Science & Environmentalism


Al Gore declares there is no such thing as ethical oil

Oil Drilling Platform in the Santa Barbara CA ChannelFormer vice president Al Gore recently spoke before a Toronto audience where he railed against, among other things, the Keystone pipeline.

Disappointed that lawmakers in the United States haven’t been doing more to stop projects that would bring oil to America, Gore reflected that the lack of gumption to stop the pipeline was most likely because people were failing to take the issue personally. He said that when people view these issues as a matter of personal values, they are more likely to take action:

“When these kind of issues settle into a choice between right and wrong, then the moral clarity that eventually develops makes it possible to move quickly.”

I absolutely agree.

We are surrounded by technology that oil has made possible, and sometimes it can be easy to forget exactly how valuable those things are to us. I’m taking a moment today to reflect on some of those values.

Oil makes fuel which has allowed us to make trips that would never have been possible just one hundred years ago. Kerosene-based rocket fuel put men on the moon and satellites into space that allow us to find our location anywhere on Earth, listen to music or watch television, track storms and communicate worldwide.

The gasoline which powers our automobiles makes journeying to stay in touch with family easy. In the mid-1800s my great-great-grandfather moved away from the family farm in Wisconsin to make his own way in the neighboring state of Minnesota. He never saw his brothers and sisters again, and his children never met their grandparents. There was never any bad blood between them; it was simply that the distance between the two farms was too great to make visiting possible. He packed up, made the journey and never looked back. There were just 400 miles between the two farms.

Oil-based technologies now make that journey easy—simply jump into your car and go. Mechanized combines and diesel tractors unburden a farmer from a great deal of physical labor and make a weekend trip possible—even in the dead of a Minnesota winter.

Oil makes jet fuel. Living in California, I am able to see my family in Minnesota by simply boarding a commercial airplane. These vehicles can weigh over 800,000 pounds and sail through the sky, making a journey that would have taken my great-great-grandfather well over a hundred days had he chosen to travel the Oregon Trail out to California. A direct flight makes the trip in about five hours.

But a single barrel of oil makes more than just fuels–about 16% of each barrel goes toward making products such as: sunglasses, telephones, asphalt, dishwashers, microwaves, surf boards, refrigerators, umbrellas, roofing, shampoo, nylon rope, clothes, insect repellent, skis, footballs, water pipes, yarn, hair dye, movie film, soft contact lenses, artificial limbs, motorcycle helmets, syringes, CDs and DVDs, aspirin, deodorant, shoes, stuffed animals, pacifiers, extension cords and shower curtains.

The list goes on for pages. But even on this short list above, how many things are there that have made your life better, easier, safer, longer and happier?

Keep these precious things in mind the next time Al Gore or anyone else tells you that you should choose to give up these “unethical” values and force everybody else in the country to do the same.

Standing in front of this group in Canada, Gore’s message was clear. He rejected the idea that there was any circumstance, any use, any origin of oil that makes it justified, redeemable or proper to use.

“There’s no such thing as ethical oil,” he said. “There’s only dirty oil and dirtier oil.” This remark apparently triggered a round of audience applause.

Without any viable alternatives to oil, it is unclear how strangling the pipeline at the border will be a cause for celebration. Consider the view of morality implied in Gore’s outlook. On his view, human innovation, human health, human happiness and human flourishing—all these are dispensable, and should be sacrificed. In my view, moral clarity implies just the opposite and a well-due round of applause for oil.

Image: Creative Commons License Mike Baird via Compfight


The fight against malaria [podcast episode #05]

On this episode of Eye to Eye, I had the opportunity to interview Richard Tren, a leading proponent for the use of DDT in the fight against the deadly disease malaria. Spread by the bite of a mosquito, malaria currently claims the lives of over half a million people a year—most of them children living in Africa.

Tren, who hails from South Africa, experienced first-hand a devastating malaria epidemic in the 1990s and saw how the re-introduction of DDT quickly brought the disease under control. At the same time, he saw anti-DDT advocates at the U.N. Stockholm Convention pushing hard for a world-wide DDT ban. This led him to become a founder of the organization Africa Fighting Malaria, where he is a director to this day.

One point he made that I found particularly interesting was that although people are coming at the disease from many angles (some search for an ever-elusive vaccine, others work on drugs to assuage symptoms, and still others concentrate their efforts on controlling the mosquitoes that carry the disease), in the end, it is the amount of wealth that a nation has that is its best protection against diseases like malaria. Free economies, in his view, are key for nations to rise out of poverty. In his view, there is a certain danger with foreign aid in that it stops countries from using their own resources to create sustainable programs. Although Tren calls Americans “generous” in their willingness to help, he also makes the point that if the people and governments in affected countries choose not to combat the problem themselves, eradication may be hopeless. I would add that the only proper outlet for this generosity is private charity, and not taxpayer funded foreign aid.

Some of the other topics Mr. Tren discusses in the podcast include:

  • The problem of disappearing honey bees
  • The use of pesticides in agriculture
  • How DDT works
  • Rachel Carson and the book Silent Spring
  • The role of DDT in the eradication of malaria in the United States
  • What led to the ban on DDT in the United States, and the consequences for the rest of the world
  • The safety of DDT
  • The problem of insecticide resistance
  • The unfounded view of DDT as a dangerous chemical

Richard Tren is co-author of the book The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History and contributor to the book Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson.


Silent Spring Fifty Years Later [special Earth Day podcast]

Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring. In the book, biologist Rachel Carson describes a “silent” world without birdsong brought on as a result of the use of pesticides. Since it first hit book stands, Silent Spring stirred controversy. Some have praised the book for laying the foundation of the modern environmentalist movement and others have battled it for misrepresenting science, especially the life-saving insecticide DDT. This Earth Day, we will no doubt hear echoes of this debate and the ideology Rachel Carson laid out in her book.

In this episode of Eye to Eye, I sat down with Dr. Keith Lockitch, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, to discuss Silent Spring. In the interview, Dr. Lockitch addresses the claims made in Silent Spring about DDT and other pesticides. He also explains in what ways the book represents environmentalists’ view of man’s relationship with nature.

One of the most interesting points he brings up in the podcast is why a technological advance like DDT, despite the instrumental role it played in disease control, was nevertheless banned in the United States. Explaining how DDT works and citing examples from World War II, Dr. Lockitch gives the history of DDT that Rachel Carson shamefully left out of her book.


Coal? No. Gas? No. Fracking? No.

800px-Coal_mixing_machineCity officials in Los Angeles moved forward last month to comply with a state mandate that would drastically change the way its residents use energy. If the mandate goes forward, by the year 2027 no Los Angeleno will be allowed to use energy from a coal-fired plant.

Long-time coal opponent Evan Gillespie of the Sierra Club has publicly applauded the plan, stating “there is no [locality] in the country going faster and further” in banning coal-based energy.

Coal plants currently provide about 40% of the electric energy that residents of Los Angeles use to power their computers, microwaves and air conditioners. But supporters of the mandate claim that they don’t want to strangle L.A.’s access to the power its inhabitants depend on—they want to replace it with electricity generated from another source: natural gas. Currently, a natural-gas-powered plant that could handle the city’s needs does not exist, so officials have decided to use taxpayer money to convert a coal-fired plant in Utah that currently supplies the city into one that runs on natural gas. With advances in fracking, a technology that unlocks natural gas from previously unusable shale rock, natural gas promises to be on the forefront of cheap, abundant energy.

But it turns out that environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club want to put a stop to natural gas as well. According to the Sierra Club’s website, “It is clear that we cannot transition from one fossil fuel to another and expect to see major climate benefits. We need to move beyond natural gas.”

Converting the coal-fired plant in Utah to run on natural gas will cost an estimated $1 billion. If the Sierra Club is successful, fracking will also be stopped and the new $1 billion plant will stand idle, powering nothing, with nothing to burn but your money.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Our podcast on iTunes

A quick note: you can find the first two episodes of Eye to Eye on iTunes. To subscribe via iTunes, so you can easily download the podcast for listening on the go, please follow this link. Stay tuned for upcoming episodes.


The Science Gap

The recent leak of a United Nations report on climate change once again has the internet abuzz with climate change controversy. Every few years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a report with a detailed assessment of the current state of the climate. The fifth assessment report (AR5), which wasn’t scheduled to be released until later this year, offered a peek behind the curtain of the climate change “consensus.”

What has caused the controversy is not the leak itself, but what is contained in the report—admissions that throw uncertainty on what we have been told is the unassailable consensus on the future of the climate. Among the highlights is the current temperature plateau—for the past 15 years, there has been no warming (or cooling) trend—the global average surface temperature has remained relatively flat despite climate change computer models which predicted rising temperatures.

Some fumbling about by climate scientists is expected. The atmosphere, weather patterns and solar interaction is a complicated system and one that has yet to be accurately modeled by computers. Arctic ice cores have only recently been analyzed and scientists are still attempting to put the last 150 years of weather station data into context with this ice core data, which show ice ages and warming periods over the last 150,000 years. Despite the tenuous evidence, environmentalists encourage us to curb our CO2 emissions “just in case,” telling us that we are “better safe than sorry.”

Mostly we are led to believe that it won’t be that big of a deal to change the way the world uses energy—we can all make a difference, we’re told, by buying a more efficient car, changing what we eat or even simply switching to different light bulbs. But every once in a while, someone comes along to remind us that such minor adjustments are not at all what policy makers have in mind when it comes to climate change.

First there was Al Gore who said: “It’s important to change the light bulbs, but it’s much more important to change the laws.” More recently, Christiana Figueres, the woman in charge of United Nations talks aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions at the last Climate Change Conference in Doha, explains the “huge gap” that exists between what “science is demanding” and the political policy so far enacted to curb CO2 emissions.

What we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.

Here, once again, the true agenda is revealed. Curbing CO2 emissions to the degree climate policy advocates want is not a matter of minor adjustments. Reducing CO2 emissions by the 80 – 90% that environmentalists are demanding is not even a matter of moderate adjustments. It would mean a drastic setback in quality of life across the globe.

And we’re not going to be asked, we’re going to be told.

It’s not about voluntarily changing a light bulb, or leaving people free to innovate new energy technologies, it’s about being dictated your new lifestyle, one that no longer contains the fruits of the industrial revolution. Central planners seek to change the lives of everyone on the planet by making the energy that powers our lives expensive, scarce and unreliable.

The shaky climate models contained in the leaked IPCC report will form the foundation of these transformative policies and laws. In that light, “better safe than sorry” takes on its true meaning: these “just in case” regulations are aimed to transform everyone on the planet into a sorry state indeed.

image: sxc.hu


Biofuels Collide with Reality

Biofuels have recently been touted as a “green” alternative to gasoline. Biofuels are a type of ethanol gasoline made from wood, grass or other agricultural waste such as corn husks. Despite the EPA’s efforts, the market for these fuels has remained virtually non-existent.  The solution, as the EPA sees it, is to mandate the use of biofuels in gasoline by requiring that any transportation fuel produced also contain a certain percentage of biofuel. They stated in a recent letter that “the standard that we set helps drive the production of volumes that will be made available.”  Scanning some recent headlines, it seems that biofuels are not able to win on their own in the market. Despite the EPA’s efforts to champion them, even the mandates aren’t able to create a demand.

Biofuel-blending battle rages on as EPA releases new projections

Recently, a court struck down fines to oil and gas companies for not complying with the EPA rule that gasoline contain a certain percentage of biofuels. Gasoline companies were not defying the rule in outright protest, but because the fuels simply do not exist. The EPA mandate would have required 8.65 million gallons to be added to gasoline last year. There was no biofuel produced in 2010 and 2011–in 2012 only 21,000 gallons were produced.

“The court recognized the absurdity of fining companies for failing to use a nonexistent biofuel,” said Bob Greco, director of downstream operations for the American Petroleum Institute, the principal lobbying group for the oil and gas industry.

But just a week after the court struck down any fines or responsibility for not using the non-existent fuel, the EPA mandates were issued for 2013. Instead of going down, the mandates were raised to a whopping 14 million gallons!

Canada to end biofuel subsidy in 2017

Canada, on the other hand, has recognized that the biofuel industry is not sustainable, requiring billions in subsidies and likely causing fuel and grain prices to rise for consumers. They have repealed the biofuel subsidy and will phase it out over the next 5 years.

Rodney Hailey Sentenced to More Than 12 Years in Prison for Selling $9 Million in Fraudulent Renewable Fuel Credits / Owner of “Clean Green Fuel” falsely claimed his company produced 23 million gallons of renewable fuel

The government biofuel mandate in the United States has created a system of biofuel “credits,” which in turn has led to a new kind of scam. Instead of buying the fuel to add to gasoline, gas companies can opt to buy “credits” for biofuels produced and used elsewhere. One man was recently sentenced to prison time for selling these credits to companies but not actually producing any of the 23 million gallons of biofuels to back them up.


Climate of Doubt

On what very well may have been my first day of graduate school, sitting in my first class, our professor began by telling us the story of how he had found an error in a physics text book. This was not any old physics text book, mind you; it was Classical Electrodynamics by John David Jackson, a book that by mere mention, instilled fear in even the smartest and bravest of graduate students.

In my first day of a course with the deceptively simple title “Magnetohydrodynamics I,” my eyes became wide as he described writing a letter to Jackson (THE Jackson!), pointing out this error. Rather than that signifying the abrupt end of our dear professor’s career, Jackson allegedly thanked him profusely, corrected the error in the next edition of the text and offered a prize for any future errors that he or anyone else could find.

It was in this spirit that our professor offered us a similar prize—$1 for any error that we could point out on his lecture transparencies. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I think there was a message in that story. As budding scientists on our first day, he meant to show us how to graciously accept scientific criticism and to remember that no matter what the circumstances and no matter how revered someone may seem to be, truth is always the ultimate goal. Most scientists still have this attitude: we welcome feedback, discussion and criticism because we treat scientific truth as paramount.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to the debate surrounding climate change.

In case you missed it, you may want to check out the online version of a recent episode of Frontline entitled “Climate of Doubt.” In the program, reporter John Hockenberry focuses on a growing group of scientists going against the “consensus” on climate change in a David versus Goliath type battle to uncover the truth.

In an effort to accurately characterize the state of the climate, these scientists have pointed out real problems with the way in which data has been collected, what the results of models can or can’t tell us, errors in interpretation and relevant facts and data that may not have been considered.

Far from being offered a prize for their efforts, they are instead rewarded with slurs such as “skeptic,” “denier” or “contrarian.” Some have described jeopardizing their careers for speaking up against the status quo or daring to question the motives of how the debate is presented to the general public. It seems that this debate has turned ugly.

This is not the “spirit of science” that I experienced my first day of graduate school. It no longer seems that truth is the ultimate goal in the climate change debate, and this has led me and some of these so-called skeptics to question what the goal really is.

(P.S. If you look carefully, you will see a photo of Ayn Rand and a copy of Free Market Revolution during the program.)

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Daily Caller: Will FDA choke off promising adult stem cell research?

ARC fellow Keith Lockitch has an editorial published in The Daily Caller today about the recent U.S. District Court decision to grant the FDA control over stem cell therapies (we’ve written about this on the blog here).

“There is no question,” Dr. Lockitch writes, ”that the government must spare no effort in defining and prosecuting real cases of medical fraud, malpractice and criminal negligence — and there is no question that such cases exist in the stem cell market. But  instead of serving as our protector against charlatans who prey on the sick and desperate, the FDA has itself become an agent of coercion, forcibly denying us the freedom to use treatments that could save our lives.”

Read the rest of the article here.


Health Care Roundup

Here are some interesting and informative articles I’ve come across in following the debate on health care reform:

  • Dr. Anthony Youn, a plastic surgeon in Detroit, comments on a recent report that found many doctors unsatisfied with their level of income, offering a personal experience to illustrate one reason why doctors are frustrated with their salaries. If Dr. Youn’s experience is commonplace, it’s a profound injustice–doctors save our lives and just like anyone else who performs a service for us, we owe them payment in return.
  • Sarah Kiff of the Washington Post describes a new online service by which patients can comparison shop for health care—the site allows you to compare the prices doctors are charging and lets you see how patients have rated their doctors.
  • A recent study found that two drugs—Avastin and Lucentis—do an equally good job of treating those with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), an eye disease in the elderly that can lead to blindness. The study was requested by the government because a dosage of Avastin costs far less than a dosage of Lucentis, so if the drugs are equally effective, requiring physicians to prescribe Avastin for AMD can save Medicare a lot of money. The article notes, however, that Avastin users in the study suffered more complications than Lucentis users, and manufacturers of the drugs maintain that the two compounds are different enough that some patients may benefit from one while others may benefit more from the other. If you are an AMD patient who might fare better with Lucentis, you’re out of luck if the government mandates only Avastin can be used to treat the ailment. This kind of conflict inevitably occurs when the government is paying for your health care and so it gets to decide which treatments it will pay for. If seniors were responsible for funding their own care, they could purchase whichever treatment that, in consultation with their physician, looks the most promising for them.
  • A fascinating article in the New England Journal of Medicine about how surgical techniques have evolved and improved in the last 200 years.