Shifting Power Through Regulatory Guidance

Sometimes, what sounds good in theory is bad in practice.  When it comes to decisions about the environment, permitting industry and other things of that nature, science should be the primary determining factor -- not the "feelings" of the community.  People carry a tremendous amount of "baggage" throughout their lives.  Some of it is based in myth and some is based on experience.

The EPA has just released new Guidance on the issue of "Environmental Justice."  It is the idea that everyone should have a say in any decision-making process that could affect the environment as well as any laws related to it.  In theory, it sounds like true democracy.  In practice, it drives out science and opens the door to popular whims that are often filled with ignorance.

The current Administration is using the guise of helping the "little people" -- those who are underrepresented or somehow repressed -- to effect their idea of "change."  It is really just a way of concentrating power.  The so-called social progressives are more nearly communist in practice.  They want power in the hands of a few who act in a manner that is designed to prevent power from migrating to other groups.  In other words, the liberal elite wish to take power away from industry and wealth.

The real problem is that power in the U.S. has traditionally been balanced by a strong middle class.  The middle class, in many ways, was the source of strength for Big Business and wealth.  They kept the money circulating.  The current political climate is one in which the middle class is being destroyed in order to shift the voting power to the poor.  The result will be a spiraling downward of our economy until it is either destroyed from the outside, or there is internal revolution.  (This would be a good place to insert some quotes from Aristotle's treatise on Politics but, I'm too lazy to look them up.)

EPA Releases Rulemaking Guidance on Environmental Justice

Below is the EPA's definition of Environmental Justice. (There is a link to it in the above linked article.)

"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."

Water: A Critical Resource in Danger

Developed countries like the U.S. have, for the most part, done an admirable job of cleaning up water supplies -- such as lakes and streams -- of the pollution that was once common.  It is time for the same to occur in other countries.  Usable water is quickly becoming the number one limiting resource on the planet.  There continues to be plenty of water but, it isn't always in the right place and frequently is unusable.

Pollution makes quarter of China water unusable: ministry

Growing up in an area where water is considered precious, I have always known that it is a resource to be protected.  The rest of the world is beginning to see the issue for what it is.  Just ask those city dwellers who are increasingly placed on water rationing due to shortages.  Those shortages don't just occur in the desert Southwest -- just ask citizens of Atlanta.

Here's a related article:

In midst of river cleanup, supporters are divided

A Blob of Contention

I realize that the meandering post below is not as cohesive as was desired when I first began the ramble, but, perhaps there are a few things within that make sense.

Somewhere between "Drill Baby, Drill" and "The TreeHuggers Lament" is a balance that should define our approach to energy.  We are responsible for being good stewards of the resources of this planet.  That includes our environment and all of the things encompassed by that word -- plants, animals, water, soil, air, etc.

Stewardship implies use.  It does not mean that we "preserve" something at the cost of humanity.

The basic issue upon which the dichotomous views toward energy development turn is that of a human-centric view of the world versus one in which humanity has no value greater than any other thing -- at least on the surface.  In reality, it is a much more elitist view.  Those who would have you think that humanity has no greater value than anything else hold themselves at a much higher value than others.  In other words, it is a purely self-centric view.  It is a view that one group, those who worship the earth, are of greater value than those who do not.

Among those who value humanity above other things, there is also a division in views.  There is a split between those whose view is very near-term (usually no greater than a few days at the least or their own lifetime at the most) and those who take a generational view -- one that includes a responsible attitude that extends beyond their own lifetime.  Again, it is a difference between those who are self-centered and those who look beyond personal self-interests.

Ultimately, the division is between those who are purely self-seeking and those who feel a responsibility beyond self.

In the end, an attitude that is purely centered on self will result in destruction because there is no building for the future.  The extension of this philosophy of life would logically indicate that self-serving attitudes result in the destruction of the family, the country and ultimately, humanity.

The instinct for self-preservation, should at some point, trigger a cooperative effort.  For the individual whose view is of long periods of time, this point is reached quickly.  For those whose focus is in the immediate, this view is not reached until faced with chaotic, destructive forces beyond their control.

Applying this train of thought to our national situation we should become aware of a couple of things.  First, the focus on immediate gratification in our society would imply that, as a nation, we have a very short-term view.  Second, the acquisitive nature of our society would imply a highly self-centered attitude is the norm.  When taken together, these two factors alone indicate the source of our headlong rush to destruction.

So, how does this apply to energy policy?

At both ends of the spectrum we see self-interest as the driving force, although among the "treehuggers" it is disguised in the rhetoric of something else.  Each of these interests are pulling in opposite directions.  Normally, when you have forces pulling in opposite direction it is accompanied by a ripping sound.

On the one hand is the drive to "preserve" and on the other the desire to develop.  In the end, the balance would be responsible development with an extended view that looks to future generations.

I am a firm believer in the free market.  I think that if allowed to work without interference, the market will ultimately achieve balance.  We do not have a free market.  We have energy subsidies on the one hand and we have burdensome "environmental" regulations on the other.

Subsidies can be a useful policy tool.  When used properly with a view to national security interests, they can drive behavior in a manner that protects the interests of the nation.  When used improperly, they can lead to corruption.

"Environmental" regulations also can be a useful tool.  They should protect the interests of the whole so that "bad" individual behavior is corrected.  Clean air, clean water and safe products are in the best interests of the nation.  There is a tremendous "health cost" burden when such are not available.  This "health cost" is both direct (medical bills) and indirect (lost productivity or individual impairment).

Nation-states were formed when individuals of common interest banded together for protection.  Always, there was a cost to personal freedom and a gain to personal preservation.  It was a balance between individuals of competing interests.  The same balance applied between different nation-states.

Energy production must achieve a balance between competing interests (the present versus the future) that maximizes the benefit for all -- both today and in future generations.  The answer is not wind or solar.  The answer is not in fossil fuels alone.  The answer is probably not nuclear.  The answer will be in new technologies.  In the interim however, we will cross the bridge that is composed of all of the available technologies into a future that we would not recognize if we were suddenly transported in time to that far off day -- given of course that there are still humans left alive to experience it.

Meanwhile, the "Blob of Contention" between current and future needs drifts aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico.

Brace for the Opportunism of the Left

How the election of Obama to the White House can be seen as a mandate for an extremist climate change agenda is beyond me, but that's just what is being said by the folks at World Watch Institute.

"Environmental leaders in the United States and abroad quickly suggested that the election reflected the American people's desire to reverse President Bush's damaging climate change policies. "Today's landslide election of Barack Obama and pro-environment candidates across the country signals a strong rejection of the failed energy policies of the last eight years and a historic mandate for large-scale, transformational change," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth - U.S." (complete article here)

The election was seen as complete victory by leaders of virtually every environmental organization. (See what they have to say here.)

I guess I can understand their exuberance, however, the election wasn't about the environment. It was about the economy. It was about high gasoline prices and a tanking stock market. It was about a couple of wars that the left-leaning media has vilified. It was about dissatisfaction with government that, although largely due to the extreme political partisanship in Congress, was blamed on the President and his administration. It was also about misplaced guilt among a portion of the population in supporting a candidate that embodied their vision of long-past injustices perpetrated by those long dead. Finally, it embodied perceived opportunity by those in the populace who have embraced a culture of victimization to elect one they thought to be "one-of-their-own" who in fact is nothing like them, but is fully a member of the self-proclaimed elitist class.

Opportunism by the left will characterize the coming months. We must brace ourselves for the onslaught and we must prepare to engage in the battle of ideas. We must seek to educate in order to overcome the misperceptions of reality embraced by many. We must prepare to defend our country from those who would make it into something else -- something akin to the weak-kneed Europeans who have bowed to the vision of the few. We must face the cultural war that has gained ascendancy and threatens to destroy the values that we hold dear. We must engage.

Are Grizzlies Germain to the Reporter's Point?

It seems that no matter what type of article is being written, the reporter often tries to include his or her political views. The article linked here is ostensibly about the recovery of Grizzly Bears in Montana. However, the article attacks John McCain for a floor speech condemning "pork barrel" spending in which the study is mentioned as an example of poor use of taxpayer money. The expenditure of $4.8 million dollars for DNA testing hair samples collected from barbed-wire traps seems on the surface to be a prime example of pork-barrel spending. Without adequate explanation for why the study should be conducted, that would certainly seem to be the case.

When multiple items are rolled into -- or added on -- to a bill, it becomes difficult to truly debate the merits of each item. If the scope of bills could be narrowed to core issues, perhaps this problem could be resolved. There are rules concerning "germainness" of provisions that are supposed to keep the scope of a bill within the realm of its original purpose. It seems that such rules no longer work or are often ignored when it comes to what has come to be known as "pork-barrel" projects. The other issue is that if each item were considered singly, the number of bills before our legislative bodies would increase exponentially. These issues are part of what makes reform of the legislative process so difficult.

I guess this entry seems to be wandering around a bit. It is a circuitous path to this point: The reporter attacks McCain over an issue that is not the problem. It is reform of the legislative process that should have been attacked, not a Presidential candidate who the reporter obviously would like to see defeated.

Personally, I'm happy to know that the Grizzlies of Montana are recovering. I'm sure there is concern among the ranchers about detrimental impacts on their livestock. It is good to know that a higher number of bears may ease restrictions on oil and gas exploration. It is a multi-edged result from an apparent pork-barrel project that was poorly explained because of a legislative process in need of reform.

(The original news release from USGS can be found here.)

We Can Do Better

We frequently see the debate between “environmentalists” and the rest of us as framed in an “us” vs. “them” manner. Business people feel that the environmental movement is nothing but a roadblock to progress. People in developing countries see environmental groups preventing them from experiencing the luxuries of the west because they hinder the utilization of the natural resources at hand.

Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.

What if the debate became a completely economic one?

There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.

Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.

With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.

How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?

Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.

Opportunities for Doing the Right Thing Abound

In a post earlier today, I referred to the Lesser Prairie Chicken (LPC) as a possible reason for Mr. Pickens' need for a $10 million media blitz on his new energy plan. Upon further research, I find that he has the opportunity to do something that could have the potential for aiding the Lesser Prairie Chicken while furthering his plans for wind energy development and heading off potential future challenges if the LPC were to eventually be declared endangered.

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department offers a program called the "Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA)" which can provide protection for both the Lesser Prairie Chicken and Mr. Pickens in the event of a change in status for the LPC. The CCAA is an agreement whereby the landowner can enter into a voluntary program for developing and maintaining habitat for the LPC through a wildlife management plan developed in coordination with a Parks & Wildlife biologist. The agreement provides assurances that the landowner will not be subject to further use restrictions or conditions should the LPC be declared endangered. This could truly be a benefit to Boone and to the LPC.

The issue of Wildlife and Wind Development is something that is critically important as we move forward with alternative energy development. An conference regarding those issues will be held August 8 - 9 in Amarillo, Texas. The Panhandle Wind and Wildlife Conference will be an opportunity for education as well as a venue for discussing the various issues regarding wind energy development and wildlife interactions. Information about the conference can be found here.

Pickens Energy Plan and Media Blitz

Why would Boone Pickens spend $10 million on an ad campaign to boost his energy plans? His newest "big" project is the development of a mega wind-generation field in the Texas Panhandle. I wonder if it could be that his site is located in one of the last remaining habitats for the Lesser Prairie Chicken? I don't know, but based on the map and my knowlege of the area, it could be a factor.

The Lesser Prairie Chicken is on the list to be considered for Endangered Status. It is far enough down the list that it hasn't yet received much attention but it could. There hasn't been a public outcry yet, so why is Boone spending so much on his media blitz? I wonder....

Aging Infrastructure and Energy Needs

The strength of the U.S. economy is derived from many factors. One of the underlying strengths is our infrastructure. Our system of rails, roads, waterways, municipal services, electrical grids, fuel service stations, markets, irrigation canals and ports is unparalleled in the world. It allows our economy to function smoothly and efficiently.

That infrastructure is showing signs of aging. Part of the problems stemming from Hurricane Katrina and the recent flooding along the Mississippi River are a result of that aging infrastructure. It is something to which we as a country must attend in the coming decades or we will see a gradual decline of our strength.

As we examine that underpinning of our economy, we must consider our wise use of the energy resources at our disposal currently and the development of new energy technologies. If we truly desire to gain energy independence as a country we must lay a forward-thinking plan that will efficiently incorporate new technologies into our vision for revitalizing that infrastructure.

One area of infrastructure that needs close examination is that of energy conservation. By that I mean that roads and rails have profound influence on patterns of housing and business location. Growth of suburban areas create demands for new water, sewer and waste disposal as well as new power distribution systems. As our urban areas sprawl, we create demands on those services that require greater use of energy than if the development was more compact. That sprawl also adds to commute times and distances and thus the need for more roadways. The increased paving of roadways adds to the urban heat pockets which exacerbate the need for cooling during summer months.

Wide-area planning and zoning is a subject that creates difficulty for us true believers in free enterprise. After all, I have no desire for a government authority to come to me and say that I cannot sell my land to a housing developer -- it must remain in agriculture. However, it is something that we must consider as we look to the future and our ability to sustain strong economic growth and yet efficiently use our resources as a country.

The issue of energy independence is closely entangled with our infrastructure issues. It will take great wisdom to see the way to the future -- a future where my grandchildren will, I hope, enjoy the same opportunities that I enjoy today.

The Equivalent of War

Resolving the perceived energy crisis will be one of the primary areas of focus for the next President. How that resolution is approached will have profound impact on many generations to come. Do we focus on reducing energy consumption? Do we penalize certain forms of energy? Do we allow environmental concerns to dictate policy at the expense of economic and security issues? How do we pay for government energy initiatives? How do we alleviate the burden of high energy costs on the American taxpayer?

Currently, a staggeringly large amount of U.S. productivity is spent obtaining oil from other countries. We have financed some of the most anti-U.S. governments on the planet through our energy dollars. Through some of those governments we have financed the very terrorists that have attacked us. The very terrorists who draw us into military operations that further drain our treasury. Even when we choose not to purchase petroleum directly from terrorist sponsors, our purchase of foreign oil frees those countries to sell to others who have less compunction against sponsoring terrorism.

We must become energy independent. How? We sent our first rocket to the moon as the result of a focused effort to do so. Let's focus on becoming energy independent. We can do so by implementing a comprehensive plan of 1) utilizing existing reserves of petroleum and coal products, 2) developing new forms of energy, 3) encouraging the expansion of renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, 4) building safe and efficient nuclear power plants. 5) Implementing and encouraging conservation strategies.

All of these things can be done with proper attention to environmental concerns. Such attention is NOT preservation at all costs. It IS conservation and protection of critical species and habitat. There is a difference. We MUST be good stewards of the resources at our disposal. It is prudent for our security and our future.

Our next President and Congress have a big job ahead of them. It will require wisdom -- not just the empty promise of change for the sake of change. It will require a comprehensive marshaling of our resources as a nation and the equivalent of war on a task which is critical to our future. It requires vision and experience. It must be conducted in a manner that alleviates the stifling burden to productivity that is borne by the taxpayers of this country. It cannot be at the expense of enslaving them to the extreme beliefs of the privileged few.

Africa Should Be Feeding Itself

The amount of arable land in Africa is sufficient for feeding the people of that continent. According to the FAO, only 14% of Africa's arable land is under cultivation. So, what's the problem?

The first is good governance. Until there is a stable political environment in the various countries on the continent, there can be no long-term effort to alleviate the other issues that are faced.

The second is infrastructure. Much of Africa remains barely accessible by road and rail. Many of the roads are not all-weather surfaces and thus subject to seasonal usage. Grain handling facilities are inadequate. Water resources for irrigation are non-existent. Produce is generally brought to local markets and not easily transported to population centers.

The third is dependence on foreign aid. The problem with the aid is that it has been misdirected. The misdirection takes two forms. One is that corrupt officials sometimes seek to profit from the aid. The second is that it is a band-aid approach -- treating the symptoms and not the causes. The aid needs to be in the form of technical assistance to develop good governance and the necessary infrastructure for the country. It also should be targeted at developing farming technology suitable to local conditions and the necessary systems to move produce to market. Humanitarian aid will be necessary until Africa can feed itself.

The fourth major issue is outside interference. This often takes the form of political pressure from governments seeking access to natural resources such as oil. However, of greater concern to the local people are pressures from environmental and other do-good groups to "preserve" large tracts of land that could be feeding people. There is a need for good conservation measures and the preservation of bio-diversity, however, the needs of the people should be weighed in any measure aimed at soothing the misguided souls who would sacrifice the people of Africa to assuage their feelings of guilt over their Western lifestyle. It is a "we-got-ours" but "you-can't-have-yours" approach.

Africa needs to build on the resources of the continent. Land for agriculture is number one. Instead, many African leaders see a panacea by leap-frogging into a more industrialized economy. They need to capitalize on what they have first and then build from that.

There are many other issues. The above list is merely the beginning.

A Convenient Endorsement

I wonder how much impact Al Gore's endorsement of Obama will have on the campaign? Yes, Gore is popular among Democrats. Yes, he is popular with the young enviro-active liberal set. Yes, he is popular with the media. But where does he bring anything new to the Obama campaign? Perhaps in his fundraising ability.

Now, what about from a different perspective? What will Al Gore's endorsement of Obama do for Al Gore? It endears him even more with the liberal elite. It garners media exposure for Al Gore. It buys political good will in the event that Obama wins the election. It perhaps earns a coveted seat as Ambassador to the U.N. It puts Gore in a position to influence cabinet selections. It -- well, you get the picture. It's all about what is good for Al Gore.

Global Warming Bill's Temporary Defeat

I like a clean environment. I enjoy the outdoors and wildlife. I recycle when I can. I set my thermostat a little warm in the summer and a little cool in the winter. I prefer home-prepared foods instead of highly prepared and packaged foods. I typically don't drive somewhere unless I really need to. In other words, I try to be a good steward of the resources at my disposal. I think most people are that way. The far-left wackos and the duped are leading us down a path toward collapse into a global socialist state. The hyper-hysteria over Global Warming is part of it.

Hold onto your pocketbooks folks because even though it went down to defeat today, U.S. Global Warming legislation hasn't gone away. If nothing else motivates you for the Fall elections, this should. A Democrat controlled Congress combined with a Democrat in the White House and we will see the Welfare rolls soar -- because none of the hard working people of this country will have any money left to spend except for the bare necessities of fuel to get to work, food for the table and energy to heat our homes in winter (note that I left out cool it in the summer). We will be lucky if we have jobs at all. We should give thanks for the Republicans that bought us some time. We'd better use it wisely.

The GHG Fleecing of the American Consumer

Forty-five trillion dollars!!! That's a number so large that it is unimaginable. That's what we are being told is the cost to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2050. It will be us "little guys" that are stuck with the bill. It won't cost the oil companies. It won't cost the government. It won't cost the multi-national corporations. It will cost the consumers. The taxpayers. The hard-working people of this world. All those other guys will just pocket the money. It is another scheme for sucking the results of the productivity of the average person out of our pockets and into the hands of the elite few.

It doesn't matter what form of government we are talking about. The results are the same. When governments work for the "good" of the people I always start asking which people they are talking about. The little guys? or, the ones that contribute to their campaigns? -- the ones that control the strings of wealth on this globe.

Then, they try to pull the wool over our eyes....

"Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."

Yeah, right. How much of those dollars flowing into developing countries started right here in this one?

Water Wars in the Future?

Back in the early days of the opening of the Great Plains and Western U.S. water was a critical component of where settlements were established. Before the settlements it determined the location of homesteads and ranches. There were many range wars fought over water. He who controlled the water controlled the range.

The people living in areas with abundant fresh water have a hard time understanding how critical water supplies can be. Out here on the southern end of the Great Plains we know about water. With it you can thrive. Without it you die.

Fresh water is distributed unevenly across the globe. The Eastern U.S. has it in abundance; the Middle East and much of Africa is constantly concerned with it. As populations grow, pressure on the supply of fresh water for drinking, bathing and agricultural uses increases. Are we looking at Water Wars in the near future?

A New Refinery Closer to Reality

It has been 32 years since a new oil refinery was built in the U.S. We are struggling with high gasoline prices. Rural communities are dying for lack of jobs. Yet, when a company attempts to build a new refinery that utilizes Canadian tar sands instead of Middle Eastern oil, they face an uphill battle. What is wrong with this picture?

The Debatable Solution?

The debate over the "Global Warming" legislation that has been introduced in Washington is heating up right now. It looks to me like a $6.7 trillion bill that's being handed to the U.S. taxpayer if it passes. There is a smattering of common sense being spoken from the Senate floor but if the Dems get their way, that common sense will be trampled beneath their hysterical rhetoric. It would be a good time to contact your representative to express your views.