The Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) is an ad hoc alliance of more than two dozen free market and conservative non-profit groups around the world that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies. CHC is financed and operated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
Cooler Heads began as a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition (NCC), formed by Consumer Alert in late 1996. NCC members are market-oriented national- and state-level policy and activist groups that focus on consumer policy issues.
Each NCC sub-group focuses on a single issue such as health care, online privacy, or global climate change. Subject matter experts from the member organizations deep-dive into that specific issue. Consumer Alert and the NCC no longer operate but the Cooler Heads Coalition is still alive and kicking.
GlobalWarming.org is one of the Coalition’s main educational outreach activities. The article titles linked from this communications hub have shifted in tone over time. Here’s a random sampling from some years ago:
- Global Warming Jihadists (August 15, 2007)
- Five Reasons the Polar Bears Are Doing Fine (Feb. 27, 2015)
- Global Warming: The Theory That Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything (June 8, 2015)
More recent articles take a much less provocative tack. Following are three examples:
- Latest “Conservative” Carbon Tax Proposal: Rep. Carlos Carbelo’s Market Choice Act Draft Bill Summary Available Here! (July 16, 2018)
CHC supporters join many others skeptical of climate change alarmism and, therefore, oppose taxation on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2018, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), co-chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus, introduced a carbon tax bill he pitched to colleagues, businesses, and environmental groups. H.R. 6463 Market Choice Act proposed to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate certain fuel excise taxes and impose a tax on greenhouse gas emissions to provide revenue for maintaining and building American infrastructure, and for other purposes.
The bill was introduced on July 23, 2018, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. http://<http://www.globalwarming.org/2018/07/16/latest-conservative-carbon-tax-proposal-rep-carlos-carbelos-market-choice-act-draft-bill-summary-available-here/> Marlo Lewis</a> criticized the new legislation in the Cooler Heads’ blog:
“In good Orwellian fashion, Curbelo calls his plan, which would rig energy markets against the fuels that supply 80 percent of U.S. energy, the “Market Choice Act.”
- U.S. National Climate Assessment: Posting a Chart from Hsiang et al. 2017 (Sept. 18, 2019)
Chapter 29 of Vol. 2 of the 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment claims that unchecked warming could raise global temperatures 8°C by 2099, which in turn would reduce U.S. GDP by 10 percent. That “educated guess” was based on a chart prepared by Global Policy Lab researchers out of Berkeley, California.
The chart illustrates the probability distribution of global warming projections when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report’s climate model suite (CMIP5) is run with the 90th-percentile, extremely high baseline emission scenario called RCP8.5 that produces a forcing trajectory on the chart.
The http://<http://www.globalwarming.org/2019/09/18/u-s-national-climate-assessment-posting-a-chart-from-hsiang-et-al-2017/> data</a> “assumes the kind of forcing trajectory that would emerge if coal scaled up rapidly to provide almost half of global energy from all sources by 2100 – a market share not seen since 1940.”
CMIP5 models hind-cast, on average, double the warming in the lower atmosphere over the past 40 years over what historical data shows really did happen. Study authors Hsiang et al. simulated overheated models with an inflated emissions baseline.
But even using biased methods, the National Assessment’s chart shows that global warming rises to 8°C in only 1 percent (1 in a hundred) of model projections.
Furthermore, even if U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the 2090s is 10 percent lower due to global warming, economic analysts forecast a future economy much bigger than it is today.
Does the SAFE Rule “Roll Back” MY 2022-2025 Fuel Economy Standards? (Feb, 20, 2020)
Consumer Reports (CR) called SAFE (Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient) “The Un-SAFE Rule” when it issued an August 2019 report on “how a fuel-economy rollback costs Americans billions in fuel savings and does not improve safety.”
According to CR, the proposed rule from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would roll back fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles for model years (MY) 2021 to 2026. The proposal includes a freeze on the combined standards at 2020 levels rather than increasing them through 2025 as mandated by current EPA regulations.
The http://<https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Un-SAFE-Rule-How-a-Fuel-Economy-Rollback-Costs-Americans-Billions-in-Fuel-Savings-and-Does-Not-Improve-Safety-2.pdf> CR analysts</a> concluded that SAFE was right out:
“Americans benefit greatly from current fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standards in the form of money saved, reduced fuel consumption, improved energy security, and lower emissions. However, rollbacks such as those proposed by the DOT and EPA for MY 2021 to 2026 would dramatically reduce these benefits while doing nothing to improve safety. Even automakers do not appear to benefit from the proposed rollback, because it is likely to result in a reduction in new vehicle sales.”
The Cooler Heads Coalition is understandably intolerable by the heated global warming alarmists. In matters of global energy, will cooler heads prevail?