Asymmetrical Information

Would one rather have President Rodham or President McCain? The "people" are upset with deficits and unearned wealth as exemplified by CEOs making tens of millions while their company languishes and cuts jobs (e.g. DuPont). Perhaps McCain, by reining in the GOP's tendency to spend like Democrats, will actually make it possible for
many of the tax cuts to survive except for those on the extremely wealthy. While not fair, it may be a temporary concession to set the death tax at
estates larger than 5 or 10 million, and higher
marginal personal rates when one earns more than
$250,000 per year (in exchange for end to AMT nonsense.)

"that they cling to increasingly tenuous science to pretend that it ain't so"

Human-caused global warming is the biggest pile of unscientific fertilizer perpetrated in human memory. The scientific method involves making falsifiable predictions based on theories, and then testing them with experiments. We're still waiting to see whether the models involved get their 50-year predictions right (and the scientific method does require new predictions, not predictions that only cover old data, to make sure that you didn't just cook your theory with enough epi-cycles (as it were) to get it right). You rail against this sort of thinking when it's called Intelligent Design, "we can't easily explain this complex phenomenon, so it must be completely done by us."

But selectivity in which fraud science you detest aside, you're just outright nuts if you think that global warming is going to kill us all. Certainly the value of land on coastal cities might change, but a warmer earth is one in which plants grow bigger faster, i.e. where food is more abundant. A warmer earth will produce a more rich and varied ecosystem.

Basically, man-made global warming, should it come to pass, would mean restoring the earth from millions of years of ecological damage caused by all that carbon being trapped below the surface, which cooled the earth off. At worst, global warming is a Superfund site writ large.

Anyway, call me when the predictions have been verified several times, and then we can start bringing the word "Science" into this discussion.

...interesting that McCain cites Teddy Roosevelt as his prime role-model. That's all you need to know about McCain

Teddy (... one of our worst Presidents) is also the icon of today's imperial 'neoconservatives' like Irving & William Kristol.

McCain of the "Keating-5" is a world-class phony, but beloved by the MSM due to his strong 'big-government' leanings.

My biggest objection to McCain doesn't even come up--namely the McCain-sponsored restrictions on political free speech. Will blogs escape the restrictions? Or will they, too, ultimately be prohibited from mentioning candidates by name near an election? Can there be ANY violation of free speech that the founders would have found more appalling that prohibitions of discussing candidates by name near and election?!? Truly mind boggling.

I like Senator McCain, as a person, not as a Senator. My complaint is that he does not have any kind of comprehensive philosophy guiding him. He sees individual problems and comes up with a solution to those problems without any (apparent) thought to how his solutions might affect other parts of society. He then stubbornly sticks to his solution despite any contrary evidence or argument.

A good example of this approach is his reaction to the "problem" of "too much money" in politics. His version of campaign finance reform violates many of the principles of liberal democratic government upon which our country was founded. His legislation imposes the very kind of restrictions on speech that the 1st Amendment was adopted to prevent. It's not that his heart is in the wrong place. It's that, like Nixon who responded to inflation with a general price freeze, McCain is too willing to use governmental power to get us to do the right thing -- even if the use of governmental power abuses our cherished notions of personal liberty.

Would McCain be a worse president than some other candidate? Who knows? Without a well grounded philosophy guiding his actions, you can't predict what he'll do in response to some problem. If he's willing to sacrifice free speech to combat political corruption, how do we know he won't be willing to sacrifice personal property rights to rid us of the ills of the wealth gap? If global warming is such a threat, wouldn't it justify forcing us to change -- even if that required cutting a few constitutional corners? That's my concern with McCain. He won't let concerns about constitutional niceties get in the way of implementing his solution if the problem is big enough.

" Without a well grounded philosophy guiding his actions, you can't predict what he'll do in response to some problem."

And this would make McCain worse than any other possible presidential candidate in 2008 ... how, pray tell?

For better or for worse, Ayn Rand isn't going to be on anybody's ticket three years from now.

There's an obvious reason to prefer McCain to a Democrat: McCain actually probably wants the U.S. to maintain its political independence of the U.N. and to win its wars. It's going to be a long time before I can make myself believe that any Democratic candidate wants any such thing. Given that it's also going to be a long time before any "end of history", the choice is painfully easy.

So we have a system that "we don't understand very well", and yet somehow we can be certain that this system is changing for the worse and "could kill all or most of us" and that human activity is the leading cause?

Climate change "seems to be a real problem"?

"increasingly tenuous science"?

I used to read this site for it's well considered commentary. This is slapdashary. Don't be lazy.

Everything we know indicates that carbon dioxide, methane gas, and other gasses cause a greenhouse effect. The extent of the effect is still debatable. But we need only look to history to know that seemingly small changes, such as the failure of the gulf stream, can trigger huge effects, like ice ages.

And we need only look to Venus to know that runaway greenhouse could, indeed, kill us all, along with everything else on this planet.

That's nice, but the claim involves the effects of human activity and the evidence doesn't.

BTW - If "global warming" causes an ice age, isn't that global cooling?

Speaking of which, doesn't anyone remember the nuclear winter that we went through after GWI due to all of the soot from the oil fires?

Venus? Are you serious? Do you think perhaps the proximity of Venus to the Sun may play a role in it's climate? Furthermore, the extent of the effect of greenhouse gasses does matter. If the effect is marginal or nil, it's a moot point.

At any rate, you seem to be missing the point that on one hand you claim we don't understand this system very well, but on the other hand you claim that we can be certain of what's happening to it and the expected end results. These two claims are incongruent. We don't have the experimental evidence to assert that certain inputs will result in certain outputs, even though we may not know why it happens.

Anonymous, it's true that we're uncertain. Such is the human condition. But waiting until we have a 100% certainty is as stupid as the environmentalist drive to take drastic economic action on slim knowlege.

I'm not arguing that we should push ourselves back into the economic stone age. But the foriegn policy and environmental negative externalities of petroleum consumption are such that basic things, like a gas tax, are very compelling--especially since it has the added bonus of enabling the US to reclaim economic profits from the oil cartel.

Moore has lots of problems with McCAin but didn't notice that President Bush's policy can hardly be called conservative. (Why do we even bother to pay attention to what any of those clowns think?) Back in 2000 we believed claims that George Bush was the real deal and look what we got: Leave no Child Behind; new tariffs on lumber and steel; farm subsidies that gave checks to farmers based on their ZIP CODE; a Medicare prescription drug bill that grow from $400 billion to over $700 billion before the ink was dry. And finally a campaign finance law which George Bush PROMISED he would veto if elected. Well, didn't happen did it? He signed it, early in the morning out of view from us those who trusted him and voted for him. Why do why keep blaming McCain? We knew he was for it? That's why we voted against him. We (thought) we know Bush was against it? Who’s the lying, cowardly sob in that scenario? But I digress....All this changes was made with a Republican majority in the House and the Senate and signed into law by a Republican president.

And five years later all we can get out of Moore is yet another editorial whining about McCain.

Not sure I see the economic benefit of a gas tax. Burning petroleum produces economic benefits because it is a highly efficient energy source. It seems to me that burning less would simply produce less economic benefit by requiring the use of less efficient energy sources. As for reclaiming economic profits from the oil cartel - who would get to do the reclaiming? The government gets a revenue boost to build better highways, but people have to start walking to work? I don't see this as a net positive.

Personally, I don't see any point in conserving. If we don't use it, the Chinese and Indians will. Which is not to say that we shouldn't start working seriously on developing alternative energy sources.

Also, I'm not a big believer in "global warming". From what I've read, the effect seems to be 99% from natural causes.

A Prediction: If ever a protocol or treaty sufficient to address greenhouse gas emissions in sufficient amounts to actually render a measurable long-term effect on any global warming (and this includes necessary restrictions on the developing world), within five years we will be hearing doomsday scenarios of surging Third World poverty from the same sources. At no point will the connection between the two be made.

Erich - I did not say that I would not vote for McCain. Whether I will or not will depend on whom he's running against. Neither did I say McCain was the only politician who is not guided some well grounded philosophy. He does, however, seem to place more faith than most politicians in his ability to come up with the right solution for any problem -- a solution with no downsides that should temper his enthusiasm for implementing it. This, combined with his obvious disregard for constitutional limitations on governmental power, concerns me. While, all politicians might have some of these tendencies, McCain seems to be at the extreme end of the scale.

If we were to set a high tax on oil, would this not put the US at a competetive disadvantage? Virtually everything we produce requires energy to make. This is part of the cost of production. Goods made in the US would be more expensive, and if the tax had really significant effects in reducing imported oil, wouldn't this serve to drop the world price of oil, which would make the imbalance worse?

And what effect would this have on energy efficiency in the rest of the world? The cheaper the source of energy, the less incentive there will be for them to adopt more efficient technologies. It seems to me that a tax on oil would harm the US economically and end up increasing oil consumption elsewhere. What am I not seeing?

Why do you folks demand irrefutable proof of man-made global warming before doing something about it?

Consider the following:

1) The law of unintended consequences

You don't like messing with complex systems like econonmies because of the law of unintended consequences, so why are you o.k. messing with ecologies?

2) An ounce of prevention...

Most of you bought into the line about not waiting for the proof to come "in the form of a mushroom cloud." I did too. We don't know what bad things might happen (or are happening) because of global warming, but they might be really bad. Why not be careful about it?

3) We only have one!

We only know of a single planet we can live on. Doesn't that imply that we should be EXTREMELY risk-averse with respect to it's health?

Demanding absolute proof of a man-made problem sets the bar impossibly high. The system is too complex and n=1 so proof will never be available. Besides, that's not a good decision making criteria anyway. I don't know for certain that I'm going to have a heart attack, but I eat well and exercise anyway because it's sensible to be conservative with my health even if that means I have to do some expensive things I don't like.

Why not turn the tables and demand proof that we're NOT causing global warming or that it's NOT a bad thing?

DAVE

Dave - Allow me to address your 2nd and 3rd points: Your "An ounce of prevention" and "We only have one!" arguments assume that there is no cost to reducing our greenhouse emissions. This is not the case. Jane has made several posts on this blog about the reduction in the size of our economy that would result from Kyoto-style reductions in our energy consumption. Bottom line: Our standard of living would be reduced back to what our grandparents or great-grandparents enjoyed. This is not just a dollar and cents issue. Our ability to provide education and health care to the less fortunate is directly tied to the our economic health. A permanent reduction in our economy would directly result in a reduced life expectancy.

You are asking us to opt for a solution that guarantees a lower standard of living and a shorter life expectancy for the next several generations all in exchange for the HOPE that sometime, 100 years or more from now, that things MIGHT be better than they would have been otherwise. What a bargain! When we take into account the costs associated with your ounce of prevention, many of us are willing to stick with the one we have right now.

"...My complaint is that he does not have any kind of comprehensive philosophy guiding him. He sees individual problems and comes up with a solution to those problems... "

I see that as an asset!

I'm a systems engineer and I've learned from experience not to trust anybody who believes in the One True Way or swears by an "-ism." Solving problems in the real world always requires tradeoffs. Philosophical textbox solutions may look great on paper but rarely work in the real world.

All you can really do is solve the problem in front of you.

In the end that means that sucessful systems are usually hybrids in one way or another.

David Walser,

Your claim: With Kyoto style reductions,
"Our standard of living would be reduced back to what our grandparents or great-grandparents enjoyed"

I have to see the math on that - the US per capita income has doubled since 1970. I believe growth was significantly faster in the 35 years before that.

I tend to think markets are sufficiently flexible to accomodate the significant energy consumption reduction without taking away penicillin. I would guess shifting everyone away from SUVs to Civics would manage the trick. I never met my Grandfather but I suspect he would have been quite happy to have a Civic.

Tom

"Your "An ounce of prevention" and "We only have one!" arguments assume that there is no cost to reducing our greenhouse emissions."

No. I assumed no such thing. Prevention, carefulness, risk-avoidance... these things are not free. TANSTAFL! But, why do you assume that "not free" mean "bad idea"?

We spend resources to avoid risk all the time - as individuals, and as whole societies. Consider:

1) Eating right and working out to avoid heart disease.

2) A country launching a war today to prevent a possible nuclear attack tomorrow.

3) The whole insurance industry.

4) Financial derivatives.

All of these things are expensive ways to prevent or mitigate damage from things that MIGHT happen.

What's so different and awful about allocating resources to environmental protection?

DAVE

I would guess shifting everyone away from SUVs to Civics would manage the trick

Instead of making guesstimates involving the pariah flavor-of-the-month, why not look up the numbers?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/infocard01.htm

Keep in mind as you review "transportation" figures for the US that these will include flight and commercial shipping, not just SUVs versus Civics.

I would like to see more weekday commuters using energy-efficient vehicles for a number of reasons, but in terms of meeting Kyoto-esque goals or anything else, it's a pretty small share.

Would one rather have President Rodham or President McCain?

President Rodham, no question about it. McCain's enthusiastic support of government regulation of speech (political, entertainment, you name it) is a dealbreaker for me. If Hillary was soft on terrorism issue like Kerry was, maybe it would be a tossup. But she's good enough on that for me to hold my nose and vote for her.

Dave,

Notice that not one of the critics of your post pays any attention to the potential costs of global warming, as opposed to the costs involved in trying to head it off. What costs will there be in a loss of coastal property in every country potentially affected? Claims that it will produce some kind of bucolic paradise because of the benefits that CO2 would provide plant life disregard the fact that warming (at least in the earlier stages) doesn't mean that there isn't cooler, drier air to collide with and produce storms. It could quite easily produce extremes such as too flooding in one area while another suffers from drought. Guess what? Crops don't like either one of them. In addition it's a simple fact that the amount of CO2 available to them is only one factor that influences plant growth. Unless the other factors are equally enhanced somehow it's not a sure thing by a long shot. In fact I believe there have been experiments showing that increased CO2 levels above a certain amount are harmful to much plant life. While they still need further review, there are currently two studies out that suggest in increase in hurricane strength due to warmer water temperatures.

Most of the serious discussions I have seen of greenhouse gas abatement have made pretty clear that the benefits of a Kyoto level cutback in emissions would pretty well be diminimous (I'll ignore all of the other problems with Koyoto for this purpose - politicized requirement levels, refusal to consider CO2 sinks, etc.). A much deeper and more pronounced reduction would be required. That includes extension to countries like China or India that represent the lion's share of expected CO2 emissions growth. Now, assuming that we could even get their buy-in to such a scheme, I'm still curious how many of the global warming alarmists (for lack of a better word) would allow the resulting increase in developing world poverty to pass unaddresssed. If the 20th century taught us anything, its the slow erosion of both liberty and potential that results when we fall into the dynamic of perpetually resolving the consequences of our last intrusion into liberty.

'"...My complaint is that he does not have any kind of comprehensive philosophy guiding him. He sees individual problems and comes up with a solution to those problems... "

I see that as an asset!'

No, the problem with McCain is that he tries to use the very blunt and imprecise instrument of government coercion to solve every problem he sees. Money corrupts politics? Restrict free speech, nevermind that the net result is to make it harder for individuals to comment on candidates while George Soros still found a way to pour tens of millions into political campaigning. Nevermind that laws restricting campaign spending have been tried many times before, and have never had the intended effect - unless incumbent protection was the real intention.

Wisdom in governing consists mainly in knowing when to leave things alone. Most government interventions will only make things worse. McCain lacks the sense to see this.

President McCain or President Rodham:
1) If we have to make this choice, then there is no Republican party anymore, just radical Democrats and not-so-radical Democrats. I'll be reluctantly voting Libertarian - they're insane, but they don't want to systematically take away our freedom.
2) Assuming Congress will remain Republican, gridlock between HR Clinton and Congress is greatly preferable to McCain and a Congress that might go along with his hair-brained ideas.
Looking at the present budget makes me almost wish for the days of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich - gridlock was definitely preferable to Congress and the President agreeing on a policy of spend now, leave it to the other party to tax later. I can't see McCain improving this any - he might raise taxes, but he'll raise spending even more. Hillary would want to spend even more, but the Republicans in Congress would block it all just to be contrary...
3) OTOH, McCain might know how to run a war. Every Democrat since Truman has been utterly incompetent in this vital area.

I'm willing to accept that Kyoto might not be the right answer, I don't know enough about the specifics of that protocol. So how about we work on something better?

It seems like folks here have a troubling habit of casting aside the whole issue as "Crazy
Environmentalist Whackos vs. Liberty, Goodness and Economic Well-Being." That really doesn't help further the discussion. It's too bad too, because you're a smart group and your minds are needed.

The hardline libertarian philosophy completely falls apart for me on the point of environmental protection. The environment is bound to be a commons and, as can only really be dealt with effectively through government action. Since it's health is vitally important to absolutely everything that we do, it seems fair that we proceed with caution. Even if that means slightly slower economic growth. The stakes are too high to just hope that it's not really a problem.

DAVE

Dave,

You seem like you're genuinely well intentioned and trying to do good. But, I think your belief in your casuse may be blinding you to something. You state:

Since it's health is vitally important to absolutely everything that we do, it seems fair that we proceed with caution. Even if that means slightly slower economic growth.

Dave - Jim S. suggests that those of us who argue against your "ounce of prevention" prescription are ignoring the costs of doing nothing. As one of those who has argued against your view, allow me to state I don't THINK I've been ignoring the costs of doing nothing. I'm just suggesting such costs need to be put into their proper perspective. That is, if I understand correctly, the costs of doing nothing is a SLIGHT, POTENTIAL, increase in the chance we might experience significant climate change 50+ years from now and that climate change MIGHT have disastrous consequences. Certainly this would be a very bad result and, thus, the cost of doing nothing, from this perspective (which I believe to be your perspective) is HUGE. My argument is that this cost needs to be discounted for probability. Or, better put, the "cost of doing something" needs to be measured against the probability the mandated actions will produce desirable results. If global warming is not being caused by human activity (but by increased solar activity or some other natural factor), reducing our energy consumption will do little if anything to reduce the harms you fear. (Indeed, reducing energy consumption might make things worse by reducing the economy we will reduce the resources available to develop technological responses to the changing climate.)

Your prescription asks us to do something that we have little reason to believe will produce any benefit but we "know" will cost lives to implement. As Bill pointed out, we are not talking about slower economic growth, we are talking about a contraction in our economy. (Jane had some very good posts documenting the size of the reduction in the economy that would result from the Kyoto protocols, but I was unable to find them in the archives.) This will cost thousands of lives in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives outside this country. Before we take a step that is assured to cost lives, isn't it prudent to have some assurance that the action will produce some tangible benefit? That's the question many of us opposed to dramatic changes in response to global warming are asking. Until that question is answered, you will not have our support for actions that we KNOW will have a high cost.

Anony-mouse,

Fair enough. Given the underlying growth, I believe Kyoto would require something in the range of 20-30% cuts in emssions. From your chart, it is clear that no reduction in transportation alone will achieve that effect.

On the other hand, the most efficient hybrids get more than twice the MPG of the average vehicle today. So the auto part of the picture could be cut in half which would make a very significant contribution to the target decline. I have no idea if that decline is reasonable.

However, it is pretty clear that David's claim (kyoto would push us back to our great grandparents standards of living) that I was responding to, was absurd.

Tom

markm: nevermind that the net result is to make it harder for individuals to comment on candidates while George Soros still found a way to pour tens of millions into political campaigning

527's are far preferable to soft money because of the disclosure requirements. If it weren't for McCain-Feingold, you wouldn't have even known what the Soros's of the world were pouring money into.

That 527s have prompted an outcry and raising of awareness of our campaign finance mess is a big plus in my book.

Anyway, who the heck is Stephen Moore and why is he worthy of a link?

fling93,

Take a step back and consider exactly what you're saying: A system that permits a few parties to funnel millions into the political system while simultaneously barring much smaller participants from endorsing a candidate is somehow a step forward?!?

Anybody can contribute to 527s.

On the other hand, the most efficient hybrids get more than twice the MPG of the average vehicle today. So the auto part of the picture could be cut in half which would make a very significant contribution to the target decline. I have no idea if that decline is reasonable.

An editorial in Car & Driver a year or two ago pointed out that the average modern car, once operating at optimal conditions (hot engine and catalytic converter), emits less out of its tailpipe in a given period of operation time than the average car of the 60s did from paint decay. Modern combustion engines are incredibly efficient and low-pollution compared to cars of previous generations, but problematically, we keep finding more uses for them.

Hybrids do offer promising technologies but in the end, IMO the result will only be another generation of cars with half the resource intensity, but two or three times as many in operation.

Tom G & Anony-Mouse,

Of course, all of this opens up yet another problem. With relatively few hybrids on the road supplying their electricity needs from "green" sources is plausible, even reasonable. The problem comes in when you try scaling it up. Put a few million hybrids on the road, and all of a sudden the electricity providers start having to figure out how to meet this incremental demand. Sorry, but windmills and flower power just aren't going to cut it. All of a sudden we find ourselves back in the wonderful world of fossil feuls.

fling93,

In case you misunderstood me, I'm referring to McCain-Feingold's very plausible restrictions on blogging. If I miscommunicated, then I apologize. If you're suggesting donations to 527s as an alternative, then as far as I can tell you're being disingenuous.

My point is that you seem to be comparing apples to oranges, saying one group can do one thing, while another group cannot do a different thing.

I don't agree with everything about McCain-Feingold -- the parts that infringe upon free speech should be stripped out -- but on the net, I think it was an improvement. If only because nobody was howling about the George Soros's of the world before because they weren't required to disclose what they were doing before.

I don't agree with everything about McCain-Feingold -- the parts that infringe upon free speech should be stripped out --...

Which leaves you very little of McCain-Feingold. I'm inclined to view most of the law's provisions as speech restrictions. I seem to recall in the 2000 campaign, then-candidate Bush had suggested a simple disclosure requirement as an alternative. I thought it was generally a good idea. It certainly seems to meet your conditions, or am I missing something?

The biggest impact was to close the soft-money loophole. 527s existed before McCain-Feingold. They just weren't worth using.

fling93,

Please explain to me how "closing the soft money loophole" doesn't ultimately amount to a restriction on political speech.

Because money isn't speech, or else bribery would be legal.

Damn, I come back to this blog after a month or so away, only to find that Jane has morphed into Hillary Clinton! To wit:

Taxes can go up now, or they can go up later, but given that the government is apparently incapable of cutting spending, they're going up sometime. It seems to me uncontroversial to say that the wealthy, who have experienced most of the income gains of the last 20 years, should be the ones who get the higher taxes--though I would like to see the capital gains and dividend taxes kept low, while marginal income rates are increased. - Jane Galt

I can't believe no previous commenter has taken issue with this "uncontroversial" statement. I thought there were libertarians here??

"Since the gov't is apparantly incapable of cutting spending" - hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess!

"The wealthy, who have experienced most of the income gains" - gotta love the passive tone in this statement. Are these gains ill-gotten? Are income gains some kind-of haphazard bestowment that lucky people "experience", or are they commensurate with productivity gains? With a growing economy and expanding global markets, of course those most responsible for creating valuable new goods and services will experience income gains. Create a new vaccine or software app, and your productivity/income is proportional to the number of people you can sell it to. Meanwhile, Joe Six-Pack is still pumping the same amount of gas he did in 1985, or selling the same number of used cars, or mopping up the same square footage of tile floor; since his productivity hasn't increased one iota (at least, of his own doing), he's lucky to see any income gain at all above inflation, and can't really claim to deserve it anyway.

By all means, though, let's kill the golden goose! Ressentiment!

Increase marginal rates? Jeez, 35% (over a third!) isn't high enough?

What's wrong with a flat tax? If you make ten times what I make, you'd still pay ten times as much in tax. And you're probably not even getting ten times the services or benefits (as problematic as that would be to measure) -- more likely you're just subsidizing everyone else. At least with a flat tax, "the people" know that they'll be all be liable for the cost of the pork and entitlements that politicians bribe them with. Maybe then the gov't really WILL be able to finally cut spending...

Comments are Closed.