A Conservative Energy Agenda (Excellent Read!)

When uttered with respect to energy, the statement “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” should make Americans shudder. For almost four decades, with just a brief interregnum under part of the Reagan Administration, the government has created our energy problems and then tried to convince Americans to yield their liberties to the government to make things better. Nothing has been solved; since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, it has only gotten worse.

North America has enormous supplies of energy. But wherever they exist, producing them has become more a matter of controversy than of common sense, and the consequences have been profound.

The seemingly endless opposition to all energy forms but those most exotic, expensive and unproven has not been by happenstance, it’s been a campaign. It is time for those who believe in our country to recognize that we have a fight on our hands; time for American citizens to take back the energy their government will not allow them to use. In short, what’s needed most urgently is a conservative energy agenda. And there’s no better foundational principal for it than the idea of getting government out of the way.

As the only developed nation in the world that restricts access to its offshore resources, the first element of a conservative energy agenda must be to lift the Presidential and Congressional moratoria on deepwater outer-continental shelf (OCS) energy exploration and production. Currently, 97% of America’s 2 billion acres of OCS are not being used for their energy potential, even though the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the outer continental shelf contains nearly 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (The U.S. consumes roughly 7.5 billion barrels of oil and 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually) President Bush should have torn up the executive version years ago so Congress could decide whether it wants to be the only thing standing between Americans and cheaper energy.

It’s beyond parody that the Chinese -- working with the Venezuelans -- are planning to begin drilling for oil off the west coast of Florida while American companies are barred from doing so.

Our “access denied” energy policy doesn’t end with offshore oil, either. Government needs to get out of the way of producing energy onshore, on lands owned by the taxpayers. First, Americans must demand repeal the Congressional prohibition precluding oil shale leases on nationalized lands. In 2005, Congress directed the government come up with a program to lease America’s oil shale resources -- the largest oil supply in the world – for American consumers. The United States has 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. This is more than 7 times the amount of crude oil reserves found in Saudi Arabia, and is enough to meet current U.S. demand for over 250 years.

According to the U.S Department of Energy (DOE), “Once developed, U.S. oil shale resources will be similar in extent and energy potential to Alberta’s tar sand reserves. When oil shale and tar sands are considered together, the United States and Canada will be able to claim the largest oil reserves in the world.” Two years after telling the government to develop shale, in 2007, Congress adopted a rider that prohibited the Department of Interior from finishing the job it was assigned in 2005. The result: United States is still without a program to bring this massive resource to market for American consumers. This must change if we aim to get serious about energy supplies.

Perhaps the most notable example of the government’s economic and strategic masochism is Congress’ refusal to approve oil and gas production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 1980, a month before he left office, President Jimmy Carter and the Congress set aside 1.5 million of ANWR’s 19 million acres for potential oil development, subject to Congressional approval. Ronald Reagan asked Congress to open it in 1987. According to U.S. government estimates, ANWR could produce about as much oil per day as Texas. The government has stopped Americans from increasing our proven oil reserves by 50%, not because it is special (it’s not) or because it’s “the last wilderness” (it’s not) or because of caribou (which have grown in numbers at Prudhoe Bay, next door to ANWR), but because it has become symbolic of the fight over domestic energy.

Moreover, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently estimated that ANWR energy production would generate about $200 billion in federal tax and royalty revenue. If approved by Congress, ANWR would be the single largest producing oil field in America and the entire Northern Hemisphere. The Left knows that if politicians get a taste of the money that would be generated for the budget from ANWR, they would begin to change their positions in support of US energy development.

That brings us to continental cooperation, and appointing the U.S. Commission on North American Energy Freedom as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As part of the federal government’s national energy policy, Congress established the 16-member Commission on North American Energy Security, and directed the President to appoint representatives from the United States. The President has failed to do so.

North America’s energy resource base is enormous. It includes the world’s largest oil shale deposits, the world’s largest coal deposits, and the world’s largest oil sands reserves. Combined, these resources are sufficient to power North America for centuries, giving us plenty of time to transition to new energy sources as they become affordable. Meanwhile, all of North America would benefit from more indigenous energy production. A coordinated effort between the United States, Canada and Mexico -- could help unlock North American energy policy and put us once again in charge of our own destiny. Along the way, it would help with our illegal immigration problem; if Mexico strengthens its economy through energy development, there will be more opportunities for work at home. Currently, that money is going to the far-flung reaches of the world.

We also need to repeal Section 526 which prohibits federal contracting for “nonconventional” sources of petroleum. This section, inserted by Congressman Henry Waxman, stops U.S. federal agencies from contracting to buy the frontier fuels of the future based on how they are made. Investment in frontier fuels will play a critical role in reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. Advanced fuel technologies, including coal-to-liquids, natural gas-to-liquids, fuel from oil shale, and fuel from Canadian oil sands are specifically targeted by Section 526. This makes no sense. America cannot run the world’s greatest economy on expensive and imported energy for much longer. It is time to use our own supplies, and America has no shortage. We simply lack the political will to push government aside and put Americans to work producing them. As soon as that happens, our frontier energy sources -- which rival those of any other continent in the world -- could set America on a path to a stronger, more robust and more secure future. But first, government has got to get out of our way.

Individuals, Liberty and the Environment

The American Conservation Ethic
© 1996 by the National Wilderness Institute
P.O. Box 25766, Washington, DC 20007
ph: (703)836-7404 fx: (703)836-7405 E-mail: nwi@nwi.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20060402205422/http://nwi.org/

Preface

The American Conservation Ethic is grounded in experience, science, wisdom and the enduring values of a free people. It affirms that people are the most important natural resource and that we must be good stewards of the world around us for this and future generations. It is founded upon a deep respect for the wonder, beauty and complexity of creation and is dedicated to the wise use of nature’s bounty. It reflects every American’s aspiration to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for our future, and it draws its strength from the most powerful force for improving our environment free people.

The American Conservation Ethic works because, like the American people, it is practical. It applies the tried and true principles of individual rights and responsibilities to the conservation of our natural resources. Property rights create incentives that both reward good stewardship and empower individuals to protect their property from the harmful acts of others. The guarantee that we shall reap the fruits of our labor inspires the investment of time, money and effort necessary to expand upon centuries of accumulated arts and sciences. As we learn more, we are better able to be good stewards of natural resources.

The American Conservation Ethic relies upon science as a tool to guide public policy. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health and measuring other environmental impacts. Foremost among our measures of environmental quality are human health and well-being. Science also provides a means of assessing the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts. Central to the American Conservation Ethic is the understanding that scientific development, technological innovation and economic growth are essential for a cleaner, healthier and safer environment. As we increase our knowledge, we improve our productivity, efficiency and potential to innovate and these achievements conserve energy, raw materials and other valuable resources. As we learn more about the natural world we discover how to get more than ever before from the resources we use. Progress provides the know-how, time and financial resources needed to fulfill our aspirations to improve the health, beauty and productivity of America.

The American Conservation Ethic is established on the fact that renewable natural resources are not fragile and static but resilient and dynamic. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create resources anew. Because these resources are continually renewed they can be used in a wise and responsible manner without the fear that they will be lost forever. Through progress we come to better understand renewable natural resources and the relationships among them. The knowledge gained improves our ability to wisely use and conserve these treasures for the benefit of current and future generations.

The American Conservation Ethic promotes workable means to reach our environmental goals, rather than depending on an inefficient centralized environmental bureaucracy. By relying on the first-hand knowledge and practical experience of local people and accounting for widely varying conditions, a site and situation specific approach provides practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face. The greater the degree to which solutions to environmental problems reflect the knowledge, needs and desires of those individuals most affected, the more successful they will be.

America has unsurpassed natural wealth. Our abundant mountains, plains, forests and coasts, our lakes, rivers and streams, our wildlife and fish are unique in all of the world. They have provided for and have been cherished by millions of Americans for generation after generation. Our people living, growing and creating within our rich culture of liberty are our greatest resource. Americans today clearly aspire to improve upon our tradition of wisely using and conserving the world around us for generations to come. The American Conservation Ethic is the way to fulfill these aspirations.

The American Conservation Ethic recognizes that free people work to improve the environment. It relies upon empowering individuals to use, enjoy and conserve our environment. It inspires and challenges individual Americans to improve their surroundings and lives, and thereby the world we share. Cumulatively, these are the most effective and dependable means to ensure a cleaner, healthier and safer environment, conserve America’s unique resources and protect that which we all treasure most people and liberty.

Principles of the American Conservation Ethic

I. People are the most important resource.

All environmental policy should be based on the idea that people are the most important resource. The inherent value of each individual is greater than the inherent value of any other resource. Accordingly, the foremost measure of quality of our environment is human health, safety and well-being. A policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. The best judge of what is or is not desirable is the affected individual.

Human intellect and accumulated knowledge are the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved or modified. Environmental policies should inspire people to be good stewards. Within the framework of equity and liability individuals carry out deeds that create incremental benefits in the quality or quantity of a resource or improve some aspect of the environment. Cumulatively these deeds result in progress and provide direct and indirect environmental benefits to society.

II. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.

Renewable natural resources trees, plants, soil, air, water, fish and wildlife and collections thereof wetlands, deserts, forests and prairies are the resources we are dependent upon for food, clothing, medicine, shelter and to meet innumerable other human needs. Human life depends upon their use and conservation. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create them anew. While all living organisms and activities produce byproducts, nature has a profound ability to carry, recycle, recover and cleanse. These characteristics make it possible for us to wisely use renewable resources now while ensuring they are conserved for future generations. As Teddy Roosevelt, a founding father of conservation, recognized: “A Nation treats its resources well if it turns them over to the next generation improved and not impaired in value.”

III. The most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements lie in extending the protection of private property and unleashing the creative powers of the free market.

Ownership inspires stewardship. Private property stewards have the incentive to enhance their resources and the incentive to protect them. Polluting another’s property is to trespass or to cause injury. Polluters, not those most vulnerable in the political process, should pay for damages done to others. Good stewardship is the wise use or conservation of nature’s bounty, based on our needs. With some exception, where property rights are absent, we must seek to extend them. If this proves elusive, we must seek to bring the forces of the market to bear to the greatest extent possible. There is a direct and positive relationship between modern market economies and a clean, healthy and safe environment. There is also a direct and positive relationship between the complexity of a situation and the need for freedom. Markets reward efficiency, which is environmentally good, while minimizing the harm done by unwise actions. In the market, successes are spread by example, and since costs are not subsidized but are borne privately, unwise actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. As a result, such actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. We must work to decouple conservation policies from regulation or government ownership. In aggregate, markets not mandates, most accurately reflect what people value and therefore choose for their environment.

IV. Our efforts to reduce, control and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.

The term pollution is applied to a vast array of substances and conditions that vary greatly in their effect on man. It is used to describe fatal threats to human health, as well as to describe physically harmless conditions that fall short of someone’s aesthetic ideal. Pollutants occur naturally or can be a by-product of technology. Their origin does not determine their degree of threat. Most carcinogens, for example, occur naturally but do not engender popular fear to the same degree that man-made carcinogens do. Microbiological pollutants, bacteria and viruses, though natural, are by far the most injurious form of pollution. Technology and its byproducts must be respected but not feared. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health or assessing and measuring other environmental impacts. Health and well-being are our primary environmental measures. Science also provides a means of considering the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts so that we may have a cleaner, healthier and safer environment.

V. The Learning Curve is Green.

As we accumulate additional knowledge we learn how to get more output from less input. The more scientific, technical and artistic knowledge we have, the more efficient we are in meeting our needs. As we gain knowledge, we are able to conserve by substituting information for other resources. We get more miles per gallon, more board-feet per acre of timber, a higher agricultural yield per cultivated acre, more GNP per unit of energy. Technological advancement confers environmental benefits. Progress made it possible for the American farmer of today to feed and clothe a population more than two and a half times the size of the one we had in 1910 and triple exports over the same time frame while lowering the total acreage in production from 325 million to 297 million acres. That is 28 million acres less, an area larger than the state of Louisiana that is now available for other uses such as wildlife habitat. American agriculture has demonstrated that as an unintended consequence of seeking efficiencies, there are environmental benefits. As Warren Brookes used to put it simply , “The learning curve is green.” This phenomenon has a tremendous positive effect on our environment and progress along the learning curve is best advanced by the relentless competition in the market to find the best or wisest use of a resource.

VI. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site and situation specific basis.

Resource management should allow for variation of conditions from location to location and time to time. A site and situation specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those closest to a resource are best able to manage it. Such practices allow us to set priorities and break problems down into manageable units. Natural resource managers, on site and familiar with the situation, whether tending to the backyard garden or the back forty pasture, are best able to determine what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are able to adapt management strategies to account for feedback and changes. A site and situation specific management scheme fits the particulars as no government mandate or standard can. Additionally, a site and situation specific approach is more consistent with policies carried out at lesser political levels. The closer the management of natural resources is to the affected parties, the more likely it is to reflect their needs and desires. The more centralized management is, the more likely it is to be arbitrary, ineffectual or even counterproductive. A site and situation specific approach avoids the institutional power and ideological concerns that dominate politicized central planning.

VII. Science should be employed as a tool to guide public policy.

Societal decisions rely upon science but ultimately are the product of ethics, beliefs, consensus and many other processes outside the domain of science. Understanding science for what it is and is not is central to developing intelligent environmental polices. Science is the product of the scientific method, the process of asking questions and finding answers in an objective manner. It is a powerful tool for understanding our environment and measuring the consequences of various courses of action. Through science we can assess risks, as well as weigh costs against benefits. While science cannot be substituted for public policy, public policy on scientific subjects should reflect scientific knowledge. A law is a determination to force compliance with a code of conduct. Laws go beyond that which can be established with scientific certainty. Laws are based upon normative values and beliefs and are a commitment to use force. Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based upon scientific opinions rather than scientific facts. Such laws are likely to be wasteful, disruptive or even counterproductive, as scientific opinions change profoundly and often at a faster pace than public policy. The notion behind the Hippocratic oath first do no harm should govern the enactment of public policy.

VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.

Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.

Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.

bttt

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.