I remember burning my first cd from music downloaded from the internet.  It took like 2 days.  I predicted a bold new future for the music industry where customers would go to music stores in the mall – like cd stores of the time – and instead of racks of cds there would be computers with hard drives filled with music.  Instead of buying albums, you would purchase a selection of songs, which would then be burned onto a cd.  The songs would cost a dollar or two since all the costs in manufacturing and distribution would be minimized.

Remember These!

Of course, I didn’t have the foresight to see that eventually the music store in the mall would become obsolete as people would download music at home to their own personal computer, and that the cd would be replaced by mass storage devices that could hold thousands of cds worth of music and fit in your pocket.

So, I was off by a little bit, but I learned an important lesson.  In the 21st century, err on the side of the unimaginable when predicting the future.

For example, check out the latest provocative cover of Atlantic Magazine:

I haven’t read the entire article yet, but the basic premise is that technology is unlocking abundant reserves of hydrocarbons to the point that we will never run out of oil.  It was only a few years ago that serious people were writing books and magazine articles about peak oil and the imminent depletion of these finite resources.

While fracking and other technologies that are unlocking hydrocarbon abundance are certainly the flavor of the moment, even bigger things are on the horizon in my opinion.

In a previous post on George Church’s work in genetic engineering, I had this to say, “When George Church isn’t turning DNA into an alternative to the hard drive, he is engineering e coli bacteria to produce diesel fuel.  They have already successfully engineered e coli to do this on a lab scale, and they are now moving to produce diesel fuel on an industrial scale in the near future.”

Just today, I came across another story where similar research is being conducted in the UK by an R&D branch of Shell Oil:

John Love from the University of Exeter in the UK and colleagues took genes from the camphor tree, soil bacteria and blue-green algae and spliced them into DNA from Escherichia coli bacteria. When the modified E. coli were fed glucose, the enzymes they produced converted the sugar into fatty acids and then turned these into hydrocarbons that were chemically and structurally identical to those found in commercial fuel.

As promising as fracking and tar sand extraction are, they are kind of like moving from cassette tapes to cds.  My mistake in predicting the future of music was that I didn’t predict how information technology wouldn’t just reinvent the end product – the songs that were downloaded, but the entire supply chain of the music industry along with its capital structure.

Atlantic Magazine probably has it right.  We aren’t going to run out of hydrocarbon fuel.  The market for hydrocarbon fuels that are mined from deep beneath the earth will likely continue to exist for a long time.  After all, you can still buy cds at Walmart.

However, if George Church and John Love have their way, we are likely to see consumer grade flat panels that contain an enclosed colony of genetically modified e. coli that produce diesel fuel as a byproduct of their metabolic processes.  The distribution network of drilling rigs, tankers, pipelines, trains, semi-trucks, and gas stations will give way to bio-fuel on demand cells that you install at the end of your driveway or on your roof.

]]> http://www.postscarcityalliance.com/hydrocarbon-fuel-on-demand/feed/ 0 http://www.postscarcityalliance.com/shoot-shovel-shut-up-and-smile-for-the-camera/ http://www.postscarcityalliance.com/shoot-shovel-shut-up-and-smile-for-the-camera/#comments Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:45:41 +0000 Hailey http://www.postscarcityalliance.com/?p=221 Civilian use of aerial drone surveillance is a reality that is quickly approaching, and this is great news for litigious environmental groups.  Currently, if an environmental group wants to surveil farmers or any other group that is utilizing natural resources, they have to go through a burdensome FOIA process, and hope that agencies like the EPA give them more information than is legally required.  Of course they can count on the fact that federal agencies like the EPA have a huge margin of error when it comes to illegally sharing private information with violent, radical environmentalists.  This happened, and Senator Thune has been drawing attention to it this past week.  I am sure the unelected bureaucrats in the EPA are really worried that they have upset a U.S. Senator.  You can tell because they have requested that the radical environmentalists give back the illegally obtained data.  This is a really hard slap to the wrist.

Needless to say this is all a big hassle.  Environmental groups are much more formidable when they rely on their own data, then use this information to sue federal agencies in order to force them to undertake regulatory enforcement measures.  This is why in countries without robust constitutional privacy protections, they are quickly adopting the use of aerial surveillance drones to enable stricter enforcement of endangered species protection laws.

Just this week, India announced that it was deploying drones to protect one-horned rhinos from poachers.

Aerial drone surveillance and radical environmentalism are a match made in heaven.  Groups like the Western Watersheds Project, enlist volunteers to monitor cattle grazing activities, so they can harass ranchers and turn them in to the authorities.  Instead of sending volunteers into the field to find violations, it wouldn’t be too expensive to instead acquire a fleet of drones and have them take surveillance footage.  You can then use the human volunteers to monitor this footage through some kind of live-streaming activist portal on the web.  You can monitor a lot more cows this way than you can by trudging through the mountains.  Because the laws have been written to favor the interests of environmentalists, they will inevitably find violations with evidence as solid as drone footage will provide.  The next step will be to file lawsuits.  Once they win these lawsuits they can fund the expansion of their volunteer based drone surveillance program.

Obviously it won’t take long for this kind of surveillance program to self-fund itself into existence.  However, because drone surveillance is also likely to bring benefits to those who utilize natural resources, it is likely that drone surveillance pilot programs will be implemented with the initial support of those whose lives and livelihoods will be destroyed by this technology.

The FAA is already drafting guidelines for civilian drone use, so this future probably isn’t too far off.  If you are someone who is already in the crosshairs of environmental groups, I would keep your eye on the issue of domestic aerial drone surveillance, because it won’t be too long before those who want these drones will be keeping their eye on you.

To begin the comparison of these two capitals, I would like to start with a few economic metrics from their states:

GDP

Idaho – $54,800,000

Massachusetts – $377,700,00

GDP per capita

Idaho – $34,250

Massachusetts – $58,108

GDP per capita ranking relative to other states

Idaho – 50th

Massachusetts – 6th

Square Miles

Idaho – 83,574

Massachusetts – 8,262

GDP per square mile

Idaho – $655.71

Massachusetts – $45,715.32

Percentage of public land

Idaho – 70.4%

Massachusetts – 6.3%

Property tax collections per capita and ranking

Idaho – $837 – Ranked 11th lowest

Massachusetts – $1,986 – Ranked 8th highest

Idaho has 10 times more land than Massachusetts, but yet Massachusetts has 7 times more wealth when measured by GDP.  Idaho is second to last when it comes to GDP per capita, and Massachusetts ranks near the top at sixth.  Household income in Massachusetts is almost double the household income in Idaho.  Now these stats are disturbing, but the public land related states are simply jaw-dropping.

GDP per square mile is a simple metric that is determined by dividing the state’s GDP by the number of square miles.  While I admit that this is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at this issue, it does provide a rough measurement of how well a state is efficiently allocating its natural resources to increase the wealth of its citizens.  Massachusetts generates and astounding 69 times more wealth per square mile than Idaho.  Sure, Massachusetts is a smaller state with far higher population density, but it is also telling that only 6.3% of the land in the state is publicly-owned.

Idaho on the other hand is a vast state with abundant natural resources a small population and a dynamically managed business environment that should attract growth-generating capital.  However, Idaho appears to be subject to structural poverty relative to a state like Massachusetts.  How is this so?

While percentage of public land ownership can’t be the only source of this wealth inequality, it has to be playing a major role.  This becomes more clear when you consider Idaho’s company when it comes to measuring GDP per square mile in other states.

Here are the 10 poorest states when you measure GDP per square mile:

1. Alaska – $77.57 per square mile with 95.8% public land

2. Montana – $252.98 per square mile with 37.5% public land

3. Wyoming – $390.52 per square mile with 55.9% public land

4. North Dakota – $472.39 per square mile with 9.1% public land

5. South Dakota – $517.36 per square mile with 8.9 % public land

6. New Mexico – $620.89 per square mile with 47.4% public land

7. Idaho – $655.71 per square mile with 70.4% public land

8. Nevada – $1,153.15 per square mile with 87.8% public land

9. Nebraska – $1,158.24 per square mile with 2.8% public land

10. Utah – $1,376.83 per square mile with 75.2% public land

The average public land ownership percentage of the 10 poorest state when measured by GDP per square mile is 49.8%.  Of course this number is lowered by the three states with low public land ownership: North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska.  The inclusion of these states on this list suggests that public land isn’t the only factor that determines the relative poverty of a state, but considering that 7 out of 10 states on this list have significant percentages of public land ownership we have to recognize that a high percentage of public land is likely to impoverish a state more than to enrich it.

This becomes even more apparent when you compare the bottom 10 with the top 10 states for GDP per square mile:

1. District of Columbia – $1,539,705.88 per square mile with no data on % of public land (obviously the inclusion of DC is an anomaly given that DC basically siphons its GDP off of the GDP of the rest of the country as the seat of a $3.5 trillion dollar enterprise called the federal government).

2. New Jersey – $63,799.74 per square mile with 18.3% public land

3. Connecticut – $46,624.05 per square mile with 6.2% public land

4. Massachusetts – $45,715.32 per square mile with 6.3% public land

5. Rhode Island – $40,807.91 per square mile with 1.5% public land

6. Delaware – $30,947.68 per square mile with 7.4% public land

7. Maryland – $28,694.40 per square mile with 7.6% public land

8. New York – $23,548.22 per square mile with 37.1% public land

9. Florida – $12,849.13 per square mile with 29.2% public land

10. Pennsylvania – $12,703.60 per square mile with 16.1% public land

With DC excluded, the average public land ownership for the 10 riches states is 14.41%.  Ultimately these are all just points of data, and many stories can be told with these numbers.  However, the numbers at least legitimize the assumption that extensive public land ownership impoverishes a state whereas higher levels of private ownership vastly enriches a state.

In light of this information, we are now poised to compare Boise to Boston.

What does a state’s capital city look like when it commands a hefty $45,715 in GDP per square mile as opposed to $655 in GDP per square mile?

I mentioned earlier that the biggest cost to federally managed land is the opportunity cost of choosing not to efficiently allocate resources.  Boston is home to eight major research universities: Boston College, Boston University, Brandeis University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, Tufts University and the University of Massachusetts Boston.  Boise, on the other hand, is home to Boise State.

I don’t need to commission an academic study to conclude that a state that has $45,715 in GDP per square mile as its property tax base has an easier time supporting 8 world-class research universities than a state with $655 in GDP per square mile.

According to a recent study on the economic impact of Boston’s eight research universities, the universities are “among the region’s leading employers, and one of its most reliable sources of job growth. Each year they turn out more than 30,000 graduates, providing to the region’s leading industries a steady stream of highly-talented, well-educated workers. Their research programs are creating the new knowledge that will help ensure the Boston area’s continued leadership in emerging areas such as genomics, proteomics and nanotechnology. And they are a seedbed for creation and growth of the dynamic young companies that over the next decade will drive the growth of the region’s economy.”

I couldn’t find a similar study to measure the economic impact that Boise State has on Idaho, and I am sure that it is a fine institution that is making significant contributions to its community.  However, when those who advocate relinquishment of federal land to the states and to private owners claim that this will help these states fund education, they aren’t talking about hiring more kindergarten teachers.  They aren’t talking exclusively about drilling more oil or fattening more cattle.  The desire to more efficiently allocate federal land isn’t just a handout to mining, timber, and recreation industries.  Instead, the efficient allocation of these resources is demanded to fuel industries such as “genomics, proteomics, and nanotechnology,” or whatever other industry that will drive our future economy you want to add to this list.  Generating the capital necessary to fund the research that will create these industries of the future and others requires a local economy that generates a GDP per square mile that is closer to $45,000 as opposed to $655.

Of course this isn’t a zero sum game either.  Boise doesn’t have to become more like Boston at Boston’s expense.  This is ultimately an effort to unlock and allocate abundance as opposed to conserving and allocating scarcity.  Fortunately for Idah0, its legislature recently passed legislation that demands the federal government give its publicly-held land back to Idaho.  While the future of this legislation is uncertain, the future that is the vision of this legislation is vitally important.

Unfortunately, the narrative that this is just the latest battle between the “evil” cattle ranchers vs. the “pure” environmentalists is already starting to play out.  For example, consider this passage from Rocky Barker’s article, “Can Idaho manage public lands better than the feds?”:

Chris Haunold shakes his head as he watches the Legislature push for a bill demanding that the U.S. government transfer ownership of the land it controls to the state.

The owner of Idaho Mountain Touring in Boise is a member of the Idaho Outdoor Business Council. He said “it’s crazy” hearing lawmakers talk about how they think the state will manage the land better.

“They don’t see the big picture,” Haunold said.

The big picture, from his standpoint, is not that logging and grazing are bad, but that Idaho’s recreation industry, now a potent economic force, is tied directly to the state’s bounty of public lands.

This fine piece of unbiased reporting demonstrates the entrenched myopia surrounding this issue.  I am sure Chris Haunold runs a fine little recreation business.  Without a doubt he is contributing a small fraction to Idaho’s pathetic GDP per square mile of $655.  Without a doubt, the loggers and ranchers that are maligned in this article are also working hard to secure Idaho’s second-to-last, 50th-out-of-51 GDP per capita ranking.  After all, someone has to accommodate the wealthy visitors from cities like Boston when they decide to go on vacation.  Someone has to log the timber that will be used in the luxury cabins being built as second or third homes for those Bostonians who need a secluded retreat in the foothills of the Tetons.  Someone has to provide the nice steak that will be eaten as the latest graduate from MIT pitches his or her research to get venture capital funding for an industry that has yet to be conceived.

So, in a sense, Haunold is right that this is problem of not seeing the big picture.  Motes and beams come to mind.

Here is a sampling of some of these articles:

Reviving the Wooly Mammoth

The Case for Reviving Extinct Species (National Geographic has de-extinction as a March 2013 cover story)

Could Extinct Animals be Resurrected from Frozen Samples

In addition to this coverage, news recently broke that scientists in Australia have successfully reactivated the DNA of the extinct gastric brooding frog.  This frog is unique in that it swallows its own eggs, broods its young in its stomach, and gives birth through its mouth.

While this frog is most notorious for its odd reproductive habits, perhaps it is fitting that the next specimen will emerge not from its parents mouth, but from the figurative petri dish of another species entirely: Homo Sapiens.

For this reason, any time I can find a study that spells out the economic costs of environmentalism, its findings need to be promoted.  I recently found a study on environmentaltrends.org, that examines the economic costs of wilderness designations.

While it is worth reading the study, these findings speak for themselves:

The following summary of the findings is also quite telling:

The argument often stated by the environmental community that Wilderness is good for local economies is simply not supported by the data. When comparing Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Counties, Wilderness Counties are at an economic disadvantage to their Non-Wilderness counterparts. Accordingly, if the test for whether or not to designate Wilderness is economic, Wilderness fails. But economics did not underlie the Wilderness Act or any of the Wilderness Areas established since the Act was passed. Wilderness is established for emotional, ecological, and cultural purposes. Our results show that those purposes are accomplished at a cost to local economies.

A variety of factors could lead to the negative relationship between Wilderness and economic conditions. Arguably, areas “untrammeled by man” have less existing economic activity and reducing the potential for future economic development by designating those areas as Wilderness will not, on net, be economically positive. It is also possible that different types of Wilderness may have different implications for economic conditions. As noted, four federal agencies currently manage Wilderness Areas, and different agencies may have different economic impacts on counties. Wilderness within National Parks, for instance, may more effectively attract tourists than Wilderness on Bureau of Land Management or National Forest Service lands.

Finally, it is probable that the location of Wilderness has an impact on the direction and magnitude of its economic impact. Phillips (2004), for instance, found that Wilderness designation in the Green Mountains of Vermont had a positive impact on private land values in that area of Vermont. We should assume that some Wilderness can, in fact, have positive economic impacts, even though our findings indicate that this is not the general rule.

While there may be other legitimate, non-economic reasons for the designation of Wilderness, the tradeoff will likely impose an economic burden on local families and businesses. The benefits and costs from Wilderness are unevenly distributed between local and non-local communities, with local communities incurring a larger burden of the costs. This provides a good reason why local officials often rally against and adamantly oppose Wilderness.

Ultimately, being aware of studies like this is only half of the battle.  Once we are armed with great facts like this, we need to use them when we comment on proposed regulations and when we interact with environmental organizations that are quick to tout the largely non-existent economic benefits of scarcity driven policies.

Also anytime you read a recent article about some mind-blowing application of genetic science, you will usually find Church or one of his colleagues in the thick of it.  For example, this week, Extreme Tech broke the news that Church had found a way to store data with DNA.  He and his colleagues were able to fit 700 terabytes into about 1 gram of DNA.

The article linked above that discusses this finding makes the following prediction:

Looking forward, they foresee a world where biological storage would allow us to record anything and everything without reservation. Today, we wouldn’t dream of blanketing every square meter of Earth with cameras, and recording every moment for all eternity/human posterity — we simply don’t have the storage capacity. There is a reason that backed up data is usually only kept for a few weeks or months — it just isn’t feasible to have warehouses full of hard drives, which could fail at any time. If the entirety of human knowledge — every book, uttered word, and funny cat video — can be stored in a few hundred kilos of DNA, though… well, it might just be possible to record everything (hello, police state!)

The threat of the police state notwithstanding, this merging of biology with information technologies is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  When George Church isn’t turning DNA into an alternative to the hard drive, he is engineering e coli bacteria to produce diesel fuel.  They have already successfully engineered e coli to do this on a lab scale, and they are now moving to produce diesel fuel on an industrial scale in the near future.  To learn more, you can check out LS9, which stands for “Life Sciences sustain 9 billion.”  If this technology pans out, we could be looking at a future where hydrocarbon fuel becomes a truly renewable resource.

Just last week, MIT News released the findings that researchers had developed a new way edit the genome with high precision.  Church hinted at the developments happening on this front, and it is clear from following the news after reading the book that many of his predictions are coming to pass sooner rather than later.

I would like to point out one passage from the MIT News article, that readers of the Post Scarcity Alliance should consider:

The research team has deposited the necessary genetic components with a nonprofit called Addgene, making the components widely available to other researchers who want to use the system. The researchers have also created a website with tips and tools for using this new technique.

Notice how what is hailed as a major breakthrough is then made widely available through an open-source network of fellow engineers.  It is this open-source nature of genetic engineering technology that leads me to believe that it will be a revolutionary technology that will have unexpected consequences – just like the internet.  It is also likely that those who become the stewards of this technology will become very protective of its open-source ethos.  Remember what happened when Congress tried to regulate the internet with SOPA?  The online revolt stopped this regulatory effort in its tracks.

Now picture a world where genetic engineers are able to access the raw materials of their trade from open-source labs.  The possibility that new species are engineered in someone’s garage will become a reality.  As frightening/awesome (depends who you ask) as this sounds, trying to control or regulate this activity will be like trying to regulate the internet via SOPA.  It’s one thing for a group of environmentalists to fence off land and keep out trespassers.  It is completely different to fence of information, and prevent it from being shared.

For a hint of what this could mean for the Endangered Species Act, consider this passage from a recent Wired magazine article, “The Attack of the Mutant Pupfish“:

For half a century, conservationists have seen themselves as preservationists: Protect species X as it exists in place Y at time Z. Of course, nature has no such compunctions. Evolution is change. So the way to save the Devils Hole pupfish, Martin says, is to introduce genes from its cousin, the Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish—C. nevadensis, the same little Casanova from the refuge—which is native to a spring just a few miles away. Martin wants to take one or two and drop them in with their endangered relatives. That simple act would have profound implications. It would protect the Devils Hole pupfish by rewriting its genome.

Whether or not you care about pupfish, this plan represents a major philosophical change in how we think about our relationship with nature—because it doesn’t end with the pupfish. It ends with us becoming architects, engineers, and contractors for entire ecosystems. The old approach involved fencing off swaths of wilderness and stepping aside. In the new order, we’d be the stewards not just of land or wildlife but of individual chromosomes. So far, in the world of Devils Hole pupfish conservation, Martin has run into a wall of no. But around the world, in other places where other species are in trouble, the answer, increasingly, is yes.

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, this will all lead to an existential crisis for environmentalists and conservation science, and the linked Wired article validates this concern:

Is the idea of “pure” or “pristine” nature even a useful conceptual tool? Conservationists face what is in some ways as existential a threat as the one confronting the pupfish. The more they learn about nature, the more they wonder which part they’re supposed to conserve[...] [...] The future, then, will involve more intensive management of ecosystems and their inhabitants. That includes meddling not just in biogeography—what lives where—but in genes. There’s a delicate balance between saving a species and saving a gene pool, and calibrating it may be one of the biggest challenges of 21st-century conservation. We might, for instance, simply let the Devils Hole pupfish slip away and fill its pool with something else. Scientists like that idea about as much as they like creationism. They believe that any critter might play a crucial, irreplaceable role in an ecosystem.

As we learn more about precision genetic engineering, different species with unique characteristic will suddenly have immense intrinsic material worth.  The preservation of biodiversity until now has rested on the myth that biodiversity is a carefully balanced system, where if too many species go extinct the system will experience a cascading failure.  What previously required a leap of faith, will now be known with certainty and precision.  Genetic traits among species will be kind of like apps on your smartphone.  When someone laments that we are going to great lengths to save some bug or rodent or bird, the conservationist can finally make the case for the value of biodiversity in economic terms that will make the trade-off more acceptable.  While we are likely to see a massive adoption of the need to conserve as many species as possible, it is reasonable to suspect that the current focus on restricting human behaviors to protect species will be replaced by a focus on preserving their DNA, engineering new species, and engineering species to adapt to different habitats.

The picture at the top of this post is a picture of the “pristine” environment of the Devil’s Hole pupfish.  It is clear that this is an environment that has already been “geo-engineered” by homo sapiens.  With all those contraptions that look like they came from the Star Wars planet, Tatooine, that have apparently been placed there to save the species, would it really be that much more of an intervention to save this species by manipulating its DNA?

For those who haven’t read Nickson’s book, it is worth reading this post to see the depth of the research she has conducted on the environmental movement.

Here is the setup as a little teaser:

Which brings me to a person named William Walter Kay in Alberta, who publishes a blog the address of which is Ecofascism.com.  I have not read this blog, except to note its presence in the universe, but he has noticed me – no doubt because my book title corresponds with his blog title, and in a very long generally positive disquisition on my book, which I could not read closely because his use of the language is um, snarky, he has an addendum called Nickson’s error cascade.  Since his points will live until he stops paying his server bills, here are my corrections of his accusations.  I have largely ignored his erroneous opinions and conclusions where he is not challenging my facts: he has a perfect right to be wrong.  However, facts are important and I do not want a less positively inclined reviewer to depend upon his assumptions about my facts, because he has prosecuted his own error cascade.

I have checked out ecofascism.com, and it appears to be an interesting site, but there are some sites on the internet that are so poorly designed that one can only tolerate reading them for a few minutes before you start to get a headache.  I also question William Walter Kay’s judgment for trying to paint Nickson’s book as an error cascade.  It seems kind of counterproductive and egotistical.  However, because he has chosen this path, I have decided to publish this post and search engine optimize it so that his points will live alongside posts such as this that discredit his actions and vindicate Nickson’s defense of herself (which was quite capable – I am just bringing attention to it).

The energy industry might find comfort in the Bakken oil reserve’s location under privately-owned land.  However, I noticed a story from an obscure news site over the weekend that should worry anyone who is interested in utilizing North Dakota’s abundant resources – especially all those who are flooding to North Dakota to find high-paying jobs in the oil industry.

Although it is difficult to prove, environmental conservation organizations have learned how to manipulate the Endangered Species Act to enforce land-use restrictions by secretly introducing species into areas that they want to function as protected habitat.  I have learned that anytime you read a story where a species that is considered severely threatened mysteriously shows up, that you should be worried.  Just last week it was reported that a new population of black footed ferrets were spotted just a little over 100 miles south of North Dakota’s booming oil patch.  The reporting on this story has all the hallmarks of this being an artificial plant by an environmental group:

The discovery of black-footed ferrets where none were known to exist has encouraged but not surprised federal officials on a mission to bring the endangered species back from the edge of extinction.

An adult and two juvenile ferrets were discovered last week on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. A Nebraska environmental consulting company spotted and photographed the critters during a nocturnal spotlight survey of a prairie dog town.

Stop!  Re-read that last sentence.  Environmental consulting companies are typically the ones who have these serendipitous encounters with endangered species.  It wouldn’t be surprising to also discover that the same environmental consulting company that spotted these ferrets is also heavily involved in reintroducing captive-bred ferrets into suitable habitat.  On that note, you have a group that is likely using federal money to breed and reintroduce this species back into the wild also mysteriously discovering a new “wild” population of this species in the middle of the night, and was lucky enough to have captured photographic evidence???  It isn’t too hard to connect the dots here.  Read on:

The masked mammals were found about 70 miles north of the nearest colony of reintroduced ferrets on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.

Initial speculation by the tribe and the spotters was that the Standing Rock ferrets were a long-lost colony, but that’s unlikely, said Pete Gober, coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s national ferret recovery program.

“It would be remarkable if they were an undiscovered population because we’ve chased a lot of leads for decades and we haven’t found one since 1981,” he said.

I don’t know Pete Gober, but you’ve gotta hand it to him for showing some skepticism here.  Unfortunately, most Fish and Wildlife Service employees are in “look-the-other-way-mode” when it comes to questionable activity surrounding endangered species.

Now this instance occurred on an Indian Reservation, and so this artificial ferret introduction could also be a way for the tribe to attract federal dollars.  However, if I was working for the oil industry in the Bakken oil fields, I would keep my eye out for black footed ferrets and the environmental consultancies that might be introducing them into the “wild” in order to turn one of our country’s most abundant resources into restricted endangered species habitat.

Chmelik includes a poignant example of how mismanagement of Idaho’s timber resources has resulted in the squandering of wealth and the destruction of pristine wilderness and wildlife habitat:

The recent wildfire season gives us some idea of the amount of productive revenue burned up through federal management. In the state as reported on the FS incident website 932,575 acres burned in Idaho; 246,000 burned in Idaho County or 26 percent of the total for the entire state. Total fire suppression cost in Idaho County alone was $52,000,000. A conservative estimate of timber burned in Idaho County is 1.23 billion board feet; at a value of $300 per thousand that amounts to $369,000,000 in lost revenue to our region. If we operated under the traditional 25 percent model one could say the county lost $92,250,000 in potential revenue. These numbers do not even represent the critical loss of wildlife habit, the destruction of our wildlife with an estimated 738,000 fatalities to our animal friends, nor the estimated 12.3 million tons of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Why are we allowing this to happen to our environment and our way of life?

One could argue that the forests would still burn if they were managed locally, and that the local governments wouldn’t have the resources to protect the forests.  It is clear from Chmelik’s numbers that this argument is problematic.  Even if the fire season was as severe as the 2012 season, it would cost $52,000,000.  If the county were to utilize the resources, they would generate $92,250,000 in revenue.  This is a lot of money that can entirely cover the cost of fire suppression.  I also suspect that the fiscal situation of Idaho county is a little stronger than that of the federal government, which means they would get more fire suppression bang for their buck.  It is also likely that the fire seasons wouldn’t be nearly as severe if the timber resources were extracted more efficiently to prevent the dangerous fuel build-up.  Also, if you read Rajiv’s post about Climate Corp, it is clear that big data is taking the risk management markets to vastly efficient new levels.  It is likely that the County would be able to partner with a company like Climate Corp to provide fire insurance for the forests of Idaho, as long as they are managed to the risk management standards of the insurance company, which would make protecting and utilizing the resources vastly more affordable.

Finally, somehow states like Massachusetts are able to protect themselves against natural disasters, which is probably because the 94%-privately-owned state is able to generate $45,715 in GDP per square mile.  There is a lot of wealth that can be used to manage, utilize, and protect all that private property.  If you are doing the math, a state like Massachusetts generates 69x more wealth per square mile than Idaho.