Bashing Friedman

It seems environmentalists bashing Thomas Friedman is the new fad. If you don’t know Tom, he won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting he did in the Middle East in the 1980s. He now write for the New York Times and is most recently known for his book about globalization, The World is Flat, and his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America. I’ve read the later two and catch most his NYT’s op-eds.

I’m frankly a little amazed at how chic it has become for “progressives” to attack Friedman about his environmental writing. It’s no surprise that Tom would come under fire from the left in general, though. He’s not far left on most issues by any stretch of the imagination. He’s adamantly free trade and initially supported the Iraq war. In Hot, Flat, and Crowded, however, he advocates some policy measures that many moderates would view as radical. He calls for market signals, such as a carbon tax, gas tax, and commitments to have renewables make up a certain proportion of the US’ energy. This little op-ed sums up his main points pretty well: Mother Nature’s Dow.

So, let’s take a look at these criticisms of Friedman, shall we? Here’s the first one I saw:

Someone Take Away Thomas Friedman's Computer Before He Types Another Sentence. First of all, I have to concede this is well written and hilarious. Especially witty is his discussion of how Friedman draws a connection between the price of oil and the amount of freedom in oil-producing counties by plotting a couple points. The writer rightly pokes fun at his methods but doesn’t bother disputing the fact that Friedman is right. He starts his rant by complaining about how big Friedman’s house is and how rich his wife is. This argument smacks of idiot right wingers discounting what Al Gore has to say about climate change just because he owns a mansion.

Then there’s this piece by Brian Keane where he bashes Friedman for saying "My motto is change your leaders, not your light bulbs." Friedman is not advocating that people shouldn’t do some simple things to increase energy efficiency; he’s saying that’s not enough. A “revolution” is needed, he states, which entails hard work and pain. I thought environmentalists would agree, but instead they mock him.

Here’s a piece this week that attacks Friedman for originally accepting (then returning) a $75,000 speaker fee. Sure, Friedman didn’t need to take that fee even if wasn’t from a public agency. But then of course we get the commentors who pile on and contend he’s “a fraud” and “no expert on environmental matters.” Of course, when pressed for answers about which assertions in Hot, Flat and Crowded they disagree with, they can’t come up with anything.

Listen, I know Friedman isn’t a revolutionary or anything. He didn’t come up with all these grandiose ideas himself. And yes, he and his family could do a little better themselves as far as limiting environmental impacts go. I have no problem with calling out Friedman, but let’s discuss how his arguments fail, not about this writing style or house. I have no problem with leveling legitimate concerns about Friedman’s positions on other issues. But all that doesn’t invalidate the points he makes in Hot, Flat and Crowded.

Friedman has a large and diverse readership, folks which otherwise might not hear the message. It even helps that he’s not a traditional greenie. Right wing dolts can call Al Gore a "liberal socialist environmentalist," as if that discounts the truth of his message. Those labels just don’t stick to Friedman, which is why he’s a positive addition to our effort.

Time to spend more energy attacking the real problems/perpetrators and leave Friedman alone to spread an important message. It’s hard to argue Friedman isn’t a net benefit to the environmental movement.

Reacting to conservative reaction of EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases

Two years ago, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration ignored the ruling. The Obama administration has different thoughts.

Last Friday the EPA formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.

Conservative columnist Johan Goldberg wrote a piece on Earth Day called “EPA is Choking Democracy.” Check it out, it’s good for howling laugh. This is the same type of drivel pouring from conservative outlets throughout the US. Let’s take a closer look at Mr. Goldberg’s argument, shall we?

It takes no longer than the opening paragraph to encounter gross ignorance: “One of the most important events of our lifetimes may have just transpired. A federal agency has decided that it has the power to regulate everything, including the air you breathe.” Um, Jonah, that happened under the passing of the Clean Air Act and its extension in 1970, which gave the newly created EPA authority to regulate air quality. What do you think the EPA has been doing for the last 40 years? I know it gets your panties in a wad, but regulating the air we breathe is their job. Wow, how “important” it is that EPA has decided to do its job.

Maintaining that this action is an injustice to democracy is absurd. I thought Johan would know about how the judicial system in the United States works, but apparently he doesn’t. The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and they are not subject to a democratic process. Let’s see, were we allowed to vote whether black students should be allowed to go to school with whites? Choking democracy! Choking democracy!

Instead of getting mad at the EPA and Democrats, maybe Mr. Goldberg should rant about the Supreme Court, which just happens to be the most conservative court in our lifetimes. Maybe he should argue that the court made the wrong decision instead of getting mad at the government for following that ruling. Say, after the first black student was allowed in a white school in the south, was Jonah attacking the school that let him in?

Mr. Goldberg apparently thinks government agencies are also subject to a democratic process: “But there's still something troubling about an institution so immune to democratic control.” What?!? You mean agencies are supposed to ask us citizens what they want them to do? Hmm. I don’t remember being asked by the Bureau of Land Management whether to open the Roan Plateau to drilling. I didn’t remember the EPA asking Americans in 2008 what we thought about allowing California to establish stricter emission standards than the national standards. Again, Jonah, go back to Jr. High and study US government and tell me how agencies are not “immune to democratic control.”

Jonah mentions that Congress might take action, not the agency. This supposedly makes this an even worse violation of democracy. Um, if our elected legislative officials making laws isn’t democratic, what exactly is? Mr. Goldberg must think that not only do we get to vote on court cases, we get to vote on laws too! Wow. I don’t remember being asked about the war in Iraq. I must have missed that election.

This is exactly how our government was set up to work. There is no gross injustice here. You just don’t like the court’s opinion. I know with this Supreme Court you’re not used to that. Now you know what it feels like. I feel SOOOOO sorry for you, chief. I thought you conservatives were all about the constitution and rule of law and stuff. Guess that only applies when the law rules in your favor. Shocking.

Somali Piracy

As you must all know by now, a US vessel carrying food aid to Mombasa was high jacked by Somali pirates last week. The pirates have Captain Phillips hostage. The first thing most people are wondering is how in the hell there are pirates operating in 2009.

Well, half of the answer is that it’s just too expensive to have dozens of Navy vessels patrolling the Indian Ocean east of Somalia. It’s a vast area so protecting it all is not an option. We’re talking tens to hundreds of millions dollars a day to provide secure corridors for every US vessel. Ships are covered by insurance; a few million isn't much for them to pay. So, I don’t want to make light of this, but it’s not a big enough deal for shipping companies or the US government to pay what would be massive long-term costs. The other half of the answer is that Somalis are adept seamen and gunmen, and they have very few other options. Piracy is also common in Asian waters, as documented by National Geographic.

An article from Johann Hari called “You Are Being Lied to About Pirates” and “Toxic scandal in Somalia gave birth to new piracy” from Nomad.net describe some of the root causes at work here. European ships have been dumping toxic waste and fishing in Somali waters since 2005. As a result, Somalis formed an informal coast guard to patrol their waters and exact a “tax” on foreign vessels. I’m not trying to excuse this behaviour, just understand it.

The keyboard pundits are hammering on Obama for having a “weak” response. These chest thumpers think we should just blow every Somali boat out of the water. I have nothing wrong with enforcement, but more Somalis are surely ready to take their place. I see the point about deterring pirates, but in Somalia, most the other options for making a few bucks could result in death also. Killing these pirates is well and good, but the problem won’t go away until Somalia has a stable government and its people have other means of making a buck. (Unfortunately, how in the hell we facilitate a stable government in Somalia is a problem we haven’t come close to figuring out yet).

Friday the French Navy attacked the pirates and tried to rescue their hostage. The result was two dead pirates and one dead hostage. So, all these John Wayne types who think negotiating is a “joke” and killing a few pirates is the only solution: if the US Navy were to take your approach to this situation and (God forbid) have the same end result, do you have the balls to tell Captain Phillips’ family that in your vast expertise, you thought this was the right thing to do?

Let’s trust the Navy and FBI on this one. The pirates are surrounded, out of gas, and in over their heads. The vessel safely made it to Mombasa. No Americans have died yet. Seems things are going reasonably well for the situation. The best solution here is to give the pirates a jerry can of petrol, some food, and safe passage for the captain. Hang in there Captain Phillips, you’re in our thoughts.

UPDATE:
It seems literally as I was writing this rant, Captain Phillips was freed. Details are still scetchy, but it seems three Navy SEAL snipers put three bullets in the heads of three pirates. Phillips was rescued. The patient approach prevailed.

Update: Tim DeChristopher charged

Update: Back in January, I ranted about environmentalist Tim DeChristopher sabotaging a BLM oil and gas lease sale: http://freshconsciousness.blogspot.com/2009/01/rant-of-week-tim-dechristopher.html.

Well, the feds have charged him two federal felonies. Check out the NYTs article here. Although I stated that I admired Tim for his act of civil disobedience, I can’t see how his actions were legal. Unless they want to see future lease sales chalked full of impostors, I don’t see any other option the feds have here except to change him. Get a good lawyer and good luck Tim.

There are a few interesting things to think about here. Tim met his obligation to provide a $45,000 down payment on the leases he bought. However, I’m fairly certain he did not come up with the whole $1.7 million. I guess that’s where the fraud charge comes in. I would argue that Tim’s actions were legal all the way up to the point where he didn’t come up with the money.

I argued back in January that anyone, not just oil and gas companies, can bid on leases. Here’s what the BLM web site says about lessee qualifications:

Federal oil and gas leases may be obtained and held by any adult citizen of the United States. No lease may be acquired by a minor, but a lease may be issued to a legal guardian or trustee on behalf of a minor. Associations of citizens and corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State also qualify.

Aliens may hold interests in leases only by stock ownership in U.S. corporations holding leases and only if the laws of their country do not deny similar privileges to citizens of the United States. They may not hold a lease interest through units in a publicly traded limited partnership.

Tim meets those requirements. Now, someone could say, “yes, but Tim didn’t have the capital at the time of the lease sale; that’s fraud.” Well, oil and gas companies don’t have the capital that early either. That’s why they ask for a small down payment, to allow the companies time to come up with the millions.

So, why don’t conservation groups try to raise money to actually pay for leases? Let’s test the system and see if that’s legal.

A win for westerners

On March 25, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Lands Bill. The bill failed by two votes the first time a round a few weeks ago. The bill designated over 2 million acres of wilderness in the following western states:

California -- 750,000 acres of wilderness (deserts, mountains, redwoods)
Colorado -- 450,000 acres of wilderness (canyons and mountains)
Idaho -- 500,000 acres of wilderness (deserts and canyons)
New Mexico -- 16,000 acres of wilderness plus protections for dinosaur tracks and a cave formation
Oregon -- 200,000 acres of wilderness (deserts, forests, wildflower meadows)
Utah -- 235,000 acres of wilderness (canyon country)
Wyoming -- 1.2 million acres of national forest would be off limits to future oil and gas drilling
Check out a map of the designations here.

The bill doesn’t mean much for Colorado. It designates parts of Rocky Mountain National Park and Dominguez Canyon, both of which are currently have wilderness-like protections already. The designation of the Owyhee-Bruneau Wilderness in my home state of Idaho, however, was quite significant. For the last 8 years, the collaborative Owyhee Initiative worked out a wilderness designation that got the support of a wide range of interests. The Owyhee Initiative website states:

At the invitation of the Owyhee County Commissioners, groups began meeting to see if a collaborative solution was possible for some of the contentious natural resource issues particular to this area. The groups participating in the initiative which include ranchers, conservationists, county officials, recreationists, and others have used the following goal as their starting point:

To develop and implement a landscape-scale program in Owyhee County that preserves the natural processes that create and maintain a functioning, unfragmented landscape supporting and sustaining a flourishing community of human, plant and animal life, that provides for economic stability by preserving livestock grazing as an economically viable use, and that provides for protection of cultural resources.

If you guys don’t know Idaho and rural Idahoans, it’s hard to explain how amazing it was that these folks lined up behind environmentalists in a wilderness designation. I’m sure this approach was a breath of fresh air for locals. Many times wilderness designations in places where locals are typically anti-wilderness are conducted by outside environmentalists that go above the local communities straight to congress or the President (in the case of the Clinton/Babbitt last-minute National Monuments). But this time, wilderness interests sat at the table with the local communities and banged out a plan everyone could live with. Both Idaho Senators and one Representative voted for the bill. I can’t believe it, but for the first time in my life I’m proud of Mike Crapo and my Idaho Congressionals.

Although you might think all of the environmental community would cheer about Idaho politicians voting for a wilderness designation, there are a several detractors. Wilderness Watch, a group out of Missoula opposed the bill. On their web page they say:

The 1,246-page (Omni) contains … 15 separate wilderness bills. Many of the wilderness bills are relatively clean, meaning they don’t contain special provisions that will diminish the integrity of wilderness. However, at least two of the bills -- the Owyhee in Idaho, and the Washington County, Utah bills -- contain numerous harmful provisions that would open these areas to inappropriate activities such as the routine use of ATVs for herding livestock, motor vehicle use (including aircraft) and habitat manipulation by state fish and game agencies, and other damaging activities.

My favorite High Country News blogger Ray Ring lamented about the bill not passing the first time. His piece was met with ire by some environmentalists. A poster by the name of George maintained that the Dems should have taken more time to weed these issues out of the bill. He states:

If not, if Congress has tied itself up so tightly it can’t pass simple bills that have broad support, or has become so distracted with junkets and fundraising that there isn’t time to do the people’s business in a deliberative way, then it needs to fix the process, not resort to hasty, and destructive omnibus bills that trade away for political expediency deeply held American values, like Wilderness, wildlife protection, and democracy.

There are some good points are raised here, especially about the watering down of wilderness, which is everyone’s business. However, George’s idea of democracy is pretty different from mine. In the development of the Owyhee-Bruneau Wilderness, many folks of many different interests sat down at the table and came to an agreement. There is no better example of grassroots democracy. I guess George thinks democracy is outside groups coming in after the collaborative process and pulling out pieces of the agreement that were important in getting everyone to come to consensus. Never mind that small sacrifices local environmental interests made resulted in the support of local communities and local politicians. Unfortunately there are some enviros who still prefer forcing their agenda on local communities in a top-down matter. That’s not democracy to me.

Putting child labor in developing countries into perspective

Allow me try to put child labor in Africa or other developing regions into context. This is not meant to excuse child labor, merely to explain what I’ve seen while living in Kenya. I guess the most important thing to remember is that many families are extremely poor. They probably only eat one meal a day, and that they are grateful for. Forcing your children to contribute to your daily meal is more a necessity than cruel, greedy oppression.

To me, the cruellest part of child labor is denying that child a chance at an education, and thereby a hope at a future better than their parents. Now, remember that school in many developing countries is not free. Even in Kenya, where the government does have an official free primary school (grades 1-8) system, parents are responsible for buying school supplies, such as a uniform, books, pens, etc. This is a minor cost, but it can be very significant for the poorest of the poor. Many families simply cannot afford to send their children to primary school.

So if the child is not going to go to school anyway, what’s wrong with asking them to work in the farm with his/her parents? That doesn’t make it any less horrible for the child, but come on, in many situations all family members need to contribute in order for the family to live. Most child labor in Africa is children working on small family subsistence farms. For some reason, I view working on a farm less tragic than sending your 10 year old to work in a coal mine, for example. What if the child is forced to work on the farm after school or on weekends? American children are “forced” to do chores, right? Again, the important point to me is that a child gets an education.

A common form of child labor for girls in Africa and other developing countries is working as a made or housegirl. A family does not even need to be wealthy to be able to hire a housegirl, at least part-time--middle class will do. These are viewed as good opportunities for young girls, and in some cases the girls are happy to have it. They have no chance at going to school (secondary school is not free so only the middle-class and above can afford it, so working in a house is really the next best option. They can work from age 12-18 and accrue quite a savings, as they spend very little money while they work. This money can make them more independent and less likely to marry the first man that comes along. They can send money to their families, providing food for younger siblings.

I guess my point is that after understanding child labor in Africa, I view it as “less horrible,” because it’s a matter of life and death for the child and his/her family, and they might not be losing out on an opportunity to go to school by working. It's also largely a matter of degree: the age of the child, the work being done, etc.

I’ve always preferred not to shove western cultural norms on other communities. We’re not the most kind society either in some respects, so it can come of as being hypocritical and patronizing. Some Americans view others as “barbarians,” but they’re the ones who take care of their elders instead of hiding them away in nursing homes. We have no problem exploiting our 5 year old girls for beauty pageants and our 10 year old boys for Little League world series on ESPN.

However, this doesn’t mean we can’t support the cause of children in developing countries. There are child labor organizations you can donate too, but I’d be careful of unintended consequences--again, a working child could make the difference between life and death for some of the poorest families. We can also lobby to change some of the root causes of poverty in developing countries, like insisting on improving governance if developing countries want aid money, or pushing for fair trade so African agricultural exports are on a level playing field. Africans want the same things for their children than we do: an education and the best chance to succeed in life. These things can be realized only if poverty is reduced.

Rant of the Week: Emergency Solar Power Permit Act

On February 11, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced H.R. 6527, the “Emergency Solar Power Permit Act,” in response to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) effective freeze on approving solar project applications.A backlog of 130 pending applications currently exists dating back to 2005 without a single application being approved because BLM is waiting on Environmental Impact Statements from the applicants. The Emergency Solar Power Permit Act would waive the requirement to produce an Environmental Impact Statement in order to expedite the process and allow clean, environmentally friendly, renewable energy to begin development.

“Regulatory and political obstructionism has created this energy shortage that has lead to such high prices,” said Rohrabacher. “These bureaucratic impediments are now even damaging the possibility of fully utilizing solar energy which is the supposed darling of the environmental movement. This bill helps remove some of those regulatory roadblocks for solar energy and we need to be moving forward on all fronts to address the current energy crisis.”

According to a recent New York Times article, the BLM had “placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact.” The moratorium on accepting applications has since been lifted, however, applications are still not being approved in a timely manner.

I believe part of reason the BLM was not (and is not) processing solar energy projects because they are in the process of preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on solar development across all BLM lands: http://solareis.anl.gov/. This was likely what the BLM talking about when they said they “placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact.” However, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if this was also used by the Bush administration to clog up the works.

BLM prepared a Programmatic EIS on wind development in 2005 and Geothermal leasing in 2008. However, once this PEIS is finalized, I’m not sure if that would allow the BLM to perform less extensive Environmental Assessments (EAs) instead of the long and lengthy EISs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dictates when an EIS versus an EA should be performed and this is the crux of it: When environmental impacts are not “significant” (which is defined in NEPA and has been refined by the courts), a federal agency can prepare an EA and sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). However, when environmental impacts are significant, an EIS must be prepared. I didn’t know NEPA, the cornerstone of environmental laws, was “obstructionism” or a “bureaucratic impediment.”

While I support eliminating any impediments to solar development, I think we should level the playing field, not give solar projects a break compared to other projects of similar impact. For example, agencies have to prepare EISs for coal mines and natural gas/oil field development proposals, because these projects can have significant impacts. Couldn’t the same be said for a huge wind farm or several square miles of solar panels? Just one example of a significant impact from a large-scale solar project is the habitat is rendered completely unusable to wildlife, just as much as a strip mine and moreso than a gas field.

For this reason, this bill might not pass muster. We would need to change NEPA to say, “Agencies must prepare an EIS when environmental impacts are significant, unless the impacts are from solar projects.” This should be interesting to watch, especially the response from the environmental community, which advocate both for requiring extensive environmental analysis and pushing for renewable energy development.