OPINION/COMMENTARY

This Land Is Whose Land?

This past winter, when last we left Logan Darrow Clements in the snows of New Hampshire, he was engaged in a modest, civic-minded enterprise. He was trying to steal the house of Supreme Court justice David Souter. Normally not moved to vigilantism, the L.A.-based former Internet entrepreneur had been inspired by the Supreme Court's June 2005 decision in the case known as Kelo v. New London. By a 5-4 vote, the high court had essentially allowed cities to invoke the power of eminent domain to seize private property not for roads or schools, as is common practice, but for less noble purposes, such as indulging Biff McFranchiser's discovery that your land is the ideal location from which to sell hamburgers. The cities, which would force you to sell at whatever "fair market" price they demanded on threat of condemnation, would get to keep the toy at the bottom of your Unhappy Meal, in the form of higher tax revenue. Biff, to the cities' thinking, would generate more income for their coffers than you would by, say, having Pictionary parties or sitting on your couch watching TV. In place of Souter's lifelong homestead, Clements intended to erect the Lost Liberty Hotel, where defiant B&B'ers could celebrate the sanctity of private property while dining on Revenge Soup, served cold at the Just Deserts Café. Instead of Gideon Bibles, the rooms would offer Atlas Shrugged, since the objectivist Clements is a follower of Ayn Rand. Though Clements's move was an impulsive act ("a late-night idea I threw up on the Internet"), he wasn't slashing Souter's tires or boiling his cats. Rather, he was doing something truly radical: attempting to make a judge live by his own ruling. As a publicity stunt, it was superior, a candy-coated middle finger with a chewy moral center. It gained Clements buckets of ink, including the cover of this magazine. That's considerably more attention than his brand of leave-us-alone libertarianism garnered when he finished 131st out of 135 candidates in the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003. But despite his talent for generating headlines, Clements couldn't get across the finish line in Souter's hometown of Weare. The candidates for selectman he'd helped recruit went down in a March election, and a ballot initiative he'd co-masterminded was gutted by underhanded parliamentary maneuvering. The Live-Free-Or-Die types in Weare, it turned out, stymied Clements not because they agreed with the Supreme Court's ruling, but because they didn't, believing it wrong to seize private property even if it belonged to one of the justices who'd given others license to steal. Clements, however, is not easily discouraged....



PROPERTY RIGHTS ATTACK CONTINUES

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Kelo v. New London decision, ruled that the private property of one American could be taken and given to another American as long as it served a public purpose. The public purpose in that case was greater tax revenues for the fiscally strapped city of New London. The city figured that if it used its powers of eminent domain to force private homeowners out and then transferred their property to developers to build commercial property, there would be greater tax revenues. Many Americans were angered by this violation of both the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment, which in part reads, ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Public purpose is not the same as public use. Public use means property can be taken, with just compensation, to build a road, a highway, a fort or some other public project. My response to the Kelo decision was, "See, I told you so." For decades, Americans have been willing to allow politicians to trample over private property rights, so why should we be surprised when politicians become more emboldened? Here's a brief history. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fined one landowner $300,000 for "destroying" wetlands because he cleared a backed-up drainage ditch on his property. The Fish & Wildlife Service told one landowner he couldn't use 1,000 acres of his property so the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker could have a place to dwell. Another owner was prevented from clearing dry brush near his home to make a firebreak because it would disturb the Stephens kangaroo rat. Building a deck on his house brought one owner a $30,000 fine for casting a shadow on wetlands....


NUCLEAR POWER TO THE RESCUE

A revolutionary nuclear energy technology is being designed and built in South Africa, but with suppliers and partners in many other nations, says Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The 165-megawatt Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) are small and inexpensive enough to provide electrical power for emerging economies, individual cities or large industrial complexes. However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

Process heat from PBMR reactors can also be used directly to desalinate sea water, produce hydrogen from water, turn coal, oil shale and tar sands into liquid petroleum, and power refineries, chemical plants and tertiary recovery operations at mature oil fields.

* The fuel comes in the form of baseball-sized graphite balls, each containing sugar-grain-sized particles of uranium encapsulated in high-temperature graphite and ceramic; this makes them easier and safer to handle than conventional fuel rods, says Pretoria-based nuclear physicist Dr. Kelvin Kemm.
* It also reduces waste disposal problems and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation; conventional fuel rod assemblies are removed long before complete burn-up, to avoid damage to their housings; but PBMR fuel balls are burnt to depletion.
* Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns.
* Since PBMRs can be built where needed, long, expensive power lines are unnecessary; moreover, the simple design permits rapid construction (in about 24 months), and the plants don't emit carbon dioxide.

PBMR technology could soon generate millions of jobs in research, design and construction industries -- and millions in industries that will prosper from having plentiful low-cost heat and electricity. It will help save habitats that are now being chopped into firewood -- and improve health and living standards for countless families, says Driessen.

Source: Paul Driessen, "Nuclear power to the rescue," Washington Times, September 5, 2006.

For text (subscription required):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060904-102546-8725r.htm



GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Policies that prevent developing countries from acquiring efficient energy resources and infrastructure limit poor nations' ability to improve the environment. Research has shown that this holds true across time and cultures.

For example:

* In one survey, levels of sulfur dioxide in 42 countries and smoke (soot) in 19 countries declined as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) rose to between $6,700 and $8,450 (2003 dollars) -- other surveys have found similar results for a broader array of air pollutants.
* A survey of 10 countries found that 11 of 14 water pollutants declined as income rose; for example, nitrates declined after per capita income reached $3,400 and total fecal coliform bacteria declined at $5,000 (2003 dollars).
* A study of deforestation in 64 developing countries found the rate at which land was cleared declined as incomes reached $7,900 to $9,100 (2001 dollars).
* A survey of 68 countries found that water withdrawals from rivers and streams for agriculture fell as incomes reached $14,300.

In the United States, environmental quality has significantly improved as a direct consequence of enormous and sustained investments that only a rich nation can afford. As a result of this wealth and investment, U.S. air quality has improved remarkably. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that from 1970 to 2004:

* Carbon monoxide decreased 55.8 percent, while nitrogen oxides fell 30.1 percent.
* Sulfur dioxide -- the primary component of acid rain -- decreased 51.3 percent, volatile organic compounds decreased 55.5 percent and lead decreased a dramatic 98.6 percent.
* During the same period, GDP increased 158 percent, miles traveled by cars and trucks rose 143 percent and energy consumption grew 45 percent.

Source: Pete Geddes, "Constructive Thinking about Climate Change, Part II," National Center for Policy Analysis No. 570, September 8, 2006.

For text:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba570/


Biotech Forests

Last March, activists at the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP-8) for the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Curitiba, Brazil called for a global moratorium on genetically modified trees (GM trees). The activists claimed that genetically enhanced trees could harm the environment and the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities. In response, the COP-8 passed a resolution recommending the CBD signatories "take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees." The precautionary approach "recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm." In general, it is chiefly decisions that would permit the deployment of new technologies that the precautionary approach postpones. We shall see that this line of attack cuts both ways when considering the effects of genetically enhanced trees. In response to the COP-8 resolution, the United Nations Environment Programme is considering a global moratorium on the planting of genetically modified trees. UNEP is accepting comments on the proposed moratorium until September 1. Are GM trees a danger to the natural environment? Opponents claim that the potential effects of GM trees include the contamination of native forests, the destruction of biodiversity and wildlife, loss of fresh water, the collapse native forest ecosystems, and cultural destruction of forest based traditional communities and severe human health impacts. What biotech opponents mean by "contamination" is that GM trees could interbreed with conventional trees passing along their modified traits. That could happen, but is that a real threat to native forests? For example, one of the traits that biotechnologists have modified is boosting soft cellulose and reducing tough lignin fiber in wood. Such trees are easier to turn into paper and produce much less waste. However, trees with this bioengineered trait would have great difficulty surviving in the wild, so it is very unlikely to spread to native trees. Oregon State University forestry professor Steven Strauss dismisses activist concerns over GM trees somehow wiping out wild forests as "sheer nonsense." As for destroying biodiversity and wildlife, GM trees are much more likely to help than to harm. How? By boosting the productivity of tree plantations. Opponents dismiss tree plantations as "green deserts" devoid of the natural biodiversity of wild forests. Actually, tree plantations do harbor a lot of wild species, but even if they didn't they would still offer significant environmental benefits. Right now about one-third of the world's industrial wood comes from tree plantations and if it could all come from tree plantations that would dramatically relieve pressure to harvest natural forests. An Israeli biotech company claims to have been able to engineer eucalyptus trees that grow four times faster than conventional trees. The modified trees are being field tested by a major Brazilian forestry company. If it works, this means that more trees can be grown on less land....


Protecting the Environment Through the Ownership Society — Part One Subsidizing Disaster: Flood Insurance

When people own property and are fully responsible for losses due to their poor land use or development decisions, they are less likely to build or rebuild in areas regularly prone to flooding or erosion. This link — between a person's ownership of property and responsibility for their land-use decisions — disciplines people who use their property badly. Unfortunately, a host of government programs break this link by subsidizing unwise housing and commercial development decisions. All too often the result is lost lives, destroyed property and livelihoods, and environmental destruction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood control program, federal flood insurance and Corps beach replenishment projects subsidize construction in flood-prone areas, encourage high-risk development and harm environmentally sensitive areas. The federal government began assuming responsibility for flood control with the 1917 Flood Control Act, which called for a comprehensive flood control program for the lower Mississippi and Sacramento Rivers . Federal flood control efforts under the Corps have expanded ever since. In 1929, the private insurance industry abandoned coverage of flood losses. 69 And in 1934, federal disaster relief was made available to victims of all natural disasters, including floods — this relief has at various times included low-interest or no-interest loans and outright grants or gifts of money, housing, food, etc. The Flood Control Act of 1936 created the first truly national flood control program. It called for the construction of about 250 projects using funds for work relief. Funding for initial construction was set at $310 million and $10 million was appropriated to complete examinations and surveys. 70 The Act also addressed the growing desire to reduce flood damage by instructing the USDA to develop plans to reduce runoff from agriculture and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop engineering plans for downstream projects. By 1942, with the release of Gilbert F. White's Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States , 71 it was already becoming apparent that flood control efforts were exacerbating rather than reducing the human and economic toll from floods....