Quote of the Day: Hamburger Offsets

Environmental humorist Lou Bendrick on the idea of buying carbon offsets to compensate for the global warming pollution caused by our actions:

You get to sin, but you get to buy your way out of it. It's sort of silly. It's like buying tofu offsets to be able to eat a hamburger.

Say No to Biofuel

It's 3 am here at Portland airport, and even this cup of java can't trigger a very eloquent essay, but on my drive here, I heard a story I felt compelled to post here. Turns out rising commodity prices have caused rising pasta prices in Italy. Add that to the soaring prices of corn that affect the poor in Latin America, and you have a problem. While biofuel is not the only problem, this story emphasizes why biofuel is a sinful fuel, maybe even more than the much maligned petroleum sources.

Seriously, if you truly care about global warming, skip the touted technological solutions and focus on good ol' conservation. That's not to say solar and wind and whatever else don't have a place in society - just that it's silly to think they'll make a big dent in our "dirty" energy consumption or greenhouse gas loads any time soon.

Quote of the Day: Chris Rock

Comedian Chris Rock about the over-hyped urgings of hypocritical stars:

I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.

Quotes of the Day: Gas Prices

National Review Editor Rich Lowrie on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS:

There are also some doubts about how much [higher fuel efficiency standards] will actually do to reduce greenhouse emissions, because there are all sorts of strange incentives where you -- if you make cars -- if you basically make it more efficient to drive cars, people will drive more. And the horn of dilemma of energy politics is what really drives concern about this energy in this country, at the gut level for most people, is high gas prices. And if you really want to fight global warming and try to reduce our carbon emissions, the cleanest, easiest, most rational way to do it would to make the price of gas even higher through very stiff gas prices. And, of course, that's what no one is willing to contemplate or talk about.

David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute, with a great op-ed piece on American Public Media's Marketplace program (listen to the piece)

[Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Romney are] all echoing President Bush. At the start of the year, the president told a Delaware audience that he thinks it appropriate to spend taxpayers' money on new energy technologies. Does anybody remember that we've been here before? In the 1970s, the Carter administration spent — sorry, invested — tens of billions of dollars to develop alternatives to imported oil. The results? The Synfuels Corporation — one of the most flagrant boondoggles in American economic history. A market-flunking exercise that made even the farm program look like sound public policy. Why would anyone want to go down that road again? ...
There's only one way to bring oil alternatives to market: keep energy prices high, with tax increases if necessary. Under that price umbrella, entrepreneurs, firms, and consumers will develop their own next-best solutions — cutting back on consumption, devising substitutes and so on. ... But no politician wants to tell voters that they have to pay more for fuel to achieve energy independence. Instead, they offer delusions that government investors can somehow do what trillions of dollars in private capital cannot: discover a cheap and abundant alternative to oil that will deliver cleaner fuel at lower prices.

Start the Cuts!

A day after the Supreme Court ruled that it was within the EPA's jurisdiction and responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, President Bush assured the public that he takes climate change very seriously. A sign of change? I was hoping so until I saw this:

... anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth. I care about the working people of the country but also because in order to solve the greenhouse gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive.

Being a hard-core capitalist myself, I appreciate not affecting the economy, but I think there has been enough done by companies such as Duke Energy and Toyota, to suggest that a proactive approach to global warming could be an opportunity rather than an obstacle to greater growth. The US, with its technological prowess, is uniquely capable of leveraging its assets to be the climate change solution provider of choice for much of the world.


But waiting for technology is a mistake! The reality is that the solution is conservation and energy efficiency, not in supporting ludicrous ideas like embracing ethanol (about which I have ranted before). A good start would be a fuel tax or some increase in CAFE standards. Indeed, transportation is the one of the most inefficient segments of our energy market. The chart is from the Department of Energy, and shows that the transportation segment accounts for under 30 quadrillion BTUs of energy consumption, but produces about 500 million MT carbon equivalent! A progressive taxation system, where gas sippers are exempt while guzzlers are heavily taxed would encourage energy efficiency.

It does seem strange for a market-solution lover to be embracing taxes, but that is the only situation when markets don't reflect the true costs of doing business.

Travolta and the Celebrity Guidance

I'm tired of Hollywood types asking us to change our lifestyles. The latest in this lunacy is a string of celebrities pitching for modifications in our lifestyle to reduce global warming. First, there was former VP Al Gore, touring the world raising awareness while actually increasing his energy consumption since the movie came along! Tsk tsk, just purchasing credits doesn't allow you to come clean, Al! Now, there's John Travolta doing what Hollywood does best - lecturing us to reduce our carbon footprint, while himself being responsible for 800 tons of CO2 emissions, 100 times that of the average Briton. He owns and operates 5 jets, clocking in at least 30,000 flying miles in the last 12 months. Yeah, we need to cut our electricity consumption down, John - thanks for setting us straight!

I think we need to tell Hollywood types to just shut the f*ck up and stop using their public image to wax on topics unless they are prepared to make real sacrifices.

Schools and the 'Truth'

IDIOTIC! That's the best way I can describe a Seattle area school's decision not to allow the screening of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It would have been one thing if their decision was based on a policy not to show movies, but instead it is based on a need to also then show a movie of the flip side of the argument. Great, so now our schools will have to wait for a global warming skeptic to make a movie calling the theory bunk! Oh no, wait, that's right, John Stossel made a special about global warming - maybe that can be the counterpiece ... so what if the scientific community thinks nothing of Stossel, or his science credentials! (For the record, I really like Stossel, even if he's out there at times, occasionally wrong and sometimes a damn liar!)

But in what I find most troubling was this quote from a parent:

The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD.

Wow, I mean ... wow! So now, we have parents who want us to teach science from the perspective of the Bible. I'm speechless!

By the way, if you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, do watch it - it is a great movie! There is some grandstanding by Gore, and some obvious efforts to influence potential future voters, but if you can ignore that, the pictures and facts are pretty amazing!

The World May Be Warming ...

Amazingly for a tree-hugging conservative (how's that for an oxymoron!), this will be my first post on global warming! That's because I've been cautious about popular scientific predictions - be it the global warming warnings or the claims that the world is running out of oil. I simply do not know enough about the science of these subjects to make an intelligent argument one way or the other. I have watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', but still remain far from convinced that the science definitively states that the world is warming due to human activity. I'm impressed by the massive consensus in peer-reviewed literature that the world is warming due to human activity, but also know that sometimes the peer-review process forces consensus when none should exist. Add in the fact that scientists do not acquire grants for postulating the absence of a problem, and you have reasons to be skeptical of the scientific community.

So why have I chosen to break my silence on the topic? Simply because I've become convinced in the wisdom of one man. Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. (or GMO) , an investment firm, pointed out in a recent newsletter that in reality, the need to act due to global warming despite the uncertainties is not unique to this topic. In fact, it is the underpinning of the insurance business. And therein lies the paradigm the policymakers need to embrace - dollars invested in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions need not require certainty in the facts, but rathet simply that the consequences of a reasonably possible outcome far exceed the incremental costs to alleviate such an outcome.

Really the costs are not likely to be significant if an adequate trading system is implemented. Emissions in China (which contributes to 15% of global greenhouse gases) and other third-world countries is actually rather cheap to fix given adequate investments, which could be achieved in the form of purchase of carbon credits by firms in the developed world, which would have a much tougher challenge squeezing efficiencies from their already advanced systems. (There are other issues, including local air pollution that would have to be worked out)

The reality then is that while not simple, the global warming crisis (or threat) can be handled by approaches not unlike other threats. That the world's dominant economic superpower has not shown more leadership on this issue is then a travesty!

The Muzzles Go to ...

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Speech announced the recipients of the 2006 Jefferson Muzzles for attempting to suppress free speech. Besides the usual suspects in President Bush, Dept of Justice, FCC, Dept of Homeland Security, there were a few not-so-familiar ones. Here are a couple I found interesting:

Rep. Joe Barton, for attempting to bully climate change scientists, using not a citation from a peer-reviewed journal but the Wall Street Journal! I'm all ears for any respectable scientist who wants to present data arguing against global warming, but when we decide to pressure scientists for policy reasons, that crosses the line.

William Paterson University. This is a sad reality of how hypersensitive and freaking PC people have gotten. A professor sent an e-mail about some lesbian films that were to be screened, and inviting comments from the university readership. A student who was offended responded by calling the acts "a perversion" and offensive to his religious beliefs. The university went on to file sexual harrassment charges against the student, with the professor claiming it caused her to "feel threatened in her workplace" GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!

The reality is free speech is threatened, but not only by those in the federal government. I have noticed in my very own college newspaper a definitive tendency to publish liberal garbage rather than conservative speak, a scenario where a leftist may criticize the Christian faith, but a Christian cannot enunciate his views on abortion or homosexuality, to print extensive essays on the need for a "living wage", but not even a letter (which I have tried to submit on multiple occasions) on why the call for a living wage is misplaced.