Voice For Liberty

Category: Environment

  • Kansas Can’t Do Much Locally To Counter Global Greenhouse Gas Emitters

    A recent op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle (Reader View: Give up on Climate Efforts?) makes the case that it is still important to fight climate change at the local level, here in Kansas. “When millions of people act, even in small ways, it has a cumulative effect on the planet.”

    The problem is that most people can act in only very small ways, and even these have a high cost that many won’t bear. The popular resistance to a reduction in the speed limit is such an example.

    The stark fact of the arithmetic is that greenhouse gas emissions are rising so quickly worldwide that anything we can do locally is like a drop in the ocean. That’s not much of an exaggeration. If Kansans were to stop all emissions of greenhouse gases from all sources, our sacrifice would be negated by China’s emissions growth in about 16 months.

    As it turns out, the cost of making even small reductions in greenhouse gases is quite large. To fully implement goals like the Stern Commission’s would largely mean the end of capitalism as we know it, and of our present standard of living.

    The writer also uses anthropomorphism — the “strange groaning of the ice” making him believe the earth is calling out for help — as an argument. This is similar to the radical environmentalist group Earthjustice and its motto: “Because the earth needs a good lawyer.” These appeals to emotion are a common tactic of the radical left.

  • Pickens’s Slim Economics

    An article from the Foundation for Economic Education warns us to be cautious when considering the plans of oilman T. Boone Pickens:

    Pickens’s commercial no doubt causes FEE readers’ classical-liberal antennae to stand at attention. The word “plan” alone rightly provokes worries of coercive schemes. The notion of being independent of energy or any other commodity from foreign countries goes against the teachings of Smith, Bastiat, and others who recognize the gains from specialization and division of labor. Nor will readers knowledgeable about rent-seeking be surprised that media reports describe Pickens as “heavily invested in natural gas and wind power.” And when Pickens states in his commercials that “this plan will work but it needs your help,” readers familiar with Public Choice rightly suspect that the sort of help Pickens has in mind is tax dollars.

    The full article is Pickens’s Slim Economics.

  • Will Climate Change Impact Kansas?

    Kansas Liberty reports on the wide variance in conclusions drawn by two studies on the effect of climate change in Kansas in the post Will climate change impact Kansas? The fact that such variation exists tells me that we should proceed cautiously before committing Kansas to a costly process that, in the end, makes no difference to our climate.

  • Wind Production Tax Credits Aren’t Free of Cost

    Nancy Jackson of the Climate and Energy Project in Kansas has some tips for citizens and candidates to use when talking about global warming. The article Tips for citizens and candidates – talking about the Production Tax Credit contains warnings about what will happen if the Production Tax Credit (PTC) isn’t extended beyond its scheduled expiration date at the end of 2008. Thousands of jobs and billions in investment will be at risk, the post says.

    Whether these tax credits are desirable is one issue. But what is not at issue is that these tax credits come with a cost. They aren’t free. Taxpayers have to pay for them, or, as is likely the case, the federal government borrows money to pay for them. Either way, the tax credits take money out of the pockets of people across the country to subsidize the production of wind power.

    When people have less money to spend because of the PTC, economic activity is reduced. Jobs are lost. Investment is not made or is deferred. The problem is that if the PTC is eliminated, the loss of jobs and investment will be concentrated and noticeable. Wind farms will cease to operate, it seems the alarmists are saying, and all the workers will be laid off. Television news crews will be at the wind farms on the workers’ last day on the job, and their plight will be reported and editorialized upon.

    But every day average people in America have a little less money in their pockets because of these tax credits. Their loss, on an individual basis, is small and not concentrated where it can be reported on. But it is real.

    We’ve seen how government subsidies to ethanol producers and corn growers have distorted markets worldwide. The same applies to wind power. To be a viable long-term strategy, wind power must be profitable on its own without subsidy.

  • Jack Pelton, Leader of Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group

    Earlier this year, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius created the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) and appointed Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton as its leader.

    This was a smart political move by Governor Sebelius. She appears to have put the planning for our state’s energy future in the hands of an independent, skeptical businessman, someone who will be concerned about the bottom line. Someone who won’t be overly influenced by the emotional appeals of environmentalists.

    Kansans need to understand, however, that Jack Pelton may not want to, or be able to, exhibit the independence necessary to formulate sound energy and environmental policy in Kansas.

    In a Wichita Eagle editorial on May 18, 2008, Pelton said he believes that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced: “We are tasked with helping develop a plan to ensure Kansas energy needs are met now and in the future through policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” To me, this sounds as though he’s already formed a conclusion — and one that happens to agree with our governor’s.

    That agreement with Governor Sebelius may not be a coincidence. Other motives may be a factor. That’s because earlier this year, the State of Kansas approved $33 million in incentives for Cessna, with Wichita and Sedgwick County adding another $10 million. The governor signed the legislation in a televised ceremony at Cessna’s facilities in Wichita. This award to Cessna is part of $150 million in aircraft incentives the state authorized.

    (As is often the case with economic development incentives, the state won’t directly give Cessna the money. Instead, it will issue bonds that Cessna will repay with its employee withholding taxes. Confusing maneuvers like this allow governments to say they aren’t actually giving money to companies. Instead, they’re merely issuing bonds which will be repaid, never mind what they’re being repaid with.)

    His company having received a gift like that, how could Pelton turn down the governor’s request to lead KEEP? Given Kathleen Sebelius’ national political ambitions based on her green environmentalist credentials, how can he be expected to do anything that would ruffle her feathers?

    When you combine these factors with the fact that KEEP is being facilitated by The Center for Climate Strategies, Kansans should be very skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations that will emerge from this process.

  • Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

    CBS News picks up on a National Review Online story about the idealogical bias of Wikipedia when it comes to the subject of global warming.

    On Wikipedia, regular folks like me who make changes to articles are known as “editors.” When we make these edits, they are subject to review and possible revision or deletion by other Wikipedia editors. There’s a certain give-and-take, based on Wikipedia culture and some rules, that governs these activities.

    But Wikipedia has some special people known as administrators, who have great power in controlling the content of Wikipedia articles. When these people have biases, there can be problems with Wikipedia articles. This is what the article Wikipropaganda On Global Warming reports on, and it is worthwhile to read.

  • Rasmussen Poll on Kansas Coal Plant

    What is the attitude of Kansans toward coal-fired power plants?

    Opponents of these plants have polls purportedly telling us that a majority of Kansans are opposed to them. See the press release Kansans Support Denial of Coal Plants, Want Wind Power for New Electricity from GPACE, a group headed by Scott Allegrucci, a former actor and son of Joyce Allegrucci, the former campaign director and chief of staff for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. But also see Kansans’ Opposition to Coal Plant: Look at the Poll for a look at the type of questions used in this poll.

    Now a Rasmussen Reports poll from June 2008 covers some issues in Kansas. The poll can be viewed here. The last question in the poll is this:

    Should the State of Kansas allow a power company to build a new coal fired plant in southwest Kansas?

    48% Yes
    32% No
    19% Not sure

    This time the question is asked plainly, without the emotional imagery used to frame the questions in the poll mentioned above. The results, not surprisingly, are different.

  • Kansas environmental policy is full of uncertainty

    In a January 17, 2008 Wichita Eagle editorial, Nancy Jackson of the Climate and Energy Project of the Land Institute claims that Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, did not create regulatory uncertainty when he denied the permit for the expansion of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas.

    A dubious claim made in this editorial is how “Neither Bremby nor Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is ‘out front’ on this issue [carbon emissions].” Jackson claims that Bremby was just following an inevitable trend towards more regulation of carbon emissions. But this is in direct opposition to news reports at the time. The Washington Post, for example, reported “The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.” (Power Plant Rejected Over Carbon Dioxide For First Time)

    Being the first to do something creates uncertainty, especially when the professional staff of KDHE approved the permit. The decision must have been made by just one person — or maybe two, as the level of involvement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in the decision is not known.

    But what discredits Ms. Jackson most is something she couldn’t have known when she wrote this editorial. In February, according to Associated Press reporting, Rod Bremby was apparently willing to approve a permit for an oil refinery that would emit 17 million tons of carbon a year, when he denied the power plant solely because of its emissions of 11 million tons. (See Oil refiner wary of coming to Kansas, also Rod Bremby’s Action Drove Away the Refinery.)

    If this isn’t regulatory uncertainty, I don’t know what is.

  • Earthjustice in Kansas: What is Their Agenda?

    Yesterday I posted Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius at Earthjustice, about Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius speaking at a event hosted by Earthjustice, a group that I believe has a radical environmentalist agenda.

    Just what is the agenda of the group? Do they have the interests of Kansas in mind, or something else?

    I asked a few blogger friends if they knew anything about Earthjustice and its agenda. Here’s what I received from one, which I believe correctly tells us what this group is really about:

    I find this organization to be rather scary. From their president’s vision:

    But, we are not like a law firm in the fundamental sense that we identify critical issues and strategies that need to be moved forward, rather than just wait for clients and cases to show up. We think about what kinds of clients are needed to best advance the particular cause.

    Translation: We don’t have clients — we have issues and then find clients to sue in court.

    Our bottom line is using the courts to protect wild places and wildlife, reduce pollution and protect people’s health from all kinds of environmental problems, and move us all forward on addressing global warming. We are here “because the Earth needs a good lawyer.”

    Translation: Since we can’t accomplish our goals through legislation, we’ll use the courts to bypass the will of the people.

    It’s very clear to me that voluntary actions by individuals and businesses, no matter how widespread and well-intentioned are important but are not sufficient to bring about the change we need. We will always need a powerful environmental movement that can affect policy, and to be effective that movement needs a powerful litigation organization like Earthjustice.

    Translation: And since we think we’re right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong, we’ll use the power of the courts to force our ideas upon you.