I am pro-clean air. I am pro-clean water.
—Rand Paul

Libertarians invariably claim they want clean air and water, but then go out of the way to ensure that gratuitous damage to the earth continues. An example of this pattern is Senator Rand Paul’s recent attempt to prevent the EPA from regulating cross-state pollution from power plants. Paul opposes these environmental protections by using a typical libertarian objection:

I think we can have a clean environment and jobs, but not if we let this administration continue to pass job-killing regulations.

Senator Paul creates a false dichotomy between employment and limits on pollution, he then—following the universal libertarian environmental view—fails to propose a solution that is compatible with his libertarianism. This is a problem.

For any view to be part of a serious philosophy, it must be able to deal with reality. Science is clear on the causes and severity of environmental damage, and technology provides many options for practical solutions to many of our current environmental problems. Given the clear harm, any acceptable philosophy must be able to integrate an account of the cause of the problem and be able to suggest a self-consistent solution to the problem. If a philosophy is at odds with reality, it cannot be taken seriously, and should then be discarded.

If libertarianism is a serious political philosophy it must recognize the existence and severity of environmental damage, and it must be able to create a solution to stop the damage that is compatible with libertarian ideals. But libertarianism—at least in common practice—does not provide a path to solve our environmental problems. In fact, it typically ignores the uncontroversial science by denying the harm caused and its clear implications. This failure to agree with reality is what originally led me to conclude that libertarianism is not a valid position.¹

However, not that everyone who claims a political philosophy conforms completely to that philosophy or weighs each part equally. Rand Paul himself is a good example of this sort of inconsistency: he is one of the most prominent libertarians, but is pro-life. Many libertarians would consider the pro-life position to be an unjustified government intrusion on a woman’s liberty. But Senator Paul recognizes the sanctity of life, saying, “It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life.” This position can be supported from a libertarian worldview by (correctly) saying that the pro-life position is protects the liberty of the unborn child. This is simply an case of attaching different weights to different liberties. However, to fulfil the requirement that a philosophy must be internally consistent, a person making this argument must recognize that the same line of reasoning is behind pollution regulations. That is, one person’s imagined liberty must be restricted in order to ensure the liberty of others.

The particular set of EPA rules that Senator Paul proposed rejecting—placing some limits on a narrow (but large) type of pollution—is a another clear example of a limit an one type of liberty outweighing another. Even if we oversimplify and use a merely economic analysis, these rules will create a healthcare benefit two orders of magnitude larger than their cost. The EPA estimates that these rules will save at least 13 000 people a year from premature death. As seen in previous posts, this sort of lopsided benefit is to be expected. Just as a child’s right to not be killed outweighs a mother’s liberty to change her mind about having a child, the right of millions of people not to be caused significant health damage outweighs the liberty of a few people to slightly increase their profit. Health issues are only one aspect of the many environmental problems, considering other impacts only widens the already 100 to 1 benefit to cost ratio.

A philosophy must be internally consistent, and must be able to explain and solve any problem. So, libertarian politicians want to be taken seriously by thinking people, they must acknowledge the problems and propose realistic solutions. If one’s philosophy causes one to ignore reality or be unable to propose solutions, one is obligated to reexamine it.

Sources:

• McClatchy DC: Senate defeats Rand Paul’s resolution to kill EPA cross-state rules
• EPA: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
• Rand Paul: Issues: Sanctity of Life

The purpose of the Antiquities Act is to allow the President to create National Monuments to protect areas of archeological or scientific interest without requiring Congressional action. This is particularly important when an influential corporation, typically with the support of the Governor and Senators, wants to exploit a natural resource of federal lands. This ‘reclamation’ is usually allowed with the proper permits, but there are many areas that should be left mostly undisturbed. The Antiquities Act provides a way for the President to directly create the needed protection of federal land. While largely passed to protect western areas from artifact hunters, the Antiquities Act is also useful for protecting natural areas. For example, Bill Clinton used the Act to protect an area of Utah from coal mining interests by creating the popular Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

A new round of challenges to the Antiquities Act has begun during the 112^th Congress. Using accountability or the state sovereignty trope as cause, several bills have been introduced, with the latest hearings taking place this week. These bills remove the effectiveness of the Antiquities Act by requiring Congressional Action for each National Monument. Congress already has the power to override presidentially proclaimed National Monuments and to create or alter National Monuments. After the donation of the land for Jackson Hole National Monument by John D Rockefeller, Jr, Congress created an exemption from the Antiquities Act for Wyoming. Congress opposed the creation of Jackson Hole National Monument, but eventually added most of it to Grand Teton National Park. After Jimmy Carter created a number of large National Monuments in Alaska, Congress added restrictions to the application of the Antiquities Act in Alaska. In the past Congress has exercised its power over National Monuments by creating them, changing their boundaries, eliminating them, and even converting them to National Parks. This means that the ‘accountability’ argument isn’t actually over accountability, but is an excuse to eliminate the Antiquities Act without actually removing it from the Federal Code. The state sovereignty argument is also irrelevant: the lands under consideration are already federal land. The state sovereignty argument is simply an attempt to move the lands to state control, where corporations seeking to exploit public resources can more easily obtain permission to do so. I support the general concept of moving government activities to the lowest level of government reasonable, but history shows that in the case of conservation this often means a choice between federal regulation and no regulation. Because of this practical observation, it is important that the Antiquities Act remains undiluted.

The Bills

Here is a summary of bills related to the Antiquities Act that have been introduced in the current Congress. A rejected amendment to another bill is excluded from this list. All of the sponsors are Republicans.

H.R.758

National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act
Devin Nunes (CA) & 24 other Republicans (large overlap with H.R.817)

• The President must notify Congress & Governor and hold hearings
• There must be a study of impacts, including impact on oil and coal extraction
• Without congressional approval the National Monument expires in 2 years

H.R.817

To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for other purposes.
Wally Herger (CA) & 9 others (large overlap with H.R.758)

• National Monuments are subject to approval by an Act of Congress

H.R.845

Denny Rehberg (MT)

• Add Montana to Wyoming’s exemption

• Require Congressional approval to act on Secretary of the Interior’s Order No. 3310

  • Order No. 3310 states that "…the protection of the wilderness characteristics of public lands is a high priority for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is an integral component of its multiple use mission." This order requires the value as wilderness to be considered in land use plans.

H.R.2147

Utah Land Sovereignty Act
Rob Bishop (UT) & 1 other

• add Utah to Wyoming’s Antiquities Act exemption

S.144

A bill to prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress.
John Ensign (NV, resigned)

• Adds Nevada to Wyoming’s exemption

S.407

National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act of 2011
Mike Crapo (ID, R) & 8 others

• More verbose version of H.R.758

S.927

Agency Overreach Moratorium Act
David Vitter (LA)

• Prohibit resource extraction permits to be withdrawn without an Act of Congress
• Require an Act of Congress to implement a National Monument
• Before any Federal agency makes any changes related to permits for natural resource extraction, the Secretary of Commerce must submit to Congress an analysis of revenue and property rights impacts

S.1182

A bill to prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments in Utah except by express authorization of Congress.
Orrin G Hatch (UT) & 1 other

• Same as H.R.2147

References:

• GOP wants to give Congress veto on national monuments: the story that brought this to my attention.
• Antiquities Act of 1906: a history of the Act from the National Park Service, including a list of when various National Monuments were established, and whether they were created by Congress or the President
• Bishop seek to strip president of monument designations power
• Western lawmakers rail against new national monuments on public lands
• Bush Eyes Unprecedented Conservation Program: includes a history section The Highs and Lows of the Antiquities Act
• National Monuments and the Antiquities Act: a 2010 CRS Report for Congress
• The Antiquities Act and National Monuments: A Progressive Conservation Legacy
• NPS Archeology Program: 1906–2006 Monuments List
• § 431, § 431A, § 432, § 433: The Antiquities Act as it now stands

It is no longer a luxury to make our economy low-carbon and sustainable. It’s a matter of preventing harm to the species who dwell on the Earth, including our own. Just as an ailing patient can recover, so can an ailing planet. But we must act now. [page 5]

Changing Planet, Changing Health by Paul Epstein and Dan Ferber is an excellent book on the connection between the environment and human health. Even if you aren’t convinced by the planetary science background behind human-caused climate change, this book presents a compelling argument that the actions needed for ecological reasons must also be taken to address health issues.

To maintain and improve human health, we must choose solutions that address all four of the great crises of our time—the global food crisis, the energy crisis, the economic crisis, and climate change. What’s more, we need to do it in a way that is fair to everyone, including the world’s poor. This seems like a daunting task. The good news is that solutions that address these multiple crises are available. [page 281]

I appreciate reading a book based on the fact that these problems are interconnected instead of denying it. There are plenty of books that explain the existence of anthropogenic climate change and other manmade environmental problems, some of which propose a partial solution to one of these problems. Changing Planet, Changing Health is a good addition because it uses systems thinking to show the connection between multiple problems, as well as greatly expanding the coverage of health implications. This is particularly needed after the popularity of books—such as Bjørn Lomborg’s awful Cool It—which are based on trying to disconnect these issues.

Changing Planet, Changing Health centers on describing the the health impacts of climate change, but also includes proposed solutions. In the section on solutions, I was introduced me to a historical parallel that I was unaware of:

In the mid-nineteenth century, when London treated the River Thames like an open sewer, a seemingly never-ending epidemic of epidemics plagued the city. Public health reformers sought citywide authority for massive public works projects to clean up the water supply and dispose safely of sewage. Many Londoners resisted, protesting that an invasive government would threaten their rights as individuals and communities to make their own decisions about waste removal. The reformers won the battle; drinking water was piped in and treated, and modern sanitation systems were installed in cities throughout the developed world. The generations that followed lived longer and healthier lives. [page 293]

This is an apt comparison. We currently treat the atmosphere as a nearly open sewer, with spotty regulations of what and how much can be released into it. It is no longer common to hear arguments against the existence of public utilities for water and sewer, but we are bombarded with the same individual rights argument whenever any limitations on air pollution are discussed. It is common to hear a politician use a states’ rights argument to say that any regulation of pollution—when they admit there should be some regulation—should be at the state level; but due to the competition between states to be the most “business friendly”, this effectively means no regulation. Yet in this close parallel, we see that sometimes government action is necessary. The creation of effective municipal water plants and sewer systems are responsible for nearly eliminating many deseases from the areas with these public works, while the diseases remain common in areas with poor sanitation. Given the direct health, ecological, and climate consequences caused by polluting the atmosphere, and the current low level af activity to reduce this problem, it is reasonable to think that this is also a case where the solution must involve public actions.

Changing Planet, Changing Health easily makes it onto my short list of books you should read. If you aren’t already very familiar with the health implications of our alterations to the planet, Changing Planet, Changing Health should be at the top of your reading list. I’m not the only one to give this book a hearty recommendation, in their review on RealClimate, Jim Bouldin and Rasmus E. Benestad say:

Paul Epstein and Dan Ferber have created in this book an outstanding synthesis of climate change and human/environmental health concerns. It is born of a lifetime’s work, and addresses topics that will potentially affect a very large number of people. This is a great and needed contribution and we recommend it without reservation.

You can also listen to an interview with the authors on Sound Medicine from the Indiana University School of Medicine and WFYI Public Radio. While you are at it, it’s worth reading Chapter 8: Human Health of the Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.

BibTeX:

@book{epstein2011,
	Author = {Paul Epstein and Dan Ferber},
	Publisher = {University of California Press},
	Title = {Changing Planet, Changing Health:
	        How the Climate Crisis Threatens Our Health and What We Can Do about It},
	Year = {2011}
}

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Renewable Energy for Your Home is a very basic intro to the different categories of home energy production and conservation for people who don’t know anything about the subject. After reading this book, you’ll want to read separate books on the areas that you are interested in, but If you’ve never paid attention to small scale generation and home energy conservation, this is a decent place to start.

BibTeX ref:

@book{bryanbelli2009,
	Author = {Bryan, H. and Belli, B.},
	Publisher = {Alpha Books},
	Series = {Complete Idiot's Guide to},
	Title = {The Complete Idiot's Guide to Renewable Energy for Your Home},
	Year = {2009}
}

• Journal Gazette: Mayor calls for garbage fee cut: Recycling program revenue soars
• News-Sentinel: Residents might see lower garbage fee

I heard about the Northeast Indiana Sustainable Business Council earlier this week on the local NPR station. We’ll see how much good NISBC does–and how much is greenwashing–but the fact that it exists is a good sign. When a number of businesses in an area of the country that is often vocally anti-environmental recognize the need for sustainability, you can be sure that everyone knows the issue is important.

From the local news this morning: Exide Technologies battery recycling plant on the south side of Muncie is still putting unsafe amounts of lead into the atmosphere. When I was living on the north side of Muncie, the south side had problems^{[warning: paywall]} with the leaded air around the plant. Since then, the EPA standards have become less lax, but the air in that area is still above the old standard.