OPINION/COMMENTARY

Exxon-Mobil Boycott: All Politics, No Science

The boycott of Exxon-Mobil by a coalition of environmental lobbying groups is part of a massive public relations campaign to effect change, but political not environmental change, according to NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. "All groups and individuals are free to express their views in the marketplace, but consumers should also understand that this is a charade,” Dr. Burnett said. “Contrary to environmental lobbyists’ claims, there is still lively scientific debate concerning the extent to which human activities contribute to the earth’s current warming trend. Exxon recognizes that the question is still open, but these environmentalists want to shut-off public debate and muzzle any research that undermines their political goals." The coalition’s public relations campaign brands Exxon-Mobil as an outlaw corporation and asks consumers to boycott Exxon-Mobil products, even though the company has invested heavily in the recent past in renewable energy sources despite a lack of consumer demand and profitability. Specifically, the coalition objects to Exxon-Mobil’s support for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)....

First Step in Fuel Economy Reform Should Be Assessing CAFE’s Lethal Effect

The federal government is about to propose a major reform of its fuel economy standards. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, however, there should be no change in the program until the agency that runs it, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, fully analyzes the program’s lethal effect on traffic safety. There is clear evidence that the program, known as CAFE (for corporate average fuel economy) has increased traffic deaths by restricting the production of larger, more crashworthy vehicles. A 2001 National Academy of Sciences’ report found that this downsizing had contributed to approximately 2,000 traffic deaths per year. In 1992, in a case brought by CEI and Consumer Alert, a federal appeals court found that NHTSA had illegally concealed this issue from public debate. “Given that CAFE has been in effect for over a quarter century, its cumulative impact may well make it the government’s single most deadly regulatory program,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Until NHTSA candidly assesses this impact, it has no business engaging in any type of CAFE reform.” In CEI’s view, the agency’s current approach to reform would vastly increase CAFE’s complexity, encouraging gaming between various vehicle categories. The real purposes of reform should be to reduce CAFE’s deadly effects, increase consumer choice and design flexibility, and minimize the risk of new technologies introduced under government pressure. But any reform is premature until the lethal impacts of the current program are fully assessed....

A Court Rules Prudently... for Now

In the latest setback for global warming activists, the federal Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled last Friday that the Clean Air Act does not require the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Court did not decide whether the Clean Air Act (CAA) gives EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG), but merely that, in choosing not to regulate GHGs, EPA made a policy call that was within its legitimate legal discretion. The Court's ruling came in response to a petition from a dozen states' attorneys general, ten environmental groups, and three cities, who are attempting to mandate national GHG reductions through the courts. The goal is to effectively implement the Kyoto Protocol without the approval of Congress or the President. The ruling is good news for those who believe GHG regulations would harm Americans' prosperity, health, and freedom. However, because the Court's ruling was on such narrow grounds, the victory is cause for only a brief celebration. The Court did not address the fundamental issues of whether EPA has legal authority to regulate GHG emissions and whether the Petitioners have standing to file suit in the first place. Both questions are likely to return in some future case....

Energy-Bill Follies

With great fanfare, the Senate passed a $35 billion energy bill earlier this month that has been characterized as a somewhat wiser and greener bill than that passed by the House a few months ago. Although conservatives claim to find much therein to embrace, virtually every section of the bill represents a rejection of free markets and limited government. The most obnoxious aspect is the ten-year, $18.4 billion in tax breaks and incentives for various energy investments. While conservatives like to argue that if you subsidize something, you'll get more of it, that observation is generally used as an admonition against — not as a rationale for — government intervention. In this case, the Senate proposes to subsidize investments that have been unable to attract as much private capital as proponents would like. But what are the chances that 100 senators using other peoples' (taxpayers) money will make better investment decisions than investors using their own money? It's possible that some of the Senate's choices are sound, but in those cases, all that is accomplished is the unnecessary transfer of resources from taxpayers to investors. In short, the Senate isn't subsidizing energy as much as it's subsidizing dubious investments and/or particular investors. The bill also contains specific production and consumption orders. Ten percent of all electricity sold in 2020 must be produced from a list of approved renewable fuels; refineries must churn out 8 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2012; and the president is called on to reduce oil consumption by one million barrels a day by 2015. Government mandates that "thou shall produce" or face prosecution seem to be more characteristic of Soviet five-year plans than of a free-market economy....

Will Schwarzenegger terminate California's prosperity?

Arnold, how could you? You were the GOP’s great gubernatorial hope. Sure, you had no political experience, were “squishy” on social issues, and had married into America’s foremost Democratic family. But you were going to terminate the state’s financial problems. How could you mandate a global warming program that will leave your people drowning in red ink long after you’ve said, “Hasta la vista, baby!” Bypassing the legislature, Schwarzenegger last month signed an executive order mandating drastic cuts in so-called greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. "The debate is over," Schwarzenegger wrote July 3 in a London newspaper. "We know the science.” But the Governator is thinking with his biceps, and clearly taking cues from his über-environmentalist Cabinet Secretary Terry Tamminen who seems to be living the title of Schwarzenegger’s film, True Lies....

McCain – Wait, this Time It’s Domenici – Packs Climate Hearings with More of the Same Alarmism

Tomorrow’s scheduled Senate hearing on the science and economics of climate change misses an important opportunity to present a balanced, full view of the debate over its topic. Rather than invite experts with different perspectives to present their findings, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) has chosen to stack the panel with scientists from the alarmist side of the debate. “The choice of witnesses is eerily reminiscent of hearings held in the last Congress by Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-AZ),” said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Like Sen. McCain, Chairman Domenici appears to have made up his mind and only wants to hear from people who agree with him.” During debate on the energy bill in June, Chairman Domenici announced that he thought an energy rationing proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman represented “a middle-ground consensus” on climate policy and that he would help it gain Senate approval. Unfortunately, this hearing will not provide a critical examination of the real costs and benefits of the Bingaman proposal. A brief critical examination, titled “All Cost, No Benefit,” by CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. can be found online....

Caught unawares and no bracelet to show for it

I hadn't realized how unaware I was until the woman seated next to me snapped a strip of leather around my wrist and whispered: "This is hottest thing in Hollywood right now." Looking down, I admired my new adornment. Embossed on the soft caramel leather band were the words "Stop Global Warming." Almost immediately, I was aware of wearing a bracelet. I was also aware of an unfamiliar warmth. Not the global sort, but that which radiates from one's Inner Virtue. I could feel other people in the restaurant looking at me and knew that they knew. As I walked down the street later, strangers glanced discreetly at my wrist, whispering and nodding. Their faces betrayed their thoughts: "There goeth forth a woman who opposes global warming," and all were glad. And soon the planet would cool, and the glaciers would freeze again, and Mother Earth would smile upon her diverse and virtuous children. But firsteth, excuse me while I burneth my bracelet....

PETA's Stealth War On Schools

In our report "Your Kids, PETA's Pawns," we detail how People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) indoctrinates children of all ages into the animal-rights movement, both here and abroad. And we've seen nothing to indicate that PETA intends to slow down its ideological assault on America's young people. PETA's "about us" web page now discloses that the group has "reached 235,000 teachers and 11,000,000 students" (eleven million!) with its propaganda materials, some of which don't even bear PETA's name. The Center for Consumer Freedom distributed copies of "Your Kids, PETA's Pawns" to enthusiastic teachers and school administrators at this year's National Education Association and National PTA conventions. PETA was also an exhibitor at the PTA event, distributing its "TeachKind" curriculum materials. But the PETA name and logo were nowhere to be seen. While the standard TeachKind brochure carries PETA's home address in Norfolk, VA, it includes no other acknowledgement that PETA's "total animal liberation" zealots are behind the program. In fact, of the hundreds of educators our representatives spoke with during the three day PTA conference in Columbus, Ohio, none were aware that TeachKind is a PETA program....

===