How Government Increases Environmental Risks

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

A Canadian company wants to build an underground oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas that will cross through the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest aquifers in the world. A leak there could spill in the Platte and eventually Missouri and Mississippi rivers. And, a leak in such a remote place may take days to detect and even more days to get a crew in to repair it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has the final say on whether construction of the pipeline may go forward.

Why Believe the Environmentalists?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

For years we've been warned that the planet is warming because of human action, that this would bring disaster, and that therefore governments must restrict human action to prevent the warming.

A member of my family is a professional meteorologist who teaches at a major university. He is no conservative or libertarian, and he's an environmentalist. But he's a global-warming skeptic, along with apparently thousands of other scientists.

Who are we to believe?

Why I Don't Recycle

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I believe cities and towns across America are making a big mistake. If recycled aluminum, glass, paper, plastics, etc. was of any value, individuals would be able to sell their recyclables on their own.

Moreover, if it was cheaper to recycle than to, for instance, mine new aluminum and produce new glass, companies would, on their own, start their own deposit programs. They would charge $1.10 for a $1.0 bottle of pop, and then give back ten cents when the empty bottle is returned.

If Bigfoot was real - a coverup I'd endorse

Some months ago the paranormal podcast Binnall of America featured cryptozoologist Ken Gerhard as a guest. The second half of the discussion was devoted to Bigfoot, and the question of government knowledge of Bigfoot's existence was raised.

If a specimen was actually captured (alive or dead) and convinced the public of all doubt as to its existence, it would conceivably be perceived as an "endangered species" and its habitat may have to be protected by law.

This habitat includes many wooded regions of the country, especially the Pacific Northwest. The logging industry would come to a standstill to protect a creature we know nothing about aside from the fact that its strategies so far are proof it wants nothing to do with us.

While the host and guest agreed they really do want Bigfoot found, this discussion gave me pause.

After all, some would shut down farming on the Palouse along the Washington-Idaho border to save an earthworm that had until recently been thought extinct (i.e., that no one was missing), and still might be.

How much more so would they protect a fellow primate who, by walking upright, is probably man's closest relative, even though (as far as we know) it still has plenty of wooded range to trek across two countries?

Wikipedia already talks about the incentive of landowners to kill, bury, and be quiet about endangered species, so that the government doesn't take the land.

If logging companies and/or government sources are aware that public knowledge of Bigfoot would have disastrous effects on the economy, I could see why they would keep it quiet - and I would too unless and until we had a more enlightened and pragmatic conservation policy. I could understand a policy, if Bigfoot is discovered, to leave Bigfoot alone and a law barring killing of Bigfoot except in self-defense. But, like the earthworm, don't mark it an "endangered species." Let business go on as usual.

I also find it ironic that Bigfoot could potentially be granted a third of the West, while America's native peoples live on tiny reservations.

Austrian Ecology

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In a real wealth-based economy, natural resources will not be over-exploited from the borrowing of credit money. For this reason alone, environmentalists should embrace the Austrian school of economics that teaches that sound or "real" money is based on a commodity produced from nature, so that all exchanges are of one currently-existing product of nature for another currently-existing product of nature. Greater production in energy-intensive enterprises like home construction would be possible only when there is the money to do so.

Be Your Own Policymaker

Greg Wendt at Reality Sandwich examines the fallacies of the Gross Domestic Product. Particularly, many harmful things count toward increasing GDP, while many good things are not measured. Some forms of economic "growth" create profits in the short-term but environmental damage over the long term.

But why measure GDP at all?

It is really a tool for "policymakers."

When politics is about "lawmaking," the fundamental issue is rights. When politics is about "policy," the issue is welfare, that is, well-being.

It can be correctly said that the GDP has no relevance to our rights and is a poor tool to measure well-being. But it could be said that every tool to measure "well-being" is flawed.

Because well-being can't be measured.

For instance, the nation's average life expectancy isn't going to determine how long you will live. Climate changes will affect some people directly and severely, and others more indirectly and less severely.

So when "policymakers" use their surveys and charts to to make plans and programs, which in turn coerce and cajole you into fitting into their norms, they may or may not help somebody else, but at the same time they can harm you. Their smoking bans can harm your business; their taxes can destroy your savings. Their beautification programs and bike paths can infringe on your property, their imposed energy solutions may drive up prices of things you need, their health care policies can make drugs unaffordable or beds unavailable. Their public libraries, museums, and concert halls may feature books you don't care to read, exhibits you're not interested in, and music you don't like. Their humanitarian crusades may portray your own overseas relatives as the "bad guys" in a foreign conflict.

Their attempts to make the world a better place may leave you worse off. That's because statistically-driven conclusions about happiness, values, or quality of life will not reflect your own personal judgments.

Now, if politics was about law, about rights and wrongs but not policy, things would be different. Courts would resolve conflicts, but otherwise everyone would be their own "policymaker." Sometimes, they would voluntarily cooperate with other policymakers to make policies for a voluntarily-formed group, other times their would make policies only for themselves. Individuals would be concerned with their own "gross domestic product," and weigh it against "priceless" things like time with family. Some would agree with Ian Fleming, thinking "I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them," while others would derive pleasure from health-consciousness. Individual policymakers would strike their own balance between work and play, and not judge others on that score. Most importantly, individual policymakers could determine for themselves if they are well-off in terms of happiness, or not.

It's hard to quantify that feeling of contentment in your gut.

A World Without Banks?

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Why shouldn't Al give his extra money to Bob?

I'm not saying that Bob has a right to Al's money, or deserves it, or that governments should take the money from Al to give to Bob.

But I am asking. why should Al address a theoretical future need for himself and ingore Bob's real, present need?

Al's future need is theoretical for at least four reasons. First, Al could die later today, which makes the future irrelevant. Second, perhaps Al will make a good income in the future regardless and doesn't need to save money today. Third, money is only a means of exchange: what Al would really need in the future is what he needs today: food, clothing, and shelter. If, due to calamities of varying kinds, food and resources are lacking in the future, then the money one saves now won't mean much then. No sense having money if there's nothing to buy. Last, there is no reason to assume the value of today's money won't decline drastically in the future, wiping out the purchasing power of one's savings. Wars, regulations, over-spending, and other crimes of the government can quickly destabilize an economy and currency.

The good thing about a bad economy

There are two different approaches to achieving the same ends. One is guilt-manipulation and preaching "sacrifice." This is the tactic of religious and political leaders: You are [sinful/selfish] if you don't "help the environment;" preachers say "the body is a temple" while politicians wage "wars" on obesity, tobacco, and drugs. In their world, you are not only sinning against God if you don't take care of yourself, you are also (or should be) a criminal.

The second approach is giving advice and tips designed not to make you sacrifice, but to profit: Just by doing [thus-and-so] to your house, you can cut x amount from your utility bills, and, by the way, you will help the environment; you can save hundreds of dollars of dollars per year, and lose y amount of pounds, if you just cut one serving of z per day."

What motivates you more, improved finances, or being marginally less of a sinner in the eyes of a still-angry God? Improved health and happiness, or making the government's health and economic statistics look better by 1/300 millionth?

Those of an authoritarian bent will tell is that something is "bad" because it is sinful or somehow harms "society" (by which, they mean The State). But it's more accurate to say that something is "sinful" because it is bad, because it makes you worse off. And so it's a matter of incentives. If we are made to feel guilty about our behavior, we are more likely to tell the (religious and secular) puritans to mind their own business. But if we see the benefits of changing bad habits to good, we are more likely to follow through.

Monetary inflation is wrecking the economy in much the same way I said it would two years ago. While I don't want anyone to lose their jobs, lose their homes, or starve, I do see some positives about economic uncertainty. For instance, just about every day on Yahoo there is a story about how to save money or cut down on gasoline consumption. Many of the money-saving tips are environment-friendly, and of course cutting gasoline is itself both helpful economically and environmentally. For instance, today there's a story on home-based jobs. Working from home not only saves on gas, but allows one to a) work at one's pace and time, b) be flexible when making appointments, c) be there for the kids, d) be less likely to spend money and gain weight on vending machine snacks and restaurant lunches, e) steer clear from the stress of office politics and gossip. And, oh yes, by the way, f) cuts down on carbon emissions.

Other positive developments include the greater demand for hybrid cars. Also, the higher shipping costs provide incentives from people to purchase from local growers and producers. And the more people get out of their cars, the better. Walking and biking is good for the body. Reading on the bus or train - which you previously didn't have time to do when commuting by car - is good for the soul. And the more people who choose debt-free living, the better off everyone will be.

A bad economy forces people to prioritize and make changes. There is potential for people to discover that by cutting certain expenses, they are not sacrificing their quality of life, but are actually enhancing it. And improving the finances, health, and minds along the way. And also the environment.

The Case For Unlimited Government

Found here. The cause here is global warming, and because the "worst that can happen" is catastrophic, we MUST TAKE ACTION NOW.

But you can plug any issue into the grid. For instance, what of the possibility of some jihadist getting hold of a weapon of mass destruction? Plug into the grid, and one concludes that we must GIVE UP OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES RIGHT NOW to prevent terrorism. If the leader of a Middle Eastern state might possibly hand over WMD's to terrorists, we must GO TO WAR RIGHT NOW.

Fear, of course, is behind every excuse for expanding government. But government coercion isn't the only way to solve a problem. Most of the time, it's not even the best way. A lot of the time, it's the worst way.

In any case, the best thing government can do to stop global warming, if it exists, is to tax bads instead of goods, and we should be doing that anyway.

Eliminating Waste

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[T]he environment has some special considerations. How individuals spend their time and money is a question of individual liberty, but air, land, and water are needed by all of us. Pollution of air and water affects all of us. Monopolization of land with high rents can cause displacement of people. Consumption of non-renewable energy sources means there is less for ourselves and future generations. Cutting down on environmental pollution and waste is therefore a public concern. Since the Earth is the common birthright of all, no one has the absolute right to do what he pleases with it. Everyone has a stake in the health of the planet, even if a some people have no regard for it.

Downsizing DC and Saving the Environment

I posted this at the Downsize DC blog. Brief post, and briefer excerpt:

The biggest threat to government, business, and household budgets is waste: money that dribbles away with nothing to show for it.

The biggest threat to the environment is waste: goods disposed of prematurely, and energy consumed with nothing to show for it.

But goods cost money, and energy costs money. Wasted energy is wasted money. We could say, then, that environmental waste is a cause of economic waste.

Global Warming

Where global warming differs from other controversies is that it shouldn't really matter in terms of public policy. That is, the same policies would curb the problem and mitigate the problem, but would work just as well if the global warming didn't exist at all. In any scenario the sound policy is to tax land, don't tax anything else, cut government spending and government-created perverse incentives, and let free markets work:

-If global warming didn't exist, pollution is still pollution. It is smarter to tax "bads" rather than "goods" like working and saving. Taxing harmful emissions would be beneficial even if there is no globabl warming. It would discourage pollution and encourage public health.

- Taxing non-renewable resources would internalize the costs. Companies wouldn't be able to sell a precious resource at windfall prices only to have the community pay later on for its scarcity. This would encourage more efficient use and alternatives. This would help globabl warming, but would be beneficial in any case.

- Taxing land values, - while not taxing other property, work, savings, or consumption - will put land to its best use. Populations will live in denser, more prosperous areas. This will preserve more forests and agricultural lands, helping the carbon problem, biodiversity, and the food problem as well.

- Beyond taxing these forms of "land," the free market would mitigate harmful effects of global warming. For instance, if more floods are predicted, insurance companies will stop insuring property in the most vulnerable areas. Populations would migrate to safer areas. On the other hand, if global warming isn't happening and insurance companies have no reason to be concerned about the risks, then insurance policies will stay the same.

- Free markets mean the end of direct and indirect subsidies. The State and Defense Departments wouldn't be in the service of oil companies, for example. We wouldn't waste money on grossly inefficient ethanol subsidies at home while keeping out cheaper ethanol from abroad.

- Smaller government and lower taxes will allow each person to do what they think is best to help solve our problems, whether it means installing solar panels, or donating that money to make water cleaner abroad.

Such policies, and others like them, would work best if they were put in place everywhere, but that can not be imposed. In any case, they will help mitigate global warming wherever they are tried. We should each start locally, then move nationally, and see other countries follow our example.