hearing. They have other commitments, including the presentation of bills in other committees that are meeting simultaneously. • At a hearing with a large number of witnesses, there may not be time for everyone to testify. • Cell phones and other electronic devices should be on a silent setting. • Food and beverages are prohibited in the committee rooms. • The chair has the discretion and authority to limit testimony, ask the sergeant-at-arms to remove a disruptive person from the committee, and clear the public from any hearing in the event of a disturbance which is disruptive to legislative proceedings.
Remote testimony. During the 2017 legislative session, five sites will be available for remote testimony for specific bill hearings: Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction, Otero Junior College in La Junta, Fort Lewis College in Durango, Trinidad Junior College in Trinidad, and Adams State University in Alamosa. Any legislator may request remote testimony for a bill, but the request must be approved by legislative leadership. If you wish to testify remotely, you will need to sign up through the General Assembly's registration website. Bills available for remote testimony will be indicated on the registration website, as well as the House and Senate calendars. In order for a remote testimony site to be available for testimony, at least one witness must be registered to testify at the site at least 24 hours before the hearing on the previous business day. The deadline is 10:00 a.m. for committees scheduled to meet Upon Adjournment.
If at least one -3- witness is registered by the deadline, additional witnesses may continue to sign up on-line to testify remotely until one hour before the scheduled hearing time and may sign up at the remote testimony site until public testimony on the bill concludes.
Please note that there is no guarantee that all witnesses, including remote witnesses, will be permitted to testify on a bill, or that remote witnesses will be able to testify at a specific time.
The Information Center The Information Center is located in the Joint Legislative Library, Room 048 in the basement of the State Capitol. Copies of bills, calendars, and journals can be obtained there between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Information on the scheduling of a particular bill is also available by calling the Information Center at 303-866-3055.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/create_a_public_participation_in_the_legislative_process_document1915134322_2.pdf

BEEF! BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA!

Dear Friends, Rep. Kimmi Clark Lewis, a Republican member of the House Agriculture Committee, needs your help to bring Country of Origin Labeling for beef products produced and sold in the state of Colorado. HB 17-1234 is a simple proposal. The bill merely states that any retail store selling fresh beef products within the state of Colorado must provide a placard indicating the Country of Origin in which their beef was produced.  If your local grocers know where the beef is from, they must provide that information on to you, the consumer. Consumers want to know where and how their food is made and where it comes from... ...and we, proudly, wish to know that customers want to buy USA raised beef! We need to stand up for the American Rancher, a group that has been given the short end of the stick by both parties. Stand with Rep. Lewis and call on the other members of the Colorado House Agriculture Committee asking to pass a bill that equalizes the beef market to become a more competitive one for hard working Americans, not foreign "big-beef" monopolists.   Contact the House AG Committee Members Here: Rep. Jeni James Arndt, Chair - 303-866-2917, jeni.arndt.house@state.co.us Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, Vice Chair - 303-866-2923, diane.mitschbush.house@state.co.us Rep. Jon Becker - 303-866-3706, jon.becker.house@state.co.us Rep. Perry Buck - 303-866-2907, perrybuck49@gmail.com Rep. Jessie Danielson - 303-866-5522, jessie.danielson.house@state.co.us Rep. Daneya Esgar - 303-866-2968, daneya.esgar.house@state.co.us Rep. Chris Hansen - 303-866-2967, chris.hansen.house@state.co.us Rep. Steve Lebsock - 303-866-2931, steve.lebsock.house@state.co.us Rep. Hugh McKean - 303-866-2947, hugh.mckean.house@state.co.us  Rep. Lori Saine - 303-866-2906, lori.saine.house@state.co.us Rep. Donald Valdez - 303-866-2916, donald.valdez.house@state.co.us Rep. Yeulin Willett - 303-866-2583, yeulin.willett.house@state.co.us HB 17-1234 is set to be heard by the House Agriculture Committee on Monday, April 3rd, at 1:30pm at the State Capitol. We will provide more details on location and bill order when they become available.  Please come and show your support for USA BEEF.  Regards, Team Kimmi Lewis

For further reading: HB 17-1234 - Beef Country Of Origin Retail Placard Act, Sponsored by Rep. Kimmi Clark Lewis and Senator Vicki Marble

THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON REGULATIONS

The social cost of carbon regulations

Anti-fossil fuel SCC relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor

Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.

The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.” And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.” In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so. 

Indeed, fossil fuels created the modern world and the housing, transportation, other technologies and living standards so many of us take for granted. They are essential for electricity and life, and over the past 250 years they more than doubled average life expectancy in countries that took advantage of them.

But the Obama Administration and radical environmentalists despise fossil fuels and used every tactic they could devise to eliminate them. One of their most important schemes was the “social cost of carbon.”

Federal agencies used the SCC to calculate the “hidden costs” of carbon dioxide emissions associated with fossil fuel use, by assigning a dollar value to every ton of CO2 emitted by power plants, factories, homes, vehicles and other sources. However, the entire process was little more than junk science and Garbage In-Garbage Out forecasting.

First, each ton of U.S. emissions averted would initially have prevented a hypothetical $25/ton in global societal costs allegedly resulting from dangerous manmade climate change: less coastal flooding and tropical disease, fewer droughts and extreme weather events, for example. But within three years regulators arbitrarily increased the SCC to around $40/ton.

That made it easier to justify the Clean Power Plan, Paris climate agreement, and countless Obama Era actions on electricity generation, fracking, methane, pipelines, vehicle mileage and appliance efficiency standards, livestock operations, carbon taxes, and wind, solar and biofuel mandates and subsidies.

Second, the supposed bedrock for the concept is the now rapidly shifting sands of climate chaos theory. New questions are arising almost daily about data quality and manipulation, the degree to which carbon dioxide affects global temperatures, the complex interplay of solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces, and the inability of computer models to predict temperatures, sea level rise or hurricanes.

Meanwhile, as the 2015-16 El Nino dissipated, average global temperatures rapidly fell back almost to their 1998-2014 level, according to Britain’s Met Office and other experts. That means there has been no measurable planetary warming for 18 years. Nor are other predicted disasters happening in the real world.

That means the very notion that U.S. emissions impose major climate costs is increasingly indefensible. Moreover, developing nations are burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide at many times the U.S. rate; that means even eliminating their use in America would have no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Third, the SCC scheme blames American emissions for supposed costs worldwide (even though U.S. CO2 emissions are actually declining). It incorporates almost every conceivable cost of oil, gas and coal use on crops, forests, coastal cities, property damage, “forced migration,” and human health, nutrition and disease. However, it utterly fails to mention, much less analyze, tremendous and obvious carbon benefits.

That violates a 1993 Bill Clinton executive order requiring that federal agencies assess both benefits and costs of proposed regulations. It is also irrational, and completely contrary to human experience.

Fossil fuels created the modern world and lifted billions out of destitution and disease. They supply over 80% of the energy that powers United States and other modern civilizations; they will continue doing so for decades to come. They generate up to $70 trillion in annual global GDP.

Using readily available data on global living standards, economies, disease, nutrition, life spans and other benefits – and the government’s own SCC cost figures and methodologies – we estimate that carbon benefits exceed costs by orders of magnitude: at least 50 to 1 and as much as 500 to 1!

The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that fossil fuels will provide 75-80% of worldwide energy through 2040 – when the total amount of energy consumed will be at least 25% greater than today. That means these notable benefit-cost ratios will continue. The Obama Era SCC ignores all of this, too.

Fourth, SCC schemes likewise impute only costs to carbon dioxide emissions. However, as thousands of scientific studies verify, rising levels of this miracle molecule are “greening” the Earth – reducing deserts, and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. No matter which government report or discount rate is used, asserted social costs of more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are infinitesimal compared to its estimated benefits.

Fifth, government officials claim they can accurately forecast damages to the world’s climate, economies, civilizations, populations and ecosystems from U.S. carbon dioxide emissions over the next three centuries. They say we must base today’s energy policies, laws and regulations on those forecasts.

The notion is delusional and dangerous. The rate of change in energy generation and other technologies has become exponential over the past several decades, with forecasting ability declining at an equal rate. Uncertainties over man and nature-driven climate changes during the next 300 years are equally colossal. Combining all the SCC assumptions, methodologies, fabrications and omissions, and injecting its absurd predictions into high-speed computer models, just means bogus forecasts are generated more quickly.

Finally, the most fundamental issue isn’t even the social cost of carbon. It is the costs inflicted on society by anti-carbon regulations. Those rules replace fossil fuel revenues with renewable energy subsidies; reliable, affordable electricity with unreliable power that costs two to three times as much; and mines, drill holes, cropland and wildlife habitats with tens of millions of acres of wind, solar and biofuel “farms.”

Anti-carbon rules are designed to drive energy de-carbonization and modern nation de-industrialization. Perhaps worst, their impacts fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families. Those families spend proportionately three to ten times more of their incomes on energy than families earning $50,000 to $250,000 a year. They have little discretionary income and face the greatest risk of having their electricity cut off – as happened to 330,000 families during 2015 in ultra-green Germany. Worldwide, billions of people still do not have electricity – and the SCC would keep them deprived of its benefits.

Bureaucrats, activists, scientists and corporate rent-seekers certainly welcome the SCC mumbo-jumbo. They have profited the most from the countless billions that Obama regulatory agencies lavished on them every year, and from the tens of billions that Mr. Obama stashed in dozens of agencies, programs and crannies throughout the government, so they couldn’t easily be found or cut.

Above all, they would profit massively from the $93 trillion that the Financial Stability Board’s climate task force says the world must spend in low-carbon infrastructure programs over the next 15 years, as part of the Obama-UN-FSB-Climate Crisis, Inc. plan to de-carbonize and de-industrialize the planet.

Taxpayers, consumers and families would be hammered if the Climate Cabal got even more power over energy policies, economic growth, livelihoods and living standards. Thankfully, eliminating the social cost of carbon and programs implemented under it requires little more than applying the same rules and standards that government regulators have imposed on Volkswagen, Fiat and Wall Street dishonesty.

That is why the Trump Administration is challenging the SCC, climate cataclysm deception, and the bloated EPA budget behind so much of it. It’s why the House Science Committee’s Environment and Oversight Subcommittees held a hearing on the SCC, and why we and other experts will eviscerate it during the upcoming Heartland Institute 12th International Climate Conference in Washington, DC.

It’s time to rescind and defund the SCC – and replace it with honest, objective cost-benefit analyses.

Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, climate change and human rights.

A SERIOUS CLIMATE OPPORTUNITY

A serious climate opportunity

Why does government refuse to do the one thing that would help our forests and climate?

Greg Walcher

For years, politicians have waged war on coal, stifled oil and gas production, and advocated carbon taxes and other extreme measures to reduce carbon dioxide, while ignoring one of the most important things they could do to help.

It reminds me of my own lifelong battle with weight and the associated health issues. I get so frustrated that I sometimes swear I would do anything – anything! – to lose weight. Well, anything except eat less and exercise. But anything else.

That same kind of hypocrisy surrounds rants about our carbon dioxide emissions. Even people who are “deeply concerned” about dangerous manmade climate change drive cars, heat their homes, and sometimes even turn on lights. They embrace modern living standards, while also embracing faddish environmental claims and policies that contribute mightily to problems they insist disturb them greatly.

A popular bumper sticker screams, “TREES ARE THE ANSWER.” Yet when it comes to managing our national forests, many of those same advocates look away, while millions of acres of once healthy trees die, fall down, rot or burn up.

It’s ironic, because those forests provide the world’s greatest resource for cleaning carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere; because the rotting and fires themselves emit greenhouse gases; and because atmospheric carbon dioxide makes all plants grow faster and better and with improved tolerance to drought.

As Colorado State Forester Mike Lester testified recently before a state legislative committee, “When so many trees die and large wildfires follow, our forests quickly turn from a carbon sink into a carbon source.” Trees absorb carbon dioxide as people absorb oxygen, and that balance is critical to sustaining life, as we all learned in grade school.

Yet instead of doing everything in our power to make sure we have abundant thriving forests of healthy trees, we allow them to die and burn and thus belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air.

Lester’s excellent testimony accompanied the release of the Colorado State Forest Service’s annual Report on the Health of Colorado Forests. This year’s assessment is the worst ever, and hardly anybody noticed. There was no outcry from global warming alarmists around the world, as there should have been. In fact, their silence on this issue is deafening. And it’s not just Colorado. It’s every state, and beyond.

The more concerned people are about climate change, the more they should be interested in active management to restore forest health. Yet many of the groups pushing urgent climate policies are the same groups that continue to fight logging, tree thinning and other management necessary for healthy forests. The result is more of the same disasters we have seen unfolding for over 20 years: dead and dying forests, catastrophic wildfires, habitat devastation, loss of human property and lives, and destruction of wildlife.

The new forest health report shows that over the last seven years, the number of dead standing trees in Colorado forests increased almost 30 percent, to an estimated 834 million dead trees. There are billions across the other Rocky Mountain States.

The report makes clear that this continuing trend of tree mortality can lead to large, intense wildfires that totally incinerate and obliterate forests, soils and wildlife. In fact, it is only a matter of time before this happens, if the U.S. Forest Service does not act.

Ironically, the most productive forest health restoration projects in Colorado have been partnerships of the State Forester with water providers like Denver Water, Northern Water Conservancy District and Colorado Springs Utilities. That’s because 80 percent of Colorado’s population depends on water that comes from the national forests.

However, the U.S. Forest Service, which owns almost all of the forestland in the State, continues to work with its hands tied behind its back, its timber programs woefully underfunded and vast sums syphoned off every year for fire suppression. Fire control ought to be funded separately, so that active management of healthy forests is not the perpetually lowest priority.

The Forest Service spends a fortune on planning, writing reports, and defending itself against environmental lawsuits, leaving few funds for what it is really supposed to be doing.

What a golden opportunity for the new Congress and Trump Administration. Reversing this demoralizing trend would restore forests, protect and increase wildlife, bring back thousands of forest products jobs, revitalize rural economies, and do more to reduce carbon dioxide than any previous policy.

The previous Administration created the Office of Sustainability and Climate Change, and Regional Climate Change Hubs, maintained a Climate Change Adaptation Library, mapped drought frequency and intensity, and created massive reports blaming humans for climate change. One study was a vulnerability assessment for the Southwest and California, titled “Southwest Regional Climate Hub and Climate Subsidiary Hub Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.”

All this activity is impressive, and scientific study will always play a role. But none of it actually affects climate change. Growing healthy trees would. Can we get back to that?

Or like me and my weight problem, are we willing to do anything to address climate change and improve our forests and wildlife habitats, except the one thing that might help the most?

Greg Walcher is president of the Natural Resources Group and author of “Smoking Them Out: The Theft of the Environment and How to Take it Back.” He is a former secretary of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.