Since the folks behind this video sent out the transcript as a press release, I’ll use it in my debunking. As you’ll see, this propaganda video mostly consists of straw men, zombies, and zombie straw men.

If I wanted America to fail

By Ryan Houck, Free Market America

If I wanted America to fail …

The first thing to notice is that the video is set up to persuade people that their opponents actually want America to fail. If they wanted an honest evaluation of ideas, the would set up the video as an argument that their opponents mistakenly think X will help America succeed.

From here on, I’ll refer to Free Market America as FMA.

To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream.

I would start with energy.

Actually, this is true. But the considered response is not what FMA is advocating. As we’ll see, this video is propaganda, largely promoting the failure of America. We’ll also see Houck stray from energy policy to conservation.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

So after a couple reasonable introductory sentences, Houck exposes his agenda. It isn’t “cheap, abundant energy” but an expansion of oil and coal.

Our most abundant source of energy is solar. Averaged over the entire day, we receive around 250W / m² of power from the sun. This is so much power that we could provide all power used by the United States by simply covering 7% of structures in the country with solar panels, even if we only use old photovoltaic technology. While coal and oil are finite resources, solar power will be available as long as the sun still shines.

Whether or not one feels guilty for using energy is beside the point. Given the currently available and future supplies of the various energy sources, the current level of technology, the impacts of various energy sources, and economics; the case for conservation of energy (particularly fossil fuels) is clear. As prominent energy executive S David Freeman wrote, “The cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable source of energy is the energy we avoid using.” Freeman knows this from experience: he has a record of saving failing energy companies by using conservation, supplemented with increased generation as necessary. Conservation works, partially because improving energy efficiency is often less expensive than adding additional power. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t also entirely reasonable to feel guilty about sacrificing the nation’s future for instant gratification.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

I don’t know of anyone who is trying to “all-but-outlaw” America’s abundant energy sources, even if you mistakenly believe that coal and oil are our abundant energy sources. The most I know of that any politician has succeeded in doing is to make an effort speed up adding other energy sources to fossil fuels.

To verify my evaluation of this video as propaganda, it is important to note the term “unelected bureaucrats.” This term is being used to imply that the government is creating an unaccountable system for the purpose of depriving us of energy. In fact, the unelected bureaucrats were hired by the people because they are necessary to enforce the laws passed by the accountable elected officials. Without the hired bureaucrats, the actions of elected officials are meaningless.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

Ah, an excellent example of how this video is agitprop. If the video was meant for education, or merely propaganda in the positive sense, it wouldn’t have included this statement. This is because this is a well known straw man. The predictions of a coming ice age were largely in the popular media, not the scientific journals. But this video implies that the coming ice age was the general view to the extent that it was what was typically taught. But the statement that the prediction in the 1970s was global cooling has been refuted many many times. A more accurate representation of the state of knowledge in the ’70s would be that more research was needed, but the evidence for anthropogenic global warming was mounting. It is amazing that anyone still repeats this oft-debunked misrepresentation of history with a straight face.

The use of a commonly debunked straw man is bad enough, but the indoctrination implied in the statement, “I’d use our schools,” justifies my classification of this video as propaganda.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

This is another surprisingly popular canard. But as anyone who bothers to check knows, the terms “global warming” and “climate change” have both been used for decades. So even if the choice of which term is used in each instance was correlated with the weather at the moment, the “call it Climate Change” statement would be false. This is because scientists have long used both terms for related-but-distinguishable phenomena; so long, in fact, that the early uses of the terms predate the politicization of climate.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes.

This is a particularly perilous bit of sophistry, so I expect to run into this phrase again. This is simply using a clever turn of phrase to imply that sustainable energy is not viable, ignoring the fact that we will inevitably shift to solar being the dominant energy source, with renewable indirect solar sources—such as wind—providing all our remaining supply. This is because petroleum, coal, and natural gas are limited resources that are being rapidly depleted. The eventual shift is not in question, the doubts are only about the timing. As Carl Sagan is reported to have said, “any intelligent civilisation on any planet will eventually have to use the energy of its parent star, exclusively.”

I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables. I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.

While there is a very small group that argues against any human activity, this isn’t significant in the context of this video. The purpose of the video is clearly to further develop an emotional affinity among prospective voters, who will then be more likely to choose candidates that support free enterprise. This means that we must consider the positions of the candidates, not of small fringe groups. But the video is implying that the views available are their own or their negation. This is an inaccurate representation. Those who hold the negation of FMA’s views are such a small group that they do not have any significant influence in America. The variety of opinions represented by the actual candidates ranges from those who believe in completely wanton exploitation of all resources to those who believe that there are some limits on the exploitation of resources. This is an example of the division between free enterprise and free market. This video is produced by a group that explicitly exists to advocate free enterprise capitalism over free market capitalism. One common tactic among the free enterprise crowd is to redefine free market as a synonym of free enterprise. The failure to distinguish between these terms is what allows Houck to make these claims while using the term “free market.” But even Adam Smith recognized that a free market is not a completely unregulated market.

Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

I don’t know of anyone in America than is demonizing prosperity itself. There are certainly critiques of particular routes to prosperity, but not “prosperity itself.”

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance – and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

This is, of course, a misrepresentation of the situation in the US. It is worth noting that the lawyers and lobbyists typically work for large corporations, and often ensure that regulations are to help themselves and hinder their competitors. This is far from the “regulations are killing us” picture presented by FMA.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

Actually, the comparison with Flat Earthers a good one. At first glance, both the idea of a Flat Earth and the idea of increasing the rate of oil and coal extraction sound reasonable. This is why these ideas have stuck around for so long. But once one examines the evidence, both are revealed to be ridiculous ideas. If one looks at how long it takes to increase the extraction and processing rate of fossil fuels—which only hastens their exhaustion—and compares it to how long it takes to ramp up solar and wind, the clear winner is renewable energy. The argument that the fossil fuel advocates are the ones who want to increase energy supply is revealed to be a ridiculous misunderstanding of supply and demand. The way to increase supply is through increased solar and wind. Effective supply can also be increased through efficiency. But free enterprise folks usually don’t consider increasing renewable energy supply to be increasing supply.

I’ll leave the debunking of the “sympathetic media” charge to others, but note that the most popular news sources are Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

An odd example, since this is referring to the enforcement of a law that was passed under President William McKinley, and most recently updated under President George W Bush. They have had 112 years to oppose this necessary and—one assumes—popular law. Unsurprisingly, some businessmen affected by this law support it, Chris Martin is reported to have said, “I think it’s a wonderful thing. I think illegal logging is appalling. It should stop. And if this is what it takes unfortunately to stop unscrupulous operators, I’m all for it.”

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.

Once again, this isn’t being done. There are some restrictions on some methods and locations, but in general the various federal departments exist to promote these activities.

And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones. I’d devise fictitious products — like carbon credits — and trade them in imaginary markets. I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

It is important to remember that both sides believe in the Invisible Hand of the free market, the difference is in what they believe constitutes a free market. Once this distinction is recognized, it becomes clear that there is no attempt to invent false markets. The point of proposed carbon dioxide emissions trading is that the true cost is not currently reflected in the price of fossil fuels. Because having a free market requires that the full cost is reflected in the price, we do not have a free market. “Cap and Trade” is far from perfect, but it is certainly not an “imaginary market”; it is a convenient way of coming closer to a free market as opposed to an unrestrained market. A more accurate understanding of Cap and Trade is to recognize it as eliminating an implicit subsidy in order to create a free market.

It has already been proven that a Cap and Trade system can be an effective free market solution for reducing pollution: sulfur dioxide trading for large power plants was created under President G H W Bush. It proved to be a good way to remove a market distortion. This success was achieved after years of predictions of disaster by the advocates of free enterprise. In fact, the program was so successful that few people even realize it existed.

If I wanted America to fail …

For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause; Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins — and not people — it would already be decades too late.

This is another spurious accusation, revealing that energy isn’t FMA’s concern. This wasn’t an invented crisis to shut down an industry; it was a moderate response in order to mitigate a problem that was shown by objective research. Far from “shutting down entire industries,” what happened was simply conserving some public property, while allowing the logging industry to continue on other public and private land. Remember, while trees can be a renewable resource, for all practical purposes old-growth forests are not. This is because they take many human lifetimes to recover. And, as can be seen by walking in nearly any bit of woods in Indiana, what grows back isn’t necessarily the native plants; recovery takes many years, if it happens at all.

The moderate conservation that been achieved is easy to justify without flagship species and indicator species, but these ore the ones that stick in the public’s mind. Focusing on flagship species is a useful simplification as long as we remember there is an entire ecosystem in question. Houck mistakenly reports that scientists thought people were directly killing the spotted owls. This is, of course, not the case. The owls population declining to the point of endangerment through habitat loss. This means people were the cause of the decline, even though it wasn’t due to direct killing. The fact that competition with barred owls as well as habitat loss from logging were causing the decline of spotted owls isn’t an ironic mistake by scientists, it is a misunderstanding by Houck. As was reported by Craig Welch in Smithsonian Magazine, “far from saying that the logging restrictions were a mistake, owl biologists largely insist that more forests must be spared, especially since heavy logging continues on state and private land.”

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it – easier to kill jobs than create them – more fashionable to resent success than to seek it.

Yet another odd but popular straw man.

When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them. And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact. I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.

It is interesting that they are calling continued enforcement of conservation laws that have been on the books for decades a “suicide pact.” The past three Republican presidents fought—and often succeeded—in reversing and weakening the conservation laws that were created by earlier Republicans. As for the cost, this is another example of the math difficulties suffered by many proponents of free enterprise. Some regulations directly save money, while many others cost less than not acting.

I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans.

I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good.

If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.

We have seen that Free Market America’s video relies entirely on straw men and ideology to create an emotional appeal for one variety of capitalism. Doing this requires a disconnect between ideology and facts. I’ve shown that FMA’s accusations are baseless by using easily obtainable facts. Education and reason are a better reply than emotional appeals, as seen in my many other posts. I do not think that the free enterprise believers are intentionally trying to destroy the country. I do think that some of their policies are inevitably detrimental. The free market can work, but I am no competitiofideist.

It is amazing how perceptions of distance can differ between modes of transportation. One of the reasons I mostly stopped mountain biking years ago was the unfavorable comparison of total time dedicated to a ride and the actual ride time spent riding. The closest off road spot is a frustrating 25 minute or so drive away, but on a road bike I can be out in the country and away from traffic in just a few minutes. The lost hour and wasted gas are good reasons to just go on a road ride instead. The local mountain bike ride isn’t too far away, but the quickest way to drive there includes some sections of road that I’d rather not bike. But about a month ago, I looked at a map, and realized that a longer and safer alternate route was shorter than I anticipated. So I gave it a try. It turns out that even though I’d chosen a longer route on a bike than in the car, it still took the same 25 minutes to get to Franke Park. But instead of a frustrating trip with bad drivers, traffic lights that are always against me, and thoughts of how much gas I’m wasting, taking the bike route is a relaxing warm-up before the real ride. So now I’ve been mountain biking twice a week. And because I’m not wasting an hour getting my bike to the park and back, I am able to ride for an hour longer than I could if I drove there.

Even though I’m heading most of the way across town, I can still make the trip in the same time on bike or in a car. This shows that if you are in a city, it is worth comparing travel times in a car and on bike. Once traffic is taken into account, cars don’t necessarily have an advantage.

It’s usually another six weeks before the lake is as warm as it is now. With the lack of winter this year, and the extended heat wave, this shouldn’t be too surprising, but it still is. This heat wave is even so hot that some places have experienced lows above their record highs.

The unseasonably warm and dry weather did create excellent conditions for a 40 acre prescribed burn at Fox Island. This year we were able to do the best burn of the oak tree field—a prairie area with lots of invasive honeysuckle—that I have ever seen. And with rain just a couple hours after the burn finished, we didn’t have to worry about any embers lighting the unburned area.

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