PERColator Blog
Holly Fretwell
Thursday, 04/21/2011
It never ceases to amaze that two adamantly opposing views can both argue that science proves their claim. That is because science is knowledge about what is and what can be. Opinions and values, however, both political and private, establish what should be. Science can be used to defend a value judgment, but without the personal values it cannot determine what should occur.
Science can describe what an Intermountain West ponderosa pine forest looked like 100 years ago. Science can define possible actions necessary to return that forest to a similar landscape. Science cannot tell us whether it should return to that type of a landscape.
Some of the forests surrounding Flagstaff, Arizona, for example, are extremely dense as a result of a century of fire suppression. The habitat in the once wide-open ponderosa pine savanna there has changed from prime antelope habitat to home of the endangered goshawk. Science can recommend methods to return the forest to the savannas of old or to maintain the goshawks preferred canopy. Science cannot tell us which is better; that is a value judgment.
Are there too many bison in Yellowstone? Science can help define the carrying capacity of the park, but it cannot determine whether they should be allowed to roam outside of the park. That is subjective and it depends upon your perspective.
Should Montana and Idaho wolves be removed from the endangered species act? Science can inform about the approximate number of wolves deemed necessary to ensure their survival. Science can help predict consequences of larger or smaller wolf populations. Science cannot determine the number of wolves that should make up the wolf population.
As Earth Day roles around and you’re examining the science of an issue, differentiate between the hard science and the political science. According to Merriam-Webster online, science is the state of knowing, or general truths, while politics is the art of influencing policy. I think that is an apt description. Along a different line of thinking but with similar connotations, Don Boudreaux has eloquently differentiated between science and economics here and here.
Originally posted at Environmental Trends.
Shawn Regan
Wednesday, 04/20/2011
In honor of Earth Day, Reason.tv offers this video featuring Ron Bailey (a 2010 PERC Julian Simon fellow):
Wednesday, 04/20/2011
Josh is a Mennonite friend who happens, by the grace of native talent and a powerful work ethic, to produce magnificent chickens. Raised on green growing pasture, they are never medicated, never fed artificial supplements or genetically selected to grow abnormally fast. They develop rich golden fat and a deep flavor; characteristics that have been more or less lost in modern, streamlined, highly efficient poultry production. Not surprisingly, Josh’s chickens are in high demand among food cognoscenti and fine restaurants.
A couple of years ago, I began bringing Josh’s chickens to my farmers’ market stand to market alongside our equally popular grassfed beef. Josh and I, in a classic entrepreneurial endeavor, have made these wholesome chickens available to happy, discerning customers who would otherwise be unable to justify a three hour commute to buy a bird for dinner.
Josh processes his chickens on his farm under a legal exemption allowing him to avoid industrial (and expensive) processing plants. Each chicken he produces is clearly labeled as to origin, method of production, added ingredients (none), as well as citing the statute, which allows him to do these things unmolested.
Last weekend he was informed by the Food Safety Inspection Service, the regulatory arm of the USDA, that he faced a “situation.” They had discovered a chink in the otherwise protective “non-molestation” statute. Because he is marketing chickens to an intermediary (me), his product is therefore rendered illegal and he must desist. In a disturbing addendum, the inspector also let slip that the USDA would be “willing and free of charge” to take over inspection of his facilities, and that they would be “more than happy to help him get going,” presumably in the chicken business.
The same authority willing to allow a company to distribute (and I’m not making this up) neon-green sugar drink with the word “sweetener” (in quotes) on the ingredient list believes that customers cannot be trusted to buy a natural chicken from a reputable farmer.
Perhaps this is just the fickle vagary, the marginalia of an otherwise appropriate regulatory regime. But I’m afraid this situation represents a deeper, metastasized, problem. The late Mr. Jefferson, that “intellectual voluptuary” according to his Big Government nemeses, explained that government’s only purpose is to secure natural rights. Governments, he believed, exist to protect life, liberty, property and little else. It’s probably archaic of me to wish for a return to such a limited view, but I can’t help it. The kind of absurd oversight now considered standard practice feel fundamentally unjust. It would be wonderful to live in a world where selling a chicken wasn’t rife with official allegations or burdened with state prohibitions.
Reed Watson
Tuesday, 04/19/2011
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, about which Jonathan Adler wrote in the latest edition of PERC Reports.
At issue is whether greenhouse gas emissions constitute a “public nuisance” and require judicially devised emission controls. Adler offers more thoughts on today’s hearings here.
Terry Anderson
Sunday, 04/17/2011
Last week I joined Andy Nash on InsideAcademia.tv for a short discussion on "Sustainability and Free Market Environmentalism." The video is now available online. Thanks to Andy for a great discussion.
Holly Fretwell
Thursday, 04/14/2011
Last spring President Obama announced America’s Great Outdoors action plan, an initiative to plan for conservation and recreation in the 21st century. A dominant idea is that America’s conservation should come from America’s people and not be directed from Washington DC. Amen. One can only hope this will differ from the current public input track we’re on.
In this plan, as in the past, every citizen has a voice. You can chime in on how the public lands should be managed, regardless of where you live. After all, the public lands belong to all of us. And there are a lot of them. They cover more than 25 percent of the nation, and more than 50 percent of the west. So we should have a say, particularly neighbors most greatly impacted by land-use decisions.
My concern about this democratic process is that because so many citizens want their voice heard, and there is a great diversity of ideas, the costs of coming to agreement are overwhelming. Multiple stakeholders desire a multitude of often mutually-exclusive activities; to harvest or not to harvest, to maintain roads or let them return to nature, critical habitat or wheeled recreation. Participation through public meetings, letters, hearings, and litigation can get costly and time consuming. Often the decision is left to a default of no action--exactly what some desire. (It reminds me of congressional budgeting!)
Indeed, our public lands have become less and less accessible. The bulk of the 700 million acres managed by public land agencies was once largely accessible as multiple-use land. More and more, it is being set aside for wilderness, natural ecosystems, and biodiversity. I am not opposed to providing habitat or leaving some nature untrammeled. What is vexing is that the impetus to set these lands aside is more often influenced by interest groups than conservation value.
Private landowners or groups, such as the Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, realize alternative land values; to choose not to harvest may mean timber revenues lost but more habitat. The tradeoffs are understood by realizing the value of the actions taken and those not taken. Groups that strive to influence public land outcomes, however, benefit only from the fruition of their desired land use. They give up nothing when alternative land uses are foregone.
Thus arises a key question, how much is enough? If you do not pay or bear a burden for receiving more of something desired, there is no reason to stop requesting more.
Some land is better left “untrammeled by man.” Other areas require hands-on management to treat existing problems. Some land is highly valued for recreation, resource extraction, or both. Other areas should be protected for critical habitat. The key to determining best use, however, is not a public meeting. It is realizing value of use while taking into consideration the value of the alternative land uses being lost.
Originally posted at Environmental Trends.
Thursday, 04/14/2011
What will our energy future look like? Unlike many of our political leaders, I claim no special insights, but I see some interesting trends. The first is reported by Roger Pielke, Jr. demonstrating the switch away from oil in electric power generation in the early 1980s by OECD countries.
Beginning in the 1970s a sharp rise in oil prices (compared to other fossil fuels) induced power generators to switch from oil to other energy sources, e.g., to coal, nuclear, or alternatives. The result? Over about 40 years oil lost about 90 percent of its share as a source for electricity production (to 2.5 percent from 25 percent).
Pielke makes the following points regarding this dramatic shift, some of which he claims are obvious, but worth repeating. I agree. Here they are:
1. Significant energy shifts happen.
2.They can take many decades.
3. Such shifts depend upon available substitutes.
4. The trend was from more expensive energy to less expensive energy, not vice versa.
Vaclav Smil, from the University of Manitoba, reinforces these compelling observations: “There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish, and the greater the scale of prevailing uses and conversions the longer the substitutions will take.” Smil’s work contains many stunning examples, including these nuggets:
- In most of the world’s developed economies it took more than fifty years for internal combustion engines (both gasoline and diesel) to displace agricultural draft animals. (In many low-income nations this process is still not complete.)
- James Watt’s improved steam engine, which became commercially popular during the 1770s, remained an important technology into the mid 20th century.
- The first diesel-powered car (the Mercedes-Benz 260D) was made in 1936. It wasn’t until the 1990s that diesels claimed 15 percent of the new car market in the European Union. (In 2007, diesels share of the U.S. new car market was 3 percent.) This is despite the fact that diesel engines have always been inherently more efficient than gasoline engines (the difference is up to 35 percent), and that modern diesel-powered cars have very low particulate emissions.
As a result, capital investment shifted towards a new generation of coal-fired power plants. If all the coal-fired electric generating capacity added during the last thirty years had been fueled by natural gas, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would have been about 20 percent lower. This act was repealed in 1987. Recent natural gas finds in “unconventional” geologic formations (e.g., the Barnett Shale in Texas) may double America’s natural gas (CH4) resources.
Shawn Regan
Wednesday, 04/13/2011
PERC enviropreneur alum Chris Corbin is featured at New West today for his water market consulting work with Lotic:
The company takes an approach to water different from engineering or legal consultants, traditionally the ones involved in these types of conversations, Corbin said. Lotic’s role is to look at water as an asset, just as one might look at a piece of land. Water rights are property rights, meaning anyone who owns a right is allowed to sell it to the highest bidder. But the market is informal and most people don’t really know what their water rights are worth, Corbin said.
The article goes on to describe how Lotic helps keep water in stream for fish and wildlife habitat through water markets. For more on Chris and how Lotic is "turning blue into green," see his essay in PERC Reports or this from PERCtv:
Laura Huggins
Monday, 04/11/2011
The threat of a federal government shutdown, which included closing national parks, alerted many to the funding woes of national parks. But state parks may be more vulnerable.
As Stephanie Simon pointed out in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday:
Lawmakers in states including California, Washington and North Carolina are weighing budgets that would strip millions of dollars in taxpayer funds from parks, forcing some to close their gates and others to scale back restroom cleaning, trail maintenance, law-enforcement patrols and other services.On the bright side, concession-operated parks on government lands do not have to close. Leasing state parks to private concessionaires offers a restructuring model states should consider as they contemplate solutions to ensure the long-term fiscal sustainability of state parks. As Leonard Gilroy wrote in PERC Reports:
One of the largest national recreation concessionaires, Recreation Resource Management, offered to lease six Arizona state parks targeted for closure amid recent budget cuts. They proposed to collect the same visitor fees the state charges today, while taking the operations and maintenance costs of these parks off the state’s books entirely. Further, the concessionaire would pay the state an annual lease payment based on a percentage of the fees collected. The state would retain full ownership of the land, and the company would be subject to strict state controls on operations, visitor fees, maintenance, and other key issues.In short, the private sector is offering to take over the operations and management of cash-strapped Arizona state parks. And there’s no reason this same model could not work in other states.
As Gilroy concludes, "states should explore the opportunity to let private operators perform these functions—taking parks off the state books while paying the state for the privilege to do so."
Pages
Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.
PERC’s publications, each designed to resonate with specific groups, move ideas generated at PERC to broader audiences.
Research is at the heart of PERC's work, with a focus on the question: What is the link between economic growth and environmental quality?
The goal of PERC’s programs is to fully realize the vision of establishing “PERC University,” where scholars, students, policy makers, and others convene to expand the applications of free market environmentalism.
PERC's fellowships share a common goal of exposing new scholars, students, journalists, and policy makers to free market environmentalism, as well as enable scholars already familiar with FME to explore new applications.
PERC continues to publish and present a broad range of research and discussion through podcasts, videos, and other multimedia channels.