January 2012

Environmental Working Group Should Win Annual Junk-Science Award

by Angela Logomasini on December 23, 2010 · 3 comments

in Environment

If there ever was a year-end, junk-science award, it should go to the Environmental Working Group — every year.  Perhaps more than any group, they regularly issue junk-science “studies” alleging myriad ills caused by man-made chemicals.

Most recently, they issued a report on hexavalent chromium (aka., chromium-6), noting: “The National Toxicology Program has found that hexavalent chromium in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors (NTP 2007, 2008).” The same is basically true for broccoli. Lots of substances — including many healthy fruits and vegetables–give rodents cancer when they are given relatively high doses.

Such tests tell us little about impacts on humans exposed to trace amounts in food and water.  And the amounts that EWG reports in its study are extremely low–reaching a peak of just 12.9 parts per billion in one city’s drinking water.   This tiny amount is supposed to scare us because it is “200 times” higher than a ridiculously low standard of 0.06 parts per billion that California regulators proposed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the “safe level” for total chromium in drinking water at 100 parts per billion.

Both EWG and California regulators target this substance because it has been the subject of considerable press coverage and Hollywood sensationalism. Trial lawyers made chromium 6 an issue when they initiated a class action lawsuit in the early 1990s. The case proved nothing, but the lawyers made a killing in the settlement — $133 million for the lawyers alone. And the story generated more dollars when featured in the film Erin Brockovich.

The legal case and film focused on an alleged cancer cluster in Hinkley, Calif., that trial lawyers said resulted from elevated levels of chromium 6 in the town’s drinking water. But their claim was highly unlikely for a number of reasons that CEI highlighted when the film came out in 2000. In addition, Michael Fumento did some stellar investigative reporting on the topic that clearly debunked trial-lawyer claims. There was no evidence of a cancer cluster in Hinkley at the time nor is there any today.  And recent survey research confirmed this reality yet again. The cancer rate in Hinkley is actually lower than expected for the area.

But EWG doesn’t let the facts get in its way because hype helps them pressure regulators and lawmakers into take action.  Along with its “study,” the group launched a petition on its website calling for EPA action. The group suggests that their report prompted EPA action: “Within 72 hours of the release of this report, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced new actions to detect chromium-6 contamination in the nation’s drinking water.”

It’s more likely that EWG conveniently planned the release of its “study.” According to the agency, the chemical is the subject of a routine review, and tests were underway before EWG issued its report. Nonetheless, the EWG campaign may push EPA to be more aggressive because it’s now headline news. In fact, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson followed up on the EWG report in a meeting with senators to address concerns raised by the activist report and brief the lawmakers on EPA actions.

If EPA imposes an onerous chromium 6 standard because of activist pressures, public health benefits are likely to be zero. Unfortunately, the compliance costs could be high, particularly for relatively poor, rural communities — that have few resources to waste.

Photo Credit

Ethanol and NASCAR

by Brian McGraw on December 23, 2010 · 8 comments

in Energy, Ethanol

The ethanol industry earlier this year teamed up with NASCAR in order to better promote expensive, highly subsidized, not so environmentally friendly homegrown, “renewable” ethanol, including the usage of E15 by NASCAR competitors. What could be more American than combining America’s love for driving cars really, really fast with the idealistic notion of the heroic family farmers growing our own fuel here in America? (Nothing)

The framing of ethanol in the announcement is generous: “NASCAR Gives Ethanol Green Flag.” Given the announcements you might expect that the industry is actually running on ethanol entirely, rather than a blend of 85 percent petroleum and 15 percent ethanol. An alternative framing might look something like this: “NASCAR decreases fuel blend from 90 percent petroleum to 85 percent.” This wouldn’t provide quite the same inspiring sound-bite. (I’m also assuming that NASCAR currently uses a 10 percent ethanol blend which might not be correct)

Take away quotes from the NPR piece:

So, if Jeff Gordon wins the Sprint Series on Sunoco Green E15, ethanol must be liquid gold, right?

It really depends whom you ask. If Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis has your ear, you might think ethanol is good for you.

They wouldn’t be going backwards in choosing their fuel — none of these racing series would,” Buis says. “And so it’s a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate to consumers what a great fuel it is.”

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, disagrees.

“I think it is a complete bastardization of comparison to say, ‘Well, NASCAR can use it, then the average driver can use it’ — no more than you can say, ‘Look, if it is good enough for NASA to put rocket fuel in Challenger, then we can put it in automobiles, too,” Drevna says. “Completely different applications. Comp­letely different fuels.”

Drevna is correct here. The engines of racing cars designed specifically for NASCAR are almost certainly equipped to handle different fuels than that average American care. I trust that they work fine with E15. This link indicates that the average engine costs anywhere from $45,000-$60,000 which is more than the entire sticker price of the majority of cars. They are unlikely to be used for 15+ years like the average American car, which is why these comparisons are useless.

The NPR piece above is one part of a 3-part series on ethanol. Their earlier piece covered the shortcoming of ethanol and the absurdity of the tax incentives they will receive through 2011. It seems to provide an overly negative review of ethanol, citing a net negative energy balance (this is contested by credible people) and potentially low-balling the number of jobs it supports. Overall it is accurate. The RFA responded, and provided a tale filled with many more falsehoods than the potential misstatements by NPR.

A few of the main points from RFA’s response:

American ethanol is the only alternative to imported oil.

Flatly untrue. It is unlikely that it would ever be even possible (let alone desirable) to produce a sufficient amount of corn ethanol to completely displace oil imports. Furthermore, there are other alternatives to oil imports such as ethanol imports, electric cars, and other future technological innovations.

Ethanol offers lots more energy than it takes to produce

Grey area. The USDA study of a 2.3 EROEI is pretty misleading, as documented here by energy blogger Robert Rapier. Furthermore, the assertion that petroleum is a net negative energy balance is laughable and defies common sense, to the point that even I’m surprised that they are willing to publish this and pretend to maintain any shred of credibility. If ethanol provided such a higher return on inputs than petroleum, why would anyone use petroleum in the first place? Why would ethanol need subsidies and mandates to survive? Here is a longer piece explaining that the RFA is comparing two completely different things. My guess is that overall ethanol provides a slightly positive energy balance, with some companies ending as a net negative and some positive depending on location, production structures, etc.

It is worth pointing out though that this critique of ethanol isn’t all that important. For example, tons of energy is lost when electricity reaches its endpoint (originating in a power plant and ending at your refrigerator). This is necessary , and not a bad thing, as the energy has to be converted into a form that the technologies are able to use. You can’t put a piece of coal in your refrigerator. The same is true of fuel. Car engine’s are designed to mainly run on fuel blends. Suppose ethanol required huge fossil fuel inputs in the form of coal or natural gas. If the ultimate energy source ended up being cheaper than petroleum, and something cars were able to use, it would sell.

Ethanol has little impact, if any, on consumer food prices.

False. The quote Dineen uses is taken out of context: “Just a few mere months ago, the World Bank found “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought.” The World Bank study he references was referring to the 2007-2008 food crisis (large spike in food prices). The study concluded that biofuels didn’t deserve much blame for this particular spike (though this is only one study, other studies attributed more blame to biofuels). That study did not conclude that biofuels or ethanol has little effect on food prices generally. It is obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of microeconomics that it does.

Clean-burning American ethanol is good for the environment. In fact, a recent study published in Yale University’s Journal of Industrial Ecology found that greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol are “…equivalent to a 48% to 59% reduction compared to gasoline, a twofold to threefold greater reduction than reported in previous studies.”

Overly optimistic. These studies are incredibly complex, and the RFA looks at one while ignoring the others which don’t provide the desired results. In response to this claim, look at a comment posted at RFA by someone claiming to be the editor of the journal:

The study in Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology by mentioned in this blog posting above is one in a **group** of articles on corn ethanol. The 59% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the conclusion of one of that set of articles, but it is contested.

Reid Lifset
Editor-in-chief
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Yale University

So, the RFA tactic is obviously to pick your favorite study and throw the rest out, such as the studies that conclude that over its life cycle ethanol actually produces more net GHG emissions than petroleum.

Photo Credit

The Streetcar Delusion: Minneapolis Receives Funding to Bolster Wasteful Rail Transit

by Marc Scribner on December 23, 2010 · 7 comments

in Mobility, Politics as Usual

Delusional Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood continues to flush taxpayer dollars down the toilet on increasingly idiotic rail programs. The latest example of LaHood’s anti-mobility pathology is the Department of Transportation funding two studies designed, as they always are, to bolster support for rail transit in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area.

The first study will look at a proposed streetcar corridor that would run along downtown Minneapolis’ Nicollet Mall, a dying commercial corridor that a string of mayors has attempted and failed to revitalize. Of course, this pattern hasn’t deterred current-Mayor R.T. Rybak, who probably wants a transit station named after him. The city council, being perpetually dominated by far-left goofballs of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor and Green parties, is more than happy to fund Rybak’s fantasies.

The second study is to examine transit options in a corridor running from Dakota County to St. Paul. This study will at least consider bus rapid transit in addition to wasteful streetcars. Hopefully, the huge operating subsidies required of streetcars will be prohibitively wasteful for Dakota County leaders to stomach, or at least make them fearful of awakening a rationally ignorant public.

There is hope that very little will come of these proposed transit lines. It was announced earlier this month that the north metro’s Northstar commuter rail line has fallen short of its ridership projections by 20 percent. Then there’s the 12.3-mile Hiawatha light rail line (to nowhere) that largely caters to and subsidizes the travel of wealthy businessmen who want to go from the airport to downtown, which was built at a cost of about $58 million per mile and costs $20 million per year to operate.

Then again, it seems as if a sizable minority of metro residents is perfectly content to pay for rail transit as long as it’s serving the interests of the billionaire owners of the Minnesota Twins and Vikings professional sports franchises. They are augmented by a brain-dead editorial board at the embarrassing Minneapolis Star Tribune that supports every rail project by default. In fact, the editors at the intellectually and financially foundering paper continue to support building a high-speed rail corridor that was supposed to connect the Twin Cities with Chicago, even though the federal government pulled funding from the Wisconsin segment of the proposed corridor and after the incoming governor had pledged to kill the project.

Minneapolis is not the only city to consider bringing back an archaic 19th century transportation option such as streetcars. Washington, D.C., is currently building a trolley line to serve yuppie bar-hoppers. Atlanta recently received a federal TIGER II grant for its downtown streetcar line. Portland has operated its infamous, expensive, silent-but-deadly streetcar line for years. And we’ve all seen Rice-A-Roni advertisements.

The fundamental problem with all of these projects, besides being fiscally wasteful, is that they fail to improve mobility. Why is that? Because they fail to address the most serious problem faced by our transportation sector: congestion. For example, backers of the Hiawatha line proudly tout the “success” of creating about 10,000 new daily transit riders. Of course, daily auto trips in the Twin Cities area increase by about 10,000 every two weeks. See the problem?

Moreover, transit authorities can’t even take care of their current rail infrastructure. Obama’s head of the Federal Transit Administration recently admitted that there is a $78 billion rail transit maintenance backlog. But as leading transportation scholar Randal O’Toole often notes, politicians prefer ”[cutting] ribbons over [sweeping] brooms.”

Morning Media Summary

by Lee Doren on December 23, 2010

in Economy, Energy, Environment, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Trade

Tech:

Skype Outage hits users worldwide:
“Millions of Skype Internet phone users worldwide couldn’t make calls — or were dropped in mid-conversation — because of a network connection failure that began about 9 a.m. Wednesday PST.”

DDoS attacks threaten free speech, says report:
“Computer attacks launched against sites run by human rights and dissident media groups threaten to knock free speech off the Web, a new report warned this week.”

Internet access is not a “civil right”:
“When bureaucrats talk about increasing your “access” to X, Y, or Z, what they’re really talking about is increasing their control over your lives exponentially. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly-approved government plan to “increase” Internet “access.” Call it Webcare.”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Obama Administration Admits Polar Bears Are Not ‘Endangered’ But Sets Aside 187,000 Miles For Them Anyway:
“After democrats passed the junk science “pile of sh*t” Cap and Trade legislation in June 2009 a report was released, and suppressed, that showed that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, were much higher than they were 30 years ago.”

Obama, EPA to expand regulatory regime for climate change:
“After initially appearing to retreat in the face of the midterm onslaught, Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have decided to pursue an end-run strategy to impose regulation on energy producers regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. The move sets up a confrontation between the White House and Congress, which has already signaled a willingness to play hardball with Obama on regulatory innovation:”

Insurance / Gambling:

Gambling laws ‘not fit for purpose’:
“Existing laws regulating gambling in the State are not fit for purpose, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said today.”

Health / Safety:

Mike Huckabee sides with Michelle Obama against Sarah Palin on ‘food fight’ [Audio]:
“Speaking with New York radio host Curtis Sliwa, Gov. Mike Huckabee rejected Sarah Palin’s mocking of Michelle Obama’s childhood nutrition campaign. The former Arkansas governor
and Fox News host came out in support of the first lady’s efforts against the nation’s “obesity crisis.””

Economics:

Mrs. Obama’s Separate Hawaii Travel Likely Costs at Least $63,000:
“The decision by First Lady Michelle Obama to leave on schedule for her two-week Hawaii vacation and not wait a few days for her delayed husband will probably cost taxpayers more than $63,000 in additional expenses, according to a White House Dossier analysis.”

Legal:

Tobacco money transfer OK:
“The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that lawmakers didn’t violate the state Constitution when they used about $230 million set aside for tobacco prevention for other purposes.”

Censor Sharpton Speaks Out On ‘Arrogance of Letting People Say What They Want’:
“The left seems perfectly happy with Mr. Sharpton dictating our nation’s broadcast standards.”

Boy, 13, Busted For Illegal Marker Possession:
“A 13-year-old boy was arrested Friday for using a permanent marker while in class at his Oklahoma City middle school, a violation of an obscure city ordinance.”

Labor:

AFL-CIO: Manchin showed “ineffective representation and leadership”:
“West Virginia AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue (left) is calling out Sen. Joe Manchin for missing key votes this weekend to attend a family event in Pittsburgh.”

Transportation/ Land Use:

IDOT, railroads reach $1.1 billion deal on high-speed rail:
“The Illinois Department of Transportation has reached agreement with Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad to allow $1.1 billion in improvements for high-speed passenger rail between St. Louis and Chicago.”

NPR Covers Corn Ethanol Boondoggle

by Fran Smith on December 22, 2010 · 4 comments

in Energy, Ethanol

NPR’s “Morning Edition” has finally caught on to the ethanol boondoggle. It’s doing a three-part series on ethanol that started yesterday. And it gets into some of the real issues, especially relating to corn ethanol. CEI has been pointing out that the ethanol program involves a mandate setting the amount of ethanol that must be blended with gasoline, a tax credit that goes to blenders of ethanol, and a steep tariff on imported ethanol. (See CEI video, “The Insanity of Ethanol Policy.”)

NPR got this issue right:

The question is: Does it deserve a multibillion-dollar tax credit, on top of a tariff, on top of a huge and growing mandate to use it?

NPR’s second installment brought up the food vs. fuel issue, that is, all the incentives to grow corn for ethanol production are decreasing the supply of corn available for food and for feed and driving up those costs.

Here’s what a prominent agricultural economist said to NPR:

“I don’t see why we can really justify subsidies, when all that does is raises cost of producing food,” says economics professor Bruce Babcock, of Iowa State University.

Ethanol policies increase the cost of food at least 1.5 percent, Babcock says. And the impact on meat prices is significantly greater.

It’s economics 101, he says. Ethanol plants increase the demand for corn, driving up the prices for other buyers – like livestock producers. International demand is up, too – and we’re exporting more ethanol than ever before. Many grain farmers are seeing record incomes this year.

Yet how did policymakers deal with ethanol in the lame-duck Congress? In the omnibus tax bill, they voted to extend the ethanol tax credit and the tariff on ethanol imports for one year. Ducks and pork are a tasty treat for politicians.

HT: Iain Murray

FCC Net Neutrality: Some Networks are More Neutral than Others

by Grant Babcock on December 22, 2010

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

I often have trouble explaining exactly what the problem is with the government mandating net neutrality. Luckily President Obama’s statement on the FCC’s recent decision on the matter has done most of the work for me — I just have to help him be more explicit about a few things. Words in brackets are my additions.

Today’s decision [by FCC bureaucrats] will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet [as defined by the government] while encouraging innovation [as directed by the government], protecting consumer choice [as circumscribed by the government], and defending free speech [as approved by the government].   Throughout this process, parties on all sides of this issue – from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers – came together to make their voices heard. [In fact, the government always listens to the people's complaints, even when it isn't politically expedient.] This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth, and job creation. [Because no one will innovate, the economy won't grow, and no jobs will be created unless we, the government, have an overall strategy to make sure that all those things happen.]

I am reminded of a one-liner I once heard about Apple Computer: “Apple offers the best in user-friendliness. User-friendliness, of course, is defined as ‘what Steve Jobs thinks you should find intuitive.’” That’s basically the problem with net neutrality. Sure, a lot of it makes a lot of sense. That doesn’t mean it makes sense for everyone, nor that it will continue to make sense indefinitely. The tech sector evolves by the minute. The FCC? More like a decade. Codifying a certain type of content delivery strikes me as the height of folly, and has led to stagnation in the telecom sector in the past — no one talks fondly of the “Ma Bell” era. So why do so many people want to head back that way?

It seems to me that the likely result of mandatory net neutrality will not be a vibrant, free Internet, but instead a politicized mess where instead of treating all types of traffic equally, it will be the case that some types of network traffic are — to borrow Orwell’s well-known phrase — more equal than others.

For more on network neutrality, check out my colleague Ryan Radia’s piece, “Video: The Open Internet and Lessons from the Ma Bell Era,” and from the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer, check out “Just say no to Ma Bell-era Net neutrality regulation.”

The Colombia FTA Deserves a Speedy Vote

by Fran Smith on December 22, 2010

in International, Trade

President Obama needs to look beyond pushing only the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement to standing behind ratification of the other pending trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, says Cato’s Dan Griswold in a Washington Times article today.

Griswold points out that while the FTA with Korea is economically of far greater consequence than the Colombia FTA, that agreement would help cement our relationship with an important ally that is a strong pro-democracy counterpart to dictators like Hugo Chavez.  In economic terms, the trade pact would completely eliminate most tariffs on U.S. goods and services — providing companies like Caterpillar Inc. with strong market opportunities.

He takes issue with the Obama administration’s pronouncement that they will not be introducing the implementing legislation for the Colombia FTA anytime soon because they don’t have the votes.  That shouldn’t be the case, Griswold says, because of the influx of new legislators who aren’t bound to the union-led opposition to free trade.  As Griswold says,

It sounds more like a convenient and self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the administration. If the votes are not there for the Colombian agreement, it is only because Mr. Obama so far has failed to exercise the same leadership he recently displayed in moving the Korean agreement toward passage.

Here’s what CEI has to say on the need to vote for the U.S.-Colombia FTA.

Image credit: tanya~b’s flickr photostream.

The Obama Administration’s Misguided War on For-Profit Colleges

by Hans Bader on December 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Legal, Regulation

In Forbes, economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University documents the blunders behind the Obama administration’s war on for-profit colleges that wiped out $8 billion in value for shareholders.  Earlier, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote about the topic. Forbes also has articles on how America is saturated with unnecessary college graduates, and how government-subsidized higher education is increasingly becoming a bad bargain for state taxpayers.

As Vedder notes, the government is foolishly attacking for-profit colleges even though non-profit colleges have even worse outcomes in terms of leading to gainful employment for their students.  Moreover, some public colleges have drop-out rates that exceed 90 percent.

At Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie explains how claims that elite colleges use to justify their inflated tuition are based on a statistical fallacy.

We wrote earlier about how college tuition is increasingly a rip-off, since most of the people who have ended up in college due to increasing college-attendance rates in recent years  have ended up in unskilled jobs (such as 5,057 janitors with Ph.D’s or advanced degrees), and since the current college debt bubble dwarfs the housing bubble. (100 colleges now charge $50,000 or more a year, compared to just 5 in 2008-09.)

Image credit: Florida Career College’s flickr photostream.

Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?

by Lee Doren on December 22, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

Reason.TV created an excellent video explaining Net Neutrality and arguing against it. I’ve heard too many people irrationally claim that big corporations are going to “limit access” on the Internet, and something must be done.

Of course the best way to stop that irrational fear is to allow the huge federal bureaucratic mess known as the FCC stick its wrench in the gears that make the Internet thrive. What could go wrong?

Confusion about “Conflict of Interest”

by Fred Smith on December 22, 2010 · 6 comments

in Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

The Washington Post‘s “Senate Panel Ban Seen as Double Standard” deals with the latest attempt to eliminate so-called “conflicts of interest” between appointees to government defense-related positions. Appointees must divest themselves — often at great cost — of all investments in any firm that does business with the military.

The article notes this same prohibition has not been extended to federal legislators serving on military committees. A more relevant point is that this policy discourages individuals knowledgeable about military procurement (that is, those involved in the process) from serving in government. This point was raised recently in a C-SPAN interview with Lord John Wakeham, a distinguished parliamentarian from England.

He argued that before going into politics, an individual should first make some money, learn how the world operates.  Banning links to the market weakens the ability of legislators to make reasonable policy decisions. Lord Wakeham instead favors “disclosure.” And he, in my view, is quite right. A vigilant media can be expected to scrutinize the decisions of individuals in government in any event.

The recent trend to ban “conflicts of interest” threatens many things. The challenge is not to eliminate such conflicts, an impossibility in any event, but rather to manage them to achieve more creative outcomes. Moreover, the bias which sees only economic conflicts as meriting policy reform means the relative weight given ideological conflicts is exacerbated. History suggests there are much greater risks involved in enhancing the power of ideology than in economic scandals.

Unfortunately, the power of ideology has increased greatly in the last few decades. Those worried about the bitterness of partisan conflict in recent years should reconsider. After all, the tyrants of history were not primarily motivated by money, but rather power. Do we wish these “public servants” to be our role models for the future?

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →