OPINION/COMMENTARY

ENVIRONMENTAL TWO-STEP

Congress deals with pollution in a two-step process: It announces popular objectives like healthy air, and then it delegates to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the hard work of making the rules that actually limit pollution, says David Schoenbrod, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The explanation for this two-step is that only an expert agency insulated from politics will do the right thing. Yet, the EPA has never been able to abolish politics from the process, and it never will. And in trying, the EPA makes the environment worse.

To see why, consider the fight over leaded gasoline:

* In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed because voters demanded protection from air pollution.
* But the measure was no act of courage on Congress's part; the pollution control devices on new cars would be ruined by leaded gas anyway, and it did nothing to cut the 100 million old cars would still be using leaded gasoline after 1975.
* Meanwhile, members of Congress were quietly lobbying the EPA to make no rule to protect health from lead; the agency began to move, but so slowly that, in 1975, more lead was coming out of tailpipes than in 1970.

If Congress made the pollution rules rather than outsourcing responsibility to the EPA, more would get done, faster. And members of Congress don't have to be scientists to produce decent pollution rules. No EPA administrator was a scientist from the agency's inception in 1970 to 2004.

The choice ultimately is whether we want decisions to be made by open votes in Congress or behind closed doors at the EPA. Allowing Congress to claim credit for protecting health while shifting the blame to the EPA for the inevitable costs and remaining health risks, does not insulate the process from politics, it only adds to it.

Source: David Schoenbrod, "Saving Our Environment From Washington," Washington Post, September 21, 2006.

For text: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000837.html


House Should Stand Firm on Offshore Energy

The Competitive Enterprise Institute urges leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives to resist political pressure to accept the Senate-passed OCS bill, S. 3711. Senate leaders instead should schedule a vote on the House-passed bill, H.R. 4761, or accept a compromise that includes key provisions of the House bill to expand offshore oil and gas production. “The House should not be providing cover for Senators to pretend that they are addressing America's energy needs,” said Director of Energy Policy Myron Ebell. “The Senate bill simply doesn't have any energy in it.” In recent days, House leaders have been subjected to increasing pressure to cave in and accept the inadequate Senate bill and thereby allow Senators to claim that they have accomplished something. “With gas prices still high and concern over importing oil from unstable regimes at an all time high, American consumers deserve legislation that will significantly increase domestic oil and gas production. Members of the House and Senate owe it to their constituents to pass the House bill or a compromise based on the House bill,” said Ebell. “And while they're at it, they should add ANWR, which has already passed both chambers this year.”


DOOMING WOODS AND WILDLIFE

Environmental groups are unwittingly destroying forests and killing wildlife with lawsuits. Ironically, they do so while claiming to save them, says Thomas Bonnicksen, a member of the advisory board of the Forest Foundation.

The latest example uses the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher in arguments supporting a lawsuit to stop restoration thinning in the Giant Sequoia National Monument:

* Already, many California public forests have grown dangerously overcrowded with 10 to 20 times more trees than is natural.
* The Giant Sequoia National Monument is near the top of the crowded forest list; it already burned once, and it is certain to burn again.
* In 2002, the McNally fire blackened 151,000 acres in and around the Sequoia National Monument, coming within a mile of the Packsaddle Grove of giant sequoias.
* Without active management, it is only a matter of time before another major wildfire hits, possibly destroying all 38 sequoia groves in the monument.

Rather than protecting forests and wildlife with lawsuits, activists condemn them to destruction:

* In New Mexico's Los Alamos Fire, 90 percent of the Mexican spotted owl's habitat was lost.
* Between 1999 and 2002, the U.S. Forest Service identified 11 California spotted owl-nesting sites as lost to wildfire.
* In 2002, the Biscuit Fire destroyed tens of thousands of acres of spotted owl habitat in Southern Oregon and Northern California, including 49 known nesting sites.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cite wildfire as the primary threat to spotted owls. The Pacific fisher is also at risk because of catastrophic wildfire. The forest thinning that activists have blocked is legal and necessary, and approved by the Clinton administration with environmentalist support, says Bonnicksen.

Source: Thomas Bonnicksen, "Dooming woods and wildlife," Washington Times, September 17, 2006.

For text (subscription required):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060916-112432-5107r.htm


UNCLE SAM'S TEAT

Over the next year, Congress will produce a new farm bill to replace the gargantuan five-year giveaway that makes up the current one. Conventional wisdom holds that it won't differ much, despite strong motivating factors for reform, says the Economist.

Under the current bill:

* The federal government spent over $20 billion on farm subsidies last year, more than it spent on foreign aid and almost twice what it spends on subsidizing college for poor children.
* Most of the direct cash is lavished on crops, particularly corn, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat, causing more trade distortion and depressing world prices.
* Farmers who grow corn, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat crops received 93 percent of the subsidies between 2002 and 2005.
* Six out ten American farmers get no federal money, but 10 percent of farmers get 72 percent of the available funds.

Despite the big payouts, many farmers are beginning to see the need for reform, albeit for differing reasons:

* Fear of litigation at the World Trade Organization is one reason for reform's momentum; Brazil has already won a case against American cotton subsidies and farmers are worried that other crop subsidies could be vulnerable to a WTO case.
* Ethanol production is a major factor; increases in input prices, especially corn, will cause subsidies to decline.
* Public awareness of the subsidies' scale, and their inequity, has been rising; the 60 percent of farmers who get no cash from Washington, particularly fruit and vegetable producers, are increasingly cross.

From a trade perspective, the new farm bill could be a modest improvement, says the Economist. The United States may well be heading for more green subsidies and fewer trade-distorting ones. But despite Washington's budget crunch, few expect Uncle Sam's generosity to farmers to abate much.

Source: Editorial, "Uncle Sam's Teat," the Economist, September 9, 2006.

For text: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7887994


FAT CHANCE FOR THE NEW PROHIBITIONISM?

What if restaurants throughout this country were too scared of a lawsuit to sell foods deemed fattening? It's not a far-fetched possibility, at least if a misguided gaggle of lawyers, legislators and researchers get their way. Chicago is the latest focal point in a movement to create a slimmer America. Alderman Edward Burke this June proposed a citywide ban on the use of cooking with oils containing artificial trans fatty acids in restaurants that do at least $20 million a year worth of business. Establishments not in compliance would face fines ranging from $200 to $1,000 per day. "We have to be very careful when we start telling everybody how to live their lives," cautioned Mayor Richard M. Daley. The mayor perhaps is making up for keeping a low profile in the face of recent bans enacted by the Board of Aldermen on smoking in restaurants and bars, and the selling of foie gras (a liver delicacy). Elsewhere, dozens of states either have introduced or passed legislation aimed at curbing obesity. Measures include restricting advertising to children; requiring schools to provide parents with information about student body mass index; requiring schools to provide diabetes screening; mandating insurance coverage for obesity prevention and treatment; and establishing nutrition education programs. A University of Baltimore-affiliated think tank, the Schaefer Center for Public Policy, has created an annual "Obesity Report Card" to keep the heat on states to do more. Granted, there never will be a shortage of people who, lacking in impulse control, prefer to gorge themselves without regard to health consequences. But to use that as a pretext to limit the range of pleasures available to all of us has an unpleasant ring of familiarity. Prohibition operated on this very premise: Let us combat the temptation to take an activity to excess by banning the activity outright. Don't bother telling our latter-day Prohibitionists about the necessity of self-control. Whether the object of their wrath is food or alcohol, such talk merely serves as a cover for the irresponsible pursuit of profit. For a good decade or more, Kelly Brownell, a paunchy Yale psychologist and top adviser to the deceptively effective Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, has called for punitive taxes on unhealthy food. "I recommend we develop a militant attitude about the toxic food environment, like we have about tobacco," he has written in CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter....


DDT'S NEW FRIEND

The World Health Organization announced Friday that it will begin actively promoting use of the pesticide DDT to combat malaria in developing nations. After tens of millions of preventable malarial deaths in these poor countries, it's nice to see WHO finally come to its senses, says the Wall Street Journal.

The agency's malaria chief, Arata Kochi, told reporters that "one of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT." He also said, "We must take a position based on the science and the data."

* Malaria is the number one killer of pregnant women and children in Africa and among the top killers in Asia and South America.
* It's long been known that DDT is the cheapest and most effective way to contain the disease, which is spread by infected mosquitoes.
* But United Nations health agencies and others have for decades resisted employing DDT under pressure from anti-pesticide environmentalists.

For decades, the science and empirical data about DDT's effectiveness have been distorted or suppressed. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that DDT use in the amounts necessary to ward off malarial mosquitoes is harmful to humans, wildlife or the environment.

One insecticide won't end malaria, and DDT's proponents don't claim it will. But by keeping more people alive and healthy, DDT can help create the conditions for the only lasting solution, which is economic growth and development, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "DDT's New Friend," Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2006.

For text (subscription required):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115853443509765807.html


CALIFORNIA LOSES WITH GREENHOUSE LAW

Arnold Schwarzenegger's signing of the first statewide, multi-industry greenhouse gas emission limits will result in higher prices for the states' consumers, higher unemployment for its workers and little or no benefit for the environment, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

The law will require companies in selected industries to reduce their greenhouse emissions by whatever amounts, and by whatever methods, are deemed necessary by the California Air Resources Board in order to reduce emissions for the entire state by 25 percent by 2020 -- equaling California's 1990 emission levels.

While California is an economic powerhouse and these cuts are substantial, their effect on future climate will be nil, says Burnett:

* An analysis of a regional climate change action plan considered by 11 Northeastern states and the premiers of Canada's eastern provinces showed that even with an efficient cap-and-trade program similar to Schwarzenegger's proposal, both electricity and residential natural gas prices would rise by as much as 39 percent by 2020.
* The higher energy costs would result in consumption falling by an estimated average of $2,634 per household; gross state product would decline 1.1 percent; and an estimated 191,589 jobs would be lost by 2010.
* The study also found that as companies fled high fuel prices in the Northeastern states, employment in the rest of the United States would increase by more than 117,000 in 2010 and by an additional 59,000 in 2020.

Additionally, Californians face some of the highest energy bills in the nation -- which this law will only make worse. Proponents of the law argue that it will create new jobs through investments in, and the manufacturing of, new technologies. However, these gains will not be realized in California, says Burnett.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "California loses with greenhouse law," Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2006.

For text (subscription required):
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/24182.html


ESSAYS ON THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

So what is this business about the “religious” nature of this movement? I submit that this movement has achieved unprecedented power and caused dramatic losses of our rights and traditions in a short period because we perceive it as and treat it as an ideology and not as a religious (or quasi-religious) movement. For instance, when gun control groups began to threaten gun owners; gun owners formed a National Rifle Association and a Gun Owners of America and State gun associations. Most gun owners threw their money in the pot. Lawsuits or new laws were challenged in court and argued openly. Books and articles abound: Japan “proves” gun control works, Australia and England “prove” it doesn’t, Hitler confiscated registered guns to begin his oppression, the UN wants to control all guns, history shows that gun control only expands once it is begun, concealed weapons have helped to decrease crime, and so goes our national discussion. We may disagree about “facts” but “facts” they are and each of us is entitled to interpret them. Keeping or losing our guns depends on argument and commitment and determination. The gun control movement is a classic ideology based on personal beliefs. On the other hand, the “sacredness” of wilderness, the “iconic” nature of the American horse, the “abomination” of trapping or wearing fur, the urgency of “restoring” “native” species or eradicating “Invasive Species”, the “fact” that no one has the “right” to “own” and animal, the “fact” that we should not raise or eat meat, the “fact” that hunting and fishing (i.e. hunters and fishermen) should be eliminated, the belief that people are “in their (i.e. wildlife) habitat” or that people killed or injured by unmanaged and protected wildlife are at fault, and many other such assertions of the environmental and animal rights movement are seemingly irrefutable. Why? Because they emanate from religious beliefs about God and Man and the earth and all that is in it or on it and not from interpretable facts as in other ideologies. Saying that all the various facets of the environmental and animal rights movement have the same basic beliefs is far more accurate than it would be to say the same thing for all the gun control groups. The basis for all the “sacredness” and “iconic” nature of certain (a growing list but soon all) plants and animals and the rationale why humans must be controlled and their activities proscribed by environmental and animal rights power brokers is implied as coming from “science” or “reverence” for nature or “humane” concepts or “advanced” thinking or ancient pagan worship of natural phenomena. In any case, they are based on unquestionable beliefs as interpreted by “experts”. Like ancient pagan priests, they make assertions that may not be questioned and indeed are assumed to be unintelligible to most of the populace. It is the need for absolute adherence to these beliefs that justifies the erosion of private property, the growth of Federal power, the elimination of rights and traditions, and the control of the publics’ place and method of living, employment, and transportation....

Part two of this essay is here.