Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
Photo by shannonpatrick17
First we were told we had to pass the stimulus bill because if we didn’t unemployment would rise to 9%. The good news was that there were hundreds of shovel ready project raring to go. Later we learned that “shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.” $800 billion dollars of squandered stimulus dollars later, unemployment is at 9%. But what about a real shovel ready project that doesn’t need taxpayer dollars?
In the midst of rising gas prices, chaos in the Middle East, President Obama’s muddled energy policy (buy a new hybrid mini-van), we receive reports of a small lizard potentiall bringing oil production in Texas to a standstill. How is that? Yes, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is crawling toward the Endangered Species List and when that happens, evolution and the economy stops, just like it did with the Spotted Owl and the timber industry, and a little minnow turning much of the most productive farmland in the country into a dustbowl.
Let the games begin. The Republicans now control the House of Representatives and have pledged to cut $100 billion from the budget in short order. About half a beat later came the howls from the transportation lobby that they can’t possibly mean highway and mass-transit projects. Why is this even a matter for debate?
Did you hear the news on broadcast television what Al Gore said about Ethanol? Neither did I. You have to dig a little further to find news that goes against the progressive grain.
In his resignation letter, Hal Lewis, writes nostalgically about his sixty-seven year association with the American Physical Society. He paints the picture of the early years as being a pure love of science and no real chance to become wealthy in the career choice of a physicist. All of that has changed and there is no more glaring example of that than the expert with no scientific training, Al Gore, leading the parade. Here is part of his letter.
I received an e-mail from my Congressman telling me how he was on top of the situation in the Gulf:
“I am a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is at the forefront of an aggressive (sic) Congressional response to BP’s oil spill. Last week, I voted in Committee to approve a comprehensive legislative response to environmental and economic liability issues raised by the spill.”
As I had written about previously (The Regulators are Dead, Long Live the Regulators), this was just one more case of government failing us but then rushing out more legislation and control so it won’t happen again. If government was doing its job, it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. So I wrote back to the Congressman.
Dear Congressman Bishop,
I read with interest your e-mail to me about the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which you say is at the forefront of an aggressive Congressional response to BP’s oil spill. Excuse my skepticism but this sounds like one more “we’re really gonna fix it this time,” response to the failure of government to do what they are already empowered to do.
You say the Oil Spill Accountability and Environmental Protection Act of 2010 “will ensure that responsible parties will be responsible for 100% of the oil pollution cleanup costs.” If I am not mistaken it was the Congress that passed a law limiting the damages from an oil spill to $75 million, which created a moral hazard that perhaps encouraged BP to cut corners. But wasn’t it BP who voluntarily waived the $75 million limit and has promised from the start that they would pay the full costs, thereby helping Congress remove the egg from their collective faces for including the limit in the first place? Don’t get me wrong, BP has a lot to answer for but at the same time BP applied to the government regulators for several waivers of safety tests and requirements that the government granted. If government had been doing their job, perhaps this would never have happened in the first place.
Aside from closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, I see no mention in your e-mail about holding Congressional hearings to ask the Obama Administration why they have not yet suspended the Jones Act and accepted the offer of help from twelve countries in the cleanup effort. When asked, Thad Allen and Carol Browner offered the weak excuse that no one asked them for a waiver. Why did the administration stand in the way of Louisiana building sand berms to stop the oil from reaching the coast because of environmental reasons? From an environmental disaster standpoint, doesn’t the oil gushing in the Gulf trump other concerns? We seem to have multiple agencies operating in the Gulf and each one is getting in the way of each other and no one in the administration is taking the lead to clear the red tape. Why is that Congressman?
Instead of talking about preventing avoidable disasters in the future, why don’t you find out why this avoidable disaster was not prevented by the regulations we have on the books and by the agencies in charge of doing so? For once, perhaps you can wait until those facts are known before you rush out to craft more legislation to fix a problem like you did with the financial services industries when it will be months before the Angelides Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has finished its investigation.
Government that works is more important than signing ceremonies for ill considered legislation that is rushed and voted upon but unread by our representatives.
Sincerely yours,
William R. O’Connell
I am sure there will be a signing ceremony and tough talk about how we’re really putting an end to this wild unfettered market, but if you trace it back this disaster had government leading the way. It forced the oil companies to drill in deeper water; it created a moral hazard by capping their liability for any spills to $75 million (which BP waived and accepted responsibility for the full costs); the regulatory agency in charge both collects royalty payments from the oil companies and assesses penalties for failure to comply with regulations; and that same agency granted BP several waivers to take shortcuts before the well failed. But don’t worry Congress is really going to get tough now.
Not surprisingly, we hear the administration telling us how they have been in charge since day one regarding the BP oil gusher. But as I have often said before, if there is a major problem in America look for government to be right in the thick of it and this is no exception.
Statists like to blame the free market for such problems and that more government is the answer. You will also hear them mistakenly say that conservatives don’t want any government involvement in the marketplace. Conservatives believe in government, albeit limited government, but we also expect that the government that is in place do its job. There was plenty of regulation in the BP case, perhaps too much government in that there was no one clear responsible agency but an overlapping mess. When it comes to regulation I like to use the sports analogy of a baseball umpire. Congress writes the rulebook and the executive branch is the umpire that makes sure the rules are followed. If the umpire is looking at an attractive girl in the stands instead of the play on the field, he is apt to blow the call. Blown calls seemed to be a way of life in the BP case.
Deepwater exploration progressed faster than the regulations could keep up with the technology, and government was providing incentives to accelerate that exploration. So there we have our first example of the government acting in a push-me, pull-you fashion, that is, incentives to explore but lacking regulations to make sure it is done safely and orderly. Rather than looking at deep water drilling where the physics are different as a different animal needing a comprehensive review of the regulations, the regulations were piecemeal approvals of shallow water regulations.
When BP first looked at drilling in this area they requested from the federal regulators an exemption from a rigorous environmental review. That exemption was granted. They also used riskier equipment that deviated from their own company safety policies. Regulators also approved testing the blowout preventer at a pressure that was lower than federally required. When BP wanted to delay mandatory testing of the blowout preventer when they lost “well control” in the weeks before the rig exploded, again the regulators granted the delay.
One federal agency, the Minerals Management Service, is in the dual role of both promoting drilling and regulating it. They both collect royalty payments and issue fines for violations. Do you think there may be a conflict here? Is this the most effective form of government? Here is a core beef of mine and of other conservatives. The free market should provide the incentives for off shore drilling. Either it is worth doing from a business standpoint or it is not. The government’s role should be in the regulation. When government wades into the middle trying to work both sides, it is doomed to fail.
There are multiple agencies that all have responsibility for regulation in this area in addition to the Minerals Management Service including, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Where there are gaps in regulation, whose responsibility is it to plug the gap? When there is overlap, whose regulations controls?
The Minerals Management Service approved BP’s drilling plan that projected a “worst case” blowout as producing 250,000 barrels per day of escaping oil. However, the agency did not require BP to develop a contingency plan on how they would deal with such an occurrence. The agency also did not require companies to have a backup systems to trigger in the event a blowout preventer failed.
There were early indications of problems with the well but federal regulators approved proceeding with the drilling rather than order it be halted until the issues were addressed.
So once this disaster spun out of control how did our government respond? Based on laws written after the Exxon Valdez spill the government and BP were supposed to cooperate. How did the administration show their cooperation? They said they were going to keep their “boot on the neck of BP.” Do you feel inspired to cooperate with someone who tells the world they will keep their boot on your neck, or do you start looking for ways to protect yourself? Instead of concentrating on giving BP whatever assistance it needs to cap the well and focusing on containing the spread of oil, the administration sends in lawyers to start a criminal investigation. Can’t that wait until the well is capped? Why divert attention from the problem and have BP start losing focus on the well and more on assembling a legal team?
When governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wanted to build a sand barrier to stop the oil from reaching the wetlands in his state, he was told to wait while our federal government dithered for three weeks haggling among the White House, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency over the best approach. If this administration, as they have claimed, has been in charge since day one and all of these agencies fall under the administration, why couldn’t this be hashed out in a day or two? They finally approved one barrier rather than the 23 that were requested but eventually allowed more. For an in depth story see New York Times
For the last year and a half we have been told we don’t have enough government running our lives and telling us what to do. Yet here is a classic case of government regulator piled on top of regulator, and regulators trying to promote and control businesses at the same time. We have regulators granting waiver after waiver of regulations that ultimately led to disaster and our administration instead of stepping up and taking responsibility is trying to look like they are in charge while at the same time blaming everyone else, yes even Bush, for what happened. The head of the Materials Management Service resigned and President Obama says he learned about it afterwards. Interior Secretary Salazar said she resigned on her own volition and that she wasn’t fired. Why not? For all the exemptions and waivers that were granted by the government that could have prevented the worst environmental disaster in history, this administration doesn’t think anyone other than BP should be responsible.
So we are supposed to let this administration grow government and control more of our lives when they can’t take responsibility for what is already under their control. But don’t look for a serious investigation of government’s responsibility unless a large number of incumbents are flushed out of Congress and replaced by new members who actually represent the people.
Remember the stimulus package that had to pass immediately or we would face economic catastrophe? Recently released data from the Commerce Department show that the economy was recovering before the stimulus went into effect. Unemployment has risen above what the Obama administration said it would if the stimulus passed, but oh well, Congress approved and the president signed the legislation to spend $787 billion of your money.
The Next Boondoggle
Now President Obama is trying to ramrod through the Cap and Trade legislation that will put another enormous burden on taxpayers and we have to do this now, immediately, imperatively, or south Florida will be under water and polar bears will be extinct.
A 98 page report from a veteran in the EPA garnered this response from his boss, Al McGartland:
“‘The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. “I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ ”
Who is the EPA working for? Is this a government of the people or of the statists? So because they won the election, the policies of their most extreme supporters must be put in place, no matter how large the bill or how effective the policy. If it is a sham, too bad, they want it…they shall have it and you get stuck with the bill, the loss of liberty, and them telling you how to live your life.
The Problematic Report
Here is the essence of the report , written by EPA scientist Alan Carlin, that the EPA finds so damning:
Carlin compiled a 98 page report that pointed to some inconvenient facts that call the connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature into doubt, at a time when the President is pushing “urgent” carbon emissions regulation through the Congress. From FOXNews.com:”Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been ‘greatly diminished.’ ”
But hey, on the other side of the ledger you have Al Gore and he has a Nobel prize and an Academy Award, so who are you going to believe?
The global warming threat may be in the process of being debunked but the fiscal threat from the Obama Administration will cause far more damage if we don’t take urgent steps to stop them.
Democrats Lining Up to Vote for Cap and Trade
The tide is turning against the case for man-made global warming. An article in today’s Wall Street Journal has the following:
“Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.” — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009
So if the case for controlling CO2 emissions is gaining skeptics, what would a reasonable person do? They would probably pause and listen to see if they should alter their position based on this new information. What do the statists do? Double their efforts to jam this gargantuan tax bill through Congress, again without reading it because it’s too big, before the American people find out just how monumentally stupid it is.
Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey are the lead lemmings jumping into the sea and expecting all of us to follow. You see, if they can slam this thing in they will have enormously increased their power and make it very difficult to unwind this monstrosity. Their disdain for what is right for this country and what is best for the American people is truly astounding. Their arrogance and sense of empowerment knows no limits.
Scientists Speak Out
Far from Al Gore’s pejorative and dismissive label of “deniers”, some real scientists weigh in:
“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)” — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009
Can you feel your liberties slipping away as those in power do what they want rather than representing us. Sounds like it’s about time for a tea party.
In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, about which some have credited the beginning of the environmental movement. It also led to the subsequent ban of DDT in 1972. DDT was accused of causing cancer and in damaging wildlife, particularly birds by causing eggshells to thin.
Prior to this DDT was believed to be a miracle, and the scientist who discovered it, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. During WWII, GIs would cover themselves liberally with the substance before heading into the jungles for protection against malaria. It is also believed that its use eradicated malaria in the U.S. and other developed countries.
Flawed Science
A 1969 study found a higher incidence of tumors in mice that were fed DDT. Let’s think about that. A single study found an increase in cancer in mice fed DDT. However over 20 years of widespread use among humans did not show any increase in the cancer rate among those populations that used them. Upon closer examination of the study they found that both the subject and control groups had increased levels of tumors. Oops. It appears that both groups were fed moldy food that contained a carcinogen. When the test was repeated, neither group had any tumors.
The studies of birds whose eggshells were thin, were also given closer scrutiny. It was determined that the cause was due to a calcium deficiency, not DDT. Actually during the period of greatest DDT use in the U.S. many of the bird species under study grew in numbers rather than fell.
Don’t Let Science Stand in the Way of Politics
In 1971, authority for pesticides was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency. What better way to kick off a new government bureaucracy than some bold action:
“In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that ‘DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.’” — Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32)
However, two months later, the new head of the EPA, William Ruckleshaus, instituted the ban on DDT. This was done without him attending a single hearing on the matter as it was discussed over a seven month period or reading the transcripts.
The Tragic Results
In Ceylon, modern day Sri Lanka, widespread use of DDT cut the number of malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17, that’s right, seventeen in 1963. Spraying was stopped in 1964 and by 1969 the number of cases had risen again to 2.5 million.
It is estimated that in the last ten years alone the number of deaths worldwide from malaria is over 27 million.
There is an aggressive program today to raise money to buy bed nets to protect children in Africa and other parts of the world where malaria is still rampant. Billions of dollars are estimated to be needed to buy and deliver these nets. One of the positive factors about DDT was that it was inexpensive, around seventeen cents per pound.
If only had cooler heads prevailed, and the “science” looked at with a reasonable dose of skepticism, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and malaria, perhaps eradicated. But when some in the environmental movement latch onto a position it soon moves into the realm of settled or consensus science.
The Next Blunder
So before we drive the world over the next environmental cliff, perhaps it’s time to tune out Al Gore, take a cleansing breath, and take a closer look at the science with clear eyes. What the global warming, er, global climate change crowd is proposing would cost in the trillions. Let’s ask if what some scientists are saying that global temperature peaked about ten years ago, why is the earth cooling if we continue to pour more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Why are we calling carbon dioxide, which is essential to life…we exhale it, trees take it in and give off oxygen…a pollutant? What if we eradicate the pollutant, carbon dioxide like we did DDT?
Will there be anyone around to count the damage?
