This is a response from Lawrence Kogan, Esq. to a = note (At=20 the end of all this.) from an unnamed water attorney.

Roni,

The fact that = fossil=20 fuel sources have long been favored over pie-in-the-sky technologies = that were=20 not yet ripe for prime-time for many years, does not justify irrational=20 exuberance over ethanol, especially considering that ethanol itself = causes=20 negative environmental AND economic externalities. It is not the = reverse=20 side of the policy coin because we now know better not to rely solely on = one=20 fuel source if we seek energy security. =

Environmental = externalities are a hoax imposed on society by environmentalists who = wish to=20 control the way people undertake their daily lives. Environmental=20 accounting is pretty much voodoo and its aim is to undermine = long-established=20 financial accounting precepts that serve as the basis for our capitalist = free=20 market system. Environmentalists speak glowingly of and = essentially=20 'gross-up' societal-environmental externalities triggered by fossil = fuels (using=20 an accounting function) without netting those costs against gross = societal=20 benefits that fossil fuels have provided. I suspect that such a = 'netting',=20 which is proper in accounting, would yield less than the dramatic = environmental=20 results that environmentalists like to publicize, and thus, undermine an = important element of their campaign to make people throughout the world = more=20 conscious of their environmental 'footprints, carbon or otherwise. = The=20 ITSSD has cited several sources knowledgeable about environmentalist = antics in=20 its 2005 book "Exporting Precaution: How Europe's Risk-Free Regulatory = Agenda=20 Threatens American Free Enterprise", published by the Washington Legal=20 Foundation.

I believe = that Czech=20 President Klaus says it best in his recent Financial Times editorial:=20

"...I see=20 the biggest threat = to freedom,=20 democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious = environmentalism,=20 not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and = spontaneous=20 evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global)=20 planning."

See: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html=20 which I think GNF should reproduce in its entirety under the ITSSD = section=20 of the GNF website.

Freedom, not climate, is at = risk

By Vaclav=20 Klaus

Published: June = 13 2007 17:44=20 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are = living in=20 strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough - irrespective of = the=20 fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature = increased=20 only by 0.6 per cent - for the environmentalists and their followers to = suggest=20 radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right=20 now.

Ask = President=20 Klaus

3D"Vaclav

Is climate change = just=20 propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your questions in an online = Q&A. Post a=20 query now

In the past year, = Al Gore's=20 so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's - = more or=20 less Tony Blair's - Stern report was published, the fourth report of the = United=20 Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and = the=20 Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the = weather.=20 Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of = political=20 correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first = time in=20 human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.=20

The author = Michael Crichton=20 stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the = challenge of=20 distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda". I feel the = same=20 way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the = truth=20 versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the = "established"=20 truth, although a lot of people - including top-class scientists - see = the issue=20 of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the = arrogance of=20 those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human=20 activities.

As someone who = lived under=20 communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the = biggest=20 threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in = ambitious=20 environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the = free and=20 spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) = planning.=20

The = environmentalists ask for=20 immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term = positive=20 impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress = that future=20 generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher = the=20 wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They = are=20 Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists = should help us=20 and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific = opinions.=20 They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions = and how=20 much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific = evidence.

Does it make any = sense to=20 speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the = evolution=20 of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught = at=20 school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much = warmer=20 climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our=20 life-time temperature changes occur (in both=20 directions).

Due to advances = in=20 technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of = institutions and=20 the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of = human=20 society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and = will=20 solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.=20

I agree with = Professor=20 Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who = said:=20 "future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st = century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally = averaged=20 temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of = gross=20 exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into = implausible=20 chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the = industrial=20 age".

The issue of = global warming=20 is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his = freedom=20 than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global = temperature.=20

As a witness to = today's=20 worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the = following:
■Small climate=20 changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any = suppression of=20 freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising = people from=20 above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist = the=20 politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", = which is=20 always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent = majority
■Instead=20 of speaking about "the environment", let us be attentive to it in our = personal=20 behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous = evolution of=20 human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down = or=20 divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with = catastrophic=20 forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in = human=20 lives.

The=20 writer is President of the Czech Republic

--------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------

=20

Roni,

I=20 thought you might be interested in the reply of water=20 attorney:

I would argue that energy = prices have=20 been artificially depressed in the US for years. I agree = that=20 there is short term dislocation in corn prices, and that corn ethanol is = artificially valued. However, environmental (and now national = security)=20 externalities of US energy consumption are = only now=20 beginning to be valued in real cost terms. That scenario (actual = market=20 impact of environmental and security externality) has been on the = horizon for=20 years (at least since the passage of NEPA [1969] and the 1974 Arab oil = embargo=20 and creation of OPEC). I believe one can easily argue that = "politically=20 charged government policies" (redundancy admitted) which favor ethanol=20 production are the reverse side of the policy coin which has favored=20 petrochemical development for decades. Yes, the political and = economic=20 pendulums swing.