Green Policies Mean Less Green in Our Wallets
But what does this have to do with copper pipe theft? According to Mining Exploration News:
It’s all because of the high price of natural gas, which when converted into ammonia is used to produce ammonium nitrate, a key ingredient in fertilizers and explosives. Natural gas prices are up 75 percent so far this year and ammonia prices have doubled since last summer.
The price rises have added to explosives companies’ profits but for miners it is an added cost, along with higher diesel, energy, and labor expenses, narrowing their margins at a time when metals and coal are in big demand.
Which has driven the price for recycled copper — and other metals — through the roof, leading to a crime wave where thieves steal the metal to sell to scrap traders.
While copper may be the most dramatic incident of metal inflation as a result of the increased cost of mining — other government regulations add into the mix as well in the mining industry — it is hardly alone, and increasing metal costs drive inflation in America’s manufacturing industries as well. Cars cost more — which has hurt the U.S. automakers, contributing to the need for a bailout — aluminum siding costs more, gadgets cost more, and the price of those wonderful toys that will so light up your toddler’s face on Christmas morning cost more.
What we have is general inflation across the board, all because of a scarcity of natural gas.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey:
- Federal lands with potential for oil or natural gas resources, including split-estate minerals, total 279.0 million acres.
- Undeveloped gas resources under these federal lands total 231.0 trillion cubic feet, comprising 214.1 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered technically recoverable resources and 16.9 trillion cubic feet of reserves growth.
- Total proved reserves under these federal lands total 5.3 billion barrels of oil and 68.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
- Approximately 60 percent (165.9 million acres) of the federal land is inaccessible. Based on resource estimates, these lands contain about 62 percent of the oil (19.0 billion barrels) and 41 percent of the natural gas (94.5 trillion cubic feet).
- Approximately 23 percent (65.2 million acres) of the federal land is accessible with restrictions on oil and gas operations beyond standard stipulations. Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 30 percent of the oil (9.3 billion barrels) and 49 percent of the gas (112.9 trillion cubic feet).
- Approximately 17 percent of the federal land in these areas (48.0 million acres) is accessible under standard lease terms. Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 8 percent of the oil (2.3 billion barrels) and 10 percent of the gas (23.6 trillion cubic feet).
So, we are starving in the midst of plenty. Environmental restrictions on exploration and development, coupled with resistance to the construction of gas pipelines, have made natural gas scarce. The use of natural gas has been encouraged by our government as an alternative to coal or other “dirty” fuels, yet the increase in demand is not being met with an increase in production. This shortage moves through the economy like a wave, driving price increases in sectors nobody considered.
The economy is like a cloth; each thread is part of the whole and pulling one thread can unravel the entire thing. For decades we have been tugging out those threads through environmental regulations, civil rights regulations (ahem, subprime mortgages), health and safety regulations, etc. Americans seem to want these things, but are unwilling to pay the price associated with them. Too many in this nation believe that they can have something for nothing. In this life, nothing is free and those costs will have to be passed along. We are reaping the harvest we have sown.
Oddly enough, few Americans understand these relationships and an angry nation — angry at the price being paid for decades of liberalism — has opted for “change” by electing someone who will redouble the liberal efforts that have caused this mess. Government policy is responsible for our current economic troubles, yet a majority of Americans voted to put government in charge of fixing it. This is reminiscent of the fox guarding the henhouse — oh, and hens are grain-fed and must be kept warm with natural gas, so the price of poultry and eggs will doubtlessly rise.
So, those of you who voted for Barack Obama have no right to complain when you pay extra for your holiday feast or when you break the bank on your annual Christmas shopping spree. The Bible says that as ye sow, so shall ye reap. America has sown restrictions for years and restrictions mean less of everything. We are now reaping a sparse harvest, placing a horn-o-empty on our tables.
Just be thankful you haven’t had your pipes stolen.
You’re right that people want environmental regulations but are unwilling to pay the higher prices they cause. But equally it would be true the other way round, repeal all these regulations and people would be happy at the lower prices but unwilling to bear the environmental cost.
Whilst this may be a case of the public wanting to have its cake and eat it, I don’t see any great desire for an environmental free-for-all.
One thing I would contest though is that regulation has meant less of everything. Less compared to what? less consumption compared to a theoretical society with no regulation maybe but less compared to 20 or 40 years ago, of course not, regulation has not meant less on the table, just slowed the rate of growth of what’s on the table.
Until and unless capitalism and the free market comes up with a way of dealing with externalities, governments are going to continue to be the only option when it comes to protecting third-parties from the costs of other people’s transactions. This is going to cause somewhat less growth in material consumption than would otherwise be the case but if that’s what the public wants then that’s democracy for you, there is no law stating that material consumption must be prioritised over all other goals..
“people want environmental regulations but are unwilling to pay the higher prices”
Pollution is one thing however nothing compares to the force and power of the Sun; silly little humans do not seem to get this in their egotistical minds.
Get real man, Earth’s natural cycle is doing her own thing and doesn’t care about your scientific research. The Sun spots are going dormant which means shorter growing season which means less food available which means global stravation. Respect Mothernature becasue she can destroy you in an instant, without remorse or compassion.
If the concern is about materialism then go after Gore, Winfrey, Scharzenzennegger, Kennedy Klan and all of Hollywood first before lecturing about consumption.
Show me you’re serious about Saving the Earth…shut down the entire Hollywood industry, the icon of materialism then environmentalism may be taken with some grain of belief.
Ban all movie-making
Ban all pop-rock concerts
Ban tv blowhards
Ban blowhard’s private jets
Ban the Green channel
Ban Queens of Materialism, Oprah and Madonna
“Too many in this nation believe that they can have something for nothing.”
Now there’s a mouthful. Yes ‘too many’ do. And those ‘many’ have a name. They go by the name: Obama Voter.
Mr. Gore this has been the coldest weather we have had in the South since 1880 when records were first started.
I am freezing my ass off,
and you are telling me I should be enjoying global warming?
And while I am griping!
Why do all your ‘Global Warming Meetings’ get snowed out?
/Al is a good friend of mine-
but I wouldn’t buy a used car from him.
Jonesey55:
The problem is not that Capitalism cannot handle Enviro concerns, it’s that it was never given the chance to. Green issues have really only come to the fore in the last 20 years or so. Unfortunately, since many Enviro’s are “Watermelons” (Enviro Green on the outside, Commie red on the inside) Capitalism was never ALLOWED to handle green concerns. Instead, the watermelons have foisted burdensome regulation on us without any real discussion about the true effects of said regulation.
It is my opinion that Capitalism would do a far BETTER job of preserving the planet than Communism ever could. Indeed, when we look at some of the most polluted places on earth, they are, to the last one, places where Communism had or has taken root.
Big Government cannot solve Green concerns. It can only make us all miserable while it fails to solve anything.
Sorry,
I put that Gore post in the wrong place?
/sorry, please don’t post.
If we can drill responsibly for gas on school grounds and urban neighborhoods in Fort Worth, we can do so anywhere else.
The discussion is not about regulation, but the outright ban on exploration and drilling, which is what the Feds and many state governments have pursued the last few decades.
From an eco perpective, its better to allow exploration within the legal framework of the US rather than ban it, and have it go overseas, where there is no framework and the resulting exploration can become exploitation. This externality is not mentioned when anti-industrial environmentalists take the stage, but it is real.
Slow rate of growth has a human dimension in poorer nations that has severe negative externality for local environmental quality. Again, this is something that is ignored.
For those who like to talk about how we are all connected and know how energy flows in ecosystems, they are woefully ignorant about the connections between the human economy and the effects of their policies.
Wearyman,
Yes, the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and Asia did a terrible job of protecting the environment but that’s not really relevant I don’t think as nobody is suggesting government regulation and control of industry along the lines of Albania or North Korea.
There are plenty of other choices in between ‘full communist control’ and ‘don’t bother with any laws, the market will always produce the perfect solution’.
Government passing a law which says that factories cannot spew carcinogens into drinking water or pump radioactive gases onto school playing fields does not equal communism, far from it, capitalism also needs regulations and laws or else it can’t work.
Of course it should be understood that when Obama’s plans to “green” up the economy and American in general fail, it surely can be traced back to Bush somehow right? I’m waiting for vivo and his comrades to come explain it all for us. Gore and Michael Moore and all of the other global warming numnuts should be held to task in future years for starting all of this hysteria. It will take generations to deprogram our youth from all of the misinformation.
Austin, yes a total drilling and exploration ban seems bizarre, at the very least each case should be looked at individually to see whether possible gains will likely outweigh objections.
I guess the capitalist solution might be to not regulate at all but to make it easy for people whose land, property or health has been negatively affected in any way by the activities of third parties to claim compensation costs to negate those damaging effects and for government to rigorously enforce that system.
Your factory fumes make my washing black, pay for my detergent and new clothes, my house has halved in value since you built your sawmill next to it, you pay me the difference. That way producers would account for probable externalities when planning investments.
Of course this system would also mean more costs for producers and thus higher prices for products in the stores just like the regulatory system does.
Other problems would be though that just like regulation it would also be a very expensive system to manage with all the exhorbitant legal costs and so on and because corporations have limited liability and can just go bankrupt to escape their responsibilities, some might be tempted to make the short term profits and later wriggle out of the problems it causes leaving individuals and the taxpayer to clean up the problem.
By “inaccessible” do you mean that the land can’t be reached with drilling gear, or do you mean that the government has put it out of reach?
Parents, teach your kids that costs get passed on. Please!
Articles like this one should be read aloud every day in classrooms across the country. Everyone should be made aware of the unnecessary costs and shortages the greenies want to foist on us in the name of halting “climate change”, AGW, or whatever foolishness they concoct in their empty little heads. The reality is that the Earth’s climate has always been changing and will coninue to change, all on its own.
It takes a truly sick and devious mind to turn a perfectly natural occurence into an excuse to control others and cause needless suffering.
i’m testing the gore personal methane sequestration nanofactory as i recite his new mantra – feta cheese the new oil.
“You’re right that people want environmental regulations but are unwilling to pay the higher prices they cause. But equally it would be true the other way round, repeal all these regulations and people would be happy at the lower prices but unwilling to bear the environmental cost.” Jonesy55
Remove 95% of the environmental regulations and the environment for humans would actually be healthier. There is no tradeoff. All that are needed are (very minimal) downstream laws that protect property rights.
“Just be thankful you haven’t had your pipes stolen.”
Yet.
Ah, yes; More hot air from the bloviated media. They were able to sell the American people on an unknown entity (Barack Hussein Obama), and now they set their sights on selling this global warming crap. And the “Grey Lady” is one of the biggest proliferators of this barf.
Nice to see that they have to lay off employees and staff and their revenue is falling. But they will pump out as much barf as possible until they finally expire. With Al Jezeera and U.K. diagnosis of the U.S.’s problems, who needs to pay big bucks for the New York Times. The lowest rating on the New York Times Best Seller List is the NYT itself. Hooray!!
When the New York Times expires, the U.S. will be much greener for it, in both senses of the word.
This “green” thing is killing the middle class. But I think that’s the idea…
Carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Al Gore’s premise is based on incompetent computer modeling. The “hockey stick” graph is not accurate. The “scientists” cooked the books. The peer review process has been subverted. CO2 follows warming, it does not lead it. The polar bear pictures were not the truth, they are fine; the Maldives are not sinking. It’s the sun.
This does not mean we should abandon efforts to control real pollutants, it does mean that EPA regulations of CO2 emissions from buildings, cows and chickens as well as cap and trade rules for industry are futile wastes of taxpayer money which will devastate our economy. This does not mean we should cease
our efforts to curtail our dependency on foreign oil and make efforts to find other forms of energy. It does however remove the necessity for any undue haste or urgent action.
It is dismaying to see to what extent citizens of this Republic are held in contempt by our elected officials. We are not exhorted as equals to meet and overcome challenges with courage and resolve. Instead we are
threatened like children by lies to enforce compliance with rules and regulations promulgated by our leaders for us lesser beings.
Of course a lot of them are making a lot of money on the deal, too.
As Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, said: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
What the difference between political correctness and selective vision. None.
Draft the greenies,and force them to pull rickshaws on a diet of tofu and distilled water;let ‘em suffer for their beliefs!