Common Sense

November 12, 2008 by Jonathan C. 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…