July 2005 Archives

In early July, London's Congestion Charge increased from £5 to £8. Note that the congestion charge is meant to reduce congestion -- e.g. to reduce the absolute number of cars which populate London's streets during the business day.

Meanwhile, billboards have sprung up across the city advertising that Toyota's Prius is exempt from the Congestion Charge. If that isn't enough of a reason to buy your very own, the UK's very own Prince of Wales just purchased a Prius.

I wondered if the Prius possesses magical properties -- akin to the wizards' ability to "Apparate" and "Disapparate" in the Harry Potter books -- which enable it to take up less space than other cars.

But it's far more likely that this is a case of special interest lobbying... since the car produces just as much congestion as any other car on London's streets.

Jonathan's post below reminded me of an interview that I did with the man who protected Grandfather Mountain from a federal road plan that would have destroyed much of the mountain to build the Blue Ridge Parkway. Hugh Morton, who recently stepped down as President of Grandfather Mountain, debated the head of the National Park Service Conrad Worth back in 1957 about the proposed road. His quote that the federal road plan would be like ""taking a switch blade to the Mona Lisa" saved the mountain as it made headlines across North Carolina and a different route was eventually laid.

The interview with Morton covers both that fight and explains how his private reserve is managed compared to nearby lands, in particular the Great Smokies National Park. All in all, I came away from the interview and from my visit to Grandfather Mountain with the distinct impression that the private preserve was managed even better than the nearby National Park for both visitors and environmental amenities. But judge for yourself.

The new climate initiative that the US and five Asian countries, including the major emerging economies (namely India and China), have unveiled is putting the Kyoto Protocol and its supporters under pressure. Both for its language and scope, the "Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate" follows closely the recent action plan released at the G8 in Gleneagles, Scotland. The agreement is focused on (a) long term actions aimed at (b) developing cleaner, more efficient technologies without (c) harming economic growth; especially as far as developing countries are concerned, the parties agree that (d) the creation of wealth is by far the most effective, if not the only, way to address environmental problems. President Bush and his colleagues from Australia, Japan, India, and China have set forth a new framework that is much more flexible and long-sighted than the Kyoto Protocol. In fact the Republican Administration has been able to coagulate the consensus from a number of countries that account for roughly half of global GHGs emissions today, a figure that is likely to grow with time.

I was quite disappointed, then, when I first saw a comment from Friends of Earth's Tony Juniper: "this is another attempt to undermine Kyoto and a message to the developing world to buy US technology and not to worry about targets and timetables." In fact there is no need to undermine Kyoto, as the Protocol is - in a way - self-undermining. Its most vocal supporter, the European Union, will fail in meeting the targets as the European Environmental Agency openly tells.

Apparently some climate fundamentalists, as well as some political actors (it seems that neither London nor Brussels took very well the Partnership), value their opposition to the White House more than a move that might well help to reduce future emissions.

Dr. Seuss' story of the Lorax is an environmental classic (as is the television version that I've just seen). The conventional interpretation is that it's a tale of market-driven environmental ruin. The greedy Once-ler ignores the Lorax's warnings of environmental ruin as he turns truffula trees into thneeds (for a thneed, after all, is a thing that everyone needs!). As the truffula trees disappear the animals run off in fear, smog fills up the air yet the Once-ler doesn't care. Eventually the Once-ler cuts the last truffula down, and his entire corporate empire folds up and leaves town.

Environmentalists love to present this as a parable of modern industry's exploitation of the natural world. The relentless pursuit of profit leads to environmental -- and economic -- ruin. When the last truffula falls, so does the natural base for the Once-ler's wealth. And unless humans learn to care for the natural environment, and control industrial development, we will produce ecological devastation. But is this the best interpretation?

Is environmentalism becoming more hospitable to property rights? I think so. In a new draft paper, "Back to the Future of Conservation: Changing Perceptions of Property Rights and Environmental Protection," I try and make the case that the modern environmental movement was initially quite hostile to property rights, but has started to warm to property over time, largely due to practical realities. The abstract is below.

John Whitehead blogs on his planned visit to Grandfather Mountain, a great example of private conservation in action.

Good fences don't just make for good neighbors, they make for good conservation as shown by this article in today's New York Times . (Free registration required to read.) Imagine how much more difficult Afri-cat's mission of protecting cheetahs in Namibia would be without a fence around its 10,000 acres.

Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope goes toe-to-toe with Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg in the pages of Foreign Policy. The debate is available here.

New York Times columnist John Tierney, who is vacationing in the West, wrote on July 26 a favorable article about the voluntary transfer of grazing rights. (Registration may be required to read this.) An environmental group, Grand Canyon Trust, has purchased grazing rights from a rancher in southern Utah, with the goal of retiring them. Such trade epitomizes the free market approach to resolving conflicts over whether livestock or elk should graze on federal grasslands in the West. But the Interior Department, under the political influence of ranchers, has refused to allow the retirement of grazing rights this way.

For an assessment of the Bush administration policy on grazing rights, see Terry Anderson's entry in the PERC (Property and Environment Research Center) Report Card.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a new press release out today examining House Resources Committee Chairman's "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005," based on available drafts.

The Center for Biological Diversity says the proposal would gut the Endangered Species Act; property rights advocates are taking the opposite view -- looking askance, for instance, at a provision that would extend the ESA's reach into coverage of "invasive species."

The press release follows:

Pombo Proposal Wouldn't Gut the Endangered Species Act: It Could Give it Formidable New Teeth

Critics of Rep. Richard Pombo's Endangered Species Act reform initiative - critics such as the Center for Biological Diversity -- are simply wrong when they claim it would gut the Endangered Species Act, says The National Center for Public Policy Research.

"Richard Pombo's bill, if unchanged, could give the ESA alarming new powers," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center and a long-time activist on land issues.

Pombo's proposal is called "The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005" and, until recently, was expected to sail quickly through the House Resources Committee. Rep. Pombo chairs the Committee.

"Property rights advocates are voicing concern about a provision that would extend the ESA's reach into so-called 'invasive species' -- never before regulated under the law," said Ridenour.

Under an Executive Order signed by President Clinton, invasive species are "any species, including seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem."

"By this definition," says Ridenour, "almost any living thing could be considered an 'invasive species,' thereby giving federal bureaucrats broad new powers to regulate human activity -- where we live, what we plant in our yards, and where and how we vacation."

"Rep. Pombo may have been attempting to create a more narrow definition of invasive species," he said, "in an attempt to pre-empt more onerous regulations. If so, he should be applauded for his good intentions. But good intentions or not, such regulations could do more harm than good."

"Extending regulations to cover invasive species is a Pandora's Box that once opened may never be closed," Ridenour continued. "We won't need to wait for its ill-effects: Since equestrians, dirt bikers and ATV enthusiasts can carry seeds on or in their clothing, equipment and horses, these regulations can immediately be used as a pretext for kicking recreationists out of our national parks and other public lands."

The draft legislation also includes a compensation provision for property rights losses due to the ESA. But it would only kick in after a landowner loses 50 percent or more of the affected portion of his/her property value. Many small landowners can't afford a 25 percent loss of their farmlands, homes, ranches and investment property, much less 49.9 percent.

And even those who hit that magic 50 percent trigger may never see any money, as property owners would still be required to jump through costly and time-consuming bureaucratic hoops that can make it uneconomic to file a claim.

"The protections offered to private landowners are a lot like having the French on your side in war -- largely symbolic," said David Ridenour. "Chairman Pombo could have done better, especially in light of the growing public support for property right protections in the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London decision."

The National Center identified other problems with the draft legislation, including:

* It would require property owners who are compensated for losses under the ESA to transfer title to their land to the federal government. This may permit the government to acquire land at bargain prices. It is not clear, for example, if government could gain 100 percent title by paying for a 50 percent loss.

* The proposal would exempt ESA advisory committees from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which, among other things, requires public disclosure of advisory committee membership. Important decisions should not be made in secret by unaccountable and anonymous committees.

"I applaud Chairman Pombo for recognizing the importance of fixing the ESA, but I don't believe his bill will produce the results he hopes," said Ridenour. "You can't fix an already poisonous law by increasing its dosage. Unfortunately, I believe this is what some of the provisions of the bill would do."

The Endangered Species Act is already one of the most powerful statutes on the books. Critics say this is one of the main reasons it has failed so miserably.

Of the nearly 1,300 domestic species listed as either endangered or threatened since the ESA went into effect over 30 years ago, less than 1% of these species have recovered sufficiently to be delisted.

A similar number of species have gone extinct over that time.

Environmentalists claim that the 1 percent extinction rate is a sign of the ESA's success. This, they say, means the ESA has "saved" 99 percent of the protected species from extinction.

Critics call this position "delusional."

"The act of delisting species -- including those long since extinct and those that were never in danger in the first place -- is so politically-charged that it practically takes an Act of Congress to get a species off these lists," said Ridenour. "Continued listing of a species can be more of a statement on the power of the environmental movement than it is the true condition of a species. The only measure that counts is recovery."

Recovery of species, Ridenour says, is linked to strong property rights protections.

Close to 80 percent of all species listed as either endangered and threatened species have habitat on private lands. Thus, private landowners are critically important to the survival of these species.

Under the current ESA structure, because the discovery of such species on private land can result in severe land use restrictions that can lead to economic ruin, private landowners have strong financial incentives to make their land as inhospitable as possible to rare species.

"If landowners are punished for being good environmental stewards, we should not be surprised if many of them are not good stewards," said Ridenour. "Compensation to property owners for losses resulting from species conservation is an effective means of ending this perverse incentive system. Species would benefit; people would benefit."

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. Founded in 1982, it has promoted innovative, market-based solutions to environmental problems.

For more information, contact Ryan Balis at (202) 543-4110 or email him at rbalis@nationalcenter.org.

###

The American Chestnut used to be among the dominant tree species in the eastern United States. No longer. Blight virtually eliminated the American Chestnut. Fortunately, the American Chestnut Foundation is working to breed a blight-resistant variety so the tree can be reintroduced to eastern forests. Ronald Bailey has more on the ACF here.

I've just discovered that Elizabeth Brubaker's Property Rights in the Defence of Nature is now available on-line here. Brubaker, who works for Canada's Environment Probe, makes a compelling case that property rights were, and can be, an effective means of environmental protection. Her book chronicles the history, and erosion, of property-based pollution protection in Canada. The U.S. experience was similar, albeit not identical. Nonetheless, there are many important lessons for property-based approach to environmental protection.

Environmentalists are considering what to make of Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Here's one take from Grist, and another from Doug Kendall of Community Rights Counsel. I have some commentary on NRO's Bench Memos here and here.

Much of the attention focuses on Judge Roberts' dissent from denial of en banc review in the Rancho Viejo case. SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein analyzes the opinion here. I have some more thoughts here.

John Whitehead wants to know.

For more on whales, check out the whale watching blog.

This week I'm lecturing at an IHS Seminar "Environment & Society." It's a free seminar for college students introducing classical liberal perspectives on environmental problems. Other speakers include Ron Bailey (Reason), Holly Fretwell (PERC), Paul Geddes (Columbia College), and Ken Green (ELC). Students interested in a provocative summer educational experience should apply for next year's seminar.

In a lecture on property rights and the environment, PERC's Holly Fretwell asks: "Ever change the oil in a rental car?" Of course the answer is no. Why treat the rental car differently than the one you own? Because owners face different incentives than renters. This is a good example that I'll probably use myself in future lectures.

Scrutiny of Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court, will no doubt focus on his dissent from denial of en banc review in Rancho Viejo v. Norton. I've addressed environmentalist concerns with his opinion here. I also note that Tim Dowling of Community Rights Counsel reached a similar conclusion (see here).

Cato's Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren explain why here.

UPDATE: Dave Roberts critiques the Taylor-Van Doren critique -- and offers his thoughts on libertarian environmental views generally -- here. Scroll down for Jerry Taylor's forceful response.

At the G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, the 8 most industrialized countries issued a joint statement on climate. There President Bush's focus on energy efficiency as well as search for long-term solutions (as opposed to "cap & trade" schemes for greenhouse gases) is largely endorsed by, among others, leading European nations. Consequently political debate on climate has moved towards a more science-based, long-sighted, truly global approach - at least this is what I claim in a TCS article.

If that is true the European Union might take the opportunity to revise its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the tool it adopted in order to make it cheaper the pursuit of the Kyoto targets. In fact it is pretty clear that the EU will not be able to meet its goals through actual reduction or intra-European trade of allowances: the European Environment Agency's data show that European emissions are far too high. Moreover since most European countries are emitting well above the 1990 levels - whereas they would be supposed to be on track to emit 8% less than 1990 by 2008-12 - the ETS will likely not work for the very fact that... there will be little quotas to sell in the first place. We are going to have a very low supply vis-à-vis a very high demand. The scarcity is reflected in the rising price of quotas themselves.

When the process began on January 1st, 2005 Kyoto-optimists guessed that the price would be around 10 euros per tonne, yet it is today as high as 30 euros per tonne and it will likely increase to less than 40 euros per tonne (which is the cost of sanctions for non-complying countries). The only way Europe has to meet the targets is to buy "hot air" from Russia and other emerging economies - however, if that is the case, no actual reduction in emissions is achieved. What we would have is simply a wealth transfer from the EU to other countries.

I do hope that European policy-makers, as well as industry and the general public, are realizing the ineffectiveness of EU climate policies and regard Gleneagles as a new starting point. After all it is easier to get from Brussels to Gleneagles then from Brussels to Kyoto.

The D.c. Circuit ruled today that the U.S. EPA is not required to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This is a huge victory for the Bush Administration (and yet another big loss for environmentalists in Clean Air Act litigation). Here's what I'm posting about the decision on NRO's The Corner:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency is not required to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The splintered opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which three judges issued three competing opinions, is available here. This is a big victory for the Bush Administration as well as for common sense. (I've addressed some of the relevant legal claims here.) This case is not going away, however, as a petition for en banc and/or Supreme Court review is a near certainty.

UPDATE: The three opinions in the case are quite interesting. Judge Randolph believes the petitioners have standing, but believes the EPA properly exercised its discretion in refusing to regulate greenhouse gases. Judge Sentelle beleives there is no standing, but accepts Randolph's conclusion for the purposes of entering a judgment. Neither judge addresses the underlying question of whether the EPA even has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Judge Tatel dissents. He believes the petitioners have standing, believes the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and believes they are required to do so. While I disagree with his conclusions, his thorough arguments (combined with the lack of a panel majority) increase the likelihood that this case will be reheard en banc or go up to the Supremes.

Lead was phased out of gasoline bought by consumers decades ago, but leaded fuel still exists. A few industries, including airlines and auto racing, were exempt from the rules. Today's NYT reports on an environmentalis campaign to eliminate the use of leaded fuel in NASCAR. Thus far, available substitutes have not done the trick -- or involved the use of other fuel additives (such as MTBE) that have their own problems. Soe other racing series (not named in the article) do use unleaded fuel.

Since the phaseout of lead from gasoline, ambient lead concentrations and average blood lead levels have dropped dramatically. So one could wonder whether the use of leaded gasoline by NASCAR drivers is much of a problem. Lead pollution poses the greatest risk to children, yet children would be among those least exposed by lead from NASCAR vehicles. Adult and chlid spectators alike are exposed to the emissions less frequently than NASCAR racers and employees. Yet no one knows the level of exposures involved here. Indeed, the NYT story notes that neither NASCAR, the EPA, nor any environmental group has tested air quality at a NASCAR race.

C. Kenneth Orski and Jane Shaw have a piece today in the Rocky Mountain News on smart growth's failure to gain traction across the United States. According to Orski and Shaw, "[T]he latest evidence, including recent U.S. Census Bureau data documenting demographic trends since the 2000 census, suggests that the smart-growth movement is having little influence on reshaping America's urban landscape."

For those interested in environmental economics -- a group that I suspect includes most regular readers of The Commons Blog -- I heartily recommend the (relatively) new Environmental Economics blog. Edited by Tim Haab and John Whitehead, contributors include Robert Stavins, Jason Shogren, and many other folks well worth a regular read.

This post by Chris Bruce comparing Soviet-style central planning with environmetal decision-making (the first of four planned posts on the subject) is of particular interest, and I look forward to reading his final take (and perhaps commenting on it as well). My take on the general subject -- where I argue that ecological central planning is no wiser than economic central planning and suggest principles upon which to base a true market alternative -- is available here.

Today, in Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh, the 11th Circuit rejected an Alien Tort Claim cause of action for failing to qualify for a jurisdictional grant, because the claim wasn't violative of international customary law. The case involved a union fight in Guatemala between laborers and a plantation run for Del Monte Fresh, which is incorporated in Delaware and has its principle place of business in Florida. The laborers asserted that they were threatened and pushed around with guns by a private security force used by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Del Monte. In its decision, the court discussed the potential for incorporation of evolving norms of international customary law into U.S. law.

While the court didn't do much more than discuss the recent Supreme Court decision of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain in reaching its opinion, the discussion made it clear that the lower courts feel a tension created by the U.S. Supreme Court in just how much international law should be taken into consideration by U.S. courts.

For an earlier post on Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and its relevance in the environmental context, see here.

Late night forays to watch sea turtles lay their eggs are drawing increasing crowds. One particular section of the CNN story drew my eye:

For a fee of $5 for adults and $2.50 children, visitors only get a chance to spot the finicky creatures during a three-hour tour that ends at midnight. There are no guarantees.

Marine curator Larry Wood says the odds of spotting a turtle are no better than having success during a night of fishing. But locals and tourists line up on sweltering summer nights for a spot on the tour.

Maybe they should start charging a little more instead of relying so much on queuing. Get a few more dollars for the turtles.

Environmental organizations have begun to express their concern over the Kelo decision's impact on urban growth. In a policy update from the American Farmland Trust (AFT), the President of AFT explains, "With so much farmland on the urban edge and near cities still in steep decline, ex-urban towns could be tempted by this ruling to make farmland available for subdivisions." For earlier posts on Kelo, see here, here, and here.

It's nice to see the more traditional environmental groups showing concern for property rights.

Last week, the 9th Circuit joined a 1989 ruling from the 8th Circuit in holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not bar a suit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The decision upheld an injunction of the EPA's approval of 54 pesticide ingredients pending consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service as per section 7 of the ESA to determine possible impacts on endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest.

As every Summer, Italy is under stress because of water shortages. Irrigation resources are threatened, according to a farmers' association. Luckily, the situation is still under control. The problem is more general. If water problem is felt like a real one -- as all Italian newspapers' frontpages have been suggesting in the last few weeks -- then a long term solution should be considered. In Italy water is mostly managed by formally private companies, that are actually owned by municipalities. Also the price of water is to a certain extent regulated by specific laws. Thus, water shortage is primarily a failure of public management. Prices are kept artificially low, especially in hot seasons, and overuse is consequently incentived. Of course there is only one way to solve the problem: that is, allowing prices to grow as water gets scarcer, in order to incentive a wise management. For that to be done, however, we need municipalities getting out of the market and, more important, getting rid of the barriers to entry that in fact protect local markets.