Reason.tv - Topics

How Free Markets Will Beat Climate Change: Q&A with UCLA's Matthew Kahn

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"My unsexy bumper sticker for adapting to climate change," says UCLA Professor of Economics, the Environment, and Public Affairs Matthew Kahn, "is 'Give free markets a chance!'"

Kahn, the author of Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future , argues that "well-meaning government actions" designed to combat the effects of global warming need to be scrutinized more than they have been. Despite the hostility to markets and economic development shared by many green activists, Kahn says that "free-market capitalism" provides the most flexible - and most progressive - solution to environmental issues. Climate change is coming, he avers, and raising the urban poor's standard of living and generating new technological innovations will do far more to improve things than top-down attempts to control energy use and consumption patterns.

About 7 minutes. Produced by Sharif Matar.

Subscribe to Reason's YouTube page to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Scroll down for versions of all our videos.

Follow Reason on Twitter

Robert Zubrin: Radical Environmentalists and Other Merchants of Despair

Thu, 24 May 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"We have never been in danger of running out of resources," says Dr. Robert Zubrin, "but we have encountered considerable dangers from people who say we are running out of resources and who say that human activities need to be constrained."

In his latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, Zubrin documents the history of dystopian environmentalism, from economic impairment inflicted by current global warming policies to the Malthusian concern over population growth. "Just think how much poorer we would be today if the world would have had half as many people in the 19th century as it actually did. You can get rid of Thomas Edison or Louis Pasteur, take your pick."

Zubrin sat down with Reason Magazine editor in chief Matt Welch to discuss his book, the difference between practical and ideological environmentalism, and how U.S. foreign aid policy encourages population control.

Runs about 9.30 minutes

Produced by Meredith Bragg. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Josh Swain.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Sackett v. EPA: How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST

The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States. So how did a small-town couple from Northern Idaho ever become the center of such a momentous case? Reason.tv talked with the Sacketts and their attorney to find out.

Mike Sackett dreamed of building a home on Idaho's Priest Lake ever since he camped there with friends in high school.

"I remember coming home, told my mom and dad that I was going to move to Priest Lake, and they just said, 'Oh, no you're not.' And I said, 'Oh yeah. Yeah I am,'" Sackett said.

Years later, Sackett realized that dream when he and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build. After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold.

The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately. The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot... was not on an existing wetland.

The EPA responded issued what's known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.

"You go to bed with that on your mind every night," said Mike Sackett, who owns a contracting company. "It's been painful personally. It's been painful on our business."

The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.

"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up."

Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation lost to the EPA in lower courts, but this afforded them the opportunity to take the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in early January 2012. Schiff and the Sacketts both felt heartened by what transpired there.

"I was surprised by some of the questions that came from the justices," said Mike Sackett. "They were questions that we would've asked."

If the Sacketts do win in the Supreme Court, they will then have the opportunity to actually challenge the EPA's compliance order in the lower courts. Just having the opportunity to challenge that, says Schiff, would be a major victory for property rights and for due process of law.

"The agency says it doesn't want to go into court, it shouldn't have to go into court," said Schiff. "The chutzpah, the arrogance, is, frankly, almost unimaginable."

About 7.30 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Sharif Matar. Additional camera by Paul Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Weissmueller. Additional footage courtesy of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Music: "Water" by Big Blood, "City Night Line" by Cobra avec Panther, "The River Who Drinks All I've Had" by Makunouchi Bento, "Film 1" by Torture Super Sonic.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

The Great Gibson Guitar Raid: Months Later, Still No Charges Filed

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:00:00 EST

"They...come in with weapons, they seized a half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down, and they have not charged us with anything," says Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.

The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. "India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India," says Juskiewicz.

Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) counters that "it's not up to Gibson to decide which laws...they want to respect." She points out that Gibson had previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from Madagascar.

This much is clear: The government has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. "This is not about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging, this is about a bureaucratic law," argues Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, "a blank check for abuse."

About 6 minutes. Written, produced, and narrated by Anthony L. Fisher; shot by Joshua Swain.

Music: "Improvisation: Fast Blues in A" by Rev. Gary Davis

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Damon Root Talks EPA's Restriction of Couple Building on Own Land on Freedom Watch

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:00:00 EST

Reason's Damon W. Root appeared on Fox News’ Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the EPA’s use of administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allow the agency to control the use of private property. Root discusses a specific situation in Idaho where a couple was barred from building a house on their own land.

Original airdate: 01-05-2012

Approximately 2:46

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on Freedom Watch

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss why the government actually subsidized many risky homes by giving cheaper insurance to beachfront houses. Airdate: August 30, 2011.

Approximately 5 minutes

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Governments vs. Markets: Julian Morris on Environmental Protection

Tue, 10 May 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Which does a better job of protecting the environment: governments or markets?

Reason Foundation’s Vice President of Research Julian Morris spoke at Reason Foundation's annual Reason Weekend and challenged the idea that regulations and energy subsidies will save us from environmental disasters. In fact, they help cause them.

When people are driven by profits and protected by property rights, Morris argues, environmentally friendly products will develop naturally.

Morris is the author of dozens of scholarly articles on issues ranging from the morality of free trade to the relationship between institutions, economic development and environmental protection.

Approximately 28 minutes.

Filmed by Alex Manning and Paul Detrick; Editded by Joshua Swain

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

The Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:00:00 EDT

For this year's Earth Day celebration, Reason.tv is proud to present "The Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen." The environmental movement began in 1962 when Rachel Carson published her best-selling book Silent Spring. And ever since, chicken littles have warned us about imminent environmental disasters that ultimately didn't happen.

We all worried needlessly about acid rain, expanding deserts and global cooling, but these failed predictions weren't quite dire enough to make our list. To find out which prophecies of doom did make our list, you'll need to watch Reason.tv's "Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen."

Approximately 7 minutes.

Produced by Feine, Manning, Jensen, Bragg, Swain, Epstein and Gillespie. Narrated by Melissa Palmer. Special thanks to Ron Bailey and Julian Morris.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs?

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:00:00 EDT

When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change.

"The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?"

In a few years, new air quality regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board will render Whitney's entire fleet illegal.

"New CARB rules are putting me out of business," he says.

CARB claims that diesel particulates, a type of pollution emitted from buses and trucks, contributes to 2,000 premature deaths in California each year. But UCLA epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom says the number should be closer to zero.

In 2005 Enstrom authored an extensive study that found no relationship between diesel particulates and premature deaths. He says his study, as well as other evidence that agrees with it, have been ignored by an agency bent on passing ever more stringent regulations regardless of their effect on California's economy.

Enstrom blew the whistle on CARB for, among other things, failing to publicize that the lead author of the study that was used to justify the new regulations falsified his education history (he purchased his PhD from an online diploma mill).

But UCLA didn't come to Enstrom's defense. In fact, officials informed him that, after 34 years at the university, he was out of a job.

"The environmental regulation machine in powerful in California," says Adam Kissel of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is defending Enstrom in the fight to keep his job. "When Dr. Enstrom went up against that machine he was retaliated against."

A hearing that begins on April 4 will determine whether Dr. Enstrom keeps his job, and the final decision rests with UCLA Chancellor Gene Block.

Says Kissel, "If Dr. Enstrom loses his job because he exercised his academic freedom, then it's a message to other researchers that you'd better not rock the boat because you might be next."

Approximately 9 minutes.

"The Green Regulation Machine" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Field Producer: Paul Detrick; Camera: Alex Manning, Hawk Jensen, Josh Swain, Austin Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Delta Smelt and Undocumented Farm Workers: How Federal Policy Is Failing California's Central Valley

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

California's Central Valley is a 450 mile long stretch of flat and fertile land that produces much of the food that we enjoy every day. But the people in small towns like Mendota (the cantaloupe capital of the world) are suffering these days, in part due to two federal policies.

In order to protect a threatened fish species called the Delta Smelt, much of the water that used to be pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to farms on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is now allowed to flow into the ocean. The result is predictable: hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land lies fallow and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. In Mendota, the unemployment rate is over 40% and food lines are the norm.

But people going hungry in a region dominated by agriculture is only one of the contradictions in the Central Valley.

Nearly all the valley's farm workers are immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and many of them are undocumented. These people are crucial to the valley's economy, but they're breaking the law according to the federal government.

To learn more about the Central Valley and its discontents, we spoke to Robert Silva, mayor of Mendota; Kim Sullivan, a small business owner who makes gear drives for irrigation pumps; Maria Angel, a cafe owner and GED instructor; and Chris Collins, who recently authored a special Fresno Bee series about illegal immigration called "In Denial".

Approximately 8 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Great Moments in Unintended Consequences

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:00:00 EST

Reason.tv presents Great Moments in Unintended Consequences!

All actions have unanticipated side effects, but government acting through regulation or legislation is particularly adept at creating disastrous unintended consequences.

Great Moments in Unintended Consequences takes a look at three instances of epic government facepalm: Osborne Reef, Corn Ethanol Subsidies, and a particular clause in ObamaCare that is already doing more harm than good.

Approximately 3 minutes.

Produced by Austin Bragg.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Michael Moynihan Joins Stossel to Discuss the Media's Favorite Scare Stories

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Senior Editor Michael Moynihan appeared on Stossel to discuss how the media uses exaggerated claims and scare tactics as a way to drive up ratings. Airdate: October 29, 2010.

Approximately 11.23.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

3 Reasons Why Obama Should Kick His Own Ass

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:00:00 EDT

President Barack Obama made news on The Today Show when he talked about kicking some ass over the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

If he is interested in punishing those responsible for what is shaping up as one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, he should think about giving himself a boot.

While BP is ultimately responsible for the spill (and for cleaning it up), the federal government is a major player in the problem for at least three reasons:

1. It owns the property on which the oil well is located.

2. It regulates offshore drilling. And

3. In order to protect small players in the drilling industry, it capped economic damages from this sort of spill at just $75 million, a way-too-low cap that encourages risky behavior.

"3 Reason Why Obama Should Kick His Own Ass" is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

Approximately 2:30 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions and more information.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live.

Federal Regulations and You - Partners in Democracy!

Mon, 17 May 2010 15:00:00 EDT

The Environmental Protection Agency's "Rulemaking Matters!" contest invites filmmakers to submit short videos that explain how federal regulations touch our lives. The best video wins $2,500!

Presenting reason.tv's submission: "Federal Regulations and You: Partners in Democracy!"

Written and produced by Ted Balaker. "Billy" played by Paul Detrick. Camera: Zach Weissmueller; Animation: Hawk Jensen.

Approximately 75 seconds long.

Scroll down for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Demonizing DDT

dan.hayes@reason.org (Dan Hayes) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:00:00 EDT

In The Excellent Powder: DDT's Political and Scientific History, Richard Tren and Donald Roberts argue that the infamous insecticide is the world's greatest public-health success stories, saving millions of lives by preventing insect-borne disease. Unfortunately for those in areas still infested with mosquitoes and other flying bugs, DDT is also the world's most-misunderstood substance, the target of a decades-long scientifically ignorant and ideologically motivated campaign that has vastly limited its use and applications.

From Rachel Carson in the 1960s to contemporary critics, DDT has been the object of what Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, calls "scare campaigns" that link DDT to "theoretical harms to wildlife and human life that simply don't exist."

Dubbed "the excellent powder" by Winston Churchill for its life-saving qualities, DDT has the potential to transform the developing world from a malarial hell into something else again. Yet as Tren, the winner of the 2009 Julian L. Simon Award, warns, under current international conventions, global DDT production is scheduled to be halted in 2017, thereby consigning much of the world to less-effective and more-expensive alternatives that will consign millions of poor people to living hell.

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie sat down with Tren and Roberts, who are part of Africa Fighting Malaria, to talk about how DDT got such a bad rap and what can be done to set the record straight.

Approximately 9.15 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Dan Hayes; edited by Hayes and Josh Swain.

Scroll down for iPod, HD, and audio versions. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

3 Reasons Why Obama's High-Speed Rail Will Go Nowhere Fast

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:00:00 EST

President Barack Obama has pledged $8 billion in tax dollars to build a national network of high-speed rail—trains that can carry passengers at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

But the Supertrain fantasy was a mistake back in the 1970s, when it gave rise to one of the most expensive—and rotten—TV shows in history. And it's just as much of a wreck in the 21st century for at least three reasons:

1. The lowball costs. CNN estimates that delivering on the plan could cost well over $500 billion and take decades to build, all while failing to cover much of the country at all. Internationally, only two high-speed rail lines have recouped their capital costs and all depend on huge subsidies to stay in operation.
2. The supposed benefits. "We're gonna be taking cars off of congested highways and reducing carbon emissions," says Vice President Joe Biden, an ardent rail booster. But most traffic jams are urban, not inter-city, so high-speed rail between metro areas will have no effect on your daily commute. And when construction costs are factored in, high-speed rail "may yield only marginal net greenhouse gas reductions," say UC-Berkeley researchers.
3. The delusional Amtrak example. Obama and Biden look to Amtrak as precedent, but since its founding in 1971, the nation's passenger rail system has sucked up almost $35 billion in subsidies and, says The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson, "a typical trip is subsidized by about $50." About 140 million Americans shlep to work every day, while Amtrak carries just 78,000 passengers. There's no reason to think that high-speed rail will pump up those numbers, though there's every reason to believe its costs will grow and grow.

"Supertrain 2010" was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approximately 3 minutes.

Scroll down for iPod, HD, and audio versions. And subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Light Bulbs vs. The Nanny State

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EDT

In September, the European Union banned the sale of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, with lawbreakers facing up to $70,000 in fines. Over the next few years, bans on lower-wattage bulbs kick in. In the United States, similar legislation comes into play in 2012. The idea is to kickstart the market for compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which use less energy than conventional incandescents. Although CFLs present any number of problems (even beyond a much higher initial cost), governments all over the globe are determined to make them the new standard.

Invented in its modern form by Thomas Edison in 1879, the light bulb became synonymous with a brilliant idea. Now, it seems, it's just one more symbol of a nanny state that increasingly dictates more choices in our public and private lives.

"Light bulbs vs. The Nanny State" is produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. Approximately two minutes. Scroll down for embed code and downloadable versions.

If you have trouble embedding or viewing this video, check out Reason.tv's YouTube channel.

Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's The Best Way to Live With Global Warming?

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:00:00 EDT

What's the best way for humanity to reduce suffering from man-made global warming? No individual has been a stronger voice for rational cost-benefit analysis on this issue than Bjorn Lomborg, the head of Copenhagen Consensus Center, and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! On Thursday, September 3, 2009, Lomborg stopped by Reason's DC HQ to discuss the latest iteration of his ongoing project with Reason magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey.

The Copenhagen Consensus Center's expert panel of five top economists, including three Nobel laureates, has concluded that greater resources should be spent on research into climate engineering and green energy. They also concluded that the least cost-effective way to deal with climate change is carbon taxes. Such carbon taxes are the economic equivalent of cap-and-trade carbon rationing schemes like the Waxman-Markey bill being considered by Congress and which are being negotiated by the U.N.

The expert panel consisted of Nobel laureate economists Thomas Schelling, Vernon Smith, and Finn Kydland. They were joined by University of Chicago economist Nancy Stokey and Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati. The panel considered and ranked 21 ground-breaking research proposals by top climate economists on the basis their benefits and costs in dealing with global warming. Ultimately they ranked only the 15 proposals below.

Approximatley four minutes. Shot by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg; edited by Dan Hayes.

Related video, from Reason's 40th anniversary gala in Fall 2008: Bjorn Lomborg Says Cool It!

Watch the full length interview below.

Bjorn Lomborg Says Cool It!

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

At Reason's 40th anniversary event, held in Hollywood on November 14 and 15, "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg kicked things off with an engrossing 30-minute presentation about man-made climate change and the best ways to prioritize and solve global problems ranging from water shortages to poverty to malaria.

The author most recently of Cool It, Lomborg is also the force behind The Copenhagen Consensus, a path-breaking approach toward effecting efficient solutions to the planet's most pressing issues. "At the end of the day," says Lomborg, "this is about saying, Yes, global warming is real. It's often massively exaggerated, which is why we need smarter solutions.... Let's pick them smart, rather than stupidly. And also, let's remember that they are many other problems in the world that we can fix so much cheaper and do so much more good....If this is really a question about doing good in the world, then let's do real good—and not just make ourselves feel good about what we do."

Go here for Reason magazine's recent interview with Lomborg, who has been named one of the "100 the most influential people on the planet" by Time, a "global leader for tomorrow" by the World Economic Forum, and "one of the 50 people who could save the planet" by The Guardian.

For Reason's coverage of Lomborg, go here. For our environmental coverage, go here.

To embed this video at your own site, go here.

For an audio podcast, go here.

Ethanol

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Ethanol advocates claim that the biofuel is a cheap, renewable energy source that reduces pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It sounds too good to be true—and it is.

Ethanol, especially the corn-based variety, is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and horrible for the world's poor. In fact, even environmentalists are critical of ethanol subsidies these days. The ethanol craze has distorted markets and increased the price of food worldwide. The only people who still support ethanol subsidies are the ethanol producers—and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Together, they make sure the subsidies keep coming.

In a recent interview about the current food crisis, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, "If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you've got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn't it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?"

Let them eat rice? So that American taxpayers can continue to pay people to turn corn into fuel?

Silly senator, corn is for food.

This seven-and-a-half-minute video explores the case against ethanol subsidies. Hosted by reason's Nick Gillespie and featuring Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, it was produced by Paul Feine and PF Bentley.

For an audio podcast version, go here.