Taking credit for a new generation of Democrats

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"The Daily Show and now Stephen Colbert have taught a generation of college students that Republicans are ridiculous, absurd, hopelessly past it. And their work has had an effect: Today's 20-somethings are more Democratic than any equivalent cohort since World War II."

DAVID FRUM, writing at nationalreview.com

"Sorry, David, but this seems a little over-generous to the very talented [Jon] Stewart and Colbert. It is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who have taught a generation of college students that Republicans are ridiculous, absurd, hopelessly past it. A comedian, however talented, is only as good as his material. It's been a good few years for comedians."

ANDREW SULLIVAN, writing at andrewsullivan.com

Daylight savings won't save energy?

Part of the justification for extending Daylight Saving Time (DST) in the United States was a reduction in energy costs by adding more daylight in the evening hours when citizens are home watching TV and otherwise being sloth-like and inactive (sorry, a little anti-TV prejudice eeking out). The legislation foresaw energy savings as much as 1% (a large number when averaged over all households and businesses in the country).

However, a recent study by two doctoral students at the University of California Energy Institute suggests that energy savings may be at best overstated and at worst nonexistent. Examining a DST-extension that took place surrounding the Olympics in Australia, the two students found that most models of energy savings vastly overstated the actual changes in energy use.

While DST extensions might not save energy, I'm definitely enjoying my "extra" hour of daylight in the evenings. Sunset today: 7:16pm!

Why carbon "offsets" aren't the answer to global warming

David Morris of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes on the increasing interest in carbon offsets - essentially paying someone else to reduce carbon emissions that you generate. In examining the role of other pollution-reduction techniques and the results of some of the early carbon trading schemes, Morris concludes that:

• Buying carbon offsets is like buying indulgences for sins - it just makes people feel good. In particular, the monitoring of offset programs is so lax there's no way to know if emissions are truly offset
  
• A global carbon offset market discourages people from taking responsibility for the local impacts of their behavior. Local offsets, on the other hand, mean that polluters have to do something in their community to improve their climate impact.
• A cap and trade market seems very capitalist and efficient, but evidence shows that good old regulation or a carbon tax could reduce climate change emissions far faster than a market mechanism. (Note: the much heralded success of the US-based sulfur dioxide cap and trade market owes much to the cost estimates of the polluters that proved to be massively inflated.)
  

Morris envisions a more stringent and accountable carbon reduction regime, where carbon emitters have to actually reduce their own emissions or offset them within their local community and where polluters can't simply buy a cleaner conscience on a world market.

I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).

Gun rights headed to the Supreme Court

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has decided in favor of the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Until now, the text of the amendment has been interpreted to support the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia (read: National Guard) and not an individual citizen. However, ongoing lobbying from the National Rifle Association, other gun rights organizations, and pressure from the Bush Administration's Justice Department appears to have convinced the court to reconsider.

The decision is not likely to stand, because the rift between Appeals Courts' decisions will send this puppy right up to the Supreme Court. This is what they like to call a "landmark case."

What do you think of the court's decision?

Peak Oil: Exhibit A

The folks studying peak oil issues at The Oil Drum have a fantastic chart posted regarding Saudi Arabia's oil production. Despite record high prices during the past two years and a history of helping to soften price spikes with increased production, Saudi oil production has fallen steadily.

It may be the "smoking gun" that the Saudis have reached their oil production peak - quite a concern given that they represent 1/8th of world supply.

Vacancy

From the looking at the GOP 2008 Convention with humor dept...in reply to an article describing the lack of available venues as GOP planners book most area hotels and convention halls...

One empty place

Thanks for the heads-up -- we may not be able to get a beer or have dinner out while the Republican National Convention is in St. Paul ("GOP's partying may push out locals," March 7).

But one place sure to be wide open is the Science Museum.

Peak Oil is not "empty"

Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson was recently interviewed on CNBC and from the summary in the Wall Street Journal's energy blog, it's clear that people still do not get what "peak oil" means.

Peak oil is when worldwide annual production of oil reaches its historical high and then declines. It means that we'll go from producing 80 billion barrels in 2009 to 79.8 billion barrels in 2010 (hypothetically), and then a little less each year thereafter.

The reason peaking production is just as problematic as if we were running out of oil is that world demand continues to grow steadily each year, and when supplies start declining the price will increase rapidly. Think of it like you would Dave Matthews Band. Before they were popular (low demand), there would have been no problem getting concert tickets (high supply). However, as their popularity grew, demand for tickets quickly outstripped even the largest concert venues (demand caught up to supply). Now imagine what would happen to the price of DMB tickets if they had to perform in a smaller venue each time they had a concert.

So that's Peak Oil. Here's what it isn't:

Peak oil is NOT "no oil." We'll continue to produce lots of oil, just a little less each year than before.

Peak oil is NOT "no new oil fields." We'll continue to discover new oilfields as technology advances, but just never enough to replace all that we're pumping out.

Peak oil is NOT "no new technology." We'll continue to find ways to extract more oil from existing fields and oil from shale, tar sands, and other weird places. But even as these become more feasible, they will still not be enough to replace existing oil production.

This chart gives a sense of why we're hitting peak oil. Note that the "peak" is actually the sum of many peaks. U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s, Russia did around 1991, and Europe did in 2000. The worldwide peak will happen when the countries increasing production - like OPEC - can't make up for the declining supply from the rest of us, as well as increasing demand.



Image courtesy of Romaenergia, mirrored locally.

Getting to zero on climate change

Combating global warming is an enormous and nebulous task, but a few good folks over at Energista have decided to enlighten the rest of us on how we could achieve the Kyoto targets of 1990 carbon emissions in the United States by 2025, almost entirely through the electric sector. Energy efficiency gets the largest chunk, but nuclear, cleaner coal and renewable generation also contribute a substantial portion (there's a nifty chart showing how each technology could help).

The most challenging strategy might be the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - grabbing the CO₂ from emissions and storing it underground - which is theoretically possible, but to date practically infeasible. The problem isn't getting the carbon, it's figuring out how and where store it (my vote is for Yucca Mountain...)

Overall, scientists suggest that a reduction in emissions of 80% is going to be required to stabilize the climate, and that might take even more action than suggested here. However, it's a good start and is achievable by 2025.

A commander who supports his troops?

There are many things that could be said about the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed army hospital and the subsequent sacking of the hospital head. In this case the Onion's three talking heads say it best.

It's disgusting to realize that our Commander in Chief's commitment to "supporting our troops" really was just a political slogan. He should take heed to Amy Lemeiux of Eagan, MN, whose letter to the editor earlier this week nailed the issue on the nose.

Donning a magnetic yellow ribbon or wearing red on Fridays to "show support for our troops" is as about as effective and supportive as spitting in the direction of a forest fire, pointing to the saliva as evidence of your support and condemning everyone who didn't spit.

Let's try supporting our troops in ways that are meaningful -- like trying diplomacy before resorting to more violence and providing medical care for them when they return.

Amen.

When the health of a hamburger trumps your own

The Washington Post has the story on cefquinome, a powerful, recently-developed antibiotic that "belongs to a class of highly potent antibiotics that are among medicine's last defenses against several serious human infections." With increasing numbers of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, it might make sense to judiciously use this drug to treat the most serious human cases of E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and salmonella.

Or, if you're the government agency responsible for drug administration (FDA), you're on the verge of approving it for cattle. This decision notwithstanding that a) there are a number of existing, effective treatments for pneumonia in cattle and b) cefquinome represents the only drug in the medical arsenal against several highly resistant infections and c) that antibiotic use in livestock and poultry - typically done prophylactically - has consistently been linked with the transference of resistant bacteria to humans.

It will bring peace of mind the next time I have a hamburger, as the antibiotic-resistant E. coli twists my bowels, that the cow that provided it was spared pneumonia on its way to the slaughterhouse.

Animated snow depth!

For those of you who have likewise been digging out from the dual snow storms this week, get a full appreciation of the snowfall by watching this two-week snow depth animation from the National Weather Service.

Girls aren't much for commitment, either?

A Pew Research survey of women 18 to 29 finds that at least a third have no interest in a committed relationship and that "old fashioned" dating has nearly disappeared. While the story tries to overdramatize the numbers (60% of women are not in committed relationships and a majority don't want to be...), the interesting part is the attitudes toward love and relationships. The women surveyed often desire "hookups" instead of relationships and it's surprising to see how they fear the emotional attachment or the commitment a relationship will require.

I facilitate youth group with 9th graders and we discuss sexuality and relationships over the course of each year, and this is exactly what I've found. A lot of talk of hookups and very little interest in relationships.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I remember being interested in being in love and feeling emotionally connected, not just trying out something I'd seen on MTV.

If Tax Cuts Don't Boost the Economy, What Do They Do?

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a very thorough analysis of state tax cuts during the latter half of the 1990s and the economic performance of those states since. While some of the tables and figures in the report are probably obscuring some contradictory data (note the comment about Michigan in the box on page 3), the overall analysis is startling. Tax cuts lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and bigger budget deficits.

A traditionally high-tax state like Minnesota should take note. A recent Minnesota Public Radio news story (I was unable to find a link) noted that Minnesota's advantage in the unemployment rate - versus the national average - is the smallest it's been in over 10 years. Is Minnesota becoming average by becoming average?

Waste

1. use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
2. (usu. be wasted) fail to make full or good use of

By invading Iraq and failing to develop an adequate security plan, President Bush has carelessly expended American lives and failed to make good use of American military power that could have helped in Afghanistan.

When Republican John McCain (or Democrat Barack Obama) says we've "wasted lives" in Iraq, I don't think an apology is necessary.

Winter in the midwest: to hat or freeze?

Writing on a topic he's much more capable of than basic economics, the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman examines the winter hat dilemma: freeze fashionably or be a warm dork?

Al Gore's personal call to action

Before you hear the mainstream media account of Al Gore's energy usage, reported by the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research, here's a few thoughts offered by energy blogger Robert Rapier:

1. As the most prominent environmentalist in the US (and perhaps the world), it's a shame that Gore hasn't done more to reduce his ecological footprint. Even George W. Bush's Texas ranch is more environmentally sound.
   
2. Buying carbon offsets to combat global warming is like buying a hybrid SUV to reduce gas usage.
   
3. Gore's personal energy use should not detract from his message - global warming is going to be extremely costly and action is necessary now.
   

To Mr. Gore:
Preventing global warming starts at home - try some energy reduction.

To Matt Drudge and the rest of the conservative chattering class:
How's your energy usage? What have you done to solve global warming (other than accosting one leading activist for his hypocrisy)?

This hypocrisy call is valid, but let's not kill Paul Revere just because he bought some English tea, eh?

Congress: The Suggesting Branch of Government

President Bush recently submitted his fiscal request for Iraq - all emergency spending of course - for nearly $100 billion. Democrats were initially planning to set conditions on the war policy before giving the President his fat check, but have apparently been shamed into de-linking war funding from policy by Republicans, who are waving the bloody shirt again and accusing Democrats of trying to harm the troops in the field.

Aside: for the love of Pete, get a backbone! Is it worse for the troops to limit funds that will require them to be sent home or to keep funding this failed war?

So what's the bold move? The Democrats are going to require that troops are equipped and rested before Bush sends them off to Iran Iraq. Of course, this is already the policy, but it can be waived by the Defense Department. The new policy - the sum total of Democratic war-ending efforts - is that the new policy requires the President to waive the readiness requirement.

Newsflash 1: The Defense Department works for Bush. When they waive the requirement, they do so at his bidding. He is the Commander in Chief.

Newsflash 2: Bush has already taken the blame for Iraq (see Approval Rating and 2006 Elections).

In other words, this is posturing on the level of "you don't support the troops because you want to end a war!" (see Republican Party)

The Democrats need to do two things:
1) Exert Congress' muscles in wartime and tell the President that he can plan a war, but he can't pay for one without approval.
2) Do what they were elected to do - end the war - by putting heavy restrictions on the fiscal authorization such as:
a) no troop readiness certification can be waived, period.
b) no troop surge can be sent without Congressional approval.
c) no war in Iran without Congressional approval (and no money for it, period).
d) no more war funding without some way to pay for it - i.e. taxes
e) no more war funding without a comprehensive plan for caring for injured vets (and paying for such care).

Katrina, Mad Cow, GMO and "sound science"

It seems the US government likes to use "sound science" as a soundbite more than a decision philosophy.

In a 2005 column, agricultural economist Daryl Ray examined the similarity between US government policy on mad cow disease (BSE) and maintenance of the levees in New Orleans. The pressure on the Japanese to open their beef market to US exports after our positive BSE test mirrors the choice to delay levee repairs. The decisions are based on the "sound science" that the chances of a Hurricane Katrina (or a BSE-infected beef patty) are relatively rare and that the resources spent building 100-year levees or testing every cow are disproportionate.

Critics of this approach tend to favor the "precautionary principle." Under this philosophy, you prepare for the worst. This philosophy is embodied in the motherly advice "better safe than sorry" as well as Franklin's "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." More to the point, the preference of "sound science" versus precaution depends a lot on where you stand.

If you're a New Orleans resident, precaution sounds pretty smart. Same for a Japanese beef consumer, who's apparently willing to pay the premium to test every cow and certify that their beef is disease-free (whereas the US government explicitly opposes full testing). And ditto for European consumers who'd rather not take the risk that genetically modified (GM) food might prove harmful in some unanticipated way.

What really galls me is that the US government clearly is not representing the will of the people, but the will of the some other interest. Levee repair gets delayed so we can fund illegal wars and tax cuts. Government trade negotiators try to push US beef on Japanese consumers on behalf of beef producers, and not beef consumers. And GM crops tend to help crop producers by making food hardier, as well as more resistant to disease and pests; but when was the last time you heard of food being modified to be more healthy, tasty, or nutritious? (there are a couple examples, but not usually funded by corporations...)

Maybe our government needs some more motherly advice.

Government and technology - don't try to pick winners

This excellent post on Slashdot reminded me why letting government pick technology winners is dangerous. GE has just announced a more efficient incandescent light bulb, hoping to reap the benefits of increasing consumer focus on energy efficiency with an accepted technology. The bulb will allegedly approach the efficiency of a compact fluorescent over time.

So, instead of the recent proposals to ban the incandescent light bulb, an energy-conscious governing body could simply ban less efficient bulbs (as measured by lumens produced per watt consumed) or tax bulbs on a per watt basis. This lets the market help filter out the most effective way to meet the energy efficiency goal.

Lesson: let government set the goal and structure the market, not pick the market.

Other examples: renewable fuels mandates instead of ethanol mandates; renewable electricity mandates instead of wind mandates; higher CAFE standards instead of banning Hummers (though I'd be okay with banning those things anyway :-)

Update 2/27/07: Energista picked up the same story and came to the same conclusion - efficiency standards are better than bulb bans.

Unions: A look at the Employee Free Choice Act

With Democrats at the helm in Congress, labor is back on the table and legislation has been proposed to overhaul the way that unions get organized. The prime focus of the legislation is to simplify the ratification of a union by replacing the organizing drive and secret ballot with simple majority signup - 50% plus one employees approve and you are union. The legislation also asks for stiffer penalties for companies (read Wal-Mart) for interfering with union drives, a nice touch for the 31,000 people who were fired for participating in an organizing drive in 2005.

Some folks, such as Russell Roberts, downplay the importance of unions. He cites dropping unionization rates, few people being paid minimum wage, the ability of people to have employment empowerment by job switching, and the portion of GDP going to wages. Of course, he also thinks that cleaning people make $20/hour, which may be what he pays his Honduran help, but according to actual statistics is at least double the typical maid wage. He also dodges the fact that while wages are a growing part of GDP, the portion of income going to the middle class is shrinking. While Roberts' data is lacking, his conclusion is a nice tangent - let's fix public education!

Harley Shaiken wrote the pro-union column and his essay reflects it. He notes the large number of people fired for trying to unionize a workplace (30,000 a year), the failure of the Wagner Act to protect unions, as well as the slow increase of wages relative to productivity. His argument for eschewing the secret ballot part of the union drive is an interesting take - is a secret ballot meaningful in the coercive anti-union environment of most workplaces? Instead, he says that the simple signup will give union organizers a chance against the tactics of the modern corporation.

Read the 1-page bill summary (provided by the AFL-CIO).