The Alpha Environmentalist has moved! Please go here for the new blog (http://www.jandrhanson.com/J-blog). These pages will remain here as an archive of the original blog... Thank you for your interest!

September 15, 2005____________________________________

The following overtly nasty editorial appeared in the September 11 East Valley Tribune, in Scottsdale:

Let AGs drop lawsuit and stop pandering to fanatical greens.

Tribune Editorial.

September 11, 2005

Westerners have for decades been demanding, asking, pleading for more of a voice in how federal lands are administered, given Uncle Sam's vast   holdings west of the 100th Meridian. Recently, breaking with the Washington-knows-best paternalism that long defined the relationship, the Bush administration invited Western governors to decide for themselves whether national forest "roadless areas" imposed during the Clinton administration were right for their states. 

It was a punt on the part of the Bush White House to be sure, a way to dump a political hot potato on the states and possibly put an end to years of legal fights and acrimony stemming from President Clinton's controversial rule. But rather than pick up the football and run with it, a number of Western states have wimped out, for what clearly seem like partisan reasons. 

While a number of governors have signaled their desire to seize the opportunity, others (Democrats all, including Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano) have been finding excuses to bad-mouth the new approach. 

Lori Faeth, natural resources policy director to Napolitano, has told us that "the governor would be petitioning to protect Arizona's roadless areas but that we're trying to understand the new rule, which is very complicated and likely very expensive for the states." She added that "we continue to assess what's best for Arizona." 

And now, three attorneys general, from Oregon, California and New Mexico, say they will sue the Bush administration to restore the roadless plan. All three are Democrats. 

Problem is, one federal court already tossed the roadless plan out, saying it was an illegal attempt by the Clinton White House to impose wilderness areas without following the law or consulting Congress. More recently, a panel of judges ruled that the issue was moot, since the Bush administration had already reversed the rule. 

Spouting platitudes that sound scripted by green extremists, to whom they are obviously pandering, the AGs last week pledged to resuscitate the issue. "The Bush administration is putting at risk some of the last, most   pristine portions of America's national forests," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Road building simply paves the way for logging, mining and other kinds of resource extraction." 

Really? Roads can also pave the way for firefighting crews and critical forest restorations projects. But even if roads are needed to mine and log and extract resources, including oil and natural gas, so what? America needs lumber. America needs minerals. America could use more oil and gas,   as the high price of gasoline suggests. And the last time we checked, national forests were legally required to be managed for multiple uses, not just as exclusive playgrounds for elite recreationists or religious shrines for neo-Druids. 

The rule was thrown out. Get over it and move on. These AGs won't, however, and are playing to a vocal constituency enraged by the reversal of an illegitimate land grab. Thus, a few "leaders" are squandering an opportunity rank-and-file westerners have long been waiting for, sending the message that the West isn't mature enough, responsible enough or courageous   enough to enter into a fuller partnership with our bullying and incompetent landlord, Uncle Sam.

Below is my column answering this diatribe, scheduled to run in the Tribune within a few days:

It is local control: Americans support the Roadless Rule

By Jonathan Hanson

A recent editorial in the East Valley Tribune excoriated Janet Napolitano and the other governors and state attorneys general who support the so-called Roadless Rule, which banned new road construction in about 58 million acres of our national forests, mostly in the West. The editorial accused Napolitano et al of pandering to “green extremists,” and claimed that the “controversial” rule merely locks up public land for the exclusive use of “neo-Druids” and, worse, democrats, who the Tribune apparently believes are the rule’s only supporters.

As a Republican, 4x4 owner, and hunter lumped in with those neo-Druids, I wonder if the Tribune could stop pandering to lumber and mining companies long enough to get the facts straight.

Far from being some last-minute Clinton plot, the Roadless Rule was adopted after a two-year process involving over 600 public meetings. The Forest Service received four million comments on the proposal—more than for any other issue in its history. American citizens who supported the plan outnumbered those who didn’t by almost two to one—a significantly greater majority than that which returned George Bush to office. According to one poll, over 80 percent of hunters and anglers supported the plan. The Outdoor Industry Association, which represents 4,000 companies involved in the $20 billion outdoor industry, supported the plan. Even the corporate headquarters of KB Homes, one of the nation’s largest builders, sent a letter of support. Information is lacking on how many neo-Druids have infiltrated executive positions at KB.

The reason for this groundswell of support is simple: Americans overwhelmingly want to preserve the last pristine wild areas with which our country is blessed, along with the wildlife that lives there. The Roadless Rule affects only a third of all national forest land. The majority is still open to logging and other resource extraction, as well as motorized recreation, along 386,000 miles of existing Forest Service roads—enough to circle the earth 15 times. If that doesn’t qualify as “multiple use,” what would? Incidentally, the Forest Service has a $10 billion backlog on maintenance for those roads—which, remember, are funded by taxpayers in the first place, not by the lumber companies that benefit hugely from them. Public lands timber sales cost the public millions of dollars every year.

The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas.  Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.

Bush’s move to rescind the Roadless Rule doesn’t restore “local control” over national forests, as claimed by the administration and the Tribune. In fact it gives state governors only 18 months to identify and study areas they believe should remain roadless, and to then petition the under-Secretary of Agriculture to develop management strategies for those areas. The under-Secretary is free to alter or reject outright those petitions. Does that sound like local control? Since the current under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, spent 20 years as a timber industry lobbyist, one can predict where his sympathies might lie. Rey was a chief architect of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s version of the 1997 National Forest Management Act, which would have eliminated citizen oversight of national forest policy and made timber harvest levels mandatory and enforceable. Does that sound like local control?

America does need lumber and minerals and oil. We also need space for fans of motorized backcountry recreation. That’s why over half of all national forest land remains open for such activities. And this doesn’t count 260 million acres of BLM land, most of which is also accessible by vehicle, or millions of acres of state land. 

The Roadless Rule is supported by a solid majority of Americans (and Arizonans) and backed by sound science. It might be our final opportunity to preserve the last pristine areas of our national forests, for the enjoyment of ourselves and our children.

Even those we haven’t raised as Druids.

x

x

September 3, 2005____________________________________

The two-month-long lack of posts has been for the happiest of reasons: Roseann and I just returned from Tanzania, which you can read about on our main page. Lots has happened to comment about, but I'll start with something I had in the works before we left.

The following story appeared recently in the Sunday edition of the Seattle Times:

"Wanted: African-American campers

The State Parks and Recreation Commission has assembled data showing that many blacks, for a variety of reasons, are not frequent users of the state’s 250,000 acres of parkland, particularly for activities like camping. This, in a state with an abundance of natural beauty — from mountains to lakes, deserts and forests.

And there’s anecdotal evidence, too. One former ranger, who worked at Deception Pass and other state parks that each hosted up to 400,000 visitors a year, reported seeing fewer than 50 blacks over a 10-year period.
Parks-commission officials say that while park use among all people of color is low, it is lowest among blacks. Through their Diversity Camping Program, they want to change whatever is keeping African Americans away: the specter of danger, the fear that small towns on the way to parks are unfriendly to blacks, or that camping and hiking and skiing are activities only white people do."

This is so astonishing on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.

The "conservative" side of me reacts: This is the government's job, at taxpayer's expense, to coerce minorities to go camping?

The "liberal" side of me reacts: Gee, you can't figure out why black people aren't culturally into camping? Could it be that, for the last few hundred years, blacks in this country have had other things to think about besides playing Daniel Boone? Like, oh, keeping the plantation owners away from their daughters? Not getting lynched? Stuff like that?

Your society or culture has to have a history of leisure time to appreciate frivolous pursuits such as outdoor sports - and, by extension, to be concerned about wildlife and wildlands conservation. Thus the theory that a strong economy is necessary for environmentalism to succeed. The first conservationists were not just hunters - they were well-to-do hunters.

Actually, the economy doesn't have to be strong for environmentalism to succeed, but environmentalism has to be perceived as at least contributing to the economy, rather than draining it. Thus the push for community conservation in places as diverse as southern Arizona and Africa.

More soon . . .

July 2, 2005____________________________________

Conservative, conservation. Same root, Mr. President.

Recently the Wall Street Journal ran a scary op-ed piece Link speculating on whether the Saudis might be hiding information about the extent of their oil reserves -- that is, hiding the possibility that they might not be as extensive as the Saudis claim.

Since the early, Chicken Little predictions of the environmental movement that the world would run out of oil in, like, 1995 went down in flames, the opposite, and equally stupid, attitude seems to have engulfed the country. We're assured by the Polyannas of the administration that there's plenty of oil for us to continue commuting in our 12 mile-per-gallon SUVs for the foreseeable future. Yes, there's that troublesome dependence on foreign oil, but if you'd just let us drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . .oh, and then there're these great things called fuel cells, which President Bush has endorsed to shore up his green image, or rather to prove he has one. (Just don't ask who was in on the energy policy meetings--that's none of the American people's business.)

It took me all of 15 minutes on the Powerbook and Google to prove that this just doesn't add up.

The United States has five percent of the world's population, but we consume 26 percent of the oil produced each day worldwide. Yes, I know we have the world's largest economy and highest productivity. I'm talking absolutes here, not relativity. The fact remains that one out of every four barrels of oil pumped out of the earth goes to the U.S. And most (65 percent) of that is burned up by our transportation sector--cars, trucks, trains, airplanes.

Surprisingly, we are the second-largest producer of oil in the world, next to Saudi Arabia. However, our reserves are less than one tenth of the Saudis' alone (at least their putative reserves), and a miniscule fraction of the world total.

Which is why we need to drill ANWR, right?

According to the administration's estimates, which we can assume are not pessimistic, ANWR contains around 10.4 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. Jeez, that's a lot. Why, if you divided that by our daily national consumption of 20 million barrels per day, you'd see that drilling ANWR could supply ALL our oil needs for, let's see, carry the two . . .uh, wow: about a year and a half.

On a national energy policy level, we'd be better off executing every CPA who drives a Hummer.

The fact is, we can't drill our way to energy independence while maintaining our current consumption.

Can't. Be. Done.

But wait . . . fuel cells! Energy from hydrogen! Tailpipe emissions that consist of water! Endorsed by the President!

Car and Driver magazine just tested a production fuel-cell powered Honda FCX, which the company hopes to lease to selected customers within a year. There's just one itty bitty problem: the cars cost Honda $200,000 each to manufacture. Oh, and the expense of producing hydrogen means the car costs the same to run as a gas-engined model that gets 23 miles per gallon. Oh, and the current process (electrolysis) to produce hydrogen results in 24 percent more pollution than producing and burning gasoline.

Fuel-cell cars might be viable someday. And someday we might have fusion reactors that produce electricity too cheap to meter (wait, that's what they said about fission reactors. . .). But not for a long time -- at least 15 to 20 years by most estimates. Don't get me wrong -- I applaud Honda for investing in this research. It's necessary and, as usual, the Japanese auto makers are leading the way to efficiency. But viable fuel-cell technology is still solidly future tense.

In the meantime, we are faced with $2.20-plus per gallon gasoline. The reasons it costs that much are one: demand. This isn't even high school economics; I learned about supply and demand in about third grade.

How do we reduce demand? Not, as some, mostly liberal, politicians have proposed, by raising the gasoline tax. That only hurts poor people like me. The pasty-faced suits in the Hummers would go right on burning it. We need to either coerce or force conservation among a populace apparently not inclined to it naturally.

You want to talk taxes, go the other way: How about a gasoline tax rebate for those who drive fuel-efficient cars? That way more people on limited incomes could afford to buy a newer, more economical car.

An oil-conservation tax credit. I can picture Cheney's heart fibrillating.

On the other hand, I'm in favor of the gas-guzzler tax on new vehicles, and more of it. My justification is the free-market concept I posted on earlier. The fact is, people who drive gas guzzlers do so at a cost to the rest of our society, by creating higher demand and ever higher prices. Until the gas guzzler tax was created, that cost was externalized. It's still externalized for the Hummer buyers: the gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks. Give me the Oval Office for 30 seconds and I'd change that.

Our Republican leaders love to align themselves with the Greatest Generation, those who lived through the Great Depression and World War II. Well, the Greatest Generation got to be that way because they sacrificed. They lived through deprivation in the thirties, and with shortages and rationing in the war. In England in WWII soap and clothing were rationed, for God's sake, never mind gas.

So why is conservation such a dirty word today?

Perhaps Bush and Cheney really aren't in the pockets of the oil industry.

But can they really blame anyone for thinking so?

posted by Jonathan Hansonxxxxxxxxxemail comment

June 30, 2005____________________________________

More on the AEble List: Jackson F., the polylinguist/classicist/river guide son of friends Libby and Steve, writes:

"An alpha environmentalist should be able to enter an unfamiliar wilderness and have the time of his life without purchasing any guidebooks or maps.

I'll stand by the principle, though I must admit that guidebooks can tell you some things worth knowing. I had the time of my life a couple years ago exploring Nevada's Alta Toquima Wilderness; only months later did I learn that one of my shortcuts caused me to bypass America's highest archeological site (a small settlement at 11,800' or so). But it's nice to have a concrete excuse to go back!"

I like this idea. In fact, it's sort of an uber-list item, since the ability to explore a wilderness without a crib sheet implies that one already possesses the other AE skills. Therefore we will state Jackson's contribution as a benefit rather than a prerequisite:

An Alpha Environmentalist can enter an unfamiliar wilderness and have the time of his life without purchasing any guidebooks or maps.

To reinforce this concept I've added an item regarding compasses to the regular list.

June 27, 2005____________________________________

Steve Bodio reminds me that I really should print Robert Heinlein's original list from Time Enough for Love. Here it is:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects".

Brilliant. I believe I can claim 16 of the 21, if you count a 30-foot sailboat as a "ship." Not sure about dying gallantly, although I'd like to think so. Does it count that I've never set a bone but know how? And yes, I have changed a diaper!

June 26, 2005____________________________________

I've been offline for some time, due to the fact that our satellite web system was down, and the only way for us to get online was to drive 35 miles to town and find a wi-fi spot. But we're back, thanks to the diligence of my web-wise wife.

Michael C., a bowhunter, former ATV owner (one of the two responsible ATV riders I mentioned knowing), and former small-scale timber harvester who specialized in harvesting individual trees from private yards in the eastern U.S. and turning them into lumber, had several thoughtful comments about my report on small engine legislation:

"I have only a couple of things to add to your two-stroke thoughts: Chainsaws.  So far there is no 4-stroke motor that is light enough for the power necessary to be hand held, so I don't like the idea of banning all 2-stroke engines outright.  As for lawn mowers, I agree there is no need for 2-strokes in that category. There are some interesting results claimed for outboard engines on boats.  According to the 2-stroke manufacturers, when a 4-stroke engine is light enough to work on a boat it has extreme valve timing overlap to get better scavenging and more horsepower per cc of displacement.  The 2-stroke people claim that such an engine emits the same hydro-carbons as the 2-strokes with direct fuel and oil injection.  I have not seen the data.  I do know that the availability of large displacement 4-strokes has forced the 2-stroke manufacturers to go to direct injection, which though more expensive to build has cleaned up the emissions dramatically."

Well, as for the chainsaw comment, my first reaction was, "Okay. Let's ban chainsaws!" Then I realized that might not be productive.

I might have agreed that four-stroke engines couldn't be made small enough to use on a chainsaw - but that was before I found this:

What my 110-pound wife is holding up with her little finger is a four-stroke engine AND a 20-gallon-per-minute water pump. The engine is made by Subaru, and the combination is what we use to pump drinking water into our holding tank. The whole thing weighs eleven pounds. It's amazingly quiet and emits no visible smoke or smell. So I'm willing to bet that chainsaw manufacturers would get creative real fast if their supply of cheap two-stroke engines was cut off.

The other comments from two-stroke makers are a bit harder to dismiss. However, a Google search revealed these results from the Environmental Technology Center in Canada. They compared two new outboard engines of 9.9 horsepower, one two-stroke and one four-stroke. They found the two-stroke engine emitted 50 percent more carbon monoxide and 15 times more unburned hydrocarbons than the four-stroke engine. The intial cost penalty of the four-stroke motor was a modest 15 percent. So I'm sticking with my contention that two-stroke engines should be. . .well, let's say phased out quickly.

And don't get me started on those damned two-stroke yard blowers. Get a BROOM!

posted by Jonathan Hansonxxxxxxxxxemail comment

June 19, 2005____________________________________

More comments from readers:

Chas Clifton, responding to my Land Cruiser story, opined: "It seems to me the Land Cruiser lacked the perky butchiness of the Jeep CJs, or the high-tea-in-the-bush flavor of the Land Rover. But if you got 300,000 miles out of yours I don't suppose you care about cultural overtones!"

Chas hit the nail on the head: Land Cruisers have always been the backcountry vehicle of choice for those who have nothing to prove. As a guide in Zambia put it to me: "Land Rovers are for romantics. Land Cruisers are for professionals." Heh.

June 14, 2005____________________________________

Someone once challenged me to describe environmentalism in one sentence. In a rare moment of quick thinking, I managed it in two. I said: "Civilization has been described, succinctly, as people agreeing to be polite to each other. Environmentalism can be described, equally succinctly, as people agreeing to be polite to their surroundings." Perhaps it's time we returned to a simpler national environmental policy - the more complex it gets, the more it gets bogged down in politics and legalese, which works to the favor of the big corporations. The "no net loss of wetlands" approach is a sham and an insult to our intelligence.

I've been receiving a lot of feedback already on the Alpha Environmentalist list. Hmm, "Alpha Environmentalist list" is sort of ungainly. Hereafter it will be referred to as the AEble list.

From Karen, a very outspoken friend who lives just up the road from us ("just up the road" around here meaning about 8 miles):

"Aside from the fact that your picture makes you look like a white supremacist, I love your blog."

Uh, thanks, Karen. Of course, your comment makes you sound like a liberal weenie! Just because I'm holding an assault rifle I look like a white supremacist? As my wife, Roseann, remarked to her brother, who had the impertinence to say I looked like an Idaho militia member: "In a $120 Barbour sweater? I think not!" To which my friend Bruce added, "And he's not nearly fat enough!"

Anyway, Karen's nomination for the AEble list is:

"An Alpha Environmentalist should be able to shoot a selfish ATVer at 50 yards."

Whoa, Karen, that's not very inclusive! Besides, I think at least 100 yards is a more challenging goal. . .

Seriously, ATVs have become a pox on the landscape in recent years, a trend that shows no signs of abating. I'm convinced scientists will soon discover an emission given out by those things that instantly lowers the IQ of the rider by 50 points. How else to explain what happens when otherwise sane and intelligent men (let's be statistically frank here) climb on an ATV and immediately assume it's their right to ride wherever they please, including across private property?

Obviously, there are thousands of responsible ATV riders. I know at least . . . two. But the percentage of them who flaunt all off-road ethics is frighteningly high. My deer hunt last year was completely ruined by several "hunters" on ATVs driving up washes and cross country past my glassing spots, each of which I had walked to before dawn or the night before. To paraphrase my friend Steve Bodio, looking for deer from an ATV is not hunting, it's shopping. Killing a deer should be an accomplishment, not an accident.

Other comments. From Chuck, a wildlife biologist in New Mexico:

"Cool blog, I really like the list of things on the right.  I totally get the point you're making. I'm a gun owning, hunting, OHV driving, fiscally conservative on many issues, military supporting guy who is also a very strong environmentalist, and I need a political party to come to me because right now I think they both pretty much suck."

Yes. We need to clone Teddy. Until then there is a worthy organization called Republicans for Environmental Protection, http://www.rep.org, of which Theodore Roosevelt IV is a life member. Another recommendation: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, http://www.backcountryhunters.org, a group that strongly supports fair chase hunting and wilderness to do it in.

David, a traditional bowhunter who lives in Tucson but is at the moment in Tasmania looking for the presumed-extinct Tasmanian tiger (Thylacine), had a suggestion that doesn't fit under the "able to" format but is most worthy anyway:

"An Alpha Environmantalist does not gratuitously kill venomous snakes."

Hear hear!

Finally, in response to my June 13 post about the need for certain laws to enforce environmental regulations which everyone agrees are reasonable, Matthew Mullenix writes:

"I think it may lead us to another conclusion (in addition to the necessity of a big stick), and that is that the scope of human "communities" has grown far too large. The scale of necessary regulation, stretched over an entire country (or worse, a planet) will never meet the need it seeks to. Smaller communities, wherein people are motivated naturally to look after each other, can provide the most efficient and feasible solutions to problems. Everyone responding to local problems (I mean at the family and neighborhood scale) will be far more likely to solve them than any regional or national government......
Hey -- if 10 people don't give a damn who gets stuck with the bill, try 275 million!! :-)"

I agree with much of this. Here in Tucson we are seeing the benefits of just such grass roots activism, with the passage of an open-space bond that will save hundreds of thousands of acres of land near Tucson from development.

However, I believe that allowing too much local (even state level) control of such things as national forests (the operative word there being NATIONAL) is risky. A bad turn to the local economy, a tempting offer from a giant lumber corporation, and you don't have a forest any more, you have a tree farm.

posted by Jonathan Hansonxxxxxxxxxemail comment

June 13, 2005____________________________________

More on why we need environmental laws:

A few years ago Scientific American ran a brilliant story that explained the dynamics of altruistic and selfish behavior in humans. The study was a deceptively simple-sounding investigation that looked at . . . shared restaurant checks.

No kidding. What the researchers tabulated was how people's choices of lunch items were affected by the number of people in a group that had agreed in advance to equally split the cost.

What they found was this: When the group comprised two people, each was invariably careful to order a low- or medium-priced dish. Same with three people, or four, or even five. No one wanted to appear to be exploiting the shared cost.

But something began to happen when the group size got above six or so. Now and then one person would take advantage of the situation and order something expensive. The odds of this happening increased with the group size. Once you got above 20 or so, the odds were virtually certain that several people would go for broke and indulge themselves. In even larger groups the percentage of altruistic eaters dropped to a small fraction of the total - even when they were the SAME PEOPLE who had been careful to order modestly in a small group.

This points out a fundamental element of human nature, and explains why we need laws to enforce environmental standards that everyone agrees are beneficial and reasonable, but which can be circumvented by selfish individuals - or selfish corporations.

Carrots are good, but at some point you need a big stick.

June 10, 2005____________________________________

From the Washington Post:

A Senate spending panel approved language yesterday delaying a long-awaited federal rule aimed at curbing air pollution from lawnmowers and other small-engine machines.

The amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill, a compromise between Democrats who favor the rule and Republicans who want to block it, instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a six-month study into whether installing catalytic converters to reduce air pollutants from outdoor equipment would pose a safety threat. Link

This is a perfect example of the way Republicans are still blocking the most basic environmental protections. Small two-stroke engines produce massive amounts of pollution for their size. It would hurt no one's business to require pollution controls on these engines, or in fact (the best solution) to ban two-stroke engines altogether. Urban lawn farmers aren't going to stop buying power mowers if the price goes up 50 bucks.

If Senator Bond were at least honest about his lobbying for Briggs and Stratton (a major employer in his state), we could have an honest debate. But no . . . he has to insult our collective intelligence and claim it's a "safety" issue. So the EPA is now required to do a "study," at taxpayer expense, when it would have cost little to just issue the requirement and let competition and free-market innovation take care of the rest.

This reminds me of when officials from GM and Ford testified in front of Congress in the 70s that they would go out of business if they were forced to install catalytic converters in their vehicles. GM may very well go out of business soon, but it will be because they build boring, uncompetitive cars, not because they were forced to be socially responsible.

Before anyone tries to tell me that regulating pollution controls violates free-market economics, let me say this: nonsense. The reason it doesn't is because, while the costs of pollution controls are borne by the purchaser of the engine equipped with them, the costs of the pollution created by engines not so equipped aren't. Those costs are externalized, and borne by society at large. That violates true free-market philosophy.

Here's a simple exercise that will prove my point. Poll after poll in the U.S. has demonstrated the overwhelming support of the public for pollution controls on private vehicles. No matter how you word the poll, e.g. "Do you support pollution controls on cars even though it raises the price of the car?", the response is firmly positive. Yet imagine what would happen if you made the pollution control devices on each car an extra-cost option that had to be selected, just like power windows or cruise control. The last figure I read for the total cost of pollution control on the average car was somewhere around $200. How many people do you think would check that box? Very, very few, I'd bet. The same people who responded affirmatively to the poll would think Oh, it won't matter if just my car doesn't have pollution controls, and the next thing you knew our cities would be covered in grime again. In order for true free-market economics to work in such a situation, there would have to be two boxes on the order, one of which you had to pick and pay for: the cost for pollution controls on your car, or the cost to society of your dirty car. Since the latter is on a practical basis impossible to calculate, society must regulate such things.

More on Alpha Environmentalism:

Matthew Mullenix contributed the following suggestions for our Heinlein list:

1) Should be willing and able to swim in "wild waters;"

2) Should know what the sunrise looks like, and from which of the cardinal directions it comes;

3) Should be willing - even relish - biking/hiking/hunting in the rain;

4) Should know what tomorrow's weather will be like with at least the accuracy of the local TV weather-guesser;

5) Should be able to grow a good tomato;

6) Should be able to find the nearest blackberry bush;

7) Should be able to (with bare hands or simple tools) catch, kill, cook and serve a barnyard chicken.

I like them all, and have added number 5 to the permanent list.

And from Bruce Douglas, "an Alpha Environmentalist should always have at least one knife at hand, appreciate a good stone and steel, and know the difference between the two." I'm trying to edit that into the list format somehow.

_____________________________________________

posted by Jonathan Hansonxxxxxxxxxemail comment

June 4, 2005____________________________________

More on Alpha Environmentalism:

With a nod to Robert Heinlein, I have started compiling a list of abilities to which one might aspire in order to become an Alpha Environmentalist. Suggestions are welcome.

Those unclear on the concept will ask how field dressing a deer--which, presumably, one has also killed--and raising an orphaned squirrel could possibly be complementary concepts in a single human. But that's just the point: An Alpha Environmentalist embraces all aspects of nature. I see no contradiction in myself in the fact that, on one hand, I am totally soft-hearted in raising orphaned baby animals (which I've done dozens of times since childhood), and, on the other, willing to kill a deer or elk to provide my wife and myself with food for many months or years.

May 30, 2005____________________________________

My first car, chosen mostly by chance and the fact that it would thoroughly piss off my stepfather, who hated all things Japanese, was a 1971 Toyota Corolla, which I bought in late 1972 after high school.

It turned out to be a fortunate choice, totally reliable (in humorous and constant contrast to the Ford Pinto my stepfather bought for my mother shortly thereafter), and, with its little hemi-head four-cylinder engine, astonishingly quick. With stiffer springs, alloy wheels, and sticky Michelin XVS tires, I embarrassed a number of machines of greater stature up the winding road on Mt. Lemmon in impromptu match races: BMW 2002s, Datsun 240Zs, Porsche 914s, and, in my crowning moment, a Ferrari 365 GTC/4. (Obviously my Corolla wasn't faster than the Ferrari, but I was willing and able to push it far closer to its limit than the Ferrari driver was willing or able to push his glorious Italian coupe.)

Sadly, I lost the Corolla during a low point in my finances a few years later. But soon I replaced it with the vehicle that has been a faithful companion for the last 27 years: a 1973 Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40.

The two vehicles actually overlapped in a way. My friend Bruce and I knew the original owners of the Land Cruiser, who ran a gun shop in a replica western town/shopping center on the east side of Tucson.

Bruce and I staged Old Tucson-style gunfights there for the amusement of shoppers, during one of which I fractured my right calcaneus (heel bone) during a very realistic fall off a roof after being shot with a blank from a Trapdoor Springfield 45/70. But that's another story.

One day Bruce and I boldly (foolishly?) took the Corolla up a four-wheel-drive trail in Redington Pass, a now-infamous 4x4 recreation area, and managed to stick it but good just uphill from a vicious rocky passage called variously the Chute or Three Feathers. We hitchhiked out and borrowed the Land Cruiser to pull out the Corolla, thus umbilically joining current and future vehicles for a short time.

I lost contact with the owners of the Land Cruiser, but several years later found myself in the market for a four-wheel-drive expedition-type vehicle. I really wanted a British Land Rover 88, the classic African transport. However, I had heard reports of terrible reliability problems with the early 70s Land Rovers (all true, as it turned out). Also, the Land Rover had an 80-horsepower, four-cylinder engine that got 15 miles to the gallon, while the Land Cruiser (just then showing up in Africa as well) had a 140-horsepower, six-cylinder engine that got . . .15 miles to the gallon. Since at the time I was eyeing the purchase of a sailboat as well, the more powerful vehicle won out.

Fortuitously, at just that time I ran into the Land Cruiser's owner, who told me it was for sale. Only 25,000 miles and still pristine.

Since then (1978, pictured below) I have put nearly 300,000 miles on that Land Cruiser, and not once in the entire time - not once -has it failed to start and get me where I wanted to go, except when a battery has died. A remarkable record.

The LC served well bone-stock for several years, during which time it happily towed a 4,000-pound sailboat and trailer back and forth to Mexico. But I soon began modifying it, a process which, given my always-scant freelance finances, has been a multi-decade project.

My goal was never to make the FJ40 into a radical rock crawler. Rather, I wanted a capable, maneuverable expedition/scouting vehicle that was as comfortable as possible on the road - by far the most difficult task facing any FJ40 owner - and supremely capable in virtually any off-road situation - a much, much easier target. In succeeding posts and essays I'll discuss my successes and failures, and future plans.

posted by Jonathan Hansonxxxxxxxxxemail comment