Voice For Liberty

Tag: Environment

  • NAT GAS Act: Markets are better able to decide

    The real lesson to be learned from Solyndra is that government is not equipped to act as entrepreneur. We need to apply that lesson to natural gas powered vehicles before it is too late.

    This lesson is important to learn at the present, as legislation called the NAT GAS Act, formally known as H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, is working its way through Congress.

    Thomas J. Pyle of the American Energy Alliance does an excellent job tracing through the secondary effects of passing the NAT GAS act. He shows that when considering large legislation like this, we need to really think hard about all the markets and people that will be impacted.

    Furthermore, some of the goals of this legislation, such as decreasing reliance on imported oil from unfriendly sources, could be accomplished with government simply getting out of the way and letting more oil production occur domestically.

    We need to trust people, that is, people and investors trading freely, using their collective wisdom, as to which forms of energy are best for each purpose, Pyle writes: “The market and consumers have proven over and over — “déjà vu all over again,” but in a positive way — to be the best arbiters of what energy technologies succeed or fail. To put it simply, if natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are superior to gas or diesel, and they may be some day, consumers will figure that out on their own.”

    Pyle also offers what he thinks is the real motive of two of the bill’s backers, energy investor T. Boone Pickens and left-wing cause financier George Soros: “Why compete in the free market when it’s more profitable to have Congress do your bidding for you?””

    The full article by Pyle is available on The Hill at NAT GAS Act: Déjà vu all over again. More coverage of this issue is at Pickens criticism illustrates divide between free markets and intervention, Pickens: It’s all about me, and MSNBC doesn’t notice, and Pompeo on energy tax simplification.

    NAT GAS Act: Déjà vu all over again

    By Thomas J. Pyle

    When it comes to unchecked government spending and misguided energy policies, it seems that Congress cannot escape channeling Yogi Berra’s oft-quoted remark, “it’s deja vu all over again.” The latest Congressional boondoggle concerns the NAT GAS Act, which will be addressed at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on September 22.
    Some background first: the proposed law offers between $5 billion and $9 billion in tax subsidies — although there is no cap on maximum spending in the law — to encourage businesses to convert their vehicles to natural gas, despite the fact that many companies are already doing this doing on their own. Proponents of the law argue that using cleaner burning natural gas will help the environment and that it will improve the nation’s energy security, but a closer look reveals these demand-centric subsidies will lead to expensive consequences for consumers, taxpayers, workers and employers across the board.

    Continue reading at The Hill

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday September 23, 2011

    Downtown Wichita site launched. As part of an effort to provide information about the Douglas Place project, a proposed renovation of a downtown Wichita office building into a hotel, a group of concerned citizens has created a website. The site is named Our Downtown Wichita, and it’s located at dtwichita.com.

    Keystone pipeline hearing, bus trip. On Monday the United States Department of State will hold hearings in Topeka concerning a proposed petroleum pipeline. Says Americans for Prosperity: “Our great country has an opportunity to complete a project that would provide billions of dollars in economic activity, create thousands of high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs, and at the same time take a significant step toward providing for greater U.S. energy security and independence. … Because the project originates in Canada and would provide a pipeline extension to the Gulf Coast, through Kansas, the project requires State Department approval. TransCanada owns the Keystone pipeline, which currently runs from Canada to Oklahoma. … It has finally received tentative approval from the Environmental Protection Agency and now sits before the State Department. The State Department is holding a hearing in Topeka on Monday, September 26th from noon to 3:30pm and 4:00pm to 8:00pm at the Kansas ExpoCentre, located at the corner of Topeka Blvd. and 17th Street South.” … To help citizens attend this unusual hearing, AFP has organized a free bus trip from Wichita. The bus will load from 7:30 am to 8:00 am at the Lawrence Dumont Stadium Parking Lot. It will return to Wichita around 7:00 pm. Lunch is provided. For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

    Health care reform. “Lt. Governor Jeff Colyer spent nearly two hours with the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Policy Oversight Monday explaining the imperative and complexity of solving problems with government health care he likened to a Rubik’s Cube. The challenge of the 1974 puzzle and the current Medicaid and health care debate is finding a way to align multiple facets of each side without upsetting another side.” More from Kansas Watchdog at Public Health Care System Reform a Governmental Rubik’s Cube .

    Pompeo defends against Obama’s attack on aviation. “Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) spoke on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in defense of the general aviation community, which is so important to job sustainability and job growth in South Central Kansas.” Video from C-Span is at Pompeo House speech on aviation.

    Wichita corporate welfare opposed. This week the Wichita City Council granted another forgivable loan. Thank you to John Todd for appearing and offering testimony opposing the loan. In his remarks, Todd said: “Over the past few months, I have watched a majority of this council fall into the trap of trying to buy customer business with free-money economic development schemes out of the public treasury. This program might work if the public treasury held unlimited funds and the public gifts were offered to every business owner on an equal basis. … In 1887 President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have given $10,000 for seed to farmers in drought-stricken Texas saying something to the effect that he could not be a party to taking money out of the treasury to benefit one group of people at the expense of another group, no matter how worthy the cause, stating that it is the responsibility of citizens to support the government and not the responsibility of government to support the people. Cleveland further issued a challenge for private charitable giving for the farmers. A number of newspapers adopted the relief campaign and in the end Americans voluntarily donated not $10,000 but $100,000 to the afflicted farmers. I would suggest a similar publicly driven voluntary relief campaign in lieu of the forgivable loan you are considering today to see if there is public sentiment to charitably fund this local economic development project.” … I’ve been told what the target company really needs is relief from a regulatory trap.

    The trap of job creation. Today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program, Rhone Resch of the Solar Energy Industries Association appeared. He promoted solar energy as great for creating jobs, telling viewers that solar energy creates more jobs per megawatt than any other form of power generation. This illustrates the trap that politicians and those who benefit from government subsidy usually fall into: that more jobs is a good thing. Wouldn’t it be much better if we could generate all the electricity we wanted using fewer jobs? Then these surplus employees could be put to work on something else — or simply enjoy leisure. … A few years ago an editorial written by a labor union official appeared in Kansas, praising the job-creating power of wind energy. In response, I wrote “After all, if we view our energy policy as a jobs creation program, why not build wind turbines and haul them to western Kansas without the use of machinery? Think of the jobs that would create.” … In a video produced by the Cato Institute, Caleb Brown explains the problems with relying on government and its spending for jobs: “Politicians and entrepreneurs face different problems. Entrepreneurs care about creating wealth, both for their customers and themselves. This means getting more output with fewer inputs. Politicians often care more about maximizing inputs like labor, even when that job creation could make all of us materially worse off. It would be easy for the president and Congress to create new jobs: They could simply ban the use of computers, farm machinery, or any other labor-saving device. But that would clearly raise prices … It’s hard to see how that improves anyone’s standard of living.”

  • Kansas Governor Sam Brownback on wind energy

    Recently Kansas Governor Sam Brownback wrote an editorial praising the benefits of wind power. (Gov. Sam Brownback: Wind offers clean path to growth, September 11, 2011 Wichita Eagle) Brownback has also been supportive of another form of renewable energy, ethanol.

    But not everyone agrees with the governor’s rosy assessment of wind power. Paul Chesser of American Tradition Institute offers a rebuttal of Brownback’s article, which first appeared in a Bloomberg publication.

    Chesser writes: “Apparently Gov. Brownback has overlooked the horrid results of efforts in recent years to spur the economy and employment with government renewable energy ‘stimulation’ from taxpayer dollars. … The lessons of failure with government mandates in pursuit of a renewable energy economy are not hard to find.”

    Chesser goes on to describe ATI’s study which illustrates the negative economic consequences of renewsable energy standards, which Brownback has supported. The study is The Effects of Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Legislation on the U.S. Economy.

    Following is Chesser’s response to Governor Brownback.

    Kansas Gov., Former Sen. Brownback Incorrect on Promise, Economics of Renewable Energy

    By Paul Chesser

    American Tradition Institute today called attention to the many fallacies in a column written by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and published yesterday in the Bloomberg Government newsletter (subscription required), in which the former U.S. Senator touted the “long-term benefits” and “job creation” ability of renewable energy, predominantly with wind power.

    Apparently Gov. Brownback has overlooked the horrid results of efforts in recent years to spur the economy and employment with government renewable energy “stimulation” from taxpayer dollars. He wrote for Bloomberg, “Experience has taught us that investments in the renewable energy economy is creating jobs across all employment sectors, including construction, engineering, operations, technology and professional services, in both rural and urban communities.”

    “Unlike most of his fellow Republicans, it sounds like the governor continues to support President Obama’s failed initiatives to create ‘Green jobs’ in a hopeless attempt to save the U.S. economy,” said Paul Chesser, executive director of American Tradition Institute.

    Continue reading at ATI Release: Kansas Gov., Former Sen. Brownback Incorrect on Promise, Economics of Renewable Energy.

  • Greenpeace and allies again attack Koch Industries

    Last week saw the release of two reports criticizing Koch Industries for its opposition to heavy-handed regulation of the chemical industry. Greenpeace released a report with highly charged words in its title: “Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at Risk of a Poison Gas Disaster.” Other articles commenting on this were highly sensational, such as this example: “Do the Koch Brothers Want a Toxic Disaster?”

    Koch Industries has responded to these articles in a response on KochFacts.com website. Among many facts, we can see that Koch companies have received 386 safety awards and 28 environmental awards just since President Obama took office.

    Much of the Greenpeace report criticized Koch for its opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009. Koch and most of the chemical industry instead favored continuation of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, a set of less intrusive standards that have been effective.

    Greenpeace characterizes the regulatory measures in H.R. 2868 as so mild that it can’t imagine why anyone would object. At issue is a concept known as “Inherently Safer Technology” or IST. If passed into law or regulation, regulators could require manufacturers to substitute alternative processes, in the name of safety. That, however, poses many problems, as explained below.

    The Greenpeace report contains an economic analysis of what H.R. 2868 might do to the economy. This bill passed the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. The report estimates that the cost of IST would be slightly less than $1 billion per year. The analysis concludes that the extra costs of IST regulation would eliminate jobs, but the extra spending on IST would add roughly the same number of jobs. The net impact is therefore zero.

    But we shouldn’t infer that a net loss of zero jobs means no economic harm is done. There will be dislocation, as the people who gain jobs won’t likely be the people who lost jobs.

    But most importantly, this extra cost is spent paying for something that isn’t a problem. The Greenpeace report concedes there have been no attacks on U.S. chemical plants since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The reports says various terrorists would like to conduct such attacks. That’s hardly news. What is news is that, for whatever reason, they haven’t succeeded.

    It’s true that the words “Inherently Safer Technology” don’t appear in H.R. 2868. But in an explanatory document produced by Greenpeace, we see the bill isn’t as mild as Greenpeace claims: “If a facility disagrees with the DHS’s finding they have 120 days to appeal and the DHS must consult with a wide range of experts and those expert recommendations must be included in any order to implement safer chemical processes.” (emphasis added)

    That sounds like heavy-handed regulation and the implementation of IST. Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking on Greenpeace’s part. At any rate, once initiated these regulatory regimes have a way of growing, often far exceeding the intent of Congress when it passed the legislation creating the initial regulation.

    But that’s the goal of the political left: Regulation. And if they can accomplish this goal while at the same time beating up on Koch Industries, the chemical industry, the oil industry, and capitalism in general, so much the better for them. Underlying the quest of Greenpeace and its allies is a hatred of capitalism, hated so much that they will do whatever it takes to discredit and defeat its proponents and practitioners.

    The problems with Inherently Safer Technology regulation

    A document titled Final Report: Definition for Inherently Safer Technology in Production, Transportation, Storage, and Use supplies some useful information about IST:

    IST’s are relative: A technology can only be described as inherently safer when compared to a different technology, including a description of the hazard or set of hazards being considered, their location, and the potentially affected population. A technology may be inherently safer than another with respect to some hazards while being inherently less safe with respect to others, and may not be safe enough to meet societal expectations.

    IST’s are based on an informed decision process: Because an option may be inherently safer with regard to some hazards and inherently less safe with regard to others, decisions about the optimum strategy for managing risks from all hazards are required. The decision process must consider the entire life cycle, the full spectrum of hazards and risks, and the potential for transfer of risk from one impacted population to another.

    This hints at the difficulty in regulating complex processes such as manufacturing. There may be many tradeoffs to make. An an example, a process might use a toxic catalyst. It would seem that eliminating its use would lead to greater safety.

    But: the tradeoff. Eliminating the use of the catalyst would mean the company has to increase the temperature and pressure of the process, two factors that increase risk. The end result might be a process with more risk than the original process.

    At a committee hearing in 2009, Senator Susan M. Collins gave another example of how IST might force more hazardous trucks on highways:

    According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area.

    In its discussion on IST, the “Final Report: Definition for Inherently Safer Technology in Production, Transportation, Storage, and Use” report notes the tradeoffs that are commonplace:

    IST options can be location and release scenario dependent, and different potentially exposed populations may not agree on the relative inherent safety characteristics of the same set of options. For example, two options for handling a toxic gas might be receiving the material in ten, 1-ton cylinders or one, 10-ton truckloads. To a population several miles from the site, the 1-ton cylinders would be inherently safer because the maximum potential release size is smaller and less likely to expose them to a hazardous concentration of the gas. However, operators, who would now have to connect and disconnect 10 cylinders for every 10 tons of material used, instead of a single truck, would consider the truck shipments to be inherently safer. Thus, evaluation of IST options can be quite complex, and dependent on the local environment. There is currently no consensus on either a quantification method for IST or a scientific assessment method for evaluation of IST options.

    We need to consider also who is in the best position to judge the relative risks: government bureaucrats, or the operators of the plant. The view of government regulators is that any risk is bad, and through technology — IST in this example — we can eliminate risk.

    But this ignores the tradeoffs involved, as illustrated above. It also ignore the costs of these regulations in their attempt to lessen risk, notwithstanding the economic analysis commissioned by Greenpeace.

    A common response we see in the media — certainly we see it from the political left and attack groups like Greenpeace as well as government regulators — is that greedy plant owners will use whichever method is cheapest, so as to produce the greatest profit.

    This ignores the fact that there are laws and regulations already in place. It ignores the fact that market forces give plant operators a huge incentive to operate safely, for their own safety, the safety of the employees they can’t operate without, and the safety of the surrounding communities. Besides the potential loss of human life, unsafe plants expose their operators to huge economic costs. Besides being liable for damage and loss of life due to accidents, unsafe workplaces have to pay employees more to work there. Insurers charge higher rates for unsafe plants they believe present a high risk of having to pay claims.

  • Guitar makers and players targeted by onerous laws

    Today the Wall Street Journal reports again on startling examples of overcriminalization, with federal authorities conducting raids on businesses based on aggressive enforcement of broad and vague laws.

    This time it’s the famous Gibson Guitar company, which is charged with importing wood that may have been illegally harvested. But individual guitar owners are targeted, too, if they travel across international borders with a guitar that might possibly have been made from banned wood. If the traveler doesn’t have the proper documentation, the guitar might be seized. As a result, a law professor says he doesn’t leave the country with a wooden guitar.

    Gibson had tried to comply with the law. It had used the services of Forest Stewardship Council, an organization that, according to its website, provides a certification service: “FSC certification provides a credible link between responsible production and consumption of forest products, enabling consumers and businesses to make purchasing decisions that benefit people and the environment as well as providing ongoing business value.”

    According to Gibson, FSC certification means the wood was not obtained illegally.

    The law under which Gibson is charged, the Lacey Act, creates many problems for U.S. importers. According to Gibson, “The U.S. Lacey Act does not directly address conservation issues but is about obeying all laws of the countries from which wood products are procured. This law reads that you are guilty if you did not observe a law even though you had no knowledge of that law in a foreign country. The U.S. Lacey Act is only applicable when a foreign law has been violated.”Gibson says it has statements and documents that wood seized in an earlier raid was legally exported from Madagascar. That’s right — this is not the first time for Gibson, and the earlier case is still pending.

    Interestingly, the wood that is in controversy — Madagascar ebony — provides an example of how lack of property rights causes shortages of a desirable product. Further, this is an example of how lack of property rights and economic freedom keeps a country poor, instead of being able to benefit from its natural resources.

    Among the countries of the world, Madagascar ranks very low in legal structure and property rights. According to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom for Madagascar compiled by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal: “Secured interests in property are poorly enforced. Restrictions on land ownership by foreigners impede investment. … The judiciary is influenced by the executive and subject to corruption, and investors face a legal and judicial environment in which the enforcement of contracts cannot be guaranteed. … Corruption is perceived as widespread. ”

    This illustrates the importance of economic freedom, which is rooted in property rights and respect for the ability of parties to contract. When property rights are not felt to be secure and people believe that the government will not enforce contracts, it’s difficult to get people to make investments, especially in things like trees that require investment and stewardship over a period of years. Who will nurture trees for decades to maturity, only for them to be stolen, either by a corrupt government or by thieves who have no fear that the government will protect the property of others?

  • KDHE, Sunflower Electric, Earthjustice, Center for Climate Strategies: different peas in the same pod

    Evidence that a business seeking regulatory approval of its project enjoyed an apparently close relationship with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment should not be surprising.

    Reporting in the Kansas City Star leads with “Hundreds of emails document that officials of a Kansas power plant enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Kansas regulators who issued them a building permit in December.” (Kansas agency, utility worked closely on permit for plant)

    A press release from Earthjustice, the legal advocacy arm of the Sierra Club, proclaimed “A new report reveals Sunflower Electric (Sunflower) enjoyed a cozy relationship with Kansas regulators during the permitting process for the highly controversial coal-fired power plant Sunflower seeks to build in Holcomb.”

    This incident — the details are not important for understanding the broad lesson — may be looked on as an example of regulatory capture. As defined in Wikipedia, “regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.”

    In more detail, the Wikipedia article explains: “For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at ‘capturing’ influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented.”

    Regulatory capture — or at least the heavy-handed attempt by special interest groups to influence public policy to fit their interests — is a non-partisan sport. We shouldn’t be surprised to see this form of government failure taking place at all times, no matter which party or politicians are in power.

    As an example on point, the same type of activity happened during the administration of former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius regarding the same electric plant that is the focus of controversy today. Her regulator, former KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby, denied the permit for the plant based on its carbon dioxide emissions, the first time that had been done in the United States.

    Radical environmentalists rejoiced. Sebelius was invited to speak at an Earthjustice conference held in Denver in June, 2008. Here are a portion of her written remarks, as supplied to me at that time by her press office, thanking Earthjustice for all it had done in Kansas to help Sebelius and mold her regulatory regime:

    When Big Coal pumped their money and politics into Kansas, EarthJustice was there to fight back:

    • Provided litigation and public support
    • Helped shape the media messaging and outreach
    • Rallied supporters and engaged the public to get involved

    It was a victory for all of us and I appreciate their help.

    About that time Sebelius established the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP. The activities of this group were managed — at no cost to the state — by the Center for Climate Strategies, a group that expressly advocates for energy policies and regulations based on an extremist view of climate science.

    The invasion of Kansas — at least the Sebelius administration — by Earthjustice and Center for Climate Studies proves the point: Regulatory capture is a non-partisan opportunity.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday June 27, 2011

    Wichita city council. This week the Wichita City Council considers consent agenda items only, and then has a workshop. Among the consent agenda items are a resolution declaring the city’s intent to use debt financing in the amount of $40 million for the new parking facility at the airport. A companion resolution declares intent to use $160 million in debt financing for the new terminal. Interestingly, these resolutions contain this language: “That a public necessity exists for, and that the public safety, service and welfare will be advanced by …” followed by a description of each project. Really, the city should not lie in this way. … Consent agendas are handy for hiding items like this item: “Authorize payment of $13,025 as a full settlement for all claims arising out of an automobile accident. … This claim arose from a May 31, 2011 automobile accident involving an OCI inspector employed by the City.” … Of interest in the workshop session is an item titled “WSU Economic Development Fiscal Impact Analysis Model.” Here, undoubtedly, analysts from Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research will tell the council how government spending has a magical power not found in private sector spending.

    Huelskamp on spending as driving economic growth. Speaking of the magical power of government spending, in his questioning (video below) of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf last week, U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp, who represents the Kansas first district asked if reducing spending is not the best way to grow the economy. Elmendorf replied that there are trade-offs; that higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity to some extent. But, he added, that certain forms of government spending are important for economic growth. Huelskamp pressed the director, noting that in his recent report, higher marginal tax rates and more government borrowing are negative factors on growth, asking “So explain to me why reducing spending is not the only alternative?” Director Elmendorf explained cutting spending “that was not itself an investment in economic growth, that would be better for the economy than if one raised [marginal tax rates].” … Huelskamp asked if Medicare and Social Security spending were economic growth drivers. The answers were no, they are not important economic growth drivers in the long term. Some pieces of the defense budget have been, he said. Huelskamp noted we’ve just eliminated a huge chunk of the federal budget as being important to economic growth. … Elmendorf said he did not have a list of the types of federal spending that have been important to economic growth, and he admitted that “we are not good at modeling those effects.” … Huelskamp asked Elmendorf if he could, as follow-up, provide examples of federal government spending that are drivers of economic growth, saying that Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System refuses to identify those. … We’ll have to wait and see how the CBO responds. The report Huelskamp referred to is CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook.

    No Wichita Pachyderm this week. Because of the holiday, the Wichita Pachyderm Club will not meet this week. Upcoming speakers: On July 8, Dave Trabert, President, Kansas Policy Institute, on “Stabilizing the Kansas Budget.” On July 15, Jon Hauxwell, MD, speaking on “Medicinal Cannabis.” On July 22, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita on “An update from Washington.” On July 29, Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and “The Repealer” on “An Overview of the Office of the Repealer.”

    Government spending secrets. Erick Erickson, RedState: “How bad is Washington spending? Well, there is a new website that’s up called Dirty Spending Secrets with a Q&A format to uncover some of Washington’s dirtiest spending secrets. Several friends of mine have emailed it to me. It’s actually pretty easy to figure out, but also horribly shocking — in the Q&A multiple choice, just go for the worst answer and you’ll probably be right. With the debt ceiling vote coming up, it’s just another reminder of how unserious Washington is when it comes to spending.”

    Wichita city budget input. It’s budget time in Wichita, and the city will take questions and public input this Wednesday (June 29) in a 6:00 pm session in the city council chambers. The event will be broadcast live on the city’s network on Cox cable television channel 7, and questions may be emailed to budgetquestions@wichita.gov

    Fracking facts. The Wall Street Journal has a run-down of the facts about the risks involved in fracking. This is a new technology that has greatly increased the amount of natural gas available in the U.S. and has caused the price (per million British thermal units) to decline from $15 to $4. For example, opponents of fracking claim that the process, in which water and chemicals are injected underground to free gas from confinement in shale formations, contaminates groundwater. Counters the Journal: “The problem with this argument is that the average shale formation is thousands of feet underground, while the average drinking well or aquifer is a few hundred feet deep. Separating the two is solid rock. This geological reality explains why EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, a determined enemy of fossil fuels, recently told Congress that there have been no ‘proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water.’” … There are risks, of course, to any undertaking like this, and in conclusion the Journal recommends: “Amid this political scrutiny, the industry will have to take great drilling care while better making its public case. In this age of saturation media, a single serious example of water contamination could lead to a political panic that would jeopardize tens of billions of dollars of investment. The industry needs to establish best practices and blow the whistle on drillers that dodge the rules. The question for the rest of us is whether we are serious about domestic energy production. All forms of energy have risks and environmental costs, not least wind (noise and dead birds and bats) and solar (vast expanses of land). Yet renewables are nowhere close to supplying enough energy, even with large subsidies, to maintain America’s standard of living. The shale gas and oil boom is the result of U.S. business innovation and risk-taking. If we let the fear of undocumented pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate as a second-class industrial power.”

    Even quicker. Gallup: Americans Regain Some Confidence in Newspapers, TV News: “Americans’ confidence in newspapers and television news rebounded slightly in the past year, having been stuck at record lows since 2007. The 28% of Americans who express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers and the 27% who say the same about television news still lag significantly behind the levels of trust seen through much of the 1990s and into 2003.” … Rasmussen on health care: 55% favor health care repeal, just 17 percent say new law will improve quality of care. … Politico: 2012 contenders shun Hill support: “Across Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers report scant interaction with presidential hopefuls. The chase for congressional backing has been moving at a snail’s pace this year compared with the previous election cycle, a reflection of the slowly forming presidential field, concern in Congress about the strength of the candidates and a desire by White House hopefuls to keep their distance from an unpopular Washington.” … Picket: Bozells look to grow conservative ‘social media army’: “Mr. [Brent Bozell, president of Media Research Center] explained, ‘We looked across the landscape and then across conservatism and we thought that was one thing that was lacking. We weren’t taking advantage of the tools that the Left was taking advantage of with good success and what we found was that there was hunger out there.’” He should have been at AFP’s RightOnline conference in Minneapolis last week. MRC was represented, though. … Investor’s Business Daily Editorial: How Big Government Strangles The Job Creators: “The secretary of the Treasury says taxes must be raised on small business so the federal government can stay big. With that breathtaking statement, he helpfully mapped out the key difference between the parties. … ‘If you don’t touch revenues,’ Geithner said, ‘you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country.’”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday June 1, 2011

    Transportation planning. It’s been the assumption in America over the last half-century that transportation needs — roads, bridges, buses, subways, etc. — must be planned by government in a top-down fashion. But the Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole disagrees: “Should transportation be funded and planned from the top down or bottom up? Top-down advocates, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Puentes (writing in the May 23, 2011 Wall Street Journal) argue that only central planners can have a ‘clear-cut vision for transportation’ that will allow them to target spending ‘to make sure all those billions of dollars help achieve our economic and environmental goals.’ Advocates of bottom-up funding, such as the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and Heritage Foundation, respond that public and private transportation providers better serve our needs when they are responsive to the fees people pay for various forms of transportation. In fact, most of the problems with transportation today, from an antiquated air-traffic control system to deteriorating bridges to empty transit buses, are due to top-down planning.” O’Toole goes on to explain the problems with federal funding of local transportation projects, concluding “No matter how well intentioned, top-down transportation planning quickly turns into a combination of social engineering and pork barrel. It is time to return to a bottom-up funding system that rewards transport agencies and companies for reducing costs and increasing mobility.” … In Wichita, the bus transit system is running a deficit, and the city manager has warned that cuts to service may be made. Most people would be surprised that in 2009, the fares paid by passengers covered just 22.5 percent of the bus system’s total cost, according to Michael Vinson, Director of Transit for the City of Wichita. The Wichita Eagle recently reported the figure as just 20 percent. The rest of the cost is covered by a variety of local, state, and federal grants. … Is it a coincidence that Wichita’s bus service is a top-down government-planned service? And what does this foretell for the future of other government-planned and provided transit, which is said by government planners like the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation to be necessary for the revitalization of downtown Wichita

    Pompeo, Huelskamp ‘no’ on debt limit. U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Wichita Republican serving his first term, voted “no” to increasing the U.S. federal debt limit, which currently is about $14.3 trillion dollars. In a statement, Pompeo said; “I voted no on raising the debt ceiling. No to more debt without a change in behavior. No to increasing the credit card limit when the Obama Administration has zero commitment to reducing the unsustainable rate of spending. No to business as usual in Washington, D.C. … With this debt ceiling vote, my colleagues and I are putting down a marker on behalf of the American people. Americans have rejected the status quo and sent me along with 86 other Republican Freshmen to Congress to reverse course. Earlier this year, the President presented a spending plan to Congress for 2012. Unfortunately, that plan proposed 10 straight years of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. That is a recipe for disaster and one which we cannot accept on behalf of the Americans who sent us here to rein in out-of-control government spending.” … In explaining his intent to vote against the bill, Tim Huelskamp, who represents the Kansas first district, said: “The President’s request to increase the debt limit without cutting spending is irresponsible and fiscally reckless, therefore I plan to vote against it. The acquisition of more debt while failing to deal with Washington’s addiction to spending only sustains Washington’s unhealthy behaviors. It puts the country on the path of Greece. We owe it to the American people and to future generations to deal with overspending once and for all.” Lynn Jenkins and Kevin Yoder, the other representatives from Kansas, also voted against raising the debt limit. … Proponents of federal spending insist that we must increase our debt limit or financial markets will tank and economic activity will come to a halt. The Concord Coalition writes: “Approval of a debt limit increase is necessary to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States government. Failure to approve an increase would not be an act of fiscal responsibility, unless it can be said that deadbeats are fiscally responsible because they refuse to pay their bills. It would result in the United States defaulting on the commitments it has already made, including Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits, vendor payments, tax refunds, student loans and interest payments on outstanding debt.” The Cato Institute counters: “A temporarily frozen debt limit could instead signal U.S. lawmakers’ resolve to get our fiscal house in order. It may even reassure investors about long-term U.S. economic prospects. … For too long, analysts and politicians have balked at the massive political impediments to reforming the federal budget — especially entitlement programs. Many now concede, actually, that no prudential reforms are likely unless there is an imminent ‘crisis.’ On the other hand, political liberals argue that there is no real ‘crisis’ — and so no need for real reforms. … Indeed, investors should be fearful of the opposite: an increase in the debt limit without a serious challenge from reform-minded lawmakers. This only signals business as usual for U.S. fiscal affairs.”

    This Week in Kansas. Recently the KAKE Television public affairs program This Week in Kansas started placing episodes on its website. On the most recent episode, Malcolm Harris and I join host Tim Brown for a discussion of the Kansas Legislature and economic development topics. Also, Meteorologist Jay Prater contributes a segment on storm preparation.

    Kingman is the first. The office of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has announced that Kingman County, just to the west of Wichita, is the first county to participate in the new Rural Opportunity Zone student loan repayment program. This program allows residents who move into counties with declining population to escape paying state income taxes for five years. In deciding to participate in the student loan repayment program, the county and the state will participate equally in repaying student loans of up to $15,000 for college graduates who move to Kingman County. … In a statement, the governor said “I am pleased Kingman County commissioners recognize the direct benefit of partnering with the state to attract college graduates to their community. This aggressive policy move is targeted to grow our shrinking rural counties. Like the Homestead Act, ROZ offers opportunity instead of handpicking winners and losers.” While almost all welcome the ROZ program — the legislation passed 102 to 18 in the House and 34 to 5 in the Senate — the nostalgia for the glory days of small-town Kansas may not be in our best interests. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, which has influenced Governor Brownback’s economic policy, Dr. Art Hall wrote that productivity — which should be our ultimate goal — is related to population density: “Productivity growth is the ultimate goal of economic development. Productivity growth — the volume and value of output per worker — drives the growth of wages and wealth. Productivity growth results from a risky trial and error process on the front lines of individual businesses, which is why Kansas economic development strategy should focus on embracing dynamism — a focus virtually indistinguishable from widespread business investment and risk-taking. Productivity growth tends to happen in geographic areas characterized by density. This pattern shows up in Kansas. The dense population centers demonstrate superior productivity growth.”

    Legislature is through for season. Today both the Kansas House of Representatives and Senate met for sine die, a fancy Latin term for its ceremonial last day, although action may be taken. The House made an attempt to override the governor’s line-item veto of funding for the Kansas Arts Commission, but the effort failed by a vote of 50 to 44. Two-thirds, or 84 votes, would be needed to override the veto. The Senate didn’t make an attempt. The next meeting of both chambers of the Kansas Legislature will be on January 9, 2012, although there are many committee meetings during the summer and fall months.

    Stossel looks at energy. In a recent episode of his weekly television show available to view using the free hulu service, John Stossel looks at various forms of energy and asks: Who will keep the lights on? … Early in the show, Stossel argues with Bill O’Reilly over the role of speculators in the run-up of oil prices. O’Reilly favors strict regulation of speculators, believing that the market is rigged. In a discussion with two guests, wild speculation was promoted as the cause of rapidly rising prices, with some trades by traders said to be stoned at the time. But it was mentioned that speculation carries huge risks, and if the speculators are wrong, they lose — and big. For more on speculators, see Speculators selfishly provide a public service.

  • Study looks at spending, strategy in cap and trade debate

    While those who advocate cap and trade legislation charge that conservatives, particularly Charles and David Koch, have outspent them, a study finds the opposite.

    According to American University Professor Matthew Nisbet, in 2009 environmental groups spent $394 million on climate change and energy policy efforts such as promoting cap and trade. Opposition groups spent $259 million. Information like this helps place the reports of conservative spending, including that of Charles and David Koch, in perspective. Without this, we’re left with the one-sided reports from Greenpeace and the New Yorker magazine, in which numbers are mentioned without — or with little — context.

    Nesbit’s report is Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate.

    The report also looks at expenditures on lobbying. In this area, it’s less clear how much was spent lobbying for or against cap and trade legislation, as companies and organizations report their total spending on all lobbying activity, not the amount spent on specific bills. In this light, Nisbet reports that “environmental groups were able to forge a network of organizations that spent a combined $229 million on lobbying across all issues. In comparison, the network of prominent opponents of cap and trade legislation spent $272 million lobbying across all issues.”

    Spending on elections is mixed. Considering contributions to members of Congress, proponents of cap and trade legislation outspent opponents. But in independent expenditures, the situation is reversed. But on Proposition 23 in California, environmental groups spent the most.

    In conclusion to its chapter on spending, the report states: “… propelled by a wealthy donor base and key alliances with corporations and other organizations, the environmental movement appears to have closed the financial gap with its opponents among conservative groups and industry associations. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade legislation may have been the best-financed political cause in American history. The effort also demonstrates not only the vast revenue base and organizational capacity of the environmental movement, but also the movement’s enhanced ability to coordinate activities among its constituent members and to build partnerships.”

    Climate Change Advocacy: Revenues, Spending, and Activities

    By Matthew Nisbit

    After the failure of the Senate cap and trade bill in August 2010, many commentators blamed the bill’s demise on the massive spending by fossil fuel companies, industry associations and their conservative allies. Others, however, noted that environmental groups—joined by dozens of leading companies and organizations—had devoted record amounts of financial resources in an effort to pass the bill. As an unnamed Obama administration official said about environmental groups, “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

    To better understand the influence of spending in the cap and trade debate, in this chapter I review the nature, composition and funding sources of the U.S. environmental movement and compare these factors to the opposing coalition of conservative think tanks and industry associations. Then, analyzing data compiled from tax returns, annual reports, and other sources, I systematically compare the revenue and forms of spending by both sides in the debate.

    Though most environmental groups are limited in how much money they can devote to direct lobbying, in the debate over cap and trade, they were able to spend heavily on efforts to educate the public and policymakers on the need for a mandatory emissions cap, hiring the country’s top political consultants. They also invested in partnerships with corporations and other organizations in a strategy aimed at counter-balancing the amount spent on lobbying by opposing industry associations and companies.

    As the analysis indicates, the environmental movement has made sizable gains in closing the spending gap with their conservative and industry opponents. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade legislation may have been the best-financed political cause in American history. The effort also demonstrates not only the vast revenue base and organizational capacity of the environmental movement, but also the movement’s enhanced ability to coordinate activities among its constituent members and to build alliances.

    Continue reading from Chapter 1 of Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate