"Hell And High Water"

Here's an unnerving graphic from Climate Progress (click image to enlarge):

I highly recommend Joseph Romm's new post in which he makes a tight argument for immediate action to mitigate human-caused climate change. As a practical matter, one does not even need to be 100 percent confident that the numbers in this graphic are correct in order to recognize the need for concern about this issue. That's like being comfortable playing Russian roulette because there's only a one-in-six chance that you'll blow your brains out when you pull the trigger. And the "business as usual" option looks to be pretty much equivalent to humanity blowing all our brains out.

Click here for more Podium posts on climate change. Or click on a label at the bottom of any post to see more posts on that topic.



Update:

TreeHugger: "Land Degradation Endangers Quarter of World Population"

Yikes. Add that on to the scenarios laid out in the Romm post linked above and our civilization's fragility really starts to become apparent.

Update II:

Here's an exchange about this article that I had on Facebook with a reader named Shawn.

Shawn:

As a libertarian, what are your thoughts on a cap-and-trade system many have proposed?

Me:

It looks to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I favor taxes aimed directly at emissions. The easiest way to do that is to tax all sales of fossil fuels. We could set up a system that increased those taxes by a set percentage annually while at the same time lowering other taxes so as to avoid any net increase in tax rates.

Shawn:

And offer tax credits/ rebates with the revenue raised? Alternative energy?

Me:

Well, that's one possibility. Or we could just use it to offset income taxes.

Shawn:

I'm no expert, but something obviously needs to be done.

Me:

Indeed. The extent to which most prominent libertarian voices continue to drag their heels in acknowledging the need for action is quite disappointing to me. If we don't recognize the problem and offer our own solutions, then the liberals/progressives will control the debate. And that wouldn't be good for anyone. Especially since the GOP is in almost complete denial about all of this.

Update III:

And David Goodner added:

I would support combining cap and trade with Patton's idea on taxing fossil fuels as well, and also throw in massive subsidies for solar and wind power, an end to subsidies for bio-fuels, and cannabis legalization (so we can stop cutting down trees to make paper).

I also think we need a cultural shift away from mono-cropping and meat. Farmers should only get government subsidies for increasing biodiversity, crop diversification, and lowering livestock while increasing plant production. Animals we breed for slaughter eat more of our farmed vegetables than humans do. Eating plants is more sustainable with less shit.

Global warming is not just industrial emissions, but also de-greening and concrete. Rain forests have to be protected and expanded. The earth basically needs to become a gigantic garden and farm so we can "carbon-sink" as much C02 as possible. We also have to stop creating dead zones in rivers, lakes, and oceans. That means no more plastic and drastic cuts in consumption.

Me:

The biggest problem with subsidies is making sure they are spent effectively. As a general rule, I think it's better for the government to provide disincentives for bad behavior and allow the market to take care of providing incentives for good behavior.

Eventually, All Jobs Must Be Green

Joseph Romm writes:

To perpetuate the high returns the rich countries in particular have been achieving in recent decades, we have been taking an ever greater fraction of nonrenewable energy resources (especially hydrocarbons) and natural capital (fresh water, arable land, forests, fisheries), and, the most important nonrenewable natural capital of all — a livable climate.

In short, we have failed to designed a system capable of lasting prosperity. Quite the reverse.

Like all Ponzi schemes, the system must collapse. When it does, the only jobs left standing will be those that are “green” — which can be defined as those jobs that do not plunder nonrenewable energy resources and natural capital and/or do not to destroy a livable climate.

Continue reading.

Discussing climate changes in terms of economics and standards of living is essential. Focusing on technology as the primary tool in combating climate change is also important. I try to do both whenever I discuss the issue on this blog.

Can Nanotechnology Solve The Climate, Energy, And Economic Crises Simultaneously?

Eric Drexler writes on his blog Metamodern:

The greenhouse gas problem is far more intractable than most people think, and although there is a solution in sight, we will need a technological revolution to implement it.

Continue reading.

The solution Drexler envisions becoming possible in the not-too-distant future is as follows:

The way to remove CO2 quickly is to pump it, but this is a project too large to undertake with today’s manufacturing infrastructure. However, as I note in the Edge essay,

If we were good at making things, we could make efficient devices able to collect, compress, and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and we could make solar arrays large enough to generate enough power to do this on a scale that matters. A solar array area, that if aggregated, would fit in a corner of Texas, could generate 3 terawatts. In the course of 10 years, 3 terawatts would provide enough energy remove all the excess carbon the human race has added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began. So far as carbon emissions are concerned, this would fix the problem.

A few specifics:

* Nanosystems provides a physical analysis of a class of selective, thermodynamically efficient molecular pumps. Devices like these provide one option for satisfying the first condition I mentioned.
* Excess atmospheric CO2 is expected to be about 1 trillion tons in the time frame of interest, and the amount of energy required to collect and compress this to liquid density is about 1021 Joules.
* This is equivalent to 3 terawatts of electric power for 10 years, comparable to the total world electric generating capacity today.
* Solar arrays with an aggregate area equivalent to a 250-km square would provide ample power (assuming cells of mediocre photovoltaic efficiency, but placed in sunny locations).
* Advanced molecular manufacturing capabilities will make it practical to produce the necessary hardware to solve the greenhouse gas problem by removing the excess greenhouse gases, reversing net emissions.

Regarding molecular manufacturing, as I note in the Edge essay:

The U.S. National Academies has issued a report on molecular manufacturing, and it calls for funding experimental research. A roadmap prepared by Battelle with several U.S. National Laboratories has studied paths forward, and suggests research directions. This knowledge will spread, and will change the game.

(I also high recommend reading Drexler's post on the problem of CO2 emissions leading to ocean acidification.)

The take-away from this should be that research and development spending in the area of molecular manufacturing looks like a promising course of action to solve the problem of rapidly growing atmospheric CO2 levels (which, according to the best available climate models, will have devastating effects).

Drexler's proposal, if it is indeed workable, is the only one I'm aware of that provides an alternative to planet-wide CO2 emissions regulation that quickly brings the total amount of the gas being released down to sustainable levels. So let's look into this further and attempt it if feasible. If we can pull CO2 out of the air with solar stations covering 250-km square of planet (less than 0.0000005 percent of its total surface area--I think, but I'd welcome corrections to any stupid mistakes I may have made in my math) at a rate sufficient to be able to control atmospheric CO2 levels, then the best climate change solution would be to build those solar stations as fast as we can. Of course would also want to emit as little carbon as possible in manufacturing and installing the stations, but it's important to note that it's okay to emit CO2 in the course of implementing this plan as long as the solar stations are able to function for long enough to yield a substantial net CO2 reduction over their life expectancy.

Reiterating what Drexler has to say about the relevance of molecular manufacturing (I highly recommend following this link to learn about this amazing concept) to this discussion:

The U.S. National Academies has issued a report on molecular manufacturing, and it calls for funding experimental research. A roadmap prepared by Battelle with several U.S. National Laboratories has studied paths forward, and suggests research directions. This knowledge will spread, and will change the game.

If we can accomplish what Drexler is calling for, we will be able to transform our unwanted carbon emissions into any carbon-based manufactured goods that we would care to make--hence heralding the dawn of the diamond age. Perhaps we will eventually learn that Drexler's idea is fatally flawed in some unforeseen way, but spending the money necessary to find out if it's realistic project still seems like a good investment given the immensity of the possible payoff.

And here's one more optimistic thought: Nanotech engineers tinkering with the new technology which will hopefully be available in the coming years and decades may well be the engine that will drive us out of our current recession/emerging depression. Remember that technology is a primary enabler of economic growth--and how quickly computer hobbyists in 1975 were able to launch themselves to billionaire status. Silicon Valley may yet be able to do for manufacturing what it already has for information processing, storage, and transfer. And that would change the world in ways we can scarcely imagine today.

Consider Pollution As A Property Rights Issue

From the Switchboard:

Do people in the fiberglass or printing industries expect to get raw materials and parts for free? Do they expect their employees to work for free? I doubt it. But based on some public testimony at a workshop hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (the "District") last Friday, some of them expect to continue to use our air as a public sewer, for free.

Continue reading.

This is an excellent, succinct explanation of the problem of atmospheric pollution as an externality in energy production that leads to a market failure. Through dumping their waste chemicals into the atmosphere, polluting governments, corporations, and individuals dispose of their trash for free. But they do so by dumping it on everyone else's front lawns. Because our planet's atmosphere cannot be meaningfully partitioned, it is a paradigm case of a public good. And it's subject to one hell of a tragedy of the commons problem. We all need it, but no single entity has any incentive to refrain from poisoning it just a little bit--because even if you act virtuously, your neighbors are likely to cheat. Thus, everyone's little bits and up into a dangerous total.

The most rational response to this situation is to treat the atmosphere as thought it is owned equally by all the people (and perhaps, though I don't care to get into this here, even all the life) on the planet. There then has to be a rule set about maintaining a healthy atmosphere that is enforced virtually everywhere on the planet. I don't like this idea any more than most libertarian-leaning people do, but I don't see any other currently available solution.

Note that all this holds true regardless of one's views on the issue of human-caused climate change and the scope of the potential damage it will cause. Disagreeing about the credibility of climate scientists' existing models and predictions doesn't get one out of the need to protect the quality of the atmosphere as a public good. If one is skeptical of the mainstream consensus that climate change represents a serious threat to our currently existing human civilization, then one is obligated to respond with one's own data and lay out an appropriate regulatory structure based on that information.

In the post immediately following this one, I will discuss a potential alternate solution that would not require regulation of CO2 emissions--but unfortunately relies on as-yet purely theoretical technology.

Washington Post Continues To Back Flawed Column

From Climate Progress:

Please email and phone Andrew Alexander at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com

The Washington Post ombudsman is the paper’s “internal critic and represents readers.” Yet Andrew Alexander has basically decided to take on the role of defender of Will and the Post and his own mistakes. He has seriously undermined both his credibility and his independence, while at the same time making himself part of the story — serious mistakes for an ombudsman.

You can read Alexander’s column here. You can read a good line by line response by Siegal here.

Continue reading.

This whole incident is nothing short of absurd. George Will has unambiguously shown himself to be a pathetic hack on the climate change issue. And, even worse, the Washington Post seems intent on standing behind his lies and/or embarrassing ignorance. It will be interesting to see how this controversy plays out.

Google Advocates Increased Energy Research Funding

From Google's philanthropic arm, Google.org:

We must quickly develop low-cost renewable and efficient energy technology to avoid the devastating effects of climate change. This requires a strong financial commitment to clean energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to achieve big breakthroughs.

Historically such funding has been anemic. After a peak in 1978 of $7 billion, U.S. government funding for energy RD&D dropped by more than 70%. Corporate RD&D fell even more, and funding in the early 2000s totaled just 0.3% of sector revenue, compared to 15% in the biotech sector. Is it any wonder the energy sector has struggled to make progress?

Continue reading.

Google's most important goal in this area is the development of renewable power that's cheaper than coal--even without accounting for the externalities associated with substantially altering the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Such technology is the holy grail of the green movement. Once developed, it would quickly make all economic objections to phasing out coal as an energy source moot. So let's all hope Google (or someone else) is successful in inventing such technology. Doing so in the only path I can see that will allow us to maintain and even surpass current levels of prosperity.

Update:

Google is also trying to keep people focused on smart-grid technology:

Just one week after launching Google's energy information campaign, we kicked off our first joint smart grid event with GE, a larger clean energy collaboration we announced last fall. Our timing was fortuitous; the event took place just as President Obama signed an historic economic stimulus bill that includes $11 billion to modernize the electricity grid.

Continue reading.

Update II:

Also, Climate Progress has a great post up about how large of a reduction of CO2 emissions can be accomplished with currently scalable ("shovel-ready," if you will) technology.

CO2 Levels Now Highest In At Least 650,000 Years

Climate Progress reports:

NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division reports that global concentrations of the primary heat-trapping greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, jumped 2.28 ppm in 2008.



A study in Science from the Global Carbon Project (see “More on soaring carbon concentrations“) noted:

The present concentration is the highest during the last 650,000 years and probably during the last 20 million years.

Worse, the rate of growth of CO2 concentrations this decade is 2.1 ppm a year — 40% higher than the rate from the 1990s. At the same time that CO2 emissions are soaring, CO2 sinks are saturating (see “The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide“).

Continue reading.

Even those who are skeptical of the computer models climate scientists use to make their climate change predictions ought to be very concerned about these numbers. We are changing this planet's atmospheric composition at an amazing rate. That's something that we should all take pretty seriously.

Update:

Speaking of the extent to which human activity is reshaping our planet, Wired reports:

The global shipping industry hasn't just tied together the world's nations economically, but biologically, too.

The average Great Lakes port, such as Chicago, is only an average of two degrees of separation from 80 percent of the ports in the world, from Kuala Lumpur to Amsterdam, according to new analysis of more than 2 million ship movements presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences annual meeting.

...

The boundaries of previously distinct geographies with their own distinct forms of life have been blurred by invasive organisms hitching rides on shipping vessels. The world's bodies of water are getting more homogeneous, leading some biologists to refer to the current era of global biological flatness as "the homogecene."

Continue reading.

This brings E.O. Wilson's recent talk at the UI to mind. His message was that working to maintain robust biodiversity is the best way to ensure that we're being careful enough in our management of the earth's biosphere.

This is the only planet we know of that is capable of sustaining our civilization. Thus, its value to all of us is pretty much infinite. If we're smart, we'll start acting like it.

Is Revamping The Power Grid Necessary?

Reason asks:

What's So Smart About Investing in the Smart Grid?

Smart grid technology is all the rage. General Electric just paid $2.4 million for a Superbowl ad featuring an animated scarecrow singing "If I Only Had a Brain" to promote its smart grid initiatives. IBM, meanwhile, is running full page "Smarter power for a smarter planet" ads in major newspapers like the New York Times. These corporations are in perfect sync with the new administration in Washington.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama promised to retrofit America by "updating the way we get our electricity, by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation." To that end, the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorizes the Department of Energy to spend $4.5 billion dollars to stimulate the deployment of smart grid technologies.

Continue reading.

Ultimately, the article concludes:

In 2004, the Electric Power Research Institute calculated that it would cost $165 billion over the next 20 years—about $8 billion per year—to build out the smart grid. And one of the first challenges is mobilizing sufficient investment. But that problem won't be solved by throwing $4.5 billion at the electric grid as a sop to the environmental lobby—even if it does stimulate the bottom lines of favored corporations.

I agree completely. But due to my deep concern about climate change issues, which comes largely from reading the always informative Climate Progress and RealClimate blogs, I reach the opposite conclusion. We should drop enough non-green infrastructure from the bill to allow the $8 billion per year funding required to update our power grid.

The Reason article makes clear that there are plenty of collective action problems, perverse incentives, etc. at work here that prevent the market from facilitating developments that could help the United States cut back on its CO2 emissions. And the externalities associated with climate change are yet another massive market failure. I'm all for allowing the market to solve any problem it can, but this is an extremely clear case of it not being able to solve a problem. Thus, the government has to intervene. That's a major part of what the government is for.

Environmentalism Shouldn't Be Luddism

This is a great example of how not to advance a green agenda:


Meet Green Thing from Green Thing on Vimeo.

Yes, people should take responsibility for living energy efficient lives. But attempting to sell people on voluntarily embracing a lower standard of living is bound to fail. One of the biggest causes of pollution is a lack of sufficiently advanced technology. We can only get out of the current climate crisis by forging ahead in our technological advancement as a species, not by retreating into a technologically deficient past.

Energy efficiency is a crucial front in the struggle against climate change, but building a more advanced energy infrastructure and mandating tough efficiency standards for all future technology are far more effective strategies than everyone turning their thermostats down a couple of degrees. Furthermore, there's nothing inherently problematic about using large amounts of energy. The problem is just that our power source is destroying the planet by drastically altering the contents of its atmosphere. In order to secure further advances in average living standards, we will likely need far more electricity thirty years from now than we currently even come close to generating. But we can get all of that energy from clean, renewable sources such as the sun, wind, and waves.

Environmentalism need not and ought not be Luddism. In fact, it's the opponents of developing advanced renewable power sources who are the enemies of progress. Insisting that our civilization continue to rely on burning coal instead of move on to never-ending sources of energy is profoundly shortsighted. It's the equivalent of those who were upset by the horse's replacement with the automobile.

Finally, I'm well aware of how problematic government involvement in any aspect of the economy can be. However, the status quo is far from laissez faire. The government currently subsidizes bad energy practices do to its corrupt infrastructure spending. But there are serious collective action problems that prevent private enterprise from effectively providing for transportation and energy distribution services without any governmental involvement. And there are also externalities (such as CO2 emissions) that the current energy market doesn't take into account. For these reasons, government involvement in deploying new, green infrastructure is necessary. These changes need to be made and the government is the only agent capable of making them. Investing in more sophisticated energy and transportation systems will provide the lattice on which private sector ventures can grow and flourish.

Update:

Another way to make green policies look bad--the Times reports (via Jeff Yager):

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

Porritt's approach is dumb mainly because this tends to happen on its own when women are educated and families freed from the bonds of impoverishment. Thus, the best way to control populations is to educate women and empower people through the power of the market.

Only 16 Percent Of Stimulus Is Green

Climate Progress evaluates the stimulus bill:

The stimulus package must do more than spark a short-term boost to the economy. It must invest in the nation’s mid- and long-term economic security - and that security must be based on a new energy economy that reverses the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and weans us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

...

By HSBC’s calculation, 16% of the proposed $825 billion stimulus package targets green investments. One of the key questions Congress must ask, and answer quickly, is whether that’s sufficient stimulus for a new energy economy and sufficient evidence of U.S. leadership. Put another way: How much of our children’s money will we spend on life-support for the old carbon economy and how much will we invest to build the new one?

...

By my reckoning, a 16% share of the stimulus package is not enough.

As it puts the final touches on the stimulus bill, Congress should substantially increase the green investment, in part by making sure that every relevant element of the package gives highest priority to reducing carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels.

...

For example, our investment in “shovel ready” road and bridge projects should take greenhouse gas emissions into account, lest we dig ourselves deeper into carbon debt. In a study commissioned by the Presidential Climate Action Project, the Center for Neighborhood Technology concluded that reducing vehicle miles traveled with mass transit and more intelligent urban planning is just as important as new vehicle technologies and fuels in reducing carbon emissions. Yet current federal policy rewards pollution by basing transportation funding on road miles, fuel consumption and vehicle miles traveled. Under current policy, the federal government pays 80 percent of road projects but only 50 percent for mass transit projects. In this case, as in many others, federal spending is moving us down the wrong road.

...

Radical change is what we need now in federal spending. A green revolution to a new energy economy — with all of the financial security and new jobs it would create — should be the core goal of the stimulus package.

Given my horror (not surprise, just horror) at the pork and protectionism rampant in the bill that passed the House, I'm now solidly against that version of the package. But I still believe the green provisions are essential. So how about a $132 billion (16 percent of $825 billion) green-only stimulus? Maybe with some broadband Internet expansion thrown in on top?

I know, I know, keep on dreaming.

An E-mail Exchange On Economic Stimulus

My friend Paul Sawyer sent me the following e-mail this afternoon:

I love how this headline frames the parameters of debate. From CNN: "The Stimulus Package: How Fast Will It Work?"

That's fucking rich. Not only will Obama's Hail Mary not work, it will almost certainly make things worse.

I responded:

It's a mistake to lump the whole stimulus package together.

Tax cuts and/or rebates for low to middle-income Americans combined with increased government spending that can be rolled out over the next 6 to 12 months have the potential to boost consumer demand and help the economy from getting stuck in a vicious cycle of contraction. Also, investment in energy efficiency, alternative power, carefully targeted transportation infrastructure, and broadband Internet deployment will definitely have substantial long-term benefits.

But none of this really addresses the fundamental problem, which is that the US populace and government have been living beyond our means for quite some time. Only serious belt-tightening can help with that. And that's a dirty secret no one wants to admit.

Sawyer:

Totally agree, but the "serious belt-tightening" you advocate and the "vicious cycle of contraction" you hope to avoid are one and the same. We need to embrace this contraction, not put it off. Yes, it will painful, but it's unfortunately very necessary. Contrary to popular delusion, the problem isn't that we have too little credit, but that we've had too much. The idea that we can spend our way out of this mess is wholly nonsensical. That's more of the problem. Yes, having new roads and a new energy grid would be nice, and sure, we'll save some bank being more energy-efficient, but pouring slabs of concrete or outfitting cities with rail does absolutely nothing to increase our productive capacity. Not to mention the idea that government can create jobs out of thin air is absurd. It has no means of creating wealth; all it can do is redistribute/redirect the wealth created by the private sector. "Creating" these jobs is useless, because the only benefit they can possibly provide is the boosting of consumer spending. They do nothing to up our productive capacity. (Unlike, say, factories, new roads/infrastructure do nothing to generate real wealth after their completion; they just sit there).

Our economy is just waking up from a night spent drinking (read: consuming) itself retarded on cheap drinks (read: easy credit). In order to treat the hangover/headache, the political class is demanding that we crack open some more beers. Sure, this will alleviate our pain in the short term, but it will make our inevitable hangover (day of reckoning) that much worse.

Of course, I failed to ask the most obvious question of all: Where is all this money going to come from?

Dirty secret: The American Economy is fake. It's (literally) a very complex, very convoluted Ponzi Scheme. Its totally dependent on foreign creditors to keep it going, just as pyramid schemes rely on new investors to perpetuate the scam. What's going to happen when we run out of suckers i.e. when the world finally realized we have no ability (hell, not even an intention) of paying them back? The house of cards will collapse. We're already seeing the beginning of this.

A skilled fiction writer couldn't have concocted a more timely and fitting metaphor than the Madofff scandal.

Me:

There's an important distinction between a necessary decrease in consumption and a vicious cycle of contraction. We have to be careful in cutting back on consumption that we don't also unnecessarily cut back on production. Ideally, to move forward positively, we should cut consumption while boosting production. Intelligent investment in public goods such as better infrastructure does in fact increase our productive potential. More efficient communication, transportation, and energy production/distribution will lay the groundwork for private-sector job creation. Think of it like setting up trellis in a vegetable garden. For lots of reasons, the private sector cannot effectively setup some of the basic services it needs to succeed. So although it's true that the government doesn't actually generate wealth, it is essential in laying the groundwork for the private sector to do exactly that. The primary argument in favor of increasing such infrastructure spending now is to have the government act as a spender of last resort and provide temporary jobs. Of course the only way things will get better in the long-term is through an expansion in private sector production.

There's some truth to what you're saying, but don't forget that it's very much in interests of the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis, etc. to work out a smooth landing after a controlled descent as opposed to a crash for the US economy. If we crash, our creditors lose their shirts, too.

This Schiff article is good but seems to miss that point to some extent.

Really, what we need to to is sit down with our biggest foreign creditors and work out a payment plan. It's in our collective interest to do so.

Sawyer:

If it's the government (allegedly) boosting production, then it's simply impossible to not simultaneously boost consumption. That's because, as already stated, the government has no means of creating wealth on its own. Debt-based consumption is debt-based consumption, whether it's done by Joe Dumbass on his credit card or Joe Government doing it by borrowing from foreign creditors. The only difference is the latter is larger in scope and less efficient.

I agree that it's in the best interest of both us and our foreign creditors to work out a payment plan. I would love to be a fly on a wall during those negotiations and relish the absurdity. I mean, we are beyond fucking broke. "Okay, by 2075, we promise to have five percent of our debt paid off. Deal?" Besides, whatever infeasible payment plan we sign on to is largely immaterial--the point is, no one in their right mind is going to continue to piss away their money on a country that fritters away every last dime on hocus pocus bailouts and "stimulus packages" and borrow-and-spend consumerism. At this point, our creditors' only concern should be cutting their losses.

*sigh*

This aired this morning:

I hear nothing to object to.

Me:

That's not quite right. The government can be involved with building infrastructure that the private sector couldn't build on its own. And that infrastructure in turn can allow the private sector to become more productive by giving businesses access to more efficient communications, energy, and transportation services. Denying that is denying history. Just look at how the railroads, highways, power grid, and Internet were all built. The government was deeply involved in each case.

And you know what? Regardless of whether we're destined to suffer serious inflation (even possibly to the extent of a complete collapse of the dollar's value), it's a good idea to upgrade key infrastructure now. If we don't go broke, the new infrastructure (if it's built in a reasonably intelligent way) will help facilitate increased economic growth later on that will bring about a recovery. And if we do go broke, at least we'll have good infrastructure to use during the period of time we can't afford to build any more--and it will still help with the eventual recovery. Finally, in either case, we get the twin benefits of keeping more Americans working and spending by paying them to build this infrastructure along with giving the public at large the impression that something is being done to fix our problems.

In truth, I'm highly skeptical that the stimulus plan is going to work. However, there's pretty much no politically feasible way to stop it from being implemented in some form. So shouldn't we put more energy into directing the funds toward good infrastructure projects and away from wasteful entitlements and pork?

Also, I'm not even suggesting that the Chinese, Japanese, etc. will ever get all their money back. But they're better off accepting that and taking some fraction of it over time than simply flooding the world market with American currency and seeing their remaining reserves become worthless. An American depression would almost certainly cause major depressions in our creditor nations as well. And--especially in China--that could have disastrous political consequences for the current power structure.

Update:

Sawyer:

I never denied that government can or has build infrastructure, or even that it can undertake projects impossible to the private sector. I merely pointed out that it lacks the wealth to so on its own. The dollars must either be A) Taken from the private sector via taxes, B) Borrowed from foreign creditors, or C) Printed out of thin air. All three options entail hidden costs and unintended (or intended, if you're a conspiracy nut) consequences. The fact that costs are dispersed (and therefore hidden), doesn't mean they don't exist. It just makes it easier for the political class to sell it to the public.

What you're arguing is that government--through foresight and careful planning--can pool resources into projects that will yield a rate-of-return greater than any private initiative could. Even if I believed central planning to this insane degree could work (I don't), there's little in the soon-to-be $1 trillion "stimulus" package that puts my mind at ease. When you're pissing away that much dough, the burden of proof is damn high, and it falls comically short.

These infrastructure projects (more to the point: spending money we don't have) is exactly what will PRECIPITATE the inflationary holocaust. Again, the government doesn't have the means to produced real wealth; all it has is a printing press. It's silly to assume our foreign creditors will continue to foot the bill, and so appears that the Fed is poised to print the dollar into oblivion.

The idea that the World's Consumer Plantation (America) has been the engine of Asia's economy is a favorite fantasy among Americans. The fact is, Asians have had to sacrifice their standard of living by propping up bovine, over-consuming US of A. The world economy is heading for the shitter, no doubt about it, but Asia will be better off allowing us to die. Their growing consumer base (one backed by production, not credit) will, in time, more than make up for the fake consumption they will have lost in America.

Also, Dean, who has been cc'd on all of Sawyer and my e-mails, has responded:

First of all, I agree we have to cut down on our dependence on credit. It doesn't really matter; for at least a decade, credit will be tight enough to tamp down demand.

You can't look at the economy like there's a fixed amount of wealth out there. Infrastructure investments, obtained by borrowing against future taxes to foreign countries, can definitely be worth it and have been for the past century at least. The idea is not to look at debt in real terms (no jokes, Paul) but in relation to our GDP. If you can borrow and grow the GDP faster than the debt increases, you've lowered your debt by borrowing. Of course this doesn't always work, but this isn't some sort of hose job by some monolithic scape-goat plotters.

The principle generator of wealth in the country is the idea that lending money towards productive ends creates wealth itself. Borrowing to consume (or to buy things that generally decrease in value and don't add to your productivity) has been the problem and still is.

I hate to say it, but thank god the congressional republicans are standing their ground, because this stimulus can't be a shopping list, I hope they can flag more things like that contraceptive bullshit.

p.s.: I'm less versed on inflation, but this seems to suggest that we've always had inflation up the ass, more so when we didn't have paper money. Also, go over the budget sometime, there's never a revenue source called "printed" it's all accounted in taxes or debt.

So: A) why have they been lending to us so much? and B) what would they have to gain from their (albeit, current) biggest buyer's downfall?

I guess my estimation is that banks, even though they got bailed out, will still never come close to the credit orgy that preceded all this shit. Even if they're flush with cash, they'll think of Bear Stearns or WaMu and will be much much much more stringent on what can be spent with a loan. There's also likely to be increased regulation on what percent of any type of financial institution's debt can be securitized, likely necessitating credit card companies to tie themselves to banks or become them themselves. If this happens, the belt-tightening will thankfully happen itself.

So, I think pumping credit back into the system is necessary to allow for productive loans and self-interest will force that credit to not go to consumption. Some people are pissed that the government money already received by banks hasn't translated into credit. While it needs to eventually, this is a good sign, I think.

Sawyer:

To be honest, I have no idea why they've been lending us so much. Foolishness--or at least lack of foresight--is the only thing I could think of. (Maybe groupthink?) I think the question is rather moot. The point is, they're going to stop at some point, and I think sooner rather than later.

Me:

Philosophically, I'm inclined to agree with Sawyer. But pragmatically, I think Dean has the right idea. As I've said multiple times, there will be a stimulus package. As long as that's the case, the money might as well go toward the most useful projects possible.

Final thoughts for the day: First, I've blogged about this WSJ editorial in favor of a stimulus focused on building a smart power grid and a faster Internet previously. It's an excellent read. Second, my support for investment in energy efficiency as well as renewable electricity generation has more to do with my concerns about climate change than a desire to stimulate the economy. But, once again, as long as we're tossing money at something, it might as well get tossed at a good cause. (Yes, Paul, I'm aware you're skeptical that human-caused climate change is a serious threat, but I recommend reading the Climate Progress blog for a while and checking out the source material it links to. It's succeeded in scaring the shit out of me.)

Obama Calls Climate Change A Potentially “Irreversible Catastrophe”

Climate Progress reports:

Obama delivered a stirring speech today on his decision to push for California waiver that mandates cut in auto CO2 emissions.

The President has no doubts about the “irreversible catastrophe” we face on our current emissions path — “violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines” — which is no doubt why he chose John Holdren to be his science adviser see “Obama’s strongest message on climate yet“).

For those who misunderstood his inaugural call to action on energy and climate, “Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” his speech today should make clear that he is deadly serious about addressing the most deadly serious threat we face (full text here).

It's only a matter of time before Obama does something I disagree with (like pushing through an enormous stimulus package that contains many provisions unlikely to actually help the economy in the long or short term), but for now he continues to impress.

Frontline On Global Warming

PBS's Martin Smith debuts his two-hour investigation tonight, Oct. 21, 2008, from 8 to 10 p.m. CT. Watch it if you have time.

Here's a preview:


(Via Climate Progress.)

It's long past time for our country's political establishment to wake up to the gravity of this problem. Addressing climate change ought not be seen as a liberal issue--it's a pragmatic issue. The empirical data are overwhelming. We have to act now.

My Current Reading List

Day by day my loathing of the mainstream media and fear of its insidiously vapid influence on American discourse grows like a snowball rolling down a hill. It's gotten to the point where I can barely open most publications without experiencing feelings of extreme disgust at how shallowly or even stupidly most important issues are treated.

Despite how difficult the utter meltdown in the traditional print media might make it for me to find the kind of job I'd really like to have after I graduate, I am deeply thankful for the industry's ongoing collapse. If newspapers that suck as much as many of them do were doing well financially, I would be much more depressed.

Anyway, enough negativity. There's a lot of excellent reporting and commentary going on these days and I follow many such excellent sources religiously. And so should you. So here's my complete reading list (pretty much everything I'm currently subscribed to in Google Reader)--check some of them out:

Towleroad - a multi-topic blog aimed primarily at gay men

Bleeding Heartland - a liberal blog focusing on Iowa politics

Blogging Heads - a diverse set of writers and thinkers engage in thoughtful conversations

Boing Boing - a wide variety of technology, media, and associated issues coverage

Cafe Hayek - a conservative libertarian blog

Cato @ Liberty - the libertarian Cato Institute's blog

Century of the Common Iowan - another Iowa-based liberal blog

Fastforward - a discussion of new media's impact on media businesses

Glenn Greenwald - excellent legal and political commentary on the degeneration of American democracy

Official Google Blog - Google's main corporate blog

Iowa Independent - great online-only Iowa newspaper/blog hybrid

Global Guerrillas - commentary on how technology is destabilizing traditional nation states

Climate Progress - serious, science-focused discussion of climate change problems and solutions

Overcoming Bias - unique discussion of bias issues in the social science, especially surrounding skepticism of the possibility of a technological singularity

The Agitator - coverage of how the drug war and the militarization of police are destroying civil liberties in America

Kurzweil Accelerating-Intelligence News - Ray Kurzweil's collected news stories about developments he thinks are leading to a technological singularity

Hit & Run - Reason magazine's blog

Reason Magazine Online - full articles from the libertarian publication

Responsible Nanotechnology - discussions of the promises and perils of trends in the field of nanotechnology

The Savage Lovecast - Dan Savage's weekly sex-advice podcast

Slashdot - "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."

Slog - The Stranger's (a Seattle alternative weekly) group blog

Enterprise Resilience Management Blog - how businesses and governments can best cope with globalization and its challenges

TED Talks - videos of presentations from the annual technology, entertainment, and design conference

Thomas P.M. Barnett's Blog - discussion of military affairs in the age of globalization

Urban Prankster - experiments in post-modern art, often involving flash mobs

The Fly Bottle - Will Wilkinson's blog on libertarian issues and ideas

Wired Magazine - some of the most colorful technology reporting available

Wired: Danger Room - Wired's military blog

Wired: Threat Level - Wired's electronic security and rights blog

And, as I've written numerous times before, if you're interested in a compilation of the articles from all of these sources that I find the most important and/or edifying, check out my news site: http://tinyurl.com/christopherpatton

Sarah Palin is a Far-Right Ideologue

Rather than yammering on about whether Sarah Palin was a "smart choice" for John McCain's running mate, the media should be focusing on whether she has a history of making smart choices. She doesn't.

For one thing, Palin denies that greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity are causing climate change.

Furthermore, she continues to prove her obvious lack of scientific knowledge by arguing that creationism ought be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Unsurprisingly, the religious right loves her.

Oh, and she's not on the record as having any foreign policy views of any kind.

Sarah Palin is embarrassingly unfit to be president.

But what she a "smart choice" for McCain? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I just know she wouldn't be a smart choice for America.

Recommended Reading/Multimedia

Anyone interested in the scientific and political aspects of climate change should definitely keep up with Climate Progress. On the scientific side of things, one post today discussed how increasing energy efficiency is currently by far the best "source" of cheap power. And in the political sphere, another post notes the enormous increase in campaign donations from the oil and gas industries John McCain has seen since changing his previous position and coming out in favor of offshore drilling.

Likewise, anyone interested in thoughtful insider analysis of American military policy should always pay attention to what Thomas Barnett has to say. In the current installment of his weekly column, he lays out the reality of the military situation the next American president will inherit:

...by consuming so much of America's military force during these seven long years of nonstop, high tempo, high rotation action, the Bush administration basically condemned its successor to what will probably be an additional seven lean years of military operations.

Whether it's simply winding down Afghanistan and/or Iraq and "replenishing the force," or shifting dollars from operations and maintenance funds to cover a plethora of Cold War "programs of record" that the Bush Administration has refused to scale back, the next administration has been handed a veritable train wreck in terms of future budgetary crises. Something will have to give.

What does that mean for the next president? It means ingenuity and inventiveness will be at a premium, because our incoming president's grand strategy is necessarily one of realigning America's trajectory to that of a world being transformed by the simultaneous rise of numerous great powers.

Continuing in my attempt to point to examples of the mainstream media doing an excellent job whenever I think they are, I'm happy to note that ABC has finally picked up on the horrible, tragic case of Rachel Hoffman, who was brutally murdered when a poorly planned police sting went terribly wrong.

However, an area where most journalists don't seem to have caught on yet is how technology is rapidly dissolving our traditional notions of privacy. For one thing, Google continues to take pictures for its maps service that are likely to reveal all sorts of formerly hidden things. Furthermore, cameras and robots are getting so small and efficient that an insect-sized flying machine is now capable of capturing video. Though this prototype can't staff aloft very long, that is sure to change in the near future. This puts a whole new meaning behind the age-old wish to be a fly on the wall in a secret meeting.

Another powerful technology that is likely to impact society's notions of privacy is quantum computing. Quantum computers are just now reaching a point where they're advanced enough to be commercially useful. When their full potential is realized in coming years, current data encryption techniques will become trivially easy to circumvent.

Finally, the most recent edition of the Free Will series of Blogginheads.tv diavlogs focuses on the fascinating philosophical question of the nature and origin of human morality.

As always, go here to see more items I find interesting online.

The New Yorker and Fox News

I don't have much to say about The New Yorker's controversial cover art. Sure it's kind of funny; sure it's kind of stupid. Whatever.

What I find most interesting is that Fox News is now republishing such a liberal magazine's cover art on its website. On the one hand, I think it's hilarious that Fox is happily providing free advertising to a publication that is its antithesis in almost every conceivable way. On the other hand, I wonder if The New Yorker's editors put much thought into the excuse they'd be giving organizations like Fox to print a cartoon they'd love to popularize but couldn't otherwise get away with showing.

I suppose it's really a win-win situation for Fox and The New Yorker given all the publicity the whole episode has generated. And I can't imagine this will have any significant impact on Obama's chances of winning. Therefore, the only losers here are those of us who waste so much of our time lapping up whatever vapid and venial tripe our excessively self-indulgent media spews out on any given day of the week.

Seriously, people, read more blogs--especially those written by experts in important fields such as constitutional law, global security, and climate change. Many of these sources are doing a lot of excellent original reporting these days. And they talk about themselves far less than has become standard in much of the mainstream media.

Leave it to the Liberals

Everyone knows it's the liberals who are always harping about how the alleged "Global Climate Change" is man-made. Well, they've gone and proven it now, haven't they? I think it was a dirty trick to create that snowstorm on Sunday just to keep Karl Rove from speaking.