Today I am posting an email response about environmentalism that I sent to some friends. It is in response to an email listing some faults of the Bush administration environmental policy. The original message was a private email, so I won't post it, but I think the response still makes good sense. Enjoy!

I consider myself to be generally aware of and interested in environmental issues.  I am certainly not an expert, but I have thought and read about many issues.  I tend to be skeptical of easy solutions.  I find many environmentalists are too strident and reflexively anti-Republican.  I am not Republican but I am certainly skeptical of other parties, including Democrats, when it comes to environmental issues.

So let me address Jose’s issues as I understand them:

Global Warming:  While Global Warming is a discernable trend over the last 100 or so years, there is scant evidence to prove that:

* Humans are the cause (periods like this existed before humans were prevalent)
* Global Warming is a bad thing (we shouldn’t discount all change as bad)
* Kyoto was an efficient way to deal with the “issue” (very high cost for only a potential change, which might not even be beneficial)

Given the lack of evidence, I can not fault the Administration for not encouraging Kyoto.  I would also prefer them to be direct rather than dance around the accord like the Euroweenies.

Smokestack Upgrades:  There are some issues with upgrading older plants and “grandfathering” them through new controls and regulations.  However, we should acknowledge that there is an issue because there are new regulations and standards – the administration is trying to improve the system.  As for particulates, I am no expert but according to the EPA they are at their lowest point in over 30 years (Link).

Wildfire Funding:  Again I am not an expert, but according to the Forest Service their budget is increasing (Link).  There appears to be a 10-year plan run at the state and local levels so I am unconvinced that a lack of federal action implies a total lack of action; apparently local forces are acting (using federal funds).  I am concerned by Jose’s points but given the accusation that funding has been slashed, I am also concerned that the assertions are not true.  Final note:  there is more forest in North America now than at any time since the early 1900’s.  That is not a credit to Bush, but a general improvement that should be acknowledged.

Roadless Initiative:  If the worst Bush can do to the environment is stop eliminating wilderness roads, I wouldn’t call that much of a debacle.  We’re not talking about building new roads, but eliminating existing roads, after a bunch had already been eliminated.  This is not campaign-quality material.

Cheap Cattle Grazing:  I don’t think many people would complain that the environment is damaged by allowing cattle to eat grass.

Fisheries:  Open-ocean fishing is more of a property rights/land use issue than an environmental issue.  If we assigned rights, the owners would manage the waters more responsibly.  Given common access, users have no incentive to preserve the resources since the other users will likely take advantage.  AKA “Tragedy of the Commons” (google it).  As for whaling, some people consider it immoral, but then they also consider killing cows and chickens to be immoral.  One can argue that pigs are as intelligent as whales.  Morally, I don’t see much of an argument here aside from the standard logic of vegetarianism.  From an endangered species angle, I am not an expert but colloquial evidence suggests that while some types of whales are endangered, others are doing quite well (Link, other links available through Google)

CAFÉ Standards:  As I (and many others) have argued previously (partial argument here), CAFÉ standards are not objectively good.  They caused the extinction of the family station wagon, thereby encouraging the growth of the SUV market.  For people without SUVs, the resulting cars are smaller and lighter, two factors that endanger occupants in collisions.  One can do the math for how many highway deaths are caused by the new standards, but I won’t get into that.  It was an unintended consequence, after all.  Quick economics point:  when cars are more efficient, people drive more.  My point is that there is a logical, reasonable argument against CAFÉ standards and so we shouldn’t consider their status as an automatic negative against the administration.

Natural Gas:  Natural gas is a non-renewable resource just as is oil.  Natural gas prices are highly variable, which can lead to shortages and unpredictable (high) winter expenses.  I, as an environmentalist and interested citizen, feel that encouraging Natural Gas usage is not a laudable goal (sponsored by the Natural Gas industry!).  Rather, we should be encouraging the use of electricity powered by nuclear reactors.  Obviously this is not a popular position but it is probably the best idea.  Note that electricity does not require tanker trucks or natural gas trucks/lines.  In any case the Administration is funding research into hydrogen power (fuel cells) and other alternative fuels (ethanol) so I don’t see much fault there.

Snowmobiles:  I don’t see the need for Snowmobiles in national parks, as it seems that private lands could accommodate their use.  So I tend agree that they should not be allowed.  One caveat:  I would defer to the local level in the affected state(s) when it comes to these policies (even though the lands are federal).  In any case this is not an environmental disaster.

In toto, I don’t see how people justify accusing the Bush administration as being terrible on the environment.  They might want more, but we are not moving backwards here.  I would rate the administration “passable” or “standard”, but not “disastrous” or “wonderful”.  Somehow that’s not exciting enough for everyone, though.

Thanks again,

Damien

---

Monday, November 8th

In the wake of the election, a lot of people are trying to determine just how Bush could have won. Liberals, leftists, and Democrats especially are trying to assign blame, and the value-voting rednecks seem to be the target. Before the conventional wisdom quite solidifies, I'd like to offer some very good advice via two articles. This kind of critical thinking could really help the liberal agenda, if only they would do it themselves. As it is, this free advice and counseling comes from libertarian/conservative authors David Brooks and Mark Steyn.

The first article is really can't miss - be sure to check out David Brooks in the NYT.

Mark Steyn is a bit more sarcastic but just as on-point writing for the Brits in the Telegraph.

Those articles are much better than anything I could write, so please read them!

---

Please send mail, comments, or questions to ddelruss@mac.com

Permanent Link