Posts by Shawn Regan

by Shawn Regan

Matt Ridley recently discussed the tendency for regulators to fall victim to the "affect heuristic," or the propensity to "discount the drawbacks of things we are emotionally in favor of." Case in point: the $2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System being built on federal land in California's Mojave Desert.

Officials are breaking ground today on what will become the world's largest solar thermal electricity project — a series of 346,000 billboard-sized mirrors directing heat onto a solar tower powering a turbine. But as the LA Times reports, not everyone is thrilled:

Environmentalists fought the project for years, concerned about its effect on the habitat of a rare tortoise. Others see the developer, Oakland-based BrightSource Energy Inc., as just another "Big Solar" corporation chasing down profits on the public dime.

"It's the old centralized robber-baron monopoly model," said Sheila Bowers, an activist with the advocacy group Solar Done Right. "This is the worst way to go about getting clean energy — it's slow, it's remote, it's devastating to the environment, and taxpayers are footing most of the bill."

Tortoise translocation is still an experimental strategy with a dismal track record. In previous efforts, transported tortoises have shown a tendency to wander, sometimes for miles, often back toward the habitat in which they were found. The stress of handling and adapting to unfamiliar terrain renders the reptiles vulnerable to potentially lethal threats: predation by dogs, ravens and coyotes; respiratory disease, dehydration and being hit by vehicles.

When it comes to politically glamorous projects like solar power plants, even a federally protected species isn't safe.

by Shawn Regan

At LATimes.com, Laura Huggins responds to Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan's recent op-ed on the path forward for America's national parks. While Burns and Duncan offer little more than nostalgia, Huggins lays out real proposals that can boost revenues, attract more visitors, and be implemented almost immediately.

Perhaps it's time to revisit the original vision of the national parks system. As noted by Holly Fretwell, the author of "Who is Minding the Federal Estate?," the park service's first director, Stephen Mather, believed that the ability to set appropriate fees and retain park receipts was important for responsible management, as doing so created a direct tie to those visiting and managing the resource. Under Mather's leadership, five parks became operationally self-sufficient, including Yosemite.

Looking back to the parks' origins and adopting more market mechanisms may be the solution to enhancing the visitor experience and boosting financial support. A few ideas include expanding the Fee Demonstration Program, which ensures that revenue generated by fees at certain parks be kept in those parks rather than sent back to the federal Treasury; contracting out more concession services (which has a proven track record in some of California's state parks); and engaging in benefits-sharing agreements, in which national parks reap some of the profits from businesses that do research in the parks with an eye on commercial opportunities.

As for benefits sharing, the National Park Service has granted thousands of research permits. In Yellowstone alone, there are about 40 research studies being conducted at any given time. Commercial firms studying microbes that flourish in Yellowstone's geysers stand to earn billions, and Yellowstone should get a piece of that. Yet opponents challenge such agreements as a commercial use of park resources, even though the microbes collected in the parks remain in federal ownership.

Assateague Island, a long barrier island off the coast of Maryland and Virginia, is home to two populations of feral horses. On the Maryland side, the Assateague horses, as they are known, are publicly owned and managed by the National Park Service. On the Virginia side, the Chincoteague ponies are privately owned by the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department and occupy the island under a special use grazing permit.

No one is quite sure where the wild horses came from. Local folklore has it that they are descendents from horses that survived a shipwreck off the Virginia coast. Others say they were placed on the island by settlers in the 17^th century seeking to avoid fencing and livestock taxes. Regardless, both the Assateague horses and the Chincoteague ponies originated from the same wild population that has inhabited the land for centuries and are prized for their distinctive characteristics.

Given the ownership differences between the two herds, this unique island of wild horses provides useful insights into wildlife management. Lacking natural predators, both populations need to be kept to a certain size in order to preserve the fragile barrier islands, but how each side does this is drastically different.

To stabilize the population of horses on the Maryland side at 125 horses, the National Park Service darts mares with contraceptive vaccines. While this method keeps the annual birth rate at fewer than 10 foals, it is costly and wasteful given the horses’ high value.

To maintain a sustainable population of the privately-owned Chincoteague ponies, the excess ponies are not darted but rather, are sold at a celebrated annual auction. Every July for the last 85 years, the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department holds a Pony Penning festival in which “salt water cowboys” swim the ponies across the narrow channel that separates the island from the mainland. After being examined by veterinarians, between 60 and 80 foals are auctioned off to maintain a population of 150 on the Virginia side of the island. The event attracts more than 40,000 spectators and brings in revenue for the local fire department. And the price the ponies fetch is impressive. In 2009, the average Chincoteague foal went for $1,344, while in the past some have gone for as high as $17,500.

The National Park Service manages a prized population of horses, yet it wages a self-defeating vaccination campaign to prevent horses from being born. On the other hand, the Chincoteague Fire Department manages its wild population of horses for the benefit of the local community, horse enthusiasts, and the continued heritage of the Chincoteague pony.

by Shawn Regan

In today's Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby says he's not too excited about a recent household recycling campaign in Brookline, MA. But, he writes, "things could be worse."

Clevelanders will soon have to use recycling carts equipped with radio-frequency ID chips, the Plain Dealer reported last month. These will enable the city to remotely monitor residents’ compliance with recycling regulations. “If a chip shows a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables. Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine.’’ In Britain, where a similar system is already in place, fines can reach as high as $1,500.

San Franciscans, meanwhile, must sort their garbage into three color-coded bins — blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash — and scofflaws who pitch teabags or coffee grounds into the wrong bin can be fined. In other cities, residents must bag their trash in clear plastic, lest they be tempted to toss recyclables out with the garbage.

Does any of this make sense? It certainly isn’t economically rational. Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal.

But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs “force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard,’’ writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. “On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth.’’ Now whose idea of exciting is that?

UPDATE: See Part II of Jacoby's recycling column, which discusses more of Dan's findings.