Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three second graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2008 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
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.
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.
Comments to author Mike Hardiman can be sent to info@nationalcenter.org. Mike Hardiman, a Capitol Hill veteran, recently completed a special educational project on the Clean Water Restoration Act for the National Center for Public Policy Research.
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.
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.”
Every Day is Arbor Day for Private Conservationists
From Casey Lartigue, Jr.:
Do we want more trees or more moralizing about trees?
Today, in Washington, D.C. and other parts of the country, Americans will plant a tree. Coming on the heels of the political brow-beating of earlier this week that has become synonymous with Earth Day, the Arbor Day festival - celebrated since 1872 - is a low-key, quaint and practical event by comparison.
According to the Arbor Day Foundation, its members planted 8.5 million trees last year. Additionally, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car has pledged, in partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation, to plant a million trees a year for the next 50 years. Internationally, the United Nations Environment Programme recently celebrated the nearing of its goal of a billion trees planted for its Plant for the Planet campaign. A number of corporations such as Ebay, the Yves Rocher Group and Bayer Corporation have also joined the effort, launched in 2006 by 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai, pledging to plant trees.
These tree-planting campaigns generate nice news coverage for the organizations, but they pale in comparison to what private landowners and companies do on a regular basis not only to plant trees but also to nurture them for future use.
According to the Engineered Wood Association, American landowners plant more than two billion trees annually. Participants in the industry-backed Sustainable Forestry Initiative plant 1.7 million seedlings daily. The SFI program, started in the mid-1990s by members of American Forest and Paper Association and developed by landowners, professional foresters, conservationists and scientists to sustainably manage forestlands, has resulted in participants planting almost five billion trees.
It isn't surprising. It's the miracle of private property ownership and stewardship.
After all, people don't typically burn their own homes, land or money. The razing of lands typically comes about because of the problem known as the tragedy of the commons. When no one - or the government - owns property, it is more likely that people will abuse it. Forest landowners and timber companies have the incentive to replant a tree they cut down. Often, they replant several trees for every one they take. But because these people go about this as a matter of doing business and not as a charitable act, they don't get the headlines that the smaller efforts do.
While organized alarmists make it seem that we're running out of trees, the reality is that there are 12 million more acres of forests in the U.S. today than there were in 1987. According to the United States Forest Service, the United States has more forest land now - 749 million acres - than the 735 million acres it had in 1920. That's even though the population has more than tripled (along with increased needs for forest-related products) during that same period.
It isn't just with trees and forests that we are better off with private ownership. As private conservationists prove on a daily basis, we can have more of an animal or species when they are put under private control. The duck population will continue to increase as long as Ducks Unlimited is allowed to raise ducks so they can shoot them. We'll never run out of cows or pigs as long as people are allowed to eat them. But if we all become vegans, you might want to invest in vegetables rather than farm animals.
Project 21's Bob Parks Finds Hippie Ethic Alive and Well in Eco-Philosophy
From David Almasi:
"If it feels good, do it" was a hippie mantra from 40 years ago. Coincidentally, the same time as Earth Day was created (and first celebrated on April 22, 1970).
Just in time for Earth Day 2008, Project 21 member Bob Parks wrote a New Visions Commentary published in The Washington Times on April 19. In it, Bob observed:
Despite sensational rhetoric, very few people actually want to pollute. It's not good business, and we all want clean air and water. When we get sucked into eco-panic, however, cooler heads seldom prevail. Sometimes the end result is a loss of costing jobs and even lives.
Bob discusses, in particular, the potential problems related to the recent green congressional mandate to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact flouresecnt bulbs (CFLs) containing toxic mercury that can cause problems if not disposed of carefully.
One can expect some second thoughts down the line about CFLs when more and more of them and their toxic contents mingle with our regular garbage. Bob points out this wouldn't be the only time a hasty decision by environmentalists has lead to a policy retreat:
For example, there was the panic that our use of paper bags at the supermarket resulted in the unnecessary cutting of trees. With public pressure from environmentalists, paper bags were phased out (a cost naturally passed down to consumers) and replaced by lightweight plastic bags. A few decades later, environmentalists now complain that those petroleum-based plastic bags are winding up in landfills, are not biodegradable and should be phased out and be replaced with paper bags.
Still worse, however, is the environmentalist ban on the pesticide DDT that is keeping effective mosquito control - and an effective means of controlling the spread of malaria - away from the hundreds of millions of Africans who contract the deadly disease every year. Also, on the horizon is a potential reduction in the food supply and biofuels compete for food staples such as corn.
If it makes the greens feel good now, we'll worry about it later. Remember - if it feels good, do it.
To contact author David Almasi directly, write him at dalmasi@nationalcenter.org. David Almasi is executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
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.
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. ____
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. _____
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.
National Wildlife Federation's Global Warming Expert Calls for Voluntary Action
By David Ridenour:
Laura Hickey, senior director of global warming education at the National Wildlife Federation said, "If people participate in a voluntary system, then I don't see the need for a legislative strategy," according to an article in the March 19 Washington Post.
Okay, to be fair, Hickey wasn't referring to regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
She was referring to Catalogue Choice, a project set up by the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups to combat efforts to create a federal "do not mail" registry designed to stop junk mail. Catalogue Choice encourages retailers to voluntarily stop sending materials to people who sign up on Catalogue Choice's own "do not mail" registry.
All this is a bit confusing: The National Wildlife Federation supports voluntary action in this case, but also supports the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would impose an involuntary cap on carbon emissions.
It's not as though people don't already "participate in a voluntary system" to reduce carbon emissions. There is, for example, the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Why does NWF support voluntary action and see "no need for a legislative strategy" in one case, but not the other?
Perhaps because NWF would have to pay a price in one case, but not the other. The NWF derives a significant portion of its revenue through the mail and a federal "do not mail" list could cost it dearly. Lest we forget, junk mail can not only be annoying, but is transported by carbon-spewing planes and trucks -- something NWF is supposed to be against.
Say what one will about global warming skeptics: At least skeptics aren't hypocrites.
If Animals Ran Political Ads, What Would They Look Like?
To draw a bit of fun attention to the polar bear question (should they or should they not be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to "global warming"), The National Center for Public Policy Research, in conjunction with Citizens United, has released a parody political ad that reveals a few facts about the polar bear situation while having some fun.
The video has had over 5,000 YouTube views since its release four days ago, and has just been posted on the Media Research Center's new video sharing website Eyeblast.tv (worth checking out!).
For those who like a few more facts than a one-minute parody of a political commercial can deliver, we also offer a 5,000-word policy paper on polar bears. Or you can read our press release, reprinted below:
Parody Ad Takes Up Cause of Ringed Seals, Says Polar Bear Populations are Prosperous and Growing
Listing the Polar Bear as "Threatened" Under the ESA Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike; Says New Study Released with the Ad
In light of environmentalist campaigns pressuring the Administration to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the National Center for Public Policy Research, joined by Citizens United, has released for the Internet a lighthearted parody political ad to remind the public that the polar bears' situation isn't as dire as some environmental organizations are leading the public to believe.
The ad, a parody of the wild charges and breathless style of many political campaign ads, lets the public know what is not always clear from environmentalist lobbying campaigns: The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago.
"Many people will be surprised to learn there are 22,000 polar bears and their population has doubled," said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "While obviously many aspects of our parody ad - such as the polar bears in suits, lobbying Congress - are complete fiction, the steady growth in the global polar bear population is real. We hope that people who view our parody ad seeking a laugh will remember that fact, and perhaps be inspired to look a little more deeply into the basis of environmentalist claims regarding the polar bear."
The ad is being released in conjunction with a National Center for Public Policy Research policy paper, "Listing the Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act Because of Projected Future Global Warming Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike," by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour.
The paper questions the wisdom of listing the polar bear as threatened based on environmentalist organizations' projections of future global warming because:
* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.
* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.
* The anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.
* Listing the polar bear as threatened on the basis of projected future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.
* Listing the polar bear based on projected global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.
* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.
"Having failed despite spending tens of millions of dollars to convince the public, or even a Democratic Congress, that drastic and very expensive greenhouse gas emission reductions are warranted to deter theorized global warming, environmental organizations are now hijacking the Endangered Species Act to do an end-run around our democratic institutions," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research and co-author of the paper. "The formal petition to the government seeking 'threatened' status for the polar bear makes it very clear: The environmental groups behind this scheme are trying to use the polar bear to force the government to impose a -- in their words -- 'drastic' reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They want policies like those in the Kyoto global warming treaty forced upon Congress and the American public. The tragedy is that, if the environmentalists succeed, Americans -- especially lower-income Americans -- will be harmed, and so will the polar bears."
"Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act could harm bear conservation efforts by eliminating revenues from the carefully-regulated sport hunting of polar bears by Americans and the importation of polar bear meat and trophies into the U.S. As hunting by non-Americans would replace hunting by Americans, nothing would be accomplished in terms of reducing the number of polar bears killed, but the revenue currently generated by American sport hunters for conservation and research efforts would be eliminated," added Amy Ridenour. "And what's more, global warming -- if the global warming theory turns out to be accurate -- would still occur, because greenhouse gas emissions in China, India, Europe and elsewhere are still growing by leaps and bounds."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Peyton Knight penned this letter to the New York Times in response to a February 27 op-ed by Alex Prud'homme, "There Will Be Floods." The Times did not print it, so I'll give it some exposure here:
Alex Prud'homme paints a scary picture of America's antiquated system of levees and fingers two culprits: a backlogged Army Corps of Engineers and lax wetlands protection due to a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. There are two contradictions here.
He invokes the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, yet fails to mention that it was a wetlands protection lawsuit, filed by an environmental group, which prevented a massive hurricane barrier from being built 30 years ago. As Joseph Towers, former Army Corps chief counsel in the New Orleans district, lamented, "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded."
In addition, the Supreme Court ruling Prud'homme bemoans (Rapanos v. U.S.) should enhance the Corps' ability to focus on backlogged projects. Now the agency can spend less time regulating every isolated wet area in the country and focus on more pressing projects like levee rehabilitation.
Project 21 Helps Expose Hypocrisy of Environmental Elite in the Third World
From David Almasi:
You may remember Al Gore being unmasked last year by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which discovered that Gore's Nashville mansion was using 20 times the amount of energy as an average American home. Additionally, Gore and his celebrity friends are holding nearly annual rock concerts to celebrate their environmental alarmism. And let's not forget all those special flights they take to and from their international conferences, where they moan about the evils of excessive air travel, among other things.
On Tuesday, March 11, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will begin running a commercial on cable television exposing the hypocrisy of Gore and the environmentalist elite.
CEI's commercial shows that many in the Third World - particularly those in Africa - are literally dying due to a lack of adequate power, and the catastrophe that could result from imposing anti-global warming emissions regulations on power generation in these areas. Forcing these people to go without would be especially galling considering Gore and his ilk are living opulent lifestyles.
To help CEI and show just how much the anti-energy environmentalist elites are out of step with the rest of the world, Project 21 - the National Center's black leadership network - has gathered statements for the press conference from native Africans and black Americans who have seen first-hand how Western elites try to impose their will on others.
Here are some samples of their statements:
Thompson Ayodele, director of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis in Lagos, Nigeria: "The Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar and an Emmy Mr. Gore has been awarded for his environmental activism will only aid the people of Africa is he melts them down and donates the gold to a relief organization. For him and his colleagues to try to restrict people of the world from obtaining the energy they need in the means that are cost-effective and readily available for them to get it is not humanitarian in any sense of the word."
Project 21's Bishop Council Nedd II: "If it weren't so unsettling it would be funny that it is people such as Al Gore who are behind policies and pressure to restrict the development of pretty much every sort of successful method of energy production. This is inconvenient and costly to us here in the United States, but it can be a matter of life-and-death in a developing country."
Alice Wanja Hinga, RN, a native Kenyan: The people of Africa cannot afford to worry about their carbon footprint when they are focused on making sure they have enough to eat and can remain healthy. If people from outside Africa want to intervene, it should be to make access to things easier, not more difficult. My people ask for assistance, but the strings attached to certain aid are sometimes worse than not accepting anything in the first place."
The CEI press conference will be held in the Murrow Room of the National Press Club (529 14th Street NW, 13th floor) at 10:00 am on Tuesday, March 11. A PDF of the statements can be found here (pdf).
CNN's O'Brien Telepathic - Or Conspiring to Mislead?
From David Ridenour:
CNN's Miles O'Brien recently asserted that the Heartland Institute "desperately wants us to believe" there's a conspiracy to distort information about global warming.
O'Brien said so in his Tuesday story about the Chicago-based group's March 2-4 international global warming conference held in New York.
The trouble is, no one from the Heartland Institute said anything about a conspiracy. Without the power of telepathy, O'Brien would have no way of knowing what Heartland Institute wants.
So why did O'Brien have conspiracy on his mind?
Perhaps because O'Brien was busy distorting the global warming debate at the very time he was mocking this straw man of his own creation.
For example, O'Brien cited a Yale University poll showing that an overwhelming number of Americans - 83% -- are concerned about global warming.
To find the poll, O'Brien had to be pretty creative.
For one thing, he had to track down a poll more than a year old while skipping over other more recent ones, including another Yale poll just last September, showing less concern over global warming. Yale's September poll found 62% of respondents believe urgent action on global warming is needed and only 48% believe that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring.
O'Brien also had to be creative in finding a global warming poll that wasn't weighted to reflect the actual composition of the population. Respondents were screened for age to ensure they were 18 years of age, but nothing else.
O'Brien didn't mention that 71% of those polled also indicated that they are "often interested in theories," that 67% "like to lead others," that 26% have already purchased a vehicles getting 35 mpg or more (yet the average fleet mpg is miraculously still 20.2 mpg); and that 66% had a negative view of the overall state of the environment.
Little wonder than 83% of those polled were concerned about global warming!
Seventy-one percent of those respondents, by the way, self-ided themselves as "intellectual."
Must have been an interesting list they polled.
Finally, O'Brien fails to note that those expressing concern about global warming included people concerned about natural global warming, too. At issue is not all global warming, but anthropogenic - human influenced - global warming.
The poll isn't the only place where O'Brien misled.
He cites Dan Fagin, a journalism teacher at New York University, saying that "skeptics have changed their tune as evidence started stacking up against them" - as though changing ones views as new evidence emerges is an indication of a character flaw.
It is, in fact, an indication of integrity.
Scientists on both sides of the global warming debate - although not enough - have refined their projections and analyses as data has improved and their understanding of the climate increased. That's part of the scientific method.
O'Brien then cited Fagin again, saying, "A decade ago they denied global warming even existed."
Absurd. No one suggested anything of the kind as everyone recognizes that global warming is what makes all life on our planet possible.
The Heartland Institute showed no sign of being "desperate" to prove a conspiracy to misrepresent global warming information.
But after seeing O'Brien's report, perhaps it should be.
In one of his latest postings, which can be found on YouTube, Bob takes on the establishment environmental movement, pointing out how their "good intentions" are "all that matters" and sometimes actually inconvenience or hurt people.
For example, talking about the recent legislative mandate to replace the reliable old incandescent light bulb with compact florescent bulbs (CFLs), Bob points out that the new bulbs require careful handling and special disposal lest they poison their handlers. He notes that "these light bulbs may be friendly to the environment, but don't seem to take too kindly to the saps who bought them."
Bob also cites the circular advice to use paper-then-plastic-then-paper bags at grocery stores as an inconvenience, and the banning of DDT as a deadly remedy to an overstated panic. But that's not all.
National Center for Public Policy Research Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Peyton Knight will be on KIRO in Seattle on Monday night at 3:00 pm PST (3 pm eastern) to talk about the eco-terror attack in the Seattle suburbs last night that destroyed several area homes under construction.
You can listen by clicking here and looking for the KIRO on the air tab in the middle of the page.
Listing the Polar Bear Under the ESA Could Spell Disaster
From Peyton Knight:
In reaction to the Bush Administration's deliberation over whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act the Natural Resources Defense Council's Andrew Wetzler claims: "There's no reason for them not to finalize that decision now."
There are big reasons, one of which may explain the NRDC's zeal for a rush to judgment.
The polar bear population has doubled since 1965, from 10,000 to 20,000-25,000 today. Even the World Wildlife Fund, which advocates listing the bear, in 2006 said there are "at least 22,000 polar bears worldwide" and "the general status of polar bears is currently stable."
Further, listing the bear could spawn lawsuits and impose economy-crippling restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. Because the ESA makes it a crime to "harm" a listed animal or its habitat, environmentalists could sue any public or private entity that emits CO2, which, they claim, causes global warming and harms the bear. NRDC and others already have successfully sued under the ESA to stop everything from military training to cattle ranching.
Listing the polar bear would benefit environmental activists, but would raise energy costs for consumers and harm our economy, while providing few if any benefits to the bears.
The nation's drive to use more alternative fuel carries a danger many communities have been slow to recognize: Ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline ones and require a special type of firefighting foam.
Many fire departments around the country don't have the foam, don't have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it, firefighting experts say. It is also more expensive than conventional foam.
"It is not unusual to find a fire department that is still just prepared to deal with traditional flammable liquids," said Ed Plaugher, director of national programs for the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
The problem is that water doesn't put out ethanol fires, and the foam that has been used since the 1960s to smother ordinary gasoline blazes doesn't work well against the grain-alcohol fuel.
Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not the major concern. They carry modest amounts of fuel, and it is typically a low-concentration, 10 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline. A large amount of conventional foam can usually extinguish such fires.
Instead, the real danger involves the many tanker trucks and railcars that are rolling out of the Corn Belt with huge quantities of 85 or 95 percent ethanol and carrying it to parts of the country unaccustomed to dealing with it...
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. _____
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. _____
Our Peyton Knight was featured on BBC's Planet Earth video series. I just ran across this recent email sent to the National Center for Public Policy Research general email box from one of his fans:
Mr Knight -
I had the chance to listen to your comments offered during the BBC's Planet Earth video series. Disgusting.
Your arrogance and insolence are exceeded only by your stupidity.
It's quite unfathomable that someone so obtuse and out of touch was given the opportunity to speak at such length. It shames me because you personify the attitude of superiority and ignorance that characterizes so much of the way Americans view and act towards the world.
Our only hope is that people like you keep your heads buried in the sand long enough to suffocate. May that day be soon in coming.
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.
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...
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.
