The War on New Mexico’s Water

Not so great news out of New Mexico:

Why, when global warming threatens to make scarce water resources even more elusive, would New Mexico’s regulatory agencies stand idly by and watch extractive industries maneuver to destroy our water? Maybe it’s because the oil and gas industry bought Governor Martinez the Governor’s mansion. Maybe it’s because boards and commissions charged with enacting the regulations governing industrial activities are now stacked with current and former industry employees or people closely associated with industry. Maybe it’s to advance a radical ideology where every person (including corporate persons) are free to pollute the commons in pursuit of a buck. Whatever the reasons, the result is that our Governor has declared war on our water. And with New Mexico regulatory agencies, boards and commissions becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of the industries they regulate, the future of New Mexico’s water looks grim.

Read the whole thing on The Range blog at High Country News. I’ll follow this one and let you know how things turn out.

Advertisements

Edison Had it Right: Save the Light Bulb!

“Edison created a time-tested light bulb that is still the best option for its price,” Brandston said. “Consumer choice is an all-American right. The government has created a light bulb cartel, has crammed the CFL down our throats and the citizens have no antitrust protection.”

That’s renowned light designer Howard Brandston speaking a little truth to the not-so-bright powers that be regarding the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). I despise the light bulb ban. CFLs are ugly and expensive, their light is poor, they make me not want to read, and they’ve required me to buy all new light fixtures. But these are minor complaints. Here are three absolutely true arguments against the incandescent light bulb ban, in descending order of my disgust:

First, the effort to ban the incandescent light bulb wasn’t all human goodwill and love of the environment. The ban was the result of a hardcore lobbying effort waged by those who stood to benefit. This included General Electric and other bulb manufacturers. Compared to incandescents, compact fluorescent bulbs are more expensive and carry higher profit margins. And their benefits, like Mark Twain’s death, are greatly exaggerated.

Second, CFLs are not clean energy. They are dirty. They contain mercury, and although I’m sure all of us good people are following the EPA’s instructions (insert EPA joke here) to dispose of CFLs with a dedicated recycler, the truth is most CFLs end up in the landfill, where the mercury is just going to accumulate.

Third and finally, this ban is the small and meaningless, which I despise. A ban on light bulbs? Energy conservation has its value, but its place is at the level of the consumer. This is not a job for the federal government, which has bigger things to do. These energy standards, I’m afraid to say, are a waste of energy. They serve as a convenient excuse for lazy members of congress not to take the big, bold steps that need to happen. Of course, the number of pea-sized brains in congress would make a dinosaur blush. So we are left with bans on light bulbs, while our other environmental challenges (other challenges? says member of congress) are ignored.

Look, goodwill gestures have their place. It’s why you buy popcorn from the Boy Scouts, recycle your newspaper, or run a 5k to support a local charity when you already  run that far every other day for free. These things are all good thing for you to do. These are not things that need to be dictated to you by congress. I can take care of my own light bulbs, thank you, just like you can recycle your own glass. You and I can’t, however, do a lot to clean up a power plant’s mercury emissions, or prevent some mining company from blasting the top off a mountain. Yet it’s our habits, our choices, that draw the attention of congress.

You know, we pay for this government. But like the CFL bulb, I’m not sure it’s worth it.

Hat tip Instapundit on the story linked at top.

Ethanol Subsidy Needs to Go. Now.

Another black eye for the Environmental Protection Agency. The news out of Washington, D.C., is that our EPA has denied a request to waive ethanol mandates while the heartland recovers from a terrible drought, and consumers’ wallets seek relief from high food prices. Via the Detroit News (H/T Drudge Report):

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday rejected a request from eight governors and nearly 200 members of Congress to waive requirements for the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline, after last summer’s severe drought wilted much of the nation’s corn crop.

Later in the same article, Michal Rosenoer with Friends of the Earth offers his assessment of EPA’s decision:

“If the worst U.S. drought in more than 50 years and skyrocketing food prices are not enough to make EPA act, it falls to Congress to provide relief from our senseless federal support for corn ethanol,” [Rosenoer] said.

“The Renewable Fuel Standard is a broken policy — rather than giving us clean energy, it’s incentivizing biofuels like corn ethanol that are exacerbating our economic and environmental problems.

“Congress needs to cut corn ethanol from the RFS entirely to protect the economy and the environment from this destructive and dirty fuel.”

Michal Rosenoer is dead on. Washington does a lot of dumb things, but few things are as transparently stupid as the huge subsidy and fuel mandates for ethanol. If I may, I’d like to offer a few points of my own against ethanol:

(1) Ethanol is a waste of energy. Literally. Ethanol supporters can argue all they want, but the science is clear that ethanol is a net-energy loser, and therefore an environmental loser. This fantastic 2005 Slate article on ethanol highlights the relevant arguments (edited for length):

The stickiest question about ethanol is this: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?

The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there’s a 30 percent net gain in BTUs from ethanol made from corn.

But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

I can’t say it any clearer myself.

(2) Ethanol harms fuel economy. Because ethanol puts out less energy than gasoline, ethanol blends harm your vehicle’s fuel efficiency. What sense then is raising CAFE standards? Another environmental loss.

(3) It’s all political. If Iowa did not have 6 votes in the Electoral College, the ethanol subsidy would not exist. The farm lobby would either split on the subsidy (corn for/livestock against), or oppose it as it is so narrowly focused. Party politicians support the subsidy because you can’t win the presidency without Iowa. Hell, you can barely win your party’s nomination without Iowa.

(4) Ethanol is starving people. Not only are we converting an important food crop to fuel, the subsidy and artificial demand created by government ethanol requirements results in additional acreage being converted from food crops, like wheat and soybeans, to corn for ethanol.

I could go on. Really. But let’s end with this: Ethanol fails every environmental, agricultural, and geopolitical (it doesn’t make a dent in our reliance on foreign oil) test to which it is put. It is a $6 billion a year waste of good money. The only test ethanol passes is the political test. Well, maybe it’s time to start flunking the test-takers.

A Stupid Move on Solar

That title is pretty uncharitable on my part. Jillian Kay Melchior is even more uncharitable, but she sums up my feelings pretty well upon news that the Obama Administration is slapping tariffs on imported Chinese solar panels:

The federal government last week approved a hypocritical trade measure that not only undermines the president’s environmental goals but also increases costs for U.S. consumers.

Most Chinese solar panels will now be subject to tariffs of about 24 to 36 percent, the U.S. International Trade Commission unanimously decided this week. They were responding to an anti-dumping suit filed by German-owned solar-panel manufacturer SolarWorld, alongside six American manufacturers, many of whom opted to remain anonymous.

These panel manufacturers have every reason to be secretive. In protecting their own products from cheaper Chinese panels “dumped” into the U.S. market, they’re screwing over other segments of the U.S. solar industry, including solar-panel installers and companies that use panels as an input for electronic products and will now have to cope with higher prices caused by the tariffs.

Moreover, the tariffs undermine the president’s green agenda. If the U.S. really wants to increase its reliance on alternative energy, as Obama has so often claimed, the uncompetitive domestic solar market could use all the cost-cutting help Beijing can provide.

An unfortunate but not unexpected outcome of last week’s election. There has been a lot of grumbling in the circles President Obama travels about the Chinese dumping cheap solar panels. I had guessed it was only a matter of time before we hit back. I view these trade/protectionist policies as both intellectually silly and economically harmful. Given all the subsidies we’re dumping onto our own solar industries – often with little to show for it – I can’t wrap my mind around punishing the Chinese for doing the same. Especially when the Chinese are providing a product we need at a price we can actually afford.

To be all fair and balanced, here’s Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) complaint in favor of hitting the Chinese. After all, I’m not an expert in global trade. My concern lies in moving the U.S. toward a solar future, and so far, I’m not real impressed with what’s coming out of Washington, D.C. If the Chinese are subsidizing their solar manufacturers to our benefit, well, let’s accept that and see what we need to do domestically to make our manufacturers competitive with the Chinese. Let’s not, of all things, start a trade war that results in escalating prices for solar panels. That’s definitely a move in the wrong direction.

In Tuesday’s Election, Environmentalists Paid to Play

The Missoulian’s Mike Dennison provides analysis of the U.S. Senate race in Montana between republican Dennis Rehberg and incumbent democrat Senator Jon Tester. This race was expected to go the republican’s way only to see Tester reelected with a comfortable 16,600 vote margin. Dennison gives us some idea of who helped to push Tester over the top:

As for the ground game, which identifies and registers sympathetic voters and then gets them to the polls, Montana Democrats and their allies had a good one.

The League of Conservation Voters, one of the nation’s most prominent environmental groups, spent $1.45 million on Tester’s behalf, including door-to-door canvassers, mailers and phone calls to get out the vote.

It’s hard to beat the democrats’ ground game. The LCV was all over Montana, knocking on doors and working the phone banks in behalf of Tester and other democratic candidates. And it looks like Montana wasn’t the only place where national environmental groups played a big role. Here’s today’s Washington Post:

The environmental community scored a string of successes Tuesday in New Mexico, Montana, Texas and other states, winning seven of eight targeted Senate races and at least three targeted House races. Although plenty of outside groups poured money into these contests, even some representatives of the fossil-fuel industry said that environmentalists had invested their resources wisely in 2012.

“There is evidence that the environmentalists have become a more mature political force,” said Scott H. Segal, who lobbies for utility companies at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

“Environmentalist spending was up considerably this cycle, and they seemed to resist the frequent trap of supporting third-party or crank candidates in ways that would have siphoned off votes from mainstream Democrats,” Segal said.

The League of Conservation Voters spent more than $14 million this year, more than it had in the past three election cycles combined, and groups including the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, Defenders of Wildlife Action Committee, Environment America and Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also devoted money and volunteers to key contests.

The environmental community went all in for this election. How will all this support be repayed?

Some environmentalists say the election provides a mandate for aggressive action on climate change, although oil and gas industry officials warned against over-interpreting the results because the economy ranked as the dominant issue this year.

The environmental community, having done its job to get democrats elected across the country, will expect action from the Obama Administration on a range of environmental issues, including rules to control mercury and greenhouse gas emissions, reign in oil and gas drilling on public lands, and tackle the fracking issue. Of course, I’ve recommended a number of items the President could add to his environmental agenda. It could be an interesting four years for the environment.

The Election in Perspective

The Pale Blue Dot

Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience.There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

Carl Sagan, October 13, 1994, Cornell University
Photo courtesy Voyager 1, 1990, 3.7 billion miles from Earth.

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Survives Recall Vote

San Francisco voters on Tuesday soundly defeated a proposal to study draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park. The Reservoir provides drinking water to San Francisco and surrounding areas.

This was one of the few referendums in Tuesday’s election that I found really interesting. Here’s what I wrote some time ago about the issue:

Wow. Just wow. The voters of San Francisco this November will have the opportunity to vote on a measure to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park. Now, if you’re not familiar with the battle over Hetch Hetchy, let me just say that the damming of the Tuolumne River stands as one of the earliest and most pivotal debates about national parks and, really, wilderness in America. This was the fight that made the Sierra Club a national powerhouse and John Muir a legend. This is what you call turning back the clock on what many see as a national tragedy.

And now, nearly a century following passage of the law that allowed the damning of the Hetch Hetchy Valley, San Franciscans will decide if restoring the place Muir described as “one of nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples” is worth more than the cheap drinking water and hydro power they receive from the dam. And if you think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion in ultra-liberal San Fran, guess again. The liberal political establishment is lined up against the measure, while some prominent republicans and the environmentalists are in favor of removing the dam. I’ll be watching this one closely.

I can’t say that I’m surprised by the outcome, but the overwhelming vote against the proposal (77%) comes as a shock. Then again, as I wrote in my post about hypocrisy a few days back, the ultra-liberal eco-conscious voters of San Francisco can hardly be faulted for opposing the measure. After all, they were acting in their roles as consumers, not environmentalists. If it were 1906 all over again and the voters were deciding for the first time whether or not to dam the Hetch Hetchy valley, I tend to believe the vote would have gone in the opposite direction.