Month: May 2009

by Richard Florida

New growth theorist Paul Romer is into city-states. He sees them as a mechanism for accelerating Third World development and lifting rural populations out of poverty. It's an intriguing, if complicated, idea. Michael Perelman posts Stewart Brand's (of Whole Earth Catalog fame) synopsis (tip-of-the-hat to Mark Thoma for the pointer).

[D]eveloping countries could invite instant Hong Kongs–new cities in new locations run by experienced governments such as Canada or Finland. They would enrich the country where they are built as special economic zones while also rewarding the distant government that makes the investment of building the new city state and installing a set of fair and productive rules.  Over time, as with Hong Kong, the new city is turned over to the host country.

by Chris Bodenner

Zvika Krieger profiles Obama's new ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. As a presidential hopeful, the Utah Republican was simply too moderate for a shrunken base, too Mormon for its evangelicals, and too unknown to eclipse the other Mormon moderate in the race:

Two years was probably not enough time for the party to change. "He realized he'd just be beating his head against the wall with these guys, which made him open to the phone call [from Obama]," says another source close to Huntsman. … Heading to Beijing will allow Huntsman to sit out the mess that will probably envelop the GOP over the next few years, and return as a fresh face in time to gear up for 2016. It is also likely that some of his more controversial positions, particularly on civil unions, will become less toxic by then.

We can hope. Krieger also points to an interesting paradox of Utah politics:

He joins a long tradition of moderate Republicans from Utah, despite–or perhaps because of–the fact that the state is the reddest in the country, with the GOP holding every statewide office and more than two-thirds of the state legislature. The GOP lock on Utah politics allows the party to welcome a broader swathe of politicians, and breed leaders who are less combative and ideological than their besieged colleagues in more competitive states.

by Chris Bodenner

Chris Orr calls it:

The peculiar, and rather disappointing, Andy Roonification of George Will seems ongoing. There was, course, his extended climate-change crankery, and then his curmudgeonly and wildly ill-informed diatribe against denim. Now, in Newsweek, Will takes aim at Portland, Oregon, and efforts to reduce auto traffic generally. After tossing off a bit of increasingly characteristic faux populist posturing–is Will, the American male perhaps least likely ever to have operated a piece of heavy machinery, really the right person to rhapsodize Peoria, Illinois as the home of Caterpillar Inc.?–he suggests that no conceivable changes in public policy could ever persuade "0.01 percent of Americans [to] bike to work."

Yglesias tears apart that last prediction with, um, facts.

by Chris Bodenner

The Toronto Star asks the burning question.

Friedrichsdorf, Germany, 8 am

by Richard Florida

Robert Frank notes some belt-tightening over at Richistan.

"Fire-sale auctions of mansions, yachts, sports cars and other trappings of wealth have become increasingly common as the rich become less rich.  … Whether unable to pay their bills or loath to appear lavish at a time of national thrift, many millionaires and billionaires are unloading their baubles. In a twist on the estate sales of deceased celebrities, "living estate sales" have become increasingly popular."

Sure, some members of the nouveau riche are being forced to cut back. But a quick drive around the south Florida communes Frank writes about, or Beverly Hills and its environs, will turn up no shortage of high-end automobiles, designer hand-bags, and other markers of conspicuous consumption. And the growing popularity of the "Real Housewives" franchise illustrates that the haute gauche lifestyle continues to have mass appeal, however lurid. But the social zeitgeist is shifting away from such craven materialism. That's a broader social liquidation whose time is long overdue.

by Patrick Appel

A reader points me to wiki profile of Chip Knappenberger. I also see that Real Climate has tackled Knappenberger as has Climate Progress:

…it is just absurd to claim that “the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 7 or 8 years” when the 2010s will easily be the hottest decade on record (see “Very warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history by far“).  Also, the warmest year on record was 2005, according to the U.S. temperature dataset that best measures total planetary warming, the one from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see here)

Second, the cost to the economy and the taxpayer is very low according to every independent study (see “Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar” and EPA Analysis of Waxman-Markey: “Returning the revenues in [a lump-sum rebate] could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program”). 

And strong climate action could actually have immediate benefits for our economy according to one of the nation’s top economists (see Nobelist Krugman attacks “junk economics”: Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities”).  And that is entirely separate from the crucial need for comprehensive energy and climate legislation like Waxman-Markey to restore US leadership in clean energy through , which will be one of the biggest job-creating industries in the world in the coming decades.

Finally, of course, we have the “analysis” that says if the United States acts alone, we can’t solve the global warming problem.  Well, duh.  In fact, all of the other developed countries committed more than a decade ago to restrict their emissions — and they have been begging us to take some action for many, many years.  It is, needless to say, inconceivable that other nations are going to take more action until the richest country in the world — the one that would be greatest amount of cumulative emissions by far — starts to clean up its act.

by Patrick Appel

Damon Linker responds to Larison:

by Lane Wallace

Another note on our attitudes about risk …

Fifty people died in that accident. That's a terrible tragedy. And as a pilot and writer who's covered aviation for 20 years, I'm intimately aware of the risk factors, and even the training issues, that exist in both private and commercial aviation. So not to discount any of that.  

by Patrick Appel

Jim Manzi makes a strong case against the Waxman bill (read his whole post):

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has applied standard climate models to project that, under the scenario for global economic and population growth referenced above (A1B), Waxman-Markey’s emissions reductions would have the net effect of lowering global temperatures by about 0.1°C by 2100. Remember that the estimated cost of a 4°C increase in temperature (40 times this amount) is about 3 percent of global economic output.

Assume for the moment that global warming has the same impact on the U.S. as a percentage of GDP as it does on the world as a whole (an assumption that almost certainly exaggerates the impact on the U.S.). A crude estimate of the U.S. economic costs that Waxman-Markey would avoid sometime later than 2100 would then be about one-fortieth of 3 percent, or about 0.08 percent of economic output. This number is one-tenth of 0.8 percent, the EPA’s estimate of consumption loss from Waxman-Markey by 2050. To repeat: The costs would be more than ten times the benefits, even under extremely unrealistic assumptions of low costs and high benefits. More realistic assumptions would make for a comparison far less favorable to the bill.

I’ve had to rely on informal studies and back-of-envelope calculations to do this cost/benefit analysis. Why haven’t advocates and sponsors of the proposal done their own? Why are they urging Congress to make an incredible commitment of resources without even cursory analysis of the net economic consequences? The answer should be obvious: This is a terrible deal for American taxpayers.

I don't expect a carbon emissions bill to save money, but I've always known Jim Manzi to be intellectually honest and his back-of-envelope calculations are discouraging. While global warming is a fact, the extent of the damage it will inflict is harder to calculate. I've been leaning toward supporting the Waxman bill because of some of these more difficult to price costs of warming. The recent CBO study makes note of some of them. I also worry that the unequal distribution of global warming consequences will cause wars and international strife that will hurt us militarily and economically  – that we will get hit by climate change indirectly. Additionally, I'm worried about Obama's deficits. If Waxman doesn't pass but Obama rams through the rest of his agenda, those future deficits are going to look even uglier (provided the revenue raised by C&T is greater than the revenue lost by regulation). That could create another systemic crisis. And any of these concerns could spark traumatic low-probability events that would impact the US and world economy. They are also extremely difficult to price into cost-benefit.

I fully admit that I am working with an incomplete data set and unknowns. I'm also not a scientist or an economist; just someone trying to muddle though the issue. And it's very difficult to shake off one's own bias and evaluate this topic with clear eyes. I hope my fears are misplaced. But if Jim is right, and "Waxman-Markey’s emissions reductions would have the net effect of lowering global temperatures by about 0.1°C by 2100," it doesn't sound like this bill is going to do much to prevent the catostrophic events that concern me most. I encourage readers, especially those with a scientific or economic backround, to write in and prove me (and Jim) wrong.