Quick Hit for Friday

THE AUTO BAILOUT HYSTERIA

  Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm had this to say after the bailout didn't pass Congress yesterday:  "It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression."  

  First: how is voting against giving taxpayer money to corporations 'un-American'?  What about our Constitution would imply that a facet of our system of government is giving bailout money to failing companies?

  Second: who knows if the bankruptcy of these three companies will cause a depression.  Besides, even if it does, whose fault is that?  The people who voted against a measure to give them money?  Or the people in charge of the failing company?  How about the people who passed government mandates that made it more expensive to make/sell automobiles in this country?  Do they have any blame?  Or is it the fault of the people who refused to clean up the mess afterwards?

  Third: is it definitive that a $15 Billion loan at this point will solve all the auto industry's problems?  GM sales went down 41% in November compared to last November.  How will the government loaning them $15 Billion help them become more competitive?  Might it just delay the inevitable?  Will we be stuck loaning them more money in three months?

  This is the type of hyperbolic lunacy that leads to nothing being solved.  The thinking goes like this:

1.   Blame someone else for the problem, preferably members of the other party.

2.  Create some outrageous statement that will frighten people into acquiescing to your demands.

3.  Repeat.

  Personally, I'd like more from our elected officials.  Bankruptcy will not cause these companies to disappear.  Sure, it could be damaging in the short run, but if bankruptcy was good enough for the airline industry, is it now not good enough for the car industry? 

  I have almost as big an interest in the continued success of these companies as the next guy.  My industry (real estate) relies heavily on the success of others.  If no one is making money, no one is buying houses.  But if the New Deal and other FDR policies was cause for lengthening the Depression by 7 years (see my post about that), then why are we repeating those policies?  Why not diagnose the problem, fix it, and start over as fast as possible?  Propping up failed industries might do nothing but lengthen the recovery period.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction, & What To Do About It

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them."

- George Orwell


Orwell's observing that relying too much on our intelligence can tempt us to close our mind. We rely too much on certain research, and not others. Our biased attachment to one idea prevents us from seeing the truth in another, and we become loyal to the idea, not the truth.


Last year in 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that Climate Change is "unequivocal, is already happening, and is caused by human activity."


What happens once a scientific theory becomes generally accepted as fact? Once the vast majority of people have settled on a particular opinion, what force in the world is powerful enough to move them? Our movements from Geo-centric to helio-centric, flat Earth to round Earth, Spontaneous Generation to 'not so much', weren't easy or quick. Mankind has the peculiar ability to be prideful about the positions we hold. Even against the greatest of demonstrable evidence, we refuse to change our minds. In the instance of Global Warming, the doubters can be equally prideful as the supporters. Our pride closes our eyes to new discoveries. When new evidence is presented that seems to contradict our beliefs (because truly we are no longer defending the theory, we are defending our belief in the theory), we don't change our beliefs and scrap the theory: we incorporate the new contradictory evidence. For those who support man-made Global Warming, it looks like this: if temperatures get warmer, it is because the planet is warming. If we experience colder temperatures, that is also because of Global Warming. If we experience extreme weather on a heightened scale, it is because of Global Warming. And if we have a slow extreme weather season, it is because Global Warming has made things erratic and it's increasing our chances for 'The Big One'. We find ourselves in a situation where we can no longer have an honest discussion about the theory of Global Warming.


CAN WE DISPROVE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?


As a result, what evidence would we accept that could possibly change our minds once we have made them up? In 2007 the IPCC released the Summary for Policymakers regarding Global Warming. It was authored by 52 scientists from around the globe, who came to the conclusion that Global Warming is real, man caused, and dangerous. The report was hyped on every news network, and referenced in too many Al Gore speeches to count. As a result of that and other proclamations, man-made Global Warming has been generally accepted as fact.


So what would happen if in 2008, 52 scientists came out with a differing opinion? Would that be enough to change our minds? The IPCC is meeting in Poland right now, and they are being faced with serious opposition. 650 International scientists are quoted in the U.S. Senate Minority Report stating they do not believe in man made Global Warming. Is 650 scientists enough reason to change? That is over 12 times as many scientists who authored the previous years summary. If 650 isn't enough, how many scientists would have to come out of the skeptic-closet for us to feel comfortable changing our mind? How about Al Gore's mind? Like Al Gore, we have a lot invested in our opinions. Sometimes it can be difficult to change them.


How about 31,000 scientists? The Petition Project was formed by a group of physicists and physical chemists who didn't believe in man-made Global Warming, and noticed that many of their peers didn't either. So they started writing to and asking their scientist peers to join the Petition Project if they were Global Warming skeptics. So far they have over 31,000 American scientists who have signed on, over 9,000 with Ph.Ds. Is that enough scientists to cause doubt?


If the number of scientists for/against doesn't matter, what about the raw data? What if the earth starts cooling? How cold would if have to get for us to ditch the theory of Global Warming and pick up a theory of Global Cooling? Right now even cooling trends are accepted as proof of Global Warming. Even so, most would be surprised to learn that worldwide, temperatures dropped in 2007? In fact, would you be further surprised to know that they dropped so far, that it wiped out all warming over the last 100 years? It was the fastest change in temperatures ever recorded, whether up or down. Sure, one year's temperature may not be proof against man-made Global Warming, but it should at least cause us pause.

Most of the warming is blamed on carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide accounts for about .003% of the atmosphere. But what about alternative causes for Global Warming not associated with man? Some think methane produced by plants could be a cause of Global Warming. Others blame cow farts, saying they produce more greenhouse gases than cars, trucks, and planes combined. Because the cows are ruining our planet, they have suggested a $175 tax on every dairy cow, and $87.50 on every beef cow. Solar activity, mainly sun spots, are another area of research. How about water vapor?


COOL OUR HEADS


A belief in Global Warming necessitates a foundational belief in a couple of things. First, that right now we have on earth the perfect set of weather conditions. You're motivated to prevent change because you believe that we are living in the perfect set of circumstances, and anything else would be a step down. Second, you have to believe that mankind is doing the damage. So you have to believe that what is happening is bad, and that what is happening is being caused by humans.


Before we even begin to contemplate man-made Global Warming and other things we don't know, we should be contemplating the things we do know.

1. The earth has never been a stable environment. Whether we're talking about the Ice Age, the Mini-Ice Age, the Interglacial Warming trends, or any other change in the earth's weather patterns, we are aware that the environment has been vacillating long before mankind's Industrial Age. Because of this knowledge, we can no longer use effects as proof of a particular cause. For example, we cannot look at receding glaciers (which is happening) and use it as proof that mankind is causing warming. We cannot look at rising oceans and say we're making the oceans rise. Because we know that the environment has gone through very drastic changes without mankind having anything to do with it, we need to focus on demonstrably proving that not only is the warming happening, but that we are directly influencing it.


2. Polar Bears are not the only species on the planet. While their plight is regrettable, there have been a lot of species now extinct due to changes in the weather, and mankind didn't cause those. Where are the mammoths, or the saber-toothed tigers, or dinosaurs? In fact, this planet is already way to warm for some species. Using the situation in which the polar bears find themselves is certainly an effective way to drum up emotions, but isn't an indication of mankind's involvement.


3. Mankind has a tendency to be wrong about our scientific assertions. Whether it was the coming Ice Age promised in the 1980's, your local newscaster's amusing ability to be completely wrong day to day, the Titanic, the Hindenburg, Eugenics, or any other embarrassing marks in our collective history, our mistakes should keep us humble. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The earth's weather is an extremely difficult thing to predict, and would require the accumulated knowledge of all weather patterns, water temperatures, glacier activity, solar activity, weather history, and other environmental predictors. Knowing how difficult it would be to become an expert in all these things, at all times and all places on earth, it would seem prudent to have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to blaming Global Warming on man. A perfect example of our hypocrisy on the issue: "A 2006 United Nations report found that methane and nitrous oxide released from livestock operations add more to global warming than carbon dioxide emissions do." And yet, in 2007 they reversed their position and claimed that mankind and our carbon dioxide emissions are causing Global Warming.


SO, IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL?


I am not attempting to disprove Global Warming, just encourage a well rounded approach to the issue. If you're sold on the issue even knowing what I said above, that is fine. Me, I have an innate distrust in the knowledge of man, especially when discussing something this complicated. As a result, I'm not sold that the Earth is warming, and certainly skeptical that mankind is the cause. Put me on the side of the 31,000 American scientists who aren't sold on the idea either.


Al Gore, he is sold. In 2006 he said we only have 10 years to reverse the trend before it is too late. That type of doomsday talk leads a lot of people to capitulate to things they normally wouldn't, like strict economic sanctions on carbon emissions. I want us to realize that a significant portion of the scientific population isn't convinced that this is happening, and certainly not that we are the cause. An emotional response based on talk of Armageddon is the last thing we need.


SO WHAT DO WE DO? PUNISHMENT VS. ENCOURAGEMENT


No one would look out their window, view the smog around a big city, and surmise, "Mankind has no impact on the environment." Obviously our actions do have an impact. The question is what is the impact, and is it severe?


We should all try and live like Boy Scouts, who try to leave an campsite so there is no trace that they were there. We aren't going to achieve that level of conservation, but it should be our aspiration. Everyone should be conscious of our impact on the environment, because the negative consequences aren't pleasant. Whether it is the oceans rising or our factories and junkyards polluting our water, our actions have serious consequences. A smart population would try to conserve, because it lessens the damage when things come to a head. And we should try and live cleanly, because our toys have a tendency to be bad for us.


However, considering our limited knowledge on the environment as a whole, a tempered course of action would be prudent lest we do something drastic and make things worse. For example, in our desire to be more energy efficient we created a government mandate that by 2012, we only use Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) instead of traditional light bulbs. We will save millions on electricity, but that doesn't come without drawbacks. CFLs contain Mercury, so if one breaks it needs to be cleaned up properly. Additionally, when disposed of they need to be taken to a Hazardous Waste Disposal site, not the trash can. If one breaks in your home, here are the instructions on cleaning it up:


1. Remove children, pets, and pregnant women from the room and clean up the mess as quickly as possible.
2. Increase the ventilation in the room by opening all windows and doors. Turn off the A/C or Heat.
3. Use index cards to pick up the broken pieces of glass. Do not use your bare hands, and do not use a vacuum cleaner as that will disperse the mercury into the air.
4. Use sticky tape to get up the smaller pieces.
5. Stay out of the area for a few hours. Some have recommended removing the carpet you cleaned up and throwing it away.
6. Take the trash bag to a Hazardous Waste Disposal site.


I realize we're all trying to become more carbon-friendly, but at what cost? These bulbs will get better with time, but the question is should the government be mandating changes at this point, or are they making things worse?


GOVERNMENT: SAVIOR OF THE PLANET, DESTROYER OF ECONOMIES


Certain directions our leaders want to take us would have serious implications on our country. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would place a cap & trade system on U.S. businesses. It would sell a certain amount of carbon production units (called Carbon Credits) to each industry, and levy fines for going over their allotment. We have avoided that policy for three reasons: one, our skepticism on man-made Global Warming and the level of danger from carbon dioxide. Two, the fact that it is anti-business and will have negative effects on our economy. Three, the agreements have ignored countries like China and India, two of the worst carbon polluters on the planet.


Senator John McCain favors a cap & trade, and so does President-elect Obama. In fact, the President-elect favors a system so strict, that according to his own words it will drive the coal industry into bankruptcy and result in skyrocketing electricity costs (I have blogged on that in the past).


I do not believe that is the way to go. There are so many problems with a cap & trade system, it requires a whole different discussion (one problem being that fossil fuels provides approx. 85% of our energy, and with our move away from fossil fuels and towards electric powered cars, we cannot afford the increase in price that would be a result of Coal plants closing at a time when demand is about to go up). The European Union enacted their own cap & trade system in 2005, and their carbon emissions have increased since. The effects on their economy haven't been favorable, and the system is ripe for fraud.


Here are some alternatives:


- Focus our energy (no pun intended) not on anti-business policies, but on pro-alternative policies. We need the capital to invest in our research into alternatives, so we can't eliminate the capital-generating income by increasing taxes on the current technology.
- Give tax breaks (with sunset provisions) to companies as they increase fuel efficiency. A car getting better MPG would result in the business being taxed less. This will result in cars being cheaper, as the company has less overhead.
- Give financial incentives (w/sunset provisions) to people buying energy efficient cars. Make them more affordable.
- Give tax incentives to homeowners who take steps to make their homes more fuel efficient.
- Sell these technologies to other countries. Even if the U.S. has no carbon footprint at all, in less than 20 years we wouldn't be the largest producer of carbon anyway. China and India together will produce much more carbon than we would, and we'd be right back where we were to begin with.
- Clean Coal. There is no truly 100% clean version right now, but we are continually making it a cleaner industry. Researching this avenue will help us reduce our pollution.
- Diversify. By getting electricity from multiple sources, we not only make our selves more secure but also reducing our carbon footprint. Wind and Nuclear need to be pursued as healthy alternatives to Coal.


Punishing our current way of life doesn't help us make the transition to cleaner ways of living. Placing more taxes on an industry, or requiring car companies to meet certain standards at the risk of penalties isn't the way to go. Those policies make energy more expensive, cars more expensive, research more expensive, and slow the process of change. People need to make the movement towards new technologies because they want to and because it is makes financial sense, so we should focus on creating that type of atmosphere. Taxing the crap out industry removes the capital they can invest in newer tech, thus making the transition more difficult and expensive. More and more hybrid cars are sold because they are getting cheaper and more people can afford them. People will chose hybrids when they are cheaper than gas guzzlers, so our government needs to help the car companies make them cheaper, not make gas guzzlers more expensive.


Think of it this way. Our society has a huge amount of money invested in fossil fuels, and we've been moving in that direction for the past 100 years. We are the Mississippi river of the industrialized world. If you want to change the direction of the river, you don't jump in the middle of it and try to push it in the direction you want. First you dig out an alternative route, and then you guide the river into it. That's the difference between positive policies (tax breaks) that encourage growth, and negative policies (higher taxes, cap & trade) that stifle growth.


The government can provide encouragement one way over the other, and it should. But the government cannot and should not be the principal financial backer of the change. It should provide incentives; not financing. Remember, the government doesn't have any money that it didn't first take from the private sector. Leaving that money in the hands of those who earned it gives them the capital needed to invest in cleaner technology. Taking the money and giving it to the government to invest in new technology is a less efficient way of doing things, and will delay our progress.


CONCLUSION


There is enough doubt about man-made Global Warming to justify slowing down the rush to punish ourselves for our way of life. At the very least, the idea of Global Warming has brought to our attention the need for us to change how we get our electricity, what powers our cars, and even our national security. It has helped bring about a new respect for our surroundings. Those are good things. We should resist the alarmist demand that we punish our industries while simultaneously move towards greener fields. Cutting off our nose to spite our face won't solve anything.

Quick Hit for Tuesday

INTERESTING TIMES

During the election Obama's doubters main concern with the possibility of an Obama presidency was that no one seemed to really know all that much about the man, especially how he would govern. Given that he had only been in the Senate for four years, hadn't held an executive position in government, didn't have a very long resume, and wasn't exactly consistent on certain positions led some to be very wary of his candidacy. Because of that doubt, everyone is watching what he is doing  very closely.  Each new cabinet appointment, each new press junket, reveals something new about the man behind the politics. And what has happened recently has been very interesting.

LIBERAL OR NOT?

The greatest question about the man, Barack Obama.  In the primaries he campaigned as a liberal (the National Journal reported that his voting record was the most liberal in the Senate, even left of Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist), moved to center-left during his campaign against McCain, and so far seems to be staying there. Stealing a page from Abraham Lincoln's playbook, the President-elect is appointing people to his cabinet that don't necessarily match his views. Being inspired while reading Team of Rivals, he has pulled together a team of people ideologically opposed to each other in hopes of creating an environment rich with debate. A long held liberal criticism of President Bush was that they viewed his cabinet as being filled with nothing more than glorified yes-men.  As such, the President-elect has reached out to people with opposing viewpoints, and ever appointed his formal rivals to cabinet positions.

The President-elect's theory isn't without its risks, as he could find himself with a cabinet rank with bickering rather than healthy debate.  We'll let time tell that story, but what is interesting is watching people's reactions to his picks.  

THE CONSERVATIVES

  The President-elect is a Democrat, so no Conservative or Republicans were expecting him to appoint people with Conservative ideas.  So far, they have been pleasantly surprised, calling Hillary's appointment a 'best of the worst' type scenario.  The only person who really riles Conservatives is Eric Holder, the man appointed to be the next Attorney General.  If the President-elect was trying to pick a cabinet that wouldn't alienate Conservatives, he did a pretty good job.  He did promise during he campaign to appoint Conservatives to his cabinet as well, and so far we're still waiting for that to happen.  

  He also is going to keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates for at least one year.  That is pleasing to Conservatives, since he is one of the men who pulled The Surge together.   

THE LIBERALS

He isn't pleasing liberals, which could be the most interesting thing coming out of his appointments.  Underlining the point that no one really knows what Obama is all about is the fact that some of his most loyal supporters, those on the extreme left, are being left a little frustrated.  While Obama's cabinet is being filled with center-left appointments, Obama's foundational support was from the far left.  At a time when Hillary was dominating the primaries, then-Senator Obama was able to court the far left with promises of tough gun control, a 16-month timeline for Iraq withdrawal, support for Embryonic Destruction Research and the Freedom of Choice Act, a refund to every American taxed directly from Oil Company Profits, raising taxes on the top income earners, among other things.

  With Obama recently stating he won't repeal the Bush tax cuts, instead will wait for them to expire in 2010, Obama has irked his earliest supporters.  In addition, he has reneged on his pledge to tax Oil Company profits (they are already taxed at 50%) to supply a refund check to every American, has publicly supported gun rights, and lightened up on his Iraq pledge by keeping Sec. Def. Gates and saying he'll withdraw when the time is right.  While these moves might be indicative of the President-elect getting advice that the economy couldn't sustain his policies right now, thus giving Conservatives hope that Obama is susceptible to what they would view as good advice, it does nothing to please those on the left.  

  However, Liberals are encouraged by the President-elect's proposal of a new stimulus plan, that would go towards creating government jobs to re-build our infrastructure, and hopefully create new green jobs in a new green energy production industry.  

THE MODERATES

  Perhaps the people most calm right now are the people who voted for Obama out of hope, not knowing for sure what he was all about but trusting that he'll be better than the alternative.  Everything he has indicated since he won the election points to his attempt to be middle of the road as much as he can.  He will never please Conservatives, that should be obvious.  It's perplexing to Liberals that he is moving so much to the center.  But the Moderates are probably the happiest group, because in their minds they know both Liberals and Conservatives are frustrated, so Obama must be doing something right.

WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED?

  It is fun to talk about, but I don't know that we can draw any conclusions about Obama yet.  The only thing that does seem clear is that Conservatives weren't being alarmist when they labeled Obama as an enigma.  It should seem clear that with everyone seemingly surprised by his appointments and his reversal on certain policies, no one really knew much about the man to begin with.

  As someone who claimed before the election that I didn't think Obama would have a successful administration if he didn't reverse some of his economic policies, I am pleasantly surprised that he has.  I don't know where he will be going from here, but I'm sure that it will be interesting to watch.

Harry Reid: Representative of The People

  The Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) opens today, December 2.  Running four years late and over $400 million over budget, it might seem about time.  Congress ended up spending $621 million to finish the project.  The Citizens Against Government Waste call it "among the most wasteful examples of botched construction projects ever promulgated by the federal government."  That should immediately give pause to anyone who thinks a new stimulus package that includes federal funding for government projects will be successful.  President-elect Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress have proposed such a package, which we should all be leery of.  But I digress.  As far as the CVC goes, I have no doubt it possesses redeeming qualities, and I read that if you can get past the "ocean of dollars it took to make this place, you'll see that here, content is king."

  The real success of the Capital Visitor Center was best pointed out to us by the Democrat Senator from Nevada, and current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid when he said that because the Center syphons visitors away from the actual Capital building, in the summer he will no longer have to smell the tourists.  "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol.  It may be descriptive but it's true."  But thanks the the air conditioned, indoor space, that will no longer be the case, noted Reid.

  I would like to humbly point out that those ''tourists" are the American people, who Harry Reid works for.  I do always feel the pain of those who are elected to office and forced to smell their constituents.  I believe that ranks among the worst injustices in our nations history.  Thankfully we have people in power like Harry Reid, and other men and women of action, who recognized that problem and are free to spend over $620 million of our money t0 build another capital building to funnel us losers away from Congress.  The last thing we would want is to have our Kings coming into contact with the masses.  Oops, what did I say, 'Kings?'  I meant "humble representatives."  Actual availability to the voters ranks just below accountability in the least desirable qualities we want for our leaders in Congress.  America is blessed that while we have a budget deficit, two wars raging, a sagging economy, and millions out of work, we still have visionary leaders like Harry Reid who don't get distracted with the petty issues, but recognize the real problems in our country.  With people like him in Congress, we should all be very secure knowing our government is in very capable hands.  Long live the King....er I mean, Congressman!

Sniff, Sniff.  "Do you smell something?"

  On a less sarcastic and more serious note, a very wise man once said "those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart."  I cannot claim to look into Harry Reid's heart, and I don't want to.  But if the saying is correct, then what we say is indicative of what we're really thinking.  After being four years behind schedule and $400 million over budget, if one of the first things that comes out of your mouth is that you are pleased you don't have to smell the tourists anymore, then I do believe that says something about how you view yourself, your constituents, and maybe more importantly how you view people in general.  

  Obviously I was quite put off by his comments, and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the comments.  I don't know what those comments say about Harry Reid, but I don't think it is anything complimentary.