|
|
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Don't be fooled by the name, ANWR is 19,000,000 acres of frozen-over dirt, not a luxurious wilderness. Nobody lives there, nor would anyone want to. Even the Russians didn't care too much for it, apparently, so they kept Siberia and sold Alaska to the United States in 1867.1 Underneath ANWR is a huge deposit of oil, and it would make much more sense to drill for oil there than to buy oil from OPEC! Drilling in ANWR remains off limits, despite growing support. For weeks, nearly every time President Bush has spoken about energy he has re-emphasized his support for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Pressured by constituents whose budgets have been strained by high gasoline prices, there's also movement in Congress to explore more domestic sources of energy, particularly offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. And as gas prices continue to climb, polls have shown that people who once refused to consider drilling offshore or in ANWR have begun to change their minds. Let's See the Votes. Here is information and a list of votes compiled by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranging from 1995 to 2008, on off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR. Take a look and decide for yourself who is to blame for stopping drilling in the OCS and in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Bush again calls for drilling in Alaska wildlife preserve. With gasoline prices reaching yet another new high today, President Bush reiterated his call to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and defended his policy of adding crude to the nation's emergency oil stockpile. But Bush declined to jump into the political fray over whether the federal government should give motorists a tax holiday on federal excise tax on gasoline. Our elected leaders are the problem. Drill in ANWR! A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicates that there are a minimum of 4.3 billion and possibly (though unlikely) as many as 11.8 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But ANWR, for all the press it has received, is only the tip of the oil iceberg. John K. Carlisle, of the National Center for Public Policy Research, claims that the US likely has more than 110 billion barrels total of recoverable oil (which is five times the estimated current supply). But we are not drilling for this oil. Why? The Bid To Drill Oil: Alaska is the No. 2 supplier of energy to the rest of the U.S. Prudhoe Bay alone produces 400,000 barrels a day. But ANWR could turn out 876,000 barrels of oil a day, DOE says, with reserves at a median estimate at 10.4 billion barrels. Some forecasts are as high as 16 billion, said John Cogan, an industry attorney at McDermott, Will & Emery in Houston. Too dumb to be true. There is no country in the world with richer or more varied energy resources than the United States. Alas, there also is no country with more rigid and senseless environmental restrictions that prevent us from utilizing those resources. If you can't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an uninhabited, pestilence-ridden wasteland where the proposed drilling site comprises an area roughly the size of Boston Airport vis-à-vis the state of Massachusetts, where can you? A Step Back From Enviro Lunacy. The ANWR ban is the work of environmental restriction groups that depend on direct-mail fundraising to pay their bills and keep their jobs. That means they must always claim the sky is falling. ... ANWR is a precious cause for them because it can be portrayed (dishonestly) as a national treasure and because the pressure for drilling there has been unrelenting. Drilling in ANWR will Cut Gas Costs. Record high prices are having a major impact on American consumers and businesses, from the way people travel to the way they do business to the food they buy at the grocery store. Congress has the ability to decrease prices at the pump and get our nation back to $2 a gallon gas — and it means accessing our nation's available resources and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) today. Rep. Bachmann Reports From ANWR: 'Drill It or Lose It'. There's absolutely no reason not to drill in ANWR and begin doing so immediately. The problem, really, is the permitting process has so many artificial delays in it and also there are about 11 different points in that permitting process where lawsuits can be filed to stop production. Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay For Gasoline? For the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR area when we knew it contained at least 10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now. For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly need. More recently, congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea 100 miles out. However, it's somehow OK for China to drill there. The High Cost of Saving ANWR: For 20 years, environmentalists, Democrats, and a few misguided Republicans have been busy keeping Big Oil out of ANWR and out of the oil fields on the Coastal Shelves, where there are an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat 60 million American homes for a century, and 115 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace 100% of the oil we now buy from OPEC for 21 years. At $130 a barrel,that would cut out trade deficit by $5.4 trillion over 21 years. ANWR Not the Frosty Paradise It's Cracked Up To Be. ANWR inspires awe almost entirely in those who haven't been there. It is an environmental Brigadoon or Shangri-La, a fabled land almost no one will ever see. That is its appeal. People like the idea that there are still Edens "out there" even if they will never, ever see them. Indeed, if Americans could visit the north coast of Alaska, as I have, as easily as they can visit the Grand Canyon, the oil would be flowing by now. Oil companies spend more on taxes than on oil supply development. According the Energy Information agency, there is a daily supply deficit approaching one-million barrels a day. Coincidently, this approximates the amount of oil that is projected to be lifted out of ANWR in Alaska that the Democrats with assistance from a few Republicans have been blocking for almost three decades. Alaska drilling is no quick fix, but it needs to happen. Environmentalists charge that drilling would despoil a pristine area in northern Alaska that is about the size of South Carolina and is a critical habitat for caribou, musk oxen, bears and birds. In fact, exploration in the 19 million-acre refuge would be confined to 1.5 million acres, and drilling to just 2,000 acres, an area less than half that of Atlanta's airport. Oil Woes Left and Right: Just to deprive OPEC of a few of our dollars would justify any number of conservation efforts — to say nothing of drilling in the 1percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that contains oil (perhaps, say some estimates, more than Prudhoe Bay). Those pictures we've all seen of moose and caribou against a backdrop of verdant mountains are a fraud. The coastal plain, where drilling is proposed, is flat, barren, and characterized by unforgiving permafrost. The Media's 'Green is Good' Philosophy Strangles our Energy Policy. ANWR's trillions of dollars worth of oil are a particular conundrum for the candidates. On one hand, that oil helps push America toward a fantasy of "energy independence." On the other, it offends environmentalists who oppose drilling and use of oil. Meanwhile, gas prices continue to rise. And the congressional "solution" to the gas crisis is to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -- just 70,000 barrels of oil a day. The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels each day. Oil Crisis Will Be Solved By Resources, Not Gimmicks. Thus far, the debate about accessing those resources closest to home has focused on Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Congress ridiculously refuses to green-light the project. I say "ridiculous" because concerns about preserving the vast swaths of nature and the caribou there are not serious: Congress would be giving a go-ahead to oil exploration on 2,000 — or 0.01 percent — of ANWR's 19 million acres, which can supply 5 percent of America's oil per year for 12 years, according to the U.S. Energy Department. The problems in the solutions: Congress, doing the bidding of environmental extremists, created our energy supply problem. Oil and gas exploration in a tiny portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, according to a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey's estimate, increase our proven domestic oil reserves by about 50 percent. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore areas have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. Congress has also placed these energy sources of oil off-limits. Gas prices blame game: The best way to cut prices in the long run would be to increase supplies. Policymakers could help do so if they would allow drilling off-shore and in a tiny section of Alaska's barren Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It makes no sense to keep so much domestic oil off-limits, especially with prices climbing. How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump? Senator Chuck Schumer claims that coercing Saudi Arabia to increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day would drop the per barrel price by $25, saving Americans 62 cents per gallon at the gas pump. Yet, somehow, that same amount of oil coming from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only ease oil prices by a penny. Seward's Folly: He bought vast mineral riches for pennies on the dollar. In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. for a bit more than $7 million — less than $0.02 per acre. William H. Seward, the U.S. Secretary of State who was responsible for pushing this sale, was considered by some to be foolish. Even though the purchase had public support, it was branded as "Seward's Folly." Unfortunately, even to this day, most Americans lack any understanding of the 49th state's history and its amazing geologic wealth. Start Drilling. It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves). Congress needs to get out of the way and let U.S. tap its oil supply. With gasoline at historic high prices and admittedly headed higher, [Rep. Betty] Sutton remains firmly against drilling in our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic sources that environmentalists jealously guard, beyond common sense. The nation's economy is totally geared to using oil, and unless Congress comes to its senses and allows ANWR and other abundant untapped domestic oil sources to be drilled, the U.S. will remain at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers for many years to come, despite all our conservation efforts and hoped-for but still-unrealized alternative energy and fuel plans. Alaska senators make another push for oil drilling in ANWR. Hoping to capitalize on consumer concern about gasoline prices, Alaska's two Republican senators introduced legislation Thursday that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the price of oil hits $125 a barrel. With oil hovering near $110 a barrel and gasoline expected to reach $4 a gallon, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens said that they hoped the continuing price spiral would spark consumer clamor and overcome opposition to opening the wildlife refuge to drilling. The Editor says... Why wait for $125 a barrel? This issue should have come up when oil hit $40 a barrel. More drilling, please. How much more pain must Americans endure before our masters in Washington let oil companies punch a few holes in the Alaskan tundra? Must we shiver pennilessly in the dark before we may extract new domestic petroleum deposits? Or shall we simply keep buying $111 barrels of oil from people who want us dead? McCain Needs To Add ANWR To Energy Plan. We import two-thirds of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas. At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40% in the last 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years. Green movement also behind gas hike. What if we had our own Iraq-sized supply that we haven't even touched yet? We do. According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil — "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years." By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion. At least 16 billion barrels of our oil is in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling would only touch 8 percent of 17 million acres — but environmentalists say it's off-limits. ANWR Passes House For the TENTH Time! ANWR passed the House of Representatives today as a standalone measure in HR 5429 for the tenth time, showing the majority support for exploration in the 10-02 Area by the people's representatives. … This was a straight-up vote on opening the 10-02 Area. The Senate, which also has a majority support for ANWR and passed an ANWR measure this March in a Budget Resolution, will now receive HR 5429 and debate it. American-Made Energy from ANWR at a Modest Cost. Congress has failed to remove restrictions on oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR is America's single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy production. Other provisions in the bill are problematic, particularly those that would use the billions in ANWR leasing and royalty revenues to fund alternative energy projects. Loons and Bears Versus Eskimos and Oil: "A petition seeking Endangered Species Act protection for a rare loon that breeds in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve has been accepted for review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," noted a May 29, 2007 Associated Press article. "Conservationists hope an eventual listing of the yellow-billed loon will curb petroleum development in the 23-million acre reserve that covers much of Alaska's North Slope." So, at a time when a $100 barrel of oil makes economies around the world quiver, the "conservationists" are more interested in a yellow-billed loon than in your ability to drive to work, pick up the kids at school, or just go anywhere in your car. Arctic refuge drilling to get new vote in House. Alaska's two Republican lawmakers said they would continue to push to advance ANWR drilling. Sen. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Commerce Committee, said ANWR drilling could be included in a package of energy legislation that Republicans are drafting for possible consideration this summer. For Stevens, ANWR drilling is debt unpaid. The Incredible Hulk appeared Tuesday [12/20/2005] on the Senate floor, adorning the necktie of Sen. Ted Stevens – a familiar sign that the veteran from Alaska is pumped for the fight to open part of an arctic wildlife refuge to oil drilling. But to hear his colleagues tell it, Stevens is more like the Grinch who would steal Christmas – and New Year's, if need be – to collect on his end of a vote-swapping deal he struck with two Democrats 25 years ago. Three Things to Know About Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: (#3) Alaskans overwhelmingly favor drilling for oil in ANWR. Over 75 percent of Alaskans support oil exploration and production on ANWR's coastal plain. In addition, general support among Americans for drilling in ANWR is on the rise, according to a September 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. ANWR factors: The Interior Department has estimated that "ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil" per day. Had President Clinton not vetoed the 1995 congressional authorization to explore for oil in ANWR, production there would be in full swing now. Democrats to fight Arctic oil drilling. Senate Democrats on Monday [12/19/2005] threatened a filibuster to stop Republicans from adding language to a must-pass defense spending bill that would allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The refuge, an area the size of South Carolina that sprawls along Alaska's northern coast, has been at the center of a bitter congressional debate for decades. The refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife. [The "other wildlife" is mostly flies, and the proposed drilling area is only 2,000 acres, not "the size of South Carolina." There we have two examples of media bias in the first two sentences.] ANWR exploration: energy for the West Coast. At the height of production in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Alaska produced as many as two million barrels of crude oil a day. While some was and is refined for in-state use in Alaska, the bulk of the North Slope crude produced at that time provided 55 percent of all the oil consumed on the West Coast. Top 10 reasons to support development in ANWR: In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That's 19.9 million dollars an hour! Democrats block defense bill with Alaska drilling. Senate Democrats succeeded on Wednesday [12/21/2005] in blocking, for now, a Republican plan to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a massive $453 billion war-time military spending bill. Fred states the obvious... Thompson: Tapping Arctic oil will help reduce gas prices. Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Wednesday [12/5/2007] that tapping oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would help lower gas prices. How Long Could Your State Run on ANWR Oil? Nearly all geological experts who have studied the area agree that ANWR represents America's largest untapped onshore prospect for oil and gas. According to mean estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR would produce 10.4 billion barrels of new domestic oil. Just how much is 10.4 billion barrels? It's enough to replace more than 30 years worth of oil imported from Saudi Arabia or over 58 years of oil imported from Iraq. Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling. A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday [3/16/2005] to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President Bush and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades. By a 51–to–49 vote, the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past. ANWR and Our Nation's Energy Future. Many of the same people that are now complaining about our dependence on foreign oil consistently oppose opening Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to production. This is not some radical idea. The 1980 law that doubled the size of ANWR to 19 million acres explicitly called for Congress to develop a process through which exploration and production could be conducted on the 2000 acre Coastal Plain. Yet, across the past 24 years, anti-development forces in Congress have ignored America's energy needs and, through the use of filibusters, prevented oil and gas development. This inaction is irresponsible. Our fake drilling debate: Few opponents of energy development in what they call "pristine" ANWR have visited it. Those who have and think it is "pristine" must have visited during the 56 days a year when it is without sunlight. They missed the roads, stores, houses, military installations, airstrip and school. They did not miss seeing the trees in area 1002. There are no trees. Section 1002 is not a pristine area. Opponents of drilling in ANWR claim it is the nation's last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area. Though such attributes describe much of ANWR, they do not accurately portray the 1002 Area. Remember this when you're paying $3.00 a gallon for self-service unleaded: Activists Launch "No Oil from ANWR" Campaign. Environmentalists have announced an "unprecedented, coordinated nationwide summer campaign" to block passage of legislation that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It worked. Senate Democrats Put Enviros' Dollars Before National Security. America can't produce all the oil it needs domestically. This means that we rely on oil from countries with interests often hostile to our own. Allowing oil and gas production in ANWR won't end this reliance but it would reduce it and thus make our country less vulnerable to either petro-blackmail or temporary disruptions in supply. Accordingly, the Senate's action was stunning and irresponsible. Serious About Gas Prices. Solutions include opening a small portion in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey's mean estimate shows, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by approximately 50 percent. There is majority support in both the House and Senate for opening ANWR, but an obstructionist minority blocked enactment last year. The ANWR Defeat is a Big Blow to Energy Independence. "ANWR is important not only for the oil it will provide, but for the precedent it sets," said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. "With oil selling for more than 50 dollars per barrel, drilling on other public lands could contribute billions of barrels of oil that currently are off limits to drilling." "ANWR should have received an up or down vote," said Burnett. "But political maneuvering by Senate Democrats beholden to environmental lobbyists have once again prevented that." Alaskan oil and wildlife: The potentially oil-rich area is a flat, treeless stretch of tundra, 3,500 miles from D.C. and 50 miles from the beautiful mountains seen in all the misleading anti-drilling photos. During eight months of winter, when drilling would take place, virtually no wildlife are present. No wonder. Winter temperatures drop as low as minus 40°F. The tundra turns rock solid. Spit, and your saliva freezes before it hits the ground. But the nasty conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and platforms. Come spring, they would all melt, leaving only puddles and little holes. American-Made Energy from ANWR at a Modest Cost. Oil and gasoline prices remain high, and two wars raging in the Middle East could drive prices up further still. Yet Congress has failed to remove restrictions on oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR is America's single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy production. … The frustrating bottom line is that ANWR oil is still off-limits. America remains the only nation on earth that has restricted access to such a promising domestic petroleum source. Oil Prices and the Media: Don't Believe the Hype. With regard to folks blocking drilling for oil in ANWR due to environmental concerns, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) offered the following analogy: If ANWR was the size of a basketball court, the proposed area for drilling would be the size of a dollar bill. He also said that if President Clinton had not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995, the U.S. domestic oil supply be 20 percent higher today. The Caribou Con: In Search of ANWR Truth. Estimates of the size of the Porcupine Caribou herd vary, but approximately 123,000 seems to be the best current estimate. Despite all the speculation about the potential effects ANWR oil exploration might have on the herd, the greatest single, ever-present threat — their harsh natural habitat, including weather, food supply and predation — is almost never discussed beyond research papers. During a series of severe winters in the early 1990s, weather conditions alone depleted approximately 15 percent of the herd. Opening ANWR: Long Overdue. In Washington, support for opening ANWR falls mostly along party lines, with only a few Democrats in favor. But that is not so in Alaska. In Alaska's 2004 Senate race, both candidates accused each other of not being sufficiently pro-drilling. … Alaskan residents would share in the leasing revenues, as they have with Prudhoe Bay, located west of ANWR. Prudhoe Bay has delivered billions of barrels of crude through the Alaskan oil pipeline since the 1970s. Drilling in ANWR — It's closer than ever. The combination of skyrocketing oil prices, more environmentally friendly ways of drilling and transporting oil, and the prospect of long-term, high-paying jobs has given the project a political boost. 'Truth' About ANWR: Tell It All, Sarah James. If [Sarah] James tells Congress the whole truth, she will say that in 1971 the Gwich'in was virtually alone among native tribes in electing not to participate in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). To have done so would have required sharing, with the other tribes, in Alaskan natural resource revenues. Instead, the Gwich'in chose to own, control and keep for themselves all revenues from 1.8 million acres in their former reservation. Behind the ANWR Scare Tactics: Most people now recognize [President] Bush urges oil and gas drilling in Alaska in order to reduce the massive U.S. oil dependency on unfriendly, unstable and erratic foreign governments. The Interior Department estimates Alaska's 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain has from 10 billion to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Drilling engineers believe recent technological advances would require as few as 2,000 surface acres to recover the underlying oil and natural gas -- meaning just one acre for every 10,000 acres in the refuge area. America can safely seek new oil. It will be several decades at least before alternative fuel vehicles and the infrastructure needed to fuel them will be developed enough to satisfy America's transportation needs. Additionally, oil is a critical component of plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, lubricants and construction materials. This means that Americans will need oil well into this century. Unfortunately, the United States uses more oil than it can produce, making it dependent on supplies from politically unstable parts of the world. While America will never have complete energy independence, Congress should remove obstacles to domestic production both to reduce energy prices and so that, in times of crisis, America's prosperity is not held hostage to hostile foreign powers. Oil Drilling in Alaska: To put the size of the ANWR in perspective, keep in mind that Alaska contains 591,000 square miles, or about 378,000,000 acres. The ANWR is five percent of Alaska or 19 million acres. Of these acres, eight percent have been proposed for development, and only one percent would be affected by oil production. This means that about 15,000 acres, or .004 percent of Alaska, would be affected. Actual production facilities including roads, drilling pads, living quarters, and pipelines would cover a thousand acres. White House Committed to ANWR Drilling Despite Senate Opposition. Two years after President Bush first offered his domestic energy plan, the administration remains confident Congress will send him a bill that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Battle over oil drilling in arctic refuge heats up. Members of Congress who have successfully blocked oil drilling in the Arctic refuge for more than a decade vowed to do everything, including a Senate filibuster, to protect the Alaskan preserve this year. Arctic oil: Facts versus Fiction. The truth is that the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the entire "1002 Area" contains up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this oil could replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years! The reserve could prevent our dependence on foreign oil from getting any worse for decades. Rather than being 56 percent dependent like we are now, it could cut our dependence to around 50 percent, according to the Energy Information Agency. Murkowski Expected to Offer ANWR Amendment. The amendment, if approved, would authorize oil drilling in ANWR but limit surface area development in the ANWR to 2,000 acres. Limiting development to 2,000 acres would mean that more than 99 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres would remain untouched. Exploration would not negatively affect the environment and it would provide thousands of jobs and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Editor's Note: The author of the following article paints a very detailed picture of ANWR, including the flies and mosquitos, the cold, the wind, nights that last for months, and the complete emptiness of this part of Alaska. He also provides very interesting information about the extremely tight environmental restrictions already in place which make working there nearly impossible. Ugh, Wilderness! — The horror of ANWR, the American elite's favorite hellhole. Before you can appreciate what a small presence human beings have up here, you need to understand how mind-bogglingly huge — and devoid of people — Alaska really is. Alaska has a population not much greater than that of the nation's capital, but you could fit the District of Columbia into it more than 9,000 times. You could squeeze California into it almost four times; New York State, more than eleven times. Say "No" to Terrorists By Saying "Yes" to ANWR. America currently imports 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia. ANWR oil could replace nearly all we currently import from the Saudis for almost 30 years, or replace one-half of our imports from all of the Persian Gulf for 36 years. Drilling also could provide between 250,000 and 735,000 new jobs. Alaska Bucks the Feds and Invites More Oil Production. Tired of the federal government hampering its economy by prohibiting natural resource recovery from federal lands located in the state, the Alaskan state government has taken matters into its own hands and opened more of its non-federal lands to oil and gas recovery. State and federal legislators from Alaska have expressed overwhelming support for ANWR resource recovery but have been frustrated by a block of East Coast Senators claiming to be better at managing Alaskan lands than Alaska residents themselves. New England lawmakers push drilling ban: They've never been to Alaska or seen the coastal plain, but two New England lawmakers are leading the fight in the U.S. House to ban oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR's Private Potential: President Bush thinks the oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is more valuable to society than the untrammeled wilderness above it. Environmentalists, of course, think the opposite. Who's right? If we want the reserve's maximum benefits for the American people, we should let market agents, not politicians, decide how best to use the reserve. High-gas-price blues? Blame the greens. ANWR is the symbol for the greens' war on fossil fuel. Any use of fossil fuels is bad, according to the green gospel, and government should force society to turn to "alternative" fuels. This idiotic belief has resulted in regulations that add to the upward pressure on gas prices. For example, fuel producers now have to formulate as many as 18 different blends to accommodate EPA requirements in different markets. Bush Administration To Renew Fight For ANWR Drilling: With Republicans now in control of the U.S. Senate, the Bush administration plans to renew its fight to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, making it a signature piece of its energy plan. Explore Alaska's ANWR. As usual, what's easy is not what's right. And what's right is that America meet its energy needs in the most responsible way possible. That means we produce what we can domestically — and that means we explore ANWR. It's good for the economy. It's good for national security. And it's even good for the environment. The 1002 Area - Why We Should Drill There: When most people mention ANWR, they usually show pictures of beautiful landscapes with wildlife roaming freely. Unfortunately for them, this is not the 1002 Area. Winters on the coastal plain last for nine months; there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days; and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero without the wind chill. Summers aren't much better. Although the thick ice melts, it creates puddles on the flat tundra and attracts thousands of mosquitoes. Drilling past the hypocrisy on Alaskan oil: Once, says Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, "truth mattered and science was respected for the knowledge it brought to the debate." But now, "many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance." These extremists dominate debates with intolerance, falsehoods and "anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-business, anti-democratic, anti-human" attitudes. Few issues epitomize this depressing state of affairs better than the debate over oil development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Teamsters May Withdraw Support for ANWR Oil Exploration. One of the nation's most powerful labor unions is "reexamining" its support for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a policy it has supported for several years. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents 1.4 million workers nationally, has supported expanded drilling in Alaska in the past. But that could change, said Leslie Miller, spokeswoman for the Teamsters, because, as she said, there needs to be a solution in the short term for reducing oil prices and boosting the economy. " The land occupied by the proposed drilling site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would be 2,000 acres, which could produce an estimated 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day. In contrast, 2,000 acres covered by windmills could produce the energy equivalent of 1,800 barrels of oil per day. To produce the energy equivalent of ANWR would require a windmill farm of more than 1,000,000 acres, or 1,700 square miles, or five times the size of New York City. This would (not might) kill 22,000 birds every year." How to fight our addiction to Saudi oil: The U.S. Geological Survey says there is a 95 percent probability that at least 6 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from Alaska's ANWR — and that amount could readily go to 10 billion barrels. Others say 16 billion barrels is a reasonable figure. The Sierra Club: The Sierra Club played a pivotal role in defeating the Bush Administration's efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Now it wants Congress to require impractical and costly renewable energy standards for use of wind and solar power. 9 Out of 10 Caribou Support Drilling: George Bush has proposed drilling in a tiny, desolate portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. According a leading Democratic opponent of the plan, lying is the key to defeating ANWR. ABC-NBC-CBS have been accompanying discussions of ANWR with picturesque footage of caribou frolicking in lush, fertile fields — all of which happens to be nowhere near the site of the proposed drilling. Concession to the Environmentalists' Premise Killed the ANWR Drilling Program: Government exists to establish "the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival" — not to "preserve" things from man. GOP, Teamsters Plug Away for ANWR: Having settled one blockbuster item in the energy bill — fuel efficiency standards — members of the U.S. Senate now turn to the question of whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "Drill or Die" by Phil Brennan: Radical environmentalists assail the idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — an area they seem to view as their own private property — by promoting flat-out falsehoods. Anti-ANWR Tribe Signed Alaska Oil, Gas Lease in 1980 To drill, or not to drill: There are enough votes to pass the ANWR measure; there are not the 60 votes required to kill a filibuster, which Tom Daschle and the Senate Democrats have promised. Daschle Democrats and environmental extremists contend that drilling will "destroy" the pristine wilderness. What this really means, according to a study just released by the U.S. Geological Survey, is that the range for a herd of 125,000 Porcupine River caribou would be reduced from 19 million acres to 18,998,000 acres. Should the herd get within earshot, they may also have to endure the sound of trucks and equipment operating on the 2,000-acre footprint of the oil operation. Why Not Explore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska?: We're supposed to believe that it's improper to drill for oil in the remote part of Alaska where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge sits — where fewer than 1,000 people live in an area the size of South Carolina. And that it's OK — indeed, it's been going on for nearly 100 years — to drill in the environmentally sensitive marshes of Louisiana, a state where 4 million make their homes in fewer than 50,000 square miles. Oil Drilling in Alaska: Endicott, the sixth largest oil field in North America, encompasses only 55 acres. It is possible for oil fields to be small because the oil wells themselves are only ten feet square. They are placed immediately next to one another. The oil is not pumped from the wells but, when the reserve is tapped, the oil flows out under natural pressure. This means that the wells are not only small, but quiet. Modern technology has made it possible to build the oil fields on gravel pads that make a solid foundation for the equipment and insulate the underlying permafrost.  This would make a good T-shirt or bumper sticker. Alaskans Hopeful Democrats Permit ANWR Vote: The media fail to report about what Alaskans think about oil exploration in the Arctic. ANWR Apathy: Does anyone really care if oil wells in Alaska disturb the caribou? While a disconnect between what we want to be true and what is in fact the case might be troubling to most of us, it's minor concern at best to an activist. Somewhat related material: Designers got it right. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System survived the century's biggest slip-fault earthquake. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System is one of the largest pipeline systems in the world. Since 1977, it has successfully transported over 14 billion barrels of oil. Yes, this is the same Alaska Pipeline that the environmentalists said (30 years ago) would wipe out the caribou and ruin the lives of Alaska natives. Their predictions couldn't have been more wrong. The lesson to be learned is this: Environmentalists are some of the most pessimistic people on Earth, and their predictions are always wrong. Back to the top of the page CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards The latest: New fuel economy standard will be 31.6 mpg. The next generation of new cars and trucks will need to meet a fleet average of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, the Bush administration proposed Tuesday, seeking more fuel-efficient vehicles in the face of high gasoline prices and concerns over global warming. Research and Commentary on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Synopsis: CAFE kills people and doesn't help the environment. Haven't CAFE Regulations Killed Enough People? For over a decade, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has argued that CAFE increases traffic deaths by restricting the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. This past August the National Academy of Sciences agreed; it issued a study on the program that concluded that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that CAFE has been in effect for more than two decades, its likely death toll is ten thousand or more. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007... A Lightbulb Tea Party? First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what's the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year? The law's supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. Leave Those Car Buyers Alone. Last week, environmentalists and the auto industry struck a deal to require new cars sold 13 years hence to average 35 miles per gallon; a 40-percent increase over the existing 27.5 mpg mandate. … As the president prepares to sign the energy bill passed yesterday [12/18/2007] by the House, Congress's 32-year-old fight over automotive fuel-economy standards is probably over … for now. CAFE Rule Will Add $900 to $10,000 to Cost of Car. The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — set by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in the new energy bill — will require vehicles to get 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and will add somewhere between $900 and $10,000 to the cost of buying a car, dependent upon which expert is consulted. That cost, high or low, will boost the average price of a new car, which will be passed onto consumers, according to carmakers and independent analysts. Coping With The New CAFE Standards. Spies in Washington, DC tell us the congressional parking lot is filled with large sedans, SUV's, and trucks. While there are a few economy cars in the lot, the estimated mileage for the cars in the lot is less than 20 mpg. But don't expect to see Ted Kennedy in a Smart Car because we know that politicians reek with hypocrisy. They exempt themselves from the very laws they expect us to follow. So, rest assured that the Congress Critters will not be driving the micro-cars that they will require you to drive. This is supposed to be the 'Land of the Free' so why should Americans be denied the opportunity to choose the vehicle that meets their needs? The Tax They Didn't Tell You About: The CAFE standards embedded in the Energy Independence Act require fuel efficiency to jump to a fleet average 35 miles a gallon in 2020 from about 25 mpg now. That means you will soon be paying more — a lot more — to buy a car. … Based on what we know now, it'll cost automakers some $85 billion to comply. When all costs are factored in, other estimates put the total cost at about $18 billion a year. Fine, say the populist politicians. Stick it to the automakers. But do they really think Ford and GM will pick up the tab? Of course not. Congress Conjures Up an Energy Deficit. When Congress passed a so-called energy bill in mid-December that demanded more "fuel efficiency" by a measure of forty percent, requiring that automobiles be built to get 35 miles per gallon in 2020 as opposed to the former mandate of 25 mpg, it was essentially telling American auto makers to start making cars out of paper mache or something so lightweight that the driver and passengers will have to be extracted from a crash with a sponge. Why Only the Grinch Would Love Higher CAFE Standards: With cars in most showrooms showing greater savings in fuel, consumers will buy more cars or put more miles on the cars they buy. Fuel consumption goes up, not down, at least for part of the fleet. The resulting rebound takes some of the edge off economy gains that might otherwise come with tighter CAFE standards. The Ninth Circus strikes again. Court tosses new fuel standards for SUVs, trucks, cites threat of global warming. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today [11/15/2007] tossed new federal fuel economy standards for some sport utility vehicles, minivans and light trucks, arguing that regulators failed to properly assess the risk of global warming and that the new rules didn't include larger SUVs and trucks. The decision is a huge win for several environmental groups and 11 states that argued that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new fuel economy standards, announced in March 2006, ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions. Is the 'Smart Car' really Smart? Remember the station wagon? Previous CAFE standards led to the end of the station wagon and the birth of the popular SUV. Station wagons were categorized as cars and because they were bigger, heavier and required larger engines it was impossible to meet the CAFE standards for the manufacturer's passenger car fleet. But the public weren't interested in a micro-car, they wanted a vehicle that could carry the family. Controversy Surrounds NAS Selection of CAFE Panelists. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ... was criticized for packing its 2002 panel with members with financial incentives or a philosophical predisposition for developing new engine technologies. Even so, the 2002 report confirmed existing fuel economy mandates have caused between 1,300 and 2,600 additional traffic deaths each and every year since 1973. The 2002 report also confirmed that for every 100-pound reduction in vehicle weight (the principal means by which fuel economy mandates are met), an extra 250 people die in traffic accidents each year. CAFE Battle Rages on Capitol Hill. The battle over more stringent fuel economy restrictions is being fought in the House, as the Senate has already approved legislation requiring new cars and light trucks to average at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Senate legislation represents a 30 percent increase in car fuel economy and a 50 percent increase in light truck fuel economy relative to current requirements. Hybrid Cars' Fantasy Mileage Ratings Drive Into the Sunset. Hybrid car economics will face a new road test this month with the arrival of fresh models sporting revised mileage ratings from the Environmental Protection Agency. This year, new test standards have forced manufacturers to lower advertised efficiency claims on most models compared to previous years, and car lots are bracing for a tougher environment for hybrid sales. Note: More information about hybrid cars can be found here. Beware of Anti-Consumer Energy Bills On Tap in Congress. In order to meet tougher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, cars and trucks would need to be made lighter, which also makes them less safe in collisions. According to a 2002 National Academy of Sciences study, vehicle downsizing has cost 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year in the U.S. Tougher miles per gallon requirements would likely add to the death toll, especially if they are ambitious and inflexible. Harry Reid's gas rants: ignorance or arrogance? That Harry Reid is a hypocrite about fuel economy and a variety of other topics isn't a surprise. … Reid uses a Suburban because he "has to" for security purposes. Why? Becuase you sit higher, are safer, or gasp, have more room for all your stuff (ego excepted)? Heaven forbid a family choose that vehicle for the same purposes. Pay Less, Drive More. Last Wednesday the Bush administration announced new fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta asserted that the new regulations, which will affect vehicles sold from 2008 to 2011, will save 10.7 billion gallons of fuel during those years by mandating greater vehicle efficiency. But this projection ignores the fact that improved efficiency tends to lead to greater consumer use, whether in motor vehicle driving or desktop computing. Green but Unsafe. In 1974, Congress mandated a doubling in car fuel efficiency to 28 miles per gallon from 14; the rules duly led to a cut of fuel consumption. However, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that they also resulted each year in 2,000 additional traffic deaths and 30,000 nonfatal injuries. President Bush Should Reconsider his Call to Increase Fuel Economy Standards. "CAFE standards kill," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "In our view, the best way to 'reform and modernize' fuel economy standards is to eliminate them. It is hypocritical, and to some, lethal, for a government that forbids drilling in ANWR to, in the name of energy independence, force families into vehicles that are less safe than they otherwise would be." Safe at Any Speed. It's another summer weekend, when millions of families pack up the minivan or SUV and hit the road. So this is also an apt moment to trumpet some good, and underreported, news: Driving on the highways is safer today than ever before. [And that's because so many people drive large SUV's and pickup trucks. The highways would get even safer if drunk drivers spent more time in jail.] Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased. In 1975, Congress reacted to the 1973 oil embargo imposed by OPEC by establishing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The goal of the program was to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil and consumption of gasoline. Advocates also hoped it would improve air quality. But the evidence shows that it has failed to meet its goals; worse, it has had unintended consequences that increase the risk of injury to Americans. Planet-conscious cars not safe for drivers. Tiny cars that sip fuel might not be as good for your health as they are for the planet. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is releasing crash test results Tuesday [12/19/2006] for six minicars that find only one — the Nissan Versa — to be safe. Road Watchers. Jim Whitty, from the Oregon Department of Transportation, ... says the car industry is moving towards more fuel-efficient cars on its own, including gas-electric hybrid SUVs. So he says the environmentalists don't have to worry about people choosing the fuel-efficient option to save money, the fuel-efficient option is the only one they'll have. This was written in 1988: The Mounting Dangers of the CAFE Mileage Standards: Although CAFE was first proposed to foster more fuel efficient cars, the average fuel efficiency of cars driven in the U.S. actually began to increase even before standards were enacted. The reason was simple. With gasoline prices rising from 36 cents per gallon in 1972 to 53 cents per gallon in 1974, consumers began to demand more efficient automobiles. … No federal regulation was needed to tell auto makers to improve fuel economy the market was sending an unmistakable signal. As fuel prices began to drop in the early 1980s, however, consumers began to look for other important qualities in their cars, like size, comfort, and safety. The Editor says... For those of you who don't remember, when the price of unleaded gasoline hit 55 cents a gallon, the price of diesel was 19 cents a gallon. This made small diesel cars, like the Volkswagen Rabbit, an attractive money-saving option. But within a few years, the price of diesel was roughly equal to the price of unleaded gasoline, even though the demand for diesel powered automobiles really wasn't that great, and still isn't. Time to Fight the CAFE Leviathan. Ronald Reagan once said that a federal program, once started, is the closest thing we know to immortality. That saying is being proven true in spades with efforts in the U.S. Senate to perpetuate and strengthen corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates. Anti-SUV Activists Versus the American Family: When you get behind the wheel of your SUV or minivan, do you automatically become a member of a hate group? According to the radicals now dominating the environmental movement, driving one of these vehicles proves you hate the planet. While the owners of compact and hybrid cars can smugly believe they are saving the world and saving money at the gas pump, their choice of vehicle is not for everyone. SUV-haters fail to understand the needs of the average American family and these vehicles are now more popular than traditional passenger cars. CBO Hangs a Price Tag on Tougher Fuel Economy Standards. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates released on January 5, [2004,] a federally mandated increase in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks would raise average vehicle prices $228, costing consumers an extra $2.4 billion a year and the auto industry another $1.2 billion. CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out. CAFE has three strikes against it: (1) The best evidence suggests that raising CAFE standards will not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. (2) Even if human activity is contributing to global warming, raising CAFE standards will have little or no effect. (3) CAFE standards – both at their present level and at the proposed higher levels – pose a significant risk to life and health. The Problem with Raising CAFE: Raising CAFE is not going to reduce the U.S.'s dependence on oil. That's right, forcing auto makers to build more fuel-efficient cars is not going to reduce the overall amount of fuel Americans use. Why am I so sure? Because they already tried it, and it didn't work. Redesigning trucks in Washington: Average fuel economy of new vehicles did not jump from 19.9 mpg in 1978 to 24.6 mpg in 1981 because Big Brother could mandate what sort of vehicles we buy, but because sales of domestic cars collapsed by 40 percent from 1978 to 1981 (from 9.1 million to 5.4 million), while sales of fuel-frugal imports rose. Moralizing Environmentalist Dogma Is Immoral. Eco-activist groups oppose oil drilling virtually everywhere, and say we should just drive smaller cars. Unfortunately, reducing the size and weight of cars to help meet mileage standards costs lives: an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities every year, and ten times that many injuries, than if people had been driving bigger cars, according to the National Academy of Sciences and other serious analyses. SUVs: How Safe Are They? Size and weight equals better occupant protection – it is basic physics – and a big reason for the ongoing popularity of SUVs. You (and your family) stand a much better chance of surviving a major crash in a 4,500 pound mid-size SUV than in a 2,400 pound subcompact, especially in a head-on collision. Yet, ironically, it is SUVs that are increasingly being denounced as "unsafe" – typically by the same crowd that has been trying to force the public into smaller, less crashworthy cars for the past quarter century via government-mandated fuel economy standards. The Car They Want You to Drive: When you order a pizza, it's up to you what the toppings will be. No government busybody or special interest "advocate" has yet figured out a way to deprive you of your double pepperoni — if that's what you're hankering after. Why should it be any different when it comes to cars? Death by Government. Even though air bags are responsible for scores of deaths, they pale in comparison to the carnage that has been created by corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. To meet these standards the automobile industry has dramatically downsized its fleet, making cars narrower, shorter, and lighter. The result, according to a study by Robert Crandall published in the Journal of Law and Economics, is responsible for approximately 2,500 additional traffic fatalities each year. I Want My SUV. Activists at the federal level have dressed up their disdain for SUVs as an environmental issue and they support increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to apply to SUVs instead of an outright ban. But CAFE is what killed the family station wagon, as automakers found the easiest way to meet the government's arbitrary miles per gallon standard was to reduce the weight of vehicles. Last summer, a National Academy of Sciences report estimated CAFE's effect on vehicle size caused between 1,300 to 2,600 deaths annually. Energy disinformation: Blaming cyclical swings in energy prices on SUVs may be politically correct, but it's really quite absurd. Transportation accounts for 67 percent of petroleum use, but only 27 percent of total energy use. The other third of each barrel of petroleum goes into producing plastics, synthetic fibers, pesticides and fertilizer, fueling farm machinery, generating some electricity and heating some homes. No Apologies Needed for Driving an SUV. Americans like the environment. But the November 2002 elections demonstrated they don't particularly like the advocacy groups that claim to speak for the "environmental movement." Why? Perhaps it's the moral self-righteousness, political shrillness, and, well, sheer loopiness that is part and parcel of Green rhetoric today. The campaign to shame people out of their SUVs is a clear case in point. Hybrids' Disappointing Mileage Confounding State Laws. Hybrid cars are the flavor of the moment for environmental activists and some state legislators, particularly on the east and west coasts. California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have enacted low-emission vehicle programs, and several other states are considering doing so. The programs use a combination of taxpayer subsidies and outright mandates that encourage and sometimes force automakers to build, and consumers to buy, gas-electric hybrid vehicles. What Would Jesus Drive? What kind of silly question is that? It seems environmentalists have found God. Last week top auto executives in Detroit agreed to meet with leaders of a group called the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, which has launched an anti-SUV campaign dubbed "What Would Jesus Drive?" Would Jesus Take The Bus? The largely secular press corps does not usually regard Jesus Christ as a suitable authority to cite in political or policy discussions. When George W. Bush invoked Christ's name in a December 1999 debate, for instance, journalists gasped at the insertion of religion into the public square, something to make non-Christians squirm. To liberal media purists, the slightest acknowledgement of Christianity by a public official is evidence of a sinful desire to impose a Taliban-style theocracy in America. Death by Regulation: The purpose of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards is to reduce consumption of foreign oil. Auto manufacturers have complied with CAFE standards by building lighter vehicles. It doesn't take a physicist to know lighter vehicles offer less protection to occupants in collisions than heavier vehicles, thereby yielding more traffic fatalities. Have you driven a Freedom CAR lately? After approximately one billion dollars of government funding, there is no car, no hope of one and only continued bureaucratic double talk. The program was good for the politicians, especially for the titular head of the program, Vice President Al Gore. Gore and his buddies could proudly point to how much they were doing to make the world a better place. … Taxpayers are the one group that is clearly worse off. The spin on SUVs and doomsday: Critics have said SUVs are unfairly safe because, being big and heavy, they protect passengers in crashes with the sort of smaller vehicles that environmentalists want to shoehorn Americans into. 4x4s to be priced off the road. Gas-guzzling sports cars, 4x4s and people carriers could be priced off the road within five years after a crackdown on carbon emissions to be announced by the European Commission this month. … The rule change could add more than £3,300 to the cost of a vehicle. "As to the "WWJD?" clerics' question, Jesus reportedly arrived in Jerusalem on a fuel-guzzling and high-pollution conveyance, a donkey. For millennia, before automobiles arrived to offend liberals, quadrupeds ruled the streets. A century ago in fragrant New York City, the healthiest of the 150,000 horses each put up to 25 pounds of manure each day onto the streets, to the delight of swarms of flies, or in stables — most blocks had one — filled with urine-soaked hay. In dry weather, traffic pounded manure to dust that penetrated noses and houses. Then automobiles, and especially SUVs, spoiled paradise." Demonizing SUVs: The anti-choice crowd is after your car. No, it's not the religious right-wing; it's the religious left-wing. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment is mounting a national campaign to demonize SUVs, to make you feel guilty, even sinful, for choosing to drive a car that makes you feel safe. Senate rejects tighter CAFE as new data link program to thousands of deaths. Efforts to toughen a federal program initiated in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo were rejected by the U.S. Senate on March 12, when Senators from both parties opted only to require that the Department of Transportation develop new standards within two years. Nothing Good in This Old CAFE: Government rules requiring higher gasoline mileage for cars and light trucks have the superficial appearance of a good deal. Who wouldn't want better fuel economy? What the political sponsors of government-mandated mileage improvements fail to tell the public is that these regulations have harmful consequences. They restrict the choice of vehicles their constituents may buy. And they do even more serious harm by degrading vehicle safety and undermining the national economy. Congress ducks out of the CAFE: For a libertarian, what could be less principled than forcing new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards onto automakers and auto consumers? For a liberal, what could be less principled than an energy policy without strict new CAFE standards? Leave it to Congress to find a compromise that fails everyone's principles, putting CAFE standards into unaccountable bureaucratic hands while at the same time fending off legislative consideration of stiffer standards. Raising Federal CAFE Standards: A Misguided and Costly Mandate: As the U.S. Senate prepares to debate energy legislation, lawmakers are wrangling over reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. Some of the more astute are advocating increased domestic production, including limited exploration in a tiny sliver of land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — an area specifically set aside by Congress for that purpose. Others, led by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Fritz Hollings (D-SC) have proposed raising the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, a mandate determining the minimum average miles per gallon (mpg) for vehicles sold in this country. Federal Government Should Not Mandate Higher Gas Mileage for SUVs: A federal law known as CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) has been proven to kill people by forcing the downsizing of automobiles. Should the Government Choose What Kind of Car You Should Drive? As a simple matter of personal freedom and consumer choice, it should not be up to the government to determine how many miles my car can travel on a gallon of gasoline. The American Dream: Why Environmentalists Attack the SUV: The real casualty of the environmentalists' war against the SUV is freedom. Environmentalists Attack the SUV Because it is the Symbol of the American Dream. Conservative Group Says Fuel Economy Standards Should be Scrapped: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative public policy group, says that corporate average fuel economy standards actually kill people each year. The government-implemented regulations, put in place during the 1980s, required American automakers to make more fuel-efficient cars, and in many cases, that translates into smaller, dangerous cars, said Sam Kazman, the CEI's general counsel. See the USA in your SUV. The real casualty of the environmentalists' war against the SUV is freedom. Back to the top of the page The EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency isn't all bad, nor is it entirely unnecessary, since there are still hundreds of large and small companies in the U.S. which do inconsiderate things to save money, like pouring nasty chemicals into the atmosphere and the rivers. And there are a lot of great people who work for the EPA who really want to make the country a better place to live. But still… like any government agency, the EPA will never go away even if most of its goals have been accomplished. This is partly because no politician would dare to propose eliminating it, and partly because bureaucracies take root and, with the help of the news media, they constantly find new reasons to exist. The EPA is fabricating and amplifying problems in order to justify its existence. The Quality of Science Matters. With Dallas-Fort Worth's current ozone design value of 94 ppb, the new 75-ppb standard is formidable. And although legally irrelevant, the EPA has conceded that the cost of attaining the new standard will outweigh the health benefits by $20 billion in 2020. The new standard will classify 400 new counties nationwide into nonattainment. In Texas, five additional urban areas will join the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston regions under the federal nonattainment shackle. Characterized by the EPA as perhaps its most expensive rule ever, this 75-ppb standard begs for solid scientific justification. EPA Chief Warned White House On Global Warming, Senator Says. The document is important because the Supreme Court ruled last year that if the EPA administrator finds greenhouse gases endanger the public, then the government must regulate them — a move the administration opposes. The Editor says... If that is true, and I'm not sure it is, then apparently the Supreme Court's position is that the EPA has more authority than the President. Inhofe says the EPA is too powerful, could damage economy. A key player in the years-long debate over climate change, the Oklahoma Republican agreed that using the Clean Air Act to put new regulations in place would be an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that would impact every household. "Obviously the concept of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is flawed and the act must be amended by Congress," Inhofe said. "Today's notice should concern all lawmakers; no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates." EPA Supports Cap-and-Trade at Senate Mercury Hearings. [A number of expert witnesses] pointed out the advances and challenges of new emission control technologies. Their overall message was that technology cannot yet meet the strict standards the environmental activists seek to impose. Experts also noted current environmental mercury levels are neither dangerous nor toxic to humans. Others pointed out much of the nation's ambient mercury is carried here by wind currents from China and would thus be beyond the reach of U.S. rules. Bush to relax protected species rules. Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants. Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases. In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday [4/2/2007] that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. Global Warming Ruling Called 'Victory for the Bad Guys'. Global warming skeptics reacted strongly Monday to a Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars, calling the decision "bad news" for the country and predicting that the economic fallout will be "vast." However... Supreme Court Ruling Doesn't Mean EPA Will Regulate CO2 Emissions. The Environment Protection Agency is not required to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes, contrary to the impression fostered in media reports about the U.S. Supreme Court's "rebuking the Bush Administration for its inaction." The court simply ruled the EPA had the authority, not that they had the obligation, according to H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Why put fish above our civil liberties? We have a federal agency devoted entirely to ensuring that the environment is protected before any significant project needed for the public good is allowed to go forward. Well over $7 billion is spent each year by the Environmental Protection Agency. Private companies, and state and local governments spend many times that in compliance costs. Carbon Fiat. [Scroll down] True, the EPA's ruling is a minor setback for the global warmists. But it may pour the bureaucratic foundation for their larger policy goal, which is economy-wide regulation of carbon dioxide. Worse, the Bush EPA may do so by rewriting current environmental law, with little or no political debate. EPA Sludge Tests: A "Modern-Day Tuskegee Experiment". The Associated Press reported April 13 that researchers using federal grant money selected nine families in poor, black Baltimore neighborhoods to test if sludge could reduce child health risks from lead. Sludge derived from human and industrial waste was tilled into the families' yards and grass was planted over it. It's not up to the EPA. If global warming requires regulation, that is a decision for our elected representatives to make, says Jonathan Adler, a professor of environmental and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Yet several states and environmentalist groups are asking the Supreme Court to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose nationwide regulations on greenhouse gases, the most ubiquitous byproducts of modern industrial society. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant. If successful, the push to classify water vapor as a dangerous pollutant would impact virtually everyone. For instance, homeowners could see a wide variety of common activities that cause evaporation being regulated: watering the lawn, or using a hot tub or swimming pool. "Right now, we are not so concerned about the water vapor exhaled by people. That is low on our list of priorities", said Mr. Donaldson. "We'll tackle that manmade source at a later time." The Editor says... Evidently he's not kidding. This is just another way the EPA, having outlived its usefulness, is desperately looking for something to fix. How do you suppose Mr. Donaldson is going to keep the lakes and oceans from producing water vapor? New EPA Rules Punish Areas for Ozone Improvement. A notable pattern is becoming apparent: EPA moves the goalposts every time most of the nation meets the then-present ozone standard. The evidence shows this is not a health issue at all, but rather EPA's strategy to maintain its substantial regulatory power over the American public. A review of the historical context of ozone regulation confirms this agenda. Experts Testify on Dangers of Junk Science at EPA. The experts will testify that EPA has allowed "junk science" about health effects to permeate its work and the national debate over public health regulations. The consequences are catastrophic: Enormous public and private expenditures are being mandated to chase tiny and hypothetical health risks. This not only wastes resources but diverts public attention from true health problems. E.P.A. Says 17 States Can't Set Emission Rules. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday [12/19/2007] denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. The Editor says... California has had its own set of emissions rules for years. It's a little late for the EPA to object now. It would be very amusing to see California take the EPA to the Supreme Court, to demand its 10th Amendment rights. Emissions decision draws fire. Critics mounted a fierce attack on the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California and other states the right to impose strict vehicle tailpipe emissions limits, with House and Senate committees demanding documents and many state governors vowing to sue to overturn the decision. President Bush defended the federal agency's decision on Thursday [12/20/2007]. EPA Should Help States Required to Clean Up Foreign Pollution. Walker County, Georgia Commissioner Bebe Heiskell recently testified to Congress, "Walker County's non-attainment status is almost exclusively due to outside influences on our air quality — including up to 60 percent natural particulate matter, transported from Alaska, Canada, and amazingly Africa, which is completely out of our control." EPA Proposed Rule Changes Standard With Little Public Benefit. "Yet again, the EPA is moving the goal post in ozone regulation without considering the cost to the states and local communities. Air quality has improved significantly over the past 20 years due to innovative technology developed in the marketplace, not by the stroke of a pen in the federal bureaucracy," said Utah Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble (R-Provo). Finding Better Ways to Achieve Cleaner Air: Air quality regulation is complicated. The Clean Air Act (CAA) is hundreds of pages long, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has written thousands of pages of compulsively detailed regulations to implement the CAA requirements, along with tens of thousands of pages of guidance documents explaining what the regulations mean. Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution: Perhaps the most harmful aspect of air quality regulation is that it has no negative feedbacks that would slow down or stop its bureaucratic expansion. Regulators' jobs and power depend on a public perception that air pollution is a serious and urgent problem. Regulators also set the level of the health standards, meaning that they get to decide when their job is finished. Naturally, it never will be. The bureaucratic incentives built into air quality regulation explain why regulators and activists work so hard to make it appear that air pollution is still a serious problem, even as air pollution has reached historic lows that have, at worst, minor effects on people's health. Three Things to Know About Pollution: (#1) Air quality in the United States has markedly improved. Between 1993 and 2002, aggregate emissions of the six principle pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and lead) decreased 19 percent. During the same time period, United States gross domestic product grew at an average of 5.15 percent annually. Volatile organic compound emissions from cars and trucks have fallen 73.8 percent since 1970, and carbon monoxide emissions from cars have been reduced 64 percent. Phony Science Begets Phony Public Policy. Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. … But how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance? A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogen. Farmers, Cattlemen Challenge New EPA Soot Rules. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new rule requiring a 50 percent reduction in fine particulate matter allowable over a 24-hour period subjects farmers, cattlemen, and businessmen to inappropriately strict new standards, according to petitions filed December 18 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Farmers and cattlemen, in particular, argued the rule will unjustifiably impose unprecedented regulations on dust kicked up by centuries-old agricultural practices. Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger. In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming [second-hand smoke] is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon). … [But] in November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency. Vegetable Producers Sued for Air Pollution. Environmental activist groups in California filed a lawsuit December 27 in the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco claiming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should declare the San Joaquin Valley in nonattainment with federal particulate matter (PM) guidelines. The lawsuit makes good on threats by the activist group Earthjustice to challenge air quality throughout the San Joaquin Valley region. The EPA tightens air pollution standards in order to justify its existence Air Pollution Cut in Half, EPA Announces. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has achieved a major milestone in its 34-year battle against air pollution. As Administrator Michael Leavitt announced on September 22 [2004], "emissions have been cut by more than half (51 percent) since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970." Unfortunately, recent polls show the public is unaware that things have improved at all. But that's not enough. EPA Clears Way to Regulate Small Engines. The Environmental Protection Agency cleared the way Friday [3/17/2006] for regulations to limit pollution from lawn mowers, jet skis and similar small machines. … Without new pollution controls, engines under 50 horsepower would account for 18 percent of smog-forming emissions from mobile sources by 2020, the agency has estimated. Even as the air gets cleaner every year, the EPA will always be able to find something to regulate, by looking for smaller and smaller problems. EPA proposing limits on mower emissions. Engine-powered push mowers and riding mowers account for up to ten percent of summertime smog-forming emissions in some parts of the country. … The proposal effects [sic] engines under 50 horsepower. The action would cut smog-forming emissions from the engines by 35 percent. Small Engine Rule to Bring Big Emissions Cuts. With this proposed rule, nonroad gasoline-powered engines, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment, would see an additional 35 percent reduction in HC and NOx emissions beyond a 60 percent reduction that finished phasing in last year under an earlier rulemaking. EPA Proposing Limits on Mower Emissions. Engines under 50 horsepower, which are mostly used to power walk-behind and riding mowers, account for up to 10 percent of summertime smog emissions from mobile sources in some parts of the country. The Environmental Protection Agency has been considering a proposal that would cut smog-forming emissions from the engines by roughly 40 percent. [Emphasis added to show that the article describes the worst-case problem and the best possible results from the proposed new regulations.] This is proof that the EPA is running out of things to do. There just aren't that many lawnmowers. The average lawnmower is only a few years old, and only runs a couple of hours per month. If a lawnmower is in good enough condition to start up and run reliably, it's probably not causing extraordinary pollution. These new EPA rules are simply a means of keeping the EPA alive. The Lawnmower Men: Al Gore blew into Washington on Thursday, warning that "our very way of life" is imperiled if the U.S. doesn't end "the carbon age" within 10 years. No one seriously believes such a goal is even remotely plausible. But if you want to know what he and his acolytes think this means in practice, the Environmental Protection Agency has just published the instruction manual. Get ready for the lawnmower inspector near you. Report says US air quality has improved in past decade. U.S. residents can breathe a bit easier than they did a decade ago, as the number of days that air quality was deemed unhealthy has fallen, according to a report by the American Lung Association on Thursday [4/27/2006]. EPA Makes Mistakes in Proposed New Air Quality Standards. Over the past three decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly ratcheted up restrictions and regulatory burdens to regulate ever-decreasing air pollutant emissions, often with no discernable effect on human health. This process is continuing with EPA's proposed 2006 ambient air standards. … "There is a greater relative risk of whole milk causing lung cancer than the relative risk EPa has shown for air pollution." Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the Past Decade: EPA air pollution rules issued in 1997 governing airborne particulate matter (soot) are estimated to cost $10 billion annually. The EPA claimed soot in ambient air causes tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Congress asked the EPA to disclose the scientific data underlying the claims. EPA refused. A subsequently enacted law requiring that taxpayer-funded scientific data used to support regulation be made available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act has yet to be enforced. EPA Whips Up Air Pollution Scare: As it turns out, the study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which conveniently just started a rulemaking process in January that would make outdoor air quality standards more stringent. The study was released on March 7, in time for the March 8 newspapers — the same day that the EPA held a public hearing in Chicago on the need for new air pollution standards. Outdated Car-Mileage Tests Steer Buyers Off Course. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's test for mileage hasn't changed since 1974. Consequently, the tests likely overstate the actual mileage, note observers. The EPA's "current" mileage tests assume that no one drives more than 60 miles per hour when many states have set the limit at 65 or higher since 1995. And they assume that no one uses air conditioning, which can cut mileage by as much as 21 percent. Clinton's EPA Chief Springs the Mercury Trap She Left for Bush. Although she served as President Clinton's EPA chief for eight years, Carol Browner never imposed a crackdown on power-plant mercury emissions. But between Bush's election and inauguration, she proposed an expensive, technically infeasible mercury plan — for her successor. It was an effort to trap Bush by giving him the choice of imposing a draconian policy — or face condemnation by the left for supposedly being "weak" on the environment. Oiling the Green Political Machine. Did taxpayers unknowingly help fund the 2004 election campaign to unseat President Bush? Ignored by the media, a Senate probe has found grants from the Environmental Protection Agency financing a host of anti-Bush political lobbies and activist groups. Finding Cancer Just About Everywhere: New guidelines proposed last April [1996] by the EPA would enable the agency to label virtually anything it wants as cancer-causing — regardless of what the science says, according to agency-watchers. Critics say that while science has never been EPA's strong suit, past EPA cancer risk assessments were at least rooted in science by its traditional guidelines. Environmental Frauds: EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman is the cover girl on the May 27 [2002] issue of Insight because the Environmental Protection Agency is being investigated by its Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the FBI. Central to the controversy is the $100,000 to $250,000 investment interest of Whitman and her husband in Citigroup. Critics claim this influenced a Super-fund settlement that was allegedly too favorable to Shattuck Chemical Co. or the decision to exclude most of lower Manhattan from the disaster zone surrounding the World Trade Center. Former EPA ombudsman Robert Martin states that he was forced out after launching a probe into the potential conflict of interest. While Martin's files were said to be meticulously indexed before being shipped to the OIG's office, they arrived in no discernable order — leading to suspicions that they had been stripped of embarrassing investigative reports. Science and the Environment: There is a deliberate and quite outspoken attack on the whole idea of people owning private property. Mr. William Riley, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said publicly on a number of occasions that he does not believe that people should have the right to own private property. Critics Wonder What's Afoot at EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency has been spending more money, but doing a lot less, according to the agency's own documents and Congressional records. Critics say the agency's productivity and effectiveness seem to be dropping. Why Socialism Causes Pollution: So many new controls have been proposed and enacted that the late economic journalist Warren Brookes once forecast that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could well become "the most powerful government agency on earth, involved in massive levels of economic, social, scientific, and political spending and interference." The War on Radon: Few Join Up. The EPA has decided that radon is the number one environmental health risk in America: worse than pesticides and worse than hazardous waste. Judging from the panic caused by environmental scares such as Alar on apples and chemicals from hazardous waste sites, one might expect the nation's "number one risk" to incite near hysteria. Yet radon has failed to instill widespread fear in the public mind. EPA Global Warming Report Violates White House Agreement to Settle Lawsuit: As a result of the lawsuit filed in October 2000, the Bush Administration ultimately agreed in September 2001 to withdraw the National Assessment and stated that its unlawfully produced conclusions are "not policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government." EPA has ignored this agreement in issuing its report to the United Nations. EPA enforcer quits with a flourish, joins left-leaning activist group: Eric Schaeffer, a 47-year-old attorney and former director of EPA's office of regulatory enforcement, had already lined up a job with the Rockefeller Family Fund when he made his public resignation. The Rockefeller Family Fund champions outside-the-mainstream environmental issues and funds a variety of environmental activist groups. The Fund has criticized environmental enforcement as too lax even in the Clinton era. Is EPA Out of Control?: In March 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's new air quality standards. The court found that EPA ignored reliable scientific evidence suggesting that tightening the ozone standard could harm public health. The court also ruled that since the agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act provided no "intelligible principle" to justify its actions, the interpretation was unconstitutional. Attorneys General Versus the EPA: The latest corrected temperature data from satellite and weather balloon observations, and to a lesser extent from surface measurement, suggest strongly that the earth's warming trend since the late 1970s has been slight, and that the climate models predicting substantial anthropogenic (resulting from human activities) warming are afflicted with significant modeling error. … Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions fundamentally are an effort to achieve "taxation by regulation," that is, wealth redistribution for politically favored groups outside the formal structure of government budgeting through taxation and expenditures. Anti-science Policies from EPA: Carol Browner's own Scientific Advisory Panel … rejected the EPA's proposal to declare the nation's highest-use herbicide, atrazine, a "likely carcinogen." Few papers covered it, and the most prominent, USA Today, got the story backward. It declared: "The most commonly used herbicide in the USA has been upgraded from a 'possible' to a 'likely' carcinogen in a draft report prepared by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency." Regulatory Excess: In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Lung Association, an EPA-funded lobbying group, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed ever more stringent standards on ground-level ozone and particulates. These standards are based on inadequate science and wildly unrealistic cost/benefit figures, yet EPA Administrator Carol Browner ignored comments put forth during the formal review process and zealously moved ahead. The Environmental Propaganda Agency: Seven years after the U.S. Congress ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air Act, the EPA submitted a report greatly exaggerating its achievements. The agency's 1999 follow-up study on air pollution continues to place bureaucratic imperatives above the search for truth. Supreme Court Rules EPA Can Override States on Environment. In an ongoing fight between states and the federal government over control of environmental policy, the federal government has notched an important victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. Other such disputes are currently in the courts, so it will soon become apparent whether this decision shifts the balance of environmental power further towards the federal government. Can No One Stop the EPA? In the case of new EPA standards for particulate matter and ozone, the actions and policies of unelected federal regulators, even when highly questionable, can go unchallenged and unchecked. Scientists Decry "Atmosphere of Fear" at EPA. The misuse of science at the Environmental Protection Agency has gone from the "chronic to the acute," according to David Lewis, a 28-year veteran of EPA. More Junk Science from EPA: EPA insists on including highly speculative but enormous estimates of the health effects of reducing particulate matter concentrations. EPA Games: What doesn't Carol Browner want us to know about her zealously activist reign at the Environmental Protection Agency? Someone was playing games at EPA all right. It wasn't just Browner's little boy. New Cars are Dramatically Cleaner than Recent Models. Over the long term, these new standards signal nothing short of the end to air pollution as we know it. "Even after accounting for growth, total vehicle emissions will decline more than 80 percent during the next twenty years or so," concludes American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow Joel Schwartz, author of No Way Back: Why Air Pollution Will Continue to Decline. At those levels, any lingering public health threat from air pollution would virtually cease to exist. Editor's Note: After reading the above article, it sounds as if we no longer need the Environmental Protection Agency. Their work is finished! But what are the chances that the EPA (or any other federal agency) will go out of business when its goal is accomplished? Back to the top of this page Back to the Home page |
|
Document location http://www.akdart.com/enviro2.html Updated August 17, 2008. Page design by Andrew K. Dart ©2008 |