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, April 23, 2008

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 read all of Bob's commentary, click here.

_____

Labels: Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 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

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

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.

_____

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:02 PM

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll

Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:

Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

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

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Kevin Martin Puts Pink "Marine" in His Place

From David Almasi:

Today is the 5th anniversary of the beginning of America's liberation of Iraq in the larger Global War on Terrorism. Anti-war activists are operating throughout the Washington, D.C. area - blocking traffic, blockading buildings and making mischief all over. Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin is trying to help keep things civil outside of the military recruiting office on L Street NW, the site of an attack by left-wing protestors in April.

This past Saturday, Kevin took part in a press conference organized by Move America Forward about the campaign of violence on the part of the left on military recruiters. A male member of the predominantly female Code Pink in attendence, wearing a pink military-style uniform, began to disrupt the event. After shouts in which the protestor - among other things - falsely claimed to be a "second-generation Marine," Kevin took the microphone and was quoted in The Washington Post as saying "Let me tell you something, dammit! I'm a Navy veteran of seven years, and... you are a joke, sir! Please step the hell out of the building!" Security later ejected the protester.

Move America Forward Executive Director Catherine Moy pointed out, "We don't do this at their press conferences."

To read all about the Saturday event, click here.

_____

Labels: Defense, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:22 PM

Monday, March 10, 2008

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).

_____

Labels: Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:06 PM

Thursday, March 06, 2008

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.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:36 PM

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

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.

_____

Labels: Climate, Endangered Species, Environment, Legal Reform, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:41 PM

Pro-Military Rally Trumps Leftist Hooligans in DC

As noted the other day, Project 21 member Kevin Martin led the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic in a rally of support for armed forces recruiters in Washington, D.C. Monday.

The rally was in response to an anti-war rally at the same location by some hooligans who described their activities this way:

... After many previous protests had found the 14th st recruiter "closed" at 5PM, Funk the War found them open, and the door unlocked at nearer to 6Pm and promptly exploited the situation by demonstrating to them first hand how an occupying force behaves.

After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby.

One recruiter tried to grab an activist but found himself overpowered by SDS's superior strength and numbers and had no choice but to give up!

There is more of that juvenile nonsense here.

Kudos to Kevin and the members of Free Republic who didn't let the hooligans have the last word.

Addendum: Free Republic reports on the rally here; more pictures of the event can be found here.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Defense, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:28 AM

Friday, February 22, 2008

Project 21 Member to Lead D.C. Demonstration Monday Supporting Armed Forces Recruiters

From David Almasi:

On February 15, anti-war protestors affiliated with the rejuvenated Students for a Democratic Society marched through Washington, D.C.'s evening rush hour. When they found the local armed forces recruiting station open, the protestors stormed the office and trashed it. The D.C. Police chose not to intervene.

This coming Monday, Project 21 Kevin Martin and members of the D.C. chapter of Free Republic are holding their own demonstration outside of the recruiting office in support of the armed forces and all they do to protect our freedom here and abroad.

Here are the details for those who would like to attend:

Monday, February 25
3pm-6pm
1099 14th Street NW (at L Street NW)
Washington, D.C.

_____

Labels: Conservatives, Defense, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:24 PM

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Fan Mail

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.

Bill Mangham
Golden, CO

Open-minded fellow, isn't he?
_____

Labels: Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:15 PM

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

Monday, February 04, 2008

Earthjustice's Clean Water Poll Comes Up Short

Peyton Knight takes a close look at Earthjustice polling on the Clean Water Act:

Last month, the environmental activists at Earthjustice breathlessly released the results of a poll the group had commissioned that supposedly reveals rural voters' feelings on the Clean Water Act. The purpose of this classic push poll is to give the impression that rural voting districts support a vast expansion of the Clean Water Act, and therefore, would support the Clean Water Restoration Act (H.R. 2421 and S. 1870), a bill designed to bring federal regulatory authority to every field drainage ditch, pond and prairie pothole in the nation.

However, a look at the actual polling data reveals a different story than the group presents in its press release.

For example, in its press release, Earthjustice claims: "Results from the survey of 300 randomly selected rural voters in each of three congressional districts in Illinois (15th), Ohio (18th) and Tennessee (4th), polled in mid-December, show that more than three-fourths of those polled indicated they were very concerned about pollution of lakes, rivers and streams."

This simply is not true. The poll results clearly show that an average of only 55 percent of those polled responded that they were "very concerned" about "pollution of lakes, rivers and streams." Thus, Earthjustice inflated the poll's actual results by over 20 percent.

In addition, the results show that a clear majority of those polled (roughly 63 percent) do not have ANY concerns about drinking water straight from the tap. This bit of inconvenient truth failed to make it into the Earthjustice press release.

Christine Matthews, president of the firm that conducted the poll for Earthjustice, states in the press release: "The notion that farmers might view environmental regulations as excessive was absolutely not in evidence here."

This may be true, however, only because Matthews' company didn't bother to ask many farmers. The polling data shows that a whopping 77 percent of those polled do not "currently own, operate, or work on a farm."

Earthjustice also trumpets that 55 percent of those polled agreed with the poll interviewer that "the government has not gone far enough with laws to protect the environment and to keep our water free from pollution." But considering the usual one-sided nature of push polls, this particular poll's 5.6 percent margin of error and the fact that those likely to be most affected by federal clean water regulations (i.e., farmers) weren't truly represented, this number is hardly impressive. In fact, nearly half of those questioned either responded that "the government has gone too far with laws regulating environmental protection which has hurt businesses and landowners," or didn't care enough to have an opinion.

_____

Labels: Environment, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:33 PM

Global Warming Alarmists Question the Value of Liberal Democracy

Ms Borelli

I thought your article "Global Warming Statists Threaten Our Liberty" was a satire, at first. I chuckled at the insistent defense of your unalienable right to CHOOSE an SUV rather than think of the welfare of the world. Risable, really, as was the rest of the article. Alas, it is an earnest, albeit astonishingly misguided, attempt to justify continued selfishness. I've come across much contentious material online, but never felt compelled to respond to any author's opinions. It's crushingly disappointing to know that since you are part of a bigger "project", there are others who think similarly and come to the same absurd conclusions. Enjoy your Expedition whilst you can.

An Appalled Scientist,
E Casner

Critics of Deneen Borelli's New Visions Commentary (which said "critics of the global warming agenda are motivated... by a love of freedom and civil liberties") like the writer above remind me of a Prometheus blog post I saw last week about a new environmentalist call for a replacement of our liberal democratic form of government with a more authoritarian one.

Writes Roger Pielke, Jr. on Prometheus, in part:

Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.

In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens...

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties...

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

On their book page they write:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

(Read the rest of Roger Pielke's post and comments to it here.)

Do global warming statists threaten our liberty, as Deneen believes?

Apparently they not only do, some of them are saying so in plain English.
____

Labels: Climate, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:04 PM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Critics of Global Warming Agenda are Motivated by a Love of Freedom, Borelli Says

From David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli recently wrote a New Visions Commentary on global warming politics that has been re-posted all over the Internet, including Townhall.com, GOPUSA.com and ChronWatch, to name just a few.

Here is a sample of Deneen's commentary:

Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don't care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.

Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.

New Vision Commentary op-eds by Deneen and other Project 21 members are available online at the National Center for Public Policy Research website here.
_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:41 PM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Don't Let Al Sharpton Hold English Hostage

National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi says Project 21's Mychal Massie is right to take on Al Sharpton in the recent Tiger Woods - Golf Channel controversy. Says David:

When Golf Channel commentator Kelly Tilghman used the term "lynch" as part of a facetious strategy for young pro golfers to get an advantage on her friend, Tiger Woods, the poor choice of words went largely overlooked. After her employer took action and suspended her, Al Sharpton found out. He wants her fired.

Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie, a Golf Channel fan, knew about the controversy from the beginning and points out in a recent New Visions Commentary that Sharpton is trying to blow the situation out of proportion for his own benefit. After all, Tiger Woods dismissed any real controversy before Sharpton even hit the scene.

Among other papers, the Philadelphia Inquirer has published Mychal's commentary.

An excerpt:

...I probably watch an average of ten hours a week of the Golf Channel (more when there is an interesting tournament). I am well-acquainted with Tilghman's work, and I've never heard her speak an ill word about Woods. In fact, I distinctly remember her lavishly praising him and his family just last month. This indicates to me that Sharpton's rant only seeks to create conflict where none exists.

Tilghman's words were offensive only to those who trade on race-mongering and/or capitalize on creating strife for personal gain. The Golf Channel viewers owe it to themselves to stand with Tilghman or risk having the network destroyed by someone who, until last week, might not have even known such a channel exists.

The English lexicon should not be held hostage by self-serving individuals who trade on race and immiseration. We should be able to speak freely, within reason, without fear of harsh consequences for utilizing innocuous and jocund adjectives that are in no way intended to cause harm or offense.

It is time for America, all the young golfers gunning for Tiger and Golf Channel viewers to "lynch" those who would subject our nation to unreasonable and fallacious accusations of malicious intent. Such should be "hung" by their thumbs in the town square for provoking racial discord where none exists and none was intended.

New Vision Commentary op-eds by Mychal and other Project 21 members are available online at the National Center for Public Policy Research website here.

_____

Labels: Liberals, Political Correctness, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 PM

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Where is the Feminist Outrage?

Deneen Borelli wants to know: Where is the feminist outrage over jailing of British woman in Sudan?

Says Deneen:

"I'm amazed by the silence of the so-called women's rights groups like NOW. This is an example of their selective feminist outrage. When it fits their liberal agenda and bias, they are extremely vocal. When it doesn't, their silence is deafening."

My personal theory is the feminist leaders don't identify much with elementary school teachers. Teaching young children is a female-dominated profession, and feminist leaders tend not to think highly of those professions.

They are a little bit sexist that way.
_____

Labels: Culture, Foreign Policy, Liberals, Project 21, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:15 AM

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Australia's John Howard a Global Warming Victim? No.

A post by Joseph Romm published by the Climate Progress Blog (a project of the Center for American Progress) and the environmentalist Grist Blog is claiming Australian Prime Minister John Howard lost his re-election bid because of his stand on global warming:

Australian denier bites the dust — literally

Global warming takes down its first major political victim:

“Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.”

Why the stunning loss? A key reason was Howard’s “head in the sand dust” response to the country’s brutal once-in-a-thousand year drought. As the UK’s Independent reported in April:

… few scientists dispute the part played by climate change, which is making Australia hotter and drier….. Until a few months ago, Mr Howard and his ministers pooh-poohed the climate-change doomsayers....

Read the rest here or here.

Not for the first time, climate alarmists see things as they wish they were, and not as they are.

Howard lost for many reasons far more "key" than Howard's skepticism about the need for the environmental movement's prescriptions for fighting climate change. These reasons include:

Howard had already been prime minister 11 1/2 years (he was running for his fifth term), and is 68 years old to his opponent's more youthful 50.

Many voters took Australia's strong economy -- possibly Howard's greatest achievement -- for granted, as Australia has enjoyed 17 straight years of economic growth.

The Labor Party candidate, Kevin Rudd, campaigned as a strong fiscal conservative, and endorsed very many of Howard's economic policies, leading voters to believe Rudd as new prime minister would continue Howard's economic policy achievements.

Despite a good economic record overall, Howard's Liberal Party was blamed for a recent unpopular rise in interest rates.

The Labor Party ran a celebrity against Howard in his local parliamentary race in New South Wales, forcing him to campaign there frequently, taking his time away from campaigning in marginal districts.

A 2005 industrial relations reform called "Work Choices" was unpopular in some quarters, particularly among organized labor.

A late-breaking scandal took place, in which Liberal Party activists were caught handing out fake Labor Party brochures supporting Islamic terrorists.

The war in Iraq, in which Howard was a steadfast American ally.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Foreign Policy, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:19 AM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Reagan No Racist, Says Deroy Murdock

Deroy Murdock has a lot of evidence to back up his contention that Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert are wrong: Ronald Reagan was not a racist.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, History, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:30 PM

Friday, November 16, 2007

U.S. Bridge Federation Has Constitutional Right to Eject Bush-Bashing Bridge Players

Kudos to the United States Bridge Federation, which is showing spine in response to the self-centered actions of the team of women who used the world bridge championships as a platform to express their anti-Bush political opinions.

While "representing" the United States in communist China, the team held up a sign saying "We did not vote for Bush.”

The New York Times' Stephanie Strom reports on the Bridge Federation's response:

Three players— Hansa Narasimhan, JoAnna Stansby and Jill Meyers — have expressed regret that the action offended some people. The federation has proposed a settlement to [team captain Gail] Greenberg and the three other players, Jill Levin, Irina Levitina and [team member Debbie]. Rosenberg, who have not made any mollifying statements.

It calls for a one-year suspension from federation events, including the World Bridge Olympiad next year in Beijing; a one-year probation after that suspension; 200 hours of community service “that furthers the interests of organized bridge”; and an apology drafted by the federation’s lawyer.

It would also require them to write a statement telling “who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea was adopted, etc.”

Alan Falk, a lawyer for the federation, wrote the four team members on Nov. 6, “I am instructed to press for greater sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.”

The Times quotes a Danny Kleinman, said to be a "professional bridge player, teacher and columnist," telling the Times by e-mail that "if the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition."

What an airhead Danny Kleinman must be. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." and it continues "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

If the U.S. Bridge Federation membership does not wish to associate itself with players who do not believe in the maxim "politics stops at the water's edge," they have a Constitutional right not to do so.

This is a freedom of assembly, not a freedom of speech, issue. The right of the Bridge Federation to associate freely is being questioned by many, but no grand jury is sitting to consider an indictment against the bridge players.

A handful of the liberal bloggers who are defending the bridge players (for example, here, here and here) don't seem to understand what the First Amendment says and means.

What a wonderful country we might have if all the liberals who use their freedom of speech rights read the Constitution carefully and with intelligence once in a while. (Right, Amy, dream on.)

Capping the idiocy of the story, the French delegation reportedly tried to make the whole kerfluffle a sexism issue (believe it or not). The delegation wrote in an e-mail to the U.S. team, "you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality." Good grief, girls, look up "projection" in the dictionary sometime.

No word on whether the French chicks held up a sign saying "We did not vote for Sarkozy."

I checked the blog of Peg Kaplan, my favorite bridge-playing blogger; her posts on this are here and here.

Joe Hicks of Project 21 comes down hard on the team here.

Addendum: Jeremy Lott disagrees, but doesn't say why.

Addendum, 11/17/07: I missed this link, and shouldn't have, from Peg Kaplan's blog. I agree entirely.

Addendum II, 11/17/07: Jeremy Lott says why. Sort of.
_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:37 AM

Friday, November 09, 2007

Fake Global Warming Study Fools Four, Reuters Runs Wire Story

Reuters tried to make a mountain out of a molehill Thursday with its story "Hoax Bacteria Study Tricks Climate Skeptics."

The story, and a related post on the Reuters blog, implied that a noteworthy number of so-called global warming skeptics had been fooled by a fake "study" purporting to disprove the manmade global warming theory.

Said Reuters:

A hoax scientific study pointing to ocean bacteria as the overwhelming cause of global warming fooled some skeptics on Thursday who doubt growing evidence that human activities are to blame.

Laden with scientific jargon and published online in the previously unknown "Journal of Geoclimatic Studies" based in Japan, the report suggested the findings could be "the death of manmade global warming theory."

Skeptics jumped on the report. A British scientist e-mailed the report to 2,000 colleagues before spotting it was a spoof. Another from the U.S. called it a "blockbuster."

Blogger skeptic Neil Craig wrote: "This could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory ... I somehow doubt if this is going to be on the BBC news."

It was not clear who was behind the report, which said bacteria in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans emitted at least 300 times more carbon dioxide than industrial activity -- a finding that, if true, would overturn the widely held view of scientists that burning fossil fuels are the main cause of warming...

"Skeptics jumped on the report" implies that a noteworthy number of skeptics -- at least noteworthy enough to warrant a wire story -- reprinted, referenced or endorsed the hoax study. But how many did?

The anti-skepticism website DeSmogBlog catalogued those who fell for the hoax, coming up with this list:

Benny Peiser, who forwards copies of news articles and studies on climate matters to his "CCNet" e-mail list several times each day. Peiser sent a copy of the hoax study to his list Wednesday without comment and sent out a hoax warning to the list about an hour later.

A Scottish blogger (the Neil Craig quoted by Reuters) whose Sitemeter stats shows his blog receives an average of 175 visitors a day.

A North Carolina think-tank (allegedly; the post was swiftly removed and I have not seen it).

Blogger Angry Steve (allegedly; the post is gone), who describes himself as "an angry, violent man, trapped in a lazy, pacifist's body," and whose blog averages 5 visitors a day.

A post by "Mr. G" in a blog called PEER Review FL, which bills itself as "Florida's Premier Conservative blog."

Something called "Test Blog," which doesn't appear to be a real blog.

Ron Bailey on Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog.

In addition, I know of one skeptic who forwarded the hoax study without comment to his e-mail list, then sent out a hoax warning 30 minutes later.

How many skeptics, then, fell for the hoax?

Of the eight individuals and blogs cited above, three don't appear to be skeptics.

Ron Bailey, who posted the study at Reason's Hit & Run, says he is not a skeptic. I could find no evidence on Angry Steve's blog that he is a skeptic. Mr. G seems to be undecided about global warming. The "Test Blog" doesn't appear to be real. So that leaves Benny Peiser, the North Carolina think-tank, the Scottish blogger with 175 daily readers and the individual I know as the four skeptics who were fooled by the hoax. Three of the four were fooled only briefly.

Reuters ran with the headline "Hoax Bacteria Study Tricks Climate Skeptics." I suppose the headline, "Four Climate Skeptics Fooled by Elaborate Hoax Attempt; Three Briefly" didn't appeal to them. No point in wasting good Reuters ink covering the fact that the vast majority of the skeptics who received copies of the hoax study didn't fall for it. (Look at the obviously fake graphs on the study and you'll see one reason why.)

It's amazing how little it takes to warrant a wire story on Reuters these days.

Note: Radio host Rush Limbaugh apparently also briefly believed the hoax was genuine, though apparently in his case it was because he misread a hoax warning from a prominent "skeptic" scientist. Because Rush mistakenly believed he was receiving an endorsed study from a source who was actually trying to warn him against it, I have not included Rush in my comments above.

Addendum: The hoax architect, David Thorpe, posted here about his handiwork ("Within a few hours, the blogosphere was ablaze with the news, and a number of bloggers fell for the scam."). I draw attention to this because Thorpe used as partial proof that his scam had "smoked out" skeptics that "Reason Magazine’ posted the story and then tore it down..."

As the person at Reason who posted it is open about his belief in the man-made global warming theory, he's no skeptic. So an alarmist runs a scam intended to catch skeptics, catches an alarmist, and call that proof he succeeded.

With reasoning power like that, it is no wonder some of these guys believe in the man-made global warming theory...

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:51 AM

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Think Progress Slams Conservative Bloggers for Citing a Mere Weatherman on Climate Issues, Yet It Cites a Politician Over a Climatologist

The ridiculous Think Progress is slamming John Coleman for expressing his opinion on climate change because -- get this -- Coleman is a just a weatherman:

The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman’s junk science today. Matt Drudge links to NewsBusters’ “marvelous” take on Coleman this morning. Red State [sic], Qando [sic], Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman’s piece.

The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”

Think Progress doesn't believe a mere "weatherman" should speak his mind on climate, but...

...as recently as November 5, Think Progress promoted the climate views of a politician over those of a bona fide climatologist:

This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”

When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...

As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming.

Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.

If conservative bloggers are foolish for citing a mere weatherman on climate issues, what does that make a website that cites a politician?

The headline for the Think Progress piece, by the way, is "Right Wing Trumpets Global Warming Denial Of Discredited ‘TV Weatherman.'" When was Coleman "discredited"?

I'm wondering if the Think Progress staff just made that part up.

Full Disclosure: I cited meterologist John Coleman's remarks yesterday, and would do it again.
_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:30 PM

Monday, October 29, 2007

New Gingrich's Contract with the Earth

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a new book out, "A Contract with the Earth," which, Publishers Weekly says, calls for "businessmen and conservationists to form 'compatible partnerships'" on the environment.

"Compatible partnerships" between business and "conservationists" usually run along the lines of businesses forking over loads of cash to big-government environmental organizations in exchange for the perception that their company will be put slightly lower on Big Green's hit list.

I concede that once in a while the motive is different -- sometimes businesses see a way to profit from new regulations, so they sincerely support Big Green's efforts to get us to pay for them. That sort of sincerity we can do without.

At a conservative environmental policy meeting in 1996 a list of complaints on environmental issues were raised about then-Speaker Gingrich. The list, which I believe provides some context for Gingrich's book tour, was published in a contemporaneous National Center newsletter article under the apt title, "Conservatives Ponder What to Do When the GOP House Speaker is on the Other Side":

...Among the policy disagreements conservatives have with the Speaker:

Gingrich supported and fought to protect Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's National Biological Service, a new expansion of the federal government's ability to target private property for government acquisition;

Gingrich has given the handful of environmental establishment Republicans veto power over all environmental legislation by establishing a House Task Force on the Environment to decide what environmental legislation will and will not be voted on in the House and then stacking the task force with members who disagree with conservatives on environmental issues;

Gingrich supports creation of federal Heritage Areas, a proposal that would, if approved, use federal tax dollars to empower local governments to control local property at the expense of local property owners;

In published interviews Gingrich has implied that conservatives and rural Westerners need to "grow" [read: become more liberal] on environmental issues;

Gingrich urged Bob Dole to drop his efforts to pass a property rights bill to compensate Americans if regulations reduce the value of their property by one-third or more, despite public opinion polls showing that some 70% of the American people (66% according to a Times-Mirror poll and 72% according to a Polling Company survey) support such legislation. Property rights advocates believe such legislation will eventually pass the Congress if Members of Congress are forced to go on the record as for or against it;

Gingrich frequently confers with left-wing environmentalists but declines to extend the same courtesy to conservatives on the same issues;

Gingrich co-sponsored a bill to create a National Institute on the Environment, which inevitably would devolve into yet another government-funded body requiring the discovery of new environmental risks to justify its existence;

Gingrich opposes opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, even though this exploration is environmentally-safe and is vital to the economy of Native residents such as Inupiat Eskimos;

Gingrich supports regulation even when scientific evidence of a need for the regulation is weak. For instance, Gingrich has distanced himself publicly from conservative Congressmen, such as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who advocate lifting environmental regulations in cases where the evidence that the regulations help the environment is weak.

(As a side note, in light of the California fires, it is interesting to read the first article in that same newsletter, which describes the environmental movement's ardent opposition to a bill by Senator Larry Craig to address "high risk" forests, and decribes conservatives discussing "with some frustration the environmentalist movement's ability to, as one participant put it, 'Lie at will and never get caught at it.'")

One of the things we tried very hard to do back then was to get a meeting with then-Speaker Gingrich to discuss these concerns. He not only wouldn't grant one, but his staff was arrogant and rude in turning down the requests. No polite "he's love to but he's so very busy" brush-offs for them, no sir. They wanted the contempt to show.

Message received.

Go here for even more reasons to doubt Newt Gingrich is an honest broker between big-government environmental organizations and mainstream conservatives.

I'll buy the book and read it, thereby giving Newt Gingrich a bigger benefit of the doubt on environmental issues than he ever gave us. You'll hear from me again about this, later.
_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:25 PM

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Environmental Groups, Lawsuits and Wildfires

Michelle Malkin has a good post up today on wildfires and environmental obstructionism. I recommend the whole thing.

Michelle recommends our 2005 e-mail alert "Forest Reforms in the Crossfire" by Dana Joel Gattuso. Dana notes that certain high-litigious environmental organizations have made dangerous mega-wildfires more likely:

On July 1, the Forest Service will celebrate its 100-year anniversary and will, no doubt, commemorate the past century's vast forest growth and reforestation throughout many parts of the nation. But before we uncork too many bottles of bubbly, we should be cognizant of the enormous challenges facing the Forest Service in controlling worsening catastrophic summer wildfires that destroy homes, wildlife, and human life.

President Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative, a blueprint for protecting national forests from catastrophic fire, and the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act were supposed to close a chapter on a decade of raging, devastating fires. The new reforms promised to change the old, outdated laws that have restricted logging, building up dense fuel loads over the years and creating lethal fire conditions. They were to limit activist groups' endless appeals and frivolous lawsuits that have halted critical, time-sensitive thinning projects. They also were to fast-track treatment of forests by eliminating the time-consuming environmental review process for those thinning projects that do not threaten the environment.

But by all accounts, we're not out of the woods yet. Attempts at reform to shift priority to fire prevention are being challenged by a small yet fanatical group of eco-activist groups who argue thinning projects kill habitat and species.

Today, more acres of forests blanket this nation than past decades (we grow more than we cut), supporting vast amounts of wildlife habitat and species once threatened by extinction. But the steady rise in forestland over the years also places them at enormous risk for fire. Over the past five years, wildfires have become more severe and widespread, harming human life, homes, air and water quality, and of course, wildlife.

The population of the northern spotted owl in the Northwest, for example, has declined despite a rise in the number of old growth forests and habitat. A new study by scientists at the Forest Service finds that wildfires are among the possible reasons for the endangered owl's waning numbers. Fires, the report concludes, have been a greater threat than logging projects.

Granted, it will take time to see the effects of the Act's and Initiative's new reforms. But in the meantime, activists' challenges to these measures have brought crucial thinning in high-risk forests to a standstill, threatening to ignite another season of unmanageable fires.

In one case still pending, anti-logging organizations are suing the Administration for reforms that would expedite thinning projects by simplifying forest management plans. Plans are lengthy documents that outline how a national forest is to be cared for including procedures for harvesting, habitat, and recreational use. Current requirements are unwieldy, taking seven to ten years to complete and deterring local forest managers from the job of managing the forests.

The new regulations, which are widely supported by community groups who feel the reforms would provide better protection from fire, make it easier for forest managers to revise plans as they receive new information on the forests. It cuts the plans' preparation time to two to three years, reduces costs, better utilizes new scientific findings on critical habitat, and enables officials to better focus on fire prevention.

But a coalition of enviro groups, extreme in their objective to ban thinning projects, claim the new rules cut corners on protecting forests' wildlife and discourage public input. The case was filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and means months, perhaps years, of delay in treating high-risk forests.

Washington's recent reforms are not the silver lining to ending dangerous wildfires. But they do provide some valuable tools to safely manage America's national forests at greatest risk. The small number of powerful environmental groups, through desperate abuse of the litigation system, are doing a grave disservice to the health of our forests. Their rabid opposition to almost any treatment of any kind threatens human life and wildlife.

_____

Labels: Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:41 PM