Natural Resources

Greenland Flourishes Due to Global Warming and Climate Change

by Hans Bader on May 16, 2011 · 1 comment

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Regulation

Alarmists have been decrying the effects of global warming on Greenland for years, even though Greenland was greenest during the Medieval Warm Period, and Greenland’s Vikings, who flourished during that warm period, died out when cold temperatures returned, reducing them to starvation. (It was warmer in the year 1003 than 2003.) Now, the residents of Greenland, the world’s largest island, are once again profiting from global warming, reports the Washington Post:

“Rather than questioning global warming, many of this island’s 60,000 inhabitants seem to be racing to cash in.  The tiny capital of Nuuk is bracing for record numbers of visitors this year; the retreating sea ice means a longer tourist season and more cruise ships . . . Hunters are boasting of more and bigger caribou, and the annual cod migration is starting earlier and lasting longer. In the far south, farmers are trying their hand at an exotic form of agriculture: growing vegetables. ‘Before, the growing season was too short for vegetables,’ . . .‘Now it is getting longer each year.’”

Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency has sought to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (which we breathe out and plants consume) because they supposedly threaten public health in the United States by causing global warming. President Obama has backed a corporate welfare-filled global-warming bill that would increase electricity bills. Obama admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008 that under his “cap and trade” plan to address global warming, ”electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

But even if greenhouse gas emissions are the principal cause of global warming (as opposed to natural causes), it’s not clear why such warming would harm public health in a non-tropical country like America. After all, people in America’s warmer cities have lower mortality rates, and higher life expectancies, than people in its colder cities.

Warmer climates may be particularly helpful for racial minorities in Canada. Most non-white Canadians suffer from Vitamin D deficiency, putting them at risk of cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. Lack of exposure to the sun is a big part of the problem. More than 50,000 people die every year in the United States every year as a result of inadequate sun exposure. While milk is Vitamin D enriched, many non-whites are lactose intolerant. Sunlight is the most potent source of Vitamin D. But in northern regions like Canada, sunlight alone does not provide enough Vitamin D for many people who work indoors. There,  the sunlight is too feeble in winter and fall for people’s bodies to turn sunlight into Vitamin D. To get enough Vitamin D from the sun, people have to go outside a lot during spring and summer to offset the weak sunlight in fall and winter. But increasingly sedentary lifestyles and office jobs have reduced outdoor activity. And cold temperatures in spring discourage warmth-loving people from going outside, even when the light is strong enough to produce Vitamin D. Thus, cold climates can be bad for their health.

Prince Charles Says, “Let Them Eat Organic”

by Greg Conko on May 5, 2011

in Agriculture, Environment, Nano & Biotech, Natural Resources, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

HRH the Prince of Wales delivered the keynote address at The Washington Post‘s “Future of Food” conference yesterday at Georgetown University. Tim Carman, from the Post’s Lifestyle section, offers some brief thoughts on the Post blog here. Carman calls the speech “inspiring”, quotes an organic advocate who was “really impressed” with it, and links to the prepared text, which you can find here. I thought it was a load of organic fertilizer, personally, so I submitted a lengthy comment, which I reproduce in full:

It’s not surprising that Samuel Fromartz, an organic farming advocate, would praise Prince Charles for a speech that advocates organic farming. But, while he’s condemning conventional agriculture for its use of “chemical pesticides” and “artificial fertilizers”, HRH might also want to acknowledge that organic farming has its own limitations.

Organic farmers also use plenty of chemicals — just ones that are lightly processed minerals such as copper sulfate, or ones derived from plants such as pyrethrum from chrysanthemum flowers. But, ounce for ounce, organic pesticides are just as toxic as modern synthetic pesticides. And in some cases, such as the organic fungicide copper sulfate, they are far more harmful to the environment. With only a few exceptions, organic pesticides control insects and plant diseases far less effectively than synthetic chemicals, so they must be used in much larger doses.

Furthermore, while organic farmers eschew synthesized fertilizers in favor of animal manure and so-called “green manures” — nitrogen-fixing legume crops like clover and alfalfa — plowing legume crops and animal wastes into the soil leads to nitrate leaching into groundwater and streams at rates similar to conventional agricultural practices. The chemical properties of soluble mineral fertilizers that are prohibited in organic farming are identical to those of that are released in uncontrolled quantities by the mineralization of organic matter.

[click to continue…]

It’s Nothing Death, Poverty, and Ignorance Can’t Fix

by Wayne Crews on May 5, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Natural Resources, Personal Liberty, Private Conservation

Post image for It’s Nothing Death, Poverty, and Ignorance Can’t Fix

The New York Times “Room for Debate” frets today about overpopulation (h/t Don Boudreaux). Julian Simon and liberty have long since come to the rescue, in case anybody’s listening. As Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out, people are not just mouths and stomachs; they’re also hands and brains. So free them.

Human Achievement of the Day: Turning Plastic Waste Back into Oil

by Michelle Minton on March 7, 2011 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Features, Global Warming, Natural Resources

Post image for Human Achievement of the Day: Turning Plastic Waste Back into Oil

This “human achievement of the day” is a true example of why we at CEI and many others around the world choose to celebrate the ingenuity expressed when individuals can exploit resources. Apart from increasing personal wealth and improving the quality of life for humans around the globe, it is technology, not “conservation,” that results in more “environmentally friendly” technologies. The machine that turns plastic waste into oil is just one example of this.

The miracle of plastics: The invention of plastic is arguable one of the most important contributions to the improving quality of human life. Plastics are used in medicine, aeronautics, travel, construction, and electronics. In fact, if it wasn’t for plastic materials, one wonders if we’d have the satellites used to track the changes in Earth’s environment.

The problem with plastic: While plastics make much of modern human life possible, there are some who see the downsides of plastics. Making these synthetic materials accounts for 7 percent of the world’s annual petroleum usage, which increases demand and the price of oil. At the same time, disposing of plastic is environmentally tricky: it takes a while for plastics to biodegrade naturally — some say it takes between 500 and 1,000 years – and there is a fear that these materials will  fill our oceans and landfills. Several cities have banned or taxed the use of plastic bags, which some believe are polluting rivers, streams, and oceans.

[click to continue…]

CEI Podcast for February 3, 2011: The EPA vs. West Virginia

by Ryan Young on February 3, 2011

in Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, Podcast

Have a listen here.

Energy Policy Analyst William Yeatman looks over the EPA’s recent decision to deny a mining permit in Logan County, West Virginia that would have created 250 jobs. William believes the EPA has overestimated the proposed mine’s environmental effects. Jobs, he contends, are being treated as less important than bugs. The decision has also set up a heated political conflict between West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

On Mountaintop Mining Veto, EPA Is Guilty of Environmental Hyperbole

by William Yeatman on February 1, 2011 · 8 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Natural Resources

On January 13, the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed the issuance of a Clean Water Act permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Mingo Logan Coal Company for the Spruce No 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This is the first time EPA has used this authority.

We’re in the midst of a difficult economy, and EPA’s unprecedented action will result in the loss of 250 jobs, paying on average $62,000, so you would think the EPA has compelling case against the Spruce No 1 Mine. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

I audited the EPA’s veto, titled “Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the Spruce No. 1 Mine, Logan County, West Virginia (“Final Determination”), and what I found was troubling.

The document is pure environmental hyperbole. It is riddled with mistakes, incorrect citations, and false certainty. Indeed, virtually all of the EPA’s definitive claims about the “unacceptable adverse impacts” to non-insect wildlife are unsupported by the literature it cites. Among the lowlights:

  • The EPA’s claim that “6.6 miles of high quality stream” will be buried conveniently omits the fact that 99.6% of the streams are intermittent or ephemeral, that they scored “below average” on a habitat assessment, and that they fall well short of meeting West Virginia’s definition of “high quality” streams.
  • The EPA asserts that five species of fish would be buried, despite the fact that no fish were found at the site.
  • The EPA commits numerous referencing mistakes, including direct two misquotes. Throughout the document, the EPA draws incorrect conclusions from the literature it cites.
  • The EPA has a serious language problem. Science writing is performed in the conditional. EPA, however, almost uniformly uses the declarative case. As its veto is based on a literature review, the EPA repeatedly infers certainty where there is none.

See for yourself.  In Chapter 5, titled “Basis for Determination,” the EPA explains the “unacceptable adverse effects” that justify its decision. Below is table of contents for the EPA’s “Basis for Determination.” For all the sections within which the EPA makes dubious claims, I’ve created a link to my review. Each link contains the EPA’s thesis (or theses) for that section, taken directly from the text of the document, and then a rebuttal in italics.

V. Basis for Determination

A. Section 404(c) Standards

B. Evaluation of Impacts

C. Unacceptable Adverse Impacts on Wildlife within the Spruce No. 1 Mine Project Area

1. Macroinvertebrates

2. Salamanders & Other Herpetofauna

3. Fish

4. Water-Dependent Birds

*A Note on the Legality of the EPA’s Use of “Direct” Impacts To Justify Its Veto

D. Unacceptable Adverse Impacts on Wildlife Downstream of the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material from the Spruce No. 1 Mine

1. Increases in Pollutants Harmful to Wildlife

a. Selenium

b. Total Dissolved Solids

2. Macroinvertebrates

a. Impacts Due to Changes in Water Chemistry

b. Food Web Effects of Altered Macroinvertebrate Communities

3. Salamanders & Other Herpetofauna

4. Fish

a. Potential To Promote the Growth of Golden Algae

b. Increased Exposure to Selenium

5. Water-dependent Birds

In summary, the EPA has evidence that certain genera of pollution-sensitive insects would be harmed downstream of the Spruce No 1 Mine, due to increases in salinity discharge from the project. Everything else (i.e., all of the EPA’s claims about amphibians, fish, and birds) is either scientifically unfounded or legally irrelevant.

The EPA’s Ad Hoc “Science”

When the EPA first objected to the permit, it was much more honest about the underlying science. In a letter dated September 3, 2009, in which the EPA first expressed its Clean Water Act concerns about the Spruce No 1 Mine to the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it said that

“Since the issuance of the permit in January 2007, new information and circumstances have arisen which justify reconsideration of the permit. Based upon prior research and confirmed in 2008 by research conducted by EPA, we are concerned data were available and was not evaluated…In particular, we are concerned about the project’s potential to degrade downstream water quality, and to cause or contribute to potential excursions of West Virginia’s narrative water quality standards”

The 2008 study cited by the EPA in the letter provided evidence that saline effluent from mountaintop mining operations in Appalachia harmed certain pollution sensitive insects. According to the EPA, this “new information” engendered concerns about “the project’s potential to degrade downstream water quality.” In the Final Determination, however, the EPA states that its “conclusion that the Spruce 1 Mine as authorized would cause unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife is not dependent on a conclusion that West Virginia’s water quality standards will be violated at or downstream of the site (Final Determination p 51).”

Between the September 2009 letter and the January 2011 Final Determination, the EPA changed its justification. In the EPA’s initial objection to the Spruce No 1 Mine permit, it stated that its concern was the degradation of downstream water quality. And by “degradation,” EPA was referring to the extirpation of certain pollution-sensitive insects. But in its Final Determination, the EPA claims that degraded water quality is not its concern. Instead, it broadened its objections to include “unacceptable adverse impacts” to wildlife caused by the Spruce No 1 Mine.  What happened?

It appears as if the EPA believed that its initial objection to the Spruce No 1 Mine-that it would harm pollution-sensitive insects-wasn’t meaty enough to justify an action that would prevent the creation of 250 well-paying jobs. After all, few Americans would rally around an administration that is willing to trade jobs for bugs. So the EPA tried to expand its case against the mine, in order to incorporate “adverse impacts” on birds, amphibians, and fish. This sort of ad hoc “science” would explain why the EPA’s Final Determination is shoddy when it addresses adverse impacts to non-insect wildlife.

Who Governs: EPA or Elected Officials?

So, the EPA is guilty of environmental hyperbole. In its Final Determination, the EPA alleges “unacceptable adverse impacts” to amphibians, fish, and birds, but after you strip away all the pseudoscience, the EPA’s veto is based on the project’s adverse impacts to insects that aren’t even endangered species.

To the average environmental scientist, the extirpation of pollution-sensitive insects alone is enough to justify the shutdown of all surface coal mining in Appalachia. In July 2010, I attended a public peer review of the EPA’s “The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields,” and almost every scientist present (there were fourteen) was genuinely shocked-SHOCKED!-at the loss of entire orders (genera) of pollution sensitive insects downstream of surface mines.

I bet 9 out of 10 environmental scientists would oppose mountaintop mining, based solely on its adverse impact to insects. But I also bet that 9 out of 10 American non-scientists (and 10 out of 10 West Virginians) would oppose a plan to forsake 250 well paying jobs in order to protect bugs. Therein lies the rub: Elected officials, not scientists, establish priorities in this country. Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

In West Virginia, the people have spoken through their elected officials, and their support of the Spruce No 1 Mine is unequivocal and adamant.

In 2010, by a unanimous vote, the West Virginia State Legislature resolved that its definition of “water quality” are satisfied when “the aquatic community is composed of benthic invertebrate assemblages sufficient to perform the biological functions necessary to support fish communities…” In effect, the Legislature was saying that the State of West Virginia is concerned about insects only insofar as they support fish. It was a direct response to the EPA.

Shortly after the EPA’s veto, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin led a rally to protest the decision. According to the Governor, “We must stand up and show federal regulators that we will not retreat from their unfair actions. We will continue the fight not just for the Spruce Number One mine but for every coal miner, coal company and for our way of life.”

The State’s entire Congressional delegation also is on record with strong denunciations of the EPA’s veto. Here’s a roundup of statements from their press releases on the matter:

A unanimous legislature, the governor, the entire Congressional delegation…every single statewide elected official in West Virginia gives priority to job growth over insect-protections. This sentiment extends to the local level, too:

The people of West Virginia, through their public officials, have expressed their belief that jobs are more important than insects. The EPA is wrong to reverse these priorities.

Voters Rejected Enviro-Alarmism About Gulf Oil Spill

by Fran Smith on November 19, 2010

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Natural Resources

My colleague Ben Lieberman’s thoughtful op-ed in The Washington Times focuses on voters’ rejection of environmental alarmism about the Gulf oil spill. It appears that voters discounted the exaggerated claims of Gulf devastation and were more concerned instead about the moratorium on offshore drilling and its devastating effect on jobs. With a faltering economy, voters didn’t appreciate the Administration’s job-killing over-reaction.

As Lieberman said:

“For a while, it was fashionable to ridicule those who had chanted “Drill, baby, drill” during the 2008 race. Opponents of domestic drilling thought they had a defining issue heading into the midterms.

“Now the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd is back – and they’ll be returning to Washington with quite a few new allies.

“Ironically, it was not the spill itself but Mr. Obama‘s overreaction to it in the form of a job-killing moratorium on offshore drilling that really angered voters in Louisiana and other impacted states. The only reason the Obamatorium didn’t hurt Democratic candidates along the Gulf was that they were just as vocal as Republicans in their opposition to it.”

And he has some words of caution for policymakers who would try to ram through energy-restrictive policies:

So what does all of this tell us about voters? For one thing, it shows that they are getting wise to environmentalist alarmism and exaggeration. Just as the drumbeat of doom-and-gloom predictions about global warming didn’t generate public support for “cap-and-trade,” neither did overblown claims of oil-spill-induced ecological devastation create a backlash against offshore drilling. And given the still-struggling economy and stubbornly high unemployment, the electorate is not going to accept costly solutions to overstated threats.

Fiscal Commission Should Support Increased Energy Production, Not Increased Energy Taxes

by Ben Lieberman on November 15, 2010

in Agenda for Congress, Deregulate to Stimulate, Energy, Natural Resources

Among the many suggestions in the Fiscal Commission’s draft report is a 15 cents-per-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. No doubt, this proposed tax hike would raise revenues and make a modest dent in the deficit, but it would do so at the expense of the driving public and would disproportionately burden low-income motorists. There’s a better way. If raising energy-related revenues is the goal, why not fill federal coffers in a manner that actually reduces the price at the pump? Washington can accomplish this by allowing more oil drilling.

The federal government controls all offshore areas beyond three miles from the coast as well as vast expanses of energy-rich western lands. Unfortunately, only a fraction of these areas have been opened to energy leasing, due to legislative and regulatory restrictions. For example, a 2008 Department of the Interior report notes that only 8 percent of the estimated 31 billion barrels of oil beneath federal lands is fully available for leasing, while 30 percent is subject to significant restrictions and 62 percent is entirely off-limits. America’s offshore areas hold even greater potential but are also constrained. No other energy-producing nation on earth has limited itself to this extent.

Even with these restrictions, revenues from new energy leases reached $10 billion dollars in 2008. However, the Obama administration has thus far cracked down on domestic energy leasing, which helps explain why leasing revenues dropped below $1 billion in 2009 and don’t look to be much higher in 2010.

The up-front money the highest bidders pay to win these leases for offshore or onshore drilling rights is only the first installment in the payoff to the federal treasury. The energy companies also pay annual rents on each lease, and unless they hit a dry hole they must pay royalties of up to 18.75 percent on every barrel of oil and cubic foot of natural gas produced. Royalty revenues vary with energy prices as well as production levels, but have exceeded $9 billion in several recent years. With more leasing, royalty revenues would go up in the years ahead as new wells come online and start producing oil and natural gas.

Even more significant than the leasing and royalty revenues are the potential tax revenues. Energy company profits are subject to the federal corporate income tax as well as other levies — and the more energy produced the higher the taxable income.

Overall, the extra federal revenues from a judicious expansion in domestic energy production could easily reach into the tens of billions annually, quite possibly eclipsing the $25 billion or so from the proposed 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax increase. But contrary to a tax hike, allowing additional supplies of domestic oil to come online would lower gasoline prices, as well as those for natural gas and heating oil.

It would be an understatement to call increased domestic drilling a win-win situation. Compared to the proposed gasoline tax, it would be win-win-win. While raising federal revenues in a way that reduces energy costs, it would deliver yet another benefit no tax increase could provide – job creation. One study estimates a potential gain of 270,000 energy industry jobs from expanded offshore leasing.

Bills like the No-Cost Stimulus Act (S. 570 and H.R. 1431), The American Energy Innovation Act (H.R. 2828), the American Energy Act (H.R. 2846), the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act (H.R. 2227), and others seek to reap the multiple benefits from enhanced production of American energy. All would serve as a good blueprint as the next Congress continues the look for solutions to high deficits, high energy prices and high unemployment.

Photo credit: christiannealmcneil’s photostream on flickr.

Massive Property Tax Increases Coming for Homeowners in Northern Virginia

by Hans Bader on November 8, 2010

in Environment, Legal, Natural Resources, Regulation

Homeowners in Northern Virginia may face massive, record-setting property tax increases of 20 percent or more in the upcoming year.

One reason is the EPA’s costly proposed stormwater regulations, which it plans to impose on counties near Washington, D.C., in the name of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The Washington Examiner reported on Sunday that these new regulations would cost Fairfax County alone nearly $4 billion, resulting in an annual property tax increase for a typical homeowner by $650:

“In Fairfax County, which is expecting to pay as much as $3.75 billion over the next 15 years to meet the EPA’s new standards, property taxes would have to be increased by 14 cents per $100 of a home’s assessed value, Randy Bartlett, the county’s storm water director, said. “For an average Fairfax home, assessed at $459,228, the new tax would add nearly $650 to its owner’s annual property tax bill.”  Increases may be even higher in some other localities with smaller populations: according to a study, ” it could cost each affected city and county between $259 million and $386 million a year for the next 15 years.”

The EPA left open a glimmer of hope for homeowners, conceding that its plan is not “the most cost-effective way” to clean up the Bay, and claiming that it would be open to “cheaper alternative plans” submitted by the State of Virginia.

Nevertheless, its plan “could cost Virginia, Maryland and the District billions of dollars each.”

Tax hikes might also occur because of a pending case in the Virginia Supreme Court that could shift some of the burden of property taxes from businesses to homeowners.  In counties like Arlington, property taxes are higher on businesses than on homeowners (an additional 12.5 cents per $100 of assessed value), but that may violate the state constitution.  The Virginia Supreme Court may soon issue a decision striking down counties’ practice of levying higher real estate tax on businesses than homeowners, notes the Arlington Sun-Gazette.  The net result will be to reduce commercial property taxes, thus requiring the counties to either raise homeowners’ taxes to make up for the lost revenue, or cut government spending.

Virginia’s Arlington County won’t cut spending, thanks to its all-liberal, one-party County Board: despite the recession, Arlington County officials have already suggested to public employee unions that they will resume raising public employee pay soon (which had been limited recently to modest step increases).  Indeed, in 2010, the Arlington County Board raised taxes by ten percent to go on a billion-dollar spending spree.  Arlington voters rewarded them for this by reelecting a County Board member who voted for this increase, despite his utter incompetence in managing the regional Metro subway system.  So increased taxes on homeowners are the way Arlington County will make up for any lost revenue if the Virginia Supreme Court strikes down the real estate surcharge on businesses.

Rare Earths — Not So Rare?

by Fran Smith on October 28, 2010

in International, Natural Resources, Trade

What do yttrium, ytterbium, erbium and terbium have in common?  They are rare earth elements first found in the Swedish town of Ytterby between 1828 and 1878 and named after that town in the periodic table. These are just a few interesting facts about rare earths in the “Trade Fact of the Day” from the Democratic Leadership Council.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about rare earths, even from people who can’t pronounce their names, in relation to China’s purported monopoly of these elements, used for a wide variety of technological applications such as digital communications, hard drives, solar panels, and motors for hybrid vehicles. There’s also some fear that China may reduce its exports of rare earths to show its displeasure with some countries.

It turns out that rare earths aren’t really rare at all.  It’s just that China now produces almost all of the world’s rare earths for its own use and for exports.  Of the 124,000 tons of rare earths produced in 2009, China produced 120,000 tons.  According the U.S. Geological Survey:

“Rare earths are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, but discovered minable concentrations are less common than for most other ores. U.S. and world resources are contained primarily in bastnäsite and monazite. Bastnäsite deposits in China and the United States constitute the largest percentage of the world’s rare-earth economic resources, while monazite deposits in Australia, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United States constitute the second largest segment.”

The U.S., with its significant reserves of rare earths, estimated at 13,000,000 tons, has one major production facility soon to be operating again, the rare-earth separation plant at Mountain Pass, Calif., now owned by Molycorp Minerals. With environmental problems and tough environmental rules, the mine closed in 2002. According to the Washington Independent,

. . . the company hopes to begin mining again at Mountain Pass in 2012. Sims says the mine will produce 20,000 tons of REE-equivalent each year, more than the current U.S. demand of between 15,000 and 18,000 tons per year.

With the renewed interest in rare earths, there is also renewed interest around the world in mining those elements, which over time could possibly compete with the Chinese.  Also, it’s likely more attention will be paid to recovering those elements in certain manufactured goods through recycling.  Also, while there are some substitutes for rare earths, they are not considered as effective.  More attention will probably be focused on those and other substitutes.  Markets do respond to scarcity – or perceived scarcity.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →