1) A failed attempt to establish science credibility
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9419&end=9456&autoplay=1
Notter: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Like Representative Bernardy and Representative Vose, I too, am on the Committee of Nerds and Geeks, also known as Science, Technology, and Energy. I know it's riveting so wake up everyone. So the past four terms now, I've been on the committee of Science, Technology, and Energy, and many times now, we have heard arguments for and against a carbon tax.”
Objection: This is an attempt to establish science credibility. However, Rep Notter seems to have no academic science or economics credentials. While such qualifications would be useful for members of the NH House STE Committee to have, membership on the STE committee itself does not require or indicate a science background or understanding. (See Ask AI for an impartial evaluation).
Correction: Based on her following testimony, Notter is either unfamiliar with or does not understand the basic science behind the consensus understanding of global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions (carboncashback.org/science) or the agreement among most leading economists that a border-adjusted, cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports is the most cost-effective, equitable, and far-reaching policy to reduce that pollution (carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back). Instead, Notter accepts, without critical review, the myths and propaganda from the fossil fuel industry-funded PR groups she names and whose conferences they reimburse her for attending – e.g., ALEC and Heartland Institute.
2) Fake story about the yellow vest protest in France
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9456&end=9467&autoplay=1
Notter: “I keep some of the past testimony in a folder that has the Eiffel Tower on the cover. It serves as a reminder of the crowds that took to the streets to protest the carbon tax that was imposed on the people of France.”
Objection: France has had a carbon price on fossil fuels for over a decade, and there are no objections to that. The people of France understand the need to address climate pollution from fossil fuels and they understand carbon pricing is the most cost-effective approach. The yellow vest protest was in reaction to President Macron’s introduction of a new gasoline tax whose revenue would have been used to pay down government debt. That policy was regressive and would have harmed low-income families. A gasoline tax is a poor choice both for government revenue generation or as a climate policy.
Correction: Objections to a poorly conceived gasoline tax do not indicate rejection of putting a price on climate pollution from fossil fuels in France - it already has one.
3) Complaint about hearing the same proposals repeated each session
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9467&end=9478&autoplay=1
Notter: “Serving in the New Hampshire legislature, we often hear the same bills over and over each term. In this committee, it was the honor and remember flag that kept coming back.”
Objection: Rep. Notter frequently excuses herself from hearings when it is the turn of citizens, business owners, and climate and policy experts to testify to inform NH Representatives about climate change or carbon pricing policy. Her fundamental misunderstandings about climate change are reinforced by her choice of sponsored trips and conferences she attends, and apparent failure to attend reputable climate science conferences to clear up her misunderstandings. The Republican majority in the House has followed her lead and repeatedly rejected good clean energy and climate legislation in the last few sessions.
Correction: The problem she describes - repeated climate-related bills coming up each session - is partly due to her practice of failing to listen to opposing viewpoints from experts, the majority of her own constituents, and NH citizens in general. If she listened to them and understood the facts and benefits of a Carbon Fee and Dividend policy, perhaps rather than killing good bills so that they have to come back again, she could work to understand them, then help make them better and pass good bipartisan legislation. If she did that, these attempts would not keep having to be repeated.
4) Fear-mongering about carbon pricing
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9478&end=9511&autoplay=1
Notter: “So let me tell you what a carbon tax would mean for New Hampshire. New England Convenience Stores and Energy Markets [sic, actually “Marketers”] Association testified that every cent the state charges through this plan will get pushed down the various supply chains and ultimately end up hitting New Hampshire citizens in the wallet. It will affect anyone who drives a car, heats their home or business, or anyone doing construction projects of any kind. Anyone who buys groceries or eats out in a restaurant and on and on and on. This tax will touch everyone in the state multiple times each and every day.”
Objection: This is an attempt to shut people down to the idea of supporting the most cost-effective way to reduce climate pollution according to economists. The testimony she repeated from a gas station lobby group is biased against policies that would help us gradually transition away from gasoline-powered vehicles as the rest of the world is in the process of doing.
Most people agree it should not be free to pollute. The most cost-effective and comprehensive way to reduce carbon emissions is to charge the fossil fuel industry a carbon polluters fee. That cost will trickle down through the economy as the cost of pollution is reflected in the price of goods. That price signal is intended, and is how carbon pricing drives emissions reductions - businesses and people take steps to reduce those costs. But while nearly every economist recommends carbon pricing, they also warn that what we do with the money collected is critical: at least some of it must be used to protect family budgets. That is the foundation of the Carbon Fee and Dividend solution, which returns all the money collected to every person in equal shares each month. When we do so, most families come out financially ahead of where they are right now.
In other words, by ignoring the policy option of returning all the money to people so they come out ahead, Notter uses a scare tactic rather than helping people understand a beneficial carbon pricing policy and how it can be used to reduce pollution and protect family budgets.
Correction: If Rep. Notter listened to the facts and reasons for carbon pricing and understood the details of the proposed policies and their benefits, she could work to improve them and pass good bipartisan legislation rather than voting against good bills so that they have to come back again.
This article, from a leading Republican statesman, has been shared multiple times with her to help her understand the policy: "The Winning Conservative Climate Solution." As has the largest public statement by U.S. Economists about any policy ever, which also supports the approach: Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends. (But that’s not what the fossil fuel industry wants, and it's not what the Koch Network-funded conferences she attends want her to think).
5) Quoting misinformation and alarmist language from Rep. Vose
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9511&end=9558&autoplay=1
Notter: “This domino effect was further explained by representative Michael Vose: the collapse of the New Hampshire economy is what this carbon tax will likely induce. Since surrounding states will not have adopted this tax. Energy prices in those states will become lower than those here. People will drive to neighboring states to buy cheaper gas. Renters, especially those who commute out of state for work, will move there because apartment utilities will be lower since all goods and services vendors in New Hampshire will be subject to the carbon tax, the price of everything will go up. This inflation will cut back on other expenses, such as labor. Jobs will be lost. Companies may eventually be forced to relocate out of state New Hampshire will fall into a death spiral of economic chaos.”
Objection: This testimony was about a state Carbon Fee and Dividend bill that was introduced in a previous session. It does not apply to a national carbon price because that will cover all states equally. While the HR 17 resolution applied to both state and national carbon pricing, Notter failed to make this distinction. (When a prominent economics professor at Dartmouth was asked about this, he recommended the state use a Carbon Fee and Dividend in preparation for federal legislation, which he also recommended.
Correction: A carbon fee and dividend at the state level would use a price that would not approach a level that would cause the problems described by Vose. A smaller carbon price at the state level is the most cost-effective way to reduce pollution - a smart thing to do in anticipation of a federal carbon price, making the state more competitive and saving money when it occurs. Any carbon price at the federal level would address all the problems mentioned because there would be a level playing field across all states, and border carbon adjustments would level the playing field in trade with free-polluting countries. Canada is already using Carbon Fee and Dividend as its main national climate policy, so there will be no issues to our north from either state or federal carbon legislation. In fact, the problem we now face is the growing US carbon price gap.
6) ALEC rears its ugly head
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9558&end=9567&autoplay=1
Notter: “At a task force meeting at the American Legislators Exchange Council, a slide was presented to highlight our state and the ridiculous carbon tax proposal.”
Objection: ALEC is a biased and compromised source. Rep Notter likely saw the slide she mentioned on one of the all-expenses-paid ALEC conferences she attended. The ALEC organization is described by SourceWatch this way:
“[A] corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.”
Rather than relying on legitimate scientific knowledge, such as that provided in the IPCC’s AR6, a report compiled by hundreds of the world's leading climate scientists and economists which mentions carbon pricing over 500 times and strongly recommends cash-back carbon pricing, or the near-universal recommendations for cash-back carbon pricing by leading national and state economists, Notter seems to be guided by the out-of-state, fossil fuel industry-funded front group ALEC.
Correction: Our state legislators should look for policy guidance from major scientific organizations and national and local economists, not fossil fuel industry-funded front groups. See page 3 for a list of local economists who support carbon fee and dividend at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qr-s0QyvYTmE5ttsLn_KBOmQqdy69Emk/view.
7) ALEC math: off by a factor of 100 and missing the point
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9567&end=9593&autoplay=1
Notter: “New Hampshire is among the lowest in the USA for carbon emissions less than .0029%, let me repeat that, .0029% of the US total. So how can anyone possibly rationalize taxing the people of New Hampshire? And we're talking $300 to $800 million dollars for such a minuscule return.”
Objection: ALEC got its math wrong here by a factor of 100 by incorrectly converting a decimal value to a percentage. As with other errors, Rep. Notter passed it on without double-checking. NH produces 0.29% of US GHG emissions, not 100 times less than that. Bad science and bad math.
New Hampshire is responsible for 0.29% of US carbon emissions.
Given that the population of New Hampshire is .4% of US population. It is true that the NH economy is less carbon intensive than the US average. This leads us to the point that ALEC and Notter missed: NH’s relatively lower carbon emissions will be a competitive advantage when there is a national price on carbon pollution. It will make NH more competitive in trade with other states (and globally), because others will pay higher pollution costs than NH will. In other words, having a lower-than-average emissions level is another reason for the NH legislature to advocate for carbon pricing, not against it. Furthermore, if all the money collected from a national carbon fee is returned to all households equally as Carbon Fee and Dividend does, NH citizens will benefit even more than the average across the country.
Correction: A 2015 study by REMI found that people in our region will benefit twice as much as the average American financially from the carbon fee and dividend policy, receiving an average $1000 net gain per person (after accounting for higher costs) in the tenth year of the policy, compared with a national $500 per-capita net gain. (NE Regional Summary, Figure 4). Rather than being a reason for a resolution against putting a price on carbon pollution from fossil fuels, the lower NH carbon emissions are a good reason for the NH House to make a resolution asking Congress to pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation.
8) A historical revision of the facts of the 2020 NH Carbon Cash-Back Bill
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9593&end=9605&autoplay=1
Notter: “In 2019, the majority party at the time tabled the carbon tax bill to avoid having the public hear the debate on this disastrous legislation that spells government overreach to the extreme.”
Objection: The NH Carbon Cash-Back bill was tabled early in the session to allow time to hear from the 44 New Hampshire towns that were scheduled to vote on a resolution about whether or not to support this approach in March. Rather than avoiding a public debate, the plan was to let the public weigh in before the state legislature made its decision. This was prudent, because although economists are in near-universal support of the cash-back approach, the legislature wanted to be sure NH citizens supported it, too. In March 2020, the towns that voted on it overwhelmingly supported their Carbon Cash-Back resolutions - 75% of the towns that voted on it passed it, and many others came close. Rep. Notter’s own town of Merrimack voted overwhelmingly (2152-1115) to support a version she modified in the deliberative session to ask for a study about it rather than to ask for Carbon Cash-Back legislation. However, the 2020 Covid-19 shutdown and struggles that summer prevented all but the most urgent of bills from being reconsidered later in the session.
Correction: It is not “government overreach” to address a market failure to account for free pollution with a market-based, revenue-neutral policy. Market failures do not fix themselves, and economists from across the political spectrum are in near-universal support of the cash-back approach of putting a price on carbon pollution from fossil fuels: US Economists Statement on Carbon Dividends. New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly support doing this, as demonstrated by the 162 citizens in favor compared with 4 against who submitted online testimony about the HR 17 resolution.
9) The Heartland Institute rears its ugly head
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9605&end=9643&autoplay=1
Notter: “So, as legislators, we sometimes receive literature from the Heartland Institute. You may hear testimony later today from someone who will try to convince you that there that the Heartland Institute is just a tiny little outfit that knows nothing. On the contrary, the Heartland Institute has the respect of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who dispute that we are in a climate crisis. Keep in mind that the public is only told what those in charge of the media and or Administration want you to know. During a previous administration, only the climate alarmists got federal grants, and those in opposition got canceled.”
Objection: Desmog.com describes the Heartland Institute as a “charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.” It is funded by fossil fuel billionaires, fossil fuel businesses, and others in the Koch Network. A review of money funneled through the “dark-money ATMs” DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund of Heartland’s main funding sources offers a clear picture that the fossil fuel industry is paying for disinformation, PR, and influence through its network of shadow organizations.
Notter claimed Heartland has “the respect of thousands of scientists”. Considering that there are millions of people with scientific degrees around the world, the ability of Heartland to find a few thousand, almost none of whom are climate scientists, to support it does not lend any credibility. In fact, there’s not a single scientific organization in the world that supports the opinions about climate change that Heartland promotes in its materials and at its “climate” conferences. Here is a list of 200 scientific organizations that dispute Heartland’s opinions: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.
She opines that “the public is only told what those in charge of the media and or Administration want you to know”. This conspiracy theory is easily refuted by an understanding of how the scientific method works, and also that even the fossil fuel industry’s own scientists agree with the conclusions of mainstream science:
Exxon’s climate scientists knew in the 1980s, but it leaders decided to delay action to address the problem
Shell made a video about climate change from fossil fuel emissions in 1992
Correction: No member of the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee should advocate in defense of the Heartland Institute. That organization is a major source of climate science disinformation, and there's not a scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports the skepticism it promotes about the scientific understanding about global warming from fossil fuel pollution. About its fossil fuel industry roots and funding: desmog.com/heartland-institute/. The defense of Heartland Institute by an NH State Representative is a clear sign that the person should not be advising other legislative committees on scientific matters.
10) The Heartland Institute’s “International Climate Conference”
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9643&end=9663&autoplay=1
Notter: “I had the opportunity to attend the international climate conference this past October. I took home stacks of books and read every one of them and I filled up this entire notepad with notes just from that conference and those books. And I kept hearing, “No, carbon is good. You need carbon.”
Objection: The Heartland Institute’s “international climate conference” in October 2021 was the annual fossil fuel industry-funded propaganda event at which PR talking points are pushed on state legislators in the hopes they will bring them back to their states. Desmog.com describes this annual conference as a place where “climate change skeptics converge to discuss issues and strategies to oppose climate action.”
Notter submitted a reimbursement from Heartland for $1316.00 for attending this conference. Heartland has apparently calculated that paying the way for key state legislators to hear its messaging is financially worthwhile. Notter seems to have internalized their messages and uses them in her work in the NH legislature. It seems as though Heartland made a good investment in Notter.
Correction: One would hope that NH STE Committee members would instead attend conferences where they can learn from mainstream scientists, scientific organizations, economists, and other real policy experts. And refer to our State's own 2022 Climate Assessment Report to get a basic understanding about what we know about climate change and how it is impacting New Hampshire.
11) How much CO2 is too much?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9663&end=9667&autoplay=1
Notter: “And we've had more carbon in the air in times past.”
Objection: There has not been as much CO2 in the air as there is now for millions of years. When the atmospheric CO2 concentration was last as high as it is now from fossil fuel pollution, global temperatures were several degrees Celcius higher than they are now, sea level was dozens of feet higher, and life on Earth looked very different than it does today. Those are not conditions that would be good for human civilization or much of the rest of life on Earth today. AGW is now the third leading cause (and rising) of ecological services decline and the loss of biodiversity on Earth (IPBES).
Correction: According to experts, a safe level of atmospheric CO2 is 300 ppm-350 ppm. It is now 420 ppm and rising by over three ppm a year due to carbon emissions from fossil fuels.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9663&end=9667&autoplay=1
Notter: “So, true science dictates that questions must always be asked. Is science ever really settled? New information pops up every day.”
Objection: Who determines what “true science” is? Not industry money. Not media. Not “the Administration”. Science is a system that has developed over the last few hundred years to use data, unbiased evaluation, a process of peer-reviewed studies in reputable science journals, and organizations that concentrate scientists in specific fields of study to facilitate communication and progress. No human structure is infallible, but science is a self-correcting mechanism, and it is the best method we have to understand the world in which we live.
A scientific question is never settled, but when there is a consensus of evidence and peer-reviewed studies, and a consilience of related fields of science, and no evidence disproves the understanding, scientists say there is a "scientific consensus" of understanding. New data are always welcome, but most scientists will accept the consensus understanding until there are valid reasons to reconsider it.
When scientific consensus is reached, the knowledge can be used as a foundation on which to make future progress. There is always the possibility for new data and a different understanding to arise, but until that happens, the scientific consensus understanding is considered “scientific knowledge” on which we can make fully informed decisions. Failure to accept the scientific consensus about an understanding by anyone not fully trained in that field of science is folly. There is scientific consensus that global warming since 1900 is mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and it is dangerous and costly.
Correction: Carl Sagan wrote of the importance of lay people respecting the scientific consensus understanding of the world around us in his book, “The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”.
13) How to Put the Granite State First
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5I1GmkL7OM?&start=9663&end=9667&autoplay=1
Notter: “So, to sum it all up, a resolution is not a bill, it is a political statement that we do not want to ruin our economy with an unsustainable carbon tax like the one implemented and implemented in France. Put the Granite State first and pass this resolution. Thank you.”
Objection: Putting the Granite State first would mean ignoring the gifts, propaganda, and support from polluting industry-supported front groups. It would mean doing the hard work of learning the science through academic channels or from our state’s academically credentialed experts. It would mean going beyond personal biases and media opinions and listening to our state’s science experts, such as our state’s official climatologist and the NH Department of Environmental Services.
Correction: Hawaii and California state legislatures have produced resolutions asking Congress and the President to pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation to address the costs and risks of climate change by reducing climate pollution in the most cost-effective, equitable, and beneficial way for businesses and citizens. New Hampshire should do the same to undo the damage done by the HR 17 resolution and help the federal government put NH citizens and businesses first.
