status quo pro hs

8/9/2019 Status Quo Pro HS

1/17

Status Quo:Pro Heidi Schreiber, Eveready

STATUS QUO: PRO

INDEX

1. GENERAL

1.1 Everything is peachy2. AIR POLLUTION

2.1 US in post-pollution era

2.2 Air pollution decreasing2.3 Data shows all types of pollution decreasing

3. WATER POLLUTION

3.1 Water quality increasing4. GLOBAL WARMING

4.1 Scientific community doesn't believe GW is a threat4.2 Even IPCC scientists unsure about GW

4.3 Science does not prove global warming4.4 GW is a political farce to raise money

4.5 GW theory doesn't make sense

4.6 Increased CO2 levels benefits ecosystem4.7 Hydrocarbons (created from burning fuel) important

4.8 Observed climate change is within bounds of natural change

4.9 Computer climate models unreliable4.10 GW fails experimentally as well as theoretically

4.11 No reason to regulate GHG's

4.12 Significant number of scientists reject GW theory4.13 Ludicrousness of past GW prophecies4.14 Major companies drop out of USCAP

4.15 Foundational GW studies found to be deceptive

4.16 Public belief in GW declining5. FOSSIL FUEL

5.1 Depletion of fossil fuels not a threat

5.2 Ideas about oil depletion are mistaken (historical example)5.3 Acting on nonexistent problem will be disastrous

5.4 Oil will become irrelevant before running out

6. PRIVATIZATION

6.1 Private organizations pwn government6.2 Utilizing private sector makes sense

6.3 Privatization works

6.4 Private sector motivated by market7. MISCELLANEOUS

7.1 Prioritization in environmental policy is necessary

7.2 No need to sacrifice rights to government in name of environmental protection

1 of 17


2/17


7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

7.4 Source indictmentleft-wing environmental groups

1. GENERAL

1.1 Everything is peachy

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), Common-

Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002

http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html

Total air pollution emissions in the U.S. fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990, and today arelower than they were in 1940, some 62 years ago. During the 1990s, the number of bad air days

when air quality falls below federal air quality standardsfell 76 percent in Boston, 78 percent in

Chicago, 54 percent in Los Angeles, and 88 percent in San Diego.

For people sincerely committed to the goals of a cleaner and safer environment, these are truly

the best of times. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are all safer than at anyprevious time in our lives. Wilderness areas in the United States are expanding, wildlife is flourishing,

and once-endangered species have been saved.

2. AIR POLLUTION

2.1 US in post-pollution era

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), Heartland

President Addresses Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The HeartlandInstitute), May 29,2004

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Env

ironmentalism.html

For example, the world is getting cleaner and safer over time. Not just a little: dramatically. All

six air pollutants tracked by the EPA--sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead,

and particulate matter--have all fallen to levels below what they were back in the 1940s, when reliable

measurements first started. Other bad things, like dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides have dropped to levelsso low we could not have even detected them a decade ago. All these compounds are now present in

concentrations too small to be reliably associated with any health effects on humans. Cancer rates are

falling and life expectancy continues to lengthen. We in the U.S. are in what Gregg Easterbrook callsthe post-pollution era.

2.2 Air pollution decreasing

2 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


3/17



Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html

Total air pollution emissions in the U.S. fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990, and today arelower than they were in 1940, some 62 years ago. During the 1990s, the number of bad air days

when air quality falls below federal air quality standardsfell 76 percent in Boston, 78 percent in

Chicago, 54 percent in Los Angeles, and 88 percent in San Diego.

2.3 Data shows all types of pollution decreasing

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality

Assessment Division, National Air Quality: Status and trends through 2007, November 2008

http://epa.gov/airtrends/2008/report/TrendsReportfull.pdf

Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air pollutants for which there are national standards

has improved significantly. These air pollutants are ground-level ozone (O3), particle pollution (PM2.5

and PM10), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2007 than 1990 for:

8-hour ozone, by 9 percent

annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 11 percent

PM10 , by 28 percent

Lead, by 80 percent

NO2 , by 35 percent

8-hour CO, by 67 percent

SO , by 54 percent

3 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://epa.gov/airtrends/2008/report/TrendsReportfull.pdfhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://epa.gov/airtrends/2008/report/TrendsReportfull.pdf


4/17


4 of 17


5/17


3. WATER POLLUTION

3.1 Water quality increasing

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002


Water qualitymeasured by miles of rivers and percentage of lakes that are drinkable and

swimmableis up around the country, and in some cases dramatically so. Sports fishing has returnedto all five of the Great Lakes; the number of fishing advisories has fallen; and a debate has started

concerning the scientific basis of many of the remaining advisories.

4. GLOBAL WARMING

4.1 Scientific community doesn't believe GW is a threat

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), HeartlandPresident Addresses Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland

Institute), May 29,2004

5 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


6/17



ironmentalism.html

Mr. Pope also talked a little about global warming, which is the fourth thing Ive learned

something about. The audience nearly shouted him down when he claimed, during the question andanswer session, that 95 percent of climatologists believe mankind is causing global warming. The

audience was right: 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Institute petition saying there is no need

to adopt policies to prevent or postpone climate change. The last survey of state climatologists in theU.S. found a large majority of them didnt believe global warming was a threat.

4.2 Even IPCC scientists unsure about GW




ironmentalism.html

Are all those scientists wrong? I dont think so. The scientists who contributed to the prestigious

reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made it abundantly clear that we

know too little about how the global climate works to predict future warming. You dont hear much

about that because the media only quotes the summary for policymakers--which was written by UNbureaucrats, not the actual authors of the reports. The scientists werent even asked to approve the

summary ... but all their doubts and qualifiers are preserved in the full reports. Both the former

chairman of the IPCC, Bert Bolin, and the lead author of the science chapter of the 1995 report,Benjamin Santor, which did a lot to trigger the global warming scare, have both admitted (in Bolins

words) the science is not settled.

4.3 Science does not prove global warming


President Addresses Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland

Institute), May 29,2004http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Env

ironmentalism.html

Satellites recording the planets temperature for the past 24 years have found no warming trend,

or at worst a warming of a tenth of one degree Celsius ... or about half a degree a century. You can go toNASAs Web site and look it up yourself, or go to Heartlands Web site at www.heartland.org and

download a recent issue of Environment & Climate News. We print graphs in every issue showing the

entire satellite database for the planet and separately for the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Theland-based temperature stations that alarmists and their allies in the media often cite can measure only

6 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


7/17


about 20 percent of the planets surface, mostly in areas close to cities and airports where they are

contaminated by urban heat. Rural temperature stations show no warming at all.

4.4 GW theory doesn't make sense




ironmentalism.html

The global warming theory just doesnt make sense:- Carbon dioxide is too small a player in atmosphere dynamics to cause the changes predicted by the

alarmists. Water vapor is the major player, and the latest science says it is not amplifying the minute

amount of warming caused by rising carbon dioxide levels.- Paleoclimatologists say the world entered ice ages at time when carbon dioxide levels in the

atmosphere were higher than those currently predicted for the next 100 years.

- And even experts who think some global warming will take place have concluded it will have a netbeneficial effect on animal and plant life, since it will occur mostly at night, during the winter, and in

the coldest parts of the world.

4.5 GW is a political farce to raise money




http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.html

The anti-capitalist, anti-technology wing of the environmental movement cant let go of the

global warming scare for the same reason is cant give up the population explosion scare and theresource depletion scare. Do you know why? Its because it relies on scare tactics to raise money. Did

you know that Greenpeace alone mailed 43 million fundraising letters in 1990? At one time,

environmental groups accounted for more than 10 percent of all the junk mail delivered in the country.

I guess theyre not so opposed to landfills as they say they are.

4.6 Increased CO2 levels benefits ecosystem

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide, by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, published by the Journal ofAmerican Physicians and Surgeons, 2007

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

7 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


8/17


The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmentaleffect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to

live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and

diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth. As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant

growth rates increase. Also, leaves transpire less and lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are

able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increasesproportionally.

4.7 Hydrocarbons (created from burning fuel) important




Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. Thiscivilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations.

Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting

this technology. Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is

especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient tomeet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through

misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind

significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity willstop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.

Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.

4.8 Observed climate change is within bounds of natural change


Dioxide, by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, published by the Journal of

American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

All of the observed climate changes are gradual, moderate, and entirely within the bounds of

ordinary natural changes that have occurred during the benign period of the past few thousand years.

There is no indication whatever in the experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable change in any ofthe ordinary natural climate variables is beginning or will begin to take place.

4.9 Computer climate models unreliable

8 of 17
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


9/17





The computer climate models upon which human-caused global warming is based have

substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a

coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties bycomparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the

parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic

influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.

4.10 GW fails experimentally as well as theoretically




In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an

experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earths

temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effecton the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close

correlation with increasing solar activity. Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed

experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling fromnegative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature

rise (84,86).

4.11 No reason to regulate GHG's




There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon

use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to

cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limithuman production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed

(82,83,97,123).

9 of 17
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfhttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


10/17


4.12 Significant number of scientists reject GW theory

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Global Warming Petition Project, accessed February 15,2010 http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of settled science and anoverwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent

climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the

petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a

few skeptics remain skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic

human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,029 PhDs,are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is

evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not skeptics.

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis iswithout scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would

unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of

the Earth.

Actual text of petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written

in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits ongreenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and

damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeablefuture, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce

many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

4.13 Ludicrousness of past GW prophecies

WORLD Magazine, Snowed, by Timothy Lamer (journalist),January 30, 2010http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16314

In March 2000, climate scientist David Viner made a bold prediction. Within a few years,because of global warming, snowfall in Britain would become "a very rare and exciting event," the

senior research scientist at Britain's Climatic Research Unit told the Independent. "Children just aren't

going to know what snow is." Almost 10 years later, they know. All of them do. A NASA satelliteimage in early January showed snow covering the whole of Britainand the British weren't alone. The

Rutgers University Global Snow Lab reports that the Northern Hemisphere in December had the

second-greatest snow cover for that month since 1966, when records began.

10 of 17
http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.phphttp://www.worldmag.com/articles/16314http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.phphttp://www.worldmag.com/articles/16314


11/17


4.14 Major companies drop out of USCAPWashington Post, ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar quit USCAP, By Steven Mufson (Washington

Post Staff Writer, February 17, 2010http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.html

ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar have dropped out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership

(USCAP), the coalition of corporations and environmental groups that has been most prominent inpushing Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation. The loss of three major companies has dealt a blow

to the now 28-member group and further dims prospects for the cap-and-trade bill that passed the

House last summer and is awaiting action in the Senate.

4.15 Foundational GW studies found to be deceptive

WORLD Magazine, Cooking up a heat wave, Timothy Lamer, December 19, 2009

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16179

Just as world leaders were preparing to meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change,thousands of hacked emails and documents from one of the world's leading climate research institutes

raised fundamental questions about the science behind global warming theory. The emails came from

the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, and they revealed a

pattern of groupthink and deception among influential climate scientists.The "Climategate" scandal that ensued has three main elements:

The manipulation of (often poor) data. In one email, CRU director Phil Jones discusses a "trick" he

used "to hide the decline" in some temperature readings. In another lengthy document, a computerprogrammer for CRU laments "the hopeless state of our databases," which were riddled with false

information and guesswork: "It's botch after botch after botch." Another emailer, Kevin Trenberth of

the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, shows an intense desire for the science toproduce a specific result: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and

it is a travesty that we can't."

The manipulation of the peer review process to freeze out critics. In one email, Jones discusses somecritical research: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will

keep them out somehoweven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Several

emails show Jones and others discussing ways, including a boycott, to pressure journal editors not to

publish articles by skeptical scientists. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothingmore to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones writes about the journal

Climate Research after it published research that he didn't like.

At first, the mainstream press in the United States largely ignored the story and environmentalactivists tried to shrug it off, but the CRU is not some backwater outfit. Both the UN's Intergovern

mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency use its

research extensively; the scandal would not just go away. Penn State announced on Nov. 30 that itwould conduct an inquiry into the emails involving Michael Mann, and the next day Jones said he

11 of 17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.htmlhttp://www.worldmag.com/articles/16179http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.htmlhttp://www.worldmag.com/articles/16179


12/17


would step down as CRU director while the University of East Anglia investigates the scandal. Sen.

James Inhofe, R-Okla., is pushing for a Senate hearing on the matter.What's clear now is that the wind is at the back of scientists who are skeptical about catastrophic

global warming. "After reading the Climategate emails," joked atmospheric physicist Fred Singer

during a Dec. 2 briefing in the European Parliament, "we have realized that global warming may be'manmade' after all."

4.16 Public belief in GW declining

Pew Academic Research Center, Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming, October22, 2009 http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there

is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very

serious problem 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008. The latest national survey by thePew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults

reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average

temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said therewas solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

5. FOSSIL FUEL

5.1 Depletion of fossil fuels not a threat




ironmentalism.html

A third truth Ive discovered is that we will never run out of fossil fuels. According to RobertBradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, estimated global reserves of oil are sufficient to

last 114 years; natural gas, 200 years; and coal, 1,884 years. What kind of person doesnt think the

human species will have figured out a way to switch over to fusion or some other yet-to-be-discovered

fuel source 18 centuries from now? Someone who hasnt read Ayn Rand or watched a Star Wars movie,Ill bet.

5.2 Ideas about oil depletion are mistaken (historical example)

Robin M. Mills (Petroleum Economics Manager for the Emirates National Oil Company in Dubai),The Myth of the Oil Crisis, (book) Ch. 1, Published by Praeger Publishers, Copyright 2008

12 of 17
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


13/17


Now consider another news item: a leading economist, supported by an even more famous

colleague, has proposed that the energy supply of the greatest country in the world is in imminentdecline. He can see no solution to this problem. He predicts a future of energy deficits, industrial

collapse, and national decay. His ideas are taken seriously enough to induce the country's leader to

reduce the national budget accordingly. The date was 1865; the economist was William Jevons and hissupporter was political thinker John Stuart Mill, the nation was Britain, the leader was the renowned

Prime Minister William Gladstone, and the fuel was coal.

Today, inspired by high oil prices, a disparate group is repeating similar arguments. The peakoil camp argues that the point is imminent when the world's extraction of oil (and some contend, gas)

sill begin a rapid decline. Som conclude from this that an era of resource wars is approaching, and a

subset of them believes therefore that commercial, political, and military means should be used to

secure the remaining limited supplies for their favoured nation. Others welcome the onset of decline,seeing in it a solution to global climate change, caused by emissions of CO2 from burning coal, oil, and

gas. Yet others, some with an element of Schadenfreude, welcome the inevitable collapse of industrial

civilization and a return to a more natural way of life. In this book, I will argue that these ideas aboutpetroleum depletion and their consequences are mistaken and often grossly overstated.

5.3 Acting on nonexistent problem will be disastrous

Robin M. Mills (Petroleum Economics Manager for the Emirates National Oil Company in Dubai),The Myth of the Oil Crisis, (book) Ch. 1, Published by Praeger Publishers, Copyright 2008

1. The supply of oil and, even more, gas, from conventional and unconventional sources, is much

larger than that imagined by the pessimists.

2. Seeking political, military, or commercial control of oil supplies is unnecessary, self-defeating,and exorbitantly expensive.

3. Oil is merely one reasonably convenient source of energy. Opportunities exist to decrease

radically global consumption of oil while maintaining a healthy economy and betteringstandards of living in both rich and poor countries.

4. The environmental impact of fossil fuels, particularly in causing climate change, although the

most serious problem the world faces today, can be tackled by a portfolio of solutions, somehydrocarbon based, some not.

From these propositions, I will argue that believing the fallacious arguments about the end of oil will,

ironically, lead the world into flawed policy decisions, environmental and economic damage, and

international conflict.

5.4 Oil will become irrelevant before running out

Robin M. Mills (Petroleum Economics Manager for the Emirates National Oil Company in Dubai),

The Myth of the Oil Crisis, (book) Ch. 1, Published by Praeger Publishers, Copyright 2008

We have, therefore, no imminent shortage of oil and even less of gas, although we have

13 of 17


14/17


numerous substitues that will become increasingly competitive, and, as we begin to use them, we will

appreciate their cleanliness and convenience. As former Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani wiselyobserved, The stone age did not end for a lack of stones, and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of

oil. Ultimately, oil will not run out; it will simply become irrelevant.

6. PRIVATIZATION

6.1 Private organizations pwn government

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), HeartlandPresident Addresses Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland



ironmentalism.html

Theres a whole literature in economics, called public choice theory, that explains why

government doesnt work. Governments cant tap the knowledge of millions of consumers and

investors the way markets can with price systems and profit signals. Government rules and regulationsarent self-enforcing, the way voluntary contracts are. Special interest groups are able to control and

manipulate government agencies, while the general public is too uninformed and unmotivated to stop

them. The result is we have national, state, and local government environmental protection agencies

spending billions of dollars and imposing regulations that cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, allof it based on flawed information, relying on levels of bureaucracy and reams of rules and regulations

to try to prevent evasion and corruption, all subject to manipulation by polluters and rent-seekers. Its

no wonder this approach doesnt work.

6.2 Utilizing private sector makes sense



Radical environmental groups denounce the very idea of relying on the private sector to protect

the environment, but it should be no more controversial than having a private company collect your

garbage or repair potholes in your street.

6.3 Privatization works



14 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


15/17


Privatizationshifting goods and services out of the public sector and into the private sector

has spread to every corner of the globe. Nine out of ten municipalities in the U.S. now use privatebusinesses to manage their parks or water treatment facilities or provide janitorial, accounting, or some

other service. Over 90 percent report that contracting out saves them money, produces a higher quality

of service, or both.

6.4 Private sector motivated by market



In the private sector, business owners have an equity stake in getting the job done on time and

under budget. If they can find a way to reduce costs or produce a better service, they earn more money.

If they dont, a smarter competito r will take business away from them. In the public sector, bureaucratsdont have an equity stake in their departments or agencies, and if they fail to keep costs under control,

there is no competitor out there to which disappointed customers can switch.

7. MISCELLANEOUS

7.1 Prioritization in environmental policy is necessary

Heartland Institute (one of the nations best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), Common-Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002


Third, we need to prioritize problems, admitting some are more serious than others, and

admitting also that we have limited time and resources to invest in environmental protection. We mightas well get the most bang for the buck by addressing real, rather than imaginary, problems. Thats all

cost-benefit analysis means. Its a good idea.

7.2 No need to sacrifice rights to government in name of environmental protection


Sense Environmentalism, by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002


We now know that prosperity, private property rights, and freedom from an overly intrusivegovernment, all values that we share, need not be sacrificed to save the environment. We can have them

all, but it requires a new approach to environmentalism that relies more on science and less on hype.

15 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html


16/17


7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

Pew Academic Research Center, Environment, Immigration, Health Care Slip Down the List:Economy, jobs trump all other policy priorities in 2009, January 22, 2009 http://people-

press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdf

As Barack Obama takes office, the publics focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy

concerns particularly the economy. Strengthening the nations economy and improving the job

situation stand at the top of the publics list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priorityplaced on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care

costs has fallen off from a year ago. Of the 20 issues people were asked to rate in both January 2008

and January 2009, five have slipped significantly in importance as attention to the economy has surged.

Protecting the environment fell the most precipitously just 41% rate this as a top priority today, downfrom 56% a year ago. The percentage rating illegal immigration as a top priority has fallen from 51% to

41% over the past year, and reducing crime has fallen by a similar amount (from 54% to 46%). And

while reducing health care costs remains a top priority to 59% of Americans, this is down 10-pointsfrom 69% one year ago.

16 of 17
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdfhttp://people-press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdfhttp://people-press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdfhttp://people-press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdfhttp://people-press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdf


17/17


7.4 Source indictmentleft-wing environmental groups: Sierra Club, Greenpeace,Environmental Defense, Union of Concerned Scientists (can be applied to other such

organizations)




ironmentalism.html

The anti-capitalist, anti-technology wing of the environmental movement cant let go of the

global warming scare for the same reason is cant give up the population explosion scare and theresource depletion scare. Do you know why? Its because it relies on scare tactics to raise money. Did

you know that Greenpeace alone mailed 43 million fundraising letters in 1990? At one time,

environmental groups accounted for more than 10 percent of all the junk mail delivered in the country.I guess theyre not so opposed to landfills as they say they are. You dont think the Sierra Club,

Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the other left-wing

environmental groups rely on fear to raise money? Check you mail box when you get home tonight.

17 of 17
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Environmentalism.html

status quo pro hs

Documents