Radioactive Communist Zombies

How to Deal with Climate Change Without Impoverishing the World

If you're a global warming climate change true believer (and I'm not) you probably want to "fix" the problem while doing the least damage.  In that case, accordingto Bjorn Lomborg in today's Wall Street Journal, carbon taxes are not the way to go:

All the major climate economic models show that to achieve the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature rises under two degrees Celsius, we would have to impose a global tax on carbon emissions that, by the end of the century, would cost the world a phenomenal $40 trillion a year. Even the wealthiest of nations would have trouble paying that price.

That's $40,000,000,000,000 per year.  That's 2.8 times the 2008 U.S. total GDP.  That's 2/3rds the world's total GDP(pdf file).

So what's the solution?  Frankly, I say let nature take its course.

But if you're a climate change true believe, you probably want a choice.  According to Lomborg, there is a better choice than devastating the world economy and throwing millions into poverty:

An expert panel including three Nobel Laureate economists concluded that devoting just 0.2% of global GDP—roughly $100 billion a year—to green-energy R&D could produce the kind of breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly. 

And that would work much better than carbon taxes, cap and trade, and all the command and control methods the left prefers.  Of course, it could be the left prefers those methods because they allow them to control you.  Could it be? 

Scientists Know Why the Climate Cooled . . . Kinda.

If you haven't noticed, it's been rather cold lately (except in the Pacific Northwest where it's been rather warm).  In fact, the globe has cooled or at least stopped warming for about the past decade.  And now scientists have an explanation, sort of.  In the Wall Street Journal today it is explained:

[T]he concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperatures by about 25%, thus partly negating the heat-trapping effect of increasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

The key phrase there is "unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics."  Scientists still don't know what caused those cooler temperatures, called "cold point" temperatures.  But scientists are still grasping at straws to explain it all:

The overall picture is still far from complete. Water vapor's role may be important, but "it doesn't rule out other contributing factors," such as changes in ocean currents and solar activity, says Dr. Solomon.

Nor do current warming models fully account for all the complexities of water-vapor shifts in the stratosphere. And scientists have yet to pin down why cold point temperatures in the tropics fell in the past decade.

The models didn't predict the past decade's cooling.  Changes in ocean currents and solar activity could be to blame.  If the models can't predict what's going to happen today how can they be trusted to predict what's going to happen 90 years from now?  They can't.

More Greens Against Green Energy

It's getting to be an old story: greens fighting efforts to produce "green" renewable energy due to some environmental concern.  I am utterly convinced greens won't be happy until everyone is living by the buzz of a single compact florescent bulb.

Anyway, in West Virginia a man wanted to put up a wind farm.  But, as AP via the Washington Post explains, it didn't quite work out:

A Maryland developer has agreed not to build 24 turbines and will abandon 31 proposed sites at a West Virginia wind farm, settling a lawsuit by environmental groups worried about potential harm to the endangered Indiana bat . . . 

Beech Ridge Energy also agreed to operate turbines only during the bats' annual hibernation period, from mid-November to March 31, when they are not migrating.

So Beech Ridge Energy can only run turbines for less than half the year and can't have as many turbines as they'd like, to protect a bat.  This after probably investing millions in the turbines he can put up.

So do green meanies want "clean" energy?  Or do they want to control your life?  I think the latter.

We're All Doomed, Anyway

Been worried Obama and the Spendocrats will raise taxes and really mess up the economy?  Well, silly of you to worry.  For without lifting a finger, Obama and his pals in Congress can make taxes go up.  As Pete DuPont reminds us in today's Wall Street Journal:

[N]ext year there will also be substantial tax increases for a great many Americans. The first reason will be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts . The top personal income tax rate will rise next Jan. 1 to 39.6% from 35%, a hike of nearly one-eighth. The dividend tax rate will rise to 39.6%, more than 2½ times the current 15%. And the capital gains tax rate will rise by a third, to 20% from 15%. If the House health care bill had passed, all three of these rates would have risen to 45%.

(Forty-five percent!  Almost half of what a person makes.)

And if Congress does nothing, the death tax (a/k/a the Estate Tax) will be zero this year and then zoom back up to 50% next year.

Meanwhile taxes are going up because some deductions have expired and Congress hasn't seen fit to extend them (notice a pattern, a law, regulation, or tax is permanent, tax relief is temporary):

[A] number of last year's tax deductions have disappeared due to the failure of Congress to extend them into this year. The tax deduction for state and local sales taxes is one; the deduction for college tuition and fees is another; and the 50% write-off for small businesses for capital purchases--equipment, machinery or building a new plant--has disappeared as well, which will have a negative effect upon the construction of new business operation facilities.

Add in the wanton spending going on in Washington D.C. and you have a recipe for economic disaster:

[A]s economist Arthur Laffer wrote in his January Economic Outlook, we "cannot have a prosperous economy when government is overspending, raising tax rates, printing too much money, over-regulating and restricting the free flow of goods and services across national boundaries." We are, in his words, simply "moving in the wrong direction."

The Obama Administration and the Spendocrat Congress are doing everything exactly wrong.  Scott Brown's election sent the message that the American people know it, too (even in "Taxachusetts").  We have to keep sending that message, right through November of this year.

Anti-Gun Nuts At It Again

Despite the fact that crime is down overall, anti-gun nuts in Washington State are calling for an "assault weapons" ban saying it will prevent violence. From the Seattle Times today:

After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state's gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.

"There's more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people," said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. "You can't sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn't enough to confront gun violence in the state."

Yes, there's more guns, a repressed economy, and crime is down (see here and here).  And confronting gun violence does not mean banning guns, it means controlling criminals.

Luckily, this bill is unlikely to see the light of day, not even getting out of committee.   But it just goes to show the mind-set of those against guns: guns = violence so to end violence we have to ban guns.  Then why are some of the most violent places in the United States those with the strongest gun control laws (viz, Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C.)?

Fighting gun violence is easy: put and keep criminals in jail.

Less Freedom in U.S.A.

Did you feel that?  The United States has gotten less free the past year.  (Big shock there considering who's in charge).

According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom(pdf file) compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has gone from the 6th most free country to the 8th.  Not only that, but the U.S. suffered the largest drop in score.  Where have we lost freedoms (emphasis added):

"Scores declined in seven of the 10 categories of economic freedom. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial freedom, monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the federal government's interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed "too big to fail." These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship and saddled American with unprecedented government deficits."

Countries with more economic freedom than the U.S. include Hong Kong (#1), Ireland (#5), and Canada (#7).

Perhaps things will improve after the 2010 elections.

Greens Against Clean Energy

Not only do green meanies fight green jobs, they also fight green energy.

Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, emitting only 117 pounds of CO₂ per million BTU energy created (MMBTU).  While coal, depending on the type, emits 205 to 227 pounds CO₂ per MMBTU (according to Wikipedia).  That means natural gas is 43 to 48% cleaner than coal.

So you think greens would be happy that we now have found 100 years of natural gas in America to help lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy independence.

Nope.

You see, to get at that natural gas, requires a technique called "hydraulic fracturing" or "fracking" where water is pumped into the well to open up the rocks and extract the natural gas.  But as The Wall Street Journal reports(sub required, I'm sure), greens are attacking the practice of fracking:

Environmentalists and some community activists fear hydraulic fracturing could contaminate drinking-water supplies. They point to recent incidents that they say are linked to fracturing, including a water-well explosion in Dimock, Pa., and a chemical spill here in Shreveport.

The industry says fracturing is safe and argues that there have been only a handful of incidents among the millions of wells that have been fractured over the past 50 years. "Hydraulic fracturing has been used since the 1940s in more than one million wells in the United States. It's safe and effective," says Exxon spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman.

The worry isn't the water but the small amounts of chemicals added to the water to help with the fracking process.  But the water is injected thousands of feet below aquifers that supply water to towns and cities.  And last I looked, water doesn't go up.

Of course the government is getting involved:

Several states, including Colorado, Pennsylvania and New York, have either passed or are considering tightening regulations on fracturing and related activities. Members of the House of Representatives pushing for new legislation argue that federal oversight is needed to protect water supplies because state regulations vary widely. 

But natural gas producers worry regulations could cut into the thin margins natural gas drillers have and shut down production.

Which will result in burning more coal, importing more oil, or using a lot less energy.  Green meanies won't be happy until you're living by the buzz of a single compact fluorescent light bulb.  

More Greens Opposing Green Jobs

You know all those green jobs that fighting global warming climate change is supposed to create?  Seems some green jobs greens don't like.  Planet Gore reports (links original):

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality this week finally approved permits for nickel mining in the state’s Upper Peninsula after years of review and under strict regulatory language. The site would be the first dedicated nickel mine in the United States, weaning us from dependence on imported nickel to make the nickel-metal-hydride batteries popular in green icons like the Ford Escape and Toyota Prius hybrids. The mine will employ 500 in the construction phase, and 200 permanent jobs.

A green dream come true?

Nope. Environmental groups from the National Wildlife Federation to the Michigan Environmental Council oppose the decision and plan to appeal. They say green mineral mining isn’t green at all, but acidifies groundwater, threatens a rare trout species, and disturbs a tribal landmark that Keweenaw Bay Indians use for spiritual ceremonies.

Now isn't that interesting.  Where do greenies think the nickel comes from for the batteries in their Priuses?  Oh, yeah, China (if memory serves).

Seems enviro-wackos want green jobs, perhaps in China or elsewhere, but not for Americans and not in any case where they might affect the environment. 

Massachusetts Goes Purple?

All the news tonight is on Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in the Bay State over Kennedy heir-apparent Martha Coakley.  The margin of Brown's victory was greater then the margin of fraud, apparently.

So what kind of message does this send?  A Democrat in the bluest of states, whom Obama campaigned for last weekend, loses to a Republican who promised to be a vote against health care deform.  And what does this bode for the November mid-term elections?  Will this be 1994 all over again? 

The mistake the Democrats made was to think the whole country had just turned to the left with the 2006 and 2008 elections.  No, they were rejecting the Republicans.  (The GOP made a similar mistake after 1994).  But the country continues to be slightly conservative.  It's just that a lot of people voted Democrat out of frustration over Republican spending and scandals.  Now they see what the Democrats want to do when in charge and they are racing back to the GOP.

If only we can keep health care deform and cap and trade locked up until next January when the Democrats will be either out of power (except in the White House) or have much smaller majorities. 

Obama as Santa Claus

When I saw this "classic" Calvin and Hobbs today, I immediately thought of the Obama Administration's economic policies.  I'm not sure why:

Yep, sooner or later it's going to catch up with us all.