OPINIONL/COMMENTARY

LIABILITY – From Indonesian Troops to Saskatchewan Wolves

Wolves are killing all manner of dogs wherever they encounter them. Wolves are killing all manner of livestock regularly. Wolves are reducing big game herds and steadily eliminating annual surpluses of such wildlife and thereby hunting seasons and hunting license revenue. Wolves are causing increasingly restricted and stressful rural living for the elderly, parents leaving children at winter bus stops, and visiting grandchildren; thereby reducing rural residency and rural economies. Other effects go unmentioned such as when fewer dogs are use for hunting, fewer hunting licenses are sold and less money is spent in rural economies and for sporting goods. All of the above represent losses of property both private (dogs, stock, rural land values, etc.) and public (huntable wildlife populations, “user-pays” fish and wildlife agencies). Rural economies are hobbled as “Critical Habitats” (for other “Endangered Species”), Wilderness, Road Closures, and elimination of natural resource management programs couple with wolf epidemiology to take their toll. Additionally, the loss of “domestic tranquility” (a primary Constitutional charge to the US Federal government) and the mental stress caused throughout rural areas inhabited by wolves are also losses caused by wolves. But it is not these catastrophic effects of wolves that is the subject of this piece, it is rather the liability for homicide and endangering the life of another. Specifically, I am referring to the liability for the death of a Mr. Carnegie recently in Saskatchewan and the attack on Mr.Desjariasis a resident of Saskatchewan. Both men were attacked by wolves. Mr. Desjariasis was, very fortunately, able to fend off the wolves due to his strength and determination. Mr. Carnegie was not so fortunate, he disappeared but the evidence at the scene of his disappearance left no doubt that wolves had killed him. Mr. Desjariasis’ account is irrefutable. Wolves attacked with the intent to kill him and probably eat him. End of story. So it not unexpectedly receives little press coverage outside the local area. Mr. Carnegie’s legacy (since the only witness is gone) is subject to and the victim of government, University, and environmental organization cover-up, distortion and lies....

Running Out of Oil? History, Technology and Abundance

Almost since the first discoveries of oil in the U.S. in 1859, people have been saying we're running out. In 1874, the state geologist of the nation's leading oil producer, Pennsylvania, warned the U.S. had enough oil to last just four years. In 1914, the federal government said we had a ten-year supply. The government announced in 1940 that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half. The Club of Rome made similar claims in the 1970s. President Carter famously predicted in 1977 that unless we made drastic cuts in our oil consumption, "Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil — from any country, at any acceptable price." And so it goes today, where a slew of books and Web sites make fantastic claims about dwindling supplies of crude. The chief problem with those who say the world is running out is that they have always looked at the issue the wrong way. Questions about energy supply shouldn't be thought of in terms of how much is available, but in terms of how good mankind is at finding and extracting it. In the years after Col. Drake discovered oil at Titusville, Pennsylvania, on the eve of the Civil War, wildcatters could only drill down several hundred feet. If we were confined to relying solely upon the technology available in the 19th century — or, for that matter, the tools available just three decades ago — then yes, quite possibly we could be looking at the end of oil....

Ethanol is good, except when it's not

Ethanol is a fuel made from corn or other plants. Basically, it is moonshine: corn is ground up and soaked until it ferments (becomes alcoholic), and then distilled so that it becomes even stronger. At this point you could drink it (and get drunk very easily), or you could put in your gas tank. If you want to sell it for human consumption, the federal government would probably hit you with the liquor tax. If you want to sell it for automotive consumption, the federal government and state governments will subsidize you until you start blushing. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration and the first Bush administration, say that we subsidize ethanol because it's good for the planet. They explain that when ethanol is burnt in a car engine, it gives off much less pollution and CO2 than does petroleum. On that very specific claim, they are correct. However, some scientists argue that ethanol, on the whole, is worse for the planet: it leads farmers to plant only corn, thus degrading the soil; the fuel needed to grow, distill, and ship the ethanol is more than the end product yields; and it evaporates more easily, leading to more hydrocarbons in the air. But the federal government doesn't give these claims or studies much weight....

Burning Forests for Energy

Environmental causes are endlessly fashionable in Europe and America. You know a movie star or successful entrepreneur has arrived when he or she announces they have become an environmentalist. What’s usually overlooked is how these fashionable causes play out in the rest of the world, particularly underdeveloped countries. There’ve been more than a few bad examples. The banning of DDT has led to a huge resurgence of malaria in the tropics. Boycotting genetically engineered foods in Europe has played havoc with African farming. Now it’s emerging that “biofuels”—the latest environmental craze— is leading to the decimation of forests in South America and Asia. The result may be the end of a few more endangered species plus a big new boost in global warming. Turning our attention to another pet cause of fashionable environmentalists, now comes the news that biofuels are accelerating the decimation of tropical forests. American and European environmentalists have long urged that we should replace oil imports with “solar energy” by burning corn-based ethanol in our gas tanks. President Jimmy Carter gave it a federal gas tax exemption, of which Archer-Daniels, the agribusiness giant, has become the chief beneficiary, producing more than half our output. Seven percent of the U.S. corn crop now goes into “gasohol,” a 90/10 blend of gasoline and ethyl alcohol that replaces 2 percent of our oil. Still, environmentalists aren’t satisfied. They point to Brazil, where one quarter of the cars are built to burn any amount of alcohol from sugar cane. Why can’t we be like them? What they don’t recognize is that Brazil is cutting down huge tracts of Amazon forest in order to make way for this crop. In spite of this destruction in the name of (ostensibly) sound environmental policy, Southeast Asia is joining the parade. Tropical forests are being cleared for palm oil plantations, where the entire crop will be sold to Europe and America as “biodiesel.”....

No Policy Is a Good Policy

An attempt to create a national energy policy is about as likely to succeed as an attempt to set a national dinner menu. The energy sources pushed in these policies fail in the market and will only be made with heavy government support. An article in the April Discover magazine tells the story of a plant in Carthage, Missouri that turns turkey guts and pig fat into high quality oil. The article goes on at great length about the technical marvel they have achieved, which they have. But the kicker is that the people running the project originally estimated that their production costs for a 42-gallon barrel would total $15, and that the plant would be profitable from day one. In fact, production costs are around $80 per barrel. Only when the government granted a subsidy of a dollar a gallon was the plant able to begin turning a slim profit of $4 per barrel. Each barrel produced by the plant now costs taxpayers $42. A recent Indianapolis Star commentary piece by Peter Grossman, a professor of Economics at Butler University, pointed out that replacing 85% of our oil use with corn-based ethanol would require quadrupling the acreage planted in corn, with all of the output going for ethanol production. That, according to Professor Grossman, would result in dramatically higher prices for most foods and the ethanol, which is already economically uncompetitive. It would probably also result in environmental degradation, since more grasslands and wooded areas would have to be put to the plow. This is already happening in Brazil and Southeast Asia, as William Tucker noted in his TAE Online Right Idea column. The basic problem with setting a national energy policy is that it presupposes the ability of a few wise heads to outperform the countless number of decisions made by consumers and businesses that represent the collective wisdom of markets....

U.S. regulations big part of high gas prices

It isn't an anniversary to celebrate, but Chicago passed the one-year mark of gasoline above $2 per gallon. And, thanks in part to our federal government, another year at this level is a real possibility. Of course, the main culprit is the high price of oil. After staying comfortably below $20 per barrel throughout most the 1990s, the cost of crude ballooned to $56 in 2005, and currently sits at $62.17. Each dollar-per-barrel rise translates into roughly 2.5 cents more per gallon. Strong global demand is the primary cause of the increase. But oil prices aren't the only reason. Federal regulations also have played a big part. This includes complicated fuel requirements that have led to a variety of costly, specialized gasoline blends, dubbed "boutique fuels." In addition, the EPA has created a maze of red tape that makes it difficult for refiners to expand capacity to meet growing demand. These regulations have disproportionately hurt the Chicago market, which has both tough fuel requirements and tight refining capacity....

PETA's Three-Ring Hypocrisy

This week a Virginia jury tossed a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) against the owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus. The animal rights group claimed (and ultimately failed to prove) that he engaged in a "massive conspiracy" to harm PETA -- including infiltrating the group, monitoring its activities, and acquiring secret documents from inside PETA. In other words, PETA accused the circus of playing by PETA's rules. If infiltrating and spying on adversaries is the stuff lawsuits are made of, PETA had better hire a fleet of new defense attorneys. On one of its websites, PETA urges activists to "apply for a full-time position as an undercover investigator." In one infamous 1997 case, Michelle Rokke (then a PETA employee) kick-started the violent campaign against a New Jersey medical research company by stealing 8,000 pages of documents and making 50 hours of secret video recordings during her "undercover" work. PETA's ring of spies has secretly surveilled other business that run afoul of the group's "total animal liberation" ethic -- including an animal shelter, a kosher slaughterhouse, a pet food company, and even circuses. And PETA's vendetta against the Greatest Show on Earth includes targeting children who would otherwise actually enjoy themselves at the circus....