February 9, 2007--
Greenville, SC

December 3, 2006--Greenville, SC

Furman University’s Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow proudly presents, in celebration of the university’s “Year of the Environment,” Mr. Fred Smith, President and Founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Smith will deliver an address on “The Politics and Economics of Climate Change” Wednesday, Dec. 6, at 5 p.m. in the James C. Furman Hall.

The address will last approximately one hour and will be followed by a brief question-and-answer session. The event has CLP status.

The event is open to the public without charge. All students, faculty, and members of the community are welcome. Seating is limited.

Well-known in academic and professional circles, Mr. Smith is a popular speaker at universities and conferences around the world. He is President and Founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market public policy group established in 1984. Mr. Smith is also a frequent guest on national television and radio programs to discuss and debate regulatory initiatives and topical policy issues.

Mr. Smith’s works have been published in leading newspapers and magazines such as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Economic Affairs, and the Washington Times. His academic articles have appeared in journals such as Harvard Journal of Law and Economics, CATO Journal, and Economic Affairs, and he is a contributing editor to Liberty magazine.

Before founding CEI, Mr. Smith served as Director of Government Relations for the Council for a Competitive Economy, as a senior economist for the Association of American Railroads, and for five years as a Senior Policy Analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, he sits on the Institute Turgot in Belgium.

Mr. Smith holds a B.S. degree in Theoretical Mathematics and Political Science from Tulane University where he earned the Arts and Sciences Medal (Tulane’s highest academic award) and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He has also done graduate work in mathematics and applied mathematical economics at Harvard, SUNY at Buffalo, and the University of Pennsylvania.

November 10, 2006--Greenville, SC

Capitalism and the environment
Kyle H. Wilkins, CSBT Chief Financial Officer  

In this much publicized "Year of the Environment," reports of impending doom and horrendous catastrophe crowd the CLP circuit and these very pages. One guest speaker went so far as to decry capitalism, in turn, advocating a devolutionary shift to "natural capitalism". Despite tales of apocalypse from environmental prophets urging government regulation, capitalism is the best method for environmental change.  

There is no need to sacrifice economic prosperity to achieve environmental change. America does not need to abandon the petroleum economy today. The shift to alternative energy sources and "environmentally friendly" products will occur without government subsidies or regulation. Self-interest will lead the way. The essence of capitalism—competition—compels firms to constantly innovate for survival. It is this entrepreneurial spirit that the global economy shifted from whale oil to petroleum energy sources. More importantly, this shift occurred without government help. Firms balance the needs of consumers and market realities.

The recent energy crisis is proof positive that consumers make environmentally beneficial choices when they can save money. Subcompact cars became the fastest selling automobile on dealers’ lots across the nation. Automakers developed more fuel-efficient models to meet consumer demand. Consumers did not buy compact cars because they were saving dollars, not the environment. Hybrid cars, currently environmentalist status symbols, will likely achieve widespread success when hybrids are cost-competitive with traditional automobiles.

The end of oil will occur before the last drop is extracted from the ground. High oil prices and record profits in the oil industry fuel growth in alternative energy technology. BP has plans to invest $8 billion during the next decade for alternative energy development. This rate of investment and deployment does not satisfy some environmentalists. However, the only way energy efficient products will enjoy widespread use is if people can save money. The reason wind turbines aren’t widespread is their cost-deficiencies compared to traditional electrical generation methods.

Furman offers a prime example of an organization integrating environmentally beneficial and cost-reducing features into buildings. While the public relations department at Furman promotes Furman as being green, the sole reason the buildings are environmentally friendly is that the university saves money. The same motives apply for everyone else. Why do people insulate their homes? buy Energy Star products? Because they save money.

Government regulation is inefficient. Government regulation infringes upon people’s freedom. By outlawing certain behaviors because those actions are considered onerous by individuals acting for the public interest violates people’s right to make their own choices. Regulation only stifles freedom, it does not persuade people. Famed economist Milton Friedman put it best: "concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." People that want to tell you how to live your life deprive you of freedom. They seek not to persuade, but to coerce. The California legislature recently passed sweeping economic regulations aimed at improving the California environment. The regulations will only stifle economic growth. Firms must be profitable to innovate. The contrived urgency of the environmental movement hampers the technological growth that could make green products cost-competitive and widespread.

It is not the altruistic environmentalist that will result in cleaner air and water, but the self-interest of the individual. The noble American consumer, always in search of the next bargain, will adopt green technology to save a dollar. There need not be a tradeoff between the environment and economic growth. People will always choose the option that increases their well-being. The job of America’s companies is to innovate and develop technologies that are both clean and cheap. Government regulation cannot substitute for the entrepreneurial spirit. The beauty of capitalism lies in its self-regulating nature, the invisible hand that guides individuals to the optimal choice.

Wind is still blowing

Jason Novak

To the Editor:

As one of the 818 Furman students who voted against the wind proposal, and an active participant in the opposition, I think it is only appropriate that I respond to your latest editorial, "All Talk?" Not only did your editorial take cheap potshots at the opposition to EAG, it managed to completely mischaracterize the motivations of those who voted against the proposal.

This does a disservice both to those who fought long and hard against the proposal, and to the more than 800 Furman students who voted against it. Rather than commending those who vocalized an alternative to EAG’s moralizing, you sneered at us.

You write: "…but the proposal drowned in red tape from opponents who turned environmental protection into a matter of politics."

Ah, yes. Those who opposed the wind proposal were playing partisan politics, while EAG was just trying to save the world! Give me a break.

Curiously, the entire point of those who opposed EAG was that the wind proposal was a political issue; a political issue masked behind the empty platitudes of feel-good environmentalism. It was impossible for the proposal to be "turned into…a matter of politics" because it already was one.

It’s unfortunate that "The Paladin" then chose to accuse Furman’s students of not "walking the walk" in the "Year of the Environment" merely because we rejected a single flawed proposal. Surely, there are better ways for Furman students to help the environment than by raising the tuition bill at the beginning of each new academic year to shell out money to a Colorado-based non-profit. To claim that this was our one and only chance to help the environment suggests both a lack of creativity, and a desperation to condemn those you disagree with.

Of course, this is made all the more interesting by your own editorial in opposition to a mandatory wind proposal, written just a few weeks ago: "It is encouraging to see students pursuing alternative energy sources, but it’s important that we change minds rather than force additional time and costs on unwilling students." Why the change of heart? The proposal we just voted down was the same mandatory political donation that we were set to vote on at the beginning of the academic year.

With an editorial on condom policy last week, and an inexplicable reversal this week (for the express purpose of lecturing Furman students who voted against the proposal), it is clear that "The Paladin" has run out of ideas.

--END--