Month: May 2013

“Obama’s poll numbers hold up despite the storm of scandal,” – The Hill.

“Poll: President Obama job approval rating down,” – Politico.

The poll of polls:

Brad Plumer sifts through the latest numbers:

Remember all the stories about how a glut of cheap shale gas was killing off coal in the United States and slashing the country’s carbon-dioxide emissions? It’s time to revise those headlines slightly. According to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration, coal has been reclaiming some — though not all — of its market share in 2013…

That said, coal could continue to struggle. It’s important not to go overboard here. Natural gas is still more dominant than it was in 2007, thanks to the fracking boom, and it’s not vanishing. Even in the EIA’s worst-case scenarios, natural gas prices only rise to about $6 per million BTU by 2020. That might make it easier for existing power plants to burn more coal. But, according to most projections, it will still be uneconomical for utilities to build new coal-fired facilities for the foreseeable future. What’s more, new pollution regulations from the Obama administration are constraining the coal industry.

Meanwhile, Stephen Gandel explores a nuance in the tax law that allows fossil fuel companies to drastically reduce their tax bills:

So-called master limited partnerships [MLPs] were created in their current form in 1987. The corporate tax exemption is available for passive companies that pay out nearly all of their income to shareholders, who then pay taxes — generally real estate or investment firms. But the law also extended the tax-free status to certain types of oil and gas companies. For a long time, the MLP structure was primarily used by the transport companies. U.S. pipeline owners argued that the tax break allowed them to attract investors to a low-growth, but vital, portion of the nation’s energy infrastructure. Recently, though, a growing variety of energy companies have been seeking out the tax-free status, many of which are not low-growth or lacking investment. …

[A]t a time when many are worried about the national debt, and when there is increased scrutiny on whether companies are paying their fair share of taxes, it’s worth noting that an increasing number of companies participating in [the energy industry’s] boom don’t pay corporate taxes. There is now $400 billion invested in publicly traded MLPs, up from $40 billion a decade ago. And the number of companies eligible for the status could soon grow dramatically. Industry lobbying groups are pushing a bill in Congress that would further extend the MLP-tax-free status to alternative energy companies, which currently don’t qualify.

One of Derek Thompson’s commenters explains Stephen Jay Gould’s theory about why cicadas emerge on prime-numbered years:

[Gould’s] thought was that it dealt with predators having a large production of young every few years. For example, if the cicadas produced every 16 years instead of 17 a bird species producing lots of young every 4 years and smaller broods in the other 3 years would have a bounty for their birds when it intersects with the cicada year. Therefore those that produced heavily every 4 years AND hit the jackpot on the cicadas every 4 cycles could produce enough that year to offset the inefficiency of producing too many in the other 3 years.

But since the cicadas are on a prime number timer this strategy doesn’t work. Producing too many young every 4 years misses the big year that comes on the 17th year as it does the 13th year. Making that a really crappy survival strategy.

Update from a reader:

That theory is not Stephen Jay Gould’s. There is a long history of discussion of the periodical cicadas’ life history going back at least to Darwin. I can’t be sure who suggested it first, but the theory goes back at least to Monte Lloyd and Henry Dybas in 1966.  Gould, as was his custom, was commenting on the work of others in his popular monthly column for Natural History (in fact, Gould credits Lloyd and Dybas in his original column, which makes him, in some respects, a sort of ur-blogger). If you want to get into all things cicadical, look at the website of Chris Simon at the University of Connecticut and click on the left on “Periodical Cicadas”.

Dan Nosowitz describes another fascinating survival strategy – “predator satiation”:

It’s contrary to the survival strategies of almost every other animal: it intends for a huge percentage of its population to be eaten. It doesn’t care. The idea is to overwhelm predators with numbers, since the predators can only eat so many. The only other species that practices predator satiation in the US is the salmon.

[Cole Gilbert, a professor of entomology at Cornell University] estimates that anywhere from 15 to 40 percent of this brood will be eaten, but the density of Brood II is massive. There could be up to 1.5 million cicadas per acre, so even a loss of 40 percent leaves, well, probably still a couple billion cicadas from this brood alone. That said, 1.5 million per acre is very high; many areas won’t have one percent that many. Gilbert estimates that the brood will need between 3,000 and 4,000 cicadas per acre “to swamp the predators.” So each acre will need significantly more cicadas than that to survive to breed in that area again.

Nada:

Her retirement has significantly increased the GOP’s chances of keeping her seat:

Yes, it’s odd to argue that a party is better served by an incumbent retiring rather than running for another term in an institution where more than nine in 10 members who run for reelection are reelected, but Bachmann is no ordinary incumbent. The suburban Twin Cities Republican has always been controversial, and her image as the “Queen of the Tea Party” (as dubbed by the Weekly Standard) has proven to be a liability even in MN-6, the most Republican district in Minnesota. Only four Republican members of the House ran further behind Mitt Romney in their districts in 2012: three freshmen members and two-term Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R, TN-4), another incumbent with problems. Bachmann barely won reelection last year against wealthy Democratic businessman Jim Graves in 2012, and she was in for a tough rematch this time, particularly because she now has ethical and legal questions to go along with her highly polarizing image.

Silver agrees that Republicans’ fortunes have improved:

The Democrats’ chance of winning the Minnesota seat might now be on the order of 5 to 10 percent, versus perhaps 40 percent with Mrs. Bachmann on the ballot.

Update from a reader:

I found it interesting that Michele Bachmann’s one bill reported by committee was H.R. 850 in the 112th Congress.  If passed, the bill would have authorized the construction of an “extradosed bridge” across the St. Croix Wild and Scenic River.  In other words, had it passed, Bachmann’s one accomplishment would have been to make a designated “wild and scenic” river less “wild and scenic.”  Good riddance.

Her own bridge to nowhere. Update from another reader:

That “bridge to nowhere” that your reader derided is being built, to the region’s benefit.

It’s taking the role of the Stillwater lift bridge, the next major road crossing between Minnesota and Wisconsin, North of I-94 (which runs east from the Twin Cities). The lift bridge had been closed to traffic for long periods following the collapse of 35w, severing a major but ill-suited artery for the Twin Cities’ economy. The lift bridge sends commuters through the narrow streets of Stillwater’s historic downtown and is falling apart. The new project passed the Senate 99-0 after Senator Klobuchar lobbied vigorously for it.

I don’t know why it shows up in that table the way it does. I’m a liberal who’s been praying for Bachmann’s electoral defeat for years, but that bridge is a real accomplishment and I’m glad it’s happening. Good riddance to her, though.

Clint Watts compares the current jihadi movement to the Soviet Afghan campaign of the early ’80s:

For some fighters, the opportunity to fight in Afghanistan turned into a one-way ticket. Many Middle Eastern and North African countries preferred not to have trained, battle hardened mujahideen return home.  Likewise, some foreign fighters now craved more conflict and actively began seeking new theatres in which to fight.  Osama Bin Laden seized upon this first glut of idle foreign fighters to create a “base” – al Qaeda – which served as a focal point for the restless energy of homeless fighters.

While al Qaeda’s jihadi campaigns of Afghanistan after 2001 and Iraq after 2003 have not come to a complete close, these conflict[s] are both well past their peak with a second generation of foreign fighters returning to their homes and neighborhoods. This second generation of fighters has now repeated the cycle of their predecessors from the first foreign fighter glut, spinning tales of combat and facilitating the radicalization and recruitment of new crops of fighters to serve in jihadi campaigns as fresh battles arise.  In essence, the best recruiter of a new foreign fighter is a former foreign fighter.

He worries about the effect that these “second generation” foreign fighters will have on the civil war in Syria:

Why has Syria ignited foreign fighter networks so quickly, to such a great extent and in the presence of other conflicts across the Middle East and North Africa?  First, the Syrian revolution has continued far longer than any other Arab Spring uprising.  With each passing day, the Syrian conflict draws the attention of additional recruits.  Second, in Syria, foreign fighters have made a difference in sustaining the fight against Assad due to the absence of international support for the rebellion.  The longer the Syrian civil war goes on, the more foreign fighters will descend on the country. Western inaction in Syria will not only sustain foreign fighter flows to Syria, but will sustain a decades long jihadi foreign fighter recruitment cycle and likely produce a third foreign fighter glut fostering conflict for the next decade.

But what Western action wouldn’t also direct these Jihadists toward targeting the West rather than their own infidels or sectarian rivals? And wouldn’t this point also strengthen the Russian argument that Assad is better than what would replace him?