By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
August 2004 ArchivesMore on Birds
Posted by Andrew Morriss · 31 August 2004 · Wildlife
Jonathan Adler's note on contraception for birds brings to mind the problem of mute swans, an invasive species doing serious harm to ecosystems such as the Chesapeake bay. Details here. Animal rights groups, however, have blocked action to control the swans - see a recent story here. One swan lover is quoted as saying ""To me, they've been here so long already — so what if they're not indigenous," she said. "You can't force them out now." " What's next - immigration amnesty for invasive species? Natural Contraception
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 31 August 2004 · Wildlife
Public financing of contraception is always a controversial subject. This is no less so when it's for the birds -- literally. Today's New York Times reports on efforts to put parakeets on the pill: In wildlife management there is no tougher public relations problem than a cute pest, which is partly why scientists and wildlife managers are showing increasing interest in a new, nonlethal means of animal control: contraception. The monks [a type of parakeet] have joined a variety of other species, some cuter than others, but all with passionate defenders, as a target for enforced infertility.Parakeets are not the only species subject to such efforts. Wildlife managers have also sought to use contraception to control populations of geese, deer and other "pest" species. Everywhere animals that people would rather not have in such large numbers are doing or have just done what Cole Porter's birds, bees and educated fleas are famous for. That's fine; it's the inevitable results that scientists are working on. Malthusian Malcontent
Posted by Iain Murray · 30 August 2004 · Environmental Alarmism
The greatest living Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, does not come out well from the New York Times' investigation of the 'demographic time bomb.' The Times correctly points out all the ways that mankind's technological and societal progress over the past thirty years have confounded population alarmism: AIDS and abortion are drops in the demographic bucket. The real missing billions are the babies who were simply never conceived. They weren't conceived because their would-be elder brothers and sisters survived, or because women's lives improved. In the rich West, Mom went to college and decided that putting three children through graduate school would be unaffordable. In the poor Eastern or Southern parts of the globe, Mom found a sweatshop job and didn't need a fourth or fifth child to fetch firewood. What is the prophet Ehrlich's response to all this? "I have severe doubts that we can support even two billion if they all live like citizens of the U.S.," he said. "The world can support a lot more vegetarian saints than Hummer-driving idiots."So in order to drive population down, we should move away from the "idiotic" pursuit of liberty and standards of living, which have been proven to drive population down, and instead return to a "saintly" agrarian lifestyle, which drives population up? The man truly is a genius. The Blind Leading the Blind
Posted by Max Borders · 27 August 2004 · International
The UN, in a rare moment of perspicacity, informed the North Koreans that they are facing devastating environmental problems. The nostrum recommended by the UN, however, was not a system of basic property rights and even a little capitalism. Instead, the UN said "farmers should expand use of restorative practices, including tree planting and use of organic fertilizers," according to the Associated Press. Amazing. When Kim Jong Il and Kofi Annan get together, anything is possible. More Kerry Mining Proposals
Posted by Andrew Morriss · 27 August 2004 · Federal Lands and Parks
Sen. Kerry is calling for charging royalties (which he claims will raise $600 million per year) rather than privatizing mineral resources as a means of funding national parks. His comments (from August 12) are reported here. The Kerry plan is flawed in (at least) three important respects: A Commons motto?
Posted by J. Bishop Grewell · 26 August 2004 · Sustainable Development
I took this photograph outside of Cooke City, Montana last year where mining reclamation was underway. I'm not sure that even Julian Simon could have written a better motto than the closing tagline. Mining Law Green Mythology Continues
Posted by Andrew Morriss · 25 August 2004 · Federal Programs
The Sept/Oct 2004 issue of Sierra continues the green attack on the General Mining Law of 1872, as part of the Kedwards attack on the Bush environmental record. Under the headline "The Bush administration resurrects laws from the 1800s," the article complains that the Administration has complied with the Mining Law's provisions and turned over land claimed under it. Together with coauthors, I critique the "giveaway" claim in Homesteading Rock: A Defense of Free Access Under the General Mining Law of 1872, available here. The Sierra critique makes even less sense than the usual green attacks on privatization of federal lands - the Bush Administration has no choice but to privatize land when applicants comply with the the law's requirements. There is no "resurrection" of a law going on here, simply compliance with a law that has resisted concerted attacks, most recently former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's questionable use of "midnight" regulations to make an end run around Congress at the end of the Clinton-Gore administration (see my critique (with the same coauthors) of that in the summer 2003 issue of the Administrative Law Review.) Global civilization threatened with collapse, says Ehrlich again
Posted by Max Borders · 25 August 2004 ·
Paul Ehrlich is at it again. After numerous defeats dealt him by better minds (e.g. Julian Simon), Paul Ehrlich is claiming – again – that civilization is on the verge of collapse. This time, he wants to put together a panel of academics to discuss this imminent catastrophe in earnest - and hopes to get our favorite world committee (the UN) to bankroll it! Our beloved Malthusian has set about organizing a conference called "MAHB," or Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior. In the company of scientists, social scientists, and philosopher kings, Ehrlich plans to figure out ways of making people more virtuous. While the thrust of the Ehrlich project is billed mostly as ethical navel-gazing, Ehrlich and Co. hope that Americans, for example, will “ask themselves whether their values are really leading to the sort of world they want for their descendents.” More than likely, he hopes his committee will get the kind of shrift garnered by the Copenhagen Consensus – a group of non-hacks and Nobel Laureates who have devoted considerable thought to solving the world’s most pressing problems (on a dime). But the, eh hem, best part of this article is from Ehrlich: Can we become moral entrepreneurs and persuade universities to retool themselves to become major forces in solving the human predicament? It would mean faculty adopting new values, and more often trying to do what is right for a broader community, rather than what is comfortable for those isolated from society in their ivory towers. Unhappily, in a world rapidly becoming more dangerous, they are organizations not accustomed to operate on 'Manhattan Project time... Interesting. Can the current academic elite become any more "morally retooled" than they already are? A Realistic View of Getting Back to Nature
Posted by Andrew Morriss · 25 August 2004 · Private Conservation
Wallace Kaufman’s book Coming Out of the Woods (Perseus 2000) is a realistic account of attempts to preserve some rural land in the US south through the use of covenants. It is completely without the romanticism evident in the column by George Monbiot posted by Iain yesterday. Kaufman wrestles with a lot of down-and-dirty issues in trying preserve his land and is honest and open about his failures as well as his successes. You can order Kaufman's book through Amazon. My review of it, along with other private conservation literature, will eventually be out in a symposium on private conservation in the Natural Resources Journal, whose home page is here. I'll post about that again when it is available. Mercurial Reporting
Posted by Iain Murray · 25 August 2004 · Environmental Alarmism
~Environmental Risk
~Pollution
~Wildlife
Reaction to an EPA announcement on mercury and river fish yesterday, exemplified by USA Today's lead story today, Warnings on river, lake fish jump (note that the print headline is different from the more circumspect web headline), could reasonably be described as alarmist. Take the first paragraph in the USA Today story, for example: One third of the nation's lake waters and one-quarter of its riverways are contaminated with mercury and other pollutants that could cause health problems for children and pregnant women who eat too much fish, the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday(Emphasis added). As the story notes, the warnings are not about fish in general but about fish caught from those particular lakes and rivers. Nowhere in the story is it estimated how many women eat so much river-caught trout that they may be at risk. Moreover, as the story intimates, the "jump" in the headline is probably an artifact of increased reporting in two states. The EPA fact sheet (PDF link) says quite clearly (p.4): In 2003, the geographic extent of the states under advisory for mercury was 13,068,990 lake acres and 766,872 river miles. The increase in acres and river miles under advisory is a result of the issuance of statewide mercury advisories by Montana and Washington in 2003 and the addition of rivers to Wisconsin’s statewide advisory.All of which makes this statement from the Sierra Club outright misleading: Today the Environmental Protection Agency announced in its 2003 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories that 766,872 miles of America's rivers and 13,068,990 lake acres are contaminated with so much poisonous mercury that the fish aren't safe to eat -- that is a more than 60 percent increase for river miles and an eight percent increase for lake acres since the 2002 report.Mercury emissions in the US for which humans are responsible dropped from about 375 tons per year in 1989 to 117 tons per year in 1999*. Moreover, the EPA's health warnings themselves are based on studies from the Faroe Islands which inadequately controlled for the Islanders' diet, which contained a fair proportion of whale meat. A useful discussion of the science underlying EPA's guidelines on mercury and health is available here (PDF link). The actual basis for the alarmist reaction is flimsy, to say the least. UPDATE: Environmentalist blogger JLowe agrees that the Sierra Club reaction is inappropriate. * Corrected from earlier numbers. Reverting to Nature
Posted by Iain Murray · 24 August 2004 · Environmental Alarmism
Reactionary environmentalist George Monbiot has declared that industrial civilization is over. Growth is no longer possible, so the Age of Entropy is here. Actually, it sounds more like the Age of Aquarius; Monbiot urges us all to live like some hippies he's befriended who live in a pre-industrial revolution state in Somerset, England. No word on what happens when the hippies fall ill; if they treat themselves with 18th century medicine I'll be impressed by their devotion to their cause, if nothing else. I wonder if George will now give up his computer and hand-write all his essays with quill pen before sending them to the Guardian by pigeon-post? I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with working out ways to extract the massive remaining reserves of oil in a cost/effective manner while developing new energy technologies without being told which ones are best by government. Energy Independence Foolishness
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 24 August 2004 · Energy
The Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor dissects John Kerry's silly push for "energy independence" on NRO. Russia as the Kyoto Linchpin
Posted by Max Borders · 23 August 2004 · Climate
Our own Jonathan Adler has written a strong piece about the significance of Russia to the fate of Kyoto. Implicit in this story is the reality of the nation's opportunity costs... In other words, if Russia were to hobble its economy to meet Kyoto targets, it would have less to spend on other local and regional environmental problems that have continued to linger since the collapse of the USSR. The Europeans et al seem to be blind to the contradiction: that is, coaxing Russia to join Kyoto by teasing it with EU Superstatists' aspirations (read: trade concessions with Europe) only hamstrings the nation as it tries to distance itself from its socialist past and fully embrace a market system. Mother Russia, while growing, is not yet on the downslide of her Kuznets curve - so she can ill-afford the luxuries of global treaties with only nominal environmental effects. Adler makes a point of saying that perhaps Russia and other developing nations will do better to get richer, so they can afford to adopt newer, cleaner technologies across the board. As FMEs are fond of saying: "wealthier is healthier." But it bears repeating, as the mantra doesn't seem to have broken out of the Commons enclave. Extreme Weather & Global Warming
Posted by Amy Ridenour · 20 August 2004 · Climate
Iain has a good post on extreme weather events, below. Back in 1998, my husband David wrote a paper for The National Center for Public Policy Research on this topic. Titled Don't Like the Weather? Don't Blame it on Global Warming, the paper examined charges that mid-90s forest fires, heat waves, blizzards and hurricanes were indicators of global warming. Because the paper reviews a century's worth of trends on these extreme weather events, it remains one of the most popular downloads on the National Center's website even now, six years later. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the topic. Alliance to Clean American Fork
The federal Superfund program often discourages private cleanups of hazardous waste and chemical contamination. Yesterday, the New York Times reported on an alliance between Trout Unlimited, the Snowbird ski resort, and Tiffany & Company to clean up acidic mine runoff at American Fork Canyon in Utah. The U.S. Forest Service is also involved, largely because some of the contamination is on federal land. It's an interesting story about a largely private effort to address a neglected environmental concern. Eminent Domain Debate:
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 18 August 2004 · Urban Planning and Sprawl
As I noted here, the Michigan Supreme Court recently overturned the infamous Poletown decision in Wayne v. Hathcock. While most free-market types see this case as an important victgory for property rights, not everyone agrees. Extreme Weather the Norm
Posted by Iain Murray · 18 August 2004 ·
Flash floods in the UK and hurricanes in the US are being blamed on global warming. Spiked's Brendan O'Neill provides a useful reality check: Dr Mark Saunders, a weather expert at University College London (UCL), says we need to cool down. 'I don't think the weather we have seen is particularly unusual, to be honest. Somewhere in the world you will always get extreme weather events - whether it's a storm, a flood, or a drought. There are always people being affected by extreme weather. There is no study to my knowledge which shows that more people are being affected now, or that more people will be affected by freak weather this year than in previous years.'And what about the global warming allegations? Saunders has little time for those who argue that today's extreme weather is caused by global warming - a claim which has been made, not only by green-minded columnists, but in news reports, in passing, as if it were established fact. 'Global warming is definitely a real thing. But I disagree with the claims that global warming is all going to be doom and gloom, and in particular that extreme weather events are going to become more common.' He points out that in 2002, 'severe floods were attributed to global warming; then in 2003 hot and dry summer weather, the opposite of 2002, was attributed to global warming; now torrential rain, the opposite of 2003, is attributed to global warming. It seems that any anomalous weather can be blamed on global warming'. O'Neill surmises that the "silly season," when not much is happening in the world beyond sport and weather, is probably combining with a culture increasingly afraid of any risk to result in such stories. This theory has a lot to commend it; after all, they don't have shark attacks in the UK. Samuelson on State AGs' Warming Suit
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 17 August 2004 · Climate
Newsweek's Robert Samuelson critiques the state Attorneys General nuisance suit against utilities for emitting greenhouse gases. For more Commons Blog commentary on this litigation, see here and here. Days of Wine and Roses Over?
On a day when the Union of Concerned Scientists makes headlines with a study on Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California that predicts harm to the California wine industry, the Hoover Institute's Henry Miller points out a much more direct threat to the wine industry there: execessive regulation. An infestation of Pierce's disease threatens severe damage to the state's vines: "Counting only grapes, the disease now threatens a crop production value of $3.2 billion and associated economic activity in excess of $33 billion. Other crop and ornamental plant resources such as almonds ($897 million) and susceptible species of citrus ($1.07 billion), stone fruits ($905 million), and shade trees are also at risk."The best answer is to introduce genetic resistance by gene-splicing. But, no: The EPA discriminates against gene-spliced varieties, by regulating even more stringently than chemical pesticides any plant that has been modified with gene-splicing techniques to enhance its pest- or disease-resistance. This policy, which has been attacked repeatedly by the scientific community as unscientific and irrational, has badly damaged agricultural research and development. It flouts the widespread scientific consensus that gene-splicing is more precise, circumscribed and predictable than other techniques. New gene-spliced varieties can not only increase yields, make better use of existing farmland and conserve water, but -- especially for grains and nuts -- are a potential boon to public health, because the harvest will have lower levels of contamination with toxic fungi and insect parts than conventional varieties. Moreover, by reducing the need for spraying crops with chemical pesticides, they are environmentally and occupationally friendly. If we want to save the California wine industry, rescinding those EPA regulations would be a good start. It'd be easier than trying to change the weather. Save the Whales or Own Them?
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 17 August 2004 · Oceans
The New York Times reports on a renewed debate over whaling. Whale conservation efforts have been sufficiently successful that many whale populations are no longer endangered. This means that whaling could resume for some species without any threat of driving them to extinction. Nonetheless, many groups oppose the resumption of whaling. Whereas once the anti-whaling movement was motivated by a concern with extinction, now environmental and animal welfare organizations argue that killing whales, which are highly evolved and reasonably intelligent mammals, would be immoral. Smart Sprawl
Posted by Iain Murray · 17 August 2004 · Urban Planning and Sprawl
Some interesting data from urban planning expert Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt of the Heritage Foundation in The Costs of Sprawl Reconsidered: What the Data Really Show. The analysis was spurred by the cost arguments of the 'Smart Growth" movement. As they summarize, Much of the justification for the current campaign against the low-density (sprawling) urban development that Americans and Western Europeans1 prefer is based upon assumptions that it is more costly than the more dense development of central cities. The analysts therefore take a good hard look at the data that have been used to advance the argument that "uncontrolled growth" will cost about $227.4 billion between 2000 and 2025 (about $9.1 billion gross annually). Read More » Gore on Gelbspan
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 15 August 2004 · Climate
In today's New York Times Book Review section, Al Gore reviews Boiling Point by climate alarmist Ross Gelbspan. Gore cottons to the book's thesis that a sinister cabal is distorting climate science and frustrating sound global warming policies. Andrew Stuttaford comments on the review here. Read More » Mont Pelerin 2004
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 15 August 2004 ·
Monday I am presenting a paper on environmental federalism at the 2004 meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society. The paper, based on my prior work in the area, offers a revisionist account of the causes and consequences of environmental centralization. Also on my panel, Parth Shah will be presenting a paper on Communities and Markets in Natural Resource Management. Wealthier is Healthier
Posted by J. Bishop Grewell · 14 August 2004 · Poverty and Hunger
As many readers of this site are probably aware, wealth tends to lead to better environmental and human health, i.e. wealthier is healthier. But how many knew, as the BBC reports, that if African-Americans in the United States were their own country, they would rank 11th in the world in GNP? Considering the relative fraction of the population they represent, that is astounding. Global Warming Lawsuits -- AGs Ignore Science, Constitution
Posted by Amy Ridenour · 14 August 2004 · Climate
The Providence Journal was kind enough to publish an op-ed I wrote. It addresses the eight state attorneys general who are attempting to run a coup on Congress by taking over our national global warming policy. Rhode Island's AG is one of the offenders. Addendum: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has now printed it as well. Wisconsin's AG also is one of the eight. The paper also printed an opposing view in favor of legislation by litigation by John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. Tragedy of the Common Fisheries Policy
The blatantly protectionist Common Agricultural Policy is well-known as one of the worst things the European Union does, preventing developing nations from selling agricultural products in a competitive European market. Less well known is the disaster that is the Common Fisheries Policy. Euroskeptic commentator Richard North, who I believe has worked closely with the dying British fising industry, examines the problems in this post at his EU Referendum blog. He notes a publicity stunt by Greenpeace, which arranged for delivery of a load of dead marine life: This was the by-catch from a two-hour trawl on the Dogger Bank, and comprised 11,000 dead or dying marine species. It included a variety of flatfish, small cod, mackerel, sole, Norway lobster, edible crab and starfish. North goes on to point out that there are some exclusion zones in the North Sea, notably around oil and gas installations. These in part may account for the fact that certain species, like haddock, are at a thirty-year high, and that fishermen are taking record catches of large cod, despite scientists' claims that the stock is near exhaustion.Finally, North notes that, under the proposed EU Constitution, conservation of fish stocks will become the responsibility of the EU itself, and not of member governments. Given the "depradations" of the CFP, this is unlikely to be good for marine life. A Tidal Wave of Alarmism
Posted by Iain Murray · 13 August 2004 · Environmental Alarmism
The media watchdog STATS takes a good hard look at the reality behind the hype surrounding the supposed threat to Europe and the East Coast from the collapse of part of one of the Canary Islands. This formed one of the threats referred to in the article Jonathan Adler commented on below. As STATS found, referencing one of the world's leading tsunami experts, fears of Deep Impact-style tidal waves are irresponsible exaggerations: Specifically, the shorter period and wave amplitudes in his model, result in significant wave height attenuation with distance - to less than one-third of the shallow water amplitudes. The upper limit of his modeling study shows that the East Coast of the U.S. and the Caribbean would receive waves less than 3 meters high. The European and African coasts would have waves less than 10 meters high. However, full Navier-Stokes modeling of the same La Palma failure, brings the maximum expected tsunami wave amplitude off the U.S. east coast to about one meter.[Emphasis added.] If this is the measure of the threat, a good pair of Wellington boots would protect even beachfront property. A New Threat to Water
Posted by Tom Tanton · 12 August 2004 · Private Conservation
Residents of a tiny former gold mining town of La Grange, who have fought for three years to protect their water rights held since the goldrush, are bracing for a hike that could exceed a hundredfold. The fading town of 67 households may be forced to pay water treatment costs for the first time under a judge's recent ruling and lose their water rights altogether. The details can be read in the LA Times.
This move poses a threat especially to conservationists. The concept of rights in pepetuity are central to many of the more successful conservation efforts, where individuals and groups band together and purchase land to protect significant eco-systems--but if 'in perpetuity' no longer means 'for ever' those conservation efforts become temporary at best.
The Absurdity of Giving Federal Green to Greens
Posted by Max Borders · 12 August 2004 ·
No matter what you think about the Bush administration and its environmental policies, this study by David Healy at CRC should be disconcerting - maybe even a little perplexing. Here's the long and short of it: the federal gov't takes tax dollars from the US taxpayer, and then gives it to environmental organizations as part of federal subsidy programs meant to aid in Green efforts. The figureheads of those self-same organizations use the subsidies to propagate anti-Administration rhetoric – especially with respect to the Administration’s environmental policies (read: EPA and Interior). Therefore, taxpayers via the Administration are being forced to fund Green propaganda. This is a vicious, vicious circle for all parties involved (except, of course, environmental groups who are content in their role as rent-seekers). The moral? The federal government should get out of the business of subsidizing NGOs, much like it should get out of the business of subsidizing NPR and PBS. Nemo is Safe (from global warming at least)
Posted by Iain Murray · 12 August 2004 ·
As Nature magazine is publishing this week, global warming is not the threat to coral reefs people have thought. It seems that 'bleaching' caused by the deaths of algae in reponse to higher temperatures is temporary, because the corals combine with hardier algae to form a new symbiotic relationship. "Corals have a cunning ability to adapt to events because they're flexible in their associations," says Andrew Baker of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, one of the researchers who made the discovery. "This shows that the more dramatic predictions of coral-reef doom are simplistic."With this worry out of the way, perhaps we can turn to the real environmental issues surrounding reefs, rather than the illusory ones: Corals are still threatened by factors such as water pollution and damage caused by fishing. But most of these factors are easier to reverse than climate change, Baker points out, especially if conservation efforts are spurred on by the idea that corals are not doomed by global warming.In other words, rather than trying to change the weather, we should be pursuing "no regrets" policies that will protect the environment regardless of whether global warming happens or not. If global warming alarmism prevents that happening, then the alarmism itself is a genuine threat to the environment. Unsettling Science
Posted by Iain Murray · 12 August 2004 ·
Anyone who reads the weekly magazine of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change will be well aware that there are scientific articles published in the peer-reviewed journals on a regular basis that raise serious questions about the alarmist view on global warming. Now, however, three significant articles in the peer-reviewed press knock the legs out from under greenhouse theory itself. As three of the authors, Michaels, Singer and Douglass, explain in their non-technical summary on TCS, Settling Global Warming Science, this is a "triple whammy": This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the UN's climate models have failed, as well as indicating that its surface record is simply too hot. I would not go as far as the authors to declare, "The "skeptics" - the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end - have won," as no science is ever that settled (did Newtonian physics "win"?), but these papers demonstrate clearly that there are significant scientific problems with global climate models, never mind the already well-established economic ones. A Responsible Approach to Climate Change
Posted by Pete Geddes · 10 August 2004 · Climate
We protect the environment because we care about clean air and preserving other species, not mainly for financial reasons. But we also value inexpensive supplies of power and fast and convenient transportation. All interesting and important policy questions involve choosing among competing values. Consider climate change. How does human action influence future climates? How willing are we to give up inexpensive fossil fuel energy? Does climate change demand drastic and dramatic action now? If so, at what cost? However well intended, it is naïve and irresponsible to ignore the unavoidable trade-offs. Read More » Mining the Parks
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 10 August 2004 · Federal Lands and Parks
In reference to Randal O'Toole's comment below, I have two thoughts: Politicizing Asthma
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 10 August 2004 · Air Quality
Historically it was believed ambient air pollution causes asthma. Yet as air pollution in major cities has declined over the last few decades, asthma rates have continued a dramatic climb. While high smog levels can increase the number of asthma attacks -- that is, the experience of symptoms by those who already have asthma -- the claim that ambient air pollution causes asthma is a non-starter. (As I understand it, though, the jury is still out on whether some common components of indoor air pollution play a role.) Despite these facts, Senator Kerry and some of his supporters want to blame President Bush for the asthma epidemic. This is absurd, as is Kerry's claim that he will end the epidemic as President. NR editor Rich Lowry discusses this issue further in his latest column. The K Word
Posted by Iain Murray · 10 August 2004 · Climate
My latest Tech Central Station column, Finding the Truth about Kyoto in a Lie by Bill Clinton, looks at how both sides in the upcoming Presidential election seem confused over their stance towards the Kyoto treaty. UPDATE: Meanwhile, in another piece over on National Review Online, my colleague Zack Klein and I look at the measured conclusion of three Nobel Laureate economists and some of their peers in the analysis game that the measures suggested to combat global warming, including Kyoto, represent very bad value for money. Mining the National Parks
Posted by Randal O'Toole · 10 August 2004 · Federal Lands and Parks
John Kerry says he wants to increase the Park Service budget by $600 million per year funded by "updating" the 1872 Mining Act. Just think of the incentives: Park Service officials will lobby hard for more mining on federal lands in order to increase their own budgets. Aside from debate over the mining laws, the real problem with Kerry's proposal is that he thinks the national parks need more money. He obviously doesn't know that half the Park Service budget goes into administrative overhead. Kerry points to a "$4.9 billion maintenance backlog (that) has grown to $6.8 billion." He obviously doesn't know that a huge portion of this "backlog" consists of employee housing. Why should the Park Service provide housing to employees when every park in the lower 48 states (not to mention Hawaii and most in Alaska) are within easy driving distance of private housing? The Park Service is a classic example of the failure of socialized housing. The agency typically spends twice as much on construction and reconstruction as any private owner would pay, again partly because a huge percentage of the agency's "construction" budget is siphoned off into administrative overhead. Unfortunately, Gale Norton defends the Bush Administration's record by pointing out that the Park Service has increased its budget by 20 percent since 2001. When are we going to stop measuring the success of bureaucracies by the growth of their budgets? Sorry, Secretary Norton. No, thanks, Senator Kerry. The parks are better off with less money, not more. Timber Trade-Offs
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 9 August 2004 · Forests
Today's New York Times reports on how the President's timber road proposal is playing in Idaho. Of particular interest, the story notes some of the trade-offs between national and more local control of timber harvesting decisions. I particularly like the discussion of elk habitat. Not surprisingly, the debate over the welfare of the elk tends to break along the same lines as the old logging arguments. The Bitterroot and Clearwater mountains originally combined old trees, which sheltered elk in the winter, and fire-cleared open space, where they foraged for willow, bear grass and other shrubs. Logging, mill owners say, promotes the growth of essential forage. Older trees, environmental groups say, provide essential shelter.They're both right. To me, that's just another reason to have more local control of forestry decisions, as this will tend to result in greater diversity of land-use decisions than leaving such decision in the hands of the federal government. Nature Is "Mankind's Gravest Threat"
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 9 August 2004 · Precautionary Principle
The BBC reports that British researchers claim that gargantuan natural disasters are a greater threat than international terrorism and deserve more attention from policy-makers. One of the reported threats comes from asteroids. This prompts me to wonder: Do all those who support precipitous government action to address various environmental threats out of "precaution" also support the development of defensive systems to prevent an asteroid from hitting the earth? World Harm Organization?
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 9 August 2004 · International
TCS' Nick Schulz takes a close look at recent actions by the World Health Organization, and the results aren't pretty. Overstating Asbestos Harms
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 8 August 2004 · Environmental Risk
"Most asbestos lawsuits in the United States are being brought by claimants who are probably not sick," according to a new study, Nature reports. According to the study, expert witnesses in asbestos cases are vastly overstating the extent of alleged asbestos-related harms. |