We now have a president of the United States, Donald Trump, who says he is committed to streamlining the federal government. He is setting up an investigatory arm of the administration, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to identify and recommend the removal of wasteful government programs, departments, and personnel.
There is a case to be made for going much further to return the federal government to what the Founders intended, to pare it once more back to its proper constitutional boundaries. This will go beyond trimming the fat; it will involve cutting the imperial colossus our federal government has become down to the bone and then paring away some of the bone to boot.
In this eighth installment, the penultimate entry, let's talk about the environment.
Everyone wants clean air, trees, grass, flowers, and butterflies. I'm one of the people who appreciates the environment because I live out in it; I also spent much of my formative years on 60 acres of hardwood timber in Allamakee County, Iowa, and I appreciate nature and wild places.
Like everything else we want, these things come with a price, and that means that economic decisions have to be made.
Being well into (well, maybe past) middle age, I can remember when the nation's highways were littered with trash, the air in big cities was all but un-breathable, and the Great Lakes were so polluted you couldn't eat fish caught there - if you could find any. The United States has made incredible progress in environmental issues since the mid-1960s. Still, just as with many social issues, the environmental lobby is unable to admit victory and adopt a stance of quiet monitoring rather than activism. We are now in the realm of diminishing returns when it comes to environmental issues, to the point where activists, including Green New Deal Democrats, want us to sacrifice our modern way of life.
Being also an outdoorsman who loves little more than a day in the woods hunting, fishing, or just loafing, I want the country to have wild places. I want pristine wilderness areas, even if I grow too old and infirm to enjoy them personally, because I have children and grandchildren, and as Americans those places are part of their birthright.
But I don't want them at the expense of human well-being. All things must come with a balance. To that end, American environmental policy must be based on science, not emotion. Take the anthropogenic global warming debate; while the Earth's climate has changed continually throughout the Earth's history, and indeed, through most of that history, it has been warmer than it is now, the jury is still out on what impact humans actually have on that process. Also, who is to say what the planet's "correct" temperature is? A gain of a few degrees, like anything else, would involve some tradeoffs. Coastal areas may be in some trouble, and some marginal croplands may descend into desert; on the other hand, places like the Siberian steppes and Alaska's Matanuska Valley would bloom into the world's new breadbaskets. It seems the height of human hubris to suggest that only we know where the planet's thermostat should be set - or that we are capable of setting it.
And yet Democrats and liberals still insist on an overwhelming federal apparatus to push this agenda: The Environmental Protection Agency. This is an agency that is not only unconstitutional, but it is also an arm of government that has outlived its usefulness. Climate change isn't the bugaboo that the climate scolds would have us believe, and the United States is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. Here is where the Trump administration can strike a blow for reduced government: Transfer what few things the EPA does that are useful into the Interior Department, and close the EPA down.
See Related: Trump Targets Key EPA 'Endangerment' Finding That Designated CO2 As a Pollutant
Newsom Vetoed a Bill to Enhance Fire Mitigation So He Could Grab the Land for Affordable Housing
Also, an economic evaluation has to be part of the equation. Example: The Alaskan oil fields. Some members of the environmental community have been outright dishonest in their depictions of the North Slope oil fields as pristine alpine environments with flowers and wildlife; in reality, those grounds are barren coastal tundra. The entire area proposed for development is a small portion of the entire 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We need the oil. Will there be an environmental cost? Yes. Should we be willing to pay it? Yes. Humans have needs, too; jobs, energy, and economic progress. As the system exists now, that means oil and natural gas, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. We also need nuclear power, actual emissions-free energy that is also high-energy-density, and that has to be part of the equation as well.
Here's where I part ways with some: The National Forest system should stay in place. There have been those on the political right who advocate selling those lands into private hands to pay off the federal debt. I oppose that for two reasons:
First, I have no faith whatsoever that the federal government would use the money to reduce the debt. It would, almost certainly, be put to use like a good portion of the budget is now - buying votes.
Second, the National Forests now belong to the American people. In private hands, they would almost certainly be completely removed from public access. As much good as there is in Texas from an economic standpoint, the outdoor opportunities for hunters in that state are limited and costly; almost all land is in private hands, and leases are expensive. I don't want to see the mountain states fall into that kind of a situation.
A primary reason for the National Forest system being in place has nothing to do with environmental issues or recreation, although our National Forests are good places for both of those. Instead, the system exists to ensure a steady supply of a vital resource: Timber.
Read: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII
In the years since 1960, we have shown that you can have economic progress and environmental progress at the same time. But as with any issue, advocates have to be aware that at some point their continued demands for progress move into the realm of the ridiculous. (See the last installment for a discussion of the energy policy, for example.) In this as in all matters, common sense must prevail.
The Trump administration has two paths here to reduce the size of the federal government: Eliminate the EPA and, as we discussed in the last installment when it comes to energy development, have the Interior Department issue some minimal standards, start selling leases, and get the hell out of the way.
