Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Saturday
October 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment
Skepticism is the proper disposition of science. While the enviro-fascists talk a good scientific game, they don’t practice it. Instead, they fantasize over murdering global warming skeptics. Even better, it’s funded in part by British taxpayers.
Sunday
September 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
I spend a lot of time looking at the activities of the federal government, and how its grossly unconstitutional behavior impacts individual rights. Unfortunately, local government are often just as bad, if not worse. Yes, you may still be living in a little tyranny even if Obama is tossed from office.
This Fox News story highlights just the latest example of local government’s Orwellian tendencies, this time in service of eco-religion and financed by “stimulus” dollars.
In a growing number of cities across the U.S., local governments are placing computer chips in recycling bins to collect data on refuse disposal, and then fining residents who don’t participate in recycling efforts and forcing others into educational programs meant to instill respect for the environment.
…In Dayton, Ohio, chips placed in recycle bins transmit information to garbage trucks to keep track of whether residents are recycling — a program that incensed Arizona Sen. John McCain, who pointed out that the city was awarded half a million dollars in stimulus money for it.
…[I]n Cleveland … the trash police can fine you $100 for not recycling.
Cleveland will run reports on who fails to recycle consistently, and then it will send out the green cops, waste collection commissioner Ronnie Owens told ABC News.
Wednesday
July 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment
“Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement,” says Climate Depot.
They released the following interview with the liberal Dr. Rancourt, who says that the AGW movement is a “corrupt social phenomenon.”
Tuesday
July 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
Iain Murray writes at the Washington Examiner that advocacy groups Change.org and the Alliance for Climate Protection are arguing – in an email entitled, “Don’t Let BP Win!” – that “Stalling climate and energy legislation would be a big win for oil companies like BP, but a huge loss for the rest of us.” Someone must have forgot to tell the lobbyists at BP, because as I previously noted, they have endorsed the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill. BP and other big corporations understand what the statists that routinely push for government intervention in the market do not: big government policy ultimately benefits big business the most.
The first responsibility of a corporation is to their shareholders, and contrary to popular belief, they are not dependable advocates of capitalism. Given half a chance, they will gladly use the power of government to their own benefit by restricting competition. They always have the greater means and motivation to capture federal regulator agencies, and deploy the force of government to benefit their special interest, than do the high-minded reform groups that often called for intervention in the first place. If Change.org really wanted to ensure that BP does not “win,” they would fight against big government interventionism, thus denying BP and other corporations the ability to manipulate government force for their own benefit.
Tuesday
July 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
Florida Senator Bill Nelson is seizing on the BP oil spill as an excuse to pass federal “price-gouging” legislation. It’s certainly nothing new to see anti-market politicians stirring up populist rage with these so-called “price gouging” laws. Many states already have them on the books, and politicians are quick to warn greedy capitalists against “exploiting” disasters by raising prices. But these laws are really nothing more than price controls and, like all price controls, they distort markets and harm consumers.
“Price-gouging” laws generally prohibit “excessive” or “unconscionable” prices – both unconstitutionally vague concepts – immediately following disaster declarations. Prosecutions typically follow hurricanes, floods or other major events that knock out power and stress the availability of goods like ice and power generators.
Under normal circumstances, sudden increases in demand result in similarly sudden spikes in prices. As prices go up, entrepreneurs in nearby areas are motivated to buy goods at their cheaper local prices, transport them into the disaster area, and then sell them for a handsome profit. This is how price signals work to indicate where goods are most needed. The entrepreneurs make enough money to justify their efforts, and people in the disaster area are able to get the extra supplies they need. Yet despite the fact that everyone wins, many politicians have criminalized this behavior. Rather than cheering the entrepreneurs for bringing relief supplies that would not otherwise arrive to post-disaster areas, state government officials often prosecute, fine and even jail them.
Not satisfied with the fact that a majority of states already have these misguided price controls on the books, federal politicians have repeatedly tried to have them enacted nationally. A bill that would have criminalized charging market prices for needed goods passed the House in 2007, but failed to get the 2/3rd votes necessary to override President Bush’s threatened veto. Now, with a more sympathetic President Obama in office, such legislation could potentially return, and pass.
Bill Nelson’s state of Florida already unnecessarily perpetuates shortages after hurricanes and other disasters with misguided price controls. He shouldn’t force similar pain on the 20 or so states without price gouging laws.
Sunday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment
No big surprise here, just more evidence of the massive fraud the warm-mongers attempted to pull on the world:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.
Wednesday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
I’ll give you a hint: the answer isn’t government regulation and fines.
Tuesday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Wednesday
May 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
Kevin Costner, of all people, has a device to clean oil out of water:
Costner’s $24 million centrifuge machine has a Los Angeles-perfect name, “Ocean Therapy.”
Placed on a barge, it sucks in oily water, separates out the oil and spits back clean water.
“It’s like a big vacuum cleaner,” said Costner’s business partner, Louisiana trial lawyer John Houghtaling.
The “Field of Dreams” star told reporters he started paying a team of scientists millions to create the device after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, while working on his epic 1995 flop “Waterworld.”
…Costner’s has 300 machines in various sizes, with the largest able to clean water at a rate of 200 gallons a minute, WDSU-TV reported.
Fantastic. This is how things gets done in a free society. Instead of sitting on his hands waiting for government to solve a problem after Exxon Valdez, a private citizen (albeit a rich and famous one) pursued an idea to make something better, and now it can be of use where government so clearly is not.
Wednesday
May 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
When big accidents like the BP oil spill occur, there is predictably a call for “more regulation” as a solution. “If only government had required more robust/redundant safety mechanisms!” This reasoning is easy, but also sloppy.
Government safety regulations are capable of being harmful as well as helpful. Once regulators set safety standards, for instance, they are less likely or capable of keeping up with the latest and newest measures as time goes by compared to industry. Moreover, meeting government regulations provides businesses an easy excuse for not having done more if something goes wrong.
In my last post on the spill I identified other government policies that might have contributed to the situation, such as the cap on liability a company faces for a spill. And now Jonathan Finegold Catalán of Economic Thought has articulated the economic argument much better than I am capable.
The White House, meanwhile, is proposing to raise the liability cap, along with a host of other measures, in response to the spill. Some of the other proposals look dubious, but I think raising the liability cap is a positive policy response.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.