Many people are enjoying the long-awaited recent release of the Ken Burns documentary, “National Parks—America’s Best Idea.” This production is a highly acclaimed, not just for its imagery, but for detailing the history of parks, the sense of place, and the role of National Parks in our culture.

At the outset, one of the documentary’s historians notes that “National Parks—America’s Best Idea” is an expression usually attributed to Wallace Stegner, although it is a paraphrase of what he once said about National Parks. The historian goes on to correctly make the point that National Parks are not “America’s Best Idea.” He says, and I paraphrase, that America’s best idea is expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

While his point is well taken, one certainly cannot argue that National Parks are one of America’s best ideas. America’s National Parks were the world’s first large, intact, unspoiled, natural landscapes to be legally set aside for conservation and enjoyment. Later, these large natural areas were followed by historic sites, cultural icons, battlefields, and intangible concepts of the American experience. The National Park System has been admired and emulated around the world. So much so, that the United States was encouraged to take the lead in drafting the World Heritage Convention which took the National Park idea to the world.

The link between Jefferson’s words and National Parks is more than a debate about which is America’s best idea. I contend that one of the things that makes National Parks one of America’s best ideas is that National Parks are uniquely democratic in the way they are set aside. Inscribed on a magnificent arch over the North Entrance to Yellowstone National Park are the words “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.” These words are from the legislation that established Yellowstone in 1872 and the National Parks Service Organic Act of 1916 subsequently set out the core mission of the newly established National Park Service. “…which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life [sic] therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

In the late 1800s, the concept of setting aside large natural landscapes for both conservation and the enjoyment of the people was new. And the idea has its roots in the origins of the American conservation movement that had begun earlier in the 19th Century. Following the decimation of wildlife populations throughout much of the eastern United States and then extending into the once thought of as limitless West, Americans began to rethink the role of hunting. People realized that there had to be limits on harvesting wild animals or we would face more extinctions.

At that time in history, the only example of conservation Americans could learn from was the European model. Europeans had long before learned that wildlife was finite, but European conservation was conducted by the nobility. There were private reserves established and hunting was not just limited; it was exclusively available to the wealthy and elite classes. The peasants were not allowed to hunt or even gain access to these hunting preserves. Only those with the right connections and credentials, the worthy and privileged, were given the honor of enjoying these natural landscapes and the bounty within their boundaries.

Americans bristled at the idea of conservation if it meant wildlife would only be conserved for a certain class of people. That would be un-American and anti-democratic. Indeed, at that time, democratic principles such as freedom and manifest destiny trumped regulation and restrictions. Accordingly, to some, the very idea of conservation through a system of game laws, hunting seasons, and bag limits was considered to be undemocratic.

In response, the conservationists of the 19th Century proposed public ownership of fish and wildlife. Hunting and fishing seasons and licenses would be managed by States and generally available and affordable to the largest cross-section of the population. Revenues from hunting licenses would be used to manage fish and wildlife and to further conservation efforts. Large tracts of federal lands previously open to homesteading and commercial development were reserved to be conserved for the public in the form of National Forests and National Parks. It was in this unique American atmosphere of democratic principles that the idea of setting aside National Parks for both conservation and enjoyment was conceived.

This history is important because it is instructive today. There is a concerted and well-funded movement in the United States that would have conservation of National Parks trump enjoyment. This is a dangerous precedent and an undemocratic shift in policy. The drafters of the National Park Service Organic Act were very clear; the purpose of the Service was both conservation and enjoyment. Conservation of the resources is to “…leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Enjoyment is the heartbeat of National Parks that increases the understanding and appreciation for conserving these unique resources. Conservation and enjoyment are not in conflict. Indeed, they go together like a horse and carriage. Horace Albright, the second Director of the National Park Service said, “The National Parks are more than the storehouses of Nature’s rarest treasures. They are the playlands of the people, wonderlands easily accessible to the rich and humble alike. They are great out-of-doors recreation grounds, where men, women, and children can forget the cares and the sounds of the cities for a few days.” Former Director of the National Park Service, Conrad Wirth, is attributed with saying (and I paraphrase), “…to manage parks emphasizing either conservation or enjoyment to the exclusion of the other is detrimental to the whole concept of National Parks.”

National Parks can be called “America’s Best Idea” because hundreds of millions of visitors enjoy National Parks every year. Visitors fiercely speak out in favor of conservation, but I suspect that they would never consider that “conservation” might mean they could not visit and enjoy their National Parks. But, that is exactly what certain non-profit organizations want to do. While Americans are trying to get back outdoors and get children engaged in nature, some environmental groups would restrict access by targeting commonly used modes of transportation. Their actions have the effect of shutting many classes of people out of National Parks, including the young, the elderly, and the disabled. Other groups favor severe limits to all forms of visitation through area closures and/or strict limits on the number of visitors allowed into a park at any given time. And the most elitist of all these organizations would go so far as to restrict access to parks to only those who are strong, healthy, enlightened in their philosophy of nature, and who agree with the premise that the biggest threat to mother earth is humankind. This is a dangerous kind of class warfare that would exclude many people from National Parks because of the way they think, their age, or their physical abilities. If implemented, National Parks would no doubt soon become known as “America’s Worst Idea.”

“America’s Best Idea” will only remain a best idea if National Parks are both conserved and enjoyed. Enjoyment should embrace the broadest cross-section of people, provide for diverse types of enjoyment, and accommodate appropriate modes of transportation in such manner and by such means as will leave resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This requires an inclusive and democratic approach to park management. Management must be innovative, adaptive, and informed by the best available science. It means park managers should shun the elitists who want to keep America’s Best Idea as their exclusive domain, under lock and key if you will, while relegating the rest of America to peering in from the outside.

This is the last of a three part series about the cap and trade legislation under consideration by Congress. Part 1 postulated the important question that everyone should be asking themselves, “Why do I care if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees Celsius over the next 100 years?” In Part 2, I addressed the reason why cap and trade on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States will not achieve the desired outcomes and that alternative and sustainable energy sources are not an environmental panacea.

It is time now to look at the potential economic impacts of the cap and trade proposal or, as some call it, the energy tax. There is no faster or more comprehensive way to adversely impact every sector of the United States economy than to implement policies that effectively and artificially increase the cost of energy. And if you believe that cap and trade will only affect the carbon-based part of the energy industry, then I have a bridge over the Hudson River I’d like to sell you.

There has always been a strong correlation between rising energy prices and a slowing of the economy. It is really rather elementary when you think about it. Rising energy prices drive up the cost of nearly everything that Americans buy on a regular basis. Whether it is the manufacturing of durable goods, producing food, transporting goods and services, running your household heating and air conditioning, commuting, or your family vacation, the cost of all of these go up when energy prices increase.

Cap and trade on carbon dioxide emissions will do little to reduce the demand for energy in the United States, but it will most definitely increase the cost of using carbon-based energy and the generation and delivery of electricity. It is estimated that 85% of the total energy supply for the United States comes from carbon-based energy sources. Every single form of transportation in the United States—ships. planes, trains, and automobiles–burns some form of refined oil. 45% of the current United States electrical supply comes from coal-fired power plants.

It has been calculated that cap and trade will increase the cost of running an average household by as much as 29% after adjusting for inflation and after taking into account the greater efficiencies consumers will gain by switching to public transit, higher mileage vehicles, and more efficient homes. The Heritage Society has conducted analysis of the cap and trade proposal and they estimate that the average American household will be paying $1,200 per year in increased energy costs. Many dispute this figure, but there is no disagreement that cap and trade will increase the cost of energy for all Americans. And the higher energy prices would come at a time when people are already struggling with a recession, reduced income, and higher unemployment.

The increased cost of energy will have a disproportionately greater impact on the unemployed and the working poor of this nation. Because it is a much higher percentage of a lower income, this is effectively one of the most regressive kinds of pseudo-taxation policies. In fact, like taxation, cap and trade will transfer somewhere on the order of $250 to $300 billion per year out of the private sector (consumers and manufacturers). Cap and trade has the potential to be one of the largest tax-like programs in the history of this nation.

And as though Congress considering a cap on carbon dioxide emissions is not enough, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that will impose a penalty on all livestock producers who don’t—and they cannot—control the carbon dioxide emissions from all that livestock flatulence. At about $125 per year per cow, less for smaller animals, this carbon tax will effectively increase in the cost of eggs, milk, cheese, poultry, pork, and beef by nearly 10%. And we have not even added the cap and trade impacts of increased cost of producing feed for these critters or the higher cost of getting them to processors and then on to your local grocery store.

And all this increase in the cost of energy is being foisted on us at a time when the country is still in a recession, unemployment is still climbing, the Stimulus package is flagging, the national debt is skyrocketing, and Congress is looking for a way to pay for a trillion dollar health care plan. When the credit card company asks, “What’s in your wallet?” you will soon be saying, “Not much!”

Remember, cap and trade is supposed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the next 50 years in order to delay by 10 years the global warming that is projected to occur 100 years from now. I find it fascinating that even though we have been studying economics for a lot longer than the climate, our best economic models cannot project economic impacts much beyond 20 years. Nonetheless, the 20 year estimates of cap and trade impacts on the United States economy are stunning. By 2030, cap and trade could cost $4.8 trillion in reduced gross domestic product and is projected to result in the loss of 3 million jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. And these job losses are after all the new “Green Energy” jobs have been added and all the jobs created to make homes and cars more efficient have been created.

In review, we are told by some of the same climatologists who usually cannot accurately predict the weather 10 days from now, that in 100 years the average temperature of the earth may rise 2-3 degrees Celsius. The warmists insist that cause of this increase is not attributable to natural climate cycles, even though historic and natural swings in the earth’s average temperature are well documented. Instead, fear mongers contend that mankind’s excessive burning of carbon-based fuels is the major reason for the warming trend that started 160 years ago. And even though much of the world either cannot afford it or chooses not to play in the high risk carbon dioxide emissions game, a few in Congress want American families to ante up first and big even though most climate experts would bet that reducing human-caused emissions to zero tomorrow would only delay the inevitable by 10 years.

Did I tell you about that bridge I have for sale? I bet you won’t buy it either.

Last week I wrote about the cap and trade legislation under consideration by Congress. In Part 1, I postulated the important question that everyone should be asking themselves, “Why do I care if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees Celsius over the next 100 years?” In that column I pointed out that the science is not conclusive or unanimous that humans are the cause of global warming despite the overwhelming media and political support for this hypothesis.

In this column, I will be discussing the policy implications of trying to reduce carbon dioxide emission through this cap and trade bill. The intended outcome of this legislation is presumably to stop, or at least slow the rate of global warming by reducing the amount of, or at least stopping the growth in annual emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States. I will also be looking at the potential secondary environmental impacts of reducing carbon dioxide emissions through the proposed cap and trade legislation.

One of the biggest challenges facing environmental policy makers today is that they first must come to the realization that there are no solutions, only trade offs. We do not live in Utopia and there is no perpetual motion machine out there that will allow us to ignore the most basic laws of physics.

Let’s take fuel cells as an example. In these engines, hydrogen and oxygen are burned to release energy and the only emission coming out of the tail pipe is water. If we ignore the fact that water vapor and clouds account for 90% of greenhouse gases, then fuel cells could replace carbon burning internal combustion engines and reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly. But, hydrogen in its pure form is not an abundant resource, therefore, hydrogen fuel must be derived from sources such as water and natural gas. The fact of the matter is that it takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel than one gets from burning hydrogen. Because making hydrogen fuel is a net negative energy transaction, the only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with fuels cells is to make hydrogen fuel using energy that has been generated from non-carbon-based sources. I once read an analysis that suggested that using only solar and wind power to produce the hydrogen fuel required to run all the cars in California would impact half of that state with solar and wind power generation facilities! I can imagine the hue and the cry from environmentalists at that proposal.

And that gets us to one of the fundamental policy problems with the cap and trade bill. It attempts to create incentives for alternative or sustainable energy sources, but incentives are not enough, so it actually goes so far as to underwrite development of alternative or sustainable energy by taxing carbon-based power. “Alternative” and “sustainable” are buzzwords for any source of energy other than coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric. If the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should be encouraging the development of zero-emission electric generating facilities such as nuclear or hydroelectric plants. The term “sustainable” implies that these resources are unlimited or that there are no environmental impacts associated with these power sources. The most favored forms of alternative and sustainable energy, wind and solar, ignore the fact that many parts of the country do not have enough sunshine to make solar effective and other parts of the country do not have the kind of winds necessary to make wind power efficient.

As has been amply demonstrated by the permitting process for the Cape Winds Project in the Nantuckett Sound off the coast of Massachusetts, everybody wants wind energy. They just do not want it in their back yard. Indeed, it appears we have transcended from the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) phenomena to “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything” (BANANA)! The same people who do not want wind towers in their viewshed will also oppose the power transmission lines necessary to transport electricity from where wind and solar will work and be tolerated.

And consider this. The highest demand for electricity occurs when there is a heat wave, and during heat waves, the wind is often very calm. In order to meet peak demand in the new alternative/sustainable powered electric grid, power companies will have to build more peak demand generators that usually run on natural gas and emit carbon dioxide. Some analysts have suggested there might not be any net gain there.

Lastly, I am waiting for the climatologists to clue in to the fact that solar and wind power works on the principle of converting wind energy and the heat of solar radiation to electricity. What will be the long term effects on our climate from the human-caused alteration of these two very significant contributing factors to weather patterns around the world?

Other attempts to impose policies to reduce carbon dioxide around the world have failed. The European Union has imposed cap and trade on its carbon dioxide emissions, yet their total annual carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase. The Kyoto Protocol was intended to slow the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, and though some would blame the United States for not obligating itself to this treaty, the fact is that nearly every country that did sign on to the carbon dioxide reduction plan has failed to meet its obligations. These policies do not work because people will always find the loophole or a work around. More importantly, the people of the world are not curbing their appetite for electricity; the demand is increasing everyday.

Most egregious of all, a cap and trade bill in the United States will do nothing to address carbon dioxide emission from other countries. Yes, the United States may be the largest single source of human-caused carbon dioxide, but China (150% increase from 1992-2007) and India (103% increase from 1992-2007) are coming on fast. These two population giants have made it clear they will not deny their people the opportunity to prosper economically, improve their health, and enjoy the creature comforts of light and air conditioning.

By unilaterally and artificially making electricity less abundant and less affordable in the United States, we will create a huge incentive for American industry to take its business overseas. To address this contingency, the bill proposes tariffs on goods that come from countries that are not limiting their carbon dioxide emissions. In the current world economy and even with our trade deficit, the United States is still the largest exporting nation in the world. It would not be good policy for the United States to initiate a trade war, especially with the countries that are bank rolling our National Debt.

For better or for worse, the United States has built the most sophisticated and efficient infrastructure to explore for and produce oil and gas, process it, and distribute its byproducts to consumers across the nation. And we are finding more oil and gas all the time; these resources are not nearly as finite as some people would have you believe. We have domestic sources of clean burning, low sulfur coal that can meet the current US demand for centuries. At present about 45% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal and new coal fired power plants can be extremely clean. Our nation runs on energy and our life style, jobs, and the economy are dependent on a stable and affordable supply of it. We need new technology and we need more diversified forms of energy. We need more efficient transmission and improved battery technology. But, we should not be shooting ourselves in the foot by penalizing our most abundant and affordable energy sources. The United States in a prospering economy has shown itself to be incredibly resourceful at solving complex problems and meeting challenges. Conversely, if people cannot meet their basic needs of food, shelter, and security, then their willingness to expend time and resources to address the other issues decreases.

If global warming is indeed principally caused by human sources of carbon dioxide, then this problem began about 150 years ago with the industrial revolution. The most pessimistic projections are not expected to manifest themselves for 50 to 100 years. Even the scientists who believe humans are responsible for global warming agree that nothing done in the short term is likely to significantly impact the long term projections.

The policies of the United States should facilitate improving our understanding of climate science, promote and support expanded research and development on greater efficiencies and energy generation, transmission technology, and energy storage mechanisms. In the mean time, the United States should continue using the cleanest forms of carbon-based energy to fuel the economic engine that will improve our understanding and adequately develop the new technology and infrastructure necessary to fully address all the issues of the future.

Before the August Recess, the House of Representatives passed Cap and Trade legislation intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Senate will be considering the Cap and Trade bill after the recess. The popular media message and political rhetoric is that human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of projected global warming that will take place sometime over the next 100 years.

Cap and Trade is an often used and sometimes effective mechanism to reduce the amount of pollutants being released into our environment. The principle is fairly simple. Put a cap, an upper limit, on the amount of the pollutant that can be released, issue credits to those who reduce emissions, allow those credits to be traded to industries that increase emissions, all the while keeping total emissions below the established cap. The trading of credits provides a market mechanism and an incentive to reduce emissions.

The underlying and unspoken question that every American should be asking about global warming is, “Why do I care if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees Celsius over the next 100 years?” Now, before you dismiss me as some sort of hedonist, a holocaust denier, or a minion of the oil, gas or coal industry, bear with me while I try to explain a few things that may change your answer to this important question. And don’t dismiss me with the cliché “Scientists say it is so, therefore it is.” The science of climate change is far from conclusive. The division between scientists who believe humans are the reason the temperature is rising versus natural climate change is about an even split contrary to what environmentalists and many in the media would have you believe.

The issue of global warming has been hyped by the media and environmental alarmists. Polling data now indicates that the fear mongering on climate change has led many children in America to believe that the earth may become a dead planet within their life time.

One example of this hyperbole and a gross injustice is calling carbon dioxide a “pollutant.” If this column causes you to gasp in horror or yell hallelujah, then you are emitting carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an essential compound for the existence of life on earth, just as much as oxygen and water. Since the industrial revolution and the advent of burning coal, oil and gas, man has contributed significant amounts of additional carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. This leads us to the number one reason why some people “care” about global warming. You see, if this were a natural climate change cycle, then some folks would not be able to blame mankind for this crisis.

Other misconceptions being perpetuated are that there is an ideal average temperature for the earth and that the sea level should remain constant. The sea level has been rising for centuries and is likely to continue to rise with or without global warming. And, on a planet that on any given day can have a high temperature exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit and a low temperature of below minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit, a change in the average temperature of 1-3 degrees Fahrenheit is not outside of an expected natural range of fluctuation.

In fact, scientists have been studying ice core samples, tree rings, and lake and sea bed sediments for decades, and as a result of that research, scientists say that the earth has experienced dramatic and rapid changes in average temperature over the past 100,000 years. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have gone up and down significantly over the years as well. An impressive graph plotting average temperatures and carbon dioxide levels over time is used by Al Gore in his docudrama, An Inconvenient Truth. A little known truth about that graph is that it compresses a very large span of time onto a relatively small space giving the illusion that when carbon dioxide levels go up so does the temperature. Upon closer examination, however, every single historically significant increase in temperature was followed, not preceded, by an increase in carbon dioxide. When I had the opportunity to ask the climate change expert from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) about this apparent discrepancy, I was left aghast by his answer. “Well, it’s kind of a chicken or the egg thing,” he said. I could hardly believe my ears. In response to a question about the data used to support the theory that increased carbon dioxide levels are the cause of global warming, the lead USGS scientist says, “It’s a chicken or the egg thing!”

Now, consider the following verbiage from a National Science Foundation/USGS brochure describing the National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, and the modeling of climate systematics. “Information from ice studies represents pieces of the puzzle of understanding climate. It complements data from study of pollen, tree rings, coral, and lake and sea floor sediments. Through studies of ice, extreme climate swings have been identified in Earth’s past; some have occurred remarkably quickly (in less than a decade). Mathematicians and modelers use the ice core data to create Global Climate Models, which are theoretical extensions of Earth’s past climate conditions to what could happen in the future. Once the past can be explained, possible future events may be identified and their rapidity and effects predicted with at least some confidence and accuracy.” (emphasis added) These underlined words were carefully and deliberately chosen to describe the process of modeling climate change and demonstrate just how tenuous and uncertain the process of projecting climate change is. In fact, climate change modelers readily admit that there is not enough understanding of the role of clouds and cloud formation to include that in their “theoretical extensions.” Pure and simple, while rigorous and representative of the best knowledge available, modeling climate change is the one of the most under-informed, least reliable, and absolutely unverifiable forms of science that exists.

I have visited with two of the top mountain glacier scientists in the world and they both told me that the average temperature of the earth has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. As you might expect at the end of an ice age, most glaciers have been receding, but some have been advancing. Sometimes glaciers will both recede and advance in the same decade. It is important to note that all of this change began before the industrial revolution and before there were any significant sources of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

The same climate change alarmists who profess global warming today projected in 1975 (Newsweek Magazine, April 28, 1975) that the earth was entering a new and dramatic cooling period with many of the same calamitous effects that warming is predicted to cause.

Even the International Panel on Climate Change, the subject-matter experts often cited politicians and journalists, says in their report that if all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, it would only slow the projected increase in the earth’s average temperature over the next 100 years by adding ten years. Moreover, natural sources of carbon dioxide emissions such as wild fires and volcanic eruptions could eclipse any reductions in human-caused emissions.

So, again, I ask, “Why should you care about global warming?” Or, more importantly, “What are you willing to pay or give up in light of the fact that in the end you may have no affect on climate change?” I suggest that if being more economical and efficient has the added benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, then go for it. But, don’t forego a healthy economy, your car, your food supply, or your heating and air conditioning for a false hope. And don’t expect the people of China or India to give up their newly found prosperity, light bulbs, refrigerators, and air conditioning to appease the global warming extremists. I contend that “Reduce your carbon footprint” has become the moral equivalent of “Let them eat cake.” The people of the United States do not need to, nor should we, throw ourselves on the climate change sword based on theoretical projections, a focus only on humans as the cause, and a questionable outcome of any action we take.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced he wants Everglades National Park to be re-inscribed to the List of World Heritage in Danger saying “…when we achieve restoration, we can remove the park from the list of sites that [are] in danger.”

Many people have argued over the years that being on the World Heritage List somehow puts the United Nations in charge of United States property and impinges on private property rights. I am very familiar with the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee, its Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure and I disagree with those who believe the U.S. surrenders it sovereignty and that property rights are violated. I base my conclusion on knowledge acquired while serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and leading the U.S. Delegation to the World Heritage Committee for five years.

However, when the Clinton Administration talked the World Heritage Committee into putting both Yellowstone and the Everglades on the List of World Heritage in Danger in the early 1990s, the flames of fear and loathing against the United Nations and UNESCO, which runs the World Heritage Program, were fanned into a conflagration.

Neither park should be considered “in danger.” The List of World Heritage in Danger is a tool the World Heritage Committee uses to gain the attention of the owner of a World Heritage Site when its conservation is “threatened by serious and specific dangers.” Putting a site on the In-Danger List achieves two ends. It is designed to encourage the country in which the site is located to take action or actions necessary to ensure the site’s conservation and it makes international assistance (technical and monetary) available to the property owner for such conservation actions. A country or private owner of a World Heritage Site is under no obligation to take any action requested by the World Heritage Committee. Under the World Heritage Convention conservation only occurs through “cooperation and assistance.” If in the final analysis a property loses its Outstanding Universal Value for which it was inscribed as a World Heritage Site, the Committee may then vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage.

The World Heritage Committee removed Everglades National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2007. Many people cried foul blaming the Bush Administration for advancing the idea of removing the site from the In-Danger List before the restoration is complete. Here are the facts. The World Heritage Committee has been monitoring Everglades for nearly two decades and they have been continuously awe struck at both the dollars spent and efforts taken by the U.S., the State of Florida, and others to restore this site. Taking action is all the Committee ever wants to see. They do not expect restoration to be complete before taking a site off the List of World Heritage in Danger, especially when the restoration of the Everglades is likely to be a 20-40 year process. The Committee expressed a desire to remove the Everglades from the In-Danger List at every meeting where I represented the U.S. from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, they had seen enough and they asked Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Todd Willens, to make a motion to remove the site form the List of World Heritage in Danger. He did, and though the Committee usually does not vote, but seeks consensus, no member of the Committee or any one else present spoke against the motion.

The United States should not seek to re-inscribe Everglades to the List of World Heritage in Danger. Instead, Americans should be proud that the international community recognizes our significant and costly efforts to undertake the largest ecosystem restoration project the world has ever known. The restoration is far from complete and nothing should deter the ongoing commitment and efforts to restore and conserve this unique and valuable marsh land habitat. Unfortunately, some environmental groups cannot stand success. Success apparently does not sell enough memberships and does not perpetuate their power base. Too bad, because the United States does more for conservation than any other nation in the world and we should welcome the international recognition of our leadership in this area and the well-deserved pat on the back for doing the right thing for Everglades National Park and the South Florida Ecosystem.

A recent story by AP Science Writer, Seth Borenstein, says researchers believe winds in the United States are dying down, especially east of the Mississippi River. Obviously, this research was not conducted in Washington, DC, where the wind bags continue at hurricane force.

“The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree on whether that is happening,” the article says. And, the cause, of course, may be global warming.

After four years of college and a degree in economics and biology, the only thing I can say with certainty is, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” This principle has its roots in physics, “Energy or matter can neither be created nor destroyed.” In policy making, it becomes, “There are no solutions—only trade offs.”

With all the buzz about renewable energy and non-carbon-emitting sources of energy, I have been patiently waiting for the other shoe to drop and the reality of physics to set in. You see, it takes energy to create the energy we most often use—electricity. In fact, because of inefficiencies and physical principles such as friction, it takes more energy to produce electricity than you get back out of the electrical energy.

For instance fuels cells, which burn hydrogen and oxygen with only water vapor for emissions, require a supply of pure hydrogen. That hydrogen is usually separated from water (H2O) or methane (CH4) and the physical fact of the matter is that it takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel than you get back from burning the same hydrogen.

If you generate electricity from solar panels then you are using solar energy that normally would be absorbed by the earth, the atmosphere, or its various life forms. Sooner or later, that energy loss to the earth’s system will have some effect on life forms or the climate.

And wind power converts wind energy to electricity. When the power of wind is used to run a turbine, the result is less wind because the wind energy has been converted to electricity.

When will some scientist point out that wind and solar power generation could have an impact the climate. A small impact you say. Well, as the environmentalists are so wont to say, all small impacts result in cumulative impacts. Many scientists are skeptical that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions have a significant impact on the climate, so it only follows that some would say wind and solar power will have no effect on the climate.

However, if the global warmists have one ounce of intellectual integrity, they would readily admit that all forms of energy production could have some impact on our climate, no matter how insignificant. The question is whether our impacts are meaningful or significant, and if they are, then it would appear that the only solution is for mankind to be removed from the system. But, then that is what the extremists want, isn’t it?

On March 1, 2009, one foot of snow fell on top of a freezing rain here in the Southside of Virginia. At our house, the power was out for three days and the low one morning was zero degrees Fahrenheit.

After the power was restored, my family concluded that we do not want to freeze to death in the dark, but that is the slippery slope Congress may take us down if they pass a cap and trade bill.

I don’t care what Al Gore says. I don’t care what some Federal Judge says. I don’t care what the EPA says. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant! For crying out loud, we breath it in and out every day with no harmful side effects. Our bodies produce it and plants thrive on it. To treat it the same as dioxin or DDT or Sulphur Dioxide is absolutely ridiculous.

Will a cap and trade reduce greenhouse gases and thus stop global warming? An emphatic “No” is the answer. Even the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that if all human-caused CO2 emissions went to zero tomorrow, it would only delay by 10 years the projected rise in global average temperature supposed to occur 100 years from now.

Global Warming or Climate Change is voodoo science. Read what a joint National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey brochure about the National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver says about past data and projections (emphasis added).

“Information from ice studies represents pieces of the puzzle of understanding climate. It complements data from study of pollen, tree rings, coral, and lake and sea floor sediments. Through studies of ice, extreme climate swings have been identified in Earth’s past; some have occurred remarkably quickly (in less than a decade).”

“Mathematicians and modelers use the ice core data to create Global Climate Models, which are theoretical extensions of Earth’s past climate conditions to what could happen in the future. Once the past can be explained, possible future events may be identified and their rapidity and effects predicted with at least some confidence and accuracy.”

There are an awful lot of qualifying modifiers and less than certain language is used in this statement. If a “Warmist” heard someone recite this statement verbatim, they would call the reader a “Holocaust Denier.”

Cap and trade will not reduce carbon emissions. It will be a regressive tax on ordinary citizens. It will cost jobs at a time when we can least afford to impair our economy. And, it will result in more American jobs going offshore. Global Warming and greenhouse gas reductions are to modern elitist what “Let them eat cake” was to Joan of Arc. I don’t know about you, but I don’t look forward to eating their cake or freezing in the dark.

While conservationists make a difference by cooperatively working to improve habitat, the environmental industry employs stables of lawyers who march across the nation and advance bad policies through litigation. Our economy is being strangled, the bureaucracy is entangled, and lives are destroyed. In the meantime—thanks in part to the entertainment industry—America is happily “going green.”

Why—even though our environment has improved—do millions of Americans believe our world is teetering on the brink of destruction? Environmentalists are influencing people through the entertainment industry.

It all started with the 1975 novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang. Over time, this work of fiction became a manifesto for radical environmentalism and it paved the way for thousands of other novels that depict mankind as an eco scourge.

You can count on your fingers the number of times that fiction has been used to expose the dark side of environmentalism. Michael Crichton’s novel, State of Fear, and L. P. Hoffman’s new release, The Canaan Creed, are among them.

The response to The Canaan Creed has been overwhelmingly favorable, but the mainstream media won’t carry this message. I need your help. Together we can penetrate the entertainment market and reach millions of Americans with the truth—radical environmentalism does not work, conservation does!

In her Op Ed piece on March 30, 2009, in the San Francisco Examiner, Cheryl K. Chumley asserted that the “UN is taking control of U.S. land in the name of conservation.” She goes on to state so many other factual errors about the World Heritage Convention that I am compelled to respond and set the record straight.

Ms. Chumley is alluding to the announcement by the US Department of the Interior that the United States of America has revised its list of sites that may be nominated by the USA to be considered for inclusion on the List of World Heritage.

I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 2002 to 2008, and in that capacity, I had the distinct privilege of leading the USA Delegation to the meetings of the World Heritage Committee for five years, getting the USA elected to the Committee, and I am well versed in the World Heritage Convention, the Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure. The Convention, which the USA helped author and was the first signatory, is administered through the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) by the 21 State Party Members of the World Heritage Committee. The USA remained active in and on the World Heritage Committee even during its 20 year hiatus from UNESCO. When under President Bush’s leadership the USA rejoined UNESCO, I worked closely with UNESCO Ambassador Louise Oliver on matters related to World Heritage.

I led the effort to have the Committee remove Yellowstone National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger and I paved the way for the eventual removal of the Everglades National Park from the same list. I was involved in the rewrite of the Operating Guidelines where the USA and its allies made a strong case for the sovereignty of State Parties as articulated in the Convention.

Inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage does not in any way, shape, or form transfer ownership or control of the site to the United Nations or UNESCO. It is an acknowledgment of three things. To be inscribed, a site must have 1) Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), 2) it must have an established legal structure to conserve or protect the resources, and 3) the site must have an established management plan. “Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.” (Operational Guidelines, IIA, Paragraph 49)

The only way that the Committee can exert any pressure on a State Party regarding conservation or management of a site is to do one of two things. First, the Committee may vote to put a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger which makes international assistance and money available to the site owner in order to remedy the issues identified by the Committee, or secondly, the Committee may vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage if it has been determined that the site has lost its OUV.

I also initiated and led the multi-year effort to develop the new USA Tentative List to which Ms. Chumley refers. This is the list of sites that the USA considers to have Outstanding Universal Value and that may be nominated by the USA for inscription on the List of World Heritage. A Tentative List is required by the Convention and the previous USA Tentative List had over seventy sites. Our goal was to substantially reduce the number of sites on the list and confine those properties listed to sites that had the support of the owners, the local community, and local leaders. These sites were not put forth by the United Nations or UNESCO. The sites were submitted by the owners, underwent a rigorous review process, required written documentation of local support, and were publicly vetted.

While the World Heritage Committee and certain of its members have from time to time tried to exert excessive influence on the management of sites and have even tried to impose “buffer zones” around sites, the fact remains that all World Heritage Sites remain exclusively under the control of the property owners and the laws of the nation in which the site is located. I am a strong proponent of private property rights and I have worked to ensure that these rights are protected throughout my tenure at Interior. For the USA, most World Heritage Sites are Federally-owned properties, but there are today a few State-owned, Tribal-owned, and privately-owned World Heritage Sites in the USA. The owners of those properties remain in control of the site and there has never been a documented sighting of blue-helmeted soldiers or black-helicopter operations at any World Heritage Site in the USA.