Daniel Sutter: Are we running out of resources?
Thanksgiving began as a celebration of Nature’s bounty. Nature’s bounty includes natural resources. Despite reports to the contrary, Cato Institute research demonstrates that we still have plenty of natural resources. Human ingenuity and nature’s generosity explain why. That we must run out of oil, natural gas, and other resources seems obvious. Since we cannot manufacture deposits of oil, copper, zinc or other resources, these must surely get used up one day, right? News stories repeat this refrain. Fifteen years ago, news abounded of the end of cheap oil. We appeared to be running out of oil and natural gas during the energy shortages of the 1970s. Oil reserves were supposed to be gone by 2013. Yet we still have plenty of energy and minerals; U.S. oil production hit an all-time high in 2018. What happened? I’ll consider two factors. Reported resource reserves are proven reserves, or deposits of a known location, size, and quality. Dividing proven reserves by annual use gives the number of years of oil, copper, or whatever remaining. We have an estimated 53 and 46 years of oil and copper left. Proving the location and quality of reserves takes work. As economist M. A. Adelman emphasized, proven reserves are produced. Investing in proving reserves not needed for 100 years will lose money. We have found only a tiny fraction of the resources estimated to be in the Earth’s crust. New reserves will be found as existing ones are used. We might have 50 years of reserves remaining for decades. New and better methods of extraction increase effective reserves. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have unlocked shale oil deposits. Earlier steam injection increased production from existing fields. Second, things only become resources when people figure out how to use them to produce goods and services. Saudi Arabia’s oil deposits generated no wealth for centuries. Knowledge is the ultimate source of value in our economy, and the mind is the source of knowledge. As economist Julian Simon put it, humans are the “ultimate resource.” Usually more than one formula or process can produce a good. When we are cooking, we can usually substitute for a missing ingredient and produce a tasty dish. We can use less of a resource if needed, or substitute something else; in the 1800s, people switched from whale oil to kerosene for lighting homes. We need not run out of resources because we can use alternatives if s specific mineral or fossil fuel runs out. Because reserves poorly measure resource availability, Cato’s index uses prices instead. Economic theory tells us that prices should reflect the best guesses concerning future discoveries, improvements in extraction, and emerging substitutes. If we are truly running out of something, its price should increase sharply. This was the basis for Julian Simon’s bet with Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich. In 1980, Simon let Ehrlich pick five resources that he thought were most likely to become depleted. Ehrlich selected chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten; by September 1990, the prices had fallen and Simon won. The new Cato measure is accordingly called the Simon Abundance Index and uses fifty commodity and resource prices. Price comparisons over time require adjustment, most importantly for inflation. But since earnings rise in a growing economy, the Index also adjusts for income. This puts commodity prices in terms of time, say the number of hours of work required to buy ten gallons of gas. Simon Index prices fell 65 percent between 1980 and 2017 adjusting for inflation and earnings. When adjusting only for inflation, prices fell 36 percent. Over these years, world population increased by more than three billion persons. Markets found enough new reserves to accommodate population growth. Limits exist to Nature’s bounty, our ability to harvest this bounty, and for substitutes for resources. And we must consider fossil fuels’ impacts on pollution and climate change. Still, the Simon Index shows that we are not running out of resources. Because knowledge creates natural resources, we can potentially maintain a growing economy for generations to come. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Judge Greg Griffin delays decision on suit over Alabama democratic chair
A lawsuit filed by the longtime chair of the Alabama Democratic Party challenging a newly elected leader can continue, at least for now, a judge said Thursday. Montgomery Circuit Judge Greg Griffin said he will wait for a decision from the Alabama Supreme Court in an earlier appeal before deciding whether to dismiss the lawsuit filed by longtime party chair Nancy Worley. “I’m going to let them rule,” Griffin told lawyers during a hearing. State Rep. Chris England and longtime party leader Nancy Worley each claim to be the properly elected party chair. The Democratic National Committee recognizes England as the state party leader after members of the state executive committee elected him this fall. Worley maintains the election was illegitimate and filed a lawsuit to try to block England from taking control. Griffin ruled that the DNC can intervene in the lawsuit. Barry Ragsdale, a lawyer representing the defendants in Worley’s suit, said, while they would prefer to have the lawsuit dismissed, England is functioning as party chair. Ragsdale said the new Democratic Party leaders have access to the state party’s social media accounts and the party headquarters in Montgomery. “The only people in the world that think that Chris England is not the chair of the Democratic Party were sitting at that table in there,” he said in reference to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Ragsdale called the lawsuit Worley’s “last thread of trying to hang onto power.” Attorney Bobby Segall, who represents Worley and other plaintiffs, said it made sense to wait for the Supreme Court since the cases involved similar issues. Joe Reed, the party’s longtime vice chair for minority affairs and a supporter of Worley, attended the court hearing. Reed said a “party divided cannot win.” Reed predicted the legal fight will end up in federal court, arguing that new additions to the State Democratic Executive Committee violate a consent decree from the 1990s involving how committee members are selected. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
Grant to expand high-speed internet access in rural Alabama
About $29 million in federal funding announced Thursday will help expand high-speed internet access in remote parts of rural Alabama, officials said. The Department of Agriculture is providing the money in grants and loans to Tombigbee Communications, which serves much of Alabama northwest of Birmingham. An announcement said the company is developing a fiber-optic network that will cover underserved areas in Fayette, Franklin, Lamar, Marion, Walker and Winston counties. The area includes some 1,100 square miles with more than 2,100 households plus 15 businesses, 20 farms, five schools and other facilities. Residents should have ultra high-speed internet service in three to five years, a statement said. The fiber optic service already is connected in Hamilton and Winfield, and construction is underway in Hackleburn, Haleyville, Sulligent and Vernon. Tombigbee Communications is a subsidiary of Tombigbee Electric Cooperative. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
Federal court considers bathroom use by transgender student
A student has the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to his gender identity, a lawyer told a federal court Thursday, arguing that the issue is about the right of transgender students to “equal dignity.” But the Florida school district that’s appealing a lower court order in favor of the transgender boy told three judges on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they should overturn the ruling and let the school district restrict students to the bathroom matching their at-birth sex to protect the privacy of other students. The case involves Drew Adams, who has since graduated from Nease High School outside Jacksonville. Adams transitioned from a girl to a boy before his freshman year, and used the boys’ room at the Ponte Vedra, Florida, school for a few weeks before several girls complained. Administrators barred him from the boys’ restroom and instead steered him toward single-user gender neutral restrooms. A lower court last year overturned that policy after a bench trial, ordering the St. Johns County school district to let Adams use the boys’ restroom. The 11th Circuit could become the first federal appeals court to issue a binding ruling on the issue, which has arisen in several states. The ruling would cover schools in Florida, Georgia and Alabama, and could carry the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 4th Circuit had ruled in favor of a transgender Virginia student, but the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down for further consideration after the U.S. Department of Education, under President Donald Trump, withdrew guidance that said federal law called for treating transgender students equally, including allowing them to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. All the parties in the Atlanta courtroom Thursday were aware of the possibility that the ruling will set an important precedent. Lawyer Tara Borelli of Lambda Legal, who represents Adams, said after the hearing she was hoping schools will get “a clear statement that the law requires that transgender students be treated equally.” But Circuit Judge Bill Pryor hammered Borelli, asking her how the judges could uphold the lower court ruling without setting the stage to allow anyone to ask for access to any bathroom or finding all sex-based distinctions illegal. “These rationales apply to any form of sex-based segregation,” Pryor said. Borelli, though, repeatedly underscored that Adams is not seeking to abolish distinctions between men and women. “This case is only about me, a boy, being allowed to use the boys’ bathroom,” Adams said after the hearing, echoing what Borelli told Pryor. Adams, now a student at the University of Central Florida, told reporters that he’s never had a problem using a men’s bathroom. “Before this became an issue, nobody knew who I was, nobody cared what bathroom I used,” Adams said. “Most people when they use the bathroom, don’t look twice at who’s in there with them. So, this really wasn’t an issue until the school board made it an issue.” A lawyer for St. Johns County urged judges to reverse the ruling and uphold the policy restricting students to the bathroom of their at-birth sex, saying the trial court judge overstepped. “Differences between the sexes are real and it necessitates this kind of separation between the sexes,” lawyer Jeff Slanker told judges. “This has always been the way it’s been done.” Judge Beverly Martin repeatedly asked Slanker if he could provide any specific complaints that spurred the policy. Slanker could not, saying the school district acted “proactively” to protect students’ privacy interests. The trial judge rejected this argument, finding that Adams would use a stall and that no breach of privacy would occur. Borelli told judges the district’s policy would “heap discrimination on transgender students.” “There is no recognized right in the law to not have to share space with transgender students,” she argued. Follow Jeff Amy on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jeffamy. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
House will draft Donald Trump impeachment articles, Nancy Pelosi says
The U.S. House is pressing forward to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday. ‘’Our democracy is what is at stake,” Pelosi said somberly. “The president leaves us no choice but to act.” Pelosi delivered the historic announcement in solemn tones, drawing on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, as Democrats push toward a vote, possibly before Christmas. “The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution,” she said from the speaker’s office at the Capitol. “He is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections .” “Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment,” Pelosi said. At the core of the impeachment probe is a July call with the president of Ukraine, in which Trump pressed the leader to investigate Democrats and political rival Joe Biden as the White House was withholding military aid to the country bordering an aggressive Russia. Pelosi emphasized the Russia angle at a news conference later, saying that it’s Russia and President Vladimir Putin who benefited most from Trump’s actions toward Ukraine “All roads lead to Putin. Understand that,” she declared. “That was the a-ha moment.” Asked as she was leaving if she hates Trump, Pelosi stiffened, returned to the podium and responded sharply that the president’s views and politics are for the voters at elections to judge, but “this is about the Constitution.” She said that as a Catholic, she does not hate the president but rather is praying for him daily. Eager to fight, Trump quickly tweeted back that he didn’t believe her. Earlier, Trump tweeted that if Democrats “are going to impeach me, do it now, fast.” He said he wanted to get on to a “fair trial” in the Senate. The president also said that Democrats have “gone crazy.” At the White House, press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted that Pelosi and the Democrats “should be ashamed,”” then she, too, looked past the likely impeachment in the Democratic-majority House to trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. The GOP Leader of the House, Kevin McCarthy, said Pelosi is more concerned about tearing the president down than buílding the country up.”Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican-Kentucky, criticized Democrats for focusing on impeachment over other issues, though many House-passed bills are waiting for action in his chamber. “It’s all impeachment, all the time,” he said. Drafting articles of impeachment is a milestone moment, only the fourth time in U.S. history Congress has tried to remove a president, and it intensifies the deeply partisan undertaking that is consuming Washington and dividing the nation. Once reluctant to pursue impeachment, warning it was too divisive for the country and needed to be a bipartisan endeavor, Pelosi is now leading Congress into politically riskier waters for all sides ahead of an election year. Republican are standing lock-step with Trump, unwilling to be swayed that his actions amount to wrongdoing, let alone impeachable offenses, leaving Democrats to go it alone in a campaign to consider removing the 45th president from office. Trump’s allies argue that voters, not lawmakers, should decide the president’s future. But Democrats say the nation cannot wait for the 2020 election, alleging Trump’s past efforts to have foreign countries intervene in the presidential campaign is forcing them to act to prevent him from doing it again. Pelosi said the still-anonymous whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s Ukraine call changed the dynamic, creating the urgency to act. The chairmen were meeting privately to swiftly begin the work of drafting the articles of impeachment The number of articles and the allegations they will include will be both a legal and political exercise as lawmakers balance political dynamics while striving to hit the Constitution’s bar of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Pulling from the House’s investigation, Democrats are focusing on at least three areas that could result in two to five articles, they say. They argue that Trump abused the power of his office by putting personal political gain over national security interests, engaging in bribery by holding out $400 million in military aid that Congress had approved for Ukraine; and then obstructing Congress by stonewalling the investigation. Some liberal Democrats want to reach further into Trump’s actions, particularly regarding the findings from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. That could produce an additional article of obstruction not only of Congress, but also of justice. But more centrist and moderate Democrats, those lawmakers who are most at risk of political fallout from the impeachment proceedings, prefer to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans can more easily understand. The chairmen of the House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry will begin drafting the articles, and some lawmakers are expecting to remain in Washington over the weekend. Members are preparing to vote on the articles of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee, possibly as soon as next week. The committee set a Monday hearing to receive the Intelligence Committee’s 300-page report outlining the findings against the president. The House is expecting a full vote by Christmas. The would send the issue to the Senate for a trial in the new year. By Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick Associated Press Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Zeke Miller, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Colleen Long, Eric Tucker and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
