Thursday, December 20, 2007
By Steven Milloy
“No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
That comment by New York State Surrogate Court Judge Gideon Tucker in 1866 aptly summarizes the so-called
“Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” signed into law this week by President Bush.
First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this
goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier
cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year?
The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million
barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the
law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is
an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an
... continues below advertisement:
Next, the new law doubles the use of ethanol, likely further distorting agricultural markets and driving
up food prices. Animal feed costs are already up 20 percent this year, no doubt contributing to the 5 percent
rise in consumer grocery prices.
More cropland dedicated to growing corn means less cropland for other important grains. In observing that its
food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845, The Economist on Dec. 8 noted
that filling up an SUV’s tank with ethanol uses enough corn to feed a person for a year. Although current
biofuel use already requires one-third of the U.S. corn crop, the new law mandates even more biofuels. This
“commits the nation to decades of competition between food and fuel for the use of agricultural land,”
observed the New York Times.
The morality of that competition may be fairly questioned since increased biofuel use isn’t likely to
produce environmental benefits or make us
“energy independent.” The biofuel mandates — which will require technologies that don’t yet exist on a
commercial basis — are touted as cutting U.S. dependence on oil imports by replacing 20 percent of the fuel
now used. But only about 17 percent of U.S. oil imports come from the volatile Middle East. A 20 percent
pro-rata reduction in Middle East imports would reduce them to 13.6 percent.
It’s difficult to see precisely what national security benefit accrues from such a slight decrease. Even if
the as-yet imaginary biofuels were to magically free us entirely from Middle East oil, it is worthwhile
remembering that oil is a global commodity, the supply and price of which will always remain heavily dependent
on Middle East producers and events. Whether we like it or not, as long as we use oil, its availability and
price will be affected by the Middle East. Biofuels, particularly imaginary ones, can’t fix that
Another kick-in-the-teeth to consumers is the new mandate to phase-out incandescent lightbulbs in favor of
compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). The 100-watt incandescent light bulb will be the first to go in 2012.
It’s bad enough that the federal government wants to dictate what sort of lighting we can have in our own
homes, but it expects us to pay up for mercury-containing CFLs (up to $5 for a CFL vs. $0.75 for a standard
incandescent bulb) which are inferior in quality (harsh institutional white light vs. soft yellow-white light)
and function (their light-up is slow and inconsistent, and frequent on/off switching shortens their life), and
which require special handling and disposal
procedures (you’re not supposed to just throw them away in household trash or vacuum up CFL breakage).
Aside from the energy independence canard and the heavy lobbying by the rent-seeking ethanol/biofuels
industry, the law’s driving rationale is the much-dreaded global warming. The auto fuel efficiency standards
and CFL provisions, in particular, are supposed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide — if only that really
mattered. In addition to the umpteen reasons laid out in previous columns for doubting that manmade emissions
of carbon dioxide (CO2) play a meaningful role in global climate, a new study in this week’s Nature provides
Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago — somewhat
before SUVs and coal-fired electricity — there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases?
The researchers report that the warming probably began before the main injection of greenhouse gases took
place. Moreover, all this occurred at a time when the average temperature in Canada and Siberia was about 65
degrees Fahrenheit, the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit and atmospheric CO2 levels were
already in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 parts per million — 5 to 8 times greater than current CO2 levels.
What should Americans do about all this?
I don’t know the answer, but given that CFLs come from China and are imported and sold by businesses that
lobbied Congress for the incandescent bulb ban, something akin to the Boston Tea Party comes to mind. That
1773 event stemmed from Colonist resentment of the British Parliament’s Tea Act — a bill lobbied for by
the East India Company so that it could monopolize the American tea market.
I suppose we should be thankful that our dim-bulb politicians will be taking the holidays off — at least
we’ll have a month’s respite from meddlesome, if not outright menacing government.
JunkScience.com is updated every weekday. Items from the main page are moved to the archives.
Links should be good for at least the date posted. After the posting date, link reliability depends on the
policy of the linked sites. Some sites require visitors to register before allowing access to articles.
Material presented on this page represents the opinion of JunkScience.com. Copyright -- 1996-2007
JunkScience.com, Inc. All rights reserved on original works. Material copyrighted by others is used either
with permission or under a claim of "fair use."