frankhagan.com

The Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, notes that yet another math-challenged environmentalist is on a campaign against children:

The carbon footprint from having more than two children will inflict too much damage on the environment to justify having any more. Straight from Porritt’s mouth:

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.

I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

Note: Mr. Porritt is the chair of the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, a body that I’m sure justifies its own “environmental footprint”.

We often hear this refrain from the left. I am assuming they arrive at the per-capita environmental footprint by dividing the nation’s total by the number of people, and then using that number as the multiplier for any additional people added. But that is the wrong formula to use.

In the next breath some environmentalists rail against “suburbanization” and claim high density living is the answer; no more ranch-style homes in the suburbs with wasteful driving into the city to work.

Big families are models of high density living. Growing up with 8 people in a house with two bathrooms, I can tell you that our per capita use of water was much less than a smaller family. We did get clean, but peer pressure forced shorter showers; there’s nothing relaxing about a shower when your little sister is frantically pounding on the bathroom door and crying “I’m gonna’ wet my pants!” Our 2,000 square foot house was a better environmental use of space than the childless couple next door that had 1,500 square feet, although they were much better at controlling “noise pollution”.

Big families practice mass transit. Piling all the kids into the station wagon, SUV or mini van is more efficient on a “person-mile per gallon” basis than the environmentalist driving alone in his Prius. Longer trips had environmentally friendly rules established … such as no stopping for bathroom breaks until we needed gas. The rush to the bathrooms included several water saving practices, including concurrent use of urinals. 4 boys / 1 flush is a model of efficiency.

On nearly every measure, the large family economizes. Energy use per capita is down. Resources for housing are less, from the lumber to build the house to the per-capita amount of “wasteful grass” in the yard. Gardeners don’t drive to a house with big families; the self-contained home maintenance subset (also called “sons”) handle the outside chores without adding a mile to the vehicle.

10 people watching a Vizio LCD big screen does much less harm than 2 people cuddled in front of their Kuro Plasma with their latest bottle from the Whine of the Month club. The family may be watching American Idol from their antenna, while the environmentally aware couple is raising their awareness with a documentary on Planet Green. But the big family is utilizing the resources more completely, and has less of a carbon footprint.

The US had 297 million people in 116 million households in 2007, with an average population of just 2.56 people per household. Family households average 3.13 people. Back in 1965, that number was 3.7, which doesn’t sound like much of a change. The demographic change that is most telling is the ratio of couples to families (including married couples heading up families). In 1965, there were 42 million couples and 48 million families, a ratio of 80%. In 2007, the number of couples in households was 59 million with families at 78 million … a ratio of 54%. The other parent is living elsewhere. [Source]

All those childless and divorced environmentalists should be ashamed. They are destroying the planet. If they were really serious about saving the planet, they would have three other couples move in with them.

Because you don’t really know about conserving resources and the necessity of being nice to your little sister, until you find yourself pounding on the bathroom door yelling “Hurry up, sis! I’m gonna’ wet my pants!”

Family, Politics

As I show in my article about the Great Alternative Energy Scam, I am a fan of the mild hybrids we have today that are working to increase mileage for consumers (I own a 2006 Prius that I drive daily). But I am also highly critical of the claims some are making about “pure” electric cars and very expensive “extended range” (or, “plug in”) hybrids.

Much has been made of increasing the battery size in the Prius so it can run longer in “electric only” mode, but it simply isn’t panning out, as AutoBlogGreen notes:

Nearly a year ago the city of Seattle started a field test of 14 Toyota Priuses converted to plug-in hybrid capability. At the time, the expectation was that the cars would top 100 mpg overall and 150 mpg in urban driving. The problem is that these PHEVs, like all other hybrids, are particularly sensitive to driving style. If you try to accelerate at any rate above the bare minimum the system won’t stay in EV mode and the mileage improvement is slashed. After 17,636 miles, the 14 cars in the city motor pool are averaging only 51 mpg. That is certainly excellent mileage by any standard, but not that much better than a regular Prius.

Uh, folks, that’s the mileage I get out of my 90 mile daily commute; between 50.1 and 50.4 MPG over the last year. And I’m driving between 65 and 75 MPH. I’ll bet if I had the plug in style Prius I could drive at the same speed and get between 60 and 70 MPG (there is an art to driving the cars, something a city employee won’t bother to learn).

The $10,000 charge for extra batteries … and the extra weight they add … isn’t worth it for most people. Without minor changes in driving style … backing off the gas a bit while going downhill, for instance … the drivers will not see added mileage.

Technology may provide us with a breakthrough in battery design that yields more “energy density” than our current choices. I recognize the need to continue development. But that development must not come at the expense of the consumer. Having unsuspecting consumers incur $10,000 of extra debt is not the way to finance the expansion of alternative energy.

Climate, Tech

President Obama is a masterful speaker, comfortable on the podium and in command of the room. He is a pleasure to listen to for that reason alone. We haven’t seen this type of oratory since Ronald Reagan, and its a welcome change from the “aw shucks” country boy act of President Clinton or the barely intelligible speech of President Bush.

Numerous “fact check” articles are being written as is usually the case with a proposal-laden speech. Some facts are non-material (such as where the automobile was invented), but some are being put forth to advance a particular political agenda. Those are important ones to verify.

Health care reform is a future battle ground between the Democrats and Republicans. As the Cato Institute notes, President Obama’s assertion that medical bills cause a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds, doesn’t ring true:

If what President Obama said were true, there would be approximately 1.05 million health care related bankruptcies in this country every year. However, in 2007 (the last full year for which there is data available, there were a total of only 815,000 non-business bankruptcies nationwide. Moreover, according to a study by Dr. Ning Zhu at UC-Davis, only 5 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. That suggests that in 2007 there were about 41,000 health care related bankruptcies. Too many, to be sure, but a far cry for 1.05 million.

Exaggerating statistics to manufacture a crisis is part and parcel of the act now! school of politics. But, by the time the issue of health care reform is on the table the game-playing will be over. Its time for Mr. Obama to step away from the political gamesmanship of hyperbole and work together with both parties toward reasonable, common sense solutions.

Politics

The environmental left’s preoccupation with carbon emissions has led it to support carbon taxes, behavior modification (“get people out of their gas guzzling cars and into mass transit”) and other liberty-limiting measures that would normally be anathema to them.

Its easy to see why: frame the issue as one of life and death, the proverbial “ticking bomb” scenario, and almost any action is justifiable.

The NY Times reports:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

One of my predictions is that electricity costs will skyrocket by 35% or so within the next two years. As burning coal releases massive amounts of CO2, the “profound impact” the NY Times notes will mean higher costs passed on to consumers. Some analysts quoted in the Times piece contend the EPA will only be able to regulate new sources coming on line; in essence this spells the end of any future coal-powered electrical generating plants.

CNNMoney.com notes that the EPA route is not broad enough for the Obama administration:

Specifically, Obama wants an economy-wide law – instead of just some major emitting sectors – and to auction off 100% of the emission credits, which analysts say could exponentially increase the cost of emitting, as well as the pay-off for low-carbon projects.

This will affect the cost of a wide variety of products and services. Concrete prices could soar, as concrete plants are major CO2 emitters, raising costs for infrastructure as well as private projects.

Freedom is inextricably tied to economics. There is little difference between government passing a law that you cannot go out at night and government artificially making it too expensive to go out at night: your liberty is still restricted at the hand of government. Government’s heavy-handed regulation will result in less freedom for all of us.

Politics

The great blog Undeception notes John Flynn’s prescient 1944 prediction about the coming of fascism in America:

Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans…who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up…and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national bank and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshalling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination, all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society. There is your fascist.

– John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching (1944), as quoted by Justin Raimondo, Reclaiming the American Right (1993)

Undeception’s owner, Stephen Douglas, notes that he doesn’t foresee a Hitler-style fascism coming to America. As is often the case, I agree with Steve here. I also note that Flynn, back in 1944 when Fascism was a potent force in the world, differentiated American fascism from the totalitarian variety. Slight changes to the balance of power between the branches of government can have the effect of giving us a “benevolent state fascism”, a bureaucratic flavor of fascism that nevertheless limits our freedom.

I suspect the American people will grab the pendulum and swing it back the other way, towards freedom, in the coming years. In the meantime, we’re in for a brush with a bureaucratic style of fascism uniquely American, and therefore hard to recognize.

Politics