Dear Mr. Smith:

Several things are troubling about your “open letter.” First, you got an astounding number of facts wrong which shows that you are so intent on making your point that you don’t much care how you do it. Second, your letter raises questions that you never bothered to ask me when we spoke face-to-face during the break or during the Q&A;session. It is interesting that we spoke for several minutes and not once did you question my presentation, the facts, the numbers, or anything else you raised in your letter. Instead, you decided to write a misleading “open letter.” That you do business that way says a great deal about you, but very little about me.

Here are just a few of the puzzling things about your “open letter”:

You say I ran for Congress twice from South Carolina. I have never lived in South Carolina and I never ran for public office in South Carolina. It doesn’t much matter, except that it shows you can’t even get the basic facts right.

You failed to mention that during our conversation “over coffee” (I don’t drink coffee, but that doesn’t much matter), we spoke almost exclusively about the use of compact florescent light bulbs and other cost-effective technologies that save energy. We also discussed how government can or cannot advance the use of such technologies. Every other issue that you raise in your “open-letter” was either never mentioned in our extended conversation or was mentioned only in passing.

You say you cannot find any connection between me and environmental policy. I can only guess that you didn’t look very hard. That you think I lived and ran for office from South Carolina would also support my theory that you didn’t do much research but simply have an ax to grind. I have been working in the public policy world for more than a decade. I have done literally thousands of radio, television and print media interviews all over the country on environmental issues. I also have written numerous articles on environmental policy issues. I was invited to speak at the conference precisely because I have an expertise on environmental issues. I didn’t just show up randomly off the street and grab the microphone.

You say that I have no ties to Montana, yet we have many members in Montana and throughout the West. We do not list our rank and file members on the website -- few if any organizations do. So I don’t have any idea why to you find the absence of a membership list as evidence of anything at all. The fact is we have many members in Montana. In fact, the majority of our members are in the West because our founder was U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop who lives only a couple hours south of Billings -- near Sheridan, Wyoming -- had a strong following in the West. For the record, after the conference, I spent the afternoon visiting a number of friends in Billings.

You say that I had little data to back up my claims, yet the numbers I used were drawn specifically from the study that Dr. Thorning presented. The ACCF study states:

“Higher energy costs would reduce jobs. Montana would lose 52,000 jobs in 2020 and 58,000 jobs by 2050 relative to the baseline forecast....”

“Household income falls as energy and other prices rise. Costs per household rise over time as emission caps become more difficult to meet. Relative to its current real spending power (year 2010), an average household in Montana would lose $5,391 per year in 2020....”

One questioner during the Q&A;session complained that the study showed greater costs than an EPA study and generally questioned the study. However, Dr. Thorning explained that both studies had a variety of outcomes depending on what assumptions were made. And that the ACCF study and the EPA showed very similar costs when they applied the same assumptions. She gave a low range, a mid-range and a high range for costs. I used the high range assumptions in my presentation because those assumptions seemed most rational -- particularly given that the same people who want us to take immediate and dramatic action to stop CO2 emissions tend to be the same people who oppose nuclear power. And without a dramatic increase in our nuclear power capability, there is almost no way to meet the objectives of Lieberman-Warner without huge cost increases. It is interesting that neither you nor anyone else asked further questions of the study’s assumptions or cost projections. Rather than ask such questions in an honest and open forum, you preferred to write an “open letter” filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations in an attempt to cast dispersions on those that you are angry with because they don’t repeat back to you your own political biases. As a college student, I would have thought that you might welcome debate and differing viewpoints. Interesting how closed minded some people can be -- all in the name of progress.

You suggest that I simply deny the crisis and say no to everything. That is completely silly. I simply expect that if someone wants to impose a huge tax on the American public, the duty falls to them to explain why it is needed and why some other less costly steps wouldn’t be as effective. It is simply called cost-benefit analysis. Since even Senator Lieberman agrees that his bill will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars and even liberal editorial pages like the L.A. Times say it is a costly and ineffective way to deal with the CO2 issue, it is fair to put the burden on Senators Lieberman and Warner and their allies to explain why we should pay those billions and why other less costly steps wouldn’t work as well. That doesn’t make me a denier. And it isn’t a silly trick. It just rational thinking. I have spoken with far too many scientists who tell me that climate change is natural and that man is not a significant cause factor. You can disagree. I am fine with that. But that you see things differently doesn’t make me a bad person. Yet, your entire open letter is premised on the notion that because I do not see things as you see them, that I must be a bad person and I must have bad motives. Mr. Smith, that is a shockingly small-minded view of the world and of people. You do not represent yourself in a flattering way. Your “open letter” is not an embarrassment to me, but it certainly is to you.

You suggest that I came the conference for political or financial gain. Yet, no one paid for me to speak or even paid for my travel. I came at my own expense. Again, Mr. Smith, you need to do your homework and you need to stop making so many false assumptions. Just because you disagree with what I said, doesn’t give you the right to cast dispersions. Perhaps with some age and maturity, you will grow wiser and more tolerant of differing ideas. But until that maturity and perspective arrives, perhaps you should simply hold your tongue.

Finally, you suggest that before I return to Montana again that I need to prepare a speech that you would like to hear. Otherwise, I should not bother to come back. First, I have never prepared my remarks with an eye towards pleasing a particular person. I try to go where the facts take me. I try to do that honestly and fairly. I realize that on virtually every topic, people of intelligence and good will can disagree. Disagreement can be as simple as what facts matter most and what those facts mean in a larger context. But that disagreement can also extend to basic philosophy which impacts how we analyze the facts and their meaning. But I always try to make clear my assumptions and my philosophy so that when there is disagreement at least we understand why. You seem to think that there is no room for disagreement on this complex issue and that because I do not agree with you, I must be disingenuous. I can assure you that I am both reasonable and genuine. Hopefully some day you will grow up enough to understand that good, honest and intelligent people can stand on different sides of a debate and still be respectful of each other. You will recall that I treated you with respect and gave you a great deal of time even though it was clear that you had a political agenda. I did that because that is what decent people do. I did not dismiss you as a wild-eyed liberal or some dumb college kid simply because you saw things differently. I answered your questions respectfully and we had a cordial conversation and I never once cast a dispersion on you because you had a different perspective. I am perfectly willing to accept that you see things differently. And while I disagree with how you view things, I am unwilling to call you names or label you dishonest or disingenuous simply because you see things differently. I would only ask that you extend to me the same courtesy.

Respectfully,

George Landrith

Mr. Landrith,


Allow me to begin by thanking you for the lengthy response letter as it appears you put substantial thought and effort into it. I am also grateful to hear from you as I was not afforded the time nor the forum for appropriate dialogue, which I concede was out of your control. All gratefulness aside, I do take issue with several statements your response implied. First and foremost I would like to preface this response by stating that I am just a student, and though I lack age and wisdom, I do possess the will and passion to speak out when I take issue with something, and will not ever “simply hold [my] tongue” like you advocate in your letter, if I know that an objective voice is necessary and pertinent to the circumstances. In defense of some of the “suggestions” I made.

Regarding the data that you provided on job loss in Montana, in the slide entitled, “Changes in Montana Economy Compared to Baseline Economy,” Margo Thorning reported that “6,000” jobs would be lost in the “High Range Case” of Lieberman/Warner, I fail to see where the figures of 52,000 jobs came from. This could be due to my apparent lack of maturity, rather than ability for basic data analysis.

When I spoke to Dr. Thorning, after the Q&A;session, I inquired as to what was assumed with the baseline cost for comparison between the traditional petroleum baseline and the Lieberman/Warner cost assumption, she said that costs differences were assumed based on an approximate $65.00 per barrel of oil. I found this particularly ironic due to the fact that that day oil prices had broken previous records, and were hovering at approximately $108 a barrel. This is just one assumption that wasn’t made clear in either her nor your presentation, and I think that many people would take issue with the assumption that oil prices would drop in price in the next 12 years, rather than rise like they have historically. Believe me I would have loved to have more time to discuss these facts with either you or Dr. Thorning, in person or email, but was not allotted the time and emails weren’t returned, otherwise I would have asked all these questions in “an open and honest forum.”

Your letter not only provided me with talking points it also provided me with evidence to back my original hypothesis, that you and your organization do nothing more than politicize an issue, when you claim to do the opposite. Through out your letter you fail to differentiate yourself from your organization, as many of my statements were made towards your organization, for instance I stated that your organization does nothing more than simply deny climate change is happening, this is evident in the resources your website provides. What makes your organization “deniers” in the sense that “fair and rational” resources are lacking on your website, as the material your webpage provides are blatantly one sided, yet you claim to be a champion of rational thought and intelligent debate.

You, on the other hand, provided me even more examples of politicization of an environmental issue. You stated that you instantly recognized my “political agenda” when I began talking to you, yet throughout all the events I have helped to host, all the articles I have written and all the conversations I have partaken in, I have always made it explicitly clear that climate change is not a political issue, it is an environmental one, and should be treated as such. In support of this I have reached out to Montana State University Republicans and Democrats in hopes of finding common ground. Claiming that I approached you with a “political agenda” is more than just a false assumption. When did I use the terms “liberal,” “conservative,” or any of their synonyms in any of my writings or conversation? Political bias is completely assumed by you. Yet you fail to notice how you intertwine all of your rhetoric with partisan tones, it seems so ingrained in your psyche that partisan politics seem to manifest itself in everything you do. Through all of this one quote still rings true: “We believe that the debate about how to accomplish these ends [healthy climate] should be rational and balanced, informed by sound science, not partisan politics.”

I always welcome open debate, as one of the events we will be hosting will be a structured debate ran by Bozeman’s Civic Debate League. In fact the evening before you spoke we hosted several speakers and economists to analyze the McKinsey Report on climate change legislation and the economic effects of a carbon cap. The report was produced not only by environmental groups, NRDC and Environmental Defense, but also by energy companies, Shell Petroleum, PG&E;Energy, National Grid and DTE Energy. The 106-page report also detailed how we can meet the Lieberman/Warner goals, by 2030, by utilizing over 250 carbon abatement options. The cost analysis assumes no innovation in technology or drastic price change and nearly all of the options (wind energy, CFL use, etc.) cost less than $50 per ton of CO2 abated. Your 29-page report was sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), hardly the sources for unbiased info; so to assume that I don’t welcome open debate or discount you as being a bad person for disagreeing with me is simply “silly.”

I concluded my last letter by asking that next time you return to Montana, “please plan on bringing a fair, rational statement to Montana, one that would benefit Montanans, as a community. We need progress here, not distorted diction, or irrational rhetoric.” You may have misunderstood the term “progress,” I didn’t say “prepare a speech that [I] would like to hear.”

Progress- noun- (1) Forward or onward movement toward a destination
(2) Advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition.

This term was not used with a partisan tone, what I suggested, which still stands, is offer up solutions, rather than just shoot down a bill that is an attempt at progress. I never suggested you are dishonest, or disingenuous, as you assumed; and I do thank you for not dismissing me as a “wild eyed liberal or dumb college kid.” But the mention of name-calling and the fact that those stereotypes emerged, even in your writing, is evidence that they are prevalent. Thank you again for the continued dialogue, I do appreciate a different perspective on an issue, but on this specific issue we are faced with a “ticking-clock,” as it were, the longer we bicker about whether or not climate change is happening or what to do about it, is time lost. I understand that an intelligent debate is necessary for progress on an issue, but offering up no alternatives and completely one sided information, like you did in Billings, isn’t how many Montanans, or myself for that matter, see us moving towards a solution. I hope this letter is the extension of courtesy that you were looking for. Thank you, once again.

Respectfully,


Matt Smith
Montana State University Student/Montanan