A Simple Government

by Mike Huckabee

  That intelligence, that ability to reason, is why Roosevelt came to believe that we have a moral responsibility to practice sensible conservation. I see it as a moral imperative, since I believe that our abilities come from God, to lay our footprint lightly, and wisely, upon the land. We should walk with moccasins, not cleats.

  The Undeniable Dangers to the Environment

  I’m not going to pretend to speak with scientific authority about the possibility of global warming. When well-trained climatologists and environmental scientists don’t agree on the basics, what do I know? Does global warming exist as our most urgent threat to the environment? If so, is it caused by the human race, by carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and power plants, among other things?

  Can’t say. But I do know that while carbon dioxide alone is not dangerous to human health, those auto and industrial emissions contain hydrocarbons that are definitely harmful to us. The answer could not be simpler. We need to reduce air pollution because it is a threat to us humans, whether or not it creates a threat to the planet. By not being effective stewards of the air we breathe, we’re not just making ourselves sick; we’re actually killing ourselves.

  Who is crazy enough to disagree with that? According to the American Lung Association, some 60 percent of us live in areas where air pollution is a proven health danger. In its various forms, it causes asthma, bronchitis, lung disease, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and stroke—some of which, aside from lowering quality of life, can result in premature death. Of course, pollution-caused health risks are highest for babies and children. People who live near freeways—and are thus exposed to high levels of automobile fumes—have a higher- than-normal incidence of infant mortality, heart attacks, and allergies.

  The major cause of emission threats is ozone. Though not a problem in the earth’s upper atmosphere, where it occurs naturally, it is a tremendous health risk at ground levels, where it creates smog. So far, the best ways to reduce this form of pollution, especially during the summer smog season, are to drive less, reduce electricity use, and not burn wood.

  There are exceptions to smog danger. The cleanest air is found in places like the North Dakota towns of Fargo or Wahpeton or Lincoln, Nebraska. But things are not so good in the top ten cities polluted by ozone. Los Angeles, as you’d probably guess, is number one, followed by five other California cities plus Houston, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina.

  The health risk second to ozone is particle pollution. In other words, soot. For the record, Bakersfield, California, suffers the worst seasonal particle pollution, while the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, axis has the most dangerous year-round. Down the list of dangerous emissions after ozone and particle pollution are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.

  This is an ugly situation. Simply put, it is vital for us, for the sake of our national health, to cut back on pollution-causing emissions. But one word of caution: Let’s not rush into things and pretend to do something useful, rather than actually address the problem sensibly. Aren’t you a bit tired of the celebrity types who fly in on a fuel-hogging Gulfstream jet, then are squired in a gas-guzzling limo to a thirty-thousand-square-foot home (one of six or seven they own) in order to lecture the rest of us about using too much energy? I know I am. I only listen to envirocelebs, if you will, who walk the walk. For example, I greatly admire those like Ed Begley Jr. and Daryl Hannah, who actually practice what they preach. I’m not ready, myself, to go to the lengths they do, but consistency of conviction is admirable. Hypocrisy, though popular, is not.

  This goes for government entities too, not just entertainment stars. For example, until we actually produce more of our electricity from sources other than fossil fuels, it does not measurably change the environment for some states and the federal government to force all of us to subsidize plug-in electric cars by giving tax credits for them. This is a shell game: shifting the demand for gasoline into more demand for electricity. Tax policy can’t solve the pollution problem by moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Now, I’m not criticizing electric cars themselves. I own one myself, a golf cart ready for street use, and find it great.

  Still, we have to analyze the current situation sanely. At the moment, about 40 percent of worrisome emissions are caused by the generation of electricity. And that’s not going to change overnight. In the future, we will be able to use sources like wind and solar energy to produce clean electricity; so electric cars will indeed make more sense down the road, no pun intended. Right now, about 70 percent of our states have renewable or alternative energy portfolio standards in place to encourage the generation of clean electricity. A good start. But in truth these standards are not very ambitious and will be slow to take effect: Typically, they are predicted to result in 15 percent to 20 percent of all electricity being from clean sources by 2020 or 2025.

  Where does that leave us right now? One simple answer is to use “smart meters” and “smart grid” technology to reduce emissions by spreading out electric usage across the day. Because smart meters charge higher rates during peak usage times, utilities have found that they’re an effective way to use the marketplace to avoid peaks and valleys of demand. I’m sure you’ve heard some people arguing that reducing pollution is always necessarily more expensive. Not so in this case. Smart meters are definitely a win-win, giving consumers the option of reducing their bills while helping to clean the air. For instance, Salt River Project, the largest provider of electricity to the greater Phoenix metropolitan area (where, as you’ll recall, particle pollution is a year-round problem), reports that its deployment of approximately five hundred thousand smart meters has conserved 135,000 gallons of fuel. How? Those clever little gizmos helped the utility process more than 748,000 customer orders, thereby avoiding more than 1.3 million driving miles for customer-service reps. Only about one in ten American households have smart meters as I write, but the Department of Energy hopes to have them installed in about one-third of homes by 2015.

  By the way, my wife and I are definitely on board with this approach to pollution problems and overuse of energy. In the house we are building in the Florida panhandle, heating and cooling will be geothermal, saving up to 80 percent of the power necessary for traditional methods. Energy efficiency will be maximized with some solar panels and hopefully a rooftop wind turbine. To quote a certain froggy, it may not be easy being green, but it sure is a good thing.

  We Need to Have a Coherent Strategy

  I’m not building that house as some kind of stunt or experiment. I’m putting my footprint where, maybe, Teddy Roosevelt would like it to be. I think that for a simpler America, we need to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel), and biomass. But to do that, we need to make it possible for the private sector to make sound investments in technologies and projects by setting up a coherent, consistent statutory and regulatory framework. Partly, that means addressing a persistent problem within the environmental movement: the schizophrenia that causes different groups to work at cross-purposes.

  Look what happened when the Obama administration recently approved the Cape Wind project of 130 windmill-powered turbines off Cape Cod in Massachusetts. This visionary project was supported by the governors of that state, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, as well as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Immediately, rival environmental groups filed lawsuits alleging that the plan violated such statutes as the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Until we can find a cure for this kind of schizophrenia, we will spend more time tilting at windmills than building them. Right now, the only energy generated by this project is a lot of hot air from lawyers, and I’m afraid that’s one source of renewable energy that we haven’t yet learned to tap.

  The Case for Nuclear Power

  As I’ve implied already, there is no one answe
r to our energy problem. It’s also true that, much as I share in the passion for emerging renewable technologies, we’re nowhere near the point at which we’ll be able to discard the old “dinosaurs,” natural gas and coal. The truth is, we will need to rely upon them, at least to some extent, for decades to come. While renewable sources like solar energy, for instance, offer tremendous promise, the technology is not yet refined to the point where its costs are competitive in relation to the amount of energy generated. It’s simply not ready for prime time as a utility-scale generating source, although it will be one day. Meanwhile, one “old” technology that is being looked at with new enthusiasm is nuclear power.

  Of the 104 American nuclear power plants operating in thirty-one states and generating about 20 percent of our nation’s electricity, not one emits greenhouse gases. Moreover, contrary to any memories you may have about Three Mile Island, these plants are very safe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds nuclear reactors to higher safety and security standards than plants in any other industry. If, as the Department of Energy predicts, America will need 28 percent more electricity by 2035, I simply don’t see how we can get there without better utilizing the resource of nuclear energy.

  That means I strongly agree with former New Jersey governor and EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman, who has pointed out, “Expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.” That’s a pretty solid combination.

  Not only does nuclear energy emit no greenhouse gases or regulated air pollutants, but its costs, although high on the front end, are extremely competitive with those of other energy sources. To be specific, nuclear power is generated for about two cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to nearly three cents for coal and about five cents for natural gas. Multiply those little figures, of course, and the differences in the long run can become huge. Here’s another important distinction. Unlike gas or coal, which can fluctuate dizzily in price, uranium is bought up years in advance at set prices, making fuel costs a very small percentage of operating costs. What’s more, uranium is both plentiful and readily available from our allies like Canada and Australia.

  Of course, as I’ve already suggested, the downside is that it costs more to build a nuclear plant than a coal- or gas-fired facility. Also, in the past, the federal licensing/permitting process to start a new nuclear plant was about as enjoyable as being stuck in one of the nine circles of Dante’s Inferno. It made doing your taxes seem like fun. But both these challenges can be sensibly addressed. Start-up costs would come down if more plants were being built. And the Department of Energy, apparently recognizing that new nuclear plants are needed to replace our nation’s aging fleet, is now working with the industry to streamline the licensing process. Already more than half of all reactors have had to have their licenses extended. If we do nothing, our nuclear capacity will be decommissioned over the coming decades because of age. Considering the increasing need, that’s unacceptable. Bottom line: On a number of fronts, as I hope I’ve shown, new nuclear simply makes sense.

  Extreme Recycling

  Garbage piling up in landfills, choking the roadside, creating huge dead zones in the world’s oceans . . . Talk about humanity’s footprint. But if we tackle the problem head-on, this very heavy footprint can lead us on a new path toward sustainable energy.

  Back in 1985 (that would be a quarter century ago, and counting), New York City approved a plan to build plants that would be able to convert city garbage into power—kind of like a new form of Dumpster diving. Were they effective? No way to know. The plants were never built; the city currently dumps all of its waste in other states. But hope springs eternal in the City That Never Sleeps, I guess, because a former sanitation commissioner, Norman Steisel, and a former director of sanitation policy, Benjamin Miller, are now urging that those plants be built at last. According to their research, burning the city’s nonrecyclable garbage in waste-to-energy plants would provide energy for almost 150,000 households, thus saving almost three million barrels of oil. There’s also, ironically, a potential political plus: This would be a powerful way for New Yorkers to thumb their noses at terrorists whose plots are being supported with our payments for Middle Eastern oil.

  Then there’s sewage, which we create in large volume. But if treated, sewage becomes sludge, which burns very efficiently. In a 2007 report, the EPA estimated that if treatment plants nationwide converted sewage into electricity, almost 350,000 households could be powered. In terms of the total emissions that could save, it would be like having almost half a million fewer cars on the road.

  Offshore Drilling

  If you know me, you know that I firmly believe in a limited federal government (keep it simple) that we can depend on to do a few things well. Very well. As President Lincoln said, “The role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.” Amen to that.

  But now we’re going to go into deep waters here, pun intended, because the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was a complex event that provoked complex challenges, both scientific and political. First off, let’s not forget that the oil deep beneath those waters is precious and belongs to all of us. And the same goes for the fragile ecosystem of the nearby coast and offshore islands. The oil is there for us to use, but the beaches, wetlands, marshes, and estuaries, along with the plant and animal life they support, are definitely not there for us to destroy in the process. (Remember Roosevelt, the Iroquois, Reagan, and your own good sense.)

  Enter the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig operated by fuel giant BP and the resulting oil spill that devastated the surrounding ecosystem. Never has there been a more telling and relevant example of what can go wrong with offshore drilling. This area in the Gulf of Mexico typically provides 40 percent of the fish in America’s food supply. After the spill, fishermen could not harvest the affected fish, which imperiled the local economy, not to mention the more than four hundred wildlife species that call the Gulf home.

  So does this disaster make the case that deepwater drilling should be discontinued? No, it’s somewhat more complicated than that. Consider the following factors:

  1. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Interior Department, charged with oversight of the industry, did not mind the store. Corrupt and incompetent, it collected oil royalties while also supposedly enforcing safety and environmental regulations. Oil company workers were allowed to prepare their so-called government inspection reports in pencil, and then MMS, like a bunch of kindergarteners, traced over the “answers” in ink.

  2. BP and the government both demonstrated a shocking lack of foresight. Our government did not test essential systems like the blowout preventer that failed. BP did not have, as required in some other countries, a separate, remote-controlled shutoff switch in case that happened. Also, as is required in Canada for Arctic drilling, a relief well should have been drilled at the same time as the primary well.

  3. A fire boom can burn off 75,000 gallons of oil an hour, but it took the government about a week to get a single boom to the site, much less a number great enough to perhaps contain the spill far from shore. Similarly, there weren’t enough containment and absorption booms to protect the shoreline. According to Thad Allen, whom Obama put in charge of dealing with the catastrophe, the feds didn’t “envision” ever having to lay boom all along the Gulf Coast at the same time. Seems to me that our government didn’t envision much of anything except sunshine and lollipops.

  It soon became clear to all of us, I believe, that BP was more focused on saving time and money than on saving lives and nature. Meanwhile, the response of the utterly inept Obama administration was a disaster that added to the disaster. Clearly not ready for prime time in a crisis, the president was long on photo ops and tough-sounding speechmaking but failed to take the actions that could have accelerated the saving of the Gulf Coast. Appalled by the delays and mistakes, I felt I was watching the equivalent of a major car pileup on the freeway with multiple injuries to which,
instead of dispatching ambulances, fire trucks, and paramedics equipped with the “jaws of life,” the authorities sent a vanload of personal-injury lawyers to pass out business cards and drum up some litigation!

  Oil and Tears Don’t Mix

  Some of you may remember that classic TV public-service spot from the 1970s that featured a lone Indian, Iron Eyes Cody, as part of the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign. As he stands somberly beside the road, someone in a passing car callously tosses out trash that lands at his feet. The close-up on his face reveals tears in his eyes. Simple but powerful.

  As other powerful images of human-caused destruction flooded the airwaves after the BP spill, especially wildlife covered in thick coats of petroleum and beaches stained by oil slicks and tar balls, I could almost picture Cody taking it all in. I could also imagine another nature lover on the scene, a man who could often be found about the White House grounds making notes on the birds inhabiting the trees there. I believe old “T.R.” might shed a tear or two at the sight of a brown pelican struggling with the oil-soaked sand clumping in its feathers. After all, he used the power of the Oval Office to create fifty-one federal bird reserves, protecting many specific species, including, yes, the eastern brown pelican. I don’t imagine Teddy weeping for long, though. Instead, I see him swiftly walking (softly, perhaps) to BP headquarters and pulling out that “big stick” he was known to use on occasion.

  Sadly, we don’t need to imagine either Iron Eyes Cody or Theodore Roosevelt shedding tears for the Gulf. Unforgettably, we saw over and over on TV news how coastal residents were shedding tears that were all too real. Crying over spilled milk, we’re told, does not make sense. But a million gallons of oil a day? That’s another matter entirely.