Recent recommendations from Minnesota's global-warming advisory group are unrealistic and too expensive, a collection of lawmakers and business interests charged today.

"Essentially, their proposal is a fantasy,'' said David Strom, president of the Minnesota Free Market Institute, one of several groups hosting a Capitol press conference. "It has no correlation to the trends we see.''

The critics, armed with a study that two of them commissioned, warned that the advisory group's recommendations understate the costs of altering future energy-consumption practices to address global warming. If those recommendations are followed, they projected the state could lose billions of dollars and thousands of jobs and see energy costs rise dramatically.

(Article continues below)

The 56-member Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, appointed last spring by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, worked much of the year to develop strategies for the state to meet a legislatively prescribed goal of cutting emissions by progressively deeper levels over the next four decades.

Its final report, which is being released for public comment, recommends a wide array of approaches, from working with other states to develop a market-based system for cutting utility emissions to reducing vehicle miles traveled. Some require administrative changes while others require legislative action.

If the state adopts them, Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, questioned "what we are getting for the effort we are expending?''

"Show us the benefits, show us the cost, help us make a good decision,'' Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, added.
J. Drake Hamilton, science policy director for Fresh Energy and a member of the advisory group, said the group's primary goal was to find ways to reach the emissions reductions goals. But she said it also looked for ways Minnesota could reach them at the lowest possible cost. Moreover, she said many utilities and polluting sectors already are embracing the strategies.

The report cited by Strom, Beard, Hann and other critics was done by the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative research organization based in Boston. Minnesota Majority and the American Property Coalition paid for it.

"The costs and benefits of the proposed policy actions are not quantified in a way by which they can be meaningfully compared and the estimates omit key factors resulting in an understatement of actual costs,'' the report said. "Further, no scientific basis for the report's claims of cost savings can be found.''