Environment

Defending Nature via Property Rights

by Wayne Crews on April 17, 2011

in Environment, Features, Property Rights

Post image for Defending Nature via Property Rights

Elizabeth Brubaker describes why the institutions of private property are needed to defend nature, and why modern control policies that undermine them contribute to pollution and environmental destruction.

Our policy task today is to discover, legitimize and extend those private property institutions that can achieve and heighten environmental progress and expand environmental amenities. Today’s policies, in contrast, demean and abandon those essential institutions and traditions, and make enemies out of those who otherwise would be enlisted in the goals of ecological improvement. The entire book Property Rights in the Defence of Nature is available online.

CEI Podcast for March 28, 2011: Human Achievement Hour

by Ryan Young on March 28, 2011

in Environment, Podcast

Have a listen here.

Human Achievement Hour founder Michelle Minton talks about the annual celebration of human creativity and innovation that happens at the same time every year as Earth Hour. Ecology and economy are quite compatible. One definition of progress, after all, is doing more with less. When people are left free to achieve and innovate, that is exactly what happens, to the environment’s benefit — and mankind’s.

Geo-Engineering?

by Fred Smith on March 28, 2011

in Economy, Environment, Zeitgeist

Seismologists have long feared that “BIG” earthquakes might trigger other “BIG” earthquakes (a view that warms the cockles of catastrophist’s hearts who immediately connected global warming with this event). However, a March 2011 study published in Nature Geoscience finds this is highly unlikely. Since reliable records began back in the ’60s, there has been no correlation of this sort. Rather, “BIG” earthquakes trigger “small” earthquakes, which relieve plate tectonic pressures building up elsewhere in the world. An interesting and reassuring finding – Bad things don’t have to happen in concert! — which suggests that at some point in the future (when our ability to work with nature is much greater than it is today) geo-engineers might select regions remote from population centers and trigger large quakes directly, relieving pressure on zones where damages would be more costly.

Too human-centric? Not really. Earthquakes are disastrous for nature as well as man, but only we will ever be able to do anything about such tragedies. Given man’s creative abilities (CEI and ARI just celebrated Human Achievement Hour this past weekend), we’ll be able to take on this responsibility at some future date. Unless, of course, the Blame Humanity First types prevail. Our duty is to ensure that they don’t!

D.C. Installs Private Car Charging Station

by Kathryn Ciano on January 16, 2011

in Energy, Mobility

Remember when the Prius first hit the market, and the D.C. Beltway authorities opened the HOV lanes to electric cars as an incentive to switch? In less than six months, so many urban elites traded in their trusty SUVs for hybrids that the carpool lanes were as bogged down as the rest of the highway.

Never one to be deterred, our nation’s capital is keeping things posh for hybrids. Last year D.C. installed its first public electric car charging station. Now, thanks to this month’s first private charging station in D.C., hybrid owners never have to rub elbows with gas guzzlers, or even with other hybrid drivers.

Here’s We Love DC’s report on the new station:

The ChargePoint units run $1,000-$2,000, and most garages that have a single ChargePoint can easily expand to add 8-10 stations without significant cost.  While they haven’t yet planned for that many at 425 Mass Ave, they’re hoping to see an uptick of electric car purchases by their residents in the coming years.  We spoke with one resident who’d happened upon today’s grand unveiling and she was incredibly positive, both about the building, and about the future of electric vehicles.  A law student at Georgetown University, she was ecstatic at the idea of one day owning a Tesla and using the charging station as soon as she’s paid off her student loans.

A charge from one of the ChargePoint stations will run you up to $5 (if your battery is mostly drained) to as little as $0.50 for just a little juice [Per our commenter below, this may not be correct pricing. We've asked for clarification from Car Charging group, as the prices above are just for the power, not for its distribution - Editor].  Currently, most electric cars have a range under 300 miles, which is comparable to the gas mileage I get out of my Jetta.  Of course, a tank of gas runs me close to $40, so the idea of being able to fill up for a scant $5 has me thinking there’s something to these beasties.

On hand to demonstrate the electric cars was Tesla Motors’ Shaun Philips, who offered free test rides to all of us, as well as limitless information about their Roadster product. Sure, that sports car might retail at $109,000 (look for a DC dealership at 1050 K Street in the not-too-distant future)…

Sounds great, and love the idea of a private apartment building offering innovative perks. But you have to admit: It’s a little silly that these cars are supposedly designed to herald a brighter future, and targeted only to the kind of yuppies weekend warriors that would pay to charge their cars in private.

Even the claims that hybrids are “environmentally friendly” seem dubious in light of how little research we’ve seen into how we’ll dispose of the tons and tons of discarded hybrid batteries slated to hit the landfills in a few years. I wrote at The Washington Examiner:

Electric cars are marketed as one way to make the future better for everyone. But with little research into what we’ll do with discarded batteries (and battery acids), and even less research into the economics of charging substantially higher prices for non-swank mid-sized sedans ostensibly designed to sell, electric cars are more the purview of the upper class than the people’s wagon designed to improve the everyman’s life.

I’d be hard pressed to trade my gas guzzler for a silent futuristic piece of plastic, but no doubt it’s sweet to avoid the everyman by replenishing your car at a private station! Let’s hear it for capitalism, posturing, and…

Oh yea. About those discarded car batteries. We’ll just start selling them to China packaged up with our debt. I’m sure it will be fine.

Image credit: frankh’s flickr photostream.

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

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.

Confessions of a Gasoline Call Girl

by Brian McGraw on November 10, 2010 · 3 comments

in Energy, Ethanol

Marc J. Rauch, Executive Vice President/Co-Publisher of The Auto Channel, posted a lengthy diatribe on the American Petroleum Institute’s recent lawsuit on the EPA’s approval of E15 blends in newer vehicles. Read it here, and note the title: “Gasoline Whores File Frivolous Lawsuit in Attempt to Derail American Energy Independence.” He is mad.

The lawsuit itself is not all that interesting. What is interesting, I think, is how willfully blind the author is to a number of realities that put the successes of the ethanol industry into perspective. He addresses a number of organizations that provided public comments on the EPA decision:

Grocery Manufacturers Association Vice President for Federal Affairs Scott Faber said: “We were disappointed in the Administration’s decision to allow more ethanol in gasoline before truly sustainable advanced biofuels are commercially available.

…

The Auto Channel’s response: Truly sustainable advanced biofuels? Humans have been making alcohol for thousands of years from nearly any plant they could find, what’s more sustainable than that. Advanced biofuels? That’s okay, too, once they’re ready, but why wait for cheaper fuel prices, oil independence and a cleaner environment when we have perfectly good truly sustainable biofuels right now – of which ethanol is only one alternative. By the way Mr. Faber, I challenge you to name what projected biofuels you’re referring to. I think you don’t know. I think you are reading/writing off a prepared script.

TAC is correct when he says that humans have been making biofuels for hundreds of years. Cellulosic ethanol was first developed in 1898. But the ability to create biofuels in a laboratory is different than being able to produce them in an economically and commercially viable manner. Despite 30 years of federal subsidies, corn ethanol has been unable to compete in a serious way with petroleum. The same is true (and even more true) of cellulosic ethanol. There just isn’t a whole lot of energy in plants, and it requires a lot of energy to extract them and make them usable. It’s possible that some technological breakthrough will change this, but it is by no means guaranteed. Congress can’t mandate a cure for cancer, yet when it comes to biofuels they seem to believe they can bend reality.

National Council of Chain Restaurants Vice President Scott Vinson said:“This challenge to the EPA’s decision is necessary to reduce the strain that ethanol production from corn has placed on U.S. agriculture. The EPA’s decision will lead to an ever higher proportion of the nation’s corn crop being diverted to fuel use, raising prices for participants in the food chain and consumers. Already supported by market-distorting mandates, tax credits and import tariffs, ethanol demand for corn has been singled out as the preferred use for U.S agricultural production long enough. Corn is an extremely important commodity used in feeding the world, and it’s about time we reverse the trend of burning more and more of it as fuel.”

TACH’s reply: Mr. Vinson, what script are you reading from? Why don’t you question the government subsidies and allotments that the oil/gasoline industry has been receiving for more than 100 years? Why don’t you question the billions of dollars of our money that is spent to protect enemy regimes and their oil? Oh, by the way, the world isn’t fed by eating corn; wheat is your huckleberry. Wake up and smell the grease, buddy.

Do the oil and gas industries receive subsidies? This is a “yes, but” moment. They receive certain tax breaks – an example is the oil depletion allowance that allow them to pay less tax (relative to other industries) based off of the way in which capital investment is deducted from the net amount of income they generate. This seems to infuriate the average American. But what few realize is that as a percentage of profits, the oil industry still pays significantly more tax than other industries in the United States. As the Tax Foundation explains:
In addition to income taxes, the table below shows that Exxon paid or remitted $20 billion in various sales taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and property taxes. This brings the total amount of taxes the company paid or remitted to $29.3 billion, nearly three times the net profits it earned for shareholders.

The oil industry certainly pays its “fair” share of taxes, where fair is defined as a much larger percentage of income than other industries.

National Turkey Federation President Joel Brandenberger said: “In trying so hard to rush out an E15 rule before Election Day, EPA completely disregarded the legitimate scientific concerns surrounding E15 and the potentially disastrous impact of diverting even more corn from food and feed to fuel. We believe the agency ignored the law as well, and we are confident the court will agree.”

TACH’s response: There are no legitimate scientific concerns regarding the use of ethanol. Ethanol is a proven engine fuel used around the world. It has been so used since the earliest automobiles in the mid 1800′s. Until lies such as the ones that you spout about ethanol were created by gasoline interests, ethanol was the preferred fuel of choice by people in the know. Contemporary studies and research continually prove that ethanol hasn’t suddenly become bad: It’s as good and safe as it always was.

Ah yes, it was those evil conniving gasoline interests of the 19th century that ruined ethanol’s chance at becoming the preferred fuel of the “people in the know.” I’m going to assume “people in the know” were people who liked walking everywhere. I’m sure the fact that petroleum was incredibly easy to produce in mass quantities compared to ethanol didn’t have anything to do with petroleum’s adoption. The bolded sentence above alone pretty much shows you how detached from reality Rauch is.

Snack Food Association President and CEO Jim McCarthy said: “In addition to failing to follow the spirit of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has made a decision that will adversely impact our food supply and ultimately cost American consumers greatly.”

TACH’s response: Hey, we love a candy bar and potato chips as much as the next person. But now some guy who represents an industry that might just be the biggest demon in the world is telling us about the environment and product costs! If there’s only 6 cents worth of corn in a $4.00 box of corn flakes, I shudder to think of how much we are getting ripped off on a $4.00 bag of tortilla chips.

But, the number one reason why the lawsuit and entire opposition to e15 is so off base: We don’t need corn to make ethanol, there are plenty of other agricultural products and by-products that can be used, and many of them do not require chemical fertilization or the use of “valuable” farm land. The whole issue of corn’s use for ethanol is irrelevant.

There really aren’t very many products available right now that are (1) scalable and (2) can compete with gasoline at its current prices. Corn ethanol is kind of close, but there are still problems with market penetration – automobile manufacturers aren’t going to produce E85 vehicles unless there is significant long term (non government mandated) demand for it, and with oil prices where they are now there isn’t significant demand for it.

Furthermore, imagine the amount of farmland required to produce 210 billion gallons of ethanol (about 17 times what was produced in 2009), which is the equivalent of the ~140 billion gallons of gasoline the U.S. uses each year. This would have significant negative effects on agricultural markets

You can wave all of these problems away if you don’t care about people taking you seriously, but to produce 210 billion gallons of ethanol from anything will require a lot of “valuable” farmland. Note also how he puts “valuable” in quotations as if the idea that farmland has value (and that value is taken away from it when it’s being put towards less productive use) is some sort of conspiracy concocted by gasoline-interest to keep ethanol down.

Finally, he ends with a good\evil list, where rent-seekers are all placed into the “hero” category and the “evil villain” category ranges from API to Hugo Chavez. He placed himself in the hero category — is Marc Rauch a serious person?

The evil villains:
American Petroleum Institute
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
OPEC
All gasoline companies
EnergyTribune.com
FollowtheScience.com
Prism Public Affairs
Jerry Taylor and the CATO Institute
David Fridley
The aforementioned coalition members
Hugo Chavez
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The heroes
David Blume & Tom Harvey
Ted Chipner & Ohio Biosystems
American Coalition for Ethanol
Growth Energy
Ethanol Today Magazine
Renewable Fuel Association
Anne Korin & the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
Dave & Steve Vander Griend & ICM, Inc.
POET
Tom Waterman and Ethanol Monitor Magazine
Edwin Black
My business partner Bob Gordon, me and everyone at The Auto Channel

Moratorium Lifted, But Drilling Still Blocked

by Ben Lieberman on October 13, 2010

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

With much fanfare, the Obama administration has lifted its moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But don’t expect much actual drilling any time soon, thanks to all of the administration’s other red tape strangling domestic oil and natural gas production.

Even before the April 20th Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama administration had clamped down on new leasing on federally controlled offshore and onshore areas. In fact, 2009 saw less oil and gas leasing than in any year under Bush or Clinton, and 2010 was on track to be no better.

Nonetheless, the Obama administration Department of the Interior used the spill as an excuse to crack down further by imposing a six-month moratorium, until November 30th, on issuing any new deepwater drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico. For all practical purposes, the administration also put an end to nearly all shallow water drilling in the Gulf, as well as exploration activities off Alaska.

Studies estimating thousands of lost jobs as a consequence of the moratorium — not to mention strong bipartisan opposition from Louisiana’s Congressional delegation — made for bad politics as well as bad policy. Whether or not influenced by the upcoming elections, the Department of the Interior announced that the moratorium is being lifted more than a month ahead of time.

The moratorium is gone, but all the pre-spill hurdles are still in force. In addition, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced several tough new provisions and stated that only those operators who “clear the higher bar can be allowed to resume.” Interior concedes that these new requirements “may delay development of some OCS oil and gas resources.” Additional delays piled onto a policy that had already ground drilling to a near halt is not good news for American energy production.

Notwithstanding the official end to the moratorium, the real test is whether and to what extent drilling activity resumes. The American people need more energy, not to mention the thousands of high paying jobs an expanded domestic oil and gas sector would bring. If 2010 goes into the books as the second year in a row of sharply curtailed domestic energy production, the new Congress should take a close look at reversing this worrisome trend.

Sharing Isn’t Caring

by Marc Scribner on October 4, 2010 · 11 comments

in Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Mobility

Late last month, Washington, D.C. launched its Capital Bikeshare (“CaBi” to its groupies) program to much acclaim from the usual suspects — New Urbanists and bicycle imperialists. For those uninitiated, contemporary bike-sharing programs involve the placement of controlled bicycle racks (usually by government or through large government-financed private operators) around a city so that residents, tourists, and commuters can rent bikes for a fixed period of time and then return them to other racks around the city. All for a nominal, generally subsidized fee.

New Urbanists and Greens love these programs because, for them, any government intervention that puts more people on bikes is a good one. After all, they’ve already spent a lot of political capital zoning out parking and narrowing car lanes to construct special bicycle lanes. They might as well try to get people to use their “livability” boondoggles — or at least provide the illusion thereof.

Oh, the hopes were high on September 20. On a blog run by MetroBike, a pro-bikeshare lobbying/consulting outfit, the owner declared the launch of CaBi to be “a dream come true.” He goes on to cite other programs in Copenhagen, Paris, and Amsterdam as great models for D.C. to emulate. Of course, these fawning portrayals rarely mention the costs. As someone who doesn’t own a car, rarely uses public transit, and who uses a bicycle for the vast majority of excursions in Washington, D.C., let me explain why I’m not thrilled with bike-sharing and why you shouldn’t be either.

First, every one of these systems operates at a loss. Just like transit fares, bike-share user fees do not generate enough revenue to maintain existing capital, let alone provide for expansion (or even cover the initial public investment). For example, Paris’ oft-lauded Vélib program experienced a stock loss rate of nearly 80 percent after launch. That is to say, of the initial 20,600 Vélib bikes  — with an average cost of $3,500 per bike when initial investment and maintenance are included — 16,000 were either stolen or damaged beyond repair. Tourists love ‘em, but they’re not the ones subsidizing most of the cost to the public. Another example is Montreal’s BIXI program, which is currently more than $30 million in debt.

Second, proponents claim externalities from increased bike-share use — less congestion, less pollution — provide benefits not shown by simple fiscal accounting. This appears at first glance to be a valid point. However, when looking at experiences with similar programs in other cities, the positive externalities argument falls flat. Law professor and bike-share skeptic Steve Clowney points to this report on BIXI. Researchers at McGill University released a study with the following key findings:

  • Eighty-six percent of BIXI trips replaced rides on personal bikes (25 percent), walking (28 percent), or public transit (33 percent).
  • Eight percent of BIXI trips replaced cab rides.
  • Two percent of BIXI trips replaced private car rides.
  • Four percent of BIXI trips add trips that otherwise would not have been made.

So, assuming for a moment that transit, walking, and cycling (using your own bike) are all desired “green” forms of urban mobility, only 10 percent of BIXI trips replaced car trips. Even under the most alarmist global warming scenarios, the positive public health and environmental externalities cannot justify this fiscal black hole.

Third, bike-share programs are administrative nightmares. As some starry eyed proponents are starting to discover, land-use regulations, politically entrenched NIMBY interests, and odd government management regimes present big hurdles for new transportation models. D.C. transportation junkies are shocked to learn that the National Park Service, which manages a decent chunk of parkland in D.C., is an inept, opaque government bureaucracy. They’re also flabbergasted that politically connected resident groups might adamantly oppose this little scheme. Color me unsurprised by any of this. Land-use regulations have been twisted to benefit specific entrenched constituencies and the government is generally incompetent when it comes to any issue related to mobility (or virtually everything, for that matter).

Let me make it clear that I’m hardly anti-bicycle (although, I am strongly opposed to subsidized mass transit and highways). What I’m opposed to is misguided utopianism and spending taxpayer dollars on programs where there is significant risk of failure. We’ve already had one failed bike-share program in D.C., and it looks like we’re going to have two.

Washington’s New War on the West

by Ben Lieberman on October 4, 2010 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Odds & Ends

The economic track record of the current administration and Congress is not a good one. Unemployment remains stubbornly high at nearly 10 percent, and many believe federal missteps prolonged the recession and are weakening the recovery. While things like ill-advised spending, Obamacare, and looming tax hikes are doing damage nationwide, a number of other federal measures have particularly burdened the American West, the region suffering with the highest unemployment rate in the country. The Senate and House Western Caucuses’ recent study, “The War on Western Jobs,” documents the host of environmental policies that have targeted the sectors crucial to the economies of Western states — especially energy production but also mining, logging, farming, and ranching.

It is important to note that the federal government controls the economic fate of western states to a greater extent than any other part of the country. The lands comprising 12 western states (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska) are nearly half owned by the federal government. More so than other regions, job losses in the West can be traced to federal policies.

The Obama administration’s attack on Western energy jobs began within weeks of taking power when the Department of the Interior revoked 77 oil and gas leases in Utah and halted new oil shale projects in Colorado. By the end of 2009, the administration had issued fewer onshore energy leases than in any year under Bush or Clinton, and the pace thus far in 2010 is no better. Throughout the West, vast energy-containing federal lands are currently off-limits, and the administration and Congress have sought to restrict access to millions of additional acres. Even where energy leasing is not explicitly prohibited, Obama’s regulators have imposed red tape and bureaucratic delays that have substantially limited it.

Beyond oil and gas, the administration has all but declared war on coal mining, which is particularly vital to Wyoming and Montana. The Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming regulations as well as many other anti-coal measures (including Boiler MACT, combustion byproducts, new National Ambient Air Quality Standards, others) bode ill for the future of western coal.

The threat of new energy taxes has only added to the chilling effect on Western investment in energy projects.

In addition to the impact on energy production, the federal government’s excessive ownership of land — as well as intrusive measures like the Endangered Species Act that target private property — is posing growing problems for other industries. Despite the West’s mineral wealth, mining jobs continue to decline. The same is true of logging. Farmers and ranchers also face a host of costly hurdles.

Instead of providing regulatory relief that could turn the region’s economy around, Congress has proposed new constraints like the sweeping Clean Water Restoration Act. This bill would essentially federalize land-use decisions on any property containing wetlands, and compounds the threat by defining wetlands so expansively so as to include almost everywhere. And the Obama Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service have issued new agency guidance for federal lands, which under the name of addressing global warming would further restrict access.

Granted, Washington’s control over western lands and the misuse of that control to curtail economic activity is not a new phenomenon, but the current administration and Congress have taken it to a new level.

The West’s economic pain has not been justified by environmental gain. Quite the contrary, Uncle Sam turns out to be a lousy landlord. For example, the forest fires that have become common in Western lands in recent years have mostly originated on federal lands, and not on privately-held forests which tend to be better managed against such risks. A less-intrusive federal approach could deliver both economic and environmental benefits.

The next Congress should have a long list of reforms on its agenda. The Western Caucuses’ report spells out what needs to be addressed to get the American West back on the path to prosperity.

← Previous Entries