-
Trading on the Recession
August 31, 2010 | 31 comments
-
A Weak Call for World Trade
May 20, 2010 | 3 comments
The Environmental Spectator
Nipping Jobs in the Bud
Environmental activists work overtime to prevent economic recovery.
As the American economy continues to stumble along, a few bright spots have appeared in the otherwise dim employment picture. The mining and extraction industries are among those bright spots, despite environmentalists’ best efforts to shut them down. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mining and logging industries have added over 150,000 jobs over the past year — roughly 10 percent of the nation’s net job growth during that time.
Resource-intensive industries could provide even more jobs — if they were allowed to. Environmental activists have helped to stop or delay projects around the country: uranium mining outside of the Grand Canyon, offshore oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, coal mining in West Virginia, and, most notably, the Keystone XL Pipeline.
These are just a few examples. Countless other projects linger. Each of those projects could bring much-needed jobs for American workers. Furthermore, these types of jobs often pay very well, as the median salary in the mining industry is over $50,000 per year. That seems to matter little to green activists.
The latest environmentalist campaign is now being waged against the proposed Pebble Mine project in Alaska. Like other campaigns against drilling and mining projects, this relies on hysterical claims aimed at scaring people into opposing the project. Opponents have convinced Alaskan natives and people involved in the salmon industry that waste from the Pebble mine will pose an unacceptable threat to the Bristol Bay salmon population.
The salmon industry is a vital part of Alaska’s economy, so protecting it from pollutants is a worthwhile endeavor. However, it is far from clear that the Pebble mine would have any sort of significant impact on Bristol Bay, which is roughly 100 miles away from the proposed mine’s location. Nonetheless, this is why the Pebble Partnership, the principal entity developing the project, is spending millions of dollars to finance an EPA-sponsored environmental assessment of the mine, which is now underway.
Yet environmental activists have urged the EPA to preemptively deny a permit for the Pebble Mine before it has even been applied for. To support this absurd proposition they rely on environmentalists masquerading as objective scientists, who produce reports that environmental advocacy groups then use to frighten the public in order to gain support for their cause.
Consider a report being used to discredit the idea that waste from the mine can be effectively contained. One of the authors is Dr. Ann Maest, a geoscientist known for her consulting work on behalf of organizations that oppose mining and oil drilling. Just a few months ago, she was caught on camera with a trial lawyer, apparently working out a plan to manufacture evidence of pollution for a lawsuit by the government of Ecuador against Chevron. She remains silent as a lawyer comments that the scientific report they have been working on is “just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bull-****.”
Astonishingly, this “scientist” regularly provides consulting work for the government — including regarding Pebble — and is a member in good standing of the National Academy of Sciences. Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed, and industry leaders were caught covering up evidence of scientific harm from pollution?
Environmentalists are currently trumpeting a poll that shows that on average, more people oppose the project than support it, when informed about the alleged environmental risks. Yet one can only wonder what the public might think of Pebble if they were told that the environmental risks are deemed manageable by the EPA.
Resource extraction has always, and will always, be an important part of the U.S. economy. And it will always carry risks, which our nation has a good record of managing prudently. If President Obama wants to take credit for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs — many overnight — in the resource extraction industries, he should ignore environmentalists’ pleas.
Brian McGraw is a policy analyst with the Center for Energy & Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and writes for CEI’s newest blog: ResourcefulEarth.org.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Brian McGraw
More Articles From The Environmental Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/15/nipping-jobs-in-the-budd
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 12.15.11 @ 6:27AM
The one shovel-ready job that a new President and Congress can undertake is to bury the EPA.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:14PM
"The one shovel-ready job that a new President and Congress can undertake is to bury the EPA."
Yes and they can bury it using a bit of their own "environmentally green and organic soil".
Nancy in NC| 12.15.11 @ 7:33AM
The only jobs Ozero approves of are government jobs.
Louis Jenkins| 12.15.11 @ 8:16AM
Until there is a concerted effort to bury the EPA once and for all, there will be no jobs. Another four years after Nov. and America will be toast.
Purp| 12.15.11 @ 4:58PM
That's what they said about Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act - 40 years ago ... and they were wrong, just like you are now.
Walking Horse | 12.15.11 @ 5:25PM
The artful strangler can make the process last interminably, but after a certain point, the victim does indeed expire.
John Navratil| 12.15.11 @ 5:45PM
Purp,
The Clean Air and Clean Water Act we chartered to handle pollutants which, in relatively small quantities, provided large effects (Sulphur, CO, heavy metals, etc.) and which could be cleaned at the rather limited point sources.
The EPA is currently attempting to regulate such things are CO2, milk spills and farm dust. It must (illegally) raise the limits on source emissions so that Miss Smith's kindergarten class doesn't become an excessive CO2 emitter.
There's always the next thing and no kingdom too small for a despot.
VonMisesJr| 12.15.11 @ 8:27AM
As a salmon fisherman fishing Upstate New York, and having visited Vancouver Island and Washington State to fish; it is the government approved salmon farming that has damaged the fishing. In some rivers, the runs have virtually disappeared.
Locating the salmon farms at the mouoth of major rivers, the lice breed year-round and destroy the fry. When the salmon go off to sea for three or so years, the ice cold water minimizes the lice population. But with them feeding year-round in the mouth of the river, it has proved devestating.
But this is obviously not about the salmon or fisherman. Energy independence = economic and political freedom. And statist will not have that.
TrueBlue| 12.15.11 @ 12:49PM
It's not about protecting the the fish population, it's about keeping their government jobs. Don't forget the polution created in those farms goes right into the rivers and oceans without being filtered through the soil like a normal farm. So not only do the farms increase the sea lice population, they also create concentrated pollution zones.
Walking Horse | 12.15.11 @ 5:32PM
Precisely. Consider that if the EPA were to actually succeed, it would no longer be required. There will be no end to rules, regulations, and driving of allowable levels of common substances to below the concentrations found in nature. If 10^-6 is good enough, they will demand 10^-9, costs be damned.
There comes a point when civil disobedience becomes a civic duty.
Petronius| 12.15.11 @ 9:13AM
The EPA should be renamed the Economy Prevention Agency. Their primary mission is killing commerce in all natural resources so that Nobody can make any Money from them. To these "preservationists", that is a crime. Our existence is likewise. Nothing galls these vegetables more than having to deal with "the Man": the obligation to work in order to pay for life's necessities that businesses produce and deliver. The myth they hold most dear is that driving a stake through the heart of commerce will free them from having to compete so that they can take their repose, light up another doob, and listen to the Dead. That's the life: Not for long.
Mike Hawk| 12.15.11 @ 9:29AM
The purpose of the EPA is regulation. Period. If they can't control it or ban it, there is no other alternative.
John Navratil| 12.15.11 @ 9:41AM
Mike Hawk,
Quite true. Where is the line drawn? Greenpeace at one time wished to ban Chlorine - it's why one of the founders of the movement withdrew from it. Well intentioned beginnings do not guarantee optimal results. Only, sinecures.
John Navratil| 12.15.11 @ 9:39AM
The EPA is a poster-child for sunset legislation. We can argue how much the EPA may have actually done to clean the air and the water, after all the political will to create the EPA was part of the general desire to address the problems. The results, however, are clear.
Today the EPA is a tool of the executive and a political home for environmentalists. No one wants to foul their own nests, there is no incentive for pipeline operators to leak product, e.g. To the extent that costs of externalities are factored into production (the legitimate province of regulation) producers will be responsible, through their bottom line, to the general population. The EPA has long passed this limit to bureaucratic usefulness.
Purp| 12.15.11 @ 6:40PM
"there is no incentive for pipeline operators to leak product" - not to leak, perhaps, but without regulations, and government standards, they have no incentive to create safe pipelines because of the costs. If all pipeline operators have to comply with the same regulatory mechanism, the playing field is leveled because they all have to spend dollars for compliance (which = jobs) and the public byways are protected.
DTOM| 12.15.11 @ 6:49PM
Another genius who has never heard of tort law.
Your ignorance is your bliss...
John Navratil| 12.15.11 @ 6:56PM
Purp,
Did you miss the part where I mentioned the legitimate province of regulation?
markenoff| 12.19.11 @ 3:14AM
If you read the Constitution, the longest period of time the Army can be funded for is two years even though it is necessary to execute one of the primary functions of the federal government as articulated in the Constition: the provision of common defense for the states. Yet extra-Constituional entities like the EPA, Dep Ed, NPR, CFB etc are assumed to be eternal and omnipresent.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.15.11 @ 10:23AM
How many MILLIONS of Sub Saharan Africans, would be ALIVE, today, if they could have just gotten their hands on some DDT? Hmmm? How many more could be fed, if the Genetically Enhanced Rice and Wheat and Corn, weren't so Vilified, and Fought against? It's always something.
They want Free Range Chickens, only. They Hate the Beef Industry. All that Grass Land eaten. All that Manure. All those Farts. They don't like Fishing, Hunting, or Ranching. They don't like Oil or Gas or Coal or Nuclear. And, don't even THINK about Cutting Down Trees for Firewood.
They hate EVERYTING. Almost. They LOVE Ethanol. But, is their anything more DESTRUCTIVE than Ethanol? Let's look, shall we?
Ethanol is made from CORN. Corn is FOOD. No, seriously. It's food. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. It takes HUGE amounts of Corn, to make one Tanker full of Ethanol. We're talking ACRES of Land that needs to be Cleared. (Can anyone say: RAINFORESTS?) We're talking about LOTS more Water being used, and LOTS more Fertilizer, that washes off in to the nearby River or Stream, which, if it goes in to the Mississippi, is creating a Huge DEAD ZONE at the River's Mouth. It's like the DEAD ZONE in Canada, surrounding the Factory the Manufactures the Nickel Cadmium Batteries, that power all of these Chevy Volts, before setting them ablaze. (More on those Batteries, some other time.)
Because the Ethanol is Subsidized by the Federal Government, it's a HUGE Cash Cow. However, because of this, there's not as much Corn available for FOOD, as there used to be. There's not as much for FEED for the Animals we EAT. And, because their is a Shortage in Supply, and no change in DEMAND? What happens? C'mon. Who knows? Mr. Obama? Do I see your hand raised? You say that you collect more Campaign contributions this way? Yes. That's true. You do. But that's not what I'm looking for. The Correct Answer is that: All of these Foods and Food Additives, and the Meat from the Animals that feed on Corn, goes up dramatically.
We have FOOD RIOTS popping up around the world. Corn is a huge staple for a lot of people. People with very little money. A lot of the unrest in the Middle East, was because people couldn't buy Food. AND, by Planting more Corn, you leave yourself LESS ACRAGE to Plant other Crops, which in turn, go up in Price, as well.
What I'm trying to say, is this: The Environmentalists have a RECORD of making life HARDER, on the people who can afford it, the LEAST. Their Unintended consequences have KILLED Hundreds of Thousands, if not MILLIONS, in Africa, alone. Now, with them using FOOD for FUEL, and NICKEL CADMIUM instead of Gasoline, the Environmental, and Societal Destruction that lies ahead, will make us long for the days when these people were seen more, and LISTENED TO a Helluva lot less.
Walking Horse | 12.15.11 @ 5:27PM
And don't forget those damnable curly-fry light bulbs that require a multi-page hazmat warning.
Al Adab| 12.15.11 @ 10:52AM
Every year the Federal Register lists the regulations promulgated by the entire panoply of federal agencies. These regulations have the force of law and represent nothing less than the legislative function being passed to the executive branch.
The cost in lost productivity and employment is staqggeing. The WSJ reports the thousands of lost or uncreated jobs. This cannot begin to encompass the businesses which never begin and the lost lives our foolish attempt to promote a socio-political agenda worldwide costs. Through our regulations and our penchant for promulgating thie underlying world view to toher nations, we manage to kill millions (DDT) and to keep millions more in poverty through retarded development of resources and opportunity.
Ron| 12.15.11 @ 12:58PM
The enviro wackos want total control. Period. For example, there was a project the Canadians wanted to do, using a portion of the Taku River, utilizing hoverbarges to move material downstream. Enviro groups got onto the State of Alaska, and the City of Juneau to oppose it...Even though it was in Canada's waters, and would remotely impact Juneau. Guess what? It worked and the Canadians backed off because of the argument of "damaging" the downflow of the river into Alaska, and the potential salmon spawning grounds.
Purp| 12.15.11 @ 4:59PM
" Furthermore, these types of jobs often pay very well, as the median salary in the mining industry is over $50,000 per year." - Ruh-Roh, better watch out, those are Union wages ... your hypocrisy slip is showing ...
John Navratil| 12.15.11 @ 8:43PM
Purp,
See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm
The percentage of unions member in the mining industry in 2010 was 8% down from 8.6% in 2009.
Despite the fact that hypocrisy is not evident in any of the arguments presented, your thesis appears to be rather inconsequential.
gearjammer| 12.15.11 @ 8:53PM
The GOP should declare such activity as criminal. Denying a man or women to take of their family should be criminilized. We should also see if such actions can be considered treason.
Marc Jeric| 12.16.11 @ 10:56PM
Our eco-nazis just need their own Hitler to be fully operational. And then Mulah Obama should arm them, an we will all be cooked forever. Any body remember what that marxist Muslim from Kenya said? "We need a domestic military with the same budget as the military".
Dr. Carol Ann Woody | 12.17.11 @ 9:59PM
Cesear's legions once fed on the hundreds of thousands of salmon returning to the Thames which flows through London- last year scientists were excited to see 9 salmon return. We have successfully wiped salmon out of most of Europe, the east coast of North American, and west coast salmon are now at 2% of historic abundance. Pollution, dams, habitat destruction, urbanization, overfishing, exotic species...Fish farming? Just one of the thousand cuts. Since 1956, an average of 33 million salmon have returned to Bristol Bay Alaska which produces over 50% of the world's sockeye salmon harvest. These extraordinary runs have supported a lucrative, sustainable, all wild commercial fishery for over 125 years. Native Alaskans have survived and thrived in Bristol Bay over 7,000 years because of these salmon. Plans to develop Pebble, a low grade, acid generating, copper mine in salmon bearing headwaters of the two rivers responsible for over half of all commercial harvests? Such a proposal raises red flags for all people that rely on these salmon for jobs, food, and fun. Please, show me where a similar massive copper sulfide mine coexists with a prolific thriving salmon run. Copper is one of the most toxic element to salmon, destroying their ability to smell when natural concentrations increase 2-20 parts per billion. Salmon rely on their sense of smell to return to their natal streams, to identify predators, prey, kin and mates. Combined with the fact that the region has a very low capacity to neutralize acid that will be generated from opening this deposit leads Alaskans to rightfully question such a venture. I suggest you all go fish Bristol Bay, before its gone.
markenoff| 12.19.11 @ 3:07AM
Dr. Woody,
Have you considered the environmental effects of the activities you regularly engage in that involve copper and other potentially damaging substances? For instances, did you type your comment in the light of a compact fluroscent bulb which contains mercury? Do you regularly use electricity that comes from coal fired generators that also produce mercury? Do you ever settle yourself into the comfort of a seat in a gasoline powered automobile? If you are unwilling to divest yourself of all the accouterments of the 21st century, upper middle class to upper class lifestyle because of the potentially negative effects they might have on the environment why do you deny the possibility of making a decent living to thousands of workers to protect a fish?
The examples you provide are irrelevant. Are the people of London better off today then they were when Ceaser's legions were ravaging the countryside? How many had running water then? None. How many have running water now? Almost all. How many had indoor plumbing then? None. How many have indooor plumbing now? Almost all.
It seems to me that the lack of salmon in the Thames has not caused any world-shattering catastrophes.