President Obama this week came out with his budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Wow, after reading about its details, I’m impressed. Now before you go into shock, let me explain something. I’m impressed that he is such a leftie that he will never abandon or even modify his fanatic beliefs in higher taxes and reckless spending as a way for America to rebound. Some details are in order.
He makes several claims. For one, he thinks a tax increase on the wealthy and defense spending cuts that will never materialize will help solve our problems. He also asserts that in his second term revenues will soar, outlays will fall, and $1.3 trillion annual deficits will be cut in half.
But let’s review the past four years to see if these promises are based on Obama’s fiscal history. His can claim four years of spending of more than 24% of GDP, the four highest spending years since 1946. In the current fiscal year of 2012, despite talk of austerity, Mr. Obama predicts spending will increase by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion, or 24.3% of GDP. Also, another deficit of $1.327 trillion in 2012, also an increase from 2011, will make it four years in a row above $1.29 trillion. When was the last time that happened? Never. In addition, revenues are at historic lows because of the mediocre recovery and temporary tax cuts that are deadweight revenue losses because they do so little for economic growth. The White House budget office estimates that for the fourth year in a row revenues won't reach 16% of GDP. The last time they were below 16% for any year was 1950.
What is the financial result of these disasters over the past four years? All of this has added as astonishing $5 trillion in debt in a single Presidential term. We as a nation stand at a national debt held by the public (the kind you have to pay back) will hit 74.2% this year and keep rising to 77.4% next year. Economists warn that when debt to GDP reaches 90% or so, the economic damage begins to rise. And this doesn't include the debt that future taxpayers owe current and future retirees through the IOUs in the Social Security "trust fund."
Despite all the terrible news, Obama says this will change in 2013 if he is re-elected. Next year, revenues will suddenly leap to 17.8% of GDP thanks to tax increases on the wealthy, which we are supposed to believe will have little impact on growth. Didn’t someone say they never got a job from a poor person?
Meanwhile, spending will fall by one percentage point of GDP to 23.3%, thanks to the automatic cuts in last year's debt-ceiling bill. But there’s a catch here in this supposed good news. More than half of those cuts are scheduled to come out of defense, which even Mr. Obama's Defense Secretary says are unacceptable. They will be renegotiated next year no matter who wins in November. The cuts also include an estimated $1 trillion in savings in domestic discretionary programs that also won't happen, especially because Mr. Obama's budget proposes to add $350 billion to these programs. His budget also proposes no meaningful reforms in entitlements, which are the fastest growing part of the budget and will grow even faster once ObamaCare really kicks in. Won’t that be dandy?
So what can we count on? One thing only--the monumental tax increase. His plan would raise tax rates across the board on anyone or any business owners making more than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. These are the 3% of taxpayers that Mr. Obama says aren't paying their fair share, though that 3% pays more in income tax than the rest of the other 97%.
That’s enough bad news for now. I’ll have one more blog to lay out the rest of the bad news. Thank goodness the G.O.P., weak and inept as it is, controls the House and will drive a stake through the heart of this budget.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The science fiction religion
I love science fiction and have taught it several times out at Palomar College. When I was researching Scientology, I read about L. Ron Hubbard's belief in thetans. Wow, it's another great science fiction story. The only downside is that it has deluded so many people over the years and taken so much of their money. Here's the thetan story in a nutshell.
In the primordial past thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe is thought to have no independent reality, but to derive its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity. Eventually, they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.
When a person dies — when a thetan abandons its physical body — he/she goes to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. Says Hubbard, "If you can get out of that [the capsule], and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby." This is basic reincarnation.
Now, there's so much to say here. First, isn't it sad that sharp people who have ridiculed Christianity for its miracle stories of Jesus will fall for Hubbard's nonsense? None of his story can be backed up, of course, unlike the gospel stories of Jesus which have good manuscript evidence. Secondly, I love Hubbard's comments--they don't sound like they were thought out very well. Third, I'm amazed people don't see how he has simply taken Eastern religion and put it in a new wrapper.
People say it's too hard to choose between religions ("they're all the same"). Nah, that's lazy thinking. There are huge differences--look at the founder, look at the beliefs, consider the evidence they present. I'll take Christianity any day over the science fiction of L. Ron Hubbard.
In the primordial past thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe is thought to have no independent reality, but to derive its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity. Eventually, they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.
When a person dies — when a thetan abandons its physical body — he/she goes to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. Says Hubbard, "If you can get out of that [the capsule], and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby." This is basic reincarnation.
Now, there's so much to say here. First, isn't it sad that sharp people who have ridiculed Christianity for its miracle stories of Jesus will fall for Hubbard's nonsense? None of his story can be backed up, of course, unlike the gospel stories of Jesus which have good manuscript evidence. Secondly, I love Hubbard's comments--they don't sound like they were thought out very well. Third, I'm amazed people don't see how he has simply taken Eastern religion and put it in a new wrapper.
People say it's too hard to choose between religions ("they're all the same"). Nah, that's lazy thinking. There are huge differences--look at the founder, look at the beliefs, consider the evidence they present. I'll take Christianity any day over the science fiction of L. Ron Hubbard.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
More on the threat to higher education
OK, last time I covered a new kind of educational practice--companies that offer tests for students to show their abilities without having to attend hugely expensive colleges. Of course, these colleges and universities won't let this happen without a fight.
One way they can strike back has to do with court decisions. The article I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentioned Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that companies could not administer IQ tests because they had a racially "disparate impact"--meaning, it discriminates against blacks because they score more poorly on average than whites do.
The Chronicle notes that the disparate-impact test in Griggs, written into law in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, applies only to employers. Educational institutions are free to administer IQ tests, which is essentially what the SAT and other entrance exams are. To assure that their degrees pass muster as a condition of employment, colleges and universities go to extreme lengths to ensure a "diverse" student body, including discriminating in favor of blacks (and selected other minorities) in admissions.
As I blogged some time ago, colleges and universities have developed sprawling bureaucracies to encourage "diversity," at the expense of traditional academics. They suggest strongly that IQ tests are racist, thus keeping them in business and throwing doubt on tests that might replace their power.
The higher education industry's credential cartel is under financial threat owing to the necessity of state and local (and eventually federal) budget cuts and the increasing sense that a degree isn't worth incurring a mountain of debt.
Here's some good news. It has been reported that higher education's use of these racial preferences is under legal threat. There is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will abolish or severely curtail the use of racial preferences in college admissions sometime in the next few years. Sounds good to me.
Now, thanks to these testing companies, there is a competitive threat as well. You can expect that the higher-ed industry will do whatever it can to crush this threat. The obvious point of attack would be to claim that the new skills tests have a racially disparate impact. So, get ready, ETS and CAE. The Ivy League is coming after you.
One way they can strike back has to do with court decisions. The article I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentioned Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that companies could not administer IQ tests because they had a racially "disparate impact"--meaning, it discriminates against blacks because they score more poorly on average than whites do.
The Chronicle notes that the disparate-impact test in Griggs, written into law in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, applies only to employers. Educational institutions are free to administer IQ tests, which is essentially what the SAT and other entrance exams are. To assure that their degrees pass muster as a condition of employment, colleges and universities go to extreme lengths to ensure a "diverse" student body, including discriminating in favor of blacks (and selected other minorities) in admissions.
As I blogged some time ago, colleges and universities have developed sprawling bureaucracies to encourage "diversity," at the expense of traditional academics. They suggest strongly that IQ tests are racist, thus keeping them in business and throwing doubt on tests that might replace their power.
The higher education industry's credential cartel is under financial threat owing to the necessity of state and local (and eventually federal) budget cuts and the increasing sense that a degree isn't worth incurring a mountain of debt.
Here's some good news. It has been reported that higher education's use of these racial preferences is under legal threat. There is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will abolish or severely curtail the use of racial preferences in college admissions sometime in the next few years. Sounds good to me.
Now, thanks to these testing companies, there is a competitive threat as well. You can expect that the higher-ed industry will do whatever it can to crush this threat. The obvious point of attack would be to claim that the new skills tests have a racially disparate impact. So, get ready, ETS and CAE. The Ivy League is coming after you.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
A threat to traditional higher education (and I like it)
As a teacher, I like to see what's going on in the world of education. There's an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that tells of something called "Alternative Certification." It's a new development in the education marketplace that should make many educators nervous. I actually like the idea.
The announcement of agreements between Burck Smith's StraighterLine and the Education Testing Service (ETS) and the Council on Aid to Education (CAE) to provide competency test materials to students online is potentially very important, along with several other recent developments. It all comes down to economics to explain why this is important.
With regards to colleges, consumers typically have believed that there are no good substitutes–the only way a person can certify to potential employers that she/he is pretty bright, well educated, good at communicating, disciplined, etc., is by presenting a bachelor's degree diploma. College graduates typically have these positive attributes more than others, so degrees serve as an important signaling device to employers, lowering the costs of learning about the traits of the applicant. Because of the lack of good substitutes, colleges face little outside competition and can raise prices more, given their quasi-monopoly status. And, of course, this is the problem--no competition.
So colleges have been able to raise prices at will, knowing that students and their families will pay through the nose. But people are now asking an important question: Aren't there cheaper ways of certifying competence and skills to employers?
If someone could offer a less expensive job-hunting license--one that assessed an entry-level job-seeker's worth to a prospective employer at least as accurately as a college degree does--then the demand for college would plummet, as young adults could realize the same gains from a much smaller investment. I'm OK with this since the market should be allowed to operate and come up with better alternatives.
That's where ETS and CAE come in. They will offer two tests. One, called iSkills, "measures the ability of a student to navigate and critically evaluate information from digital technology." The other, the CLA, "assesses critical learning and writing skills through use of cognitively challenging problems." Students can tell employers, "I did very well on the CLA and iSkills test, strong predictors of future positive work performance." The idea is that the business can hire people for less than they would have to pay college graduates who score less well on these tests.
If the practice became widespread, it would drive college costs down and force cost-cutting and downsizing within the higher-ed industry. Sounds great to me. But you can expect the industry to fight hard against it.
I'll discuss ways the schools and colleges will fight back in the next blog.
The announcement of agreements between Burck Smith's StraighterLine and the Education Testing Service (ETS) and the Council on Aid to Education (CAE) to provide competency test materials to students online is potentially very important, along with several other recent developments. It all comes down to economics to explain why this is important.
With regards to colleges, consumers typically have believed that there are no good substitutes–the only way a person can certify to potential employers that she/he is pretty bright, well educated, good at communicating, disciplined, etc., is by presenting a bachelor's degree diploma. College graduates typically have these positive attributes more than others, so degrees serve as an important signaling device to employers, lowering the costs of learning about the traits of the applicant. Because of the lack of good substitutes, colleges face little outside competition and can raise prices more, given their quasi-monopoly status. And, of course, this is the problem--no competition.
So colleges have been able to raise prices at will, knowing that students and their families will pay through the nose. But people are now asking an important question: Aren't there cheaper ways of certifying competence and skills to employers?
If someone could offer a less expensive job-hunting license--one that assessed an entry-level job-seeker's worth to a prospective employer at least as accurately as a college degree does--then the demand for college would plummet, as young adults could realize the same gains from a much smaller investment. I'm OK with this since the market should be allowed to operate and come up with better alternatives.
That's where ETS and CAE come in. They will offer two tests. One, called iSkills, "measures the ability of a student to navigate and critically evaluate information from digital technology." The other, the CLA, "assesses critical learning and writing skills through use of cognitively challenging problems." Students can tell employers, "I did very well on the CLA and iSkills test, strong predictors of future positive work performance." The idea is that the business can hire people for less than they would have to pay college graduates who score less well on these tests.
If the practice became widespread, it would drive college costs down and force cost-cutting and downsizing within the higher-ed industry. Sounds great to me. But you can expect the industry to fight hard against it.
I'll discuss ways the schools and colleges will fight back in the next blog.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The global warming scam--part 2
Check my last blog on the further problems of global warming fanatics--no such thing over the past ten years. Why don't we hear more about this con game?
Fear is at work. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. Take one example. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Why is there so much passion about global warming? What stirs the hearts of scientists and politicians to get behind this theory? The article I read said there are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old standard, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Al Gore has done very well for himself in the role of global warming prophet.
The sixteen scientists who wrote the article have a simple message: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Why? It is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
The conclusion of these scientists is worth quoting in this year of politics: "Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of 'incontrovertible' evidence." Amen.
Here's a list of the authors so you can see their credentials:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Fear is at work. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. Take one example. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Why is there so much passion about global warming? What stirs the hearts of scientists and politicians to get behind this theory? The article I read said there are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old standard, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Al Gore has done very well for himself in the role of global warming prophet.
The sixteen scientists who wrote the article have a simple message: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Why? It is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
The conclusion of these scientists is worth quoting in this year of politics: "Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of 'incontrovertible' evidence." Amen.
Here's a list of the authors so you can see their credentials:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
A hugely important piece on global warming (or the lack thereof)
I read something the other day that was confirmation of a belief I have expressed many times in this blog--global warming is NOT something we should allow people to use to ruin our economy. The Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," which was signed by sixteen well-respected scientists in fields dealing with climate and related endeavors.
We're in a time of great political activity. The article points out a key thing: candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
Here's proof of their claim. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Dr. Giaever is not alone, and he's no crank. In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share his opinions. And what's interesting is that his position is not growing weaker. The number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now, according to the article. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
How has this hugely important factor (no global warming over the past 10 years) been missed? Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. Nice maneuver, right?
The article points out something important that's often missed, and it's so simple. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. The scientists who write this piece say that better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
I'm going to stop here even though this is only about half of the Journal piece. I think this is so important that I'd like everyone reading this to take another look and share this with your friends. I'll take on the other half in the next blog.
We're in a time of great political activity. The article points out a key thing: candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
Here's proof of their claim. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Dr. Giaever is not alone, and he's no crank. In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share his opinions. And what's interesting is that his position is not growing weaker. The number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now, according to the article. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
How has this hugely important factor (no global warming over the past 10 years) been missed? Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. Nice maneuver, right?
The article points out something important that's often missed, and it's so simple. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. The scientists who write this piece say that better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
I'm going to stop here even though this is only about half of the Journal piece. I think this is so important that I'd like everyone reading this to take another look and share this with your friends. I'll take on the other half in the next blog.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Obama and his energy policy
The other day Holman Jenkins had an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal in which he examined President Obama’s energy policy. Our President is trapped by his own rhetoric just when interesting things in energy are taking place.
Look at his recent decision to nix the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States. It will cost him votes, but he did it anyway. He has to do this despite seeing what’s going on around the world. He knows China and India are opening a new coal plant every week. He knows the huge amounts of fossil energy lying at humanity's feet won't be abandoned just because an American president says so. In addition, Canada's oil sands won't remain undeveloped; the oil will go to the Far East.
He’s smart enough to recognize the problems with the global warming theory. I have blogged on that many times in the past, so I won’t spend much time on it here. The theory may be popular, but the evidence has thus far eluded the tens of billions spent on climate science. The temperature data are so messy that they reveal no pattern connecting rising CO2 in the industrial age with temperature trends.
Obama is smart enough to realize these problems exist with the global warming theory. But he's also a political operator and an acolyte of radical theorist Saul Alinksy. He understands politics as a matter of power, and democratic politics as a matter of powerful coalitions cultivated and maintained with self-interest (aka money, money, money).
For Obama, oil and other traditional energy sources are connected with Republicans. Anything that's good for the oil industry is bad for the alternate power structure he's been trying to build with handouts and mandates for green energy. Remember Solyndra? Somehow he must justify the "investments" he's dishing out to placate a support base whose need for subsidies and regulatory favors jibes with the Democratic Party's need for donations. Oil sands are the "dirtiest" fossil energy, requiring great releases of CO2, so, of course, the green fanatics oppose it. To approve Keystone, then, would compromise his own credibility as a leader who can be trusted to deny advantage to "Republican" industries and deliver it to "Democratic" ones.
Obama is in a tight place. The natural-gas fracking boom has demolished his (the greenies) position that all ordinary energy sources are drying up, so we must turn to the uproven, unsteady, and expensive alternatives (hydrogen, solar, wind, etc.). For example, Solyndra must be defended all the more fiercely now that solar is collapsing globally as countries repent of foolish subsidies. Green energy must be hugged all the more tightly as the shale revolution renders hopeless any chance of wind and solar becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
Our poor President. Green energy metamorphosed from a policy notion into a political strategy and then into a dead weight his campaign must lug to November. That’s quite a risk he’s taking--spurning affordable, strategically convenient energy from Canada. We’ll see how it plays out this year as gas prices under his watch remain high.
Look at his recent decision to nix the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States. It will cost him votes, but he did it anyway. He has to do this despite seeing what’s going on around the world. He knows China and India are opening a new coal plant every week. He knows the huge amounts of fossil energy lying at humanity's feet won't be abandoned just because an American president says so. In addition, Canada's oil sands won't remain undeveloped; the oil will go to the Far East.
He’s smart enough to recognize the problems with the global warming theory. I have blogged on that many times in the past, so I won’t spend much time on it here. The theory may be popular, but the evidence has thus far eluded the tens of billions spent on climate science. The temperature data are so messy that they reveal no pattern connecting rising CO2 in the industrial age with temperature trends.
Obama is smart enough to realize these problems exist with the global warming theory. But he's also a political operator and an acolyte of radical theorist Saul Alinksy. He understands politics as a matter of power, and democratic politics as a matter of powerful coalitions cultivated and maintained with self-interest (aka money, money, money).
For Obama, oil and other traditional energy sources are connected with Republicans. Anything that's good for the oil industry is bad for the alternate power structure he's been trying to build with handouts and mandates for green energy. Remember Solyndra? Somehow he must justify the "investments" he's dishing out to placate a support base whose need for subsidies and regulatory favors jibes with the Democratic Party's need for donations. Oil sands are the "dirtiest" fossil energy, requiring great releases of CO2, so, of course, the green fanatics oppose it. To approve Keystone, then, would compromise his own credibility as a leader who can be trusted to deny advantage to "Republican" industries and deliver it to "Democratic" ones.
Obama is in a tight place. The natural-gas fracking boom has demolished his (the greenies) position that all ordinary energy sources are drying up, so we must turn to the uproven, unsteady, and expensive alternatives (hydrogen, solar, wind, etc.). For example, Solyndra must be defended all the more fiercely now that solar is collapsing globally as countries repent of foolish subsidies. Green energy must be hugged all the more tightly as the shale revolution renders hopeless any chance of wind and solar becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
Our poor President. Green energy metamorphosed from a policy notion into a political strategy and then into a dead weight his campaign must lug to November. That’s quite a risk he’s taking--spurning affordable, strategically convenient energy from Canada. We’ll see how it plays out this year as gas prices under his watch remain high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)