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.

Here are the monthly average retail gasoline prices in the USA since 1976:

Take a few seconds to examine the overall price trend and the points where there are major changes in the price of gasoline.

Now that the price changes are fresh in your memory, consider some basic facts:

• Oil is a finite resource.
• Oil is a fungible commodity.
• Population is increasing.
• Car ownership in China and India has increased dramatically in recent years.

Now, consider the dates of several historic events, including:

• Important revolutions
• Market bubbles popping
• Major terrorist attacks
• Major recessions

This is enough to have a reasonable understanding of the price of oil, without a more detailed look. With this understanding of the context of gas prices, consider:

• Given the information above, how much control does the President of the United States have over the price of gasoline?
• If you had to choose one price or trend to represent the cost of gasoline under President Bush or Obama, what would be the most honest price or trend in prices?
• What points do the Republican presidential candidates reference as the price of gas under Presidents Bush and Obama?
• What (if any) price trend do the Republican presidential candidates mention as the trend under Presidents Bush and Obama?

It should now be clear that the major GOP presidential candidates are either misinformed about the price of oil, or are intentionally deceptive. Which is more probable? Is one of these alternatives acceptable?

There is an interesting discord between two protest groups that have been in the news in the past few months.

Many of the most vocal supporters of the annual March for Life—now in its 38^th year—are among the most vocal opponents of the Occupy movement. They claim the Occupiers are just ‘whiny protesters’ taking the ‘lazy’ way to stand against ‘perceived injustices’. They complain that the Occupy movement gets disproportionate press coverage, and that the March for Life doesn’t get the coverage it deserves. Similarly, the Occupy folks complain about poor media coverage. Both groups perceptions of media coverage are partially an example of the hostile media effect, but the animosity raises a clear problem:

The philosophies that give rise to the problems that the Occupy movement is protesting are the same philosophies behind the existence of legal abortion in the United States.

The problems combated by both groups are rooted in philosophies that celebrate avarice to the extent that the complete devaluation of others is encouraged.¹ Whether the majority of those in either protest group recognize this underlying commonality is another story; it appears that many don’t, but a little mutual philosophical examination could improve the progress of both groups.

Why the antagonism instead of cooperation? The main anti-abortion² advocates concentrate exclusively on one narrow effect of the root problem: abortion. This single-minded effort has worsened other consequences of the celebration of avarice. This is because the concentration has historically led to strange political alliances: instead of working with groups that fight other problems with the same root, they typically endorse the most vocal champions of avarice, with a claimed disapproval of abortion as the only condition for endorsement. Since this philosophical compromise has continued for decades, it appears that the most vocal anti-abortion advocates are actually unaware that many of the positions held by supposedly anti-abortion politicians are actually at odds with philosophies that necessitates the pro-life stance. This dissonance is likely partially responsible for the rise of those in the anti-abortion movement who are no longer concerned with social issues. It is also a consequence of a philosophical background that often appears to only be acquired in order to have rational arguments to back their initial, and correct, emotional revulsion at abortion. This disconnect has unfortunately led to the complete dismissal of the significance—and even the existence—of the injustices the Occupy movement protests, and to the ridicule of potential allies.

The Occupy movement is protesting a wide range of problems with the same root, but their goal is explicitly to raise awareness, not to propose specific solutions. This has the benefit of creating a wide base, but this also means that many are likely to miss the other implications of their implicit recognition of the problem of avarice. Many may only recognize the effects without connecting them to their root cause. This is one reason the movement is partially only in protest against obvious problems such increasing income inequality partially due to regressive taxes, unfair representation due to unlimited corporate spending in elections and the doctrine of corporate personhood, and so on. A more examined and coherent philosophy would add to this an effort to educate the public on the root causes of the problems, which are also the root causes of legal abortion. To be fair, while many in the movement appear to be just reacting against the bad economy caused by the celebration of unrestrained avarice, a significant portion of the Occupy supporters have certainly done more philosophical introspection than those who are causing the problems.

The Occupy movement has successfully raised public awareness of problems that even in the first years Great Recession didn’t receive enough attention. The March for Life plays a role in bringing attention to the problem of legal abortion, though it seems to be mostly a motivational exercise for those involved to do something at other times of the year. Neither movement is perfect, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t both beneficial. The common philosophical necessity should make the groups allies. Unfortunately, the most popular interactions I have seen are antagonistic. Real change to solve the problems caused by the celebration of avarice—protested by both the March for Life and Occupy—can’t come without correcting the mistaken philosophy that necessitates both groups, but some progress can be made.

But the silliness of SOPA/PIPA isn’t my point today. The outcry against SOPA/PIPA is good, and hopefully gets the attention of our “representatives.” But where is the outrage about even more important issues? A healthy planet is necessary to sustaining life, but other than some minor stories about the Keystone XL pipeline protests and fracking, climate change and other environmental problems aren’t getting much attention. Much of the coverage these problems get is uncritical repetition of various politician’s claims that the problems don’t exist. Or what about abortion? There are about 2200 abortions per day in the United States, even though the right to life is one of the most fundamental rights.

Protests and letter writing campaigns against bad laws such as SOPA/PIPA are good, but we must also take serious action against other important problems.

Now, for a funny thought….

If I was evil, I’d have created one of the anti-SOPA/PIPA JavaScript overlays. It would be a nice clean one that you can click to get around, and it would have a cookie for each site so you only see it once. But then, half way through the day, I’d insert an ad that must be clicked before viewing the site. Muhaha!

But I’m too ethical to do that, which is why I’ll never make any money.

Suggested reading:

• Google: More about SOPA and PIPA – End Piracy, Not Liberty
• Internet Archive: 12 Hours Dark: Internet Archive vs. Censorship
• Electronic Frontier Foundation: January 18: Internet-Wide Protests Against the Blacklist Legislation
• SOPA Blackout
• Slate: Why Should We Stop Online Piracy?
• John Peebles: Why Does This Have to Be So Hard?

competitiofideism

Literally, faith in competition or rivalry.

The belief that all competition is inherently good and that since some competition is good, more is better.

The irrational belief that competition is the solution to all problems.

ORIGIN this post: from late Latin competitio- ‘rivalry’ + from Latin fides ‘faith’ + -ism

Competitiofideism is a widespread belief among American political philosophies and economic theories. I think that competitiofideism is a useful term for classifying these views.

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 Bakken Formation is part of the Williston Basin Province. For a good short introduction, see the USGS Fact Sheet: Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 2008. Note that while some of the oil is conventional, the Bakken Formation is largely a continuous source. This means special techniques such as hydraulic fracturing are required to extract this oil. It isn’t the conventional “drill a hole and start pumping” sort of source.

The current best estimate of the Bakken Formation is that it contains 3.65 (between 3.0 and 4.3) billion barrels of “undiscovered, technically recoverable oil.” As exploration continues, the estimate for undiscovered, technically recoverable oil will be replaced with an estimate of proven reserves. Both figures are typically significantly lower than (<1/10) the estimate of in place oil, but as we’ll see, this email constantly confuses these numbers.

Here is the quoted email along with my notes and corrections:

From: Jack …
To: …
Sent: Sun, Sep 25, 2011 1:53 pm
Subject: OIL- You better be sitting down when you read this !!!!!!

How many of you can I talk into calling your state senator/representative and suggest that they curtain the tree huggers and get folks working producing oil. Jack

OIL – You better be sitting down when you read this !!!!!! EVERYTHING HERE CAN BE VERIFIED: SEE THE LINKS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MESSAGE.

Ah, linking to sources to provide credibility. As we’ll see, this is only prima facie credibility, checking the sources changes the conclusion.

As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota just 6 months ago.

Cruz Construction is an oilfield services company. It appears that this email may have started as a Cruz Construction marketing message, but if not, it is at least free advertising.

They send every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota and several drivers.

They just bought two new Kenworth’s to add to that fleet; one being a Tri Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it.

They also bought two new cranes (one crawler & one rubber tired) for that division.

Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years.

This is all irrelevant to the message.

Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps down there since there are no rooms available.

Wait, “gold rush town” is a positive term?

Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I checked.

The unemployment for North Dakota is 3.5%, for the entire US it is currently 9.1. This is irrelevant, but true. ND unemployment rate is increasing.

See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota’s economy?

No, but this is because news means something changed.

Here’s an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest.

The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer;

how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."

The story is irrelevant and unsourced, but the claim about US versus Middle East oil is important to check. The numbers we need are easy to find:

The USA has ~20.68 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

The Middle East has ~753.36 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

This means that the Middle East has over 36 times the proven oil reserves as the USA.

The U. S… Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.

It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana.

The USGS press release is real, but the way it is reported in this email is misleading.

Even if it is true that only these groups knew it was coming, this is irrelevant; are the ones who knew it was coming because they are the ones paying attention. The way this is stated it is meant to sound like the report was way out of date, but this isn’t accurate. Rocks aren’t exactly fast changing, so these studies don’t need to be updated often. The change in the estimate is due to the improved models and more advanced extraction techniques.

Check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable (5 billion barrels), at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

This paragraph has a number of problems:

We have been drilling Bakken since the 1950s, but drilling has recently increased. The Prudhoe Bay field was actually discovered in 1968, years after parts of Bakken were already producing.

I traced the 503 billion barrel estimate to a draft study by the late Leigh Price, who was a USGS organic geochemist. The study was never completed, but the draft was made available by the University of North Dakota’s Energy & Environmental Research Center. The study was clearly in draft state, with the estimates variously reported as 200–400 and 271–503 billion barrels. It is important to note that this is an estimate for the quantity of oil in place. This does not mean the amount recoverable, which is much lower. The current EIA Annual Energy Outlook estimate for unconventional oil fields is that 8% will be recoverable.

This email estimates 10% recoverable, or 50 billion barrels. Notice the factor of 10 error stating that 5 billion barrels (1%) will be recoverable. Using the 50 billion barrels number this puts the oil at $5.4 trillion, using the 5 billion barrels number in the email puts this at $540 billion. Using the current best estimate for a maximum of 4.3 billion barrels extractable, the maximum recoverable value of the Bakken oil is $500 billion.

Even the high estimate for total North American proved oil reserves is lower than than this email’s estimate for the amount extractable from the Bakken Formations.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor.

They had no idea…” says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’

It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada.

The reaction of politicians to this news is irrelevant.

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.

Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.

However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves,

and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil,

those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL !!!!!!

As I’ve already shown, the 500 billion barrels is a significant overstatement of the recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation.

I don’t know where the $16/barrel cost came from, but it is an extremely optimistic number. The extraction of oil from the Bakken Formation has increased as higher prices support more expensive extraction techniques, so expecting this oil to be extracted at $16/barrel is unrealistic. Additionally, this ignores the fact that oil is sold on a world market.

That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

Using the current rate of petroleum product consumption in the US (with no growth), the Bakken Formation would supply the US for less than one year. That’s a long way from 2041 years. The email is internally inconsistent with numbers, but if I’m generous and say it means 30 years, it is still off in US oil consumption by a minimum of either 4.2 or 42 times. That is, the email claims that USA uses either 24% to 2.4% of the oil we actually do. If we only used 24% of the petroleum that we actually do, we could stop importing oil and our domestic supplies would last twice as long. That’s a reasonable conservation goal, but that’s the opposite of what this email is promoting.

And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from 2006 !!!!!!

U.. S. Oil Discovery – Largest Reserve in the World.

Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world.

It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

It looks like this section was modified from an earlier email. Notice that this is yet another internal inconsistency: this estimate is four times the estimate used earlier in the email, which was already over one hundred times the current best estimate of the quantity of recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation. And as seen above, we have been extracting this oil for decades at an increasing pace. 105 million barrels of oil extracted from Bakken between the 1950s and 2007 is a long way from “none”.

With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news:

We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

18 times as much oil as Iraq

21 times as much oil as Kuwait

22 times as much oil as Iran

500 times as much oil as Yemen

And it’s all right here in the Western United States !!!!!!

Also notice that once again, the email is comparing proven reserves to in place oil.

So what’s the real comparison? Comparing apples-to-apples: the Middle East has over 36 times the proven reserves that the United States does. Remember, the email is claiming that the USA has not only more oil than these countries combined, but the entire world combined. Here are the actual current estimates:

The email’s comparison of the US and Saudi Arabian reserves is off by a factor of 100: we don’t have 8x the oil of Saudi Arabia, they have 12x the proven reserves we do.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY?

This is just false. As we’ve seen, we have been extracting this oil for decades, and the rate has significantly increased in the past few years. Even if we somehow had immediate access to the full supply of this oil Formation, it wouldn’t even let us be independent of foreign oil for one year.

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Again?

Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, it has to.

Now this is odd. The email recognizes that oil is an international competitive market, but wants OPEC to “drop its price” because of an old update to the estimate of the amount of oil found in part of the USA. This is a gross misunderstanding of the oil market. To oversimplify: Oil is a fungible commodity on a world market, so the price is determined by the total world extraction & refining rate and the total world demand. This means that for OPEC to “drop its price”, it would have to increase its extraction rate enough to significantly change the world supply, which it has no reason to do. (The EIA has a good explanation of the world oil market.)

Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

This is also an odd and irrelevant claim. Particularly since oil industry funding of anti-environmentalist organizations is so well documented.

Got your attention yet? Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices. By doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to everyone in your address book.

If nothing else in this email raised your suspicion, the exhortation to forward it should.

By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the link below !!!!!! http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

As shown above, while this news release does confirm a couple of the points in this email, it also contradicts the other 2/3 of the email. And that’s before you read the FAQ.

Curz Construction: http://www.cruzconstruct.com/services.php

It is interesting that instead of citing another source, the email cites a oilfield service company that is currently expanding its operations in North Dakota.

After researching my response, I found that Snopes had already debunked an earlier version. Independent verifications like this are why I recommend at least checking Snopes before forwarding this sort of email.

It is clear that there is nothing substantial to this email’s claim that we can have cheap gas and petroleum independence by simply extracting more oil from North Dakota. Even if we were somehow able to rapidly increase the oil extraction rate in the Williston basin, it wouldn’t significantly change gas prices. The way to free ourselves from foreign oil is through efficiency and alternative energy sources.

Update: After writing this, I looked at the article on Snopes. It appears that Snopes’ attribution of the origin of this email to a 2006 investment marketing letter is accurate.

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

Well, the United States has indefinitely given up on independently flying to space. It’s time to hurry up and start seriously working on a new NASA vehicle to launch humans into space.

For those who say that not using the Shuttle anymore is no big deal because it is so old, look at how old many of the aircraft still flying are. A thirty year operational life isn’t really that long. It is common to upgrade avionics and keep using an airplane for decades. This is what NASA did with the Shuttle. This doesn’t mean we should keep using the Shuttle, just that saying it is thirty years old and so must be eliminated is a bad argument. Now that it is no longer flying, we need a major NASA effort (bigger and better funded than the ones I know of) to create a replacement. I’m sure we can come up with a vehicle that is safer and less expensive to operate. Unfortunately, Congress seems to be saying, “Probes, telescopes, or manned flight. Pick one. Maybe.”

The photo is from NASA’s STS-135 site.