December 2004 Archives

Britain's own Tony Blair writes that 2005 will be 'A year of challenges' in the 31 December edition of The Economist, an article about Britain's upcoming leadership of the G8. The story features a nice picture of the Prime Minister in front of subsistence farmers in Africa.

Indeed, Blair's two key causes for the G8 will be Africa and climate change. Without action to control emissions into the earth's climate, he says that it is Africa which will suffer most.

Some analysts, such as Copenhagen Consensus architect Bjorn Lomborg, have argued that the world must prioritize its scarce resources to help people of today - not people in 100 years - and the causes of Africa's problems are much more fundamental than the earth's climate.

Blair directly criticizes this idea - saying that it is flawed because "Without a stable climate, addressing other environmental threats will be impossible, ensuring a future of more degraded water and land". (Perhaps this is because Blair's own cabinet advisors and colleagues in 'humanitarian' British NGOs fail to understand the underlying causes of degraded water and land.)

Blair also provides a rather flaky justification -- "I have never believed that simple discounting can be an adequate tool for potentially catastrophic outcomes 50 or more years ahead" -- for rejecting Lomborg's rationale that policies which have costs today, and in the case of Kyoto, potentially few benefits in 50 or 100 years, are not a good investment for humanity.

Physicist Gerald Marsh, who kindly advises The National Center on science issues, has a letter in the December 29 Financial Times:

Sir, While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of "political correctness" ("The price of carbon emissions," December 27).

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for life - the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it plants could not grow and all animal life would die. In no way is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is misleading.

Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is a political statement, not a scientific one. Behind the politics is the claim that the small observed global warming trend is due to the burning of fossil fuels rather than being of natural origin.

Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded. We do not yet understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels.

The earth has been warming erratically for 10,000 years. That has been good, up to now, because it is what made the non-equatorial latitudes habitable. We can expect that warming trend to continue, no matter what we do about carbon dioxide.

Gerald E. Marsh, Chicago, IL 60615, US

In three weeks' time, UN bureaucrats and NGOs will gather in Kobe, Japan, for a meeting on disaster reduction. They will undertake a 10-year review of a lofty-sounding 'framework' called the "Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World", created in 1994.

So far (and unless amended in light of this week's Asian tsunami tragedy), the meeting's agenda is highly self-referential; little if any discussion is planned of policies that might actually help poor countries to better cope with disasters. Though specific disaster policies are in order, many policies that enable people to best cope with disasters are those which empower people: property rights, effective legal systems to uphold property rights and contracts, and other institutions -- combined with good governance -- that are fundamentally lacking in most poor countries. The UN would do well to consider their role, instead of undertaking another talkfest.

Following this week's tragic Asian earthquake and tsunami, the Independent - one of the UK's newspapers spun this into a story about climate change and the various natural disasters of 2004, where one of Britain's leading environmental activists is quoted as saying that ""Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions".

Whatever the original intention of this quote, the way it is written suggests an immoral attitude towards those struck by the tsunami, and indeed other disasters. Likewise, the idea that emissions controls might help anyone to cope with natural disasters, or prevent them, is preposterous, as I write today in the Wall Street Journal Asia.

The NYT reports on Venezuela's effort to encourage macaw conservation through commerce. Some Marao villagers have earned the right to harvest, breed and sell macaws. The idea is to increase the standard of living for Warao, as well as to create an economic incentive to conserve macaws. This is a surprisingly market-oriented policy for the increasingly communistic Venezuelan government.

I've written more on the importance of conservation through commerce here.

In Grist's speculation on the next EPA head, Chairman of the CEQ Jim Connaughton's name is mentioned. I think Connaughton would make a great head of EPA, but I have my doubts that the Administration will pick him. I think Bush is happy to have Connaughton where he has him, bringing the top conservative thinking on environmental issues into the Administration's policy advocacy. Having Connaughton free to speak on various issues and to help formulate the policies may be an asset that the Administration doesn't wish to lose to the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EPA.

The two dozen staff members of CEQ are a lot easier to manage and more flexible in switching policy direction than the thousands of bureaucrats housed by the EPA. That is why I look for Bush to appoint another bureaucratic manager like he did with Leavitt and Whitman. This reasoning is also why I have suggested Marc Racicot might get the job. But I won't be complaining if Grist is right and I am wrong.

Meanwhile, members of the New Jersey delegation are calling for Bush to appoint an environmental advocate to head the EPA. Environmental advocate is pretty ambiguous language that will allow them to criticize whoever is appointed.

The Valley Morning Star thinks individual fishing quotas might be a solution for the crab harvest in the San Francisco Bay. IFQs are among the many ocean policies under consideration by the Bush Administration's new Ocean Policy Committee.

For those who feel to guilty to cut down an evergreen for their family's Christmas tree, MSNBC reports on the Original Living Christmas Tree Company. The Oregon-based firm rents living trees. After the holidays, the trees are sold to schools, parks, and other institutions that wish to have the trees planted on their property.

Hybrid buses do not deliver the promised gains in fuel economy, according to this report, titled "'Magic' Fuel-Saving Buses Fall a Bit Short on Wonders." Yet if one reads past the headlines, it seems that many officials at transit agencies operating hybrid buses are pleased with the results, especially the emission reductions.

Yesterday the Bush Administration finalized new regulations governing forest management. According to an official USFS release:

For the first time, an Environmental Management System (EMS) will be used during the planning process to improve performance and accountability. The rule establishes a dynamic process to account for changing forest conditions, emphasizes science and public involvement, and ultimately will help local forest managers provide future generations with healthier forests, cleaner air and water, and more abundant wildlife while sustaining a variety of forest uses.

Forest Service officials said the rules were intended to give local foresters more flexibility to respond to scientific advances and threats like intensifying wildfires and invasive species. They say the regulations will also speed up decisions, ending what some public and private foresters see as a legal and regulatory gridlock that has delayed forest plans for years because of litigation and requirements for time-consuming studies.

Daniel Ben-Ami takes on environmental economics with a vengeance:

One of the most striking but least noticed aspects of the rise of environmentalism is the way that it has helped to redefine economics. Economic production and consumption are viewed in a fundamentally different way than they were before environmentalism became central to the dominant worldview. . . .

This development isn't just important at the level of ideas. A gloomy view of economic development plays an important role in holding back human potential. At its starkest, the acceptance of the idea that economic growth has to be curtailed is a tragedy in a world where billions of people still live in dire poverty. . . .

There is environmentalist confusion between the mastery over nature and the destruction of nature. Control over nature means reshaping the natural world to meet human needs - for example, developing medicines to fight against disease or building dams to prevent flooding or generate electricity. This is not the same as destroying rain forests or making animal species extinct. . . .

Nature has sometimes been destroyed as a side-effect of economic growth. But the aim of economic development is to benefit humanity rather than to destroy the natural world. It is important to remember that richer societies are in a much stronger position to create a positive environment for human beings than poor ones.

The remainder of this essay will examine the key tenets of environmentalist economics in more detail. It will argue that, in addition to being undesirable, the environmentalist worldview is based on fatally flawed assumptions.

The Commons Blog's own Iain Murray reviews Michael Crichton's State of Fear. For more Commons commentary on the book, see here and here. The folks at Grist have a less charitable view.

Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker and polymath Judge Richard Posner comment on climate change policy on The Becker-Posner Blog. In short, Judge Posner supports Kyoto due to the risk of catastrophic climate change, Becker does not. While Becker agrees that "it is prudent to take actions to reduce the build-up of carbon gases in the atmosphere," he is skeptical about many government policies, including subsidies for less carbon-intensive fuels, and suggests that Judge Posner's own work on catastrophic risks suggests that climatic change may be the least of our worries.

The Council on Environmental Quality has a new website up dealing with the Administration's ocean policy.

Grist's Muckraker speculates here, and The Commons Blog's own J. Bishop Grewell adds his thoughts below.

That's what Gristmill's Dave Roberts calls this -- and I would have to agree. Roberts and I may not agree on much, but this is certainly one. Sustainablog was initially inclined to call it "inspiring," but now sees it as quite "disturbing."

A press release at the closure of COP-10 - explains that while the aim of the Framework Convention on Climate Change is to protect humanity from 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system', the policies it pursues to do so must be done in a manner that is cost effective.

It is clear that the Kyoto Protocol is not a cost-effective policy to address climate change -- it will harm everyone (not just the wealthy) yet provides a negligible effect on the earth's climate. Such policies would make humanity even more vulnerable to problems which do result in the future - whether they are caused by climate change, or some other unforseen cause.

No, this is not about Al Gore.

As in all other climate conferences, the major environmental pressure groups are making their presence felt here. Friends of the Earth International (FoE) is pushing bans on genetically modified trees, promotion of hydroelectric projects by international bodies like the U.N., and climate change litigation against business and governments.

FoE are pursuing these efforts through various coalitions. It is pushing the GM tree ban alongside the World Rainforest Movement. Especially significant for the United States, however, is FoE´s efforts on behalf of climate change litigation, which it is promoting in conjunction with fellow environmentalist giants Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace. The three groups are sponsoring an event--to occur minutes from now--featuring Ken Alex from the California State Attorney General´s office. The event announcement states that the speakers, "will explain the recent legal actions around the world against governments and companies, highlighting their scientific backing, and warning that there will be more to come unless deep cuts are made in emissions are victims are compensated."

Tonight, WWF also co-hosts a reception on "Bringing Climate Change Home - How People Witness Climate Change," at which "WWF will thank our Climate Witnesses from Nepal, India, Fiji, and Argentina, for their willingness to come to COP 10 and for their hard work in testifying about the impacts of climate change on their communities." The event will feature "cultural perfomances," which "will be supported with films and statements."

So global warming is now a crime for which there are culprits and victims and that occurs within a short period of time with immediately observable effects?

CEI's Myron Ebell, Chris Horner and Ivan Osorio (a native Spanish speaker) are currently braving the crowd in Buenos Aires. Myron and Ivan are sending back regular updates. Here's Ivan's first:

Wednesday, December 15.

Ironically the COP 10 meeting is being held at the Argentine Rural Society (La Rural, for short), an agriculture promotion body. Next to the convention hall is an amphitheater that looks like it could be used for equestrian or cattle shows. When we first got to La Rural, which is quite huge, I asked a police officer where we could find the entrance. He directd us to look for "the arc that says Greenpeace." Word had it that Myron was being denounced at various events by leftist environmentalists.

Myron and I arrived in Buenos Aires on Sunday, December 12, after some travel delays and searching for lost luggage. That night, I appeared on the Armando Ribas show, a live hour of weekly political commentary. I focused on the fact that many of the biggest country supporters of Kyoto--mainly Europe--are projected to decline in population, while developing countries´ population is projected to expand. Greater population means greater energy demand. Thus, Kyoto, by leading to energy rationing, would be a disaster for the developing world.

On Monday, we attended Bjorn Lomborg´s Copenhagen Consensus talk, which was happily not disrupted by environmental radicals.

Tuesday Myron and I spoke at a forum at Fundacion Atlas. We got a large crowd, most of whom stayed through what turned out to be a fairly long event. Myron made a concise presentation on the bad science beind Kyoto, while I concluded with the economic argument against it, once again citing population. The event was in Spanish; and I translated for Myron.

On Wednesday, we participated in a lunch discussion with local media, academic, and business leaders, also arranged by Fundacion Atlas, to whom we owe a great deal of thanks.

Today, I attempted to attend an open event on "French action on climate change," but found no translation facilities for non-French speakers.

Dennis Kucinich is speaking right now at a press conference open to press only.

The Greenpeace arc is still out in front of the convention center.

At the event to publicize a report on the impact of global warming on the Arctic, and the Inuit people specifically, the following remarkable assertion was made by Dr. Robert Corell of the U.S. It seems that the Inuits, who he says have lived a subsistence lifestyle (that's a good thing?) just as their ancestors have done for 9000 years, and now have that cold, hand-to-mouth bliss threatened by global warming. Apparently their snowmobiles are falling through the ice. On Wednesday night more of these usual suspects are unveiling their human rights complaint against the U.S. "for causing global warming", on behalf of Inuit peoples. They might want to rehearse a little more.

Neil Pierce, a pro-smart-growth writer, worries that Oregon's passage of measure 37 could "blow a hole in the side of the nation's surging smart-growth movement." Measure 37, of course, requires state or local governments to compensate landowners whose property values have been reduced by land-use regulation.

Pierce has "visions of residential subdivisions starting to sweep across the rural Willamette Valley, of Cascade Mountain vistas spoiled by an eruption of Burger Kings and Wal-Marts, of pear orchards sprouting crops of McMansions." This is just the type of fear-mongering that land-use activists have always used. In fact:
* A study commissioned by a smart-growth group concluded that, without land-use planning, urbanization would cover only 1 percent of the Willamette Valley that wouldn't otherwise be developed.
* Almost all of the Cascade Mountains are owned by the federal government.
* Pear (and other fruit) orchards probably cover more land than all the cities and towns in Oregon, so are not in any danger of development.

Pierce repeats claims of land-use proponents that measure 37 was somehow deceptively written to make it appear innocuous. Says one, "The problem is that what it means is insidious." The only insidious part is that land-use planners can no longer push people around.

California has no statewide land-use planning. It is also the nation's most populated state. Yet 94 percent of its people live on just 5 percent of its land. California's rural population density of 13 people per square mile is not much more than Oregon's 8 per square mile. (Census data documenting these and similar numbers for every state are posted on the American Dream Coalition web site.) Colorado, which also lacks any statewide planning, has a rural population of just 7 per square mile even though its average density (including rural and urban areas) is much greater than Oregon's. So oppressive planning is not essential to protect farm lands, vistas, or fruit orchards.

Finally, Pierce brings up the old "givings" argument, i.e., that government actions enhance the value of some properties, implying that this makes it okay to take away the value of other people's property. His examples are "highway interchanges, colleges and laboratories and stadiums." Frankly, we can do without any more government-funded stadiums and probably without any more government-funded (i.e., non-tolled) highways. But this is beside the point.

The real point is, if someone does something on their land (such as build a nice house) that produces real benefits for them, and I also happen to benefit (because their house upgrades my neighborhood), they don't have a right to demand I pay them. But if someone puts in a polluting factory that reduces the value of my property, I do have a right to compensation or correction of such a nuisance. In the same way, if a transportation agency builds a highway because it will improve transportation, and it is paid for out of user fees, they don't need to make me pay. But if government planners tell me I can't use my land for some purpose in order to benefit the "public interest," they do have to compensate me.

At least, they do in Oregon.

For those who missed it, the Administration plans to push forward with its Clear Skies legislation to extend cap-and-trade under the Clean Air Act. The Washington Post had the original story, but I think this link from the Boston Globe might be available longer.

The Progressive Policy Institute -- a moderate-left think tank associated with the Democratic Leadership Council -- is promoting "four strategies for breaking the gridlock in Washington and making significant progress toward meeting our environmental and energy challenges." These are:

1) Champion Green Growth
2) Win the West
3) Green the Suburbs
4) Reinvent Environmental Management

On Monday, in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, held that the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act (CERCLA) – affectionately known as “Superfund” – does not authorize private parties who have not been subject to suit under the statute to file contribution suits against other potentially responsible parties for cleanup and other response costs. In other words, if a company voluntarily engages in the cleanup of a hazardous waste site, it cannot seek contribution from other companies that may have also contributed to the site’s contamination unless the initial company has been sued by the government under CERCLA. This decision is good law, but bad policy.

CNN reported on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that predicts the extinction of ten percent of all bird species by the year 2100. One of the paper's authors is Paul Ehrlich whose prior attempts at predicting the end of humanity in the 1980s and 1990s proved wrong and wrong again.

My response is up at A Better Earth today. It explains the difficulties inherent in much of today's scientific modeling. Climate change models aren't the only models that suffer from problems.

There is rarely enough information to say anything reliable about wildlife populations, so most scientists cut a lot of corners and build inferences upon inferences to arrive at their predictions. They then call the predictions conservative by simply taking the most conservative number from the range that results from their study. But conservative estimates based on faulty assumptions are not conservative estimates. Despite this fact, the modelers seem unbothered by adding a coat of paint to their Pinto and calling it a Rolls Royce.

A study in Germany investigated the climate change views of theater goers before seeing The Day After Tomorrow and after seeing the film. The ridiculous picture of abrupt and sudden climate change portrayed by the film apparently lowered viewers' beliefs in the likelihood of climate change. It did not, however, significantly lower their beliefs that something needs to be done to deal with climate change.

Perhaps if Michael Moore did a documentary.

The full study can be found here.

While I truly appreciate Iain and Kendra for reporting from Buenos Aires, apparently the rest of us need not travel so far to learn about global warming. We can find all the evidence we need in our own backyards, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

At the weekend I took part in a remarkably civilized debate over global warming on the BBC's Talking Points program. You can view the program here. My thanks to Tony Grayling for being a very decent opponent who never stooped to the ad hominem attacks that characterize too much of the global warming debate these days.

As COP-10 in Buenos Aires draws to a close with a ministerial meeting from 15-17 December, environmental activists are pressuring developing countries such as India, Brazil and China to agree to emissions controls - whether under Kyoto, or some other mechanism altogether. On Monday, the Union of Concerned Scientists went as far as saying that "If India, China and Brazil replicate our pattern of fossil-intensive development, the game is over" (see news story)

The Sustainable Development Network issued a press release today to suggest that "Imposing Kyoto-style emissions restrictions on poor countries would be 'immoral".

The last Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol before the agreement comes into effect is currently taking place in Buenos Aires. COP-10 so far seems to be no different from the previous COPs, consisting mainly of bleatings from Europe about America not facing up to its responsibilities, despite Europe being way off target to meet its obligations under Kyoto, developing world governments demanding vast hand-outs from developed nations, China, India and Brazil refusing point-blank to consider cutting back their greenhouse gas emissions in any way and the whole thing being an exercise in futility anyway as Kyoto will do virtually nothing to reduce global temperature even if you believe the alarmist case for global warming.

In any event, here are some of the more interesting reports so far:

The background to the meeting from Reason science writer Ron Bailey.

Bjorn Lomborg puts the problem in context.

China sets out its uncompromising stance.

COP-10 compared to popular sitcom.

Commentary on the Arctic controversy.

CEI fellow Chris Horner sums up: "The denominator among these proposals remains that developed countries should develop much more slowly if at all, and the others should only do so via the elites' preferred methods."

We'll try to keep the Commons updated with more news from the BA boondoggle as it progresses (if that word is at all applicable).

Given that I have yet to see a prediction for Bush II turn out correctly (except for the Condi Rice no-brainer), I think I can prognosticate with the best of them. So who is the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency? Some insiders are saying Tom Skinner. Some free market folks are hoping for Lynn Scarlett. Presumably nobody thinks it will be Steven Griles who just left Interior.

My prediction (not to be confused with my hope) is former Montana Governor Marc Racicot. He's played the dutiful soldier for a long time now, taking a front position in both of the last two election fights. Bush probably would like to pay off that loyalty and moreover would probably be happy to have someone he knows will tow the line after the Whitman debacle of almost two years ago. Racicot also became good friends with departing Administrator Leavitt when they were both western governors and thus might be in the list of names that Leavitt would suggest.

But shouldn't we give everyone a chance, so how about enviro-guy? I'm sure Canada would let us have him cheap. Not to be confused with this enviro-guy. (Though their hopes to rule the world with a super-weapon that reverses global warming while also sinking the world's economies are strikingly similar.)

UPDATE: By the way, the leading contenders last time around. Note the absence of Leavitt on the list and the failed prediction: ""We're more likely to see Miguel Estrada confirmed before we see a new EPA administrator confirmed."

UPDATE NUMBER TWO: The Rocky Mountain News reports on other top contenders for EPA this time around.

The American Farmland Trust reports that two-thirds of the state and local open space initiatives that included funding for farmers and ranchers passed in last month's elections. The Trust notes that this is down from 89 percent in the 2000 elections.

The decline is probably the result of two factors. A decline in exuberance about the economy made voters more stingy with their pocket books. And two, as David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, commented, "My sense is the low-hanging fruit has been picked." In other words, the marginal value of extra farmland protection declined as more voters began to feel that they have already protected sufficient areas for open space.

While these initiatives are basically subsidies to agricultural landowners, at least the local initiatives are passed primarily by the people who pay the taxes to support them. Thus, the link between the cost of the "open space" and those receiving the benefit is fairer and more direct. This removes some of the cognitive disconnect in that people who vote for the initiatives understand that what they are voting for will come directly out of their pocketbook. They aren't spending other people's money to the same extent that state and national spending does, which is why I think we will continue to see increased frugality in these initiatives over time.

As a side note, in states with high property taxes like Montana, the initiatives may be seen as an inefficient way of shifting some of the tax burden from owners of land to those earning income from labor and those holding their capital in non-land assets.

The E.U. announced its new fishing quotas yesterday, so that the various countries' agricultural ministers can now fight it out when the member states meet later in the month. The Maltese commissioner noted a need for "greater involvment of stakeholders." Perhaps the beginning of a call for more IFQs in Europe? There is a whale of difference between country-wide quotas and localized quotas. The latter may one day bring the success of sustainable fishing that the former cannot. If the ministers really want to take their national quotas seriously, they will start to foment more localized quotas, which will indeed involve the stakeholders in the fisheries.

And, today, the European Union went back to the seas to promote stiffer fines for marine pollution --- setting minimums for the European countries. The E.U. hopes to put another plan that would set minimum fines for sea captains into international maritime conventions soon. Malta, Greece, and Cyprus refused to include such a program in the E.U. plan.

UPDATE: PERC has a new book out on Evolving Property Rights in Marine Fisheries.

President Bush reportedly asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to stay on at the Department of Interior. Meanwhile, deputy secretary Stephen Griles -- who drew substantial environmentalist ire -- announced his resignation. Still no word as to who will replace Spencer Abraham at the Department of Energy.

Gristmill and the Washington Post both report on a "kerfuffle" sparked by a recent Worldwatch magazine article attacking some of the big heavies in the environmental movement.

The major automakers have filed suit to challenge California's aggressive new carbon dioxide emission rules for new automobiles. Joining the suit are BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen -- all nine automakers represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Nissan and Honda reportedly oppose the regulations as well, but have not yet elected to join the suit, accordin to thisNYT' report. The Sierra Club's response is here.

Michael Crichton's new techno-thriller, State of Fear, warns of a terrible threat. This time, however, it's not a horrible new technology. There's no deadly virus, genetically engineered monster, or nanotech horror invented by a well-intentioned, yet hubristic and short-sighted, modern-day Dr. Frankenstein. No, according to press reports the threat in State of Fear is apocalyptic enviornmentalists who are diabolically scheming to perpetuate the myth of apocalyptic global warming. Somehow, I don't think all of the environmentalists who praised the anti-technology theme of Crichton's prior works, such as Jurassic Park and Prey, will celebrate this one.

Those stuck for what to buy friends and loved ones this Christmas could do worse than purchase Michael Crichton’s new blockbuster novel, State of Fear (HarperCollins, $16.77 on Amazon - buy it now by using the link below!).

The book revolves around the uncovering of a global environmental conspiracy. We won’t spoil your enjoyment by giving further details, but suffice it to say that global warming alarmism plays a major part and even the Competitive Enterprise Institute is mentioned. There is also a valuable essay by the author on the dangers of politicized science and a very useful bibilography of scholarly articles on science, fear and global warming.

UPDATE: In response to demand, spoilers follow in the Extended Entry

Wangari Maathai defends her reception of the Nobel Peace Prize for environmental work. She explains that wars are fought over natural resources, the focus of her work.

The German government has passed its controversial GM crop law. Story in The Scientist here. The article includes additional links.

The law makes planters of GM crops liable for economic damages to neighboring non-GM crop fields if the adjacent field experiences contamination. The GM planter is liable even if he/she followed the planting instructions and government regulations on using the GM seed.

I wonder if we will see practices like occurred in the US 19th century cattle rancher-railroad disputes. By placing a salt lick on the tracks, ranchers could lure cattle onto the tracks and strict liability laws then forced the railroad to "buy" the deceased cows that resulted.

With President Bush's signature of the $388 billion budget, CNN seems to lament the fact that the budget for National Parks focuses on operating expenses and not land acquisition:

The Interior Department will get $9.9 billion, nearly $100 million less than Bush wanted and 0.4 percent more than 2004. National parks operating money goes up 6 percent, but money for buying park lands remains nearly two-thirds below the peak of three years ago.

But given that federal lands are already mismanaged and falling into disrepair, it seems obvious that operating expenses are where money should be spent. If you can't manage what you already have, why would you go out and purchase more land to mismanage?

As I noted, in an earlier post, with Bush's signature of the budget bill, much of this mismanagement may turn around with the bill's extension of the Fee Demonstration Program for ten more years. This program provides incentives for proper management that is already leading to better caretaking of the federal estate. Fee Demo may also get the ball rolling for a day when the Park Service, Forest Service, and other land agencies consider selling off lands that are marginal to their mission in order to have more funds for purchasing or managing lands that are more critical to their mission --- whatever that mission may be.

While selling federal lands (partially or wholesale) is probably far off in the future, opportunities for expanded land swaps between federal land agencies and private landowners to deal with the checkerboard land ownership of the western United States might not be so far off. People in the Bush Administration have bandied such an idea about as a possibility for the next four years -- reducing federal land ownership through transfers that, at the same time, increase the quality of federal land ownership for habitat and stewardship purposes through the creation of more contiguous blocks of habitat.

Such a plan will be a lot more difficult for opponents to criticize than the outright privatization advocated by James Watt in the Reagan Administration, which failed so miserably to transfer any of the federal estate to the private sector. The benefits to both stewardship and wise resource use would create winners all around as lands are given a better opportunity to migrate to their best use whether as lands for consumption, conservation, or more accurately (given that in many ways conservation is a type of consumption), as both. Still, I won't be surprised to see such a plan attacked as anti-environmental by some sectors, but this will be a more difficult sell for opponents than labeling the Watt plan as anti-environmental was.

For anyone doing research on how changing technology might impact the way we look at environmental problems, Dan Esty from the Yale School of Forestry and the Yale Law School has a piece in the N.Y.U. Law Review on how information technology will change environmental regulation.

Most of his piece focusses on improving government regulation of environmental issues, but much of the material can be used to illustrate the coming opportunities for increased environmental stewardship through common law protection of property rights.

One of the most extraordinary statements from a green lobbyist I've seen in a long time comes in this BBC story about HSBC bank going "carbon neutral". Greenpeace UK's Chief Scientist says:

"But planting trees is of questionable benefit: what if there is a forest fire?"

Woodchippers: your environmentally friendly alternative.