2009

People Make Earth Day Better

by Richard Morrison on April 21, 2009

This year, we at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are suggesting that those who will be celebrating Earth Day remember the challenges presented by living in the natural world, and the inspiring ways that human beings have worked to overcome them. This new perspective is celebrated in a short video titled “Humans Make Earth Day Better.”

While Earth Day has previously focused on traditional concerns like pollution and recycling, we think it’s also a perfect time to think about the challenges human beings themselves face around the world – like hunger, disease and poverty – and the many ways human ingenuity has helped drive them back.

Many thanks to CEI Studio Producer Drew Tidwell for his excellent work on the video.

Kids Know a Bucket of S**t When They See One

by Iain Murray on April 21, 2009

I’ve always been a fan of Lewis Black’s take on things, even when it’s obvious we disagree politically, but this take on the way TV networks are marketing Earth Day to kids is great whether you’re deep green or a free-market environmentalist. Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Back in Black – Kids’ Earth Day
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Economic Crisis Political Humor

Between the Headlines: “Russian Voting Tinged with Green”

by Fred Smith on April 20, 2009

“Russian Voting Tinged with Green”

This Washington Post headline from earlier this month illustrates one of worrisome side-effects of authoritarian rule.  Political freedom is denied the citizenry but the pressures to allow some form of dissent remain.  Religious dissent often is treated more liberally – and the eco-theocratic values of today are the dominant religion of our secular society.  The risk the Russians face is that in their effort to escape Red tyranny they may rush into the hands of the Greens.  That would be tragic — Virginia Postrel noted long ago that she preferred the old Reds to the new Greens.  Both restricted economic and individual freedom but, at least, the Reds aimed at helping humanity.  That goal is rarely given much priority by green zealots.

Even Greater Disbelief of Alarmists

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on April 20, 2009

Rasmussen has done another poll of registered voters about their views on global warming, just three months after a surprise revelation that more believe that natural causes drive climate than humans. Here are the findings reported Friday:

Climate change caused by planetary trends: 48%

Climate changed caused by human activity: 34%

Other reason: 7%

Aren’t sure: 11%

Compare that to responses reported on January 19:

Climate change caused by planetary trends: 44%

Climate changed caused by human activity: 41%

Other reason: 7%

Aren’t sure: 9%

So in the space of just three months, the percentage of those polled who believe humans drive climate change dropped seven percentage points from an already low 41 percent, while those who are confident that natural causes influence climate more increased by four percentage points.

If this represented an actual election it would be called a landslide of historic proportions. I mean really — only one-third of people believe humans are the chief cause of climate change?

Anyone ready to cave in to EPA, Waxman or the president on this issue ought to have his head examined.

Hat tip: Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.

Cooler Heads Digest 17 April 2009

by William Yeatman on April 20, 2009

In the News

Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars
Sam Kazman, 17 April 2009

Obama’s New Energy Tax Hits Louisiana the Hardest
William Yeatman, Alexandria Town Talk, 17 April 2009

Upset over Offsets
Iain Murray, DC Examiner, 16 April 2009

Sapping America’s Energy
Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2009

Green Energy Boondoggles
Chris Horner, Glen Beck Show, 14 April 2009

No, We Don’t Need 5 Planets
Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 15 April 2009

Beware the Geeks Calculating Climate Polices
Michael Barone, DC Examiner, 15 April 2009

Cap-and-Trade: Disaster Waiting To Happen
Terry Easton, Human Events, 14 April 2009

Where’s the Benefit?
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 14 April 2009

Don’t Trust Climate Conformity
Paul Sheehan, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April 2009

Green Jobs Myth
Iain Murray, The Independent, 12 April 2009

When the Inmates Are in Charge
Alan Caruba, Canadian Free Press, 12 April 2009

News You Can Use

It Could Happen Here

A new report from the Taxpayers’ Alliance says that every adult in Britain is paying $977 in “green” taxes.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

EPA Finally Pulls the Trigger on Endangerment Finding

Lisa M. Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, today officially found that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The finding will now be published in the Federal Register and be open for public comment. There have already been a number of reactions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

Jackson said several weeks ago that she would really rather not have to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions but instead have the Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation. That’s because even she recognizes that it will create more economic chaos than the public will tolerate. Which raises the question, why did she then make the finding? The most plausible answer is that it’s a way to pressure Congress. But is it really a plausible threat to say, if you don’t pass legislation that will wallop the economy, we’ll regulate it to death?

In EPA’s press release, Jackson said, “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.” Yes, EPA regulations can create millions of jobs by destroying tens of millions of others.  And we won’t need a lot of foreign oil when many tens of millions more can no longer afford to own a car.

Lots of Hearings for Energy Rationing Bill

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment has a heavy schedule of hearings next week on the draft Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade-and-the-kitchen-sink bill. The hearings haven’t been officially announced yet, but the schedule should appear on the committee’s web site soon. Expect a long line of witnesses testifying about how profitable they expect energy rationing will be for them. The subcommittee is planning to mark up the bill the week of April 26th.

Gore Hijinks

Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection has begun running radio ads in support of the Waxman-Markey bill to raise your energy costs. According to Tom LoBianco in the Washington Times, “The group has targeted moderate Democrats and Republicans, including Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California Republican; Rep. Gene Green, Texas Democrat; Rep. John Barrow, Georgia Democrat; and Rep. Baron P. Hill, Indiana Democrat.” They are all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Again to quote the Times’s story, “‘If we repower Ohio with clean energy, it will jump-start our economy, reduce carbon pollution, break our dependence on foreign oil and create 80,000 clean-energy jobs in new industries for Ohio workers,’ a narrator says in an ad airing in Ohio.” I suppose it will jump start someone’s economy as industries move abroad, but it isn’t going to be Ohio’s.

Post Profiles Climate Envoy

The Washington Post’s Style section on Tuesday the 14th published Juliet Eilperin’s flattering profile of the Obama Administration’s top climate negotiator, Todd Stern.  Stern is a lawyer who served as a White House adviser for many years in the Clinton Administration. Funny, but I don’t remember the Post ever running a similar puff piece on Stern’s outstanding predecessor, Dr. Harlan Watson, who was the Bush Administration’s climate negotiator for eight years.  But then I found this more negative story. Watson is now back working for Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, so Eilperin still has an opportunity to write an admiring profile of him.

Across the States

What’s the Matter with Kansas?

Two years ago, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) refused to permit the construction of two coal-fired power plants in the southwestern part of the State because she is alarmed by global warming. Her constituents clearly disagreed with her decision-the State Legislature has passed four bills to overturn Sebelius and allow the coal plants. Each time, however, the Governor vetoed the will of the people, most recently this week. President Barack Obama chose Sebelius to become the Secretary of Human Health and Services, and her likely confirmation by the United States Senate is soon expected. Unfortunately, Sebelius’s successor, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, has said that he will veto any bill that allows the construction of the plants.

Around the World

Deal or No Deal

Global warming alarmists long have held that developing countries such as China and India-which will account for the preponderance of future, global greenhouse gas emissions-will fight climate change once developed countries demonstrate “leadership” on global warming. Evidently, climate “leadership” is no longer sufficient. Environmental ministers from European Union member countries met this week and determined that a successor treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol is impossible unless developed countries pay $230 billion a year through 2020 to finance a global green energy revolution. EU Commissioner to the Environment Stavros Dimas told reporters, “No money, No deal.” No thanks, Commissioner Dimas.

Endangerment finding: Legislative Hammer or Suicide Note?

by Marlo Lewis on April 17, 2009

in Blog

The CO2 litigation campaign that begat Massachusetts v. EPA turns out to be too clever by half. As Roger Pielke, Jr. and Michael Shellenberger astutely observe, Team Obama’s threat to regulate greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act (CAA) unless Congress enacts cap-and-tax legislation is tantamount to a promise to commit political suicide. However costly cap-and-tax might be, litigation-driven CAA regulation of greenhouse gases is potentially far more damaging to the economy. Instead of being a hammer that beats opponents into submission, EPA’s forthcoming endangerment finding–the first step in regulating greenhouse gases under the CAA–should strengthen Congressional Republicans’ resolve to fight cap-and-tax. By doing so, they will ensure that Obama and his allies bear all the blame for raising consumer energy prices, destroying jobs, and de-stimulating the economy. For further discussion, see my post on MasterResource.Org.

More Signs of (the Alarmists’) Apocalypse

by Chris Horner on April 17, 2009

When an alarmist comes out to dismiss the erstwhile poster children, as I just saw in an article:

“‘When you come down to it, nobody really cares about what the global mean temperature is doing, or what the global mean sea level is,’ said Antonio Busalacchi, an oceanographer who chairs the WCRP.”

Oh. Right. Of course and…we knew that. So this must be the person who led the charge against throwing billions in taxpayer dollars at research on global mean temperature and sea level, and telling, e.g., Barack Obama to clam up about such piffles.

Nothing to see here..oooh, look over there!

The Liberal War on Science

by Hans Bader on April 15, 2009

in Blog

Christina Hoff Sommers writes about a looming liberal war on science. Based on a campaign promise Obama made to feminist groups in October 2008, Sommers foresees the Obama Administration moving to artificially cap male enrollment in math and science classes to achieve gender proportionality — the way that Title IX currently caps male participation in intercollegiate athletics. The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.

Critics have long argued that the Title IX cap is in tension with the Supreme Court’s warnings against proportional representation. In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court said that it is “completely unrealistic” to argue that women and minorities should be represented in each field or activity “in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)). In an earlier ruling, Justice O’Connor noted that it is “unrealistic to assume that unlawful discrimination is the sole cause of people failing to gravitate to jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance.” (See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co. (1988)).

But the Title IX athletics regulation mandates proportional representation. It contains three alternatives for compliance, but two of them are illusory in the long run. The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. I used to work at the agency, the Office for Civil Rights, that administers this regulation, and I think that it would be a mistake to apply standards designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.

But this is not an Administration that is very good with math and numbers. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office says it will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. His budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, and breaking his promises to enact a “net spending cut” and not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.

Some liberal publications are suspicious of scientific advances. The agronomist Norman Borlaug, who pioneered the Green Revolution, saved perhaps a billion lives in the Third World by developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops through biotechnology. For this, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Medal of Honor. For this, he was smeared in the liberal magazine The Nation, which has an irrational phobia of biotechnology and genetic engineering, as being “the biggest killer of all.”

Similarly, the Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg was demonized and investigated after accurately pointing out that global warming is less of a threat to human health than AIDS and malnutrition.

Devoted to Death

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on April 15, 2009

in Blog

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety earlier this week reported how smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles are less safe than larger vehicles, and my John Locke Foundation colleague Roy Cordato noted how well it fits the policy prescriptions of global warming alarmists:

I guess maybe that’s why the greens like these cars. Not only do they reduce atmospheric CO2 but they help cut down on the surplus population.

Lest you think that’s an exaggeration, just read for yourself about the population control (i.e., abortion) funding efforts of wealthy environmental activist foundations such as the Turner Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and others. Or you could read about it at the Acton Institute site.

It’s Not Just Income Tax

by Iain Murray on April 15, 2009

in Blog

Let’s not forget on this day that government has worked out a lot more ways to appropriate your money than income tax.  Sales Tax is the one we come across most often, but at least it’s out in the open and you see it being added to every purchase you make (an example of tax transparency not enjoyed by most of the world).  It is the hidden taxes – the “stealth taxes” – that are perhaps an even bigger problem.  When government taxes a particular activity, often at the source, so that costs are passed on to the end consumer – you and me – without us appreciating it, then government has acheived revenue without responsibility.

That is why “cap and trade,” the fashionable measure for imposing fees on emitters of greenhouse gases, is such an insidious idea.  Ostensibly, the fees would provide a ‘market-based’ incentive for emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  In practice, it would raise energy prices, as both President Obama and Rep. Henry Waxman (D. – Hollywood Millionaires) have admitted.  Thankfully, the vast majority of Senators have realized that cap-and-trade is a tax, which is why on April 1 they passed by the margin of 98-0 an amendment to the budget “To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation.”  That amendment essentially recognizes cap-and-trade as a stealth tax, one that Americans for Tax Reform have calculated as amounting to $3000 for each family.

So where does this leave us?  The EPA is announcing that they will hold a knife to the nation’s throat if this tax doesn’t get passed.  There’s responsible government for you!  The intelligent environmentalists at The Breakthrough Institute recognize the folly of this strategy, but, sad to say, intelligent voices in the environmentalist movement are very rarely listened to.

In the face of this assault of Green Taxes, there may be no alternative but to hold a Green Tea Party.  Watch this space.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →