Wednesday, May 07, 2008
NCPPR's Almasi Comments on CAFE in National Review
In the May 5 print edition of National Review, Fred Schwarz described how the catalytic converter was perfected just as automakers faced potentially crippling federal emissions requirements. Liberals cite this as proof that all that is needed to make technological breakthroughs happen is to give industry a swift regulatory kick in the pants, but this particular development was a happy coincidence. Had a breakthrough - discovered after many frustrating failures - not come when it did, the auto industry could very well have been devastated.
Schwarz sees the development of the catalytic converter as another step in the march of science that will, in time, bring about the changes some people hastily want to mandate.
Schwarz’s article is great but for the one line. Schwarz calls newly-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards "feasible." Hardly. They are most likely to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and subsequently more dangerous in the short-term before (in the minds of the regulatory crowd) the long-hidden formula to fuel cars with water is unveiled.
National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi explained one of the problems with increased CAFE standards in a letter to the editor that now has been printed in the May 19 National Review (print edition). David's letter is reprinted in its entirety below:
Fred Schwarz is right to predict that science will achieve regulatory goals at its own pace ("Machina ex Machina," May 5).
He also says that "[current] CAFE standards are quite feasible, and while opponents have criticized them on economic grounds, at least no engineering miracles will be required." True - but the biggest problem with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system concerns safety, not economics or engineering. By historical precedent the easiest way for automakers to meet higher fuel-efficiency requirements is to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and inherently less safe. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated between 1,300 and 2,600 accident-related deaths each year can be attributed to CAFE standards.
It’s also the case that these new CAFE standards will raise the price of new vehicles large enough for family use by thousands of dollars. If you don’t like paying an extra buck a gallon for gasoline, just wait until you have to spend an extra ten grand for the car.
Thanks, Congress.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:52 PM
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
How Trial Lawyers Threaten Patients' Health
Husband David has an op-ed on excessive lawsuits and our health care system in Investor's Business Daily today.
Check it out
here.
_____
Labels: Business, Health Care, Legal Reform
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:04 AM
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll
Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's
just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Taxes
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM
LISTEN LIVE to David Ridenour Discuss Gas Tax Poll on WBAL in Baltimore
From David Almasi: National Center vice president David Ridenour will be a guest of talk show host Ron Smith on WBAL in Baltimore this afternoon (March 20) at approximately 3:45pm Eastern. David and Ron will discuss the National Center's new poll that indicates most people do not want to pay 50 cents or more extra for a gallon of gas in order to pay for the cost of proposed greenhouse gas emissions. The full press release on this poll can be read by clicking here.
You can listen to the interview live by going to the WBAL web site. Look for the "Listen Live" button on the left-hand side of the home page, just below the station logo.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:13 PM
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Eliot Spitzer's Bigger Scandal
Senior Fellow Tom Borelli looks at
an Eliot Spitzer scandal even larger than the one that caused him to resign as governor of New York State.
_____
Labels: Business, Government Power, Legal Reform, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM
Monday, February 18, 2008
Ethanol Subsidies, Mandates May Be Vulnerable
David's
op-ed on the many problems with ethanol continues to be picked up by newspapers (since the nine newspapers I
mentioned Wednesday, the
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the
Oakland Tribune, the
Alameda Times-Star and the
Argus in California have run it), and is generating an unsually high amount of comment emails -- all opposed to ethanol subsidies -- to the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Here's a sample of the letters we're getting:
My husband has been on this bandwagon for years. Ethanol makes no sense in any way.
Our ultra liberal daughter acted as if everybody knew how stupid this whole ethanol aberration was.
We were shocked to find one issue we could agree on.
Yet our congress rolls on mightily filling ADM's pockets and others with cash for destroying food crops and further increasing the worlds hunger problem.
As a right wing Jesus freak, I would like to add it is a sin to burn food when people are starving.
Sharon Milton
Norphlet, Ar
Public interest in ethanol -- or, more precisely, public interest in ending ethanol subsidies and mandates -- appears to be greater than I had at first supposed. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps this is an issue on which we can win.
P.S. A bunch more have run it now, but I'll stop listing them all.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Government Spending, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:53 AM
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Congressional Love Affair with Ethanol Leaves Others Cold
The red-hot Congressional love affair with the alternative fuel ethanol isn't shared by
conservative groups, and a new op-ed by husband David Ridenour shows some environmentalists are skeptical as well.
David's piece says, in part:
..."We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history," said Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of a new report on ethanol and its effect on food prices.
The increased amount of acreage devoted to growing corn for ethanol, he observed, means the U.S. will ultimately export less grain - further harming poor nations that rely heavily on food imports for their basic sustenance.
Brown projected that the 800-million human beings current living in hunger will rise to 1.2 billion by 2025.
"The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before," he said.
"As a result, the world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs," Brown said, noting that wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th pushed past the $10 per bushel for the first time ever, while a bushel of soybeans traded at a historic high of $13.42 on January 11.
The rising commodity prices are driven by hefty federal subsidies for U.S. produced ethanol and huge tariffs of some $1.50 per gallon on cheaper ethanol imports from Brazil.
The subsidies and tariffs have triggered a rush to invest in America's new biofuel industry. Dozens of new ethanol plants are popping up across the agricultural states of the Midwest like mushrooms after a spring rain.
A region that once produced much of American's food and sent its surpluses to feed the world's hungry now is producing grain for automotive fuel - the beneficiary of earmarks from the Capitol Hill friends of prairie farmers...
Newspaper editors may be equally skeptical of ethanol. David's op-ed has only recently been circulated, yet the following papers, among others, have already run it: The
Raleigh News & Observer, the
Sacramento Bee, the
Fresno Bee, the
Billings Gazette, the Washington
Tri-City Herald, the
Press of Atlantic City, the
Bellingham Herald, the
Anchorage Daily News, and
Hilton Head Island Packet.
Read the full piece yourself at any of the links above.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:09 AM
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mom & Pop Pay When Corporations Play Green
Senior Fellow Tom Borelli has had
a new op-ed published in which he looks at the benefits "enjoyed" by major corporations after they join left-wing environmental coalitions.
A hint: They end up being hurt by the very policies they help the lefties aadvocate.
In a sense, there's justice in that, but it is not at all fair to stockholders. It is even less fair to Mom & Pop customers, who pay the price for corporate folly in price increases. In one example Tom provides, projected price increases of
53 percent._____
Labels: Business, Climate, Environment
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:47 PM
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Government Health Care Threatens Burgers and Fries?
Three Mississippi state lawmakers
have introduced legislation to ban Mississippi restaurants from serving food to obese people.
We've written before how government bans on tobacco use in bars and resturants have reduced customer traffic in those establishments (
here and
here, for example). One can only imagine how few customers restaurants would have if they had to do height and weight checks on all patrons at the door.
As reported in the
Junkfood Science blog, the bill's lead author, Republican
W. T. Mayhall, Jr., says one of the reasons he wrote the bill is to "call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system."
I'm well aware of the way government health care systems deny people access to health care through waiting lines, cancelled operations, rationing of expensive drugs, etc. (see
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here for some examples), but this is perhaps the first case of it threatening access to burgers and fries.
Doggone government health care fanatics not only want to end our lives early, they want to cut out half the fun of what life we'll have left!
But perhaps I fret needlessly. The bill bans serving food to obese people, but says nothing about serving alcohol.
Hat tip: Q and O.____
Labels: Business, Government Health Care, Government Power, Political Correctness, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:01 AM
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Are the Airlines Anti-Family?
Planning a trip, husband David Ridenour finds that airlines aren't exactly family-friendly...
You ever wonder why airlines are about as popular as used car dealers these days? Perhaps it's due, in part, to their anti-family policies.
Case in point: I learned this afternoon that when you fly with your family on Southwest Airlines, you can't use one frequent flyer number for everyone to consolidate your miles, but must establish a frequent flyer program for each family member. It doesn't matter that the same person is paying for all the flights nor that the children are very young.
As a Southwest agent helpfully noted, "It's a frequent flyer program -- you have to fly frequently."
That customer service training really paid off, didn't it?
Well, the Southwest agent wasn't exactly correct, anyway.
You see, since you can give away your "Rapid Rewards" points to any family member, the only thing Southwest achieves through this rule is giving already busy parents one more thing to do.
I take that back, it does do at least one more thing...
It adds to Southwest's costs (stockholders are gonna love that). Do they really think a seven year-old is going to fly more so he can take advantage of special Rapid Rewards promotions?
Of course, its not just Southwest that has anti-family policies.
Almost all the airlines now charge an "excess weight" charge -- usually $25-$50 -- for any bag weighing over 50 lbs.
The airlines argue that this policy is necessary to reduce excess fuel costs caused by overloaded baggage compartments. But if if this was really the case, wouldn't they impose an overall weight limit rather than a per piece limit?
Under the current policy, a businessman with two bags weighing 49 pounds each -- 98 pounds total -- is charged nothing, while a parent with a bag weighing 70 pounds -- or as little as 51 pounds -- is charged up to $50.
There's a practical reason why parents, especially those with small children or children with special needs, might have heavier luggage. They might try to consolidate everything into one bag to have a hand free for children.
These parents are faced with a choice: Pay the extra $50 or take the risk their child won't be lost or abducted in a busy airport.
Cost savings? In this litigious country, it's only a matter of time before a distraught parent sues an airline.
Stockholders are gonna love that, too.
_____
Labels: Business, Social Issues
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:22 PM
Monday, January 21, 2008
A New Environmentalist Manifesto
What might an effective environmental movement be like?
WILLisms writes what could, and should, be the philosophical basis of a new environmentalist manifesto:
I tend to think of myself as an environmentalist, but completely removed from today's movement. I reject the Marxism that pervades the modern environmental movement. On the contrary, the way we can best improve our environment is to make everyone rich enough to afford it (something that is already happening); once enough people have enough dough, they move into the next phase of human actualization. Sure, we still have to cross a few priorities off the top of the ole "to do" list, but once a critical mass of people can afford a cleaner environment, they'll go ahead and buy it.
The answer to future environmental problems will be found in the minds and efforts of entrepreneurs, who can only succeed if there are plenty of yuppies wealthy enough to afford to become early adopters for various green ideas. Sometimes I wonder how much healthier our environment would be if we had seen a GDP growth rate of just 1 or 2% higher each year, over the course of the 20th century. The U.S. could easily have a 30 or 40 trillion dollar-per-year economy, instead of a 14 trillion dollar one. Then I start thinking of how 1 or 2% each year over the next century could mean the difference of hundreds of trillions of dollars of wealth, yet how we're not always maximizing our pro-growth policies. Those hundreds of trillions in potentially-lost dollars are precisely what could produce the brilliant breakthroughs that will improve our planet.
So, to me, when I see enviro-luddites burning down homes and torching SUVs, when I see so many people transfixed on punitively taxing carbon and subsidizing allegedly better alternatives, when I see anti-intellectual hysteria over a degree Fahrenheit of global warming over a century's time, and when I see all sorts of anti-business taxes and regulations masquerading as necessary for the environment, I see a lot of negative unintended consequences. I see people standing in the way of progress. I tend to view today's collection of largest environmental interest groups, replete with anti-human population control worldview and socialist overtones, as-- at best-- neutral for the environment in the short term and terrible for the environment over the very long term.
There's a lost more to Will's post, including a comparison of air pollution levels between 1980 and 2006, but I just had to quote the above before suggesting you go
here to read the rest.
____
Labels: Business, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:24 AM
Friday, January 18, 2008
Corporate CEO or Environmental Advocate?
If you are one of the tens of millions of Americans who own stock, and maybe aren't too thrilled with what's been going on on Wall Street lately, you'll want to read National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's Townhall.com
column naming the five worst CEOs of 2007.
The five worst CEOs share a common trait, in Tom's view: a desire to place the desires of the liberal corporate social responsibility movement over the financial interests of stockholders.
A case in point: GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who allies his company with left-wing advocacy groups on environmental policies and promotes the adoption of new new regulations intended to influence the temperature of the planet. Says Tom:
Immelt’s global warming strategy is causing a series of unintended consequences. For example,the incandescent light bulb – a GE product and invention of its founder Thomas Edison – will be phased out by federal law. Over the past year, GE lobbyists had to fight hard to defeat outright bans of incandescent bulbs and buy time to restructure its lighting business that currently relies more on traditional bulbs.
GE’s coal business is also feeling the heat from concerns over global warming. While it has invested heavily in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), a technology that captures carbon dioxide from coal-fired electricity plants, environmentalists have another plan – just ban the use of coal.
This year, environmental activists have been successful in blocking the construction of a number of coal-fired power plants including 8 of 11 plants in Texas. The termination of the Texas power plants resulted in the cancellation of orders for GE’s steam turbines worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Immelt and the other four CEOs
named by Tom should reconsider their career paths by resigning their current positions and taking jobs with environmental organizations. True, the pay is less (though not as bad as some might think, and anyway, these guys should be able to live quite comfortably on their savings), but the little old ladies who rely on these companies' stocks for their retirement accounts would appreciate the gesture.
_____
Labels: Business, Environment
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:17 AM
Monday, December 03, 2007
On Cap and Trade, Senators Advised to Learn from 'Europe's Dirty Secret'
A contribution from Peyton Knight: As the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee prepares to vote this week on the Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 2191), which would strap the U.S. with mandatory carbon dioxide restrictions and establish a cap-and-trade system whereby industries could buy and sell so-called emissions credits, Senators are advised to examine Europe's failure with a similar system, lest they follow in kind.
Today on Capitol Hill, the Competitive Enterprise Institute hosted a briefing with Neil O'Brien, director of Open Europe, an independent think tank based in London.
According to O'Brien, some U.S. policymakers have not learned the lessons from Europe's failed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - despite their claims to the contrary.
O'Brien noted that Europe's market for emissions credits has effectively collapsed. "It's a Soviet-style system," he said, "that is open to all kinds of abuses." He explained that big energy companies, industries and special interests have made windfall profits selling excess emissions credits. Meanwhile, in the first year of the ETS (2005-2006) emissions rose 3.6 percent in the United Kingdom and rose 0.8 percent across the European Union as a whole.
O'Brien also warned that the way the Lieberman/Warner bill distributes emissions credits - namely, giving a good portion of them away - makes it more likely that the bill will resemble a pork-barrel boondoggle along the lines of current U.S. agriculture spending bills, or worse, Europe's ETS. Because of this, O'Brien said he does not get a sense that U.S. lawmakers understand "the disaster they're signing on for."
Although the EU is trying to mend its ETS, claiming to have learned its lessons, O'Brien and Open Europe still see future failure. In order for the ETS to work, he says, there must be a good degree of certainty in the long-term cost of carbon. Without that certainty, companies will not invest in the system. In the initial phase of the ETS, the EU put way too many emissions credits into the system - hence the collapse of the market and the rise of emissions. However, "fixing" this by allowing fewer credits in the future, or adjusting the amount of carbon dioxide that companies are allowed to emit, would only contribute to the underlying problem of uncertainty, O'Brien said.
Click here to download Open Europe's recent report: "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working."
Cap and trade appears to be the granddaddy of all corporate welfare schemes. No wonder some in Big Business (and Big Green) are all for it.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Foreign Policy, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 PM
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Pepsi Gets Political
PepsiCo's political activism is helping to cause elected officials and government bodies (such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors) to call on people not to buy PepsiCo's Aquafina -- America's bestselling brand of bottled water.
Pepsi stockholders might wish to take note.
The story is
here.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Environment
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:21 AM
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Global Warming Surrender Monkeys
Tom Borelli on CNBC's Squawk Box on July 23.Tom Borelli has an
excellent new column on Townhall.com today on the corporate social responsibility movement, in which corporations seek to appease leftist critics at the expense of stockholders, taxpayers amd the public welfare, while the leftist groups offer their imprimatur in exchange for cash.
Tom's column today, "Serving Caterpillar at the Global Warming Table," focuses on one of these exercises in mutual exploitation, the United States Climate Action Partnership, or USCAP.
As Tom describes it:
...USCAP is comprised of more than twenty companies including corporate titans General Electric, DuPont, PG&E and Caterpillar and is joined by six environmental advocacy groups including Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and The Nature Conservancy.
USCAP’s goal is “to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” USCAP is guided by six operating principles but its policy goal is to establish a Kyoto type treaty cap-and-trade regulatory scheme that sets limits for carbon dioxide emissions – a greenhouse gas.
Under cap-and-trade, the government gives or sells to companies a specific amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit (the cap) and if they don’t use their entire allocation (carbon credits), they can sell the unused portion to another business (the trade)...
As Tom notes, a few of the companies that joined USCAP have a proft-seeking motive for doing so, so whatever the state of their citizenship skills, they are at least offering some short-term benefit to their stockholders.
However...
for other companies the profit motive is much less clear or totally absent. Take for example Caterpillar Inc. – the construction and mining equipment and engine company. Judging by statements made by CEO Jim Owens and the negative impact of cap-and-trade on the economy and its customers, Caterpillar’s participation in USCAP is not based on increasing profits.
Caterpillar’s business and future profitability depends on a growing economy and growth in the energy and mining industry. In fact, according to its 10-K filing – a detailed annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – Caterpillar cites a decline in energy and mining industries as a business risk. “The energy and mining industries are major users of our machines and engines. Decisions to purchase our machines and engines are dependent upon performance of these industries. If demand of output in these industries increases, the demand for our products would likely increase and vice versa.”
As regular readers will remember, Tom and his wife Deneen, a full-time fellow with the National Center's conservative black group Project 21, attended Caterpillar's annual stockholder meeting in June and confronted CEO James Owens directly. A
press release at the time described the confrontation:
During the meeting's question-and-answer session, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli questioned Caterpillar executives about whether the company performed a complete cost-benefit analysis on the effects a cap-and-trade policy on carbon emissions would have on Caterpillar, its customers and America's poor prior to the company joining the group, which lobbies for such policies.
"I asked the head of Caterpillar, James Owens, three different times if the company had done a cost-benefit analysis and he said 'no,'" said Ms. Borelli. "He also said that he was not planning to do one in the future. Unfortunately, America will be paying for this incompetence in the form of rising energy costs."
Mr. Owens also acknowledged that he had received and read the letter sent to him by over 70 national and state policy groups and representatives of mining, ranching, forestry, construction and agricultural industries, urging him to withdraw Caterpillar's membership in USCAP. The letter to Mr. Owens is available at www.nationalcenter.org/caterpillar_climate.pdf.
The Congressional Budget Office reported in April that the restrictions sought by USCAP would especially harm the poorest fifth of the U.S. population. As a percentage of wages, the poorest quintile would pay nearly double the costs borne by the richest quintile for energy. In addition, the CBO study found that "current workers and investors in [energy] industries would experience costs in the form of lower wages, job losses, and reduced stock values" as a result of a cap-and-trade emissions policy.
Tom Borelli, senior fellow with The National Center for Public Policy Research and portfolio manager for the Free Enterprise Action Fund, asked Mr. Owens if he had read the CBO report. Mr. Owens responded that he had not.
Ms. Borelli also pointed out to Mr. Owens that Caterpillar's involvement with USCAP had already lost the company at least one major customer, Murray Energy Corporation. Mr. Owens acknowledged this and said he was sorry about it.
"It's outrageous that a CEO would harm his key customers without doing any due diligence to determine the impact on his customers and shareholders," said Dr. Borelli. "This is why shareholders need to demand a debate regarding the impacts of cap-and-trade on their investment. Owens' ignorance on the issue of cap-and-trade could open up his company to shareholder lawsuits."
It is a testament to the power and ruthlessness of liberal special interests that so many major corporations fear them. It says something not very flattering about the corporations as well.
Tom and Deneen have received quite a bit of media coverage (for example,
here) for their work alerting the public to the dangerous alliance that is USCAP, and of the cost to the public, especially the disproportionate costs
to lower income people of cap and trade" policies to restrict -- and raise the price of -- energy use. Unfortunately, as long cap and trade remains trendy for some, and a source of potential profit for others, it remains a danger to the prosperity of the American people.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Liberals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM
Friday, June 29, 2007
CAFE Standard Profiteering
Timothy Carney, writing in the Examiner, on the corporations and lobbyists who are
profiteering from Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, and how much money some of their PACs give to House and Senate candidates:
While ratcheting up CAFE won’t result in miraculously more fuel-efficient cars, it also won’t drive automakers out of business. Instead, it will likely drive them toward the loophole in CAFE — the renewable fuel credit.
To have any chance of meeting the 35-mpg average, carmakers will need to start selling flex-fuel cars that have inflated mpg ratings for CAFE purposes. This will spur consumption of ethanol.
While raising the CAFE requirements would be a stick in the eye of the Big Three (whose political action committees [PACs] in 2006 gave about $1.3 million to federal candidates), it would clearly be a gift to the ethanol industry, whose strong connections to lawmakers are legendary. Ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from grain, usually corn, benefits from special tax breaks, protective tariffs, and federal and state handouts, as well as government mandates.
In the 2006 election cycle, the PAC for Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the nation’s top ethanol maker, gave $120,000 to federal candidates while fellow agribusiness giant Cargill, No. 2 in ethanol, gave $223,000 to House and Senate candidates.
Also pulling for ethanol -- and thus benefiting from stricter CAFE standards -- is Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm that has invested $30 million in a Canadian ethanol maker.
Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who recently penned a New York Times op-ed along with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., calling for even more ethanol mandates, is also heavily invested in ethanol...
Profiteering through the expansion of a regulation that kills a couple of thousand Americans per year can be described in one short phrase: Blood money.
_____
Labels: Business, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:57 PM
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Senate's Fuel Economy Standard: Incredibly Tough, Probably Impossible & Enormously Expensive
Gary Witzenburg, writing on The Car Connection,
explains the difficulties car manufacturers and consumers will have if Congress adopts into law the Senate Energy Bill's requirement that Corporate Everage Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, reach 35 mpg by 2020 for both cars and light trucks:
How hard could it be to move from today's long-established 27.5-mpg car CAFE to 35 miles per gallon, a mere 7.5-mpg (27-percent) increase?
Almost no one outside the fuel-economy business understands how incredibly tough, probably impossible, and enormously expensive that really would be. Even Toyota - whose hybrid-boosted 2006 car and truck CAFEs were 34.4 and 23.7 mpg, respectively - calls the 35-mpg standard "very aggressive" and "difficult to meet," adding that, "the time frame is too soon."
GM says that to bring all vehicles up to 35 mpg - a totally absurd 58-percent increase for light trucks, now at 22.2 mpg - represents a combined 40-percent boost that would cost more than $100 billion, "the greatest regulatory cost ever imposed on a single industry."
The only way it could come even close to happening would be to dieselize and hybridize virtually everything - at an incremental cost (not retail price) of $5000-$8000 per vehicle -and downsize trucks to where they could barely haul the content of a homeless auto worker's shopping cart. New emissions standards are making diesels way more expensive, and there's not enough battery raw material on the planet for an all-hybrid fleet...
...One very knowledgeable engineer who has worked on CAFE for many years says that to meet a 35-mpg CAFE, cars will have to average 38-39 mpg and trucks 25-28 mpg, and achieving those levels will require virtually all of both to be either diesel or gas-electric hybrid. He also points out that EPA uses "harmonic" averaging to emphasize fuel consumption (gallons per mile) rather that fuel economy (mpg), which makes CAFE compliance near-impossible for most to understand. "In CAFE math," he says, "to offset a 25-mpg vehicle to get a 35-mpg average, believe it or not, you need a car at 58.3 mpg, not 45."
...There's no question that we Americans need to consume less petroleum in everything we do (not just driving), for both balance of trade and energy security reasons, and higher fuel prices are already accelerating us down that path. But don't try to sell me the absurd notion that vehicle-emitted CO2, which is directly proportional to fuel consumption, is destroying the planet. Harmless CO2 gas amounts to just 38 of 100,000 molecules of the Earth's atmosphere and 5 percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases, just 3.3 percent of newly-generated CO2 is man-made, and only 14 percent of that comes from cars and trucks.
So let us all support improved fuel economy within the reasonable bounds of what is achievable and affordable. But let us not let auto-unfriendly, technologically ignorant politicians destroy what's left of America 's automotive industry through ridiculously expensive and probably unattainable CAFE requirements. Simply letting gas prices stay high will get it done.
It is amazing to me that a bunch of Senators who can't manage to get a fence built think they know how to engineer cars.
____
Labels: Business, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:37 PM
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Rising Gas Prices, Tony Soprano-Style
The Senate Finance Committee today approved $29 billion in new taxes on the oil industry. Some of the funds will be given to corn growers, who will continue to receive new taxpayer monies as long as the Iowa Caucus lives.
(If the first presidential primary were in Texas, what a different world this would be.)
The AP
reports:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the taxes on the large oil companies - most of the provisions exempt smaller producers - "will almost certainly lead to gas price increases" as oil companies pass on the added cost. "You can't raise taxes... by $29 billion and not expect gas prices to increase," he said.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil company trade group, said in a statement that the taxes "will discourage new domestic production, discourage new investments in refinery capacity and would lead to the loss of good-paying U.S. jobs."
Interestingly, $10.7 billion in new taxes approved were a punitive measure against the oil companies because the Finance Committee is retroactively opposed to oil leasing contracts for the Gulf of Mexico the Clinton-era Interior Department signed with the oil companies in the late 1990s.
The government signs a contract -- and then extorts a $10 billion penalty because it decides later that it doesn't like the terms.
Reminds me of Tony Soprano.
____
Labels: Business, Congress, Energy
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:57 PM
In Detroit, All Eyes Are Fixed on Congress
Writing on TownHall.com, our Eric Peters
examines the many challenges faced and (so far) surmounted by the Big Three domestic automakers, GM, Chrysler and Ford, in light of what may be their biggest challenge yet: A Senate energy bill that may mandate new corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards at a whopping 52 mpg level.
Eric begins:
There are three ways to find yourself in a deep hole: One is to jump in; another is to fall in. The third is to get pushed.
By an amazing trifecta of bad luck, bad decision-making and bad public policy, the U.S. auto industry finds itself in a deep pit -- with no ladder in sight...
...and ends...
If competitive shackles had not been fixed around the ankles of Detroit's Big Three, it's entirely likely that Ford would not be reeling from the biggest losses in its entire corporate history, that Chrysler would not be in "financial rehab" under the wings of a privately-held equity firm, and GM would not have dropped to a 24 percent market share and second fiddle to Toyota - which just became the world's largest automaker.
This tragedy of events -- and of almost suicidal policy-making -- is still playing out. The Senate is considering increasing CAFE standards to 52 mpg. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Kit Bond (R-MO), Carl Levin (D-MI), and George Voinovich (R-OH) have proposed an alternative -- a 36-mpg standard for cars and 30-mpg for light trucks, a more than 30 percent increase over present levels.
Many -- including the Big Three domestic automakers themselves -- believe a 52-mpg standard could be one blow too many for our beleaguered domestic auto industry to survive. The automakers -- and their union -- support the Pryor-Bond-Levin-Voinovich alternative.
In Detroit these days, all eyes are fixed on Congress.
Read the entire piece
on TownHall.
_____
Labels: Business, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:38 PM
Friday, June 15, 2007
Gas 'Price Gouging' Bill Helps Politicians, Not Consumers
The House of Representatives-approved gasoline "price gouging" bill will provide no gas price relief to consumers,
says Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli, in an op-ed published by GOPUSA:
As the summer driving season begins, consumer complaints and media hype over high gasoline prices have compelled political opportunists in the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the "Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act." The Act would punish anyone found guilty of so-called "price gouging." Regrettably, Congress' latest attempt to solve an economic issue is at best shameless political grandstanding and at worst bad public policy that will only lead to higher gasoline prices and more consumer outrage.
The legislation seeks to address the symptom of high prices but not the underlying cause. Gasoline prices are high today because of high crude oil prices, government regulations and refinery limitations, not price gouging. According to the Energy Information Administration, there are approximately 149 refineries in the U.S. delivering gasoline to approximately 168,987 retail stations. Refineries have an enormous responsibility in meeting market demands for gasoline and have specific processes in place when crude oil is received, refined and delivered to retail.
Crude oil prices fluctuate depending on supply interruptions caused by international events, pipeline leaks, natural disasters and, now that summer is approaching, the switchover that many regions must undergo from using gasoline formulated for winter to special "boutique" summer blends in order to comply with environmental regulations. The U.S. hasn't built any new refineries in over 30 years, and existing refineries are running at full capacity. While refineries operate under inflexible capacity limitations, they must also shut down for routine maintenance. This all affects crude oil refining schedules and the available supply of gasoline for retail outlets. The basic law of supply and demand cannot be ignored.
Rather than address these problems, the Act seeks to frighten service station owners into limiting the price they charge their customers for gas, which in turn, could threaten the very ability of service stations to provide gasoline. Independent service station owners are small businessmen and women who incur significant expenses when paying for product and costs passed along by refineries, vendors and distributors, as well as rent, salaries, utility bills and taxes. When service station owners are unable to include a profit margin when setting prices, it can become impossible for them to stay in business. In fact, some service station owners recently refused to sell gasoline because doing so would be a losing proposition. Should the number of service stations decline, longer lines for scarcer product could commence, all leading to even higher gasoline prices.
This legislation slaps an absurdly arbitrary definition on "price gouging," which, coupled with the threat of fines and jail time, could prevent service stations from properly responding to market conditions. Some in Congress and the media thrive on charged terms like "price gouging" that further incite disgruntled consumers, who unfortunately, see individual service stations as the problem.
Apparently, many congressmen want to ignore the findings of recent federal investigations into price gouging. Following the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, gasoline prices remained high across the country, so the Federal Trade Commission investigated the issue. The agency found no evidence of price gouging, only the laws of supply and demand.
If Congress was serious about keeping prices low, it would do everything in its power to expand supply (or at least stop choking it off) and permit oil exploration in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and other promising reserves. It would also promote the expansion of refinery capacity to process more crude oil and to allow the free market to determine the price consumers are willing to pay for gasoline. In essence, help by getting out of the way.
Crude oil prices, seasonality, refinery capacity and consumer demand determine the price at the pump. "Price gouging" is a political term used by elected officials to appeal to the public and increase government power over the private sector. Price gouging legislation only fuels politicians' need for more control and publicity, leaving consumers with high gas prices and limited supplies.
Read it online
here.
_____
Labels: Business, Congress, Energy
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:11 AM
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Is Caterpillar Going Green or Losing Green?
That's the question CNBC asked Wednesday, as Senior Fellow Tom Borelli
took to the airwaves to discuss the
letter 70 organizations sent to Caterpillar, asking CEO James Owens to withdraw the corporation from the United States Climate Action Partnership lobbying campaign in favor of new and costly "cap and trade" energy-restriction regulations.
Tom, who in a separate capacity serves as portfolio manager of the
Free Enterprise Action Fund, warned that Caterpillar is "going to hurt their profits" and "harm the U.S. economy... by going green, they are turning their customers red."
Tyson Slocum of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen joined the program to counter Tom, largely by arguing, without offering a shred of evidence, that it is "smart business" for major U.S. corporations to help left-wing environmentalists lobby Congress for restrictions on their own activities.
Karl Marx once
said, "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope."
Marx was wrong. The last capitalist to be hanged shall be the one who donated the rope, and then lobbied for his own hanging.
Mr. Slocum described environmentalism's goals very well, though, when he admitted: "...the entire economy is going to have to be focused on adjusting to regulations that deal with climate change."
The entire economy.Mull that over.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Project 21
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:37 AM
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Caterpillar Hurting Poor, Coalition Says
In a project spearheaded by the National Center for Public Policy Research on the eve of the Caterpillar corporation's stockholders meeting, 70+ groups and companies have sent a letter to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens urging him to immediately withdraw Caterpillar from the United States Climate Action Partnership.
USCAP is a coalition of environmental groups and major corporations seeking to impose a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions.
The letter says capping carbon emissions would harm two groups disproportionately: The poor and Caterpillar stockholders.
Among the signers of the letter are former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III and former U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-WY).
The letter is also signed by representatives of the mining, ranching, forestry, construction and agricultural industries - industries upon which Caterpillar depends for sales. Among them are Murray Energy Corporation, Jicarilla Mining District, Griffith Lumber Company, Korman Ranch, Jerrell's Excavating, Red River Coal Company and Ontario Hardwood Company.
Bob Murray, founder and president of Murray Energy Corporation, in his own letter to Caterpillar earlier this year, chided the company for allying with environmental groups that "have been attempting to terminate the use of coal for decades."
Murray's firm has stopped doing business with Caterpillar as a result: “Caterpillar has joined with some of the most radical environmentalists who have been enemies of mining, including coal, for decades… As a result of this, I sent [Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens] a letter a couple of months ago telling him that Murray Energy Corporation will no longer do business with Caterpillar. This will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar.”
In addition to The National Center for Public Policy Research, think tanks and policy organizations that have signed the letter include: the American Conservative Union, the Congress of Racial Equality, FreedomWorks, Coalitions for America, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the National Legal and Policy Center, Frontiers of Freedom, Illinois Policy Institute, 60 Plus, the Rio Grande Foundation, the National Tax Limitation Committee, the Capital Research Center, the Ethan Allan Institute, the Property Rights Foundation of America, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, the Maryland Taxpayers Association, Tradition Family Property Inc., the Grassroot Institute of Hawai, the John Locke Foundation, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Iowa Wednesday Group, the American Property Coalition, the American Land Rights Association, the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, Taxpayers for Accountable Government, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Thomas More Institute, the American Policy Center, RenewAmerica, the United Republican Fund and others.
The letter cites a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released in April that found that the oil, gas and coal industries would be particularly harmed by cap-and-trade legislation.
"A cap designed to reduce emissions by 23 percent would result in a 54 percent devaluation of coal stock value and a 40 percent decline in coal production," notes the letter, quoting from the CBO report.
The CBO report also found that the poor would be disproportionately harmed by a cap and trade system, indicating that a cap designed to reduce emissions by just 15% would cost the poorest fifth of Americans nearly double what it would cost the wealthiest fifth of Americans, as a percentage of wages, in added energy costs.
"Regardless of how the allowances [for carbon dioxide emissions] were distributed," the CBO report states, "most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline."
Husband David, our VP, says: "Caps on carbon emissions will force energy companies to cut production, ultimately hurting Caterpillar's bottom line. They will also result in higher energy prices, hurting the poor. I'm tempted to say that Caterpillar has something against the poor, but it must actually love them. Why else would Caterpillar be seeking to increase the poors' ranks by adding its own employees and stockholders? When Caterpillar President James Owens has presided over the destruction of the oil, mining, timber and agricultural industries, what product will it have to sell then? Emissions credits? This is one of the questions stockholders should ask him when they meet tomorrow."
For a copy of the letter, go to:
www.nationalcenter.org/caterpillar_climate.pdf.
To read what others are saying about Caterpillar's participation in USCAP, including representatives from the mining, forestry and construction industries, as well as from policy groups, go to:
www.nationalcenter.org/Caterpillar_Commentary.pdf.
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Project 21, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:12 PM
Thursday, May 31, 2007
CAFE Standard Increases: Here's Why Not
Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute has
written a superlative op-ed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, that were approved by the Senate Commerce Committee in May.
Among the CAFE facts Furchtgott-Roth shares with her readers:
1) The original CAFE standards resulted in needless deaths: 1,300-2,600 in just one year studied. The standards were first adopted 32 years ago. (Do the math.)
2) Excluding the people who would lose their lives if the new, tougher standards are adopted, the "biggest losers... would be Americans who prefer large vehicles to carry families, equipment, and pets on daily trips or long vacations."
3) Domestic U.S. auto manufacturers (Chrysler, GM, Ford) would be hurt. Says Furchtgott-Roth about Ford: "In the first four months of 2007, Ford sold 570,000 light trucks, but only 300,000 passenger cars. Each F-Series truck makes about $8,000 in profits for the company, whereas Ford loses money on passenger cars."
4) Foreign manufacturers supported by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers support increasing CAFE standards.
I especially love this part of her piece: "Neither global warming nor energy security require increased CAFE standards, which are both anti-economic and anti-intellectual. They are made for a political system where appearance trumps substance."
Bravo!
There's lot's more. Read the entire piece
here.
Addendum, 6/1/07 Some of the same politicians who support raising CAFE standards also support ill-advised proposals to make so-called "gas gouging" (ill-defined in this post, because it is ill-defined in the legislation, criminal penalties for doing it notwithstanding) a federal crime (see
here and
here for one of many examples). Yet, high gas prices tend to reduce gas usage, which CAFE standard supporters think is so important, it is worth the loss of several thousand lives per year.
This is literally a life or death issue, but to many leading politicians, life or death isn't as important as getting good media coverage, or appeasing special interests.
____
Labels: Business, Climate, Energy, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:42 PM
Free Transportation Service Shut Down by Government
The Santa Barbara City Council drove pedicab operators out of business by requiring that they get a driver's license, undergo a criminal background check, obtain a business license and carry insurance.City Council Shuts Down Free Transportation ServiceImagine a free public service that relieves the aching feet of tourists, gives kids a safe ride home from the movies at night or keeps someone who might have had one too many drinks at the local pub off the roads -- and is environmentally-friendly, too. Then imagine government regulations shutting the service down.
It happened in Santa Barbara, California.
Pedicabs - bicycle rickshaws able to carry up to six people per trip - were becoming increasingly popular in Santa Barbara. The young men who peddled people around town maintained an informal business, didn't keep regular hours and did not charge a fare for rides. While they accepted tips, drivers did not demand them. The Santa Barbara City Council effectively put them out of business, however, by passing a law in December of 2002 that required pedicabbers to jump through expensive bureaucratic hoops. These requirements included getting a driver's license, undergoing an FBI criminal background check and obtaining a business license and proof of insurance. All of this was to be paid for by the pedicabber. Insurance alone can cost more than $1,000.
Thanks to these imposed costs, pedicabbers were unable to continue operations. Most of Santa Barbara's pedicabbers are now out of business.
Sources: ABC News (August 28, 2003; August 29, 2003), Commuter Bicycles**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book,
Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse. Download your free PDF copy today
here or purchase a print copy online
here.**
_____
Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:35 AM
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Braiding Hair Requires a License?
photo credit: Tom StoryEssence Farmer first began braiding hair when she was ten years old. Specializing in African-style hair braiding, which is considered a form of natural hair care because it does not use chemicals or artificial hairstyling techniques, over the years Farmer refined her skills and developed a devoted and trusting list of clients. In 1999 and 2000, she was braiding five to six clients per week out of her parents' West Valley, Arizona home. Like other African hair braiders and natural hairstylists, Farmer operated her business "underground" because she was not a state-certified cosmetologist.
While attending Prince George's Community College in suburban Maryland in 2000, Farmer practiced her trade legally and without regulatory interference at the Blowouts Salon and Hairstons. She later returned to Arizona, intending to open her own legitimate hair-braiding business. Unfortunately, her plans went against a 1996 law requiring all hairstyling professionals to be licensed by the Arizona Board of Cosmetology. Acquiring this license is not an easy task for naturally-skilled stylists such as Farmer. To become a licensed cosmetologist in Arizona, one must attend a board-approved cosmetology school and pass an examination. Both criteria result in unnecessary hardships for prospective natural hairstylists. A one-year course at an approved institution can cost nearly $10,000. The training is also rigorous: 1,600 hours of study are required to master a variety of styling and beautifying techniques. Not a single hour is dedicated to natural hairstyling or to the African-style hair-braiding. The required examination is on matters unrelated to African hair-braiding.
Farmer filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of Maricopa County in December, 2003 challenging Arizona's cosmetology licensing statutes, claiming the occupational licensing laws inhibit viable employment opportunities. Relief proved to be at hand, however. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law Senate Bill 1159, which exempts natural hairstylists from the onerous cosmetology requirements.
Commenting on her victory, Farmer said, "I've already begun the process of opening Rare Essence Braiding Studio. It is thrilling to be at the center of a movement that will allow entrepreneurs to take their first step on the road to self-employment."
Sources: The Institute for Justice, Tim Keller, Arizona Board of Cosmetology**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book,
Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.Download your free PDF copy today
here or purchase a print copy online
here.**
_____
Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:31 AM
Friday, May 25, 2007
Senate Environment Committee Wrings Hands; Witnesses Warn Tougher CAFE Standards Would Harm Outdoor Recreation Industry
The National Center for Public Policy Research's Ryan Balis attended a hearing of the Senate and Environment and Public Works yesterday; one in a series of EPW hearings this year in which Chairman Barbara Boxer brings forth advocates of the "human beings are destroying the planet" climate theory for a public hand-wringing about the supposed problems that will come from global warming.
Interestingly, Senator Boxer has not been holding hearings on what she and her fellow worrywarts propose to do about the problem she would have us believe she is sincerely concerned about.
Hand-wringing is easier than productive work, I suppose. Or maybe limiting hearings to the emission of hot air about global warming is safer politically than pushing legislation that will kill jobs and raise energy prices -- as all the global warming proposals I've seen from Senator Boxer and her ilk tend to do.
After twelve years in the minority, the Democrats had plenty of time to develop a proposal to combat global warming. Where is it?
Maybe they aren't so worried about global warming after all...?
Enough editorializing from me. Here’s Ryan’s report:
Yesterday on Capitol Hill, a mostly stacked deck of representatives and other interested parties of the outdoor recreation industry testified before the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on "the potential impacts of global warming on recreation and the recreation industry."
As all too frequently occurs in discussions on climate change, a mostly one-sided, alarmist view was presented. "Outdoor recreation is perhaps one of the first and most obvious aspects of our lives that global warming will touch," claimed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chairs the committee.
Without offering much in the way of how affected businesses may adapt, as successful businesses must, to a changing environment, the vast majority of witnesses advanced the climate alarmists’ typical theme of fear.
"The economic losses in these industries [because of the impact of climate change] are likely to be in the order of billions of dollars," estimated Dr. Daniel Scott, Canada Research Chair at the University of Waterloo's Department of Geography.
Tom Campion, the founder of Zumiez, an outdoor clothing company, testified: "We need to acknowledge that global warming is here, and that it is bigger than any one business sector can handle and deal on their own. And as a country, we need to start dealing with global warming now."
Missing from most of the witnesses' testimonies was perspective. As ranking committee member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) - who did not attend the hearing but prepared a written statement for the record - pointed out, the history of the Earth is one of continuously changing weather patterns.
"The fact that climate fluctuates - changes - is nothing new, and should not be feared," said Senator Inhofe. "It has always changed, and unless the processes of the planet suddenly stopped, it always will." Inhofe pointed out that the Rocky Mountain region experienced record snow levels this past winter, and, though June is approaching, the Colorado Mountains are currently under a snow advisory. "A healthy functioning planet means constant changes in our climate."
Furthermore, Inhofe cautioned that legislative "solutions" that attempt to blunt the impact of climate change are the true threat to the recreation and travel industries.
"[T]he most verifiable threat to the recreation and travel industry is the unintended consequences of misguided government policy and environmental activists. The chilling effect of guilt that the climate alarmists are attempting to instill in Americans for owning four wheel drive vehicles, flying in an airplane and enjoying travel is enough to harm the industry."
Also urging caution were Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition, and Barry McCahill, president of the SUV Owners of America.
Crandall testified: "The reality is that a reasonably fuel-efficient SUV - or even a large motorhome - gets more passenger miles per gallon when occupied by a family than does even the most fuel efficient car available today when occupied solely by a driver. And the benefits to the nation are large."
McCahill focused on SUV's important role for towing recreational vehicles such as boats, and warned of the harsh impact on recreationists if corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates are further increased: "This lifestyle, along with boating, horse shows and many other forms of outdoor recreation, could disappear if fuel economy mandates are pushed to the extreme - or at minimum a luxury that only the wealthy could continue to enjoy."
_____
Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:23 PM
"Big Easy" Made Selling Books Not-So-Easy
photo credit: Institute for JusticeJosh Wexler and Anne Jordan Blanton love books and have always dreamed of starting their own bookstore. After moving to New Orleans in August 2001, they decided to start a street vending business to sell books because they did not have enough money to open a storefront operation. The City of New Orleans, however, kept them from opening their business for nearly two years.
New Orleans requires that street vendors obtain specific permits to sell their goods, which Wexler and Blanton were willing to do. While street vendors in New Orleans can get permits to sell razor blades, flowers or food, nowhere in the city code does it mention permits to sell books. Their Catch-22 situation was that vending without a permit - something that was required yet didn't exist - is a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to five months in jail.
City officials were steadfast in preventing Wexler and Blanton from selling books on the street. The couple sued the City of New Orleans in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr. ruled in their favor on June 17, 2003, determining that the city's restriction on selling books on streetcorners just because it had not created a permit to regulate the practice was unconstitutional.
Since the ruling Wexler and Blanton have opened their bookstand, successfully completing their personal "Battle of New Orleans."
Sources: Institute for Justice, Josh Wexler**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book,
Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.Download your free PDF copy today
here or purchase a print copy online
here.**
_____
Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 AM
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Child's Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Government Regulators
photo credit: NASAIf an entrepreneurial child in St. Paul, Minnesota wants to set up a lemonade stand, he or she must first learn about the costly and overbearing world of government regulation. That's because before serving the first customer, the child will need to obtain a $60 license to sell beverages. That's what seven-year-old Mikaela Ziegler found out after the city's Office of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection shut down her refreshment stand.
On August 27, 2003, Mikaela was in her fourth day of selling packaged lemonade, orange juice, water and soda pop. A woman identifying herself as a city inspector approached her stand and told her, "You can't sell pop without a license."
Mikaela was considered to be in violation of St. Paul's Legislative Code Chapter 331A.04(d)(24), which mandates a license for "a temporary establishment where food sales shall be restricted to pre-packaged nonpotentially hazardous foods or canned or bottled nonalcoholic beverages; operating no more than fourteen (14) days annually at any one location." Although no one had complained about Mikaela's stand, Licensing Director Janeen Rosas cited complaints about unlicensed vendors operating at the nearby state fair.
Mikaela's father, Richard, calls the situation "laughable" and "tragic." He rhetorically asked the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Is there anything sacred anymore? We're not running a business here. This is fun and games for kids. I think [Mikaela] netted, after paying me, a whole $13."
Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune (August 29, 2003)**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book,
Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.Download your free PDF copy today
here or purchase a print copy online
here.**
_____
Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
New York Requires City Tour Guides to Pass Stringent Tests
New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs required Jane Marx, a veteran New York City tour guide, and all 1,300 existing licensed guides to pass a stringent test of arcane information of little practical use. Because Marx refused to take the test, she is not considered one of the city's superior guides.New York Requires City Tour Guides to Pass Stringent TestsFor 23 years, Jane Marx has led tours in New York City. She can tell visitors about the history and geography of the Big Apple, as well as humorous and informative anecdotes about the city, but she doesn't know exactly how big the Bronx is in proportion to cities in Europe. Because she is unaware of this bit of trivia, city officials do not consider her among New York City's best tour guides. She considers it insulting, but is nonetheless thankful it didn't rob her of her livelihood - as it once threatened to do.
In May 2003, Gretchen Dykstra, commissioner of New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), decided to replace the existing tour guide licensing exam, which all tour guides at the time had taken and passed when they were first licensed, with a much longer and more arcane version.
Many questions expected guides to know information that has little real use in their line of work. For example: "The physical size of the Bronx is approximately the equivalent to what European city? (a) Paris, France (b) Copenhagen, Denmark (c) London, England (d) Brussels, Belgium." One month after the new test was required, only 36 percent of those who took it were able to correctly answer the 120 questions out of 150 needed to pass.
A chief complaint among New York City's approximately 1,300 licensed tour guides at the time was the new testing requirement essentially revoked their licenses. According to the Guides Association of New York City, the test punished guides "without provocation, just cause, due process or misconduct." There were no complaints on record against the conduct of a tour guide to spur such a radical overhaul of the licensing system.
"You know what is not in the test? How do you get 8th graders interested in New York?" notes Marx. She maintains the qualities which make a good tour guide - humor, warmth, kindness, presentation of information - cannot be gauged by mini-essays and multiple choice questions. While knowing facts is certainly important, a test that quizzes minuscule dates and names cannot be an accurate arbiter of excellence in tour guiding. Marx asserts that tour guides' customers are on vacation and not "going for [a] Ph.D." She says they want to be entertained as much as they want to be educated.
After half-a-year of bureaucratic wrangling with the DCA and the New York City Council, the Guides Association succeeded in relaxing the requirements of the new test. In January 2004, threatened with yet another City Council hearing on the test, DCA commissioner Dykstra went along with Guides Association demands that tour guides who already have licenses not be required to take the new exam. In addition, the number of questions new applicants must get right to pass has been lowered from 120 to 97, the average score of applicants who took the exam in the first months it was administered. However, those who take the exam and score 120 or above are awarded a star on the DCA's online list of licensed tour guides. "I am starless," says Marx, who refuses to take the exam, "which leads the reader to interpret I took the test but got less than 120."
Sources: The Gotham Gazette (July 7, 2003), Fox News (June 30, 2003), National Public Radio (June 2, 2003), Jane Marx**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book,
Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse. Download your free PDF copy today
here or purchase a print copy online
here.**
_____
Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:28 AM
Monday, May 21, 2007
Bicycle Carriages Outlawed After Taxi Drivers Find Them Threatening to Business
photo credit: Ryan BalisBill Jones is used to maneuvering around roadblocks. As pedicab driver on the Las Vegas Strip, Jones would maneuver his half-bicycle, half open-air carriage through congested streets where loca
