How California’s Environmental Mandates Led to Blackouts

RENEWABLES_SS

California’s rolling blackouts this summer were caused by decades of costly and poorly planned decisions to replace coal, nuclear, and gas-powered plants with solar and wind, according to some energy experts.

“It speaks to the delusion of California policymakers,” says Michael Shellenberger, the president of Environmental Progress, which advocates for greater reliance on nuclear power as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and provide reliable energy. “They really convinced themselves that they could manage all of this increased demand on renewables, which are fundamentally unreliable.” 

California banned the construction of new nuclear reactors in 1976 and has been incentivizing companies to close older plants by piling on burdensome regulations ever since.

Shellenberger says this loss has made California more susceptible to blackouts.

“It would have just provided the energy that we didn’t have,” says Shellenberger. “The nuclear plant, unlike the solar farms or wind, is reliable like 92 percent of the year.”

Policymakers also started closing natural gas plants because they produce more CO2 emissions than wind and solar, ignoring warnings that doing so would lead to energy shortages. On Wednesday, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, signed an executive order asking the state legislature to ban fracking oil and gas, the latter of which provided a majority of the state’s energy during the recent blackouts.

Critics of solar and wind energy say that renewables provide consistent energy only under optimal weather conditions.

But the main operator of California’s grid says a lack of easily accessible backup energy, not renewables like wind and solar, were to blame for the blackouts.

“Renewables have not caused this issue. This is a resource issue, not a renewable issue,” California Independent Systems Operator CEO Stephen Berberich said in an August 18 press briefing.

Some defenders of renewable energy even say that that fossil fuels are the real culprit and that critics like Shellenberger are distorting the facts in service of their preconceived biases

The August blackout, they point out, was directly caused by the failure of a natural gas generator.

“Those fossil fuel technologies have trouble performing in the heat,” says energy analyst Amol Phadke. Phadke is the co-author of UC-Berkeley’s 2035 Report, which argues that America should transition to 90 percent carbon-free energy generation in the next 15 years.

But the natural gas generator that failed was a backup system. It had been flipped on only because the state’s energy capacity failed as the sun went down, the wind slowed, and Californians blasted their air conditioners to deal with a heat wave.

Still, Phadke insists that the real problem was a failure to adequately plan backup power.

“And in fact, I would argue that having a lot more renewable energy and storage would make the grid more robust,” says Phadke.  

One additional factor is that as California has increased its reliance on renewable energy, it has also become increasingly reliant on energy imported from neighboring states, who failed to make up for the shortfall during the heatwave.

“Those neighbors need their power plants because they’re hot, too,” says engineer and investor Mark P. Mills, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

He says that California’s push to replace traditional power plants with renewables has created a shortage of what’s known as “dispatchable capacity”—generators that can be flipped on where there’s a spike in demand.

“What happened in the first blackouts is that they didn’t have this dispatchable capacity and, worse than that, there was a wind lull,” says Mills. “None of that would have happened if you’re not losing conventional capacity. And the more wind you add, the less dispatchable you have, the more likely you’ll have those events occur….It’s just simple logic.” 

Phadke thinks the solution is for California to build even more solar power plants and invest more money in giant batteries that can store power from the wind and sun during off hours.

“In the long run, if you have enough batteries to transfer that solar energy during the day into the evening hours, you are good,” says Phadke. “And the good news is that the cost of those batteries has dropped by 90 percent since 2010.”

While it’s true that the cost of both solar panels and batteries has fallen dramatically in the past decade, Mills points out that the pace of that price decline has slowed, and he says manufacturers are likely approaching the physical limitations of solar energy conversion.

“The constant babbling about batteries is an embarrassing failure of arithmetic,” says Mills. 

Mills has calculated that storing a barrel of oil’s worth of energy in a battery costs at least 100 times as much as storing the oil and that it would take 1,000 years for the world’s largest battery factory to produce enough to store two days’ worth of America’s energy needs.

“Batteries are never going to get cheaper to store energy than storing oil in a barrel,” says Mills. “Until we develop a room-temperature superconductor.” (If that happens, he says, “it changes the world.”)

Mills also points out that the intensive mining required to produce batteries has a major environmental cost and, given the regulatory environment in America, would likely increase dependence on rare-earth minerals mined in Russia and China.

“The increase in mining that the green energy path will require will be the biggest increase in mineral extraction the world has ever seen,” says Mills. “You may think that’s fine, but it’s a real cost that no one’s counting. It’s dishonest.”

But the 2035 report estimates the cost of not quickly pivoting to renewables at $1.2 trillion in health and environmental damages and 85,000 premature deaths by 2050. It recommends a combination of emissions standards, government subsidies, and tax incentives to ramp up solar, wind, and battery production as quickly as possible.

Shellenberger says that nuclear would provide the clean and abundant energy that both sides want, if only California and other states would stop creating incentives for nuclear plants to close down and would allow new ones to open up.

“Just keeping the nuclear plants online would have kept prices down significantly,” says Shellenberger. “My view is if California had a vision of being like France, 75 percent nuclear and our homes getting our cooking and heating from electricity, well, that could be a very good deal for both consumers and the natural environment, but nobody’s talking about that.” 

Mills says that the technological innovations that would be required to fulfill the environmentalists’ dreams rely, ironically, on continuing to have abundant energy now.

“If you want to go from propellers to jet engines, if you want to go from combustion to nuclear fission…if you want to store electricity as cheaply as we store oil, you need a different, whole new solution,” says Mills. “So you produce energy at the least possible cost to have as much profit to invest in basic science and invest in adaptation and resilience.”

Shellenberger says the entire nation should view California as a cautionary tale, because its energy policy is the blueprint that some Democrats in Washington, D.C., want to follow.

“So if you are concerned about the blackouts, the sixfold increase in electricity prices above the [national average], if you’re concerned about…bad management of our electrical grid that causes fires in places where we should have less fires…you should be concerned about what’s happening in California and not want it to be imposed on the rest of the U.S.” 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller; opening graphic by Lex Villena; additional graphics by Isaac Reese. 

Photo credits: Mike Blake/Reuters/Newscom; Laura Dickinson/The Tribune/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Maksym Yemelyanov/agefotostock/Newscom; Carolyn Cole/TNS/Newscom; Inciweb/Inciweb/ZUMA Press/Newscom; D 137610783 © Eberdova | Dreamstime.com, ID 47955708© Martinlisner | Dreamstime.com, ID 17908577 © Fesus Robert | Dreamstime.com; Ken James/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Paul Kitagaki Jr/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Music credits: “Premonition,” “Viscous Void,” “Lonely Astronaut,” and “Fade Away,” by Evgeny Bardyuzha. “Bad Habits” and “Apparition” by Stanley Gurvich. Licensed by Artlist.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Gaseqq
via IFTTT

Trump’s Vaccine Cheerleading Is Undermining Public Trust in the Vaccines

VaccineQuestionLeighPratherDreamstime

President Donald Trump has suggested several times that a vaccine for COVID-19 could become available before Election Day. Polls suggest that the more the president touts the hurried arrival of a COVID-19 vaccine, the more distrustful Americans become of the vaccine approval process and the less likely they are to get inoculated once one becomes available.

On Wednesday, in light of that growing unease with the speed at which COVID-19 vaccines are being developed and tested, public health officials outlined new, higher standards for ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves them for emergency use. Asked about the proposed stricter guidelines later that day, Trump replied: “That has to be approved by the White House. We may or may not approve it. That sounds like a political move.”

The president made the salient point that “if they delay [a vaccine] a week or two weeks or three weeks, that’s a lot of lives you’re talking about.” The president also declared that he has “tremendous trust in these massive companies that are so brilliantly organized, in terms of what they’ve been doing with the tests.” He specifically referenced Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna, the current leaders in the race to develop and deploy a COVID-19 vaccine.

However high his regard is for these companies, they are certainly worried about Americans’ trust in the vaccines they are developing. Earlier this month, to allay public fears that political pressure will rush the approval of their vaccines, nine leading pharma companies issued a pledge committing themselves to “developing and testing potential vaccines for COVID-19 in accordance with high ethical standards and sound scientific principles.” The companies specifically said that they would submit their vaccines only “after demonstrating safety and efficacy through a Phase 3 clinical study that is designed and conducted to meet requirements of expert regulatory authorities.”

During his Wednesday press conference, the president suggested that the vaccine makers have been making great progress. “They’re coming back with great numbers and statistics and tests and everything else that they have to come back with,” he said. “I don’t see any reason why [a vaccine] should be delayed further.” But none of the data from the current Phase 3 coronavirus vaccine clinical trials have yet been reported.

In mid-September Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on the CBS’ Face the Nation that “we have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October.” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told CNBC that his company is likely to have enough late-stage testing data to know whether its vaccine works or not in November. Johnson & Johnson’s chief scientist, Paul Stoffels, told Business Insider, “We hope to see an endpoint around the end of year or early next year.” In the hope that their vaccines will prove to be safe and effective, the federal government has already signed contracts worth billions of dollars with Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson to manufacture tens of millions of doses before the companies and regulators know if their vaccines will work.

In response to Bob Woodward’s revelation that he deliberately downplayed the seriousness of COVID-19, Trump insisted that he did so because “The fact is I’m a cheerleader for this country….We want to show confidence. We want to show strength.” But his pre-election cheerleading about COVID-19 vaccines seems to be undermining, not strengthening, Americans’ confidence in them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mRKlCv
via IFTTT

How California’s Environmental Mandates Led to Blackouts

RENEWABLES_SS

California’s rolling blackouts this summer were caused by decades of costly and poorly planned decisions to replace coal, nuclear, and gas-powered plants with solar and wind, according to some energy experts.

“It speaks to the delusion of California policymakers,” says Michael Shellenberger, the president of Environmental Progress, which advocates for greater reliance on nuclear power as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and provide reliable energy. “They really convinced themselves that they could manage all of this increased demand on renewables, which are fundamentally unreliable.” 

California banned the construction of new nuclear reactors in 1976 and has been incentivizing companies to close older plants by piling on burdensome regulations ever since.

Shellenberger says this loss has made California more susceptible to blackouts.

“It would have just provided the energy that we didn’t have,” says Shellenberger. “The nuclear plant, unlike the solar farms or wind, is reliable like 92 percent of the year.”

Policymakers also started closing natural gas plants because they produce more CO2 emissions than wind and solar, ignoring warnings that doing so would lead to energy shortages. On Wednesday, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, signed an executive order asking the state legislature to ban fracking oil and gas, the latter of which provided a majority of the state’s energy during the recent blackouts.

Critics of solar and wind energy say that renewables provide consistent energy only under optimal weather conditions.

But the main operator of California’s grid says a lack of easily accessible backup energy, not renewables like wind and solar, were to blame for the blackouts.

“Renewables have not caused this issue. This is a resource issue, not a renewable issue,” California Independent Systems Operator CEO Stephen Berberich said in an August 18 press briefing.

Some defenders of renewable energy even say that that fossil fuels are the real culprit and that critics like Shellenberger are distorting the facts in service of their preconceived biases

The August blackout, they point out, was directly caused by the failure of a natural gas generator.

“Those fossil fuel technologies have trouble performing in the heat,” says energy analyst Amol Phadke. Phadke is the co-author of UC-Berkeley’s 2035 Report, which argues that America should transition to 90 percent carbon-free energy generation in the next 15 years.

But the natural gas generator that failed was a backup system. It had been flipped on only because the state’s energy capacity failed as the sun went down, the wind slowed, and Californians blasted their air conditioners to deal with a heat wave.

Still, Phadke insists that the real problem was a failure to adequately plan backup power.

“And in fact, I would argue that having a lot more renewable energy and storage would make the grid more robust,” says Phadke.  

One additional factor is that as California has increased its reliance on renewable energy, it has also become increasingly reliant on energy imported from neighboring states, who failed to make up for the shortfall during the heatwave.

“Those neighbors need their power plants because they’re hot, too,” says engineer and investor Mark P. Mills, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

He says that California’s push to replace traditional power plants with renewables has created a shortage of what’s known as “dispatchable capacity”—generators that can be flipped on where there’s a spike in demand.

“What happened in the first blackouts is that they didn’t have this dispatchable capacity and, worse than that, there was a wind lull,” says Mills. “None of that would have happened if you’re not losing conventional capacity. And the more wind you add, the less dispatchable you have, the more likely you’ll have those events occur….It’s just simple logic.” 

Phadke thinks the solution is for California to build even more solar power plants and invest more money in giant batteries that can store power from the wind and sun during off hours.

“In the long run, if you have enough batteries to transfer that solar energy during the day into the evening hours, you are good,” says Phadke. “And the good news is that the cost of those batteries has dropped by 90 percent since 2010.”

While it’s true that the cost of both solar panels and batteries has fallen dramatically in the past decade, Mills points out that the pace of that price decline has slowed, and he says manufacturers are likely approaching the physical limitations of solar energy conversion.

“The constant babbling about batteries is an embarrassing failure of arithmetic,” says Mills. 

Mills has calculated that storing a barrel of oil’s worth of energy in a battery costs at least 100 times as much as storing the oil and that it would take 1,000 years for the world’s largest battery factory to produce enough to store two days’ worth of America’s energy needs.

“Batteries are never going to get cheaper to store energy than storing oil in a barrel,” says Mills. “Until we develop a room-temperature superconductor.” (If that happens, he says, “it changes the world.”)

Mills also points out that the intensive mining required to produce batteries has a major environmental cost and, given the regulatory environment in America, would likely increase dependence on rare-earth minerals mined in Russia and China.

“The increase in mining that the green energy path will require will be the biggest increase in mineral extraction the world has ever seen,” says Mills. “You may think that’s fine, but it’s a real cost that no one’s counting. It’s dishonest.”

But the 2035 report estimates the cost of not quickly pivoting to renewables at $1.2 trillion in health and environmental damages and 85,000 premature deaths by 2050. It recommends a combination of emissions standards, government subsidies, and tax incentives to ramp up solar, wind, and battery production as quickly as possible.

Shellenberger says that nuclear would provide the clean and abundant energy that both sides want, if only California and other states would stop creating incentives for nuclear plants to close down and would allow new ones to open up.

“Just keeping the nuclear plants online would have kept prices down significantly,” says Shellenberger. “My view is if California had a vision of being like France, 75 percent nuclear and our homes getting our cooking and heating from electricity, well, that could be a very good deal for both consumers and the natural environment, but nobody’s talking about that.” 

Mills says that the technological innovations that would be required to fulfill the environmentalists’ dreams rely, ironically, on continuing to have abundant energy now.

“If you want to go from propellers to jet engines, if you want to go from combustion to nuclear fission…if you want to store electricity as cheaply as we store oil, you need a different, whole new solution,” says Mills. “So you produce energy at the least possible cost to have as much profit to invest in basic science and invest in adaptation and resilience.”

Shellenberger says the entire nation should view California as a cautionary tale, because its energy policy is the blueprint that some Democrats in Washington, D.C., want to follow.

“So if you are concerned about the blackouts, the sixfold increase in electricity prices above the [national average], if you’re concerned about…bad management of our electrical grid that causes fires in places where we should have less fires…you should be concerned about what’s happening in California and not want it to be imposed on the rest of the U.S.” 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller; opening graphic by Lex Villena; additional graphics by Isaac Reese. 

Photo credits: Mike Blake/Reuters/Newscom; Laura Dickinson/The Tribune/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Maksym Yemelyanov/agefotostock/Newscom; Carolyn Cole/TNS/Newscom; Inciweb/Inciweb/ZUMA Press/Newscom; D 137610783 © Eberdova | Dreamstime.com, ID 47955708© Martinlisner | Dreamstime.com, ID 17908577 © Fesus Robert | Dreamstime.com; Ken James/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Paul Kitagaki Jr/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Music credits: “Premonition,” “Viscous Void,” “Lonely Astronaut,” and “Fade Away,” by Evgeny Bardyuzha. “Bad Habits” and “Apparition” by Stanley Gurvich. Licensed by Artlist.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Gaseqq
via IFTTT

Florida Drops Prostitution Case Against Robert Kraft, Still Pursues Charges Against the Women He Paid

polspphotos636847

Kraft gets off while Orchids of Asia workers still face 25 prostitution charges each. After nearly two years, Florida prosecutors are finally giving up on prosecuting New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft for twice paying an adult woman in Palm Beach County for a hand job. The state had little choice, since a court said the video evidence of this sex act was illegally obtained.

Florida cops had pretended to be hunting a “human trafficking” ring in order to get a warrant for the secret surveillance cameras—which ultimately showed no signs of forced work, forced sex, child labor, or illegal immigration. What they caught was licensed, adult, immigrant masseuses sometimes providing manual sexual stimulation at the end of a client’s massage.

But authorities went forward with the “trafficking” lie anyway, holding a press conference that garnered a huge amount of media coverage. Readers and viewers across the country were told that an international “sex trafficking ring” forced “girls” to have unprotected sex with 1,000 men a year and did not let them leave. Major outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and NPR relayed the government’s account.

Palm Beach District Attorney Dave Aronberg declared that this was “modern day slavery” and that the women providing sex acts to Kraft and company were “trafficking victims.” This wasn’t a story “about lonely old men and victimless crimes,” Aronberg said; it was “about forcing women into our country for forced labor and sex.” Another local sheriff called the prostitution stings “a rescue operation.”

Nothing then, or since, has shown any of this to be the case.

And now, those “rescued” women may be the only ones still in legal trouble.

On Thursday, state prosecutors announced that they had dropped the two “soliciting another to commit prostitution” charges against Robert Kraft. The announcement comes after two Florida courts ruled that the video evidence of his alleged crime was not admissible. The court also ruled it off-limits in cases against the other men charged with soliciting prostitution at Orchids of Asia and the massage parlor workers who were facing prostitution-related felonies. Solicitation cases against at least 13 other men charged at the same time as Kraft are now listed as closed.

The video footage was all cops had on Kraft and most of the other men arrested for soliciting. But when it comes to the women involved, police do have other potential evidence, since they spent months doing things like rooting through their trash cans (with the help of a Homeland Security agent), following them around, and sending in undercover agents.

Hua Zhang, the 59-year-old owner of Orchids of Asia owner, and 41-year-old Lei Wang—one of two women whom Kraft allegedly patronized—were charged with 22 counts apiece of “soliciting another to commit prostitution,” as well as one count each of maintaining a house of prostitution, deriving support from proceeds of prostitution, and renting space to be used for prostitution. The other woman accused of servicing Kraft, 60-year-old Shen Mingbi, was charged with one count of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution and 10 counts of soliciting another to commit prostitution.

Aronberg did not respond to Reason‘s request for more information on what would become of the charges against these women.

But cases against all three are still listed as open in Palm Beach County court records, while Kraft’s is now listed as closed. And a status check in the Zhang and Wang cases is scheduled for December 2, 2020.

On August 31—more than a year and a half after she was first charged—Zhang was granted permission to seek employment again.

Unlike the men arrested for solicitation, Zhang and Wang also had many of their assets seized.

No one in this case was ever charged with human trafficking. No victims were ever produced. Yet Zhang and Wang have had to spend the past 19 months fighting for their freedom, their reputations, their property, and their livelihoods, and it looks like they’ll have to continue fighting it.

All for touching parts of men that the state says they can’t touch for money—and while the men that paid to be touched go free.

(This is not to say that these men faced no consequences. They’ve had to fight criminal charges, fight the release of the surveillance video, and watch as the papers publish their names as people who patronize “sex slaves.” Nor should they should be punished. But the fact that they aren’t makes the continued prosecution of the women all the more egregious.)

People have been aghast at how these massage-parlor stings played out. But police departments and prosecutors’ offices around the country have been engaging in similar charades, generally with the help of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations agents. Here are a few other examples I’ve covered recently:

I went on Holly Randall’s latest podcast to talk about many of these issues. Check that out here:


QUICK HITS

• Larynzo Johnson, 26, has been arrested as a suspect in Wednesday’s shooting of two Louisville police officers.

• A Louisiana police officer who said he was shot in a Sunday night ambush has admitted that he made the story up after shooting himself.

• Another poll shows President Donald Trump trailing Joe Biden in key swing states:

• The war on drugs never ends, it just takes new forms

• “The FBI and the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said Thursday that they are investigating ‘potential issues’ with nine military ballots in one county,” reports NPR. “They believe the ballots were opened improperly, though they have not filed any charges or taken official action.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j2R6zh
via IFTTT

Florida Drops Prostitution Case Against Robert Kraft, Still Pursues Charges Against the Women He Paid

polspphotos636847

Kraft gets off while Orchids of Asia workers still face 25 prostitution charges each. After nearly two years, Florida prosecutors are finally giving up on prosecuting New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft for twice paying an adult woman in Palm Beach County for a hand job. The state had little choice, since a court said the video evidence of this sex act was illegally obtained.

Florida cops had pretended to be hunting a “human trafficking” ring in order to get a warrant for the secret surveillance cameras—which ultimately showed no signs of forced work, forced sex, child labor, or illegal immigration. What they caught was licensed, adult, immigrant masseuses sometimes providing manual sexual stimulation at the end of a client’s massage.

But authorities went forward with the “trafficking” lie anyway, holding a press conference that garnered a huge amount of media coverage. Readers and viewers across the country were told that an international “sex trafficking ring” forced “girls” to have unprotected sex with 1,000 men a year and did not let them leave. Major outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and NPR relayed the government’s account.

Palm Beach District Attorney Dave Aronberg declared that this was “modern day slavery” and that the women providing sex acts to Kraft and company were “trafficking victims.” This wasn’t a story “about lonely old men and victimless crimes,” Aronberg said; it was “about forcing women into our country for forced labor and sex.” Another local sheriff called the prostitution stings “a rescue operation.”

Nothing then, or since, has shown any of this to be the case.

And now, those “rescued” women may be the only ones still in legal trouble.

On Thursday, state prosecutors announced that they had dropped the two “soliciting another to commit prostitution” charges against Robert Kraft. The announcement comes after two Florida courts ruled that the video evidence of his alleged crime was not admissible. The court also ruled it off-limits in cases against the other men charged with soliciting prostitution at Orchids of Asia and the massage parlor workers who were facing prostitution-related felonies. Solicitation cases against at least 13 other men charged at the same time as Kraft are now listed as closed.

The video footage was all cops had on Kraft and most of the other men arrested for soliciting. But when it comes to the women involved, police do have other potential evidence, since they spent months doing things like rooting through their trash cans (with the help of a Homeland Security agent), following them around, and sending in undercover agents.

Hua Zhang, the 59-year-old owner of Orchids of Asia owner, and 41-year-old Lei Wang—one of two women whom Kraft allegedly patronized—were charged with 22 counts apiece of “soliciting another to commit prostitution,” as well as one count each of maintaining a house of prostitution, deriving support from proceeds of prostitution, and renting space to be used for prostitution. The other woman accused of servicing Kraft, 60-year-old Shen Mingbi, was charged with one count of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution and 10 counts of soliciting another to commit prostitution.

Aronberg did not respond to Reason‘s request for more information on what would become of the charges against these women.

But cases against all three are still listed as open in Palm Beach County court records, while Kraft’s is now listed as closed. And a status check in the Zhang and Wang cases is scheduled for December 2, 2020.

On August 31—more than a year and a half after she was first charged—Zhang was granted permission to seek employment again.

Unlike the men arrested for solicitation, Zhang and Wang also had many of their assets seized.

No one in this case was ever charged with human trafficking. No victims were ever produced. Yet Zhang and Wang have had to spend the past 19 months fighting for their freedom, their reputations, their property, and their livelihoods, and it looks like they’ll have to continue fighting it.

All for touching parts of men that the state says they can’t touch for money—and while the men that paid to be touched go free.

(This is not to say that these men faced no consequences. They’ve had to fight criminal charges, fight the release of the surveillance video, and watch as the papers publish their names as people who patronize “sex slaves.” Nor should they should be punished. But the fact that they aren’t makes the continued prosecution of the women all the more egregious.)

People have been aghast at how these massage-parlor stings played out. But police departments and prosecutors’ offices around the country have been engaging in similar charades, generally with the help of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations agents. Here are a few other examples I’ve covered recently:

I went on Holly Randall’s latest podcast to talk about many of these issues. Check that out here:


QUICK HITS

• Larynzo Johnson, 26, has been arrested as a suspect in Wednesday’s shooting of two Louisville police officers.

• A Louisiana police officer who said he was shot in a Sunday night ambush has admitted that he made the story up after shooting himself.

• Another poll shows President Donald Trump trailing Joe Biden in key swing states:

• The war on drugs never ends, it just takes new forms

• “The FBI and the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said Thursday that they are investigating ‘potential issues’ with nine military ballots in one county,” reports NPR. “They believe the ballots were opened improperly, though they have not filed any charges or taken official action.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j2R6zh
via IFTTT

‘Environmental Justice’ Starts by Providing More Water for Everyone

agerm365149

Environmentalists have won the latest battle in California’s water wars, as California American Water just announced it is temporarily withdrawing its application to build a desalination plant on an old sand mine in the largely low-income town of Marina near Monterey.

The proposal faced a tough approval process at the California Coastal Commission after local activists complained about its effects on their community.

In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times asked this loaded question in its headline: “Is California serious about environmental justice? This water fight is a test.” The issue is simple, according to a former coastal commissioner interviewed by the Times reporter: “Who’s got the garbage? Who’s got the landfill? Who’s got all of it? Marina.…If the commissioners can’t see that now, their environmental justice policy is meaningless.”

Local communities have every right to be concerned about the siting of industrial facilities, but the worst way to promote “environmental justice” is to halt a facility that could provide much-needed water to a region that has, as even the article noted, “limited water options.” Cal Am proposed the desalination plant a decade ago to mitigate other, pressing environmental concerns—and still keep the water flowing to its thirsty customers.

As the Times continued, the investor-owned utility has been over-pumping the Carmel River for several decades. That has obliterated the river’s steelhead trout populations. The utility previously proposed building a dam and a larger, more intrusive desal plant, but environmentalists opposed those projects, also. (Big surprise, right?) As a result, Cal Am provides “some of the most expensive water in the country to cities that could not flourish without it.”

Read that last line slowly and carefully, as it is an allegory for California’s ongoing water problems. If California officials don’t invest in water infrastructure and expand our capacity to meet a still-growing population, then water will become much costlier—or will end up being rationed by state edict. It’s easy to pick nits with any potential project, but communities—and especially low-income ones—cannot flourish without abundant water.

The Marina project highlights the state’s inability to make meaningful tradeoffs. We’d all prefer parks along the coast, but an existing industrial site seems like a perfectly reasonable place to put a new industrial facility. Any project must be analyzed for its cost and benefits (“desal” is relatively costly), but that’s hardly what environmentalists are doing.

This fracas reinforces the theme of my forthcoming bookWinning the Water Wars. As summarized in its subtitle: “California can meet its water needs by promoting abundance rather than managing scarcity.” California needs to build infrastructure that stores more water during wet years, so we have it during dry years. It must better maintain its existing infrastructure, lest we relive the near-disaster at Oroville Dam’s spillways in 2017.

It needs to invest in desalination, water-recycling and allow private investors—such as those attempting to tap a Rhode Island-sized aquifer in the Mojave Desert—to find new water sources. We need a better pricing system that encourages sales and trading, so that companies can buy and sell water like anything else. Unfortunately, the state fights environmental battles over almost any attempt to accomplish those sensible goals.

California hasn’t built major water infrastructure since the 1970s, when its population was roughly half its current size. Anyone who proposes a water-infrastructure system must spend years developing environmental reports and fighting environmental groups, which often function like litigation machines. I’d like to see those who oppose such projects be required to provide reports on where alternative supplies will come from.

As the Marina desalination project shows, stopping water projects in the name of “environmental justice” does nothing for poor people who face escalating water bills—and it often hurts the environment, as well. (Marina doesn’t benefit directly from the plant, but will benefit if there’s more water in the system.) Without the plant, the utility will continue to rely on the river.

It will not be able to, as the article added, provide discounted water to a local farming community. Current water limits harm California’s farm regions the most. Those areas have the largest number of low-income residents. Certainly, a planned water-recycling plant near Monterey is a good idea—but it’s wise to build multiple sources.

Environmentalists don’t only oppose desalination plants because of siting issues, but because of concerns about their effect on a minuscule number of plankton in the nearly measureless Pacific. They oppose new dams—and the raising of existing ones—over concerns about rivers and fish. We must address legitimate environmental issues, but often they are a Trojan horse for opponents’ real goals of limiting growth.

If Californians are serious about “environmental justice,” they need to find ways to pump more water into our remarkable infrastructure systems. Actually, the current situation is unjust and environmentally destructive. A policy of abundance is the obvious fix.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/307qINa
via IFTTT

‘Environmental Justice’ Starts by Providing More Water for Everyone

agerm365149

Environmentalists have won the latest battle in California’s water wars, as California American Water just announced it is temporarily withdrawing its application to build a desalination plant on an old sand mine in the largely low-income town of Marina near Monterey.

The proposal faced a tough approval process at the California Coastal Commission after local activists complained about its effects on their community.

In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times asked this loaded question in its headline: “Is California serious about environmental justice? This water fight is a test.” The issue is simple, according to a former coastal commissioner interviewed by the Times reporter: “Who’s got the garbage? Who’s got the landfill? Who’s got all of it? Marina.…If the commissioners can’t see that now, their environmental justice policy is meaningless.”

Local communities have every right to be concerned about the siting of industrial facilities, but the worst way to promote “environmental justice” is to halt a facility that could provide much-needed water to a region that has, as even the article noted, “limited water options.” Cal Am proposed the desalination plant a decade ago to mitigate other, pressing environmental concerns—and still keep the water flowing to its thirsty customers.

As the Times continued, the investor-owned utility has been over-pumping the Carmel River for several decades. That has obliterated the river’s steelhead trout populations. The utility previously proposed building a dam and a larger, more intrusive desal plant, but environmentalists opposed those projects, also. (Big surprise, right?) As a result, Cal Am provides “some of the most expensive water in the country to cities that could not flourish without it.”

Read that last line slowly and carefully, as it is an allegory for California’s ongoing water problems. If California officials don’t invest in water infrastructure and expand our capacity to meet a still-growing population, then water will become much costlier—or will end up being rationed by state edict. It’s easy to pick nits with any potential project, but communities—and especially low-income ones—cannot flourish without abundant water.

The Marina project highlights the state’s inability to make meaningful tradeoffs. We’d all prefer parks along the coast, but an existing industrial site seems like a perfectly reasonable place to put a new industrial facility. Any project must be analyzed for its cost and benefits (“desal” is relatively costly), but that’s hardly what environmentalists are doing.

This fracas reinforces the theme of my forthcoming bookWinning the Water Wars. As summarized in its subtitle: “California can meet its water needs by promoting abundance rather than managing scarcity.” California needs to build infrastructure that stores more water during wet years, so we have it during dry years. It must better maintain its existing infrastructure, lest we relive the near-disaster at Oroville Dam’s spillways in 2017.

It needs to invest in desalination, water-recycling and allow private investors—such as those attempting to tap a Rhode Island-sized aquifer in the Mojave Desert—to find new water sources. We need a better pricing system that encourages sales and trading, so that companies can buy and sell water like anything else. Unfortunately, the state fights environmental battles over almost any attempt to accomplish those sensible goals.

California hasn’t built major water infrastructure since the 1970s, when its population was roughly half its current size. Anyone who proposes a water-infrastructure system must spend years developing environmental reports and fighting environmental groups, which often function like litigation machines. I’d like to see those who oppose such projects be required to provide reports on where alternative supplies will come from.

As the Marina desalination project shows, stopping water projects in the name of “environmental justice” does nothing for poor people who face escalating water bills—and it often hurts the environment, as well. (Marina doesn’t benefit directly from the plant, but will benefit if there’s more water in the system.) Without the plant, the utility will continue to rely on the river.

It will not be able to, as the article added, provide discounted water to a local farming community. Current water limits harm California’s farm regions the most. Those areas have the largest number of low-income residents. Certainly, a planned water-recycling plant near Monterey is a good idea—but it’s wise to build multiple sources.

Environmentalists don’t only oppose desalination plants because of siting issues, but because of concerns about their effect on a minuscule number of plankton in the nearly measureless Pacific. They oppose new dams—and the raising of existing ones—over concerns about rivers and fish. We must address legitimate environmental issues, but often they are a Trojan horse for opponents’ real goals of limiting growth.

If Californians are serious about “environmental justice,” they need to find ways to pump more water into our remarkable infrastructure systems. Actually, the current situation is unjust and environmentally destructive. A policy of abundance is the obvious fix.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/307qINa
via IFTTT

Throw a Billion Dollars From the Helicopter

ministhrowamilliondollars_MichaelBertin

When voters in Arlington, Texas, approved a 2016 referendum to replace their then-22-year-old ballpark with a new retractable-roof stadium, the $1.1 billion project appeared to be more on the up-and-up than were some other recent ballparks. Around the same time, teams based in Atlanta and Miami were also getting upgraded stadiums via backroom deals and public deceit.

Don’t be fooled. Throw a Billion Dollars From the Helicopter, a documentary from Michael Bertin now streaming on Amazon, reveals how city and team officials beanballed opponents of the new Arlington stadium, called Globe Life Field, to win the referendum.

Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams is the prime villain. After he was elected on promises of cutting government, he transformed into the lead cheerleader for the project. Meanwhile, Rangers team owners Ray Davis and Bob Simpson—two of the richest people in Texas, Bertin points out—spent more than $2 million to convince voters to pitch in $500 million for their new stadium.

An all-volunteer squad of Arlington residents, armed with nothing more than an understanding of economics, stepped up to the plate to stop the pro-stadium rally, but they were outpitched. As usual, there is little reason to believe the stadium will be a financial benefit for the city or its taxpayers. Arlington residents would be better off if officials literally dumped piles of $20 bills out of helicopters hovering above the city, University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson says.

The facts might be on their side, but the effort to defeat the stadium project goes down swinging against the potent combination of big-league sports and mid-sized city politics. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed the grand opening of the Rangers’ new ballpark, but taxpayers have already taken the loss.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cw0HMl
via IFTTT