Click on the image to see the full cartoon.
Published 7/12/2008

Alaska has always been a can-do state. Folks come here knowing they will have to work hard and there is money to be made--especially in resource-based industries.

Today, however, the environmental movement has brought these industries to a near standstill. It's been going on for years, and today the environmentalist industry is likely the largest industry in Alaska, next to government. And their only job is to stop all other industries from being effective. Why do we stand still for this? Maybe it's time to push back.

Click on the image to see the full cartoon.
Published July 19, 2008.

Now that skyrocketing oil prices have everyone's attention, folks are starting to wake up. We need to develop our domestic resources. No longer can we act like elitists and purchase oil from other countries so we can keep our shores pristine and clear of those unsightly oil platforms.

Those of us who have seen ANWR coastal plain know what it is: a barren wasteland. Nowhere in the U.S. is there a place where we can drill for oil and be seen by fewer people, or impact less wildlife than in the proposed drilling area in ANWR. It's time to realize that we've not been fed the truth by the environmentalists--it's time to drill in ANWR. It's time for our presidential candidates to pull their respective heads out of the sand and show some leadership on this issue.

Click on the image above to see the full cartoon.
Published July 5, 2008.

Even though global temperatures are starting to cool and all of the data shows the computer climate models are wrong, some of our favorite environmental groups have hoodwinked the U.S. Government into playing along with their global warming/melting sea ice/dying polar bear prophesy. Maybe it's time to slow down, take a deep breath, and see what's really going on around us before we choose the wrong solution.

Click on the image to see the full cartoon.
Published June 28, 2008.

Click on the image to view the full cartoon.
Published June 21, 2008

But is she going the right direction? Many folks think that a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's north slope just won't happen until the administration starts talking to the producers. After all, they're the ones with the gas.

Click on the image to see the full cartoon.
Published June 7, 2008.

When any group with an agenda tries to prove their special viewpoint on an issue, the science stands a greater chance of being flawed. And the presently popular global warming scenario is the poster child for flawed science.

Today's environmentalism has evolved into a circus of actors trying every trick to manipulate politicians, news media and public opinion.

Interested in the polar bear issue? Just pick your favorite group...they have scientists on board, ready to support your favorite viewpoint. In this cacophony of "scientific opinions," it is the group with the most alarming predictions and the most advertising money that wins, regardless of scientific foundation.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how our politicians decide environmental, energy and economic policy.

Maybe it's time for some common sense.

Read more:

The Heritage Foundation: Protecting Endangered Species

The Cato Institute: Energy and Environment

Junk Science.com-climate features page

According to the Alaska Legislature it's time for Alaska to take an active role in the decision making process. In the budget submitted to Governor Palin, the Legislature has included $2 million to fund a conference to highlight the growing mountain of evidence that supports NOT listing polar bears as threatened or endangered.

In the May 4th edition of the Anchorage Daily News, a liberal California newspaper published in Alaska, Homer correspondent Tom Kizzia wrote that the Alaska Legislature is,"looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists. The conclusions have already been agreed upon--researchers just have to fill in the science part."

In response to the ADN's condescending one-sided introduction we need to point out that ANY science undertaken to support a particular agenda or conclusion is suspect, including that presented by the environmentalists. If environmental science has been reduced to dueling expert opinions, then it follows that the State of Alaska shouldn't come to the table unarmed.

Works cited:

Kizzia, Tom. (2008, May 4). Legislature wants polar bear study. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/395540.html

Read more:

Goklany, Indur. (2008, February 5). What to do about Climate Change. The Cato Institute. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9125

Michaels, Patrick J. (2008, April 18). Doing Little Is Doing Right, or You'll Wreck Economy. The Cato Institute. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9344

Click on the cartoon snippet to view the entire image.

Having been in law enforcement for 30 years, I can attest that being interviewed during the course of an investigation is no indication of guilt. But in the world of politics there are always opponents who are willing to promote the APPEARANCE of guilt. This is an election year for two of our senior congressional delegation whom the FBI has interviewed, and therefore we can expect some of our news pundits to have their teeth firmly embedded in Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young for the duration of their respective campaigns.

Investigation of complex crimes such as bribery and corruption takes time. Once a criminal investigation is underway, there are a few rules that must be followed.

1. For obvious reasons, the investigating agency is required to keep everything about the investigation confidential until it is complete and charges are filed. We won't know who is a witness and who is a suspect until the investigation is complete. The FBI has done an excellent job of keeping this investigation quiet, as they should.
2. Even people who are witnesses or suspects won't know how an investigation is going to turn out until it is over. The prudent person hires an attorney, and a good attorney promptly instructs him or her not to talk to anyone about the case except when required by court order or subpoena.

The Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin are (or should be) fully aware of this. Therefore when they demand that Don Young or Ted Stevens should "come clean," and "explain themselves to Alaskans," there is only one purpose: to set them up for the inevitable mud-slinging after they refuse to talk about the investigation.

None of us are proud of our politicians who have been convicted of bribery. We need to investigate, penalize the guilty, expunge them from the system and then carry on with the state's business. But we don't yet know all there is to know about this investigation.

One function of a free press is to shine the light on political corruption where it exists, but where is the line that separates this more noble aspect of journalism from abject political partisanship? Are some journalists playing the role of political activists?

The bottom line for Alaska is effective representation in Congress. With three liberal candidates for U.S. president who are not fond of Alaska (yes, this includes Sen. John McCain,) it may not be time to trade our senior congressional delegates for candidates who lack both seniority and experience. We must be prepared to defend responsible economic development and other issues important to Alaskans in the face of strong opposition at the federal level.

And on a broader scale, with the likelihood of a liberal executive in the White House there is value in the balance of power that senior conservatives like Ted Stevens and Don Young can provide in Congress.

_______________________

This week's editorial cartoon can be appreciated by politicos on either side of the issue; this is the best place to leave your comments.

See the full cartoon in the Ketchikan Daily News, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, or the Voice of the Times, or click on the cartoon snippet above to view the full cartoon.

According to Hugh Hewitt in today's Townhall.com article, "PBIP: The Approach and Outbreak of Polar Bear-Induced Paralysis":

More than 670,000 comments have been received urging that the polar bear be listed as a "threatened species."

A variety of environmental groups orchestrated the tsunami of testimonials to the desperate condition of the polar bear because they understand—as much of the public and Congress does not—that a listing of the polar bear will have vast implications, and may in fact be a backdoor to implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

If you think listing the polar bear as threatened or endangered won't affect you, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Full text: PBIP: The Approach and Outbreak of Polar Bear-Induced Paralysis

Previous post: Endangered Polar Bears - NOT!

Also, here is an excellent bit of resource material from the National Center for Public Policy Research and Citizens United including a video parody and an article on the subject.

But there are some ways that Alaska's economy differs from the rest of the United States: remote villages with little or no business activity, air travel that must be subsidized, limited road systems, no power grids, remote resource-based economy, and public land ownership.   Chief among these factors is land ownership.

Bob Thomas’s piece in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Owning a Piece of the Resource Pie, presents the land ownership issue most clearly.  Thomas refers to it as "Alaska's unique flaw among state governments:"

Gov. Hickel calls it the “Owner State.” I call it an “upside-down economy,” but it’s the same thing. It is upside-down because when resources are developed, the income is paid directly to the state. Elsewhere, most income from natural resources goes to the private sector first and state government tries to collect enough taxes to pay for oversight and a share of the cost of governing and providing public services. In other states, land is mostly privately owned. The land owner negotiates a selling price, and the legislature establishes taxes to pay for government.

This is not to say that Alaska has no opportunities for ambitious business people.  But the bulk of our economy is government workers and businesses that depend on grants and government money.  Government activity, taxes and spending do not create wealth--they merely redistribute it.

In Alaska, even the resource-based industries that do create wealth do not own the resources.  Instead they pay the state for mineral rights, timber rights, fisheries permits, and permits to take tourists onto public lands to snap pictures. The state allows the profit motive, but limits the amount of land available for private ownership.

Thus, we'll never have "rich oilmen" in the way that Texas has rich oilmen.  Nor will we see "timber barons" in the respect that the Pacific Northwest had timber barons, nor railroad owners who own their railroads, nor miners who own their mines. 

The closest Alaskans will get to large scale land ownership and industrial development are the regional native corporations, which act more like co-ops than private businesses and distribute profits equally among shareholders.

Because Alaskan businesses must often depend on public lands they are more vulnerable to public process as they obtain necessary permits and work through regulations.  Environmentalists and other activists have more clout on public property than on private, and it appears that many of these groups are resolved to stop ALL development in Alaska.

Even on a local level questions often arise, for example:

• borough or city land ownership vs. selling land into the private sector,
• government provided services vs. contracting with a private company,
• environmentalist demands vs private development.

An economist would say the best plan for the future is to lean toward supporting private business growth and development.  We can support responsible growth and good stewardship through existing regulations; we must not make it more difficult than necessary to do business in Alaska.

Part of Governor Murkowski's initial plunge in popularity was the result of some emergency budget cutting to make ends meet. Still, we have continued to spend state money like drunken Democrats (not my term, but I like it.) During the lean years we took the liberty of drawing down our rainy day account, the Constitutional Budget Reserve, while continuing to increase spending.

Today, with oil prices hovering near $100 per barrel we're in fat city. But we rely on an oil price of over $61 per barrel to support our lavish spending. It's likely oil prices will stay high, but there is no guarantee, and the volume of oil we produce is only about 1/3 of peak production years. Our best bet for the future is to keep oil in the pipeline (i.e. drill in ANWR,) build the gas line, or both.

When dealing with this issue the Palin administration needs to keep in mind two basic economic truths:

1. The ideal tax rate for an industry might be something less than the rate above which a business or industry decides to go invest somewhere else. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. A strong economy is created by strong private industry. That's where wealth is created. That's where we get more jobs, income, money to spend and in the long run, more taxes. Government needs to create a favorable business environment to allow this to happen.
2. Economic benefits of a gas pipeline start with pipeline construction. It may take years before gas revenues start coming in, but the day construction begins  we will start seeing jobs, income, money and tax income as a result of private business investment here in Alaska.

Governor Palin is extremely popular, which translates to politically powerful. And she looks wonderful on the cover of Alaska Magazine. But in the end her success will be measured by whether she was able to sit down with the oil and gas producers and make the gas pipeline a reality.

While living in Nome during the early 1990's, I recall being told by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) personnel that the walrus population was at an all-time high. So naturally it piqued my curiosity when I learned that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the USFWS last week, requesting that the Pacific Walrus be listed as a threatened or endangered species.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (after the polar bear article posted yesterday,) I have read the CBD's Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Threatened or Endangered, which seems to confirm that there is currently NO CRISIS with the walrus population. Rather, the document is a compilation of climate change hyperbole complete with their favorite climate models and an admonition that if we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions global warming will kill all the walrus.

They even try to short-circuit any discussion by saying, "There is no credible scientific dispute that global warming will continue and may accelerate if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced." (p 50)

After scanning the document specifically for population information, I found two tables containing walrus census information since 1790: Table 1, (p21); and Table 2, (p24). Plotting the numbers from these tables gives us the minimum population curves shown in the graph on the right (click on the graph for a larger image.)

This is consistent with the textual history provided in the petition:

• a period of decreasing walrus population due to over-hunting before statehood;
• an increase in population following implementation of restrictions on hunting after Alaska's statehood;
• a rapid increase in population after enactment of the Marine Mammal Act; and
• finally, a decrease in the late 80's, largely as a result of over-hunting by Alaska Natives using modern methods.

At over 200,000 animals, the walrus population is still at historically high levels. And the population history of the walrus shows they can make a rapid recovery from temporary population declines. Probably the latest population decline (since 1980) points to the need for tighter regulation and stricter enforcement of existing hunting laws under the Marine Mammal Act.

Once again, the Center for Biological Diversity is trying to hoodwink us into believing that a marine mammal is headed for extinction as a result of global warming with no factual basis to support this theory. Then they throw in some of their other pet peeves including oil and gas development, shipping and fishing, again with minimal factual basis to support their opinions regarding the effect of these industries on the walrus.

Alaska's legitimate, natural resource-based industries can be developed responsibly with sufficient regulation and control to minimize impacts on wildlife. We already have a huge experiment that proves this at Prudhoe Bay. (Yes, the caribou population actually increased during and after pipeline construction.)

Thinking people need to resist these obstructionist efforts to sabotage Alaska's economy. We need to consider the facts, not media hype and doom and gloom predictions.

Unfortunately when we talk about polar bears, facts take a back seat in almost every news story, blog posting or discussion. Because these dangerous carnivores look fluffy and cuddly in pictures, they draw out the most vehement arguments based solely on emotion. So let's take a look at some of the documentation:

First, a quote from the Center for Biological Diversity's website:

"POPULATION TREND: Most recently, worldwide polar bear abundance was estimated at 20,000 to 25,000 animals, a narrower count than the 20,000 to 40,000 bears estimated in 1981 . It is important to note that, according to the best available science, even stable or increasing polar bear populations are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future." (emphasis added)

For a more formal source we only need look to the CBD's petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, executive summary, conclusions, page viii:

"While most populations are currently reasonably healthy and the global population is not presently endangered, the species as a whole faces the likelihood of severe endangerment and possible extinction by the end of the century." (That's 92 years from now.)

So there you have it. Whether you're an environmentalist or a representative of a resource-based industry, you have to agree that even the Center for Biological Diversity admits there is no problem with today's polar bear population. Their 170-page petition asks the U.S. Government to declare polar bears threatened based solely on their global warming prophesy.

This would set a dangerous precedent. The polar bear is already protected under the Marine Mammal Act. The U.S. Government should not take further action under the Endangered Species Act without hard data showing a species needs help. Alaska should be allowed responsible development of its resource-based industries without being hamstrung by news hyperbole and prophesy rather than facts.

It makes one wonder why the sudden need for a sales pitch--apparently there is some doubt among legislators and common folk regarding the AGIA process and whether it will actually produce a natural gas pipeline.

So, this week's cartoon is just a little tongue-in-cheek poke at the process, but with a point--we KNOW the major oil producers can build the line if they want to. Maybe it's not yet time to thumb our noses at ConocoPhillips proposal.