OPINION/COMMENTARY


Animal-rights radicals fail to value human life

Six of America's most committed animal-rights activists will soon find themselves entering cages instead of smashing them. Along with their organization, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, they were convicted on federal terrorism charges in March. Their campaign of fear and intimidation targeted employees, customers, and suppliers of a medical research laboratory that uses animals. Yesterday in Trenton, three were sentenced to six years in jail. The remaining three face sentencing this week and next. Like true terror masterminds, these six took protecting lab rats past the point of earnest debate and honest persuasion, choosing instead to orchestrate a destructive crusade. Was it terrorism? You decide. The campaign included death threats, overturned cars, bombings and front-lawn midnight protests complete with chants of "Let's burn his house to the ground." There was even a menacing phone barrage directed at New York Stock Exchange employees, targeted for agreeing to list an animal research company on the Big Board. Real people with real families were terrified....


Bill may stir California business exodus

A measure to limit greenhouse gas emissions in California could foster fresh interest among California companies looking outside the state for a less regulated business environment. The cap, designed to cut greenhouse gas output 25 percent by 2020, evoked stern responses from business advocates such as the California Chamber of Commerce, which said in a statement that the act would drive companies and jobs out of California and jack up power and fuel prices for residents of the Golden State. Gino DiCaro, a spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, said the limit will weigh heavily on emissions-producing cement makers, power companies, steel manufacturers and oil refiners. The Milken Institute reported that doing business in California already costs 24 percent more than the national average, DiCaro said, and many of the state's companies simply can't bear any more economic burdens. "This bill, combined with the more expensive cost of doing business, makes it almost impossible to stay competitive in California," DiCaro said. "Predictability in the economy is, more than anything else, what businesses look for when they're selecting a site. This bill does nothing but create uncertainty in terms of future growth in California."....


CALIFORNIA DREAMIN'

The new CO2 reduction mandate in California is the state's latest bout of feel-good environmentalism that even supporters admit will accomplish very little, says the Wall Street Journal.

The self-congratulation took place despite an understanding that:

* By 2020 California is expected to account for only 1.3 percent of total world-wide CO2 emissions.
* By contrast, China is expected by 2020 to increase its share of global greenhouse emissions to more than 22 percent of the world's total, surpassing the output of the entire United States.
* Even if it reaches its CO2 goals, the state will have reduced global emissions by only 0.3 percent.

What is really accomplished here, says the Journal, is the ultimate in political symbolism. California's politicians understand that none of this will register on the global temperature dial. They also know the Kyoto Protocol has proven to be a failure, as European countries routinely ignore their CO2 limits.

And even symbolism can have consequences, and California's economy will be lucky to escape this unscathed, says the Journal.

* The state's high energy prices and strict pollution controls long ago forced utilities to tighten up, and this latest round of regulation will force many out of the state.
* Those that do stay will thus pay more for the privilege, passing those costs along to consumers via higher energy prices and more expensive products.

Source: Editorial, "California Dreamin,'" Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2006.


Snake Oil Policy

Washington has hundreds of pending bills dealing with energy, and it's difficult to predict which ones will move in a Congress under pressure to do something about $3-a-gallon gas before the November elections (even though average prices have recently fallen by nearly 20 percent from that mark). Unfortunately, most of these proposals are anti-market and pro-big government and therefore likely to do more harm than good. Here's a rundown of the worst of the worst: 1. Oil Rationing -- Politicians routinely complain about $3 gas and then offer up "solutions" likely to raise the cost to $4 or even $5. One such idea is to cap the amount of oil Americans can use. The provisions vary, but most would require the nation to sharply reduce petroleum consumption over the next decade. Proponents claim that a tough limit on oil use will lead to the development of petroleum alternatives -- kind of like banning the use of pharmaceuticals in the hope that herbal remedies will make big strides. In reality, by instituting a quota we would be doing to ourselves what the al Qaeda terrorists who have attempted to blow up Saudi oil facilities want to do to us -- reduce the quantity and raise the price of oil to unprecedented levels. The only realistic chance rationing has for reducing the price of oil is if this misguided policy sparks a big recession -- a very real possibility. 2. Alternative Energy Mandates -- The flipside of mandating less oil use is mandating more alternatives to oil, and proposals to do so are included in several bills. Of course, replacing oil would be great, if it is with something better that outcompetes it, but not with something that's so bad that the feds must force it on the public. The sponsors of alternative energy mandates always miss this rather obvious point....


Don't Accuse PETA of Having Any Class

Less than a week after it happened, PETA is already using the death of Steve Irwin, a.k.a. the Crocodile Hunter, as a chance to stir up controversy. As Dan Matthews, PETA's celebrity outreach director, callously told MSNBC, "It comes as no shock at all that Steve Irwin should die provoking a dangerous animal ... If you compare him with a responsible conservationist like Jacques Cousteau, he looks like a cheap reality TV star." It was only a matter of time before these self-proclaimed "complete press sluts" used Irwin's death as a means to draw attention to themselves. PETA has a history of exploiting human suffering for cheap publicity stunts. After Rudy Guliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer, PETA erected a billboard, showing the former New York mayor with a milk mustache, which read: "Got Prostate Cancer?" And PETA planned on using the image of the late President Ronald Reagan in a campaign linking meat consumption with Alzheimer's disease until the recently widowed Nancy Reagan stopped them....