Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Some Unintended Consequences from Environmental Politics

Environmentalism today has morphed into a fad (yes...a frothy bubble) such that rampant imposition of regulations have led to undesired consequences.

And here we find some examples of the harmful side effects.

1. A ban on lead toys have halted sales of bikes and threatens a change in behavior of children...

From USA Today (all bold highlights mine) , ``A new federal law aimed at protecting children from lead in toys has also forced a nationwide halt in sales of off-road motorcycles and recreational vehicles built for young riders, killing off a multimillion-dollar industry that was thriving despite the recession.

``Thousands of powersports dealers were told to halt sales of vehicles designed for children 12 and younger because of new lead restrictions in an act of Congress that took effect Feb. 10....

``With the motor vehicle industry already hurting from recession, he said the ban means a 20% drop in sales of youth off-road motorcycles and the parts business for bikes already sold...

``The ban will have repercussions economically.

``The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates nearly 100,000 youth bikes were sold in the USA in 2008, though some were aimed at kids 13 and older and not covered by the ban. Dealernews, an industry trade publication, estimates that the value of inventory at U.S. dealers that can no longer be sold probably exceeds $100 million...

``Most cycles and ATVs are made overseas, but there are tens of thousands of jobs attached to the industry here. More than 13,000 powersports dealers sell products in the United States, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council, employing an estimated 124,000 people. Vitrano says the industry estimates the retail market value for all off-road cycles and ATVs is $14.5 billion a year, including sales, service, parts, accessories and payroll.

``Vitrano says the ban will have a perverse effect: Rather than no longer riding, kids who can't get a cycle their size may hop on a bike made for older children or adults — one inappropriate and dangerous for a smaller child...

``The economy notwithstanding, enthusiasts say the ban needlessly kills a family-oriented sport where children ride with their moms and dads and, like other sports, can induce children to behave."

2. Biking Scheme Ruined By Theft

From BBC (bold highlights mine), ``A popular bicycle rental scheme in Paris that has transformed travel in the city has run into problems just 18 months after its successful launch.

``Over half the original fleet of 15,000 specially made bicycles have disappeared, presumed stolen.

``They have been used 42 million times since their introduction but vandalism and theft are taking their toll.

``The company which runs the scheme, JCDecaux, says it can no longer afford to operate the city-wide network.

``Championed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, the bikes were part of an attempt to "green" the capital...

``City hall has recently agreed to pay towards the costs of replacing the stolen or trashed bicycles but is refusing to bail out the company.

3. Manipulating environments have led to baneful environmental imbalances...

From New Scientist (bold emphasis mine) , ``Good intentions have rarely gone so awry. When conservationists tried to save an island's birds by culling its feral cat population, they overlooked one critical consequence: rabbits. A new study reveals that removing just 160 feral cats triggered a boom in Macquarie Island's rabbit population from about 4000 in the year 2000 to 130,000 in 2006.

``The cats were shot as they had been preying on the island's burrowing birds. But the newly rampant rabbits have devastated vegetation over 40% of the island. Clearing up the mess is expected to cost at least $16 million, and it remains unclear whether the island will ever fully recover.A landslip in 2006 that badly damaged a penguin colony has been blamed on rabbit destruction of the vegetation.

``A World Heritage Site halfway between Australia and the Antarctic, the Macquarie Island case is a tragic demonstration of why agencies in charge of conservation need to analyse all aspects of an eradication programme. "We need a culture change," says Hugh Possingham of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. "It's a generalisation, but people who do environmental work are often adverse to mathematics, and so avoid quantitative risk assessments."

My additional comment: the late author Michael Crichton has a great exposition on why attempts to manipulate environment almost always ends up opposite to the desired goal/s; see our previous post Michael Crichton And The Complexity Theory.

4. Green Policies have recently instigated a man made disaster -Australia's bushfire which claimed 173 lives ...

From theage.com.au (bold underscore mine), ``ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

``During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said.

``"We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."...

``Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored...

``Of all the speakers who addressed the meeting, it was Arthurs Creek CFA Captain David McGahy who got the most rousing reception.

``Choking back tears he told them: "I'm so terribly sorry. We desperately wanted to protect you but we couldn't. [my comment-too late the hero... officials have always been reactive]

``"In the cold analysis of light, it wouldn't have mattered if we'd have had 200 units here, all that would have happened is we would have ended up with a whole lot of dead firefighters. I've been at this game for about 40 years and I haven't experienced anything like that, not even remotely like it."

Ben O'Neill lays the blame squarely on socialism as to why such a devastating mishap occurred (all bold highlight mine),

``Because private ownership entails the right to control one's own property, and because some people may not wish to sacrifice their lives to prevent interference with local possums, environmentalists seek to achieve their goals through government ownership of landland socialism. In this endeavor, they have been very successful. State forests, national parks, and other Crown land in Victoria make up approximately one third of the state but contributed four-fifths of the February 2009 bushfires. And as with all examples of land socialism, the situation in Victoria has created an incentive structure that has destroyed accountability, thereby exacerbating the disaster.

``As mere caretakers of public land, bureaucrats and local politicians are not liable for any loss caused by their mismanagement. Nor do they have any personal stake in its capital value. When property is destroyed due to their ineptitude and their enslavement to the philosophy of environmentalism, their savings are not in danger. If anyone is required to pay for compensation, it is taxpayers who have had nothing to do with the whole mess. For the local councilor or the state or federal politician, what matters is getting the green vote, showing how "environmentally conscious" they are, and placating all those green lobby groups and media darlings that might say nasty things about them if they don't toe the line."

My comment: Politicians secure the power to engage in environmental socialism but hasn't be held responsible for the acts of neglect or omissions or damages accrued to the society. The irony is it is the taxpayer who suffers...as the victim (of the consequences of these perverse laws) and likewise bears the onus of indemnification of the victims.

The last word comes from Lew Rockwell who diagnosed the California bushfire in 2003 (as quoted by Ben O'Neill),

``What went wrong? The problem is in the theory of environmentalism. Under it, ownership is the enemy. Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.

``Then the brush begins to gather. It piles higher and higher. Old growth rots. Uncontrolled growing leads to crowding. When the weather gets hot the stuff combusts. Then the winds blow and the fires spread. It's been the same story for several decades now, ever since the loony theory that nature should be left alone took hold."

Lesson: the laws of nature eventually overwhelm human intervention.

No comments: