Facts Don’t Support Noem Attack on Varilek’s Environmental Résumé

Last updated on 2013.01.06

Hi, I'm Representative Kristi Noem. I've been in Washington for two years now. But I don't want to talk about my record. I need to make you think that my opponent, a campaign rookie whom I ought to be leading by thirty points, is a radical environmentalist because he wrote papers analyzing an effective, market-based policy that the Reagan Administration invented.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem has been struggling mightily to make a mountain out of Democratic challenger Matt Varilek's studies, teaching, and work in environmental issues. Rep. Noem says Varilek is evil because he studied environmental policy at Carleton (true!), taught environmental policy for Columbia University at Biosphere 2 (true and cool!), worked for a private company that sells carbon credits (true and wonky!), agrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real (true, true, and, say the Koch Brothers' scientists, true!), and now advocates a cap-and-trade policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions...

...which is not true. David Montgomery investigates Noem's hyperbolic attacks and Varilek's impressive résumé. He finds Varilek has not advocated and does not advocate cap-and-trade legislation. First, Varilek himself ends the debate before it starts:

Today, Varilek said "we have much better options" than cap-and-trade to address climate change.

"I believe climate change is real and that we should tackle it in ways that help to grow the economy," he said [David Montgomery, "Noem Questions Varilek on Environmental Work," that Sioux Falls paper, September 15, 2012].

Darn. I was all ready for Varilek to come out and eat Rep. Noem's campaign lunch by saying, "You know what? Cap-and-trade rocks. Ronald Reagan proposed it. George H.W. Bush signed it into law in the Clean Air Act, which worked spectacularly. Let's do it!"

But apparently Varilek thinks we have better alternatives to keep our air and water clean. Given that Varilek has studied and worked in environmental policy and economic development (Rep. Noem studiously ignores that big recent chunk of Varilek's experience) more than Noem and I put together, we might want to give his statements a little more credence than the ideological screaming point that Noem is reciting from the Republican playbook, which Republicans revised to reverse their long-standing support for cap-and-trade when Barack Obama became President.

But what about all those papers Varilek co-authored when he worked for Natsource? Team Noem has been waving those papers wildly in our faces, claiming they show Varilek advocated cap-and-trade. But as Kristi's professors at SDSU can likely attest, when Kristi tries to draw conclusions from papers she's read, we should be suspicious. Mr. Montgomery reads those papers and finds no Noem there there:

One paper predicted how changing laws around the world would affect prices for greenhouse gas emissions permits. Another took a more general look at cap-and-trade systems existing at the time, how they could evolve in the future and how private companies would be affected under various systems. All the papers were co-written with other individuals.

The papers acknowledged costs involved in cap-and-trade systems, noting in one potential "significant economic consequences, including potential changes in absolute levels or wealth as well as transfers of existing wealth." But the cost to emitters of pollutants of complying with the system — emphasized by cap-and-trade foes— was not a focus of the papers.

The primary tone of the papers was neutral, but they occasionally talked about cap-and-trade systems in a positive tone. One paper, talking about the successful, bipartisan sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program of the 1990s, called it "the most compelling empirical evidence to date of the environmental and economic benefits of emissions trading" [Montgomery, 2012.09.15].

As Varilek himself tells Montgomery, analyzing a policy means discussing costs and benefits. If you find the benefits outweigh the costs, that's just fact, not advocacy of specific legislation.

Faced with the evidence that she's wrong, Noem tries to cook up a Catch-22 for Varilek. The Congresswoman says that if Varilek worked for a company that benefits from cap-and-trade but now doesn't support the policy, he must "lack conviction." "There's already enough people in Washington, D.C., who don't tell the truth and don't stand for something, and we don't need more," Rep. Noem tells Montgomery.

Finally, Congresswoman Noem is right about something. She's not telling the truth about Matt Varilek's record. She's hasn't stood for anything useful for South Dakota during her unproductive tenure in Congress. We don't need her in Washington any more. It's time to cap Kristi's political career and trade her in for Matt Varilek.