How the Government Got in Your Backyard

by Jeff Gillman

It is important that efforts to reduce emissions are imposed nationally, or better yet, internationally, so that everyone is on a level playing field and businesses don’t have an incentive to move to avoid pollution restrictions. The effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are the same, regardless of which state or country produces them.

  Right-Wing Rating We can’t increase taxes on U.S. businesses and expect them to be able to compete globally against competitors who play by different rules.

  Left-Wing Rating We need to control emissions, and taxing or capping them is the best way to do it. Taxing carbon allows companies to find the most economically efficient ways to reduce their pollution. We have experience with cap-and-trade methods to reduce sulfur dioxide; we know that it works and that it is not harmful to business.

  Policy Option Three: Encourage Use of Technology to Control Greenhouse Gases

  Though alternative fuels are usually given top billing (see the chapter on alternative energy), there are many other ways that technology may be able to control carbon dioxide. One radical suggestion is to use concrete to absorb and hold carbon dioxide. Carbon Sense Solutions, a company in Canada, has suggested a method of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide in concrete. Sixty tons of carbon dioxide could be stored per thousand tons of concrete, according to one estimate.

  Though alternative fuels are usually given top billing there are many other ways that technology may be able to control carbon dioxide.

  We may also be able to control carbon dioxide emissions by getting rid of the places from which these emissions originate. Recently, the concept of growing meat through in vitro methods—in other words in a test tube or petri dish without the use of an actual animal—has taken hold. Growing meat in this way would not only reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 80 percent, in large part because the land used for the crops (mostly corn) to feed livestock would no longer be needed, it is also likely to reduce the massive amount of methane produced by cow flatulence (and burping), which is also thought to have a significant effect on global warming. Between planting more trees, using concrete to store carbon dioxide, and doing away with our livestock, perhaps we could control greenhouse gas emissions enough that we wouldn’t need to worry about fossil fuels. We could continue to use them as they dwindle and become more expensive than the alternative fuels they compete with.

  There are also techniques we could use that wouldn’t necessarily affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but that would, instead, allow us to deal with the warming trend. They would be similar to taking an aspirin to control the pain from a headache without controlling the headache’s cause. This is effective, as long as the headache isn’t being caused by something terminal. It has been suggested that we release sulfur compounds, or release small reflective particles into the air, to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. This might work, though we would need to assess what would happen with all this sulfur—it might cause acid rain and other results that are worse than the original problem.

  Right-Wing Rating Technology is always a winner. It allows entrepreneurs to succeed, and it avoids putting restraints on our important industries. Allow science to produce the best solutions to scientific problems.

  Left-Wing Rating Relying on technology is overly optimistic. The science of technology won’t necessarily produce solutions on a scale or timeline appropriate to preventing the effects of climate change. Reducing emissions is a more surefire method.

  The Bottom Line

  There are some legitimate reasons to question the extent to which global warming is occurring because of human activities. Yet, while there isn’t absolute proof that we are causing this warming, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do provide the most reasonable explanation. If we choose to reject these gases as the primary cause of global warming, then we are relegated to pointing to somewhat more inexact natural cycles that may have something to do with the sun, volcanoes, or something completely different. As of yet, these potential causes haven’t clearly demonstrated themselves as capable of causing the changes we are now seeing. This doesn’t mean that these natural cycles aren’t the main reason why the earth is warming, but the science needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more before they are as good a suspect as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

  It’s hard to argue that the environment wouldn’t benefit long term from a reduction in carbon dioxide, regardless of whether it is actually the most prevalent cause of global warming.

  Concerns about social disruption and the rising costs of energy are certainly reasons to avoid controlling carbon dioxide emissions, and it’s hard to argue that controlling these emissions would help our economy in the short term. But, likewise, it’s hard to argue that the environment wouldn’t benefit long term from a reduction in carbon dioxide, regardless of whether it is actually the most prevalent cause of global warming.

  While many point to global warming as the reason to regulate carbon emissions, the truth is that there are actually many other compelling reasons to cut these emissions. Carbon dioxide is produced largely from burning fossil fuels and fossil fuels come from sources that are finite. We must conserve them or lose them. They are also frequently found in regions of the world that are not politically stable, and the governments in a number of these regions are not the best allies of the United States. Additionally, the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has the potential to alter how crops grow and their interactions with weeds, and to change the acidity of our oceans. These are powerful reasons, in and of themselves, to try and regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in our air.

  CHAPTER 12

  Conclusions: Balancing Nature

  and Politics

  P. J. O’ROURKE, the political satirist, once wrote: “The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.” This may be the truest thing ever said about our environmental problems, but it doesn’t just apply to college idealists. Many people claim to love the environment, yet few spend the serious amount of time needed to understand the issues or the various sides of any argument, including the side that they claim to support. If there’s a unifying message in this book, it is this: don’t be one of those people.

  Our personal ideological perspectives, such as whether we identify ourselves as liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing, help us sort out the role we think government should play in society. But the flip side of this identification is that it ends up providing us with prejudgments about whether certain problems exist and the best way to solve them, rather than helping us to find and evaluate the evidence that we need to make informed decisions. Instead, seek out and evaluate evidence with an open mind. Don’t take the easy way out by only looking for information and perspectives that confirm your preexisting assumptions.

  You can’t influence public policy just by being knowledgeable, however. Woody Allen once said that 90 percent of life is just showing up. Politics is similar: those who show up and attempt to make a difference can have an outsized influence. Sometimes, when public officials are intimidated by an uninformed sector of the public that is raising a ruckus, they decide it’s not worth the effort to push back and oppose the loudmouths. Political action is more effective, however, when you know what you’re talking about, and not only understand the merits of your own position, but know enough about the opposing perspective that you can intelligently refute it.

  Government officials and scientists generally work hard to uncover as much relevant information as they can on issues they think are important. But science doesn’t always produce results that provide clear evidence about which policies will work effectively; more often it raises questions and makes developing a political consensus more difficult. Often, the best government officials can do is gather knowledge, make predictions about what a certain policy will do, and then apply this knowledge to their value systems. Rarely do
es this result in easy answers that please everybody. A clear scientific consensus can sometimes rally the public and the politicians to make tough choices, but sometimes the scientific consensus gets ignored if the economic or value tradeoffs seem too steep.

  The U.S. Constitution purposely makes change difficult, with or without scientific or public consensus. Through much of our nation’s history, advocates of environmental protection were frustrated by these barriers to change. Before the 1960s and 1970s, businesses consistently won on environmental issues because they were organized and had the incentive to fight intensely to avoid paying for their pollution. The public wanted business to clean up, but since the costs of pollution were widely spread, few people felt strongly enough to do anything about it.

  The numerous laws discussed in the preceding chapters show that change is possible, even if it is not at the pace or the scale that some would like. In most cases, the history of these environmental laws provides evidence that political leadership matters. Public policy usually changes in ways that benefit the general public and overturn the advantages of special interests when public figures, especially presidents, lead the charge. Leaders must take advantage of crisis events and the media spotlight on an issue in order to define for the public how current policies benefit the special interests, and how and why change would benefit the public. The alliance between the leader, the interest groups, and the temporarily engaged public is the key to overcoming the barriers to change inherent in our political system.

  In the end, most of the answers to our environmental issues don’t come from the left wing or the right wing, but rather from a compromise between the two. We are often better off trying to find a compromise that everyone can live with rather than trying to make the other side capitulate. Compromise is almost always necessary to move policy along in our political system. And, from the perspective of someone who wants to move things along, compromise is a good thing. But it is not an end in itself. Often, the key compromises that legislators seek in exchange for their votes are those that provide special protection, exemptions, or benefits to the industries in their states or districts. Pragmatists see this as a necessary evil: if you want to pass legislation, you do what you have to do to get the votes. Nevertheless, many citizens are turned off because they see this as a violation of principles. It’s one thing to compromise between competing principles; it’s another to just compromise your principles out of expediency. Likewise, compromise is not worthwhile if it leads to a policy that is so weak it doesn’t achieve its goals and is not worth the investment of resources necessary to implement it. The question is whether the compromise is an improvement over the status quo. Knowledge about the issue and the policy alternatives will help you make that judgment.

  All of us love to debate about where our environment is going, and why it’s going there, but most of the information that we spew is superficial because, by and large, the information that is readily available to us comes from people who want to push us one way or the other. The authors of this information avoid trying to offer us the whole, complex picture, preferring to focus on the few bits that support their values. What we end up seeing is a terribly oversimplified picture of the situation.

  We hope this book has helped you to see the other side of the equation. But maybe you don’t trust some of the things we’ve said. Perhaps, despite our best efforts, you think we’re biased! Well, we consider it healthy to be skeptical. This book wasn’t written to help you reach definitive conclusions, it was written to encourage you to think about the possible benefits and drawbacks of different environmental policies that our government could adopt and to consider factors that you may not have considered before. Your authors have undoubtedly missed some important ideas for policy change. But science and government are dynamic forces. Between the time that we wrote this book and when you picked it up, more research and more politics have occurred that could apply to the topics we’ve covered. And more topics have arisen. Go find them. Think of other possibilities. Let this be a starting place, not an ending.

  Notes

  PAGE

  Introduction

  15. political party affiliation: Dunlap 2009.

  16. 70-point gulf: Klyza and Sousa 2008, 22–23.

  16. consistently voting conservative: Theriault 2008.

  17. passed between 1991 and 2006: Klyza and Sousa 2008.

  Chapter 1

  21. “emotional hell-raising”: Browne 2001, 143.

  22. more important than documents: Whiteman 1995.

  22. real people’s lives: Stone 2002; West and Loomis 1998.

  24 eleven Senate committees: Rosenbaum 2005, 72.

  26. based on insufficient data: Rosenbaum 2005.

  28. inappropriate studies: Mooney 2005.

  28. delay or avoid government regulation: Mooney 2005.

  30. the 1950s and 1960s: Bosso 1987, 91–94.

  30. would react negatively: Richtel 2009.

  31. evidence in their advertising: Libby 1998.

  32. “passive consensus”: Rosenbaum 2005, 54.

  32. “the most important issue”: Morales 2009.

  33. sound public policy: Smith 2000.

  Chapter 2

  35. 23 billion in 2009: USDA 2009.

  37. toxic to certain plants: Epstein and Bassein 2001.

  38. greater environmental effect: Kovach et al. 1992.

  38. organic pesticides have been found: Newsome and Shields 1980; Ryan, Pilon, and Leduc 1982.

  38. significantly alter this percentage: Baker et al. 2002.

  39. uncomposted manure: Kudva, Blanch, and Hovde 1998.

  39. from nonorganic sources: Mukherjee et al. 2004.

  39. evidence to support that: Worthington 2001.

  39. which tend to be lower: Williams 2002; Rosen and Allen 2007; Asami et al. 2003; Carbonaro et al. 2002.

  39. difference is not consistent: Rosen and Allan 2007.

  39. provide any health benefits: Dangour et al. 2009; Rosen and Allen 2007; Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas 2003.

  40. they are grown organically: Caretto et al. 2008; Kopsell et al. 2004.

  40. food was produced organically: Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas 2003.

  40. health problems in cattle: Dohoo et al. 2003.

  40. milk from untreated cows: Juskevich and Guyer 1990.

  40. some human cancers: Yu et al. 2002.

  40. finds its way to the stomach: U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2009.

  44. ran a story: Lavigne 2006a, b.

  44. organic producers and processors: Neuman 2010.

  45. “not prepared to do that”: Cloud 1990, 1265.

  51. with hot water: Holland et al. 1994.

  51. organic food is elitist: DeGregori 2003.

  Chapter 3

  60. unblemished foods: Pimentel 2009.

  62. non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Buckley et al. 2000.

  62. and pancreatic cancer: Andreotti et al. 2009.

  62. over 100,000 participants: Ascherio et al. 2006.

  62. around the home: Whyatt et al. 2004.

  63. the population at large: Blair 2005.

  63. decrease in colon cancer: Lee et al. 2007.

  63. to become hermaphrodites: Hayes et al. 2002.

  64. creatures will be killed: Relyea 2005.

  65. close to an agricultural field: Hayes et al. 2010.

  65. as they normally would: Relyea 2009.

  66. affecting their lives: Tierney et al. 2008.

  68. coming onto the market: Bosso 1987.

  68. validity of the information: Bosso 1987.

  71. “weight of scientific evidence”: Bosso 1987, 161

  75. to get skin cancer: Freedman et al. 1997.

  Chapter 4

  81. now phosphorus free: Struss 2007.

  82. highly debatable theory: Smil 2001.

  83. is applied worldwide: Raun and Johnson 1999.

  84. double the number in 1990: Clemmitt 2005.

  84. “in surface or groundwa
ter”: Gross, Angle, and Welterlen 1990.

  85. phosphorus in runoff water: Dittrich et al. 2003.

  85. enters a body of water: Schultz et al. 1995; Patty, Réal, and Gril 1997; Lee, Isenhart, and Schultz 2003.

  85. becoming more popular: Wendt and Burwell 1985.

  87. after the law had passed: Cooper 2000.

  87. “pollution budget”: Copeland 2008.

  87. from the court to do it: U.S. EPA 2009.

  88. during a given time: Hartman, Alcock, and Pettit 2008.

  89. acted on since: Copeland 2008.

  92. enforcement actions: Rabe 2004, 17.

  92. from the state government: Klyza and Sousa 2008.

  93. water many miles away: Pew Oceans Commission 2003.

  94. phosphorus will start to dwindle: Cordell, Drangert, and White 2009.

  Chapter 5

  98. wind, solar, and biomass power: U.S. Department of Energy 2009.

  99. current demand for gasoline: Hill et al. 2006.

  100. would be generated: Hill et al. 2006.

  100. and that’s a problem: Andreoli and De Souza 2006–2007.

  100. than any other crop: Pimentel 2003.

  101. used to make it: Hill et al. 2006.

  101. ethanol a more significant fuel source: Dias De Oliveira 2005.

  102. between 15 and 28 percent: Rajagopal et al. 2009.

  102. that amount of time: Kanellos 2009.

  103. takes a lot of power: Schenk et al. 2008.

  103. 3.5 cents for natural gas: Schilling and Esmundo 2009.

  104. geothermal and wind: Schilling and Esmundo 2009.

  104. using their own stills: Bettelheim 2006.

  105. risen to 2.6 percent: U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009.

  Chapter 6