CHURCHVILLE, VA—The Obama administration seems deeply committed to policies that can’t work.

The President is demanding hefty energy taxes to “save the planet.” Unfortunately the proposed reductions in U.S. greenhouse emissions would have virtually no impact on he earth’s temperatures—even if CO₂ is the culprit that it doesn’t seem to be. A 22 percent correlation between CO₂ and our thermometer record isn’t very strong evidence on which to rake away an annual $900 billion in extra “energy taxes.”

Meanwhile, the EPA is trying to deregister pesticides to which it has already given a clean bill of health, to appease the chemophobes on the Left. That currently means banning atrazine, a key ingredient in no-till farming, the most sustainable farming system Americans have ever had. Stanford University says such high yield farming has forestalled the plow-down of another 7 million square miles of wildlife habitat—and forestalled the loss of soil carbon equal to one-third of the world’s industrial emissions since 1850!

EPA is also proposing to clamp down on farm dust. It may be news to EPA, but a lot of farming activities necessarily raise dust. Should we sprinkle water over the harrows and no-till planters, over the grain augers, over the lime application trucks, and the farm pickups driving down unpaved roads? That would be hugely expensive and time-consuming not to mention taking scarce water away from the crops and cities.

My favorite Obama dead end is the Chesapeake Bay project. Over the past 30 years, we’ve spent billions of federal dollars trying to reduce the nitrogen and other nutrients that get into the Bay, with absolutely no impact on the murky water. The Obama strategy is to double down, as they did with their British-style “health care reform” that has failed everywhere—including Britain. But as the British decentralize their medical decisions to 50,000 doctors, the EPA will now install mandatory farm management requirements around the Bay.

When the Bay was healthy, the water stayed clear because it was constantly filtered by the Bay’s huge oyster population. The oyster-cleared water fostered more eel grass on the bottom to shelter baby crabs and fish. The oysters and eel-grass also broke down huge tonnages of nitrogen and other nutrients naturally. Then the oyster population collapsed.

The logical key to a clean bay is restoring the oysters. Until recently, we just didn’t know how. We may now have that capability.

The new strategy has little to do with farming and nitrogen. The Corps of Engineers has produced a rapidly expanding oyster population in the Great Wicomico River by rebuilding the high shell reefs (12–16 inches) typical of the natural Bay. These high shell reefs kept the oysters up off the river bottom, above the sediment, and in strong enough currents that the viruses now ravaging the Bay mollusks had far less impact. The Great Wicomico now has 185 million thriving oysters, about as many as all the waters of Maryland!

This success strongly suggests that oyster dredging caused the Bay shellfish collapse, especially the power dredging allowed since World War II. Restoration would mean building high shell reefs in many of the key streams, and protecting them from harvest until they’ve had a chance to expand the high shell reefs and reseed the bay with spat.

We’ll also need a new, cost-effective way to harvest the oysters, without going back to the laborious hand-tonging. Does that mean vacuum tubes, handled by scuba divers?  This line of approach certainly looks more productive than the Obama call to shut down the Bay region’s high-yield farmers.

Insanity is continuing to do what you’ve been doing, and expecting a different result.

Sources:

Jacqueline Sit, “EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust; News9.com, July 30, 2010

D. Schulte, R. Burke, R. Lipclus; “Unprecedented Restoration of a Native Oyster Metapopulation,” Science, 28 August 2009.

DENNIS T. AVERY, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC,  is an environmental economist.  He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

CHURCHVILLE, VA—The leftish Brookings Institution and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce basically agree that the energy taxes in the House Waxman-Markey bill could total $9 trillion over ten years. As an economist, I look at these forecasts and wonder “How can we possibly know?”  

  

These estimates cover only the costs of the “user permits” that companies will have to buy. They don’t even try to measure the massive reduction in our economic output as energy costs double and triple with scarcity.

 

Let’s look at a couple of “case studies”: 

 

First, we use a lot of natural gas to make fertilizer, pulling 90 million tons per year of natural nitrogen from the air (which is 78% N). The world has only about one-third of the cow manure needed to nourish today’s crops, so nitrogen fertilizer is feeding 2 billion of the world’s 6.5 billion people through higher food yields per acre.

 

Imagine that ten years from now the carbon taxes have eliminated half of the nitrogen fertilizer: global food production has fallen massively— say by 25–30 percent; world food prices have tripled; and storage bins are empty. What price would we pay to keep the other half of the nitrogen fertilizer so our kids won’t starve?

 

Would farmers and the public defend the remaining fertilizer factories with roadblocks—or even firearms? Will governments overcome the “fertilizer fanatics” with force?  How would the governments convince troops to fire on their own people? By giving the troops food the public can’t get? 

 

Moreover, the BBC has just admitted what careful observers already knew—the planet hasn’t warmed since 1998!  Many climatologists say we’re in a 30-year cooling driven by Pacific Ocean cycling. Will “global warming” come to be viewed as just a “weapon of mass taxation”?

 

Second case:  Britain is supposed to lose 40 percent of its electrical generating capacity in the next eight years. All but one of its nuclear plants is due for decommissioning, and the EU declares that nine of its big coal-fired plants emit too much CO₂. As the blackouts spread across a shivering winter countryside, will the UK government carry through its fossil-reduction commitments while elderly people are dying in their homes? 

 

None of the taxes, remember, will bring fossil fuel use down enough to actually forestall man-made global warming—even if the embattled Greenhouse Theory was valid. The energy taxes will be “all pain and no gain.”

 

Remember, too that the “Green alternatives” aren’t working out well.

 

• Denmark’s massive investment in wind turbines has produced electricity mainly at night, when no one wants it.   

 

• Biofuels nearly doubled world food prices when the U.S. corn ethanol plants were all running. The proposed energy taxes will quickly drive gasoline and corn back up to food-inflation levels again. They’re supposed to.

 

Meanwhile, the natural, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle predicts only 0.5 degree C of warming over the next several centuries. The ice cores and seabed fossils tell us this has all happened many times in the past—including five natural global warmings in the last 9,000 years.

 

Politicians can pass fossil fuel taxes through today’s “tame” legislatures—but they can’t make the public obey those laws after they clearly begin to violate human rights and common sense.

 

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.  He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net