Thursday, May 08, 2008

Should Earmarks be Spent on Lobbying? Should Lobbyists Represent Congressmen?

Should earmarks paid for with public funds be spent promoting projects under consideration by Congress?

Is it OK for a lobbyist to represent a Congressman at a meeting about one of the Congressman's bills?

As far as I know, these things as legal, but are they proper?

Husband David has an op-ed on TownHall today that examines at a case in which both seem to have happened.

At issue is the creation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which will run from Gettysburg, PA to Charlottesville, VA, unless President Bush vetoes the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (S. 2739), which is now on the President's desk.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local activists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict the rights of private property owners and make property ownership more difficult for those of low or moderate income.

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 is the same legislation that would allow taxpayer money to be spent studying places "that are significant to the life of Cesar E. Chavez." Chavez was, of course, the ultra-militant leader of the United Farm Workers and a man who, as Project 21's Joe Hicks has said in Congressional testimony, "did or said little to reign in the violence" against workers by union organizers. Members of Congress who find this form of domestic terrorism worthy of honor are trying to use tax funds in an effort to make Chavez seem like another Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Joe Hicks pointed out on May 5, "To say the jury is still out on the legacy of Cesar Chavez is an understatement. Unlike other individuals who have been honored in the manner suggested by this earmark, the politics behind and the consequences of Chavez's activism remain dubious."

Hicks, once a member of the Communist Party USA, trained UFW members in "revolutionary theory" and marched arm-in-arm with Jesse Jackson at Cesar Chavez's funeral in 1993.

If you have an opinion on using earmarks to promote legislative proposals, Congressmen being represented by lobbyists, national heritage areas or even the use of tax dollars to honor dubious labor union organizing techniques, drop by TownHall.com to learn more and leave your views.

Addendum, May 8: The White House has signaled its comfort with the above, signing the bill into law today. The full text of the White House statement:

On Thursday, May 8, 2008, the President signed into law:

S. 2457, which authorizes the Mashantucket Pequot (Western) Tribe to lease certain land to entities for up to 75 years, rather than 25 years as under current law,

S. 2739, the "Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008," which designates the 106,000-acre Wild Sky Wilderness in Washington State; designates three new National Heritage Areas; expands several national parks; authorizes funding for specified water projects; modifies two existing energy programs; applies U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and grants the Commonwealth a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

I can't say I'm surprised President Bush signed this, if only because he's signed a lot of bills that appear to be contrary to a limited government philosophy, and it is his Administration's National Park Service that worked in favor of the legislation and failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request regarding its activities (not that I am under any illusion that National Park Service officials thought they were doing the bidding of the man the voters elected when they did these things). When it comes to expanding government's size, "just say no" has not been the hallmark of this Administration or its agencies.

On a more positive note, however, it's almost a miracle the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area was not adopted two years ago. When proponents of legislative proposals get a million bucks worth of help in tax money from Congress before they are even incorporated, its a pretty clear sign they've got Congressional support and a leg-up over those of us who rely on voluntary donations to pay our bills. Before we started this fight to remind Congress that federalism and the Fifth Amendment right to private property are worth defending, national heritage areas tended to sail right through Congress. Even genuinely conservative Members hadn't stopped to think about the contradiction between their beliefs and what national heritage areas do and are. Now opposition to them is the new, though for all that, fairly strong conservative position on Capitol Hill. We may not have been able to stop the wasteful (and far worse) behavior surrounding the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, but we've most likely slowed the creation of more of these elitist boondoggles.

Those interested in more information about national heritage areas -- as this particular policy battle is far from over -- might find the following resources helpful:

"The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area: An Example of How Pork-Barrel Politics Can Threaten Local Rule and Property Rights," by Peyton Knight for the National Center for Public Policy Research, available here

"Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act," by Ron Utt for the Heritage Foundation, available here (this is the paper in which Dr. Utt revealed that the private organizers of this heritage area have "acknowledged that they are contemplating additional wealth-enhancing opportunities through the creation of a privately owned, for-profit real estate investment trust (REIT) to acquire properties in the heritage area and presumably develop them for the benefit of the REIT's shareholders...")

To read a coalition letter signed by over 110 organizations, elected officials and concerned citizens about heritage areas sent to Congress in September 2007, go here (pdf)

For a short handout-style document on heritage areas, "What People Are Saying about National Heritage Areas," suitable for distribution at public meetings, go here (pdf)

Or, simply go to the National Center for Public Policy Research's search page and type in "national heritage areas" -- we've got 80 documents so far, and, no doubt, more to come.

Thanks to all who joined us in this effort. While supporters of limited government had a setback today, because of our work together on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, our support for the next battle federalism and property rights battle is much deeper. I'm confident that victories lie ahead.
_____

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Government Power, Government Spending, Labor Unions, Liberals, Project 21, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:41 PM

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 30, 2008

Flaws in Clean Water Restoration Act Exposed in Congressional Hearings

From Mike Hardiman comes this roundup of information about recent Congressional hearings on the Clear Water Restoration Act:

Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives recently held hearings on the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act. These hearings are a clear sign that the environmental community intends to push this controversial legislation to a vote in both houses of Congress sooner rather than later.

The Senate hearing was held on April 9 under the direction of bill co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and the House followed on April 16 with a hearing chaired by the legislation's House sponsor, Representative James Oberstar from Minnesota.

Contrary to the sponsors’ wishes, the two hearings exposed numerous flaws and very strong opposition to HR2421/S1870, the proposal to dramatically expand the federal government's role in land use regulation.

Senate Hearing

The Senate hearing, held by the Environment and Public Works Committee, unveiled several issues to which bill sponsors had difficulty responding.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke at length regarding the bill's removal of the phrase "navigable" from the term "navigable waters." He claimed it would lead to a dramatic expansion of federal authority over wetlands from navigable waters to nearly anything that is wet.

Both witnesses and Senators supporting the bill denied that it would be an expansion of power, despite the removal of the key modifying word "navigable." Meanwhile, a witness opposing the bill, rancher Randall Smith, said of removing the word navigable, "it is a dream for litigators" and "it opens up a whole can of worms."

Supporters stated that the bill's purpose is only to clear up confusion generated by a recent Supreme Court decision, known as the Rapanos case, while opponents showed that it was actually a considerable expansion of authority.

Bill supporter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general, lectured at length witness David Brand, a county engineer from Ohio opposed to the legislation. Whitehouse insisted repeatedly that "we are just picking up where we left off (before the Rapanos decision)."

Brand replied, "No, and repeating that doesn't make it true."

An exasperated Whitehouse responded, "Yes, it does make it true."

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was opposed to the bill, and stated that he could not think of any kind of water that was not covered by the bill.

Attempting to contradict him, Clinton-era EPA Administrator Carol Browner said puddles were exempt. Vitter asked for a definition of a puddle, and Browner was unable to directly answer the question. Senator Whitehouse unconvincingly chipped in, insisting that "EPA has no interest in chasing puddles."

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming asked witnesses how the proposed bill benefits ranchers and farmers. Bill supporters did not address the question, while opponents said it would be harmful.

House Hearing

Representative James Oberstar is both the bill sponsor and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held its own hearing April 15. This marathon session featured twenty-three witnesses and forty-four congressmen questioning them, resulting in an eleven hour hearing that stretched into late evening.

Oberstar accused the Supreme Court of "legislating from the bench" and said his bill only sought to repeal two court rulings on wetlands from recent years which protected private property, the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions.

This was challenged by congressman John Mica of Florida, who said the Oberstar bill would "fundamentally alter the course of water regulation" and produced a display featuring several hundred organizations opposed to the legislation and a pile of petitions several feet high opposing the bill.

Oberstar said his bill would clear up ambiguity that had been created by the Supreme Court. Mica agreed that there would be no ambiguity under the bill, because there would be no restriction on federal control of all water, since any non-federal or private rights would be overridden.

Congressman John Boozman from Arkansas pointed out that the bill proposes to regulate all "activities" near waters, instead of current law, which says only "discharges" into waters are regulated.

Some members were undecided. Congressman Nick Rahall from West Virginia did not take a position for or against the bill, but said "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting." After several witnesses complained about both current law and the proposed legislation, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado told them there must be more than complaints, and asked how to make the bill better.

Witness Virginia Albrecht pointed out another major change proposed in the bill, that federal agencies be given the power to regulate "to the limit of constitutional authority." Congresswoman Thelma Drake from Virginia agreed that these are "absolute words" which could fundamentally change federal-state relationships.

Attorney Robert Trout testified that "if this bill passes, it will put my kids through college" because of all the new litigation that will be generated.
Witness Linda Runbeck, a former Minnesota state legislator, said the bill negatively impacts private property rights and hurts families because most of their net worth is tied up in the land they own, which may be sharply devalued by the bill. She also brought up the poll commissioned by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which shows that when the bill is described to them, most Americans stating an opinion do not support it.

Overall, a very thorough airing of opinion was had in the two hearings, and the legislation's many weaknesses were displayed out in the open and for the record. However, the bill's supporters remain determined first to wipe out gains made by property owners in the Supreme Court, and, second, to expand federal authority beyond current law.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:55 AM

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

NCPPR Senior Fellow Helps Clear the Air on Clean Water

From David Almasi:

On the heels of congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, the Washington Examiner published a scathing editorial against the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA). The editorial came after National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith had a long conversation with Examiner editorial page editor Quin Hillyer about the April 16 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on the CWRA.

The Examiner editorial read, in part:

With the real estate market already reeling, Congress would be foolish to do anything that would further drive down property values. It would be even worse to do so while also mounting a wholesale assault on private property rights. But that's what would be done by the misnamed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN. Oberstar's proposal is so bad it ought to be permanently buried six feet under dry land...

Now comes Oberstar, who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He held an April 16 committee hearing on his misnamed bill, which would vastly expand the definition of "waters" covered by stringent regulation to include almost any area, "interstate and intrastate," that ever gets wet. Oberstar set a May 1 deadline for interested parties to respond to hearing testimony.

The National Center for Public Policy Research recently spearheaded a coalition letter of over 50 organizations concerned about the CWRA's threat on private property rights and published a National Policy Analysis paper on the threat the bill poses to hunting and sporting activity.

The full Washington Examiner editorial against the CWRA can be read by clicking here.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:42 PM

Biofuel-Fueled Food Crisis Requires Dramatic Response, Senator Says

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has delivered a floor speech calling for "'dramatic' action to address global food difficulties caused in part by current biofuel mandates."

Inhofe said, in part:

Recently, the world has been confronted with irrefutable evidence that our current biofuels mandates are having massive and potentially life threatening consequences.

Once again, we are reminded how restrictive government mandates and ill-advised bureaucratic meddling produce unintended consequences. Trying to centrally manage and “plan” a global food distribution network and economy through clumsy, unrealistically high mandates has been a proven failure.

An April 28 article on our current biofuel mandates in the National Review by Phil Kerpen and James Valvo detailed the mindset of bureaucratic planners.

Each new generation of central planners believes the previous generation wasn't smart enough. Yet central economic planning is forever doomed to failure since the approach itself limits human freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

To put it into simpler terms: As Ronald Reagan once said, “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

There's lot's more.
____

Labels: Congress, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:06 PM

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Congressional Energy Diet Also Reduces Waistlines and Pocketbooks (Don't Even Ask About Global Warming!)

From David Almasi:

The liberal leadership in Congress came to power in 2006 saying they had a solution to rising gas prices. Did that solution involve prices continuing to go up and taking the cost of food with them?

When Americans decided to clean up the environment in the 1950s, there was a lot of trust in the American people. There were regulations to clean things up, of course, but voluntary action, anti-littering campaigns and appeals to our better nature went a long way.

But the trust factor has been eviscerated, and it's to no one's benefit.

As National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso points out in a Townhall column:

Congress doesn't trust consumers to make the right decision when it comes to selecting the right source of energy. Congress knows better. That's why legislation out of Capitol Hill is all about weaning us off oil and putting us directly on a "renewable energy" diet.

Witness the energy tax bill the House passed in February that slaps $18 billion in taxes on oil production to fund wind, solar, biofuels, and other "alternative" sources. Witness the new energy law passed in December mandating that Americans increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels at the pump to 36 billion gallons by 2022, up from 7 billion gallons required now. And witness the new farm bill that gives corn growers $10.5 billion in subsidies over the next five years, no matter how fast the price of corn rises - which, incidentally, has gone from $3.50 a bushel to a record $5.50 over the past three months.

Commenting directly on mismatched concerns over abundance and price when it comes to food and energy, Dana writes:

Even with oil topping $109 a barrel [on April 15], it is still relatively abundant. As the U.S. Geological Survey reports, there are 3 trillion billion barrels of oil reserves still available globally. For perspective, since the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, we've consumed only one trillion barrels.

Conversely, ethanol and other biofuels are extremely limited resources requiring enormous amounts of water, energy, and land otherwise used for growing food. The new energy law's requirement that Americans use 15 billion gallons of corn for fuel by 2015 - that doesn't include the other 21 billion gallons to come from non-food sources like switchgrass and corn husks - will consume an astounding 30 million acres of cropland. That means unless the mandates are repealed, more than a third of our corn crops will be diverted from food to fuel in just seven years.

U.S. policies forcing biofuel usage already are creating food shortages in third world countries, elevating food prices to historic levels.

It's worth it to combat global warming, right? Wrong.

Two independent studies in the journal Science report that the clearing of forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems throughout the world to grow corn, soybean, and other food-for-fuels will double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years. Because plants and soil hold enormous quantities of carbon, destroying existing plants and tilling the soil releases the stored carbon.

Still in a mood to celebrate Earth Day this coming Tuesday?

To read Dana's commentary in its entirety, click here.

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:52 PM

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Washington Post Treats Insipid Barbara Boxer Comment as News; Ignores Bigger Story Behind Bush's Global Warming Speec

I already knew Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:

The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.

What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?

Why, no difference at all.

Even more amusingly, this was probably a prepared quote taken from a statement issued by her office rather than something she said off the top of her head.

Speaking of this Washington Post article, by Juliet Eilperin: It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go. An acknowledgment is made that "senior GOP lawmakers... continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions," but that's it. No reason why is given. Nor is a reader told that not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be.

There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story.

A insipid statement by Barbara Boxer was a higher priority.
____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:48 PM

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Hunters, Anglers, Boaters, Shooting Sports Enthusiasts and Others: Beware the Clean Water Restoration Act

In a new paper for the National Center for Public Policy Research, Peyton Knight explains exactly how a new bill under consideration by Congress could make life difficult for hunters, anglers, boaters, shooting sports enthusiasts, users of all-terrain vehicles and others who pursue outdoor sports and activities.
_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:58 PM

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Another 53 Major Organizations Warn Congress, Public About Clean Water Restoration Act

Following up on a letter signed by over 100 organizations and individuals last fall, the National Center for Public Policy Research is today releasing another coalition letter warning the public and the policymakers about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act.

CWRA is to be the focus of hearings in the Senate and House on April 9 and 16, respectively. We can be sure that the very liberal Senator Barbara Boxer (D-MN), and the bill's main sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the chairmen of the committees holding the hearings, will examine the bill quite objectively. (Not.)

More about the letters, and links to the letters, including a list of signers:

Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act

Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power

Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.

The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.

The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.

"The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as 'waters of the United States,'" said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. "This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972."

The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress' authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.

"Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts," said Ridenour.

This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.

The letter and list of signers is available online here (pdf). The October letter can be found here (pdf).

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.

-30-

_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Government Power, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:08 AM

Thursday, March 20, 2008

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

Americans Cool to Action Against Global Warming, New Poll Finds

Today the National Center for Public Policy Research will release the results of its new nationwide poll asking Americans how much more they would be willing to pay in gasoline taxes to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.

Our press release follows; you can go straight to the poll results here (pdf):

Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds Nearly Half Wouldn't Be Willing to Pay Even a Penny More for Gasoline; Opposition to Taxes Especially Strong Among Minorities

For Release: March 20, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for 33% of the U.S.'s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Over 60% of these emissions - or about 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions - result from burning gasoline in personal automobiles.

"With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."

Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities, with 53% of African-Americans indicating they are unwilling to pay higher gas taxes in any amount. Eighty-four percent of blacks and 78% of Hispanics opposed paying an additional 50 cents or more for their gasoline.

"It's not surprising that minorities oppose higher gas taxes in large numbers, as such taxes are sharply regressive, harming the economically-disadvantaged disproportionately," said Ridenour. "An extra $300 per year in taxes means little to someone making $100,000 annually. When you're just getting by, it can mean not having enough for food, rent or utility bills."

Voters were told: "Congress is currently considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline in an attempt to motivate Americans to conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." They were asked to indicate how much more they'd be willing to pay on top of what they already pay in gasoline taxes. They were given seven choices: nothing, less than 50 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, two dollars, five dollars, eight dollars or more.

Eighteen percent indicated they are willing to pay an additional 50 cents per gallon of gas or more; eight percent indicated they're willing to spend a dollar or more and just 2% said they're willing to spend $2 or more.

"Congressman Dingell's proposal to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon appears to be dead-on-arrival as far as the public is concerned. Even if it wasn't, Dingell's proposal is too modest to encourage any meaningful fuel conservation," said Ridenour. "Europeans routinely pay between $4 and $5 per gallon of gas in taxes and their fuel appetite continues to grow nevertheless. Just 1% of Americans are willing to spend an additional $5 dollars or more. Republicans are willing to do so by a 3 to 1 margin over Democrats."

Opposition to any gas tax hike was strongest in the Great Lakes, home of the automakers and Congressman John Dingell, at 56%, followed by New England (51%) and the Farm Belt (50%).

Opposition grew once respondents were informed that eliminating passenger cars in the United States altogether would only reduce world emissions by a fraction.

Among those who indicated they are willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 58% indicated that they are less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.

"Many global warming polls ask the wrong questions," said Ridenour. "We shouldn't ask Americans if action is needed on global warming, but how much more they’re willing to pay for that action. We need to also ask whether people would still be willing to pay more, given the almost certain futility of it."

The poll was conducted February 24-26 by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 800 registered voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.

Full poll results may be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPR_Global_Warming_Poll_Questions_0208.pdf

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation established in 1982 that supports commonsense, market-based solutions to environmental problems.

-30-

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Liberals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:44 AM

Friday, February 22, 2008

Connerly Reprints Borelli

From Deneen Borelli:

Following last year's U.S. Supreme Court rejection of racial preferences in public school admissions, I wrote a New Visions Commentary for Project 21 titled "Diversity Doesn't Need To Be Forced." Ward Connerly, President of the American Civil Rights Institute - a national civil rights organization created to educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences - published the commentary on the cover of his newsletter The Egalitarian. Here is a portion:

In American classrooms, however, the outdated quest for proportional diversity distracts the public and educators from providing our children with the best education available. Denying a child the school he needs in order to meet a quota or forcing him to travel long distances to supplement a school's diversity is a betrayal of our commitment to our kids. Color-coded classrooms and preferential treatment doesn't teach children about the importance of confidence, hard work, perseverance or self-esteem. An educated child taught to appreciate the differences of the cultural backgrounds of others is a sound way to diminish racial bias.

You can read the commentary in its entirety on ACRI's website.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 PM

Monday, February 18, 2008

Sour Green Grapes

David's comments, posted here last week on the primary election loss of Green Republican Representative Wayne Gilchest of Maryland, have been expanded upon and have now been published in a column on TownHall.com:

It seems that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) had a bad case of sour grapes – sour green grapes.

The nine-term Congressman has yet to make the customary concession call to Andy Harris, who defeated him in the February 12 GOP primary balloting.

It seems that Congressman Gilchrest is irked about a post-primary election statement by an aide to Harris, who acknowledged the Congressman’s courageous service during the Vietnam war, but noted that the voters of Maryland’s traditionally conservative First District booted Gilchrest because they wanted a true conservative to represent them.

The aide is right – that’s exactly what they did want. What they didn’t want was an environmental radical representing them...

More on the kerfluffle David writes of on the nonexistent concession call here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:43 AM

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

Green Congressman Finds Himself a Soon-to-Be Ex-Congressman

Husband David Ridenour has thoughts on incumbent Congressman Wayne Gilchrest's loss in Tuesday's Maryland primary election:

Wayne Gilchrest Finds It's Not Easy Being Green

Statement by David A. Ridenour, Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Politicians who have been cowering ever since Rep. Richard Pombo's narrow loss at the polls two years ago at the hands of environmental activists now have a new reason to cower...

...Rep. Wayne Gilchrest's landslide loss at the hands of conservatives.

In 2006, a half dozen self-described "environmentalist" organizations poured more than $3 million into a campaign to defeat Congressman Richard Pombo, then chairman of the House Resources Committee, in his re-election bid. They succeeded in ousting Pombo, largely through advertisements focusing on government ethics.

Since then, greens have been using the successful effort against Pombo to intimidate some of the more freedom-oriented members of Congress, warning them that they could be Pombo-ed if they are too aggressive in defending property rights and individual liberty.

As a Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen noted in a press statement, "Pombo's defeat... serves as notice that extreme anti-environmental positions can be an extreme liability on the campaign trail."

Lawmakers need no longer be worried about being Pombo-ed. They need to worry about being Gilchrest-ed.

Yesterday, Wayne Gilchrest was denied the opportunity to seek his tenth term in Congress as Maryland’s First Congressional District’s Republican nominee after receiving less than one-third of the primary vote. Endorsements he received from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the Sierra Club, the Council for a Livable World and Newt Gingrich, who touted Gilchrest's environmental credentials, didn't help him.

They hurt him.

Wayne Gilchrest was among the most rabid environmentalists in Congress, with a lifetime LCV score of 63 -- higher than such Democrats as John Murtha (57), William Jefferson (50) and Alan Mollohan (57).

But these numbers don't begin to tell how significant of an ally he was to the environmental movement because they only measure the votes LCV chose to score. Here's what they don't tell you...

* Gilchrest introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," a bill that would give Washington the power to regulate 85% of the nation's energy (one of the means of production), harming the economy and especially the disadvantaged and restricting American freedom.

* Gilchrest repeatedly voted against providing the U.S. with greater energy independence, voting against environmentally-responsible energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf.

* Gilchrest voted to create the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, a designation that would create de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg to Charlottesville, violating ownership rights in the process.

* Gilchrest voted against the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006, which would have merely given property owners their day in court when the federal government takes their property for public use.

To borrow from Defenders of Wildlife's Rodger Schlickeisen, Gilchrest's defeat serves as notice that extreme environmentalist positions can be an extreme liability on the campaign trail.

To contact David Ridenour directly with comments,
write him at dridenour@nationalcenter.org
_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:44 PM

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

Monday, January 28, 2008

Tax Reduction, Not Tax Redistribution, Spurs Economic Activity

The National Center for Public Policy Research's David Ridenour signed on today to a coalition letter on the so-called "stimulous plan" that was organized by the National Taxpayers Union:

January 28, 2008

An Open Letter to the United States Congress: Don't Fall for "Stimulus" Fairy Tales!

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the millions of members of our respective organizations, we write to urge caution regarding the so-called "economic stimulus" plan that may soon be before you. As more details emerge about this initiative, it is becoming clearer that it would favor wealth redistribution over true economic expansion.

The recently announced plan has some questionable elements, chief among them a $100 billion income tax rebate scheme that will distribute checks of up to $600 for individuals making less than $75,000 and $1,200 for couples making less than $150,000. Even those who had no income tax burden will be eligible for checks worth $300, provided they earned more than $3,000 in 2007. These tax rebates don't create any new wealth, they simply redistribute resources that the Treasury extracted from others.

In addition, the plan will increase the limits for loans purchased or insured by the Federal Housing Administration as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would increase those loan limits to $725,000 and $625,000, respectively. This expansion of federally sponsored mortgage debt is but a continuation of risky lending practices, backed implicitly by the American taxpayer.

The plan laudably includes roughly $50 billion in tax incentives for business. But while enhanced expensing and carryback provisions constitute worthy tax relief for businesses, the fact that the provisions only apply this year simply means that many businesses will shift their future investments up to 2008, potentially leading to a slowdown of investments in 2009. Consistent and stable business expansion requires long-term policies, not temporary changes.

Despite claims by its proponents, this plan will not lead to the kind of economic stimulus that has been advertised. Congress has no mechanism for "creating" additional wealth in America over the short term, as 1970s experiments in tax rebates and spending increases proved. This plan amounts to taking a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it in the shallow end; the result yields neither new water nor a larger pool.

Furthermore, the focus on consumer spending is ultimately misguided. To quote economist Don Boudreaux, "Spending power is not so much the fuel for economic growth as it is its reward. [T]he key to economic growth is investment that raises worker productivity." If Congress seeks true stimulus that is economically sound, it ought to reduce tax rates and avoid bailing out the housing market. Making the lower capital gains tax rate permanent and reducing inordinately high corporate taxes would have a much more stimulative effect than any rearrangement of existing tax revenue.

Sincerely,*

Duane Parde
President
National Taxpayers Union

Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity

Amy Ridenour
Vice Chairman
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Timothy Wise
President
Arlington County Taxpayers Association (VA)

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Doug Bandow
Vice President for Policy
Citizen Outreach

Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation

Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.
Vice President for Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Thomas Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Bob Williams
President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Richard O. Rowland
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Jon Coupal
President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

John Tillman
CEO
Illinois Policy Institute

Karl Peterjohn Executive Director
Kansas Taxpayers Network

Richard Falknor
Chair
Maryland Center-Right Coalition

David Ridenour
Vice President
National Center for Public Policy Research

Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee

Doug Kagan
Chairman
Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

Phil Krinkie
President
Taxpayers League of Minnesota

Rick Durham
President
Tennessee Tax Revolt

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:00 PM

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Wolf-Protecting Oil Drilling Opponent Rep. George Miller Stands Squarely on Both Sides of the Caribou-Protection Issue

From Roll Call, a story about a generous offer by Alaska Rep. Don Young to the very liberal Rep. George Miller:

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) wants California Democrat George Miller’s district to go to the wolves.

Young sent a 'Dear Colleague' missive Tuesday attacking Miller and the group Defenders of Wildlife for their efforts to make it illegal to shoot wildlife from aircraft, a common practice in Alaska to help control the wolf population. Young, who nicknamed Miller’s bill the ‘Wolves are Cute Act,’ told colleagues the sad tale of a constituent’s 10-year-old retriever, Buddy, who was killed by wolves.

Young proposed a solution that he thinks should satisfy everyone: Instead of passing legislation, just use the money the Defenders of Wildlife raised to herd Alaska’s wolves and transport them to Miller’s district. 'This proposal is a win-win for everyone, and I would suggest my colleagues present it to Defenders of Wildlife representatives roaming the Capitol this week,' Young wrote.

So far, the Alaska Republican has gotten support from many Western states, according to his spokesman Steve Hansen...

I bet he has. People who live with the possibility of encountering potentially lethal wild animals on their own land tend to have a more passionate interest in predator control programs than do people in urban and suburban neighborhoods.

Nevertheless, we cannot discount the passion of environmentalist do-gooders, who always side with animals, even against other animals. Their allies don't delude themselves entirely, however: When press hound Rep. Miller had a press conference touting his bill (H.R. 3663, the Protect America’s Wildlife Act, or PAW Act -- get it?) to outlaw airborne hunting, he invited an Arctic Grey Wolf -- and then had his staff issue a warning to everyone present that food was not allowed near the press conference.

Perhaps this nod to the wolf's lethal nature is why Miller's bill doesn't outlaw poisoning wolves, or shooting them out the window of one's truck. Or maybe he'll get to that later. The environmentalists may prefer to raise money fighting wolf poisoning some other time.

Miller ludicrously claims shooting a wolf from the air is "unfair"; by that standard, shooting them at all should be banned. What wolf ever shot a human?

But then we have to remember that the point of the predator control program is not to save humans, but moose and caribou, animals so near and dear to the hearts of environmentalists that they've repeatedly managed to stop drilling in the oil-rich Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, lest a caribou be mildly discomfited. (Ignore for a moment that caribou populations rose after oil drilling in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay.)

So there we have the priorities of liberal Rep. George Miller.

When American needs energy independence, and Alaska natives need jobs, Rep. George Miller sides against them and with the caribou. But let an environmental organization decide that the state of Alaska shouldn't use airplanes to kill under 200 wolves a year to protect caribou, caribou health suddenly isn't so important anymore.

Indeed, the Arctic Grey Wolf present at Miller's press conference is fed an average of five pounds of meat every day.

Including caribou.

Bonus: You can read more of Rep. George Miller's views on ANWR in this newsletter (PDF) by the ardently-anti drilling Alaska Wilderness League, which lobbied Congress against ANWR drilling in 2006. The group's newsletter thanks the following corporations for helping to make its lobbying work possible: Bank of America, Monsanto, PG&E, Microsoft, American Express (via its foundation, which is an interesting, as foundations rarely fund overt lobbying) and Ameriprise.

Double bonus: Find what the National Center for Public Policy Research has published concerning ANWR and caribou here.

Issue background: For the last five years Alaska has run a predator control program to increase moose and caribou populations and to protect other animals. It is targeted mostly at wolves, but also at grizzly and black bears. Under 700 (671 is the latest number I've seen) wolves have been killed in this program.

Predator control programs are not new to Alaska. They existed among Alaskan Native Americans before European contact. The territory of Alaska paid bounties for predator killing as early as 1915; the federal government, by the 1920s. Predator control by aircraft has been official policy off-and-on during that time.

For more information on the state's perspective, I recommend these papers by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Division of Wildlife Conservation. For more on Rep. Miller's views, go to one of his press conferences -- but don't take a snack with you.
_____

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:43 AM

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the Poor.

The House of Representatives is set to vote today on an energy bill that would require a seven-fold increase in the use of ethanol over the next 15 years.

However, as National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso reports in a study released today, corn prices already have doubled since last year, in large part because Congress is mandating that food be converted to fuel.

Says Dana, in part:

For the past four decades, food prices have remained fairly stable, lagging far behind inflation. But as the USDA reports, food prices this year are soaring, rising twice the rate of inflation - the highest annual increase in over a decade. Corn prices, which doubled since last year, are close to $4 a bushel. Eggs are up 44 percent from last year, while milk, up 21 percent, has jumped to $3.83 a gallon - the highest retail price since World War Two.

What's driving record food prices? Federal policies mandating more food for fuel are a big factor. Requirements that we use more ethanol over oil for energy use are causing us to divert larger amounts of farmland from food to corn-based fuel, contributing to record food costs. In 2000, we were using a modest 6 percent of our cropland for ethanol production. Last year, that share increased to 20 percent; this year, one quarter of our corn harvest is diverted from food to fuel.

Dana also points out that "producing biofuels leaves a huge ecological footprint, exceeding that of fossil fuels."

Ethanol isn't so great for low-income Americans, either, who already spend about 40 percent of their budget on food.

Dana adds:

None of this will matter, of course, when Congress acts on the energy bill. As is the way of the world in the nation's capital, the powerful agribusiness and ethanol interests will trump science, and Congress will turn a blind eye to the poor's struggle against soaring food prices.

Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the poor.

Read Dana's paper here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Meets Clinton Health Care Plan

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) has mapped out the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007.

He calls it "Rube Goldberg meets carbon caps."

I say Kit Bond's Liberman-Warner climate bill chart looks a lot like the complex chart Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)'s office put together in 1994 to show America what Bill and Hillary Clinton's doomed health care plan looked like.

Hat tip: Marc Morano.
_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:13 PM

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, December 02, 2007

For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Cap and Trade, Anyone?

Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 1.5 percent in 2006. The total reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions was 1.8 percent.

By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions by participants in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe's version of "cap and trade," an emissions-regulation system now under consideration by the U.S. Congress) increased by 0.3 percent in 2006.

The EU's cap and trade program didn't perform as well as its environmentalist proponents hoped it would. The European Union screwed up its cap and trade system's first trading period by handing out too many emissions permits. As a result, emitters had scant financial incentive to make reductions. This was not predictable, as no one familiar with the history of the Twentieth Century could have expected a large intergovernmental bureaucracy to make an economic planning error.

For a succinct report on the 2006 decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, read the U.S. Department of Energy's press release here. For a more detailed look at the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions picture, including prior years, go here. For a fuller picture on how well the European Union and its member states are meeting their Kyoto targets, I recommend the European Environment Agency publication "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2007," available in English here.
_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:19 AM

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Some of Us Support Species, While Others Support the Endangered Species Act

In an article reviewing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's new book, "A Contract With the Earth," Salon refers to The National Center for Public Policy Research thusly:

Gingrich also inspired the wrath of some conservative think tanks for defending the Endangered Species Act.

The entire National Center document Salon linked to shows there was a lot more at stake than us supposedly attacking the Endangered Species Act, while Newt Gingrich "defended" it.

In fact, we were trying to reform a failed Act, and Gingrich was blocking reform.

Here's what Salon linked to, from 1996:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the single greatest threat to needed reform of environmental laws, announced the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research on June 24. The Speaker's efforts to stymie meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act, his support for legislation that would threaten private property and subvert efforts to base legislation on sound science, and his efforts to give the environmental establishment veto power over all environmental legislation mean the Speaker should be the poster boy of the environmental movement -- not its villain -- says the group.

In recent months, environmental groups have been attempting to use the Speaker's waning popularity to sink regulatory relief efforts. But Newt Gingrich and the environmental movement are like two peas in a pod. In fact, says the group, Newt Gingrich has staked out environmental positions that are so radical that some of the staunchest environmentalists appear moderate by comparison. For example, Gingrich recently blocked changes to a dolphin protection measure that had been given the green light not only by environmental establishment Republicans like Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), but by environmental groups like Greenpeace. In May he also urged Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) to abandon eforts to pass property rights legislation -- a measure supported by over two-thirds of the electorate.

"Given the Speaker's apparent contempt for private property rights, his penchant for 'junk science' and his indifference to the plight of Americans suffering under unreasonable regulations, he ought to be the environmental movement's poster boy -- not its villain," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Ironically, at the very time Speaker Gingrich has been villified by the environmental movement, he's been working to ensure that they have greater say in the nation's policies. Recently, Gingrich established a House Task Force on the Environment designed to give environmentalists veto power over all environmental legislation. Gingrich appointed Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to co-chair the Task Force, one of the House of Representatives' most rabid environmentalists -- Democrat or Republican. Boehlert received a 92% score in the League of Conservation Voters' environmental scorecard -- higher than 53% of House Democrats.

Our complaints about then-Speaker Gingrich on environmental issues only began with the the Endangered Species Act. There was a lot more to it than that.

Yet the Endangered Species Act was, and remains, a failure. Nonetheless, as Speaker, Gingrich blocked reform intended to improve the Act.

Here's what The National Center recommended for Endangered Species Act reform when Gingrich was Speaker, taken from a 1995 press release of The National Center's Environmental Policy Task Force:

The Endangered Species Act has failed to protect endangered and threatened species while needlessly violating the constitutional rights of individual citizens and costing the nation billions of dollars, according to the Environmental Policy Task Force. The Task Force has just released guidelines for effective Endangered Species Act reform that can protect both species and the rights of the American people.

The guidelines, published in two just-released Talking Points on the Economy cards, "Checklist for Endangered Species Act Reform" and "A Species Protection Plan That Works for Both Wildlife and Humans," include four general recommendations for effective reform and six specific policy recommendations. Among the Environmental Policy Task Force's general recommendations is that Congress recognize that the current Endangered Species Act has failed before attempting to reform the law. Some 900 plants and animals are currently listed as either "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act with another 4,000 species either candidates for future listing or in the process of being listed. But in the 21 years the law has been on the books, only 27 species have managed to get off the "endangered" list. Seven of these delistings were due to extinction and the remaining were due to data error, court orders or species improvements completely unrelated to the Endangered Species Act. The Act has been an abysmal failure because it actually encourages the destruction of species habitat.

"The greatest fear of any landowner is that their property will be identified by federal bureaucrats as potential habitat for an endangered species. Federal restrictions on the use of the land that result can render a property worthless," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research and Director of Environmental Policy Task Force. "If landowners are destroying wildlife habitat today, it is only because the current Endangered Species Act has taught them that if they want to keep any of their investment they must extract whatever natural resources their land possesses quickly and make the land as inhospitable to wildlife as possible."

The fundamental flaws of the Endangered Species Act -- including its failure to protect endangered species -- means that the Endangered Species Act has outlived its usefulness and must go, according to Environmental Policy Task Force. In its place, the Task Force suggests that a voluntary, incentive-based species protection plan be adopted that includes such incentives as tax breaks and even cash payments to reward individuals for wildlife preservation. Rather than using the government's coercive powers to force individuals to shoulder the burden for species protection that the country as a whole desires, individuals would be rewarded for responsible stewardship by the public.

"The Endangered Species Act is out of control because the bureaucrats who enforce it don't have to pay for it. They transfer the cost of protecting endangered species habitat from the public at large to private individuals," said Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ), a member of both the House Resource Committee and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's subcommittee on natural resources who will likely play a key role in Endangered Species Act reform. "Congress can restore rationality to the system by making the Fish and Wildlife Service pay for what it demands."

The Environmental Policy Task Force's reform guidelines recognize the underlying reasons for the Endangered Species Act's failure and thus represent a bold departure from past reform efforts. If there is to be meaningful Endangered Species Act reform, there can be no room for sentimental attachments and "good intentions" alone simply won't do.

"Now is not the time to be reaffirming the failed approach of the past," said John Shanahan, policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation who helped devise the Task Force's recommendations. "What is called for is a new vision which for the first time protects people and wildlife alike."

The Environmental Policy Task Force is a project of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation and resource center based in Washington, D.C. The Task Force was established to find and promote innovative, workable solutions to environmental problems -- solutions that minimize the suffering of working Americans while still protecting the environment.

Gingrich opposed what we suggested; supporting instead the status quo.

Did the Gingrich status quo protect species? It's years later now, so let's examine what happened:

ESA's 32 Years of Failure

In the 32 years the ESA has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S. species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (.6% of all the species listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species - a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's Woolly-Star and the yellow perennial, Eggert's Sunflower - appear to have made their way off the threatened list in part through "recovery" and in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed.

A less than 1% recovery rate isn't good. Some environmental groups, however, insist that this statistic proves the opposite - that the ESA has been very effective. These organizations note that, since 99% of all the species given special protection have either recovered or are still on the endangered and threatened lists, these species all "still exist" and, therefore, the ESA has worked. The "still exist" standard, however, tells us little about the true status of endangered and threatened species and certainly does not prove the efficacy of the ESA...

... Just 36% of the species on the endangered and threatened lists are currently believed to be stable or improving - meaning that 64% are declining...

-David Ridenour, 2005

So what Gingrich was "defending" was a status quo that leaves 64% of species in decline.

I guess some of us support species, while others support the Endangered Species Act.
_____

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Media, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:20 AM

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Of Airdrops, Earmarks and Interests

Speaking of earmarks, Ed Morrissey has a list of airdropped earmarks (earmarks appearing in conference reports merging House and Senate versions of the bill without first appearing in legislation as approved by either chamber).

Here's another article about airdropped earmarks, including $685 million arranged by Senator Barbara Boxer.

As a sie note, a commenter to Ed's post recommends this article about lawmakers who received a total of $6.2 million in farm subsidies without recusing themselves from votes on such things. I agree with Melanie Sloan: That's a conflict of interest.
_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:25 PM

Tom Daschle's New Earmark

Rep. Jeb Hensarling is reporting that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is still getting earmarks, even though the voters retired him from the Senate.

More here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:04 PM

America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act: Congress Continues to Feed Overstuffed Park Service

From Peyton Knight:

On Wednesday, members of the House Natural Resources Committee will vote on the "America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act" (H.R. 3998), a massive bill that would direct the National Park Service to "study" the prospects of adding multiple new properties to its already expansive fiefdom.

Included in the bill is the "Mississippi River Study Act" which would set the wheels in motion for creating a new national trail along the entire Mississippi River.

Last year, I had the honor of testifying before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands on behalf of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Below is an excerpt:

The Mississippi River Trail Study Act… carries significant, negative property rights implications for landowners in the path and vicinity of the proposed trail - whether the trail be the river itself or an adjacent, land-based trail. Its timing is bad because it would drain resources from an agency that is already stretched well beyond its capacity. It also comes at a time when Americans across the nation are demanding that government use of eminent domain power be strictly curtailed. A national scenic or historic trail the entire length of the Mississippi River would bring a new threat of eminent domain to property owners in as many as ten states.

The National Park Service (NPS) is currently running a maintenance backlog estimated to be anywhere from five to ten billion dollars. This is not a recent development. Ten years ago, the U.S. Department of the Interior estimated this backlog to be $4.5 billion...

The failure of the Park Service to adequately protect many of our public lands and historic treasures is well documented by the National Parks Conservation Association. Yosemite National Park in California needs a new sewer system and electrical upgrades, and lacks necessary trail and campground maintenance. Yellowstone National Park has decrepit buildings and over 150 miles of roads that need repair. Travel to backcountry cabins in Washington's Mount Rainier National Park is impossible because of neglected bridges and trails. The foundation of the visitor center at the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii is crumbling and literally sinking into the ground. Ancient stone structures are collapsing at Chaco Culture National Historical Park in Mexico. Many historic structures at Gettysburg National Military Park need rehabilitation.

Increased funding is not the answer to what ails the Park Service. According to Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget Lynn Scarlett, "Since 2000, the National Park Service's budget has grown by 20 percent, one of the greatest increases for a non-defense agency. The Park Service's $1.8 billion operating budget for 2005 represents spending of more funds per employee, per acre, and