The environmental activists are at it again—dominating the media with nonsensical drivel, trying to convince Montanans we should reject opportunities for legitimate economic growth.
An opponent to a proposed coal-fired power plant recently basked in statewide news coverage, alleging that because enough electricity is already produced in Montana to supply our in-state demand, additional new electric generating facilities were unwarranted. Hence, the State should deny issuance of a construction permit for the proposed power plant on those grounds.
If Montana farmers were allowed to raise only enough wheat or barley to meet the demand of Montana consumers, a handful of Daniels County producers could easily do the job. There would also be a lot of “mad” cow/calf producers if political limitations capped cattle numbers to match beef consumption in Montana. Even if we all went on the Atkins diet, Montanans couldn’t come close to eating all the beef produced here.
To suggest Montana shouldn’t support a new power plant because we don’t need the electricity, is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
Malaysia produces far more bananas than the people in Malaysia consume, and Montanans eat considerably more bananas than we produce. Thank goodness the Malaysian government understands the economic concept of comparative advantage and encourages the export of something they are better suited to produce than we are.
The economic wizards advancing the logic of domestic production not exceeding domestic consumption should stroll down for a latte at Starbucks to ponder their theory. Their daily jolt of coffee comes from plantations thousands of miles from here. Try as we might to diversify our agricultural economy, we haven’t figured out how to raise coffee beans around Scobey.
Activists attempting to sound reasonable regularly regurgitate a common theme: “We’re not against mining/drilling/cutting/grazing (pick one), we just don’t think it should be done here (or there).”
Many of these seemingly well-meaning environmentalists have not come to grip with a time-tested reality of natural resource development--it works better to mine coal or gold where the coal or gold is. If the natural gas is under the Rocky Mountain Front, it just doesn’t pay to drill at Rugby, North Dakota instead.
Some places are just plain better than others at producing certain things. You have a comparative advantage if you can construct a power plant right next to a vast coal deposit. The economics improve even more if you have a long-term market. But, of course, if you are harangued, hassled, beleaguered, threatened, and endlessly delayed in your efforts to enter the market, someone else will eventually beat you there and the opportunity will be lost. And if you shouldn’t build a power plant in one of the country’s most sparsely populated counties, where should you build one?
Montana handed South America a “golden” opportunity when we politically ejected mining from our economic landscape. Every tree we let burn instead of harvesting and processing it in Montana translates into lost market share and jobs. Contractors in Alberta and British Columbia have earned millions of dollars in the past 15 years, building sawmills that now produce for the market we slammed the door on.
The fact is, somebody somewhere will fill the nation’s demand for electricity. If not by a Montana power plant burning Montana coal, then by some other means in some other location—with no guarantees it will be more “environmentally friendly.” The Treasure State will simply forgo yet another economic opportunity.
Montana produces far more environmental activism than our residents can swallow. Montana-based environmental groups that specialize in stopping development generate millions of dollars each year selling their “services” to out-of-state donors—not unlike a Montana power plant selling electricity outside the state. Perhaps we should prohibit non-residents from making financial contributions to Montana environmental groups.
Montana certainly doesn’t need to produce more environmental advocacy than our own residents pay for.