CIVIL DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES

May 2002 (vol. 18, #4)
1601 N Tucson Blvd #9, Tucson AZ 85716
c 2001 Physicians for Civil Defense

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAUDS

EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman is the cover girl on the May 27 issue of Insight because the Environmental Protection Agency is being investigated by its Office of Inspec-tor General (OIG) and the FBI. Central to the controversy is the $100,000 to $250,000 investment interest of Whitman and her husband in Citigroup. Critics claim this influenced a Super-fund settlement that was allegedly too favorable to Shattuck Chemical Co. or the decision to exclude most of lower Manhattan from the disaster zone surrounding the World Trade Center. Former EPA ombudsman Robert Martin states that he was forced out after launching a probe into the potential conflict of interest.

While Martin's files were said to be meticulously indexed before being shipped to the OIG's office, they arrived in no discernable order-leading to suspicions that they had been stripped of embarrassing investigative reports.

The furor about pro-industry decisions is more publicized- and is the subject of Senate hearings-but conflicts of interest underlying anti-industry and anti-private property actions by the EPA and numerous other federal agencies are far more serious, and the cover-up more extensive.

The real scandal at the EPA involves hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars-more than half the agency's budget-doled out each year in grants with no public notice, no competi-tion, and virtually no accountability. ``This is an agency that requires others to account for parts per billion in chemicals yet which can't account for its own budget,'' stated Mark Levin, President of the Landmark Legal Foundation (``Under the Influence,'' Wall St J 3/8/02). Landmark filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because of EPA stone-walling. Although Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to protect the infor-mation that Landmark was seeking, officials erased hard drives and des-troyed back-up e-mails. Former administrator Carol Browner and her top deputies may be held in contempt of court. Most recipients of EPA largesse are left-leaning advocacy groups. The AARP Foundation topped the list with $98.5 million. Activists leading the charge against GE in the Hudson ``clean up'' (see March issue) were almost all on the EPA dole.

As a result of Landmark's litigation against the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service, property owners targeted by an activist jihad can now find out whether taxpayers are funding the campaign. Just search the data base at www.landmarklegal.org. Physicians for Social Responsibility is one recipient: a $10,000 grant in 1994 helped fund a conference on ``key environmental issues.'' Not surprisingly, corrupt financing is associated with falsified scientific data. As Pete DuPont points out, ``so many federal agencies have been exposed falsifying environmental data that you have to wonder how many other frauds remain undetected'' (www.sepp.org). To outline just a few:

Last December, employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service were caught planting hair samples of captive lynx, trying to pass them off as wild. Under the Endangered Species Act, millions of acres of land might have been declared off-limits to humans. The responsible ``scientists'' weren't even fired; they received ``counseling'' and a job reassignment (``The Missing Lynx,'' Wall St J 1/24/02).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used junk science to cut off irrigation water to farmers around Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon, at the cost of 2,000 jobs and $130 million. A report by the National Academy of Sciences now concludes that there was ``no scientific foundation'' for the assertion that water levels in the lake had to be kept high to dilute agricultural run-offs. On the contrary, the shut-off of water probably harmed the alleged-ly endangered salmon and suckerfish by artificially raising the water temperatures. The report was too late to help farmers forced to abandon or sell their land (Heartland Institute, Environment & Climate News, 4/02, www.heartland.org).

Then there are standards for particulate emissions of less than 2.5 m in size (PM2.5), the subject of some of the most expensive regulations in history, and probably a means of back-door implemention of the Kyoto Treaty (see issues of 9/97, 11/97, 9/00, and DDP Newsletter July 98). The American Lung Association urges visitors to www.lungusa.org to ``Take action: Your air quality and your lung health are in jeopardy. Send a message to Congress to show support for the Clean Air Act.'' Its State of the Air Report warns of the danger of these particles, ``the most pervasive pollutant.'' Since 1993, the ALA has received more than $8 million from the EPA: taxpayer money to lobby for increased EPA power.

The AMA also receives EPA funding ($142,000 in grants between 1994 and 1996). JAMA recently published ``the strongest evidence to date that the long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution ... is an important risk factor for cardiopulmonary mortality'' (JAMA 2002;287:1132-1141)- funded in part by an EPA grant. Elaborate regression analysis concluded that the adjusted relative risk ratio (RR) for mortality associated with a 10-g/m3 change in PM2.5 was 1.06 for all causes and 1.14 for lung cancer. That is statistically significant, but epidemiologists generally consider an RR less than 2.0 to be of no importance. (For comparison, the RR for thromboembolic disease in women taking oral contraceptives is 4.4.) The concentration of PM2.5 was actually measured during only 7 of the 20 years of study and assumed to be the average of these values during the other 13 years. (For a readable summary of the data on this subject, see Jones & Lieberman, ``The Ongoing Clean Air Debate,'' June 2001, www.cei.org.)

The ALA also gives more than half the nation's counties and cities an ``F'' for ozone levels and decries the effects on asthma. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the ``F'' stands for ``Fundraising.'' But while self-reported asthma has doubled, ozone levels have declined 24% (NCPA 3/21/02).

Dishonest accounting at Enron, an energy-trading mid-dleman, was less serious than its dishonest lobbying for energy rationing schemes such as emissions trading. Major corporations such as Enron stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of consumers and taxpayers (``Enron's Lobbying Goals Would Kill More Jobs Than Its Collapse,'' CEI 1/16/02).

Only the truth can make us free. Environmental lies spell economic destruction, servitude, and death. The money trail leads to incestuous public-private partnerships involving both ``nonprofit'' (tax-exempt) organiza-tions and corporations poised to profit from fraudulent science.

 

Undue Influence

A valuable aid to following the money trail has been made available by Ron Arnold, President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. The project is called ``Undue Influence: tracking the environmental movement's money, power, and harm'' (www.UndueInfluence.com). A large amount of data has been assembled from federal forms 990 and other sources. There are links to founda-tions, green groups, and attack groups, and tips for undertaking your own inves-tigations.

The Center has filed a complaint with the IRS about the Environmental Working Group for violations of laws against excessive lobbying (WorldNetDaily 2/17/02). The group's modus operandi is to float news stories regarding the legislation that it wants to see passed or defeated and relying on the major media to do the heavy lifting. It specializes in chemical fearmongering.

Undue Influence quotes a report prepared by environmental leaders: ``For considerable sums of money, public opinion can be molded, constituents mobilized, issues researched, and public officials button-holed, all in a symphonic arrangement.'' It points to the ``iron triangle'' of wealthy founda-tions, grant-driven environmental groups, and zealous bureaucrats. The agenda is to undermine property rights, cut off natural resource extrac-tion, destroy the jobs of rural workers, and ``dismantle industrial civilization piece by piece.''

 

Capital Costs of Energy Production

One reason that forecasts for the growth in the use of ``renewable'' energy are low (from 2% in 2002 to 2.8% in 2020) is the high capital cost. The costs below incorporate the 10% federal investment tax credit for solar and geothermal.

 

Capital Cost for Electricity-Generating Technologies:

Technology Cap cost/installed kwh

Gas/oil combined cycle $ 445
Wind 983
Coal 1,092
Waste & landfill gas combustion 1,395
Geothermal 1,708
Biomass 1,732
Fuel cells 2,041
Advanced nuclear 2,188
Solar thermal 2,946
Solar photovoltaic 4,252

Energy Information Administration 12/00

Capital costs for renewable sources may increase nonlinear-ly with capacity. For wind power, capital costs increase 20, 50, 100, and 200% for each 20% increase in capacity.

Government policy has been ``if you can't sell them, mandate them.'' But ``without policy privileges, the renewable energy industry (at least the portion that generates electricity for the power grid) would cease to exist.'' Government imposes renewables ``without any legitimate economic or philosophic basis'' (Cato Institute Policy Analysis 422, 1/10/02).

 

Energy Footprints and Frauds

The land occupied by the proposed drilling site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would be 2,000 acres, which could produce an estimated 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day. In contrast, 2,000 acres covered by windmills could produce the energy equivalent of 1,800 barrels of oil per day. To produce the energy equivalent of ANWR would require a windmill farm of more than 1,000,000 acres, or 1,700 square miles, or five times the size of New York City. This would (not might) kill 22,000 birds every year.

Mary McCann of Enron Wind of Tehachapi, CA, said that ``wind power is ... growing by leaps and bounds.'' This corporation, which bills itself as a ``world leader'' in wind energy production, is a subsidiary of bankrupt Enron.

For a review of wind power, especially the Danish experience, see The Week That Was 4/13/02, www.sepp.org.

As a handbook on renewable energy, Dick Wojick recommends The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World by Howard Hayden. As Hayden explains, ``The solar fraud is the litany of unrealistic, rosy predictions of a solar future. It involves lying with statistics and attempting to manipulate the public through numerous coercive means. It is the sure path to Brownout Nirvana'' (quoted in TWTW 4/20/02). Dr. Hayden is a late addition to the DDP program July 27-28 in Colorado Springs, where the book will be available.

 

Progress

Craig Cantoni sends some statistics comparing life in the United States today with 100 years ago (U.S. News 8/6/01). ``Leftists and most media refuse to acknowledge the awesome progress,'' he writes.

Life expectancy in men (1900 vs today): 46 vs. 74 years
Life expectancy in women: 48 vs. 79 years
Share of income spent on food: 48% vs. 15%
Infant mortality/1,000 live births: 165 vs. 7
Average teacher salary, inflation adjusted: $6,560 vs. $40,600
Average income, inflation adjusted: $8,360 vs. $40,816
High school graduates: 13% vs. 83%
College graduates: 3% vs. 25%
Housing units electrified: 2% vs. 99%

 

Endocrine Disruptors Disrupted

Fred Singer writes: ``Remember the flap about hormonal disruptors causing major health problems? Remember the lurid book Our Stolen Future? Well, the `science' behind these scares was found to be fraudulent. One of the book's coauthors is no longer with the W. Alton Jones Foundation (which sponsored the book)'' (TWTW 12/22/01).

The Office of Research Integrity of HHS reported in the Federal Register of 10/12/01 that Steven F. Arnold had intentionally falsified research results and fabricated materials to present to investigating officials at Tulane University. The research purportedly showed certain insecticides and PCBs, which have a weak estrogenic activity, were up to 1,000 times more potent when tested in combination (Science 1996;272: 1489-1492, withdrawn July 25, 1997).

 

``When every human being chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Mother Nature's `experiments' have done throughout the eons. Good health will be restored to the Earth's ecology... to the life form known by many as Gaia.'' The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement