OPINION/COMMENTARY

Redesigning Trucks

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta proposed imaginative fuel efficiency standards for new SUVs, vans and pickups. This scheme would divide light trucks into a half-dozen categories based on size, not weight. By 2011, the smallest so-called "truck" (a PT Cruiser) would have to attain 28.4 mpg, while the largest could get by with 21.3. Add a few inches, and the standards drop. Fatten up to 8,500 pounds, and there are no rules. A New York Times editorial, "Foolishness on Fuel," began with vital facts, but promptly switched to foolishness, as promised: "Cars and light trucks -- SUVs, vans and pickups -- account for roughly 40 percent of all United States oil consumption, which now amounts to about 20 million barrels a day The same vehicles also account for more than one-fifth of the country's emissions of carbon dioxide." Since 58 percent of the oil we use is imported, while only 40 percent goes into cars, SUVs, vans and pickups, it follows we would still import millions of barrels a day even if there were no passenger cars or trucks. Yet when it came to that other 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption, not to mention the other four-fifths of carbon dioxide, the New York Times had little to say. There was just the ritualistic hand-wringing over "minivans and SUVs, which are held to more lenient fuel economy standards." When it came to Mr. Mineta's new regulations, the editorial rightly noted these "are unlikely to make any serious dent in consumption." They couldn't possibly make a dent because SUVs, pickups and vans only account for half of the vehicles subject to such regulations. And half of 40 percent is just 20 percent of total oil consumption. Mr. Mineta said, "The plan will save gas and result in less pain at the pump for motorists." But the surest prediction in economics is that if the price of anything goes down, demand for it will rise. If Smith's fuel frugality could actually cut the cost of gasoline for Jones, then Jones would drive more. And "Jones" may live in China. Fuel efficiency rules for new vehicles cannot provide any "short-term answer" because 93 percent of the fleet is not new. In the short term, better fuel economy for new SUVs, vans and pickups could affect only 7 percent of the 20 percent of oil used by such vehicles, or 1.4 percent of total U.S. oil use....

In Land We Trust

Nature's Keepers The Remarkable Story of How the Nature Conservancy Became the Largest Environmental Organization in the World by Bill Birchard Jossey-Bass, 252 pp., $24.95 ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE WOULD NOT be surprised. It took a bit of time to happen, but happen it did. Today, Americans support more than 1,300 land trusts, nonprofit organizations that conserve land--open space, habitat, scenic vistas--primarily through purchase and gift of land and conservation easements. These nongovernmental, voluntary associations of like-minded citizens have protected more than 6.2 million acres, an area twice the size of Connecticut, according to the Land Trust Alliance, which tracks these things. This is a 226 percent increase over the 1.9 million acres protected in 1990. The first land trust was established in 1891 in Massachusetts, by landscape architect Charles Eliot, to preserve 20 acres of woodland. By 1950 there were still only 53 land trusts operating in 26 states. Today, similar grass-roots organizations protect land in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service reports that, between 1997 and 2001, 2.2 million acres were developed. Yet the Land Trust Alliance's most recent census of land trusts reports that, from 1990 to 2000, local and regional trusts conserved open space at a rate of about 500,000 acres per year. Conservationists have extended the trust concept to water in the drought-prone West, where maintaining minimum stream flows for fish, wildlife, and plants is a daunting task. In 1993, the Oregon Water Trust began buying and transferring valuable rights to water for the purpose of maintaining streamflows. Donors such as the Orvis Company support its work. Other states have emulated this example as a cooperative, voluntary means of reconciling traditional Western water law ("First in time, first in right") with conservation objectives. The Nature Conservancy, incorporated in 1951 as a nonprofit entity and successor to the Ecologists Union, is the Ohio-class boomer of land trusts and conservancies. Starting out as a shoestring outfit on a corner along K Street in Washington, with modest offices over a prosthetics shop, it has become a gigantic organization with a commanding presence in worldwide conservation. It is now the largest environmental group in the world, bringing in over $800 million each year. It employs 3,450 people operating from 400 offices in 50 states and 28 countries. It protects more than a million acres of land a year, for a total of 120 million acres to date. And it has 1,500 trustees of boards in each of the states, and one million members and supporters....

Private Water Saves Lives

Worldwide, 1.1 billion people, mainly in poor countries, do not have access to clean, safe water. The shortage of water helps to perpetuate poverty, disease and early death. However, there is no shortage of water, at least not globally. We use a mere 8 per cent of the water available for human consumption. Instead, bad policies are the main problem. Even Cherrapunji, India, the wettest place on earth, suffers from recurrent water shortages. Ninety-seven per cent of all water distribution in poor countries is managed by the public sector, which is largely responsible for more than a billion people being without water. Some governments of impoverished nations have turned to business for help, usually with good results. In poor countries with private investments in the water sector, more people have access to water than in those without such investments. Moreover, there are many examples of local businesses improving water distribution. Superior competence, better incentives and better access to capital for investment have allowed private distributors to enhance both the quality of the water and the scope of its distribution. Millions of people who lacked water mains within reach are now getting clean and safe water delivered within a convenient distance. The privatization of water distribution has stirred up strong feelings and met with resistance. There have been violent protests and demonstrations against water privatization all over the world. Western anti-business non-governmental organizations and public employee unions, sometimes together with local protesters, have formed anti-privatization coalitions. However, the movement's criticisms are off base....

Endangered Species and Military Bases: A Call for Eco-Sanity

Peyton Knight, who joined The National Center's staff Monday as our new director of the John P. McGovern MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, is making a plea for eco-sanity on our military bases. Our brave men and women in harm's way have enough burdens to shoulder these days-without being hamstrung by environmental ideologues. According to the Associated Press: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Monday that procedures designed to protect the environment can sometimes jeopardize U.S. troops and should be balanced against military needs. Yet over the weekend, the White House was busy "playing environmental matchmaker, encouraging odd couples such as the Nature Conservancy and the Pentagon as they team to save wild birds and military ranges," according to the AP. The fact is, environmental organizations have been wreaking havoc on U.S. military preparedness, using the Endangered Species Act, for years. For instance, due to its unique terrain and coastline, Camp Pendleton in Southern California is regarded as one of the best places to train U.S. Marines. Unfortunately for the military, it is also home to the California gnatcatcher, the San Diego fairy shrimp, the tidewater goby, and more than a dozen other species listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. To comply with endangered species regulations, our men and women in uniform, when training at Camp Pendleton, must make pain to avoid treading in certain areas. If they don't, they could find themselves subject to penalties and fines. Considering that about 25 percent of all species listed under the ESA are found on military bases, the conflict between the ESA and military prepardness may only grow deeper....

Gasoline Prices -- Thank the Environmentalists

In 1950, a gallon of regular gasoline sold for about 30 cents; today, it's $2.50. Are today's gasoline prices high compared to 1950? Before answering that question, we have to take into account inflation that has occurred since 1950. Using my trusty inflation calculator (www.westegg.com/inflation), what cost 30 cents in 1950 costs $2.33 in 2005. In real terms, that means gasoline prices today are only slightly higher, about 8 percent, than they were in 1950. Up until the recent spike, gasoline prices have been considerably lower than 1950 prices. Some Americans are demanding that the government do something about gasoline prices. Let's think back to 1979 when the government did do something. The Carter administration instituted price controls. What did we see? We saw long gasoline lines, and that's if the gas station hadn't run out of gas. It's estimated that Americans used about 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their cars while waiting in line. In an effort to deal with long lines, the Carter administration introduced the harebrained scheme of odd and even days, whereby a motorist whose license tag started with an odd number could fill up on odd-numbered days, and those with an even number on even-numbered days. With the recent spike in gas prices, the government has chosen not to pursue stupid policies of the past. As a result, we haven't seen shortages. We haven't seen long lines. We haven't seen gasoline station fights and riots. Why? Because price has been allowed to perform its valuable function -- that of equating demand with supply. Our true supply problem is of our own doing. Large quantities of oil lie below the 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amount of land proposed for oil drilling is less than 2,000 acres, less than one-half of one percent of ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. But environmentalists' hold on Congress has prevented us from drilling for it. They've also had success in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the shore of California. Another part of our energy problem has to do with refining capacity. Again, because of environmentalists' successful efforts, it's been 30 years since we've built a new oil refinery. Few people realize that the U.S. is also a major oil-producing country. After Saudi Arabia, producing 10.4 million barrels a day, then Russia with 9.4 million barrels, the U.S. with 8.7 million barrels a day is the third-largest producer of oil. But we could produce more. Why aren't we?....

===