Of course, if it is learned that a fire broke out because the [...]]]> Generally, while in the teeth of a crisis, it is unwise to spend much energy on recriminations. Firemen wait until the inferno is reduced to embers before beginning to piece together the circumstances that caused the blaze.  It is a matter of priorities.

Of course, if it is learned that a fire broke out because the building did not have proper wiring, or stored flammables incorrectly, or some other such violation of the fire code and it is learned that the fire department just inspected the place and gave them a series of waivers for violations, that is a different story. In that case, we would see the inspector as indirectly responsible for the damage or injuries.

If it is further learned that the building owner had a very cozy relationship with the fire chief, giving substantial sums of money and support to the chiefs’ favorite causes, we would see corruption.

Far from being a free-market “leave us alone” corporation, British Petroleum has been very cozy with Big Government.  BP chief executive Tony Hayward was helping Senator John Kerry promote Cap and Trade legislation. BP funded a lobbying group that agitated for regulation – not de-regulation.  Right up until the point 11 people died on the Deepwater Horizon and oil began gushing into the gulf, BP was the very model of a modern corporation – a favored pet of Congress and the Administration.  Over and over, BP lobbyists lined up to advocate for subsidies, earning profits by digging into taxpayer and consumer’s pockets.  On the ill-fated oil rig, BP received slack from those appointed to enforce the rules.  I think we will learn that the long series of waivers from standard practice BP secured from their overseers cost the lives of our fellow citizens – good people who were just doing their job.

The Gulf Oil Spill is not a failure of the free market or the consequences of de-regulation.  It is a failure of lax enforcement brought on by judgment clouded by ideological considerations or outright graft.  Arguably, overregulation over the decades as government has encroached where it does not belong has lead to a system where big corporations  find it easier to influence the regulatory environment than to comply with byzantine laws.

We barely have a free market anymore.  Rather than being an impartial referee for the common good, government has gotten into the habit of picking winners and losers through regulations, tax codes, bailouts and subsidies.  That’s where the big campaign money is.  Big Corporations have learned that it is easier to suck up to the Big Government agenda and earn special consideration in laws and enforcement.  Big Government believes it can use corporate cash to buy elections.  We need to support efforts to disentangle Government so that it no longer favors individual businesses and industries, but simply and evenly serves the common good as defined by the Constitution.

From a conservationist’s viewpoint, generating electricity with minimal environmental consequences is a good thing – a [...]]]> I sincerely hope that the wind farm being built in DeKalb County, Mo., works out.  The $300 million project slated to begin next year is supposed to bring 2,500 jobs to that area and generate enough power for 50,000 homes.

From a conservationist’s viewpoint, generating electricity with minimal environmental consequences is a good thing – a very good thing.  However, every alternative source of power generation has to stand on its own two feet economically. The fact that this project is seeking a $90 million aid package from the federal Stimulus bill is sufficient reason to make you wonder.  Requiring nearly one-third of the project’s budget from taxpayers already groaning under mountains of debt and evaporating jobs is a very bad sign.

Many people will understandably justify the government’s involvement based on concerns about global warming. But how valid are those concerns?  Climategate demonstrates that the scientists giving politicians like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Russ Carnahan a thin veneer of legitimacy were in reality cooking the books, torturing data until it confessed to what they wanted to hear.  With global warming skeptics vindicated, how do we justify shoveling nearly $100 million of taxpayer money into a wind farm?

According the Business Journal, Tom Carnahan’s company has secured $240 million in loans for a $300 million project.  For whatever reason, these lenders and investors do not believe in the project enough to cover the entire note.  Why not? What do the guys putting up their own money – or the money of investors – know about the project that says “we are only in for 80 percent” ?

That sounds suspiciously like they expect a 20-percent down payment from Tom Carnahan’s company. Is this what the $90 million in our taxes is for?  By my math, $90 million from the stimulus bill Missouri Representative Russ Carnahan voted for will cost each Missouri 3^rd district citizen (man woman and child) about $3.  Twelve bucks for a family of four may not seem like much, but multiply that by thousands of other projects like this all over the United States.  It adds up.

You probably don’t have relatives in Washington who can vote for Cap and Trade legislation to create the need for alternative energy your company hopes to fill.  Few of us have a brother who can vote for stimulus bills to cover the costs of filling that need.  If we have a bright idea, we have to secure our own money and put it at risk.  If we succeed, we reap the benefits.  If we fail, we lose our investment.

This looks like a classic example of a politically connected business hoping to reap all the benefits without taking any of the risks, instead putting taxpayers on the hook. Tom Carnahan and his fellow investors are welcome to build wind farms to their hearts content — I sincerely hope they succeed.  But I am weary of private sector businesses going to Uncle Sam with their hand out, and I am sick of politicians accommodating them. If a wind farm in DeKalb County is a good investment, it’s a good investment without a fat wad of taxpayer cash.

But unlike limousine-ecologists Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Russ Carnahan, whose private jets belch carbon into the air while traveling across [...]]]> Any American will offer a modicum of respect to anyone who takes their beliefs seriously. From what I can observe, Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ed Begley Jr. both take their eco-alarmism very seriously.

But unlike limousine-ecologists Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Russ Carnahan, whose private jets belch carbon into the air while traveling across the heated plain, these men seem sincere in their pursuit of reducing their carbon footprint. Ed and Bill are not “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” environmentalists; they lead by example, at least when the cameras are rolling.

Now, with outright fraud in the Climate Research Institute casting doubt on the very basis for global warming hysteria, is there a role for sincere eco-warriors who labor to reduce, reuse and recycle?

It would be unfortunate if the apparent collapse of the sacred Hockey Stick Chart – a foundational text to so many of Al Gore’s inconvenient truths – were to cause Americans to lose interest in being green.

I am a conservationist. When I buy a pickup truck, I buy the one that gets the job done and has the highest MPG rating. Not just because it is cheaper at the pump, but because it conserves. Growth and green do not have to exclude one another.

I enjoy reading up on technology. I get excited every time I come across a story about an American firm creating packing material out of fungus and waste rice husks for a fraction of the energy of Styrofoam. If we can reduce, reuse and recycle and truly conserve resources, I am all for it.

Early adopters of technology – and that’s what green living is, adopting new technology – are most welcome in a free market economy. Pioneers like Ed Begley and Bill Nye,who test out ways to minimize the energy we need to live, are heroic in my book. I find their lessons interesting and helpful as I look for ways to conserve. We may not all get our carbon footprint down to zero, but I will certainly learn about a number of new technologies that can help me pursue those goals. I appreciate their example and plan to follow it when I can.

The heartless conservative who eats Snail Darter Crunch (made from real snail darters!) for breakfast, drives a Canyonero through fragile habitats on the way to his office at Devastate and Despoil, Inc. is a myth. Few of us are willing to live in a yurt, cook yogurt by the heat of our compost pile and bicycle to our job at the animal rescue shelter, either. Most of us live somewhere between these extremes. Most of us are willing to adopt changes in our lives that are beneficial to ourselves and the general goals of conservation.

What we object to is politically connected “green” industries running to Congress and securing handouts and regulations that ultimately limit out freedom to pursue our own future. These public/private “partnerships” rarely benefit anyone except the politicians offering them and the firms receiving the largess. Worse, these political distortions in the free “green” market are propping up players who otherwise would not survive, crowding out competitors who do not enjoy the congressional babysitting.