OPINION/COMMENTARY

Environmentalist Lawsuit Against Sound Forest Management Is Challenged

Pacific Legal Foundation took action today to derail efforts by radical environmentalists to block sound forest management in California’s Tuolumne County and surrounding areas. PLF intervened to challenge an environmentalist lawsuit that could facilitate more devastating fires in Eldorado National Forest. At issue is a timber salvage operation that was devised by federal officials in the wake of the massive Freds and Power Fires that took place in October, 2004. PLF is challenging the environmentalists’ right to proceed with their lawsuit against the salvage plan without posting a substantial surety bond. "Federal judicial rules mandate that plaintiffs post a bond in this kind of litigation -- and the environmentalists haven’t shown any reason why they should be exempted from that requirement," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Damien Schiff. The case is Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service. Plaintiffs contend that the salvage plan violates federal environmental law. A Ninth Circuit panel this past March determined that a preliminary injunction should issue against the program. So, if the government does not appeal that ruling to the United States Supreme Court, the case goes back to the federal District Court in Sacramento. "This case shows how a timber-recovery program can be killed simply by environmentalist delaying tactics and ‘temporary’ injunctions from compliant courts," said Schiff....

Ethanol: Bumper Crop for Agribusiness, Bitter Harvest for Taxpayers

In 1973, Richard Nixon announced that the United States would be energy independent by 1980. Over the next three decades, a number of programs and initiatives would be launched in pursuit of that goal and then quietly eliminated when they failed to succeed. One program, ethanol, has been able to weather the changing political climate by cultivating political and popular support. Unfortunately for taxpayers, ethanol is another in a series of highly-subsidized but ineffective energy programs that are costly for consumers and are a bad "investment" of tax dollars. Rather than let ethanol put down even deeper roots, Congress should end the massive chain of subsidies that supports the fuel program and allow market forces, rather than politicians, to determine which energy technologies will survive and grow. Ethanol imposes significant direct and indirect costs on consumers. It is more expensive to produce than gasoline, and its alcohol component prevents the fuel from being shipped as other gasoline products are, leading to higher transportation costs. Government mandates forcing drivers to purchase ethanol will lead to higher fuel bills since ethanol has a lower fuel economy than does gasoline. Also, as the price of corn rises, consumers can expect higher grocery bills as food inflation ripples through commodities markets. Agricultural subsides lead to overproduction, which is then used as a justification for using ethanol. Since ethanol has not been economically viable, it has relied upon subsidies from the federal government as well as a number of states. The federal subsidy is currently costing taxpayers $2 billion a year. The federal government protects domestic producers from international competition by levying a significant tariff on imported ethanol. In a further attempt to prop-up the industry, Congress inserted a renewable fuels standard into the 2005 energy bill. This requirement has the effect of mandating the use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. States are also imposing their own usage requirements. The need for massive subsidies has not kept politicians in Washington from promoting other crops as ethanol feedstocks. The most popular potential sources are sugar and biomass, or cellulosic ethanol. Sugar-based ethanol would require a subsidy of between $1 and $2 per gallon, significantly higher than the 51-cents-per-gallon that corn-based ethanol currently receives. Taxpayers have already invested $1 billion in cellulosic ethanol research since the 1980s but additional study is expected to cost $2 billion over the next few years....

Why Are We Drinkin' this 'Hooch?

Will the rush to bio-fuels kill people in the developing world? The short answer is yes and probably in the very near future. The main problem with bio-fuels, is that producing them causes the world’s cars to compete for the same resources as the world’s hungry stomachs. If you claim to care about world hunger, “social justice,” or simply understand the economic problems of the bio-fuels industry, then you must reject bio-fuels. We are not the only ones concerned bio-fuel development will end up killing poor people. For example, in the industry’s online clearinghouse site renewableenergyaccess.com some surprising facts come out. In agricultural terms, the world appetite for automotive fuel is insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain to fill the tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people. With so many distilleries being built, livestock and poultry producers fear there may not be enough corn to produce meat, milk, and eggs. And since the United States supplies 70 percent of world corn exports, corn-importing countries are worried about their supply. Since almost everything we eat can be converted into fuel for automobiles, including wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and sugarcane, the line between the food and energy economies is disappearing. Historically, food processors and livestock producers that converted these farm commodities into products for supermarket shelves were the only buyers. Now there is another group, those buying for the ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries that supply service stations....

CITIES REWARD 'LIFESTYLE' THAT CONSERVES WATER

More cities are creating or expanding programs that give residents and businesses rebates or utility-bill credits for installing grass-free lawns or toilets, washing machines and showers that use less water. Rebate programs have grown substantially" because of expanding drought conditions and population increases, says Greg Kail of the American Water Works Association, a trade group. Examples:

* This month, Albuquerque increased its water-bill credit for converting grass lawns to low-water-use "Xeriscapes" from 40 cents to 60 cents for each square foot. Xeriscape is landscaping that uses native plants that require little water.
* Albuquerque also offers credits to residents who reuse rainwater or install water-saving toilets, washers, dishwashers, showerheads and sprinkler timers; since the city first offered credits in 1995, about 100 billion gallons of water have been saved -- enough to supply the city for three years.
* Santa Cruz, Calif., this spring began sending water conservation staffers to homes at residents' request to assess usage and recommend water-saving changes; the city pays $75 to residents who buy low-flow toilets and $100 to those who buy water-efficient washing machines.
* In Charlottesville, Va., residents can get $100 rebates for replacing toilets with more efficient models. Bill Dyer, director of the city's utility billing office, says it also has given away thousands of kits that include faucet aerators, dye tablets that detect toilet leaks, garden hose nozzles and repair kits and outdoor watering gauges.

Observers say cities are trying other ways to conserve water, including watering restrictions and encouraging the reuse of water in manufacturing and to irrigate golf courses. For example, El Paso plans to build the world's largest inland desalination plant, which would turn previously unusable brackish groundwater into 27.5 million gallons of fresh water daily.

Source: Judy Keen, "Cities reward 'lifestyle' that conserves water; Low-flow toilets, no-grass lawns now earn rebates," USA Today, July 20, 2006.

For text:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060720/a_water.art.htm


Call Off the Dioxin Dogs

Way back in 1985 the EPA decided it wanted dioxin to be cancer-causing and made it so, labeling it a "probable human carcinogen." Fifteen years later it upped the ante, concluding -- to a round chorus of applause from the media and environmentalist groups -- that the cancer risks for the most exposed people were 10-fold higher than it previously thought. Three years after, it strengthened dioxin's label to "carcinogenic to humans." And last Tuesday ... one big fat fly from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) plopped into the ointment. Indeed, the recommendations of the NAS's National Research Council (NRC) review of the EPA's latest draft report on dioxin could -- or at least should -- turn the entire cancer-rating system of the EPA (and other agencies) on its head. That's because while it's long been accepted that for acute toxicity that "the dose makes the poison" the EPA uses as a rule for all potential carcinogens that if exposure to a rat of something at a level of, say, a quart a day for 30 years is cancer-causing then exposure of a hundredth of a gram a day for one week must also be carcinogenic to humans. No matter that FDA doesn't advise against women taking a daily iron pill because if they took 100 daily they would die. It was this EPA assumption that the National Research Council directly challenged, concluding the "EPA's decision to rely solely on a default linear model lacked adequate scientific support." It said compelling new animal data from the National Toxicology Program -- released after EPA completed its reassessment -- when combined with substantial evidence that dioxin does not damage DNA, is now adequate to justify the use of nonlinear methods for estimating cancer risk at relatively low levels of exposure. In other words, the EPA can't just choose a formula because it's convenient and serves its political ends. It can't ignore the results of myriad animal and human studies and the determination of how a certain chemical affects human cells in favor of simple mathematics....

Running out of oil?

"Proven" oil reserves, oil that's economically and technologically recoverable, are estimated to be more than 1.1 trillion barrels. That's enough oil, at current usage rates, to fuel the world's economy for 38 years, according to Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI. Mr. Maugeri provides a wealth of information about energy in "Two Cheers for Expensive Oil," published by Foreign Affairs (March/April 2006) and reprinted on the same date in Current. There are an additional 2 trillion barrels of "recoverable" reserves. Mr. Maugeri says these oil reserves will probably meet the "proven" standard in a few years as technological improvement and increased sub-soil knowledge come online. Estimates of recoverable oil don't include the huge deposits of "unconventional" oil such as Canadian tar sands and U.S. shale oil, plus there are vast areas of our planet yet to be fully explored. For decades, alarmists have claimed we're running out of oil. In 1919, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report, "The Limits to Growth," said that, assuming no rise in consumption, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. A substantial increase in oil production alone cannot ease today's high prices because of weak refining capacity. Not a single refinery has been built in the United States for 30 years. Improvements to existing refineries failed to keep up with growing demand and tougher environmental regulations. We're the world's only industrialized country with a net deficit in refining capacity that comes to 20 percent of domestic demand. That makes us highly vulnerable to disasters like last year's hurricanes. Exacerbating weak refining capacity are regulations whereby gasoline produced for one state may not be sold in another. There are 18 mandated different types of gasoline sold in the United States. The long-term outlook for oil is good. There's an increase in oil-drilling technology and exploration. Oil as a source of energy has been in decline. In 1980, oil was 45 percent of energy consumption; today, it's 34 percent, yielding ground to natural gas, coal and nuclear energy. Recently, the House of Representatives passed "The Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006," which now awaits a Senate vote. Offshore oil exploration has been banned since 1982, despite Department of the Interior estimates that suggest the presence of 19 billion barrels of oil and 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The House of Representatives also passed the "Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act of 2006." Should these measures become law, our energy capacity will be enhanced significantly....

Fire, or ice?

The New York Times's headline read, "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise." Well, what's so new about that? The Times has been having an historic fit about global warming for years, hasn't it? Yes, but that particular headline ran in the good gray Times on March 27, 1933 -- 73 years ago. What's more, the Times changed its mind dramatically on the subject 42 years later, in 1975, when it startled its readers on May 21 with "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Nor has the Times been the only major periodical to blow hot and cold (if you will forgive me) on the subject of the global climate. On Jan. 2, 1939 Time magazine announced that "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer." Yet Time scooped The New York Times by nearly a year when, reversing itself, it warned readers on June 24, 1974 that, "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Today, of course, Time has changed its mind again and joined the global-warming hysteria. On April 3 this year, it announced that "By Any Measure, Earth is At ... The Tipping Point. The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame." The last major attack of hysteria, in the mid-1970s, focused on the peril of global cooling, and was especially severe. Fortune magazine declared in February 1974 that "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed. It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude." Fortune's analysis was so impressive that it actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics. But the prize for sheer terrorizing surely belonged to Lowell Ponte, whose 1976 book "The Cooling" (a predecessor of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," though from the opposite point of view) asserted that "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations." If countermeasures weren't taken, he warned, it would lead to "world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000."....