OPINION/COMMENTARY

Feds make pain at the pump worse

Washington has embraced an alternative to $3-a­­-gallon gasoline -- $4-a-gallon ethanol. That’s the cost of this federally mandated fuel additive, when you take everything into account. Ethanol, produced mostly from Midwestern corn, currently wholesales for more than $3 a gallon. And that’s the Midwest price -- ethanol costs even more on the coasts because it can’t be sent through pipelines and thus is costlier to ship than gasoline. At these prices, adding even small amounts of ethanol to gas can boost pump prices by 20 cents per gallon or more. In addition, the Department of Energy reports, “ethanol has only about two-thirds the energy content of an equivalent volume of gasoline,” so it substantially reduces fuel economy. In effect, using it is like switching to a larger vehicle. And in many big cities, ethanol cannot be added to ordinary gas without the resulting mixture violating federal air-quality regulations. It has to be added to a costly base blend that compensates for ethanol’s environmental shortcomings. When you take into account all the direct and indirect costs of using ethanol, it’s the equivalent of $4-a-gallon gasoline -- and closer to $5 if you consider its lousy fuel economy. Give the feds credit. It isn’t easy to find something worse for consumers than $3 gas, but they managed to do it....

New ANWR / Renewable Energy Bill Introduced in the House

A bipartisan coaltion, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, has introduced a bill that would open 2000 acres of ANWR to responsible oil development, and direct all associated lease and royalty revenue into a trust to fund alternative, renewable, and advanced energy incentives. The bill, the “American-Made Energy Freedom Act”, provides a comprehensive, common sense approach to lessening our nation’s dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic oil production in the short term while funding alternatives energies for the future. In the short term, the Act opens the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of the nearly 20 million acre ANWR to responsible oil exploration, limits the footprint of development to just 2000 acres, sets the strictest environmental conditions ever developed for energy development on federal lands, and bans the export of this American oil. At peak production, this small parcel of land could deliver to the lower 48 states an additional 1.5 million barrels per day - an amount equal to the daily supply America lost in the Gulf of Mexico due to Hurricane Katrina, and nearly equal to the amount we import from Saudi Arabia every day. The “American-Made Energy Freedom Act” also secures long term solutions by requiring that all of the lease and royalty revenue from oil production in ANWR be used to fund renewable and alternative energy projects. ANWR’s direct revenue to the Treasury is estimated at $40 billion during its lifetime of production. All of these monies — at no cost to the taxpayer — would be placed into an investment fund to incubate the development of new technologies, including the development of cellulosic biomass, coal-to-liquid clean fuels, solar and other alternatives to foreign oil. This is THE LARGEST FUND EVER PROPOSED for alternative energies for the future....

Nuclear Power May Be Answer To Global Warming

As former Vice President Al Gore's global warming movie nears the end of its run in theaters, a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) suggests combating climate change requires creative thinking about the world's energy needs. According to the report, nuclear power holds the most promise as a clean, practical alternative to fossil fuels that could help satisfy the world economy's growing demand for energy. Sustaining economic growth in developed countries and accelerating growth in the developing world means that energy demand will increase dramatically in the coming century. The International Energy Agency projects world energy demand will grow 65 percent by 2020. According to the report, reducing the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, while still meeting the energy demands of an expected population of more than 9 billion people by 2050, requires reconsidering nuclear power - a safe, practical alternative. Despite opposition, nuclear power currently produces much of the electric power in developed countries. * Nuclear power provides about 75 percent of the electricity in France and 20 percent in the United States. * With 434 operating reactors worldwide, nuclear power meets the electrical needs of more than a billion people. * China alone is planning to build 30 nuclear reactors over the next five years. Nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels. A single, quarter-ounce pellet of uranium generates as much energy as 3.5 barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 1,780 pounds of coal, with none of the CO2 emissions....

Designer Jeans From Designer Genes

As the "new biotechnology" -- gene-splicing, or "genetic modification" (GM) -- enjoys ever more varied and impressive successes, the intractable opposition from environmental and other activists has become reminiscent of the old cartoon cliché about the person who year after year inaccurately predicts the end of the world. Activists' antagonism belies the fact that gene-splicing offers enhanced efficiency for a vast array of processes, and proven benefits to both human health and the environment. For example, a single issue of a prominent monthly biotech journal contained three unrelated articles that illustrate a good part of the spectrum of benefits of the technology: agronomic improvement in an important crop plant, improved nutrition in another, and decreased animal waste deposited in the environment. The first of these involved moving two barley genes into rice, which increases more than four-fold the yield in alkaline soil (a problem in thirty per cent of arable land worldwide). The second showed that moving a single gene from the petunia into tomato markedly increases the concentration of antioxidant compounds called flavonols, the consumption of which in food appears to be correlated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease. The third was a proof-of-principle experiment that demonstrated that the addition of a single bacterial gene to a mammal (in this case a mouse, used as a model system) enables the animal to more efficiently metabolize phosphates from feed, thereby reducing the phosphate content of their excreta. Adapted to large animals like cows and pigs, this approach could lower the phosphate content of manure from intensively farmed livestock and reduce the phosphate runoff into waterways and aquifers....

Endangered humans

If you live in Texas, you have 81. North Dakota has only nine. Florida is home to 100 and California has a whopping 276. In fact, every state in America has at least a handful that have the potential to disrupt and even ruin lives. What is this ominous presence? Plants and/or animals that are protected under the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered. Signed into law in 1973 by President Nixon, the Endangered Species Act currently has 407 animal species and 598 plant species listed as threatened or endangered. There are two more animals and one plant that are proposed to be added to the ESA. Another 138 animals and 144 plants are candidates for listing. The odds that you actually have an endangered or threatened species in your area are probably low. However, if the federal government or, heaven forbid, a radical environmental group even believes you might have transgressed the rights of an endangered or threatened species, your life could be turned upside down. Consider the plight of a Michigan man who in 2003 killed a poisonous snake he thought was a threat to a child. He was found guilty of “killing a protected reptile or amphibian without a state permit.”....

When Eminent Domain Loses

In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Norwood property owners who were challenging the confiscation of their land through eminent domain. (Norwood is a suburb surrounded by Cincinnati.) It marked the first eminent-domain ruling by a state supreme court since Kelo, and will surely set a precedent for other states wrangling over this issue. "It gives guidance to courts for the future," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which litigated the case in behalf of the appellants. The decision in Norwood v. Horney was an amalgam of several rulings, all of which laid out benchmarks for judging the legality of property seizures. First: The Ohio High Court implicitly rejected the rationale behind Kelo. "Although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor, "the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution." In Norwood, the demolition of property was to make room for a sprawling, $125-million project known as Rookwood Exchange, which would include office space, luxury condos, and retail stores. Second: The court called for "heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent-domain powers." The city of Norwood had, on the basis of a study funded by Rookwood Partners, the private developer, declared the relevant neighborhood to be "blighted" and "deteriorating." A trial court later ruled that Norwood had abused its discretion in finding the location "blighted" but was correct to deem it "deteriorating." The "deteriorating" standard was considered sufficient to trigger the city's eminent-domain power. The Ohio Supreme Court said this was rubbish. "We find that Norwood's use of 'deteriorating area' as a standard for appropriation is void for vagueness," wrote Justice O'Connor. "We further hold that the use of the term 'deteriorating area' as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking." In plain English, that means Norwood grossly abused its authority. The mere possibility--or even probability--that an area may one day be blighted can hardly pass muster as legitimate grounds for property seizures. Indeed, by the yardsticks employed in Norwood--cracked sidewalks, light pollution, proximity to the highway, weeds, dead-end streets, and "diversity of ownership"--large bits of middle-class, suburban America are "deteriorating." Third: The court rejected as unconstitutional the portion of Ohio's eminent-domain statute that--get this--barred judges from enjoining the seizure and redevelopment of property prior to appellant review. The law had essentially allowed developers to tear down homes after they provided just compensation but before the completion of the appeals process. According to the Ohio Supremes, this "violates the separation-of-powers doctrine."....

A War on Energy—Again?

With oil prices continuing to set new records this summer, President Bush is pushing his energy independence plan—sprinkling a few dollars on select energy sectors in the name of the war on terrorism. But according to a publication released today by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), rising prices, not government handouts, should be the primary motivation for the US to move away from oil reliance. “Despite the generous claims of national security made on its behalf, the President’s energy program looks decidedly unserious,” reports Doug Bandow, author of “A War on Energy—Again?." “If the US faces a dire security threat from importing petroleum from an unstable region teeming with enemies of America, then Washington presumably should take a far stronger hand in redesigning the energy economy.” Currently the program mostly means handing out more money to companies already on the federal dole. For example, solar power received $148 million. Wind power received $44 million. $335 million was allocated for coal research. All this appears to yield more political than economic benefits....

Misnamed “Cancer Project” Promotes Animal-Rights Propaganda

This weekend the "Cancer Project," a dietary program of the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), is hosting its first symposium on cancer and nutrition. And the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom is re-launching www.PhysicianScam.com to alert Americans that "The Cancer Project" is an animal-rights initiative in disguise. The website chronicles PCRM's anti-meat and anti-dairy campaigns, its active boycott of leading legitimate cancer research charities, and its ties to the animal rights movement’s violent underbelly. Throughout the course of Saturday's event, a mobile billboard provided by CCF will circle the Hyatt Regency Bethesda to inform attendees and the general public that PCRM’s "Cancer Project" is really an "Animal Rights Project." The mobile billboard will also advertise www.PhysicianScam.com. "The Cancer Project" advocates a strict vegan (read: PETA-approved) diet as a means of minimizing cancer risks and improving cancer survival. And it suggests that biomedical research using animals -- which holds the best hope to cure the disease -- is ineffective and unnecessary. These sentiments demonstrate "The Cancer Project’s" broad aim of placing the needs of animals above those of cancer patients. They have also been rejected repeatedly by leading physicians and researchers....