John Waters And His Nixon Connection

February 5, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Energy, Entertainment, Environmental issues, Movies, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Library events, Pat Nixon, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

This week the Australian newspapers the Melbourne Age features an interview with director, writer and raconteur John Waters, who will be traveling to Down Under in March to present his one-man show in several of that nation’s cities. In the article, Waters mentions that he was interested to see one of his childhood favorites, Patty McCormack of The Bad Seed fame, playing Patricia Nixon in Ron Howard’s film Frost/Nixon, which leads to the surprising fact that:

Waters has a Nixon connection himself. His uncle, John C. Whitaker, was undersecretary of the interior during the Nixon years. It got a bit awkward, Waters says, “during the ’60s when I was at riots and things outside the White House but now we get along great”. Whitaker, he adds, “was never part of anything like Watergate and his son, when he was 15, worked as a craft services kid on Hairspray and went on to become a big producer with Imagine Films, producing things like Eminem’s film 8 Mile.”

As previously mentioned at TNN, Mr. Whitaker, who appeared at the Nixon Library last month, was a major figure, during the early 1970s, in the shaping of the most far-ranging and farsighted environmental policies of any Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt’s, and in the initiatives in energy policy that have become especially relevant in recent years.

It’s also worth noting that his son Jim Whitaker, who Waters mentions, was a producer of another Ron Howard film, Cinderella Man. And it was Waters’s grandmother Stella Whitaker who gave him, for his sixteenth birthday, the camera which he used to shoot his earliest films. Over forty years later, he’s at work on his next feature, Fruitcake, although, as he points out to the Age’s reporter, it’s now rather difficult for even the creator of Hairspray to get backing for any feature with a budget above $1 million and below $100 million.

The Great Conservationists

February 2, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Domestic issues, Environmental issues, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

A Time Magazine story dated the first week of February 1969 illustrates how RN set the tone for his administration’s environmental agenda very early on:

After his embroilment in the Nixon Administration’s only serious appointment hassle, Walter Hickel was doubly confirmed: both in his new job as Secretary of the Interior and in his new respect for the power of disgruntled conservationists. Last week, in his first important action, Hickel named as his undersecretary a man who may well set the tone for his department. He is Russell E. Train, chairman of Nixon’s pre-inaugural task force on resources and environment, and an internationally esteemed conservationist. The appointment drew praise from nearly every quarter, including the old Administration. Said Stewart Udall, Hickel’s predecessor: “I don’t think there’s anyone in the conservation movement with greater dedication or insight. He’s supported all the right causes.”

For Udall, the most important right cause is Train’s commitment to “the environmental impact of what we’re doing.” Train believes that the Federal Government must assign top priority to preserving open space and protecting wildlife—two of Interior’s traditional functions. He insists that the Government also study the wise use of all of the nation’s vulnerable natural resources, and specifically a campaign against such blights as pollution, overcrowding and planned uglification. Train, 48, an Eisenhower appointee to a tax court judgeship, first became interested in conservation as a big-game hunter. In 1961, he founded the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation to help assure that Africa’s new governments would do a better job of preserving game than their colonial predecessors had. For the past four years he has headed the nonprofit Conservation Foundation, which, under his leadership, addressed its educational and research programs to increasingly broader fields (waste disposal, the danger of pesticides, hunger).

Train’s impending appointment became open knowledge in Washington early last month after Nixon aides leaked the news in hope of offsetting Hickel’s extremely maladroit comments on utilizing natural resources rather than preserving them. In discussing Train’s Senate hearing for confirmation this week, Hickel said wryly: “I don’t think the hearings will last as long for him as they did for me.”

1.22.70

January 22, 2010 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Environmental issues, Nixon Administration, Political Philosophy, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

Forty years ago today —on 22 January 1970— RN delivered his first State of the Union Message to a Joint Session of Congress.  The year before, the outgoing, diminished LBJ had delivered an elegiac, wistful SOTU describing what might have been and how he hoped he would be remembered.

RN had used 1969 to organize and consolidate, and his 1970 SOTU —which is my favorite among the several notable speeches he gave as POTUS— concisely conveys the sense of confidence, energy, enthusiasm, innovation, and equanimity that characterized his first term, and particularly its approach to domestic issues.  The speech was beautifully written, and the delivery combined equal parts of buoyancy and gravitas as RN simply but eloquently sketched his vision of a new America for a new decade — and challenged Americans to join him in making that vision real.

Although the Congress had failed to act on any of his legislative proposals to date, the speech to “my colleagues in the Congress” was marked by the tone of respect, conciliation, and cooperation that characterized the beginning of his administration.

To address a joint session of the Congress in this great chamber in which I was once privileged to serve is an honor for which I am deeply grateful.

After the bitter divisiveness of the 1960s, the new President held out the possibility of turning a corner together:

The State of the Union address is traditionally an occasion for a lengthy and detailed account by the President of what he has accomplished in the past, what he wants the Congress to do in the future, and, in an election year, to lay the basis for the political issues which might be decisive in the fall.

Occasionally there comes a time when profound and far-reaching events command a break with tradition. This is such a time.

I say this not only because 1970 marks the beginning of a new decade in which America will celebrate its 200th birthday. I say it because new knowledge and hard experience argue persuasively that both our programs and our institutions in America need to be reformed.

The moment has arrived to harness the vast energies and abundance of this land to the creation of a new American experience, an experience richer and deeper and more truly a reflection of the goodness and grace of the human spirit.

The ’70s will be a time of new beginnings, a time of exploring both on the earth and in the heavens, a time of discovery. But the time has also come for emphasis on developing better ways of managing what we have and of completing what man’s genius has begun but left unfinished.

Our land, this land that is ours together, is a great and a good land. It is also an unfinished land, and the challenge of perfecting it is the summons of the ’70s.

RN said that the first and most important national priority was peace and an end to the war in Vietnam.  At this point, the new President was still confident that his determination to negotiate an equitable settlement would end the war this year.  His undiminished optimism is reflected in his words; he had not yet accepted that the enemy wasn’t interested in negotiating anything; that their non-negotiable terms involved a unilateral US withdrawal combined with an overthrow of the Thieu government.

He outlined the basic points of the Nixon Doctrine he had announced at Guam in July ’69 — that America would continue to provide military aid and supplies to our allies, but that they would be expected to provide the manpower for their own defense that it expected its allies to assume responsibility for providing the manpower for their own defense— and said that foreign policy would be the subject of a separate paper.

Moving on to the domestic front —the State of the Union— RN discussed the economic imbalances that had been created by several years of unrestrained spending.  The solution for such problems was clear: restrain spending and balance budgets.

But in this speech, RN was thinking far more broadly and boldly.

I now turn to a subject which, next to our desire for peace, may well become the major concern of the American people in the decade of the seventies.

In the next 10 years we shall increase our wealth by 50 percent. The profound question is: Does this mean we will be 50 percent richer in a real sense, 50 percent better off, 50 percent happier?

Or does it mean that in the year 1980 the President standing in this place will look back on a decade in which 70 percent of our people lived in metropolitan areas choked by traffic, suffocated by smog, poisoned by water, deafened by noise, and terrorized by crime?

These are not the great questions that concern world leaders at summit conferences. But people do not live at the summit. They live in the foothills of everyday experience, and it is time for all of us to concern ourselves with the way real people live in real life.

The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water?

Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.

Clean air, clean water, open spaces—these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.

We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.

The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America’s history.

It is not a program for just one year. A year’s plan in this field is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead not a year, but five years or 10 years—whatever time is required to do the job.

Thus RN put his mark on the emerging issue of the environment — and challenged the Congress (the same Congress he had already gently chastised for inaction at different points during the speech) to join him on a decade-long commitment to reclaiming America’s natural heritage.

The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America’s history.

It is not a program for just one year. A year’s plan in this field is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead not a year, but 5 years or 10 years–whatever time is required to do the job.

I shall propose to this Congress a $10 billion nationwide clean waters program to put modern municipal waste treatment plants in every place in America where they are needed to make our waters clean again, and do it now. We have the industrial capacity, if we begin now, to build them all within 5 years. This program will get them built within 5 years.

As our cities and suburbs relentlessly expand, those priceless open spaces needed for recreation areas accessible to their people are swallowed up–often forever. Unless we preserve these spaces while they are still available, we will have none to preserve. Therefore, I shall propose new financing methods for purchasing open space and parklands now, before they are lost to us.

The automobile is our worst polluter of the air. Adequate control requires further advances in engine design and fuel composition. We shall intensify our research, set increasingly strict standards, and strengthen enforcement procedures-and we shall do it now.

We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources, which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor’s yard.

This requires comprehensive new regulations. It also requires that, to the extent possible, the price of goods should be made to include the costs of producing and disposing of them without damage to the environment.

Now, I realize that the argument is often made that there is a fundamental contradiction between economic growth and the quality of life, so that to have one we must forsake the other.

The answer is not to abandon growth, but to redirect it. For example, we should turn toward ending congestion and eliminating smog the same reservoir of inventive genius that created them in the first place.

Continued vigorous economic growth provides us with the means to enrich life itself and to enhance our planet as a place hospitable to man.

The speech’s peroration and conclusion deserve quotation in full:

Two hundred years ago this was a new nation of 3 million people, weak militarily, poor economically. But America meant something to the world then which could not be measured in dollars, something far more important than military might.

Listen to President Thomas Jefferson in 1802: We act not “for ourselves alone, but for the whole human race.”

We had a spiritual quality then which caught the imagination of millions of people in the world.

Today, when we are the richest and strongest nation in the world, let it not be recorded that we lack the moral and spiritual idealism which made us the hope of the world at the time of our birth.

The demands of us in 1976 are even greater than in 1776.

It is no longer enough to live and let live. Now we must live and help live.

We need a fresh climate in America, one in which a person can breathe freely and breathe in freedom.

Our recognition of the truth that wealth and happiness are not the same thing requires us to measure success or failure by new criteria.

Even more than the programs I have described today, what this Nation needs is an example from its elected leaders in providing the spiritual and moral leadership which no programs for material progress can satisfy.

Above all, let us inspire young Americans with a sense of excitement, a sense of destiny, a sense of involvement, in meeting the challenges we face in this great period of our history. Only then are they going to have any sense of satisfaction in their lives.

The greatest privilege an individual can have is to serve in a cause bigger than himself. We have such a cause.

How we seize the opportunities I have described today will determine not only our future, but the future of peace and freedom in this world in the last third of the century.

May God give us the wisdom, the strength and, above all, the idealism to be worthy of that challenge, so that America can fulfill its destiny of being the world’s best hope for liberty, for opportunity, for progress and peace for all peoples.

It has become conventional wisdom that RN actually had little interest in the environment, and that his proposals were principally intended to outflank his political opponents on their left.  Whether this is true or not —or whatever elements of truth it may contain— it is an easy copout to hold harmless the  many,  in Congress and the media and the academy, who were more interested in having the environment as a stick with which to beat the President than as a legislative program that could begin to address the problem.  If RN is to be criticized for bluffing, there should be no less criticism for those who failed to call his bluff.

In fact, the Nixon administration’s environmental record —which started from scratch— has lately been acknowledged as impressive and important.  RN established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the landmark Clean Air Act.  He signed the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Ocean Dumping Act; the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungide, Rodenticide Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act.   In his 1971 SOTU speech he proposed his Legacy of Parks program.  At the end of 1973 he signed the Endangered Species act; and he supported the Safe Drinking Water Act that was signed by President Ford at the end of 1974.

RN’s first term was one of the most efficient, innovative, and effective periods of presidential leadership — four years when everything seemed possible and many things were accomplished.   The 1970 SOTU is a memory and a microcosm of the spirit that animated the the Nixon administration 1969-1972.  It commands respect.  It deserves attention.

You can see and hear RN deliver this seminal 1970 SOTU message here.

RN In ‘70 — Launching The Decade of the Environment

January 1, 2010 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Environmental issues, History, Nixon Administration, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 3 Comments 

I have become…convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.
—President Nixon’s Signing Statement for the National Environmental Policy Act,             1 January 1970

One of the most important, forward-thinking, and lasting achievements of the Nixon administration has been its environmental legacy.  RN, typically, took a serious, practical, and comprehensive approach to this emerging issue.

That is why he chose to sign the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 on 1 January 1970, at the beginning of a new decade and the start of the second year of his presidency.  The bill was largely the work of Democratic Senator Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson of Washington State; RN embraced it and, before very long, greatly expanded on it.

In fact, he felt so strongly about the environment as a landmark issue that he had wanted to sign the bill at midnight on 31 December — but Bob Haldeman pointed out that an early morning ceremony would make more sense in terms of the reporters’ and staff’s plans for New Year’s Eve.

So the signing was at 10 am on New Year’s Day in the President’s office at the Western White House in San Clemente.

And RN emphasized its importance to him by prefacing the signing with some remarks.  He was at ease —he even joked a bit with the reporters— but there was no mistaking how seriously he took the legislation and the occasion:

As you know, the bill we are signing today is the environmental bill. There is one line in there that I am particularly stimulated by, when I said we had to work on the environment because it is now or never.

If you look ahead 10 years, you project population growth, car growth, and that means, of course, smog growth, water pollution, and the rest.

An area like this will be unfit for living; New York will be, Philadelphia, and, of course, 75 percent of the people will be living in areas like this.

So unless we start moving on it now-there is a lead time–unless we move on it now, believe me, we will not have an opportunity to do it later, because then when people have millions more automobiles, and, of course, the waters and so forth developing in the way that they do without plants for purification, once the damage is done, it is much harder to turn it around. It is going to be hard as it is.

That is why I indicate here that a major goal, when you talk about New Year’s resolutions, I wouldn’t say for the next year but for the next 10 years–and I don’t mean that I intend to run for a third term–for the next 10 years for this country must be to restore the cleanliness of the air, the water, and that, of course, means moving also on the broader problems of population congestion, transport, and the like.

A Signing Statement was also issued on 1 January, and it was equally eloquent and no less urgent.  RN graciously credited the sponsors of the bill, but he also served notice that now his administration intended to do something about the issue — not just to talk about doing something.

It is particularly fitting that my first official act in this new decade is to approve the National Environmental Policy Act.

The past year has seen the creation of a President’s Cabinet committee on environmental quality, and we have devoted many hours to the pressing problems of pollution control, airport location, wilderness preservation, highway construction, and population trends.

By my participation in these efforts I have become further convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.

I, therefore, commend the Congress and particularly the sponsors of this bill, Senators Stevens and Jackson and Representative Dingell, for this clear legislative policy declaration. Under the provisions of this law a three-member council of environmental advisers will be appointed. I anticipate that they will occupy the same close advisory relation to the President that the Council of Economic Advisers does in fiscal and monetary matters. The environmental advisers will be assisted by a compact staff in keeping me thoroughly posted on current problems and advising me on how the Federal Government can act to solve them.

In the near future I will forward to the Senate names of highly qualified individuals to help both the Cabinet and me in the critical decisions that will affect the quality of life in the United States for years to come. I will then take the necessary executive action to reconstitute the Cabinet committee and its staff to avoid duplication of function.

On the latter point, I know that the Congress has before it a proposal to establish yet another staff organization to deal with environmental problems in the Executive Office of the President. I believe this would be a mistake.

No matter how pressing the problem, to over-organize, to over-staff, or to compound the levels of review and advice seldom brings earlier or better results.

We are most interested in results. The act I have signed gives us an adequate organization and a good statement of direction. We are determined that the decade of the seventies will be known as the time when this country regained a productive harmony between man and nature.

Later in January, RN devoted a considerable portion of his State of the Union Message to his proposed environmental legislation.

In February, he submitted to Congress the most comprehensive message on the environment ever proposed by a President of the United States.

In March he upgraded the Environmental Quality Council to the status of a Cabinet Committee on the Environment.

In July he created the EPA.

And —as a fitting bookend to 1970— on 31 December, he signed the Clean Air Act, which has been called one of the most signifiant pieces of environmental legislation ever passed.

All these —and the other environmental landmarks throughout 1970 will be considered chronologically here at TNN throughout 2010.

One of the speakers at the first Nixon Legacy Forum — to be held in the East Room of the Library in Yorba Linda next Friday (8 January, from 1.30-3.30 PM)— will be the Hon. John C Whitaker.   John, who was one of RN’s closest friends and advisers from the early 1960s, was a scientist and engineer by training.  He concentrated on environmental issues and policies as Associate Director of the Domestic Council (1969-1972) and as Undersecretary of the Interior (1973-1975).  He is the author of Striking a Balance: Environment and Natural Resource Policy in the Nixon-Ford Administrations.  At the Legacy Forum he will discuss RN’s environmental record.

The Nixon Legacy Forums are jointly sponsored by the Richard Nixon Foundation and the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, and are free and open to the public.

Beware Of Green Sheep Bearing Urgent Messages

December 11, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Environmental issues, History, International Affairs, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Public Opinion, UN | 2 Comments 

Long ago, the wisest of all men who ever trod earthly sod reminded us to beware of those peddling false information, noting that they often appear in “sheep’s clothing,” but really they are nothing more than “ravenous wolves.” These days we are bearing witness to the resurgence of ideas that have long since been discredited in former form, so the wool suit has been brought out for stealthy reasons. But a closer look reveals that those sheep have really big teeth.

Dust off your old Orwellian “newspeak” dictionary, where words are set free from actual meaning. There is a new code in town and it is worthy of being broken – a barely cryptic puzzle, but one that may, in fact, deceive many. Socialism is not only on the comeback trail via a full frontal political assault in our country (never mind that is has never actually worked anywhere), it is also on the march under a new banner – though to see this we must look through the looking glass. Not only has terminology been tweaked, the political color chart is being revised, as well – while too few actually notice.

Green is the new Red.

The actual practical application of so-called socialist dogma since the days when its seeds were hydrated in the bloodbath of the French Revolution has never come close to living up to its utopian promises. The goals of equality and liberty – noble concepts themselves – have never been achieved through coercive collectivism. Countries have certainly tried to level the playing field – or, if you prefer “spread the wealth around” – but it has always been done at the expense of personal freedom, not to mention the fact that wealth has tended to disappear in the process of that “spreading.” Some of the wealth did, of course, survive – for a time at least – in the coffers of those who happened to be the ruling elite du jour.

In other words, although socialism has regularly been presented as the cultural and political pathway to fairness and prosperity for all, it has had a poor record in history. In fact, it has tended to actually make matters worse. But never mind that: let’s give the tired doctrine one more try. After all, we have smarter people in charge now and the fact that the math still doesn’t add up is irrelevant.

It’s the same with environmentalism. As the world watched what happened this past week in wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen, the mantra was about saving the planet. But lurking beneath and behind the machinations and rhetoric of this latest climate-change-kum-by-ya moment is the same old ideology, albeit with a leafy facelift. Saving the planet, we are regularly told by the smart people, requires more centralization of power and less individual liberty.

And if there is any doubt as to this agenda, we need only look back to a few days ago when Environmental Protection Agency Czarina, Lisa Jackson, told us all that the EPA regards carbon dioxide as a grave threat to mother earth and that the pollutant must therefore be controlled by government guardians. They’ll be the people wearing those special biohazard suits – yep, you guessed it, the ones made of wool.

It is emerging that there are plans, if the Congress doesn’t do the bidding of the new greed reds, to simply do a smack down on the economy with a method described as “command-and-control.” This is a management style popularized in the now deceased HBO series, “The Sopranos,” as in that memorable line, “I got your ‘command-and-control’ right here – badda bing, badda boom.”

You say, “cap-and-trade,” others say, “command-and-control,” why don’t we call the whole thing off?

Please don’t miss the significance of what Jackson has said. Our entire economy is based just as much on carbon as it is the dollar. A “command-and-control” approach is another way of saying: “You think a take over of health care is a power grab? Wait until you see this!”

What does this have to do with socialism? Environmentalism relates to socialism in much the same way that Marxism relates to Leninism – and for the same reason. Neither is really about giving people a better life or saving the planet. The ultimate agenda – the wolf in sheep’s clothing – is political power and the micromanagement of individual lives through collectivism, with all the strings pulled by an emerging political aristocracy made up of the “really smart” people. And I use that word “aristocracy” deliberately, though with tongue-in-cheek, because the word comes from the Greek and literally means: “the rule of the best.”

The problem is that this latest group of “the best and the brightest” has a clear and present problem with priorities. We are facing some very great crisis-level challenges in America, the top two being, 1. It’s the economy, stupid, and 2. The war against Islamism (or, reverse the order, if you like). But the body language of those “really smart” people is all about matters that, well, don’t actually matter to most Americans – at least not right now.

Seventeenth century British preacher, Thomas Fuller, a man who would have done well in the age of the sound bite, once said: “He that is everywhere is nowhere.” This is the same idea Steven Covey and other management gurus talk about when they warn that the “urgent” can be the enemy of the “important.” And Americans right now are living under a new tyranny – that of the neo-urgent. However, the present “urgent-priority” is being orchestrated by those who seem to simply want power centralized and personal liberties marginalized.

Oh, by the way, Thomas Fuller also famously said, “It is always darkest just before the day dawneth,” which gives me some comfort. That is, until I recall one college professor of mine many years ago – a particularly and regularly befuddled man – who once botched this quote while giving us a pep talk before a major exam: “Now, uh, class, uh, always remember what Thomas Fuller said, ‘It is always darkest before the storm.”

Someone’s Fond Of Nixon To China Analogies

November 4, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

On his Twitter account, Senator John Kerry again invokes the watershed moment in terms of climate change:

US Chamber letter urges action on climate change, need to test whether this is a Nixon to China moment.

The Hill explains from their Twitter room:

He referenced President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China, which has lent itself to a saying meant to describe an uncharacteristic political act.

The Chamber in June opposed the House’s version of climate change legislation, calling it a “job killing measure.” The business group has recently found itself between the White House’s crosshairs for its opposition to its key legislative initiatives, including the cap-and-trade climate bill.

Republicans on the EPW committee have attempted to stall the negotiations by boycotting committee hearings on the bill, saying it needs more study from experts. Chairman Boxer has said she would like her panel to pass a bill before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.

The test about which Kerry spoke may be in response to a warning from top Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten. He wrote in the letter:

The Chamber will continue to oppose bad policies that resemble the failed climate proposals of the past, such as bills that jeopardize American jobs, create trade inequalities, leave open the Clean Air Act, open the door to CO2-based mass tort litigation, and further hamper the permitting process for clean energy.

He concluded, however:

But the Chamber believes Senators Kerry, Graham, and the other named Senators have taken a constructive and positive stand on global climate change and energy security, rising above partisan politics and opening a real discussion on how to address this important issue.

Josten’s letter also praised an October New York Times op-ed by Kerry and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) that called for “aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change.”

RN, The Majesty Of Parks, And Our National Heritage

October 15, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Last August, Frank Gannon wrote that it was significant that the new President of the Nixon Foundation — Ronald H. Walker — was also appointed to lead the National Parks Service in 1973.

Significant because a prominent part of RN’s legislative agenda included environmental protection and conservation.

In 1973, he signed the Endangered Species Act, protecting species and their habitats from extinction.

His first commitment to the people, he established the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to help insure that Americans could breathe clean air and drink clean water.

The same year, RN signed the General Authorities Act which required the whole national park system to be administered by the National Park Service — rather than by its constituent parts — effectively uniting the parks to reflect “a single national heritage” and to therefore “derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all people of the United States.”

As Gannon also noted, in August 1971 RN announced that more than 5,000 acres would be turned over for a “full range of outdoor experiences” for its “dynamic” people.

Acclaimed documentary filmmaker Ken Burns’ newest PBS masterpiece, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea, is full of exquisite footage of America’s preserved majesty — from Yellowstone to the Grand Tetons — and its dynamic people’s tribute to their national heritage.

8.18.71

August 18, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Environmental issues, Nixon Administration, Nixon Foundation, Nixon family, Pat Nixon, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

President Obama and his family enjoyed and praised the beauty of Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon during their recent whirlwind western tour.  And Douglas Brinkley has written a doorstopper celebrating TR’s role in creating our National Parks.

But it was RN’s Legacy of Parks program —officially announced thirty-eight years ago tomorrow, that gave the Park Service its late 20th Century legs and pioneered the Nixonian concept of bringing parks to places —especially urban places— where all people could enjoy them.

As a result of RN’s program, between 1971 and 1976, more than 80,000 acres of government property were converted to recreational use in 642 new parks.

PN launched the Legacy of Parks thirty-eight years ago today —on 18 August 1971— at the end of a four-day swing through several western states that ended on the US-Mexican border south of San Diego.

PN launches the Legacy of Parks at Imperial Beach, California, on 18 August 1971.  She officiated at the turning over of a 370-acre former naval base as Border Field State Park.

Building on the foundation laid in the 37-point program that I submitted to Congress last year, I will propose a strong new set of initiatives to clean up our air and water, to combat noise, and to preserve and restore our surroundings.

I will propose programs to make better use of our land, to encourage a balanced national growth–growth that will revitalize our rural heartland and enhance the quality of life in America.

And not only to meet today’s needs but to anticipate those of tomorrow, I will put forward the most extensive program ever proposed by a President of the United States to expand the Nation’s parks, recreation areas, open spaces, in a way that truly brings parks to the people where the people are. For only if we leave a legacy of parks will the next generation have parks to enjoy.

On 8 February, in his Special Message to Congress Proposing the 1971 Environmental Program, RN put some appropriations flesh on those legislative words:

Merely acquiring land for open space and recreation is not enough. We must bring parks to where the people are so that everyone has access to nearby recreational areas. In my budget for 1972, I have proposed a new “Legacy of Parks” program which will help States and local government provide parks and recreation areas, not just for today’s Americans but for tomorrow’s as well. Only if we set aside and develop such recreation areas now can we ensure that they will be available for future generations.

As part of this legacy, I have requested a $200 million appropriation to begin a new program for the acquisition and development of additional park lands in urban areas. To be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this would include provision for facilities such as swimming pools to add to the use and enjoyment of these parks.

Also, I have recommended in my 1972 budget that the appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund be increased to $380 million, permitting the continued acquisition of Federal parks and recreation areas as well as an expanded State grant program. However, because of the way in which these State grant funds were allocated over the past five years, a relatively small percentage has been used for the purchase and development of recreational facilities in and near urban areas. The allocation formula should be changed to ensure that more parks will be developed in and near our urban areas.

And on 19 August, at Grand Teton National Park, he issued a statement announcing the first fruits of his January proposal:

It has been estimated that some 75 percent of all outdoor recreation enjoyed by Americans takes place within a short distance of their homes. That is why I believe so strongly that we should be doing far more to bring our parks to the people. The Congress has thus far appropriated only $100 million for the HUD program.

Finally, I would point to my establishment of the Federal Property Review Board, which evaluates federally owned properties in order to determine whether they can be converted to park use. Close to 100 such properties have already been identified, and 24 of these, containing more than 5,000 acres, are now in the process of being conveyed by the Department of the Interior to local and State agencies. Mrs. Nixon has sought to encourage this important effort during her trip across the country this week.

Many of the properties which have been released under this program are within easy reach of our larger urban areas. To augment these efforts, we are also preparing a number of amendments to the Federal Income Tax Code which would facilitate charitable donations of property for conservation purposes. I hope to present these proposals to the Congress in the near future.

The combined effect of all these activities will be to provide that full range of outdoor experiences which our dynamic population requires. For some, this program will provide neighborhood parks in the city. For others, it will offer a pleasant setting for a weekend retreat, for an afternoon bike ride, or for a family vacation. For still others, it will provide the chance truly to escape into the wilderness.

I believe our Nation can afford to make these opportunities available. In fact, it is my view that we cannot afford not to provide them. For such a program can significantly enhance the quality of our Nation’s life and spirit–both now and for future generations.

It’s significant that the new President of the Nixon Foundation —Ron Walker— is the man RN chose to head the National Park Service in 1973.  The appointment of this valued staff member and long-time friend was an indication of the importance RN continued to place on his parks initiative.  (And it’s ironic that RN’s extensive biography on the National Park Service website doesn’t even mention the Legacy of Parks.)

Vrrrrroooom To All That

May 29, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Energy, Environmental issues, Lifestyle, Music, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Daniel Henninger’s “Wonderland” column today —”Obama vs. The Beach Boys – Daddy’s taking the muscle car culture away” — casts a gimlet eye on President Obama’s plans for America’s automobiles. And he doesn’t like what he sees. Not one bit.

When Barack Obama announced that the government will use its fist to wave onto the highways of America cars that get 39 miles to a gallon of liquefied switch grass or something, he said, “Everybody wins.”

Everybody? What country has he been living in? This marks the end of the internal combustion engine as we knew it, and it is the way Americans have defined, designed and literally driven much of the nation’s culture for as long as anyone can remember. Car culture is America’s culture.

Mr. Henninger notes that the President likes to give iPods as gifts.  So he proposes a playlist that might bring him back to his senses.

The first track would be the Beach Boys’ 1964 “Shut Down.”

The second would be their 1963 anthem “Little Deuce Coupe.”

“She’s got a competition clutch with a four on the floor, and she purrs like a kitten til the lake pipes roar.”

It’s 2016. Imagine a Brian Wilson ever thinking to write: “And she’ll have fun, fun, fun til her daddy takes her Prius away.”

At Mr. Obama’s “Everybody wins” announcement ceremony in the Rose Garden, no one knew better how much has been lost than the cowed auto chiefs arrayed behind him. CAFE, the fuel-mileage standards Congress mandated 34 years ago, gradually squeezed the size and life out of America’s cars. But something’s getting phased out here other than gas-fueled cars.

Some of the most famous celebrity converts to the politics behind this new, shrinking world of plug-ins once wrote and sang paeans to muscle cars and a more muscular culture.

The third track would be Bruce Springsteen’s 1975 hit “Born to Run.”

 ”Beyond the Palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard.”

Time was Bruce Springsteen knew that “Jersey boys” mainly meant steel, chrome, rubber and auto tech. Check out the lyrics to “Pink Cadillac” (“but my love is bigger than a Honda”) or the car-crazy “Racing in the Street,” invoking Chevys with 396 Fuelie heads, Hurst speed-shifters and Camaros running “from the fire roads to the interstate.”

The fourth track would be Ronnie and the Daytonas’ 1965 hit “G.T.O.”

“Turn it on, wind it up, blow it out — GTOoooo.”

We are being offered a different world now. One designed, defined and driven by a new set of un-fun obsessions — carbon footprints, greenhouse gas and alternative energy. This large transition passes before us, barely seen, as the gray water of public policy. Hardly anyone notices how much is being changed.

To put a stop to the new sin of spending too much time out on Highway 9, we are getting the mark-up hearings this week in Washington for the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It’s 900 pages long, dripping with thousands of Mickey-Mouse rules to reorder how we live. A Senate Finance Committee document last week on the Obama health-care plan proposes “lifestyle related revenue raisers.” Lifestyles like drinking beer. This is the “taxing bad behavior” movement. They get to define what’s bad.

The fifth track would be Commander Cody’s 1972 cover of the 1955 “Hot Rod Lincoln.”

Mr. Henninger isn’t hesitate to pin his colors to the antennas of the glorious gas guzzlers that appear to be driving down the road to oblivion:

This tension over how we live arrived before the world began standing on its head over global warming. The guys in the hemi-powered drones used to mock the granola and Birkenstock crowd. Look who’s on top now.

“Everybody wins?” Not quite. What’s winning is a worldview that goes deeper than the data beneath global warming. The gasoline cars they want to turn into scrap were about a lot more than the thrill of roaring on.

The cars and their culture were a manifestation of what made the U.S. really different. The cars, like the country, were big, fast and unfettered. Their drivers were delirious with the possibility of finding something new in life. “It’s a town full of losers, and I’m pullin’ out of here to win!”

When Americans grew up, that’s just what a lot of them did — win. Now, it looks like we’re being asked to throttle down to government-approved survival. They’re even running the car companies, telling them what to build, and then they’ll pay people to buy the product. Save the planet and lose the nation’s heart.

 
Here is Mr. Henninger discussed his thoughts on the Wall Street Journal’s Digital Network.

Very Cool Cats, Very Cold

May 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Art, Environmental issues | 2 Comments 

National Geographic photographer Steven Winter gave a sold-out lecture last night at the Society’s Washington HQ about his six-month high-altitude high-adventure pursuit of the elusive (think pale-on-white above 12,000 feet) and endangered (probably only 3,500 left in the world) snow leopard.  

His amazing shot of  a snow leopard in a snow storm won 2008’s award for Best Wildlife Photograph.

Winter’s biography begins with some attention-getting details: “I’ve been stalked by jaguars in Brazil, charged by an 11-foot grizzly in Siberia, trapped in quicksand in the world’s largest tiger reserve in Myanmar and slept in a tent for six weeks at 0 below zero tracking snow leopards.  I have flown over erupting volcanoes and visited isolated villages whee residents had never before seen a blond foreigner —- or a camera.”

Inspired, like many, by the romance and adventure of Peter Matthiessen’s practical and mystical 1978 classic, Winter had answered an editor’s memo asking for “dream assignments” by requesting the rarely seen —and even more rarely photographed— snow leopard.

In addition to his photographic skills, Winter turned out to be an engaging and enthusiastic lecturer.  Unfortunately an equipment glitch (“it worked this afternoon”) prevented the audience from seeing a short Nat Geo film he made about the snow leopard expedition.

But TNN readers can see it  here.

Blog size and resolution can’t begin to do justice to Steve Winter’s striking photographs.  Check out the snow leopard gallery at National Geographic’s website.  And Winter’s own website introduces his wider body of work.

In 1971, Nixon Denounced “Eco-Crusaders”

April 19, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Nixon Administration, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Almost.

Low Voltage

April 9, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Energy, Environmental issues, Obama administration, Technology | Leave a Comment 

In a classic case of ostrich-think (who are you gonna believe, the auto task force report or your lying eyes?), GM blithely dismisses the news that the much-vaunted Volt is a taxpayer-subsidized dud-in-the-making.  

In addition to being too far behind Toyota to catch up, the finished product will sell for $40K when —and if— it arrives on time, and still behind the times, in 2010.  Renee Schoff reported for McClatchy newspapers:

The White House may have sounded a bit bleak on the Chevrolet Volt last week, but both the company and the Obama administration say don’t read that as early news of the much-advertised electric car’s demise.

President Barack Obama’s auto task force last week said in an assessment of General Motors’ viability that it was a full generation behind Toyota in “green powertrain development” and that “while the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.”

A White House official who worked on the assessment said on Wednesday, however, that the statements had been simply another way of saying what GM has said all along — it will be a challenge to bring the new technology up to scale and make it cost competitive.

GM will have to make its own decisions about the pace of its advanced technology, said the official, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

“You should not expect the task force will say GM should discontinue the Volt,” he said.

GM spokesman Dave Darovitz said there was nothing new in the government statement on high costs. New technology is always expensive, he said.

The company has added money to building the Volt, and it’s still the “No. 1 product development program here at GM,” he said.

“We will make it happen,” Darovitz said. “There is no deviation in our focus and intent to bring the car to market in late 2010.”

Darovitz said the government report made an unfair comparison with Toyota because it was dealing with two different technologies — the Prius gas-electric hybrid and the battery-powered plug-in electric Volt.

Obama last week rejected GM’s restructuring plan and gave the automaker until June 1 to explain how it would reshape itself as a healthy company. GM seeks more than $16 billion in additional taxpayer funds.

GM reported in its five-year restructuring plan that it’s investing in hybrid and plug-in cars and trucks, including the Volt and two other models that will use its technology.

“With a majority of Americans driving their vehicles less than 40 miles per day, the Chevrolet Volt — providing up to 40 miles on a single electrical charge — should be attractive to those seeking to use little if any gasoline,” the GM plan said. “The development costs of high-technology vehicles like the Volt are significant, but so are the long-term benefits that come from increased energy efficiency and independence.”

Darovitz said the company expects state and federal incentives will help boost demand for the Volt, particularly a $7,500 federal tax credit. The Volt is expected to sell for around $40,000 because of the high cost of its batteries. The Energy Department has been helping with battery research to bring costs down.

Neil Young, Motorhead Messiah

March 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Energy, Environmental issues, Music | Leave a Comment 

What with Detroit suddenly all over the news, Neil Young’s new album  Fork in the Road —awaiting release on 7 April— couldn’t be more timely.  

Word has it that the CD has a real ripped-from-today’s-headline vibe that reflects its hasty recording just before Christmas.

Having dealt with foreign policy in Living with War, this time the subject matter focuses on economic catastrophe — particularly as viewed from an automotive perspective.  The fork in this road will be open to many interpretations.  

The first single is “Johnny Magic,” a song dedicated to Young’s Wichita auto mechanic buddy Jonathan Goodwin.

The single was debuted in two stages on the internet.  The first, and by far the coolest, was a shot entirely in Young’s LincVolt while he sang to a track played on his laptop while driving around the streets of Wichita.

Johnny Magic had a way with metal
Had a way with machines
One day in a garage far away he met his destiny
In the form of a heavy metal Continental

She as born to run on a proud highway
Then the whole world starting running out of money
People losing their jobs
Right here in Wichita

Wichita the home of the heavy metal Continental
Where the Motorhead Messiah was tuning the system in
Johnny Magic, Johnny Magic

She burst from the garage in a blaze of silence
Disappearing down Douglas at lightning speed
Befre the big metal door cam e crashing down in Wichita

She was born to run on a proud highway
Now she goes long range on domestic green fuel
100 miles per gallon is the Continental Rule
Out on the Kansas two-lane flats near Wichita

The Motorhead Messiah went to Washington
To show them what he’d done
The senators and congressman came down in Washington
And they rode in the heavy metal Continental

She was born to run on a proud highway
Johnny Magic the Motorhead Messiah was tuning the system in

The other video, released a few days later, carried on the same DWS —driving while singing— motif, this time with a passenger and some more lively visuals.  You can see it here.

Neil Young has a longstanding interest in cars.   He is competing for the $10 million Automotive X Prize for developing a vehicle that gets 100 miles or more to the gallon.  Along with uber-mechanic Goodwin, he has been transforming his 1959 Lincoln Continental into a 2009 green fantasy of sustainable technology.

Several months ago he weighed in with an op-ed for HufPo: “How To Save A Major Auto Company.”

Find a new ownership group. The culture must change. It is time to turn the page. In the high technology sector there are several candidates for ownership of a major car and truck manufacturer. We need forward looking people who are not restricted by the existing culture in Detroit. We need visionary people now with business sense to create automobiles that do not contribute to global warming.

It is time to change and our problems can facilitate our solutions. We can no longer afford to continue down Detroit’s old road. The people have spoken. They do not want gas guzzlers (although they still like big cars and trucks). It is possible to build large long-range vehicles that are very efficient. People will buy those vehicles because they represent real change and a solution that we can live with.

The government must take advantage of the powerful position that exists today. The Big 3 are looking for a bailout. They should only get it if they agree to stop building autos that contribute to global warming now. The stress on the auto manufacturers today is gigantic. In order to keep people working in their jobs and keep factories open, this plan is suggested:

The big three must reduce models to basics. a truck, an SUV, a large family sedan, an economy sedan, and a sports car. Use existing tooling.

Keep building these models to keep the workforce employed but build them without engines and transmissions. These new vehicles, called Transition Rollers, are ready for a re-power. No new tooling is required at this stage. The adapters are part of the kits described next.

If reading the above gets your engine racing, you can find the next-described kits —and a great deal more— here.

“I’ve Really Come To Understand Him”

March 7, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Environmental issues, Frost/Nixon, Movies, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Watergate | 1 Comment 

On March 12, the touring production of Peter Morgan’s play Frost/Nixon with Alan Cox and Stacy Keach in the title roles opens at the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles, and this weekend Keach talked about the experience of portraying RN with the Orange County Register’s Paul Hodgins. The acclaimed actor acknowledges that “I’ve always been biased against Nixon – ever since the ’70s and Watergate,” but points out that since signing on to the production, “I’ve really come to understand him a little better [...] I find myself having a lot more sympathy for him than when I first took this role.”

Keach also reveals that he has avoided seeing Ron Howard’s film of Frost/Nixon, and says of the play:

“It’s designed to work in the theater. It’s so much about how the media affects our lives and how image is such an important part of being on TV [...] When you see it in the theater you get the live image and the projected image simultaneously as if you’re at a concert or a sporting event. I think it makes the experience much more dynamic.”

And, having seen both play and film, I can confirm that the use of a giant TV screen onstage to display Keach’s close-ups, as he works his way through the drama’s cathartic confrontation over Watergate, has a power that is missing from the film, where the juxtaposition of TV monitors with Frank Langella sitting in the living-room set somewhat detracts from the effectiveness of his performance.

Keach also expresses a fondness for the wholly invented scene in which an inebriated RN phones David Frost at his hotel. This is rather understandable, since the scene, as much as it varies from what President Nixon would have said or done, gives Keach a chance to do a virtuoso turn on the boards.

How Things Work in Washington

March 6, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Energy, Environmental issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Instead of all those costly boring textbooks written by the professor and/or his friends, the kids can learn how Washington really works by simply studying Kimberly Kindy’s lively savvy piece about FutureGen in today’s WaPo.

Deep inside the economic stimulus package is a $1 billion prize that, in five short words, shows the benefits of being in power in Washington.

The funding, for “fossil energy research and development,” is likely to go to a power plant in a small Illinois town, a project whose longtime backers include a group of powerful lawmakers from the state, among them President Obama.

Save The Earth And The Youth Vote

March 5, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Republican Party, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

NewMajority.com:

The Republican Party has a lengthy record of environmental accomplishments, which stretch back to Abraham Lincoln’s protection of Yosemite Valley in 1864 and include Theodore Roosevelt’s forest and wildlife conservation, Richard Nixon’s creation of the EPA, and Ronald Reagan’s leadership in addressing ozone depletion….

Republicans must start staking out more defensible terrain on environmental issues and be a constant and constructive force for stewardship. In doing so, we must draw a positive contrast to Democrats by exposing their shortcomings and exploiting their areas of vulnerability.

Environmentally conscious voters, particularly young people, have come to associate the Republican Party—and conservatism—with short-sighted opposition to responsible environmental protections. In last year’s election, Barack Obama captured the youth vote by a 2-to-1 margin. Republicans cannot hope to be politically competitive again without getting a larger share of the youth vote.

For Now, Rust May Trump Green

December 8, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Environmental issues | Leave a Comment 

I’m with the “Economist“: Economic recovery shouldn’t take the back seat to environmental reform:

Utilities, carmakers, oil firms and the like will have an integral role to play in reducing America’s emissions. Congress should not pander to them when crafting legislation, but it should not ignore them either. The relevant committees in both the House and the Senate are now headed by Californians, who have few energy-intensive, metal-bashing factories in their constituencies. The symbolism of Beverly Hills usurping Detroit in the legislative pecking order will not be lost on workers and firms in the rust belt who fear that aggressive curbs on greenhouse gases will deal a fatal blow to America’s already ailing heavy industry.

Common Sense

November 12, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Environmental issues, Military, National Security, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment 

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 to allow the United States Navy to continue the use of Sonar in their training exercises in light of lawsuit from environmental groups fearing for the safety of wildlife. Chief Justice John Roberts cites the plainly indisputable:

We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training exercises,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We see no basis for jeopardizing national security.”

Senator Biden’s Coal Sore

September 25, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Election 2008, Energy, Environmental issues | 1 Comment 

Who knew that Senator Biden’s  mini-megalomaniacal monologue captured on a videocam during a routine walkabout in Ohio last week would turn out to be the gaffe that keeps on giving?

An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal —nicely titled “Biden’s Coal Slaw”— keeps the coal fire burning:

The classic definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth, and specialists like Joe Biden can work wonders with the form. On Tuesday Barack Obama’s running mate blew an easy question about coal, revealing volumes about liberal energy politics.
[Joseph Biden]

Working the rope line in Maumee, Ohio, the Senator was asked by an environmentalist why he and Mr. Obama support “clean coal.” “We’re not supporting clean coal,” Mr. Biden responded. Then, riffing on China’s breakneck construction of new coal plants, he continued, “No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there.”

Coal happens to be the indispensable workhorse of the U.S. power system, providing about 50% of the country’s electricity. Many Democrats nonetheless despise coal — because of pollution before the era of scrubbers, but especially now because of carbon emissions. Al Gore favors an outright moratorium on coal-fired power in the name of climate change. Meanwhile, any scheme to tax and regulate carbon — like the cap-and-trade program backed by Mr. Obama and John McCain — would hit coal first and hardest, effectively banishing it from the U.S. energy mix.

Mr. Biden, then, only stated an obvious if politically unutterable truth. The real costs of green ambitions won’t be paid by well-heeled coastal liberals, but will fall disproportionately on the Southern and Midwestern states that depend on coal for jobs and power. The blue-collar voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and so forth will get hurt most — notwithstanding Mr. Biden’s campaign reinvention as the scrapper from Scranton.

As for “clean coal,” the Obama campaign actually supports it. But this too is a political bait-and-switch, perhaps explaining Mr. Biden’s confusion. In theory, clean coal would require capturing greenhouse gas emissions, compressing them into liquid and then pumping it underneath the earth. Even if the technology were ready for commercial deployment tomorrow, to sequester just 25% of yearly U.S. CO2 emissions would mean moving volumes more than twice as large as the world’s current oil pipeline system can handle. That will require an enormous amount of money, and generations to build.

That an eminence like Mr. Biden is clueless about coal suggests how little official Washington has thought through the consequences of its anticarbon agenda. His blunder is also notable because it exposed the realities that politicians prefer not to voice amid an election campaign. Coal-state voters should be watching what their politicians really have planned for them come January.

Is Detroit Finally Doomed?

August 1, 2008 by Paul Saunders | Filed Under China, Economic issues, Energy, Environmental issues, International Affairs, Nixon Center, Russia | Leave a Comment 

Reuters and others are reporting that General Motors is seeking buyers for the Hummer brand and other assets to raise up $4 billion to keep the company afloat. The problem is that GM’s market capitalization is only $6.5 billion — which leads one to wonder how company executives think they can get $4 billion and still have much left after losses of over $50 billion in the last three years. One must also ask whether the stubborn refusal to develop and sell more fuel-efficient vehicles in recent decades may have already doomed GM and the rest of the former Big Three American car manufacturers and we just don’t know it yet because their bodies are still moving. (Note to Congressional Republicans: sometimes greater regulation can actually be in companies’ long-term interest, whether they know it or not.)

Equally striking are two more facts. First, GM’s total worth is just one-fifteenth that of Toyota, and roughly on par with India’s Tata Motors and Russia’s Avtovaz — companies unknown to the vast majority of Americans. This is another illustration of how the once-mighty company has fallen. Second, reports on GM’s talks with possible buyers identify Indian, Russian, and Chinese firms — not the Japanese or the Europeans — as potential suitors. Expect more of the same as the balance of power in the global economy shifts increasingly in favor of these rapidly growing economies. The Russian and Indian economies are still small compared to America’s, and Russia’s in particular will probably stay that way for some time, but they are also clearly new players — and new players with high growth rates and ambitious goals. This is also cause for reflection.

They’ll Be Blaming Him For That, Too

July 22, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

TNN’s painstaking efforts on behalf of the historical reputation of the 37th President could be set back substantially now that the Orlando Business Journal is reminding its readers of one of his most unpopular policies (at least among long-haul, open-road westerners): The 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. A new plan, put forward by a Democratic congresswoman from California, is for a national 60 mph limit. Cast your vote today.

Drilling Deep

July 16, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

From veteran California-watcher Daniel Weintraub, a reminder about the depths of the state’s aversion to off-shore drilling — and yes, there’s a Nixon angle:

Perhaps as the price of gas climbs toward $5 per gallon some people will be tempted to follow Bush’s lead. But it will probably have to double again before Californians agree to more drilling off the coast.

That’s how indelible the Santa Barbara spill became in the state’s collective civic psyche. And the effect reached far beyond California’s borders. The disaster is credited with helping to start the modern environmental movement. The first Earth Day was just a few months later, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was formed the following year.

President Richard Nixon said the incident “touched the conscience” of the American people.

The Only Good Park Is An Empty Park

July 15, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Environmental issues | Leave a Comment 

“The Economist” confirms your worst fears about certain (of course not all or even most) federal bureaucrats: Some of those in charge of our national parks would appreciate your staying home, eating potato chips and playing on your computer. Reflecting a national trend, Yosemite National Park attendance has dropped nine out of the last 13 years and looks as though it will be low this year as well. Fishing and hunting are also down. You’d think the feds would be thinking of new ways to drum up business — but noooo:

[I]t is not clear to everyone in the National Park Service that the lack of visitors is a problem, admits Dean Reeder, its tourism director. Some rangers, indeed, seem to view visitors as an impediment to the smooth running of the parks. Wiser heads know this is folly. As Americans lose interest in the national parks, they will become less willing to pay for them through taxes. Some worry about Hispanics, a fast-growing group that seems resistant to the call of the wild.

It’s not all the feds’ fault. A 1997 flood destroyed half of the Yosemite Valley’s campsites. Local environmentalists have blocked the Park Service’s plans to replace some of them:

And they have opened a broader front in the battle against development. Earlier this year a federal court ruled that the National Park Service must limit human use of Yosemite Valley. That may mean a daily cap on visitor numbers. If the park imposes one, the example is likely to spread across America. This will create pressure to solve environmental problems by turning more people away.

This is a shame, and a self-defeating exercise. America’s environmental movement emerged in the 19th century to push for national parks. In the 20th century it sold them to the public through photographs and writing. It now seems bent on driving people away from them.

Perhaps that recent program on cable about what the world would look like without people is someone’s grand exercise in wishful thinking.

Realism on Energy and Climate Change

May 8, 2008 by Paul Saunders | Filed Under American Politics, China, Economic issues, Election 2008, Environmental issues, International Affairs, Nixon Center | Leave a Comment 

John Taylor correctly pointed out yesterday that as unpopular as high gas prices may be, they are not all bad: high prices typically encourage conservation and efficiency technologies that should help us both to limit our oil dependence and to stem the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.  Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, both of these impacts have been marginal so far in the United States and are unlikely to result in big changes before we (and others around the world) face an energy and climate train wreck.

The first problem is that while Americans have somewhat reduced their use of gasoline with higher prices, the difference has been small.  Why?  As Robin West, Chairman of the energy consulting firm PFC Energy and others have pointed out, our communities and infrastructure force people to drive.  More and more people live in the suburbs, have long commutes, and have no viable public transportation options.

A second problem is that the technologies currently in use and in the pipeline (so to speak) also don’t make a big difference.  Hybrids help, but are rare.  Electric and fuel cell vehicles aren’t really commercially viable yet and–even when they are–will still result in significant carbon emissions because they will depend heavily on electricity generated by  fossil fuels.  Making hydrogen for hydrogen cars, which are even further away, will produce emissions too.  (Yes, we could use nuclear power, but good luck building enough plants in the necessary time frame.)

And even if we do develop a breakthrough technology, how long will it take to become widespread?  Hybrids have been available for years and still have a low market share.  It could take two decades to replace the U.S vehicle fleet.   It could take four or five decades to replace our power plants.  Consumers and companies will only do what makes economic sense and generally will not replace existing assets until they live out their useful lives.

The third problem is that according to most analysts, global oil production capacity will peak at around 100 million barrels per day.  But demand will keep growing and is expected to reach 130 million barrels per day by 2015.  (The problem isn’t the amount of oil in the ground, but our ability to get it out.)  So if you think prices are high now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

At the same time, notwithstanding the fact that Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama have all announced plans to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that far exceed those of the Bush Administration, those hoping for global action to prevent climate change are likely to be disappointed.  We had a thorough discussion of some of the reasons here at The Nixon Center last week.  Technology (see above) is one.  The other two are China — which surpassed the U.S. in emissions last year, and could double its emissions in the next decade or so, far overwhelming any reductions (or more likely, any reductions in the growth of our emissions) we might make — and (ironically) Congressional Democrats.  As Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin noted during our session, the single biggest obstacle to major U.S. action on climate change in the Congress will be Michigan Democrat John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Senator Robert Byrd — the Senate’s senior-most Democrat and a powerful advocate for coal-rich West Virginia — may also have some views on the issue.  He was the Democratic co-sponsor of the Senate’s 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, a 97-0 vote that effectively killed the Kyoto Protocol and persuaded President Bill Clinton not to attempt Senate ratification.

The energy-climate picture in the coming years is a bleak one, and we would do well to start preparing for the consequences.

Green Company

April 25, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, International Affairs, Iraq War | Leave a Comment 

The greenest former CIA director in history, neocon James Woolsey, is profiled in “Mother Jones”:

As Woolsey explains it, there is a seamless connection between his strategic worldview and energy-independence convictions. In an op-ed he coauthored for National Review last September, he wrote of ending our reliance “on the whims of opec’s despots, the substantial instabilities of the Middle East, and the indignity of paying for both sides in the War on Terror.” He still thinks the United States should continue its global military role even as it untangles itself from the Middle East, standing by the decision to depose Saddam Hussein. “I’d support his ouster again if there weren’t a drop of oil in Iraq,” he explains. “If all that had been at issue was the oil, the simple thing to do would have been to just buy it.” Woolsey recalls the moment he started thinking seriously about energy as both an environmental and strategic issue. “I was sitting in my car in a gas line in Washington in ‘73, after the Saudis had declared an oil embargo on us and Israel was attacked,” he says. “And I got mad.” Energy issues have captivated him ever since. In the early ’80s, he joined the Jefferson Group, an alternative-fuel salon founded on the Jeffersonian ideal “that the future of America is determined by the independent yeoman farmer.”

This Earth Day’s for RN

April 20, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Mike Thomas at the Orlando Sentinel calls President Nixon “America’s greatest environmentalist”:

His accomplishments include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He started the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency. Nixon rewrote the federal government’s role in protecting natural resources. He created the regulatory framework now in place, the one that subsequent Republican presidents have tried so hard to dismantle. His administration organized the first worldwide effort to crack down on international trade in endangered species. That effort now includes 172 nations and protects 30,000 species, ranging from orchids to whales. Under Nixon, DDT was banned and eagles flourished….I could go on and on. The list of what Nixon accomplished dwarfs that of any other president. Liberals say all this was a cold, political calculation designed to exploit the growing environmental movement. How pathetic. They can’t question results, so they attack motivation….He was a visionary. And whatever led him in that direction, I don’t care. On Tuesday, this Earth Day is for you, President Nixon. The Earth is a much better place because of you.   

Birds vs. Bikes? You Decide

April 19, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Environmental issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

  

A correspondent in North Carolina writes:

I wanted to make sure that you were aware that one of President Nixon’s legacies — the gift of access to the public to Cape Hatteras National Seashore — is unfortunately being taken by away by environmentalists. The executive order that President Nixon issued ordered an off-road vehicle management plan to be created for the national park. Unfortunately [someone] didn’t do their job effectively. They had ORV plans, but never the official one set forth by the 1972 order. Because of this, and the Endangered Species Act, a loophole is being used which allows environmental groups to claim the most enjoyable and prime fishing and recreational areas in all of the United States as a bird sanctuary. They are using strong-arm legal tactics…and have forced the citizens of the United States to yield to their demands or have the beaches closed entirely, by a judge who sees fit to legislate from the bench.  An entire community is about to economically decimated. There are a number of groups and individuals…who have reached out to members of Congress…to look into the situation but have garnered very little response other than canned letters and e-mail.  I encourage you to review [this] website, which contains all of the information you will need to review this situation…