Tag Archives: federal regulations

Favoring Wind Power Endangers Birds and Bats

The Obama Administration has used subsidies and regulation to promote wind power. Yet the deaths of thousands of birds and bats from wind turbines, and the misappropriation of funds shows the danger of endless government subsidies and rules that are enforced only when they benefit certain industries.

Wind turbines kill approximately 600,000 birds a year. The American Bird Conservancy thinks that the Golden Eagle will wind up on the endangered species list because so many are being killed by turbines. Wind turbines also kill an estimated 900,000 bats each year. According to National Geographic bat-friendly turbine designs exist, but the wind-power industry has been slow to install the new turbines.

More disturbingly, the administration seems to be selectively enforcing laws. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Endangered Species Act prescribe strict penalties for killing eagles and condors respectively. But the administration has given an exemption from prosecution to a California wind company if the company is responsible for the death of the California Condor, one of the rarest birds in the world. The administration wants to grant a similar exception to birds on the 1,500-mile Texas to North Dakota migratory corridor. And the administration seems to be ignoring bat deaths altogether.

Other businesses that inadvertently harm protected animals face hefty consequences. Shooting or electrocuting the Bald Eagle can lead to a $250,000 fine and two years in jail. Harming the bird can also lead to legal fees incurred in federal prosecution. Further, the wind industry is allowed to build wind farms on protected lands despite the danger to native animals.

No power source is perfect. Coal and oil power produce emissions. Nuclear power plants require a site to store used fuel rods. Solar power panels use large amounts of land, displacing native animals. But the wind power subsidies and selective enforcement of laws shows the government is deliberately distorting the market to favor a certain industry. Eliminating subsides and uneven enforcement of rules would allow energy companies to produce high-quality low-cost energy. Further it would improve not worsen the lives of birds and bats.

Endangered Species Act: The Semantics of Being “Endangered”

If you are a land owner, pour yourself a cup of coffee, tea, or favorite adult beverage and have a seat. I want you to imagine yourself in a difficult personal scenario and then ask you a seemingly simple but important question that may take some time and focus to comprehend and answer… Now then, take a sip. Ready?

Assume you are about to face a serious loss of economic prosperity due to a federal or state “cease and desist” order on the economic activity you were performing whilst using your privately held land or other natural resource. Assume further that you weren’t causing any harm to anyone else’s health, welfare or private property. Instead, you were found to be causing harm to a protected and endangered wildlife species that is listed under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.

OK… This would be a very undesirable financial situation for you and your family to be in, to be sure. But it also would be a very understandable public concern over your causing the possible elimination of an entire species. Pondering a heavy moral dilemma such as this may just require another sip from your cup.

Yet, as you begin to contemplate rearranging your whole life just to save a species of small, furtive bird, or seldom seen fish, wouldn’t you want to at least be assured that the government has made certain that your economic actions were indeed harming a distinguishable “species” that was rare enough, and had a projected future fragile enough, to warrant all the economic harm that will surely descend upon you?  

Certainly, all human activity has some impact on the world’s flora and fauna. The least the government could do is assure you that their taxonomy of “species” to determine the relative scarcity that they claim is being aggravated by your economic activity was adequately defined and broadly accepted within the scientific world. Right?

OK… Take another sip — you’ll need it. The federal legal process for listing or delisting a species as endangered is clearly written, assuming the definition of what constitutes a separate species is well defined. However, it happens that any definition of “species” that the government might choose to use for assessing which ones are scarce enough to warrant listing as “endangered” will garner little consensus from across the biological sciences. Why? Because there is no real agreement among scientists as to what constitutes the proper definition of a distinct “species.”

Oh, my. I’ll give you a moment to clean up that sudden burst of drink sprayed all over your video screen…

Yes, this is true. The “species problem” is an ongoing argument amongst scientists for the past century. It seems the problem of speciation, or finding a universally accepted taxonomy of what actually differentiates the various species, has been roiling in the biological sciences for over one hundred years. That certainly isn’t what we were taught in high school biology with the rusty scalpels and dead, smelly frogs.

Which begs the question: If scientists cannot agree as to what defines a distinct “species,” then how can the government determine as to what defines an “endangered” one? The ESA defines an endangered species as being “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” However, it never defines what separates one species one from another, to determine the relative scarcity of a given species. It presumes this definition is commonly understood and broadly supported by science, which it is not.

Take another sip and bear with me, as an example will illustrate my point. The Baltimore Oriole and the Bullock’s Oriole were each once considered to be the same species. They were referred to collectively as the species Northern Oriole. Changes in how scientists perceived the definition of species led biologists to now consider them as distinct and separate species. What if the strain of birds now known as Bullock’s Oriole was rare and nearly extinct, while the strain now known as Baltimore Oriole was vibrant and ever present. Should the ESA stifle economic activity that endangers the Bullock’s Oriole if the “acceptable” definition of species were still considered inclusive, rather than exclusive of the two strains?

I can see you are almost finished with your drink. I’ll let you think about that question for a while, because who knows? Maybe the definition of the Oriole species will again change soon. Go on. Take another sip…

Sue and Settle: The Performance Enhancement Drug (PED) of Public Regulators

When Bruce Yandle wrote his classic article in Reason Magazine entitled, “Bootleggers and Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist,” he artfully explained how profit seeking law breakers sidled up with religious do-gooders to accomplish a common social objective: keeping liquor sales illegal. More and more examples of such unexpected bedfellows are appearing in Washington each year. To understand why, just think like a federal bureaucrat.

Continue reading Sue and Settle: The Performance Enhancement Drug (PED) of Public Regulators

EPA Proposal Promotes Fossil Fuel Use over Renewable Wood Use for Heating Homes

The latest example of big brother schemes brewing in Washington this year is the proposal of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to significantly restrict solid particulate emissions from wood burning stoves. The Census Bureau estimated that 2.4 million U.S. homes use wood as a primary source for heating their homes. The EPA is proposing that manufacturers be required to reduce solid particulate matter emissions by any wood burning stove from the current level of 7.5 grams per hour to 4.5 grams per hour by 2015, and further reductions to 1.3 grams per hour by 2019 (see Table 3).

Continue reading EPA Proposal Promotes Fossil Fuel Use over Renewable Wood Use for Heating Homes

The American Energy Renaissance Act

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently proposed legislation that would harness America’s abundant energy reserves, not only supplying much-needed energy, but also spurring economic growth. This bill, named the American Energy Renaissance Act, is a two part plan with several steps that would halt harmful regulations and barriers to trade and development and expand energy exploration and infrastructure development.

This bill would leave the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the hands of the states. It would also allow the states to lease, permit, and regulate energy resources on federal lands within their borders. A key provision in this bill develops energy infrastructure by approving the Keystone XL pipeline, and other national and cross-border pipelines, to be built by the private sector. It would open for energy development federal lands such as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and the Coastal Plain of Alaska (ANWR). Finally, it would expand liquefied natural gas exports by facilitating permits and would also end the crude oil export ban.

Senator Cruz’s bill was inspired by the economic boom spurred by the oil and gas industry in North Dakota where the average hourly wage in the industry is $45.90 an hour. The state’s unemployment rate has fallen to 2.6 percent. Allowing the rest of the nation to follow suit would create jobs in the private sector, decrease unemployment, increase national revenue, and give America energy self-sufficiency.

The European Union Re-examines the Clean Energy/Economic Growth Tradeoff — So Should the Media

The progressive media often promote specious opinions on environmental policy that are in direct opposition to the very evidence they use to support their criticisms. Case in point is an article in The New York Times by Stephen Castle. He writes that, “Europe seems to be hitting its environmental limits,” as high energy costs and declining industrial competitiveness have sparked fears of faltering economic growth among the senior administrators of the European Commission (EC), which is the Brussels-based executive arm of the European Union (EU). As a result, the EC is proposing to reduce its national targets for renewable energy production after the year 2020, to promote cleaner energy production and conserve fossil fuels. The EC is also reversing its push for new laws on environmental damage stemming from fracking, the extraction of shale gas by a controversial new drilling technology.

Continue reading The European Union Re-examines the Clean Energy/Economic Growth Tradeoff — So Should the Media

EPA vs Texas

A fight against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was won in Texas this past week as the EPA allowed Texas significantly more flexibility when dealing with state permits concerning pollution sources. Giving Texas more control over the environmental impacts that occur within the state. A hard fought win for Texas as they have been working for years to gain back the control that the EPA stripped away from them.

The compromise on Texas’s clean air plan can be used as an example for other states hoping to gain back some of their rights concerning environmental regulation. By allowing the states the ability to implement locally tailored plans and permits, plants will no longer fear being shut down due to overly strict federal regulation. Less regulation is for the better as Texas currently houses 832 drilling rigs, which accounts for 47% of all US oil rigs and 25% of the entire worlds!

number of rigs

This has boosted oil and gas severance tax revenue to an amazing $900 million dollars which has funded several projects. The projects would utilize the surplus to fund the State Water Plan which was create in 1997 but never received funding until now. The legislature in total created two funds that;

  • The State Water Implementation Fund (SWIFT) will contain $2.5 billion to fund projects in the State Water Plan.
  • The State Water Implementation Revenue Fund of Texas (SWIRFT) will contain $3.5 billion for road, port and rail infrastructure projects.

In a state that led national job growth in 2013, is a powerhouse in the energy industry, and increased environmental standards without EPA involvement; even less federal involvement can only be for the better.

Equality of Income and Largesse of American Rice

President Obama on several occasions has made critical statements that our capitalist economic system has so aggravated the degree of income inequality in America that this is now the “most pressing issue of our age.” The President has even warned Congress that if they are not willing to pursue remedies to this inequitable situation, he would use his Executive Powers to redistribute the flow of income in our economy.

This makes one wonder whether our federal government can produce a credible claim that it could equalize American income flows across families, especially when many current examples of public policy appear to benefit a privileged few at the expense of the general tax payer. A quick look at federal agricultural policy is quite revealing.

Continue reading Equality of Income and Largesse of American Rice