Attacking Denver's proposed plan to help curtail global warming by reducing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions, columnists Chuck Green and David Harsanyi -- published in The Pueblo Chieftain and The Denver Post respectively -- and News Radio 740 KVOR host Joseph Michelli distorted or made dubious claims about some aspects of the plan or of the city's stated rationale in considering it.

Their distortions regarding the Climate Action Plan -- prepared for the city by the Mayor's Greenprint Denver Advisory Council -- followed misinformation spread by other conservative media, including a June 12 report by Fox News' Special Report host Brit Hume and a posting on the “news” website FacetheState.com. As Colorado Media Matters noted, Hume's and Face the State's misrepresentations came after the conservative website Drudgereport.com, operated by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, linked to a June 11 Rocky Mountain News article about the Climate Action Plan. Whereas the News article discussed the plan generally -- reporting that it is “similar to Seattle's, which was adopted last year” and that it “contains some ideas that may be unpopular” -- Drudge linked to it with the misleading headline " 'WARMING' PLAN IN DENVER: CRACKDOWN ON RESIDENTS."

In a column published in the June 13 edition of the Chieftain, Green referenced The Drudge Report's headline and then ignored the plan's assertion that facing “a global set of energy and climate-based challenges” requires “localized leadership and actions” by misleadingly citing one of the plan's proposals. Asking readers to "[c]onsider just one of the categories in the plan, excessive driving," in an apparent reference to the plan's “State-wide Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance” recommendation that would base auto insurance premiums partly on a vehicle's annual mileage, Green wrote:

How will the [insurance] formula differentiate between a person who works three nights a week delivering pizza in a confined section of town and another person who travels thousands of miles a year as an interstate salesman? How will it treat a truck driver for a local appliance delivery company and the FedEx fleet? How will it handle a soccer mom compared to a home-health provider?

And how about the Denver family whose daughter attends the University of Pennsylvania but drives home three times a year, racking up several thousand miles on trips that don't have anything to do with the climate in Denver -- while driving a car that is registered here?

Harsanyi similarly distorted proposals by implying that some were vague, when in fact the preliminary plan made specific suggestions in the areas he questioned. Labeling the plan “as unworkable as it is radical” in his June 14 Post column, Harsanyi asked rhetorically, “Do we base electricity usage on house or number of residents in a house? What's worse: miles driven or gas used?” In fact, with regard to energy consumption, the plan proposes “a tiered rate for electricity consumption for homes and businesses that consume above average amounts of electricity and natural gas.” The plan further notes that under the recommended system -- based specifically on average per-home usage rates -- “the tiered rate would be roughly of 50 cents per home per month,” or alternatively, “a flat fee on energy bills could be charged.”

Like Green, Harsanyi also omitted the specific stipulation that "[v]oter approval should be sought for" the energy usage recommendation.

The plan also explicitly described the proposal for addressing auto mileage, despite Harsanyi's question about “miles driven or gas used”:

TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

• State-wide Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance (12 percent toward goal) -- Require that a portion of auto insurance premiums be based on the number of miles traveled; resulting in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a decrease in uninsured motorists, and an increase in road safety.

Michelli of KVOR also made dubious claims about the Climate Action Plan, asserting on his June 11 broadcast that "[Denver is] going to be the first and the biggest player to jump in on the fight against global warming" and that the city is attempting to assume “the leadership position on environmental issues.” Michelli also baselessly suggested that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is grandstanding on the issue, sarcastically asserting that he “is going to single-handedly solve the problem of global warming.”

In fact, rather than working “single-handedly,” in hearing the recommendations of the multi-member Greenprint Denver Advisory Council, the mayor is reviewing ideas from a group “whose broad-based members include civic, business and environmental leaders [who] spent eight months analyzing ... data and working with local and national experts to develop recommendations.”

Moreover, Denver is far from the “first and biggest player” to implement a broad strategy to address climate change, but rather joins several cities with action plans already in place. As the June 11 News article noted:

Denver is joining a host of cities that are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Seattle, Portland and Chicago. More than 525 mayors -- including Hickenlooper -- have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

Additionally, the introduction to the Climate Action Plan specifically references the Greenprint council's belief that “major actions are required to reduce our carbon emissions to the levels that are called for under the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,” which more than 500 mayors already have signed.

From Chuck Green's column “Denver dives headlong into warming issue,” published June 13 in The Pueblo Chieftain:

The headline was very large and very black -- resembling a doomsday message from a tabloid newspaper in a scary movie.

'WARMING' PLAN IN DENVER: CRACKDOWN ON RESIDENTS.

The Drudge Report, probably the most-read Internet news summary in the United States, led its Monday edition with the big, black headline, linking to a story in that day's Rocky Mountain News.

By noon Tuesday, literally millions of readers -- far beyond the reach of the original article in the News -- would have seen the story about Denver's plans to study possible taxes and fees on everything from natural gas to trash removal to home construction to car insurance.

[...]

Consider just one of the categories in the plan, excessive driving.

How will the [insurance] formula differentiate between a person who works three nights a week delivering pizza in a confined section of town and another person who travels thousands of miles a year as an interstate salesman? How will it treat a truck driver for a local appliance delivery company and the FedEx fleet? How will it handle a soccer mom compared to a home-health provider?

And how about the Denver family whose daughter attends the University of Pennsylvania but drives home three times a year, racking up several thousand miles on trips that don't have anything to do with the climate in Denver -- while driving a car that is registered here?

From David Harsanyi's column “Action plan on climate is all wet,” published June 14 in The Denver Post:

The plan, in its present form, is about as unworkable as it is radical. Imagine the minutiae involved in figuring out these crimes against Mother Earth. Do we base electricity usage on house or number of residents in a house? What's worse: miles driven or gas used? It's a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen.

The mayor tells me that his office did not embrace all facets of the plan but welcomes the “discussion.”

From the June 11 broadcast of News Radio 740 KVOR's The Joseph Michelli Show:

MICHELLI: The People's Republic of Denver has spoken, and Mayor Hickenlooper is gonna fix everything. He is going to single-handedly solve the problem of global warming. I just want you to know that. It's gonna be, it's gonna be a beautiful thing. Fif -- no, 500 -- make it 500,000 vehicles will basically be taken off the road. Not literally, but, but the impact of his far-reaching efforts to save the planet is gonna have the equivalent positive effect of taking 500,000 vehicles off the roads. So Denver is gearing up. It's going to be the first and the biggest player to jump in on the fight against global warming. And the residents are going to take a hit because of it. Because we all know global warming's going to burn us all up, and because we're all going to be burned up, Hickenlooper leads the way.

[...]

MICHELLI: Is it the government's place to do all of these ambitious -- I mean, they're trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.4 million metric tons by the year 2020. That will be the equivalent of eliminating two small coal-fired power plants or the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road. This is the nanny state. And remember the party for which Governor Hicken-- or, excuse me -- it's a Freudian slip, he'll probably be, someday be governor the way we go in this state -- but the mayor of Denver, Colorado. Denver's targeting global warming. It's on the radar. They're going to melt down global warming.

[...]

MICHELLI: Now, for those of you just joining me, you got to be thinking I'm making this up. 'Cause there's no way in the world a city the size of Denver would think, would have the chutzpah to think that it is in the leadership position on environmental issues. I mean, Denver, which can't take a leadership position with regard to immigration issues because of their implicit, albeit never formally stated -- though Wellington Webb certainly made some indicators around it -- asylum status for immigration. Being an asylum city in immigration and a global warming city -- what is Denver turning into? I mean, if I read this story out of Seattle I would go, “Duh!” But Denver? The global warming champion of the universe? Gearing up to fight global warming. And who's going to pay? The residents of Denver.