David Rodeback's Blog

Ten Most Recent Comments

David Rodeback on Random Thoughts (7/02/09)
Leisa Hatch on Random Thoughts (6/25/09)
Heidi Rodeback on Election Season Looms in American Fork (6/06/09)
David Laraway on I Sided with Satan -- Again (4/26/09)
Jenny Rader on Bureaucracies Don't Laugh. People Do. (4/10/09)
David Rodeback on Of Freedom and Sacrifice (4/10/09)
Philip Tymon on Of Freedom and Sacrifice (4/10/09)
David Rodeback on Of Freedom and Sacrifice (4/9/09)
Philip Tymon on Of Freedom and Sacrifice (4/9/09)
Leo Tornow on Reduce! Replace! Recycle! (Notes about Town) (2/16/09)

July 3, 2009

A Cap and Trade Primer (Part Two)

Let us assume -- falsely, by my lights -- that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is happening, that it is potentially catastrophic, that the US can significantly decrease it with or without the rest of the world's cooperation, and that timing is currently a matter of desperation, because it's almost too late to save ourselves. Let's also assume that cap and trade is an appropriate way to address the problem, at least in principle. I addressed these and other assumptions in part one of this primer and noted my serious doubts about each of them.

My views aside, let us assume for a few moments that all these propositions are correct and look at an enormous bill the House just passed, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The House passed it last Friday at about 7 p.m. local time. It is well over 1000 pages long, and a 300-page "manager's amendment" (changes agreed to by the bill's managers on both sides) was submitted just after 3:00 a.m. that morning, less than 16 hours before the vote.

Now it goes to the Senate, which will undoubtedly make some changes. If it passes there, a reconciliation committee of members from both houses of Congress will iron out the differences -- and maybe make some new innovations of their own -- and then identical bills will be presented for vote in each house. If it passes in both houses, the President either signs or vetos it -- presumably the former. (There probably aren't enough votes to override a veto, but it's not likely that he'll veto a large piece of his own agenda.)

Everything -- Including the Kitchen Sink

I haven't read carefully every word of the bill, but I've read enough to wonder, with House Minority Leader John Boehner, "Please, is there anything that we are not regulating in this bill?" It proposes to do far more than impose a cap and trade system.

There are pages and pages of new requirements to be imposed on local building codes nationwide. There are detailed specifications for the use and manufacture of light bulbs of various types. There are new regulations for electrical outlets, to ensure that a hybrid car can be recharged at any home. There are extensive new requirements for appraising a home's energy efficiency, which may require the retraining of every appraiser in the country. There are regulations about windows and doors and skylights and hot tobs, to name a few more.

That's only a partial list, but remember: every one of these requirements requires a bureaucracy to administer and enforce it, and bureaucracy costs money. Every one of these requirements imposes costs on someone else, whether local governments, private industry, or homeowners. And you know where all those costs will eventually end up; we who are consumers and taxpayers always pay in the end.

I haven't found the language in the bill that implements it, but Boehner mentioned an onerous new requirement, apparently newly added in the managers' amendment:

How are we going to do affordable housing when we are pushing up the cost of houses? . . . We have to have an energy rating for every home in America. In this bill, we require every home to have an energy rating. And if you are going to sell your house, guess what? You have to have a review, bring people in, have them check out your windows, your appliances, your hot water heater, your door, make sure that your house is energy efficient. And guess what if it isn’t? You have got to bring it up to standards before you can sell it. (Congressional Record, June 26, 2009, p. H7680, emphasis added)

The cost of selling a home will increase dramatically. The cost of the home itself will increase dramatically. Homeowners might have greater incentive to remodel . . . but I have seen language in the bill which requires similar inspections and evaluations before and after remodeling a home, too.

If all this passes, maybe we would all be wise to invest in makers, sellers, and installers of windows, doors, and appliances. It's hard to see how this won't drive a stake through the heart of the already-comatose housing market, but appliance, window, and door sales will likely increase, at least for a while.

Will It Work?

Remember, again, that we're assuming that the problem is what the climate change crowd claims it is, and that it can be solved (or at least significantly mitigated) by curtailing our carbon emissions. In this context one must ask, will this bill make a significant difference? Will it be worth the economic burden? There is general agreement among proponents that there will be an economic burden, despite promises that the legislation will create many new "green" jobs to counteract the inevitable massive job loss. Of course, there will be many new government jobs.

I am neither a believer in anthropogenic climate change nor a subject matter expert, so I'll refer to others for a moment here -- mostly to believers, actually, but first to The Heritage Foundation, a bastion of unbelieving subject matter experts.

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, recently said the following. (Note that "Waxman-Markey" refers to the same bill by the names of its major sponsors.)

Globally speaking, Waxman-Markey would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. The bill only binds the U.S., and the trends in the rest of the world show clearly that emissions are rising. China alone now out-emits the U.S., and it hasn't just inched ahead, it has raced ahead with emissions rising six times faster than ours. A similar story is true of other rapidly developing nations. The notion that if we bind ourselves first that China will be more inclined to follow our lead is most likely the opposite of the truth, the opposite of what usually happens in international negotiations. I should also add that, until the recent recession came along, many Western European and other nations that had signed on to the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty had been seeing their emissions rise as well. Taking all this into account, climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services . . . calculates that Waxman-Markey would reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice. And I have yet to see a decent refutation of the assertion that the temperature impact would be inconsequential.

We also need to look at how well carbon cap and trade has fared. Here Gabriel Calzada's analysis of Spain, which like the rest of Western Europe has had a cap-and-trade program in place since 2005, is extremely valuable. Spain, as with most of the rest of Western Europe, has higher unemployment and energy costs than America, and yet has seen its carbon dioxide emissions increasing anyway. In fact, European emissions have been rising more quickly than those in the U.S. That's right: Many nations with cap and trade have had faster rates of emissions growth than the U.S. has had without it.

In explaining his own opposition to this bill, my very own Congressman Jim Matheson, an avowed environmentalist and a believer in the "scientific consensus" mirage, said this on the House floor last Friday:

The two great energy issues our generation faces right now are domestic energy security and climate change. These issues deserve our active attention, and they deserve action. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today does not appropriately address these issues.

Some continue to argue that climate change is not happening. In fact, scientific consensus has clearly been established that climate change is a very real, significant problem and we need to determine an effective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. However, this legislation has problems.

The early-year carbon reduction targets assume an aggressive pace of new technological development that may be unachievable. These targets received little attention in the debates that have taken place on this bill.

I remain concerned that this energy bill will result in unfair regional wealth transfers. The one-size-fits-all renewable electricity standard is not the right approach to address climate change. It is an add-on without a purpose. Data shows that the renewable targets in this bill are only slightly better than business-as-usual. So why are we bothering to dictate these standards when we should encourage the 15 States that currently do not have renewable energy targets to find something workable for their communities?

The bill’s distribution of emission allowances also creates regional inequities. The "50-50" formula in the bill gives extra, unneeded allowances to utilities with lower fossil fuels resources, and less to utilities with greater reliance on fossil fuel resources. Those regions that receive excessive allowances would sell those allowances to other regions of the country that received less. . . .

There are also some changes made to the offsets section which are troubling to me. I have been supportive of the effort to build a strong, accountable offsets program and I am sorry to see that this bill allows USDA to try to establish a much looser, less effective program. This is short-sighted because unless offsets signify real, verifiable carbon reductions, they will be worthless. This is problematic because buying and using offsets is much cheaper for businesses than it is to buy allowances.

[Allowances constitute permission to produce a certain amount of carbon emissions. Offsets are somewhat like extra credit, allowing a company to compensate for excessive emissions by doing other "green" things.]

. . . Finally, the issue of energy independence calls for additional items that are not included in today’s bill. In the long run, technological advances will provide new options to help this country gain a more secure, stable energy profile. In the interim, we need policies that keep all options on the table for the development and use of conventional energy sources. As a result of all of these concerns, I will vote against this legislation. However, I will continue to work on the important issues of climate change and energy independence. (Congressional Record, June 26, 2009, pp. H7655-H7656)

Matheson's own Web site links to this April Wall Street Journal article which mentions his opposition and discusses some of the wrangling on Capitol Hill.

Here's another opponent's view, that of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate, who thinks the bill will be ineffective because it is not draconian enough. He spoke immediately after Matheson on the House floor. You can read his complete speech in the Congressional Record; here is its beginning:

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out -- coal -- by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030. (Congressional Record, June 26, 2009, p. H7656)

Finally, Branford Plumer at The New Republic writes the following under the title -- pardon my quoting his coarse language -- "Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably." Note his mention of big, hideous warts on the bill, and note his fondness for "baby steps," as long as they stumble in the desired direction.

Among people who think we need strong, rapid action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and avoid dangerous climate change -- and I'm one of them -- there's been a great deal of hand-wringing over whether or not to support the House climate and energy bill, which is now cruising on over to the Senate.

The warts on the House bill are big and hideous: The renewable-electricity standard would require utilities to do little more than what existing state laws already require. The short-term targets for reducing emissions (nominally 17 percent below 1990 levels by 2020) fall well short of what the IPCC recommends to avert a climate fiasco (try 25 to 40 percent). The carbon cap-and-trade program relies on potentially shabby offsets that could weaken the targets further and will now face even less scrutiny thanks to a last-minute deal Collin Peterson struck on behalf of farmers. And it's quite likely the Senate will produce an even more diluted bill.

. . . Baby steps are important! . . .

One critical point to recognize is that this bill is only a first step. Looking back through history, every single piece of major environmental legislation in the United States evolved in fits and starts. . . .

Now, mind you, we could also see things careen in very much the other direction. It's possible for Congress to design a climate bill so malignant that electricity rates quickly spike, polluters buy up shady offsets by the truckload, and Goldman Sachs makes a fortune manipulating the carbon-trading market. In that case, public support for action on climate change would evaporate. Now, I don't think the House climate bill will lead us to that fate, and neither do the EPA and CBO analyses, but it's a definite concern.

So even on the environmental left there is doubt that this bill will significantly affect the problem they're convinced exists. But some of them are happy to support this bill as the useful prelude to much more radical legislation in the future.

What Will It Cost?

Two truisms suggest themselves to my mind when I consider the question, What will it cost? Nobody really knows and a lot more than they think.

The cap and trade bill's proponents cite Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average annual cost of this bill to an American household will be $175. Opponents believe the CBO study was too narrow and cite numbers ten times larger and more.

Here, again, is The Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman:

According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, . . . the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.

Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.

It should also be noted that the costs are not distributed evenly. Low-income households spend a disproportionate share of their incomes on energy, and thus would be hit harder than average by Waxman-Markey. Of course, the bill has provisions to give back some revenues to low-income households, but it is likely that these rebates will amount only to some portion of each dollar that was taken away from them in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs for other goods and services. Waxman-Markey also disproportionately burdens those states, especially in the Midwest and South, that still have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs to lose, as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation. In addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural America much more than urban America. Rural Americans, farmers and non-farmers, spend an average of 58 percent more on energy as a percentage of income than their urban counterparts, and those costs would go up. (Emphasis added.)

In Conclusion

All of this applies to the bill as passed by the House of Representatives; there's really no telling what the Senate will produce, if anything. For the moment, here's how I see it: A bill that probably won't significantly affect a problem which probably doesn't exist will almost certainly wreak havoc on an already-troubled economy. It will create enormous, complex new bureaucracies in a government that is already bloated and spendthrift on an astronomical scale.

But maybe that's not what it's all about, anyway. The Democrats want money, a lot more money, for their new programs, especially their takeover of the health care industry. This bill will get them that; at least so it appears.

Finally, here are a couple of additional readings, in case you're looking for something to get your conservative blood pumping. First, David (not Rush) Limbaugh summarizes the issue and says, "Enough already. Throw the bums out." Second, a story has started to trickle out over the last week or so that EPA officials recently suppressed a substantial internal report questioning the science behind the climate change panic. Reportedly, they even threatened the author's career, and his boss's, if he did not bury it.

Stay tuned. The battle has only begun.

Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)

Permanent link to this entry

July 3, 2009

Miscellany

Here are some miscellaneous items which may be of interest. At least they are to me. In any case, I'm trying to clear my (virtual) blogger's desk so I can think some Independence Day thoughts tomorrow on Independence Day.

National

You know Helen Thomas, the wizened senior White House correspondent who didn't feel the need last year to veil her hatred for President George W. Bush and all things conservative and Republican? Now she's saying that even the Nixon administration didn't try to exert the level of control the Obama administration is exerting on the press. (Thanks to Luis Garcia, a Facebook friend, for the link.)

Here's a funny piece that has the White House explaining, "The vice president misrepresented what the vice president meant to say." It also has ABC's Jake Tapper objecting to a "clarification" of Biden's meaning: "With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the vice president's comments, that's not even remotely close to what he said."

Remember how a major factor in the housing and mortgage collapse was the government coercing, then enabling, lenders to relax their standards for making loans? Representative Barney Frank chairs the relevant committee in the US House of Representatives, so he ought to know better than almost anyone how that turned out. But now he wants more of the same.

I'll mention this later in a long second post about the House's cap and trade bill, but in case you don't delve deeply enough to see it there, here's a story about the EPA burying its own recent 98-page report questioning the science behind global warming.

And I mentioned this one yesterday, in another long post. It's a video from the ACLU, opposing a national ID system. I think we need a national ID system, but I think this video also illustrates a more general point: the need to restrain government in a way that doesn't seem to be the fashion just now. I'm not sure whether it's absolutely hilarious or one of the scariest things I've comtemplated in a while. Maybe both.

American Fork and Thereabouts

Here's a story about chronically inadequate road maintenance in American Fork and the high cost of catching up.

I recommend Colonial Days in downtown Provo tomorrow. I went today, mostly to hear a favorite local singer, M. Ryan Taylor, and to have my first look at the fascinating Crandall Historical Printing Museum, admission to which is free during this event. There are other attractions, including ladies wandering around in old-fashioned dresses -- the dresses deserve their own parking spaces -- along with other pieces of daily colonial life.

One for the Mormons

In high tech one is often wise to be looking for the next job fairly constantly. I've been looking lately, and I applied for a certain job at LDS Church headquarters, where high-tech job listings tend to be an impossible combination of every technical acronym in the book (under Qualifications) and an odd, cheerleading sort of spiritual fervor for the organization's mission. (I share a commitment to the Church's mission, to be sure, but not a great fondness for cheerleading in professional places.)

Yesterday, I received an e-mail message from Human Resources. It begins -- and I swear I am not making this up -- as follows:

Thank you for your application expressing interest in the position of Associate Oracle Database Engineer - Contingent, job number 0900220. A decision was made to discontinue the recruiting and selection process for this particular job opening. However, we have replaced this position with another position on our site for a "Technical Genius - Contingent". You are encouraged to check back over the next several days and apply for this new position or any other that you may be interested in. (Emphasis added.)

I checked out the new listing and was bemused to learn that I am seriously overqualified to be their Technical Genius. I may apply anyway.

Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)

Permanent link to this entry

July 2, 2009

So Far, Only the Incumbents Have Filed in American Fork

Here's a quick update on the looming American Fork elections.

The filing period for candidates began yesterday morning and continues through the end of business on July 15.

MFCC, known outside this blog as Councilmember Heidi Rodeback, was the first to file yesterday morning. Her campaign Web site is available, though still growing.

Since then, the other two incumbents, Councilman Dale Gunther and Mayor Heber Thompson, have filed as expected.

As of about noon today, according to City Recorder Dick Colborn, these are the only three candidates to have filed.

If more than one additional candidate files for mayor, or if more than two additional candidates file for city council, there will be a primary election in September. Otherwise, there won't.

Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)

Permanent link to this entry

July 2, 2009

A Cap and Trade Primer (Part One)

A Personal Note

Do you mind if I offer a personal note before the promised primer? On Saturday I had an experience to which I am unaccustomed: I felt well represented by my congressman, Democrat Jim Matheson. Ordinarily, I don't even feel well represented, where Utah's 2nd Congressional District is concerned, by candidates from my own Republican Party, which seems to be constitutionally (small c) incapable of producing an effective candidate in my district. On the other hand, I have long admired Matheson's political acumen, where running a campaign or a congressional office is concerned. I'm just not accustomed to feeling well represented by a member of Nancy Pelosi's caucus.

Here's what happened: I looked up his vote on the disastrous cap and trade bill the House narrowly passed Friday evening, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). Matheson voted nay. How he would have voted if his vote had been decisive is an open question, but let's just assume that he voted his conscience on this one -- his political conscience, at least. Surely he knows that we in Utah get a lot of our electricity from burning fossil fuels (coal and natural gas), and that this legislation therefore poses a major threat to Utah's standard of living.

We'll see how the bill does in the Senate. I'm optimistic, but far from certain, that it will founder, as many bills do there -- especially if someone actually reads it, which apparently did not happen in the House. (It's hard to read an enormous bill when you only have a few hours before the vote -- just as it's hard to imagine why sensible adults would vote on a major bill they haven't read. I know, I know. You laughed when I said, "sensible adults" in this context.)

Cap and Trade, Generally Speaking

Here's a concise explanation of the cap and trade concept from Wikipedia. It's also known as emissions trading:

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

That seems to make sense, doesn't it? At least theoretically? It gets the polluters paying more and the greener companies reaping some rewards.

Unfortunately, a lot of things that make sense in theory don't make sense in practice, when put in the hands of humans, especially governments.

A Few Details

I haven't read H.R. 2454 in its entirety either, but I've heard and seen numerous reports to the effect that it would cap carbon dioxide emissions at a three percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2012, a 17 percent reduction by 2020, and an 83 percent reduction by 2050 -- roughly, I have heard, the level of our carbon dioxide emissions 100 years ago. The oil and natural gas industry and electricity producers would be required to purchase the right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Those who don't use all their "allowances" could sell them to other entities who need them.

The increased expense of delivering energy, due to the need to purchase allowances or to switch to more expensive, greener fuels, will naturally be passed on to the consumer. As we began to see to a limited extent when gasoline prices hit $4.00 per gallon and diesel prices went even higher, higher energy costs make everything more expensive. And imagine the additional cost of the new bureaucracy that will have to be created to administer, monitor, and enforce all of this.

In the bill itself, a significant percentage of the allowances will be awarded free, at least for while. Imagine the lobbying and the political favors which that will encourage. Meanwhile, it's a basic principle of economics that giving someone something free doesn't eliminate the cost; it just relocates it. The way we got that in Economics 101 was "there's no such thing as a free lunch." In the end, all the costs will be borne by the consumer and the taxpayer, one way or another.

False Assumptions

We're supposed to believe that this bill is a desperate attempt to save the planet, while there's still time. I believe that the desperation is in Washington, which is eager to pay for its outlandish spending (past and future) with the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by this energy tax, and which doesn't much care about the economic damage it inflicts along the way.

How well this bill would meet its stated goal of saving the planet is a question for another blog post -- coming soon, I hope. Here, however, let's give . . . whomever . . . the benefit of the doubt and look at circumstances in which cap and trade would make sense.

If each of the following conditions actually existed -- note the subjunctive -- effective cap and trade legislation might make sense. I suggest that none of these conditions exists. Why I would think such a heretical thing is too large a topic for this post, but I will offer a few notes. Remember, the basic theory is that increased carbon dioxide emissions lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which causes the atmosphere to retain more of the heat it gets from the sun, which raises temperatures globally, which melts polar ice caps and drowns us all -- except that I'm exaggerating this last point. (It must be okay. Movies do it.)

• Global warming is real. I believe it is real sometimes. But I'm hearing that temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been receding since then, so it may not be real now. In truth, it appears, these things are cyclical. When I was a child, the scare was global cooling and a new ice age, for which we supposedly are far overdue. By the way, have you noticed that we tend to hear about "climate change" now more than "global warming," as if the last decade of data is beginning to sink in even on the left?
• Global warming is an ongoing trend. We can really only judge this in retrospect; remember, we have trouble predicting tomorrow's weather. Right now, climate change looks cyclical. And if we're entering a cooling cycle, and if we can really make much of a difference anyway, that would make all our anti-global-warming measures exactly the wrong thing to do.
• Global warming will be devastating if we do not reverse it. As far as I can tell, only the most radical alarmists are claiming that the polar ice caps will melt entirely anytime in the next few centuries. But what if they did? We don't have to worry about the North Pole much, because all that ice is floating in the ocean. Put an ice cube in a glass of water and mark the water level. Then let the ice cube melt. Check the water level, and you'll know what I mean. The southern polar ice cap is on land, so its melting would raise ocean levels. Do some research and some math. Calculate the approximate volume of ice at the South Pole. (Remember, there's a lot of land under there, too.) Then determine the smaller volume of water the ice will produce when it melts. Then calculate how much the oceans will rise if all that water flows into them. Remember, the oceans cover more than two-thirds of earth's surface. I think you'll see that even the worst-case scenario is pretty mild.
• Global warming is primarily anthropogenic (human-caused). One side of this debate wants you to believe that there is scientific consensus about this, and they are so adamant about it that they have done some highly unscientific and unethical things to try to enforce that consensus and to silence detractors. In other words, it's not science any more; it's dogma. Even if it were true, I suggest that the safe course would be to disbelieve anything posing as science which tries to suppress dissent and enforce consensus. Science is only science if it welcomes, not suppresses, doubt and inquiry. There's not even consensus among serious scientists about Einstein's basic theories, which we've been testing for about a century now. And I know some engineers who will tell you that Bernoulli's Principle doesn't have very much to do with airplanes' ability to fly. More than a few scientists are saying that fluctuations in the sun's radiant energy have far more to do with climate change on earth than any human activity does.
• We can reverse global warming by radically curtailing and transforming our economic activity. This assumes that global warming is primarily anthropogenic (probably false), and that our efforts will either change the world significantly without other nations' cooperation or that they will all follow our excellent example and trash their economies too. Unilateral disarmament is a bad and dangerous idea where nuclear weapons are concerned. It's a worse and more dangerous idea where national economies are concerned.
• The earth, a highly complex biological system, is incapable of compensating for increased levels of carbon dioxide (which plants consume and animals produce). Doesn't it make sense that more carbon dioxide would encourage plant growth? Don't forget, by the way, that plants produce oxygen, which animals (including humans) consume.
• Our national economy is so robust that now is a good -- or at least a safe -- time to weigh it down with draconian anti-global-warming measures. You don't believe this any more than I do, I suspect.

Let's Have Some Fun with This

All that is very serious, which is fine. It's a serious topic. And climate-change-as-dogma-that-trumps-all is a serious threat to freedom, prosperity, and, for all I know, our desperate need to act now to avert the coming ice age. (I think there are movies about that, too.) But let's conclude by having a little fun with the topic. It will be fun with both an edge and an objective; I hope that's okay.

The EPA and that occasional bastion of bad science, the US Supreme Court, apparently have decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. (By the way -- and this is not funny -- this may mean that the EPA can impose cap and trade on its own, without additional legislation.) When will we see a massive class action lawsuit against the government, for attempting to curtail the supply of what plants breathe? Don't we love trees, grass, and bushes? I do. I have fond feelings for algae, too, since it produces a lot of earth's oxygen. When are we going to hire all American plant life a lawyer and get this thing going? How would you feel if the plant kingdom declared oxygen a pollutant and set about to reduce it?

I've been going to the gym regularly lately, doing my three miles or so on a treadmill (uphill both ways). If humans really are the carbon dioxide problem, shouldn't my emissions be capped? I put out a lot more carbon dioxide than a couch potato, after all. I should have to buy some of the couch potato's carbon credits, shouldn't I?

Of course, I'm assuming that we're looking at carbon dioxide emissions as a separate issue. We're probably not. It's at least connected to health care; Washington may want the money from the energy tax to fund its takeover of medical care. So let's talk about cap and trade in medical care. These thoughts suggest themselves:

• Maybe I should have to buy obesity allowances from some skinny person.
• What about sodium and fat allowances? I intend to have pizza for lunch. Should I have to purchase extra allowances from you, which you can sell because you're eating raw, unadorned celery and unsalted rice cakes for lunch?
• Maybe you should have to buy my extra calorie credits, because you're drinking soda and I'm drinking water.

Maybe my need for extra carbon credits due to exercise will be balanced by my not needing all of my couch potato credits. I don't know. I'll have to ask my bureaucrat.

Okay, that was fun, at least for me. But if you think this this good fun is completely outlandish, you may not be in the right mood for the times. If government pays for health care, it can logically justify intervening in just about every aspect of human life. (Here's a thought: reading my recent primer for aspiring tyrants might get you in the proper mood for the times.)

One More Thing to Get You in a Mood

Finally, here's a morsel of multimedia for you. It's from the ACLU. It's delightful. Thanks to Representative John Dougall for pointing it out at Facebook. Here the ACLU is opposing the idea of a national ID card or number or whatever, because of the tyranny it will foster.

I'm on the other side of this one. I happen to think (a) we need such an ID, in part for immigration enforcement; (b) we're already getting the tyranny even without a formal national ID; and (c) it's relative child's play to limit access to the portions of a database which users should be allowed to see, so the cause-and-effect connection between having a national ID and the potential tyranny portrayed here is fanciful and unnecessary.

My point in suggesting that you watch this short video is more general and two-fold: government intrusion into private lives (read that "freedom") quickly and naturally becomes excessive; and there's a certain air of unrestraint in these matters right now.

Yes, yes, the video is from the ACLU. But it's okay. I promise. And it's hilarious. Or terrifying. Or both.

Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)

Permanent link to this entry

June 23, 2009

What I Read over Lunch

Here are four excellent, brief pieces of commentary, which I read over lunch and recommend for your thoughtful attention. All four items here are linked at JewishWorldReview.com, but most or all are also syndicated and available elsewhere.

Jack Kelly summarizes Obamacare, explains the price tags, and tells us why the administration feels that its passage is so urgent. Along the way, he not only explains how the uninsured raise premiums for the insured; he also explains that Medicare's pricing practices also shift some of the cost of treating its patients to those of us with private insurance. His final point:

Americans who have private health insurance want to keep it, and they don't want to be taxed more to provide health insurance to the uninsured, especially if they are illegal aliens. That's why Mr. Obama wants to rush a health care "reform" bill through Congress before people are aware of what's in it.

Paul Greenberg suggests that events in Iran in 2009 are a lot like those in Hungary in 1956.

Now the world watches and waits for another revolution to be crushed. The president of the United States offers little but lip service to freedom's cause, and even that is tardy, hesitant, fearful, as if another people's thirst for liberty were some sort of embarrassment, an obstacle to his plans for a Grand Bargain with a dictatorial regime. A threat to, yes, peaceful coexistence, that old simulacrum for real peace.

Debra Saunders writes of the Obama administration's probably-illegal firing of an inspector general who caught some Obama partisans misusing government funds. She begins:

As recent AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin tells the story, when a White House aide called him on June 10, Walpin thought the administration was calling him to enlist his support -- as a prominent Republican member of the New York bar -- for the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, Special Counsel to the President Norm Eisen informed Walpin that President Obama wanted Walpin out of his job. . . .

Walpin's defenders believe Obama fired him because Walpin was a successful whistle-blower, who blew the whistle on the president's friends and pet causes.

Mona Charen evaluates possible answers to the question, did an American president motivate the current revolt in Iran?

There is no more evidence that the revolt under way in Iran (if it succeeds, it will be called a revolution) is attributable to the "Obama effect" than there is that it is the result of a George W. Bush effect. How could Bush be involved? Well, you could make an argument that all of those purple fingers in neighboring Iraq aroused a certain longing for democracy among Iranians.

But it is far more likely that purely internal factors are at work

Finally, Thomas Sowell ponders the current state of the Republican Party and its implications:

In a country with more conservatives than liberals, it is puzzling -- in fact, amazing -- that we have the furthest left President of the United States in history, as well as the furthest left Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Republicans, especially, need to think about what this means. If you lose when the other guy has all the high cards, there is not much you can do about it. But, when you have the high cards and still keep taking a beating, then you need to re-think how you are playing the game. . . .

 Unfortunately, the only political party with any chance of displacing the current leadership in Washington is the Republican Party. That is why their internal squabbles are important for the rest of us who are not Republicans.

(Along the way, he mentions the quadrupling of the national debt in a single year. Unless the second half of this year gets a lot worse than the first half, he probably means the quadrupling of the annual budget deficit, which is plenty bad enough.)

Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)

Permanent link to this entry