Right in San Francisco

Crushing Coal - The Great Climate Debate

    While we have been watching the Great Health Care Debate, the Great Climate Debate has been quietly moving along in the background. As important as the government's trillion dollar program to take over health care is, the trillion dollar program to crush the energy and manufacturing industries will be more burdensome to American prosperity. It begins with global warming, and goes way off track.  

    With the next international convocation on global warming scheduled for December in Copenhagen, and the House and Senate going forward with bills to place major financial penalties on utilities and manufacturers, the the post-partisan President is calling anybody who argues the facts or has alternative solutions "cynical deniers".  With the zealots making it impossible to have a rational discussion about data that doesn't fit their model, American public belief in strong scientific support for global warming has dropped from a 2006 high of 77% to 57%.  What gives? 

   The logic process on global warming should be straightforward: Are temperatures rising?; If so, why?; and, what are the most practical and effective things to do about it?  Not in Washington.

   Question 1 - Are temperatures rising?  Over eons the Earth has seen cyclical Ice Ages with the last major version about 11,500 years ago, interspersed with warm periods (the last with "grapes in Greenland" about 900 to 1300 AD), and smaller cold periods (the last in the 1700s.) Reliable information shows an increase of about .4 degree Centigrade between 1880 and 1970, and an accelerated .17 degree per decade since.  The result has been a sea-level rise of about 7 inches over the past century with a projected acceleration of the trend. Like a Rorschach test, statisticians argue about the more recent data which shows the last decade to be somewhat below the high point of 1998. 

    Question 2 - Why?  This is more complex, with many things going on:

-  The amount of CO2 (the largest greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, has increased 30% over the past 150 years as a result of industrialization, exacerbated by deforestation. The evidence is compelling, and few deny that this is a major factor and that it is increasing with China's rise.   

-  The Sun goes through an 11 year cycle of activity which results in varying levels of sun spots and radiation emissions which have an effect on the Earth's atmosphere. We are at the low end of this predictable cycle. Similarly, the el Nino warming of waters in the south-central Pacific has been at a low point, resulting in lower temperatures over a broad area. If voices can be lowered, these factors may help to explain the more benign data of the past decade.

-  There are a number of other causes with relatively minor effects in this time frame: The Earth's orbit and orientation to the Sun vary slightly over long cycles, affecting radiation absorption; there are relatively minor impacts of geothermal activity; animal methane contributes (truly); and radiation from space affects the upper atmosphere. The first is a major factor in the Ice Age cycle.

  Question 3 - what should be done?  The "Al Gore/Barbara Boxer" answer" is the developing legislation which would call for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, selling permits to industry to emit greenhouse gases, and extending the Environmental Protection Agency to be the "climate cop". The debate is largely about how steep the reduction should be, how much the charge for the permits should be, how they should be distributed, and how much bureaucracy is needed to monitor industry and individuals.  The partisan differences are predictable.  

  Rather than again being the "Party of No", Republicans should focus on some principles:

   - Global problems require global solutions. We are right to be major participants in the global discussion - and to have refused to be bound by the Kyoto Protocols which specifically excluded China, India, and (effectively), Russia.  Righteous self destruction makes no sense.

  - Solutions will require the best technology available. The refusal of the Left to accept nuclear energy is a sign of either fuzzy thinking or bad faith. The recent decision to fund  an agency in the Department of Energy to foster research (established under President Bush) is a good step.

    -  There is a transportation dimension, and a power generation dimension.  The first (electric automobiles; quantum greater efficiency) also serves to improve our unsustainable trade deficit. Power generation becomes even more important as cars become electric. (With our power generation being 50% coal, 20% nuclear, 2 % wind/solar, and the rest "other", it is hard to imagine a solution which does not include "clean coal" - although that technology needs some breakthroughs.)

  -  Politics matter.  Senator Boxer's shrug that her bill "averages just $100 per family per year", may work in the Bay Area, but not where incomes are lower, coal is the primary fuel, and massive mining and industrial job losses will follow. (It would also be nice to have the Congressional Budget Office put a cost on the bill before it is voted on.) The international battle will be between the high-emitting developed countries and the emerging economies who want a free pass while they catch up economically. Hopefully President Obama will place America's interests ahead of his international popularity.   

    There must be an open discussion of how much benefit there will be for how much pain. This is a challenge for the Right as well as the Left. Absent that, the government's flailing will be more dangerous than the Afghanistan dithering.

   For those interested in readings from the major advocates and skeptics:

    - The most authoritative group of American climate change advocates - The Union of Concerned Scientists.

   - The global mechanism for developing policies - the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  - Facts that don't fit the model -  Harris-Mann Climatology.

  ----- 

This week's You Tube is a snippet of an interview with General McChrystal in Afghanistan, reflecting a bit of his personality. For perspective, he was the head of special operations in Iraq, runs five miles per day, sleeps three to five hours a night, and eats one meal per day to avoid sluggishness. He's standing by the phone.

bill bowen - 10/30/2009

The Endless Campaign

   Memo to the President: The campaign is over. You won. Your friends in the House and Senate won. You can stop campaigning and start governing. That means that you need to make some decisions and that you work for all of us.

    I know that campaigning is more fun, and that you are very good at it. Those who would have preferred someone with a governor's experience were wrong. You are a quick learn and you managed a brilliant campaign. I know that you are up to the challenge, but you cannot delegate everything.  

    Campaigning IS more fun - you can speak to those who like you; you can speak in generalities without any real commitments; the glitterati show up for your fund-raisers; the press is enthralled by your wisdom.  It was a brilliant move to morph your campaign organization into Organizing for America to, as the web site says,  "set aside the old politics".  Some in the vast right wing conspiracy will try to find fault with your recent emphasis on fundraising with the bankers in New York, your events for Jon Corzine, Deval Patrick, and Chris Dodd, and your efforts to get the New York governor to pass up a reelection bid in favor of your preferred candidate.  And those 130 speeches on health care were very impressive - much more influential than the phony tea parties arranged by Fox. And while I am on that subject, don't be deterred by their 20% ratings increase; we really do need to shut up those guys who have been unfairly critical of your friends in ACORN and Van Jones' Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. And don't get confused by those who liken your press group's assault on your critics to Dick Nixon's "enemies list" - that was then and this is now; and this is "the good fight".    

    But about this governing thing.  It seems to me that after nine months we could be moving beyond the promises to do something once you figure out how - Gitmo, gays in the military, something with North Korea, Iran, and Palestine.  And, I'd like to point out a few areas where a decision would be helpful:

   1. Afghanistan. I know that you delegated this to Gen. McChrystal and Joe Biden and they can't agree, and I am hopeful that the delay is because we are having behind the scenes discussions with Taliban leaders, the Karzai government, and the Pakistan government. But, at some point you'll have to make a decision that offends either the left or the right. Perhaps some more polling would help.

   2. Financial regulation. I know that you delegated this to Tim Geithner and Barney Frank, but they seem to have been busy and haven't moved it much beyond what Hank Paulson left with his blueprint. Some of us think that fixing the structure that contributed to last Fall's collapse of the world economy is almost as important as rearranging the health care system. But the stock market's back and 90% of people have jobs. And besides, those salary adjustments show how serious you are. Maybe next year.

   3. Health care. And speaking of health care, it may not have been the best idea to leave this one up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to design. Somewhere they seem to have missed the point that somebody has to pay for this. But, you did a good job of putting those evil insurance companies in their place for claiming that a $400 billion dollar reduction in Medicare payments might affect some of their coverage, and that covering preexisting conditions would make rates rise. We cannot have such lying in our new civil discourse.  Too bad the Senate wouldn't let you put that $247 billion deal with the doctors off of the balance sheet.

   My Democratic friends keep pointing out that it is anti-patriotic to not want you to succeed. I am a little confused about why this principle only surfaced in January, but I do wish you well, and look forward with hope to the decisions that you will eventually be making.

Sincerely,

   A Concerned Citizen 

-----

   For those who are concerned about the First Amendment implications of the Obama administration trying to dictate who is in the press pool and how the networks determine story coverage, this You Tube from the past administration might provide an alternative.

bill bowen - 10/23/09

2010 - An Early View

   Most of us have no meaningful elections this year - and that is a good thing.  That said, next year could be momentous, and is exerting a significant influence on Congressional posturing. Here's a quick look at 2010.

   The conventional wisdom is that the incumbent party loses some House seats (about 15 on the average), and Charlie Cook - the preeminent political prognosticator - has predicted that the Democrats could lose 10 to 25 if the election were held today - with another 40 "at risk". At present, Pelosi's party has a 256-177 advantage (including 52 Blue Dogs), so it would take an unlikely gain of 40 for the Republicans to re-gain control. With most of the probable Republican gain coming at the expense of Blue Dogs who come from districts carried by George Bush and/or John McCain, the liberal Democratic caucus will retain control unless there is a tsunami. Advantage Democrats.

   In the Senate, where the Democrats currently enjoy 60 votes, 19 Democratic seats and 19 Republican seats will be contested (including special elections), with 7 Republican and 2 Democrat retirements. Cook projects 15 Democratic and 14 Republican wins; but his remaining 9 toss-ups include 5 Republican retirements in "purple" states. The broader mathematics will be working for Republicans in 2012 and 2014, but they will do well to get past 40 in 2010. Advantage Democrats.  

   As an aside, one of the "tossups" is Harry Reid's seat in Nevada where the Republicans could knock off the Senate Majority leader.  That may not be such a good thing, as he would probably be replaced by Chuck Schumer of New York or Dick Durbin of Illinois, either of whom would be more liberal and more partisan - can you say "Senator Nancy Pelosi II ?"  On the other hand, this might well remove the block on nuclear energy's necessary storage site at Yucca Mountain.  

    So, what could move the needle?

   1. Money. Democratic House candidates have $149 million on hand as compared to $88 million for their Republican counterparts; in the Senate, the Democratic advantage is $96 million to $60 million. In this cycle, the Democrats have received 68% of the $86 million in PAC donations and 60% of the $147 million in individual contributions. So much for the advantage of the Republican "fat cats". Advantage Democrats.

   2. It's the economy, stupid. With unemployment about 10% (17% with an expanded definition), it becomes increasingly more difficult to claim that it is George Bush's fault. Most economists predict a slow recovery with GDP growth in the 2 to 3% range at best - with population growth in the 1 - 2 % range, and "productivity" in the 2 - 4 % range, it is hard to see unemployment coming down in the near term. While those who judge the economy by the health of the stock market may feel that the deluge is over, the 15 million unemployed certainly would not agree. Many will vote for candidates who speak convincingly about job creation rather than new entitlements.  And the Democrats' profligate spending (and the eventual inflation) becomes more obvious each day. Advantage Republicans.  

   3. Afghanistan.  Disclosure: I am in the cynical group that thinks the delay of an answer for General McChrystal is less about evaluating the military recommendations of Obama's chosen commander for his chosen strategy, than it is about the Hobson's Choice of offending the liberal Democratic base or offending those who see him as inclined to preside over the demise of America on the world stage. If the political target is 2012, either the "in" or the "out" strategy might work; for 2010, it is unlikely that either will. Advantage Republicans.

    4. Health care. The rancor will have worn off - except for those legislators who have directly opposed the will of their constituents.  In any case, the increased taxes and insurance costs and the expanded coverage - as well as the forced changes in insurance plans - will not take effect for several years. Advantage Unpredictable.

    5. Climate Change. See # 1 above. Few independents will be so pleased with the cost of "cap and trade" that they will move to the Democrat column - particularly in the 50% of locations where coal is the primary fuel for electricity.  The expansion of wind/solar from its current 2% will undoubtedly please the blue states, but will not help many Blue Dogs. This will be an early 2010 debate - close enough to the election to make a difference; and after a very cold global winter. Advantage Unpredictable.

   6. Corruption. We all know that "power corrupts", just not how quickly. The conservative and moderate middle was repelled by Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay just four years ago.  After promising to "drain the swamp", Nancy Pelosi continues to embrace Charlie Rangel and John Murtha. And for any Republican politician looking for a one word slogan, try ACORN.  Advantage Republicans.

    With more voters calling themselves "conservative" than "liberal", the question is whether issues can overcome party identification, money, inertia, and incumbency. I'm an optimist.

  -----

   This week's You Tube of Saturday Night Live shows that it may be becoming acceptable to criticize Obama - even though CNN found it necessary to run a special report Fact Checking SNL to show that Obama is really accomplishing a lot. Truly they did. (The Daily Stewart parody on CNN is a bit long, but it is hilarious.)  

bill bowen - 10/16/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

The Olympic Metaphor

    He came, he saw, he gave a speech.  (My apologies to Julius Caesar.) The international community liked him personally. He departed and left not a ripple. Is this a "teachable moment?" 

   Much more broadly, the question more frequently addressed in the British press than the American is "what is the role of the United States in the 21st century?" While we have been fixated on Islamic terrorists and health care, the world order established after World War II is rapidly changing - and we are being quietly taken along for the ride. Some examples:

    1. Our current and future deficits have led to calls for replacement of the US dollar as the international reserve currency, most recently by the UN and perhaps by the oil producing countries.  In the future, countries with excess funds will not by default invest them in US dollars, and a periodic "flight to safety" will not mean buying US assets. Borrowing to cover out deficits will be much more difficult. Estimates vary on the timetable, with many believing that this will formally occur within a few years. 

2. The Group of Seven Industrialized Nations (G-7) has been formally expanded to include major developing countries in the form of the G-20. This is currently unfolding, but it appears as if the International Monetary Fund is to become the administrative arm of the G-20 - something of a global "central bank".  It should be no surprise that the 2016 Olympics went to one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), rather than the "old regime" United States.

3. Low level calls continue for reform of the United Nations - particularly the Security Council where the WW II victors have a dominant position to the exclusion of Germany, Japan, India, and a majority of the world's population. While such a change may be logical, it would not seem to make international peace keeping any easier.

4. Within the past week, our government has given up its contract with ICANN, the governing body for the US - developed internet, with the intent that it come under the guidance of an international organization. Among the implications are a reduction in the preeminence of English in deference to Mandarin, Arabic, and other languages and potentially a greater degree of censorship and government control.

5. With Ireland's vote for the "Lisbon Treaty" to strengthen the European Union, Europe has taken a large step toward having a president and a common foreign policy. Japan has voted for a center-left government for the first time in 50 years with unknown results. In a short time, we may not recognize our major allies.  

   There is no question that the period of American unchallenged dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is an aberration in global history, and that we will play a different role in the more pluralistic 21st Century world. But what is that role?  And how much influence will we have in shaping it? Much will depend on the vision, interests, and managerial competence of President Obama.

   What is the vision of the young man with a father from Kenya, a step-father from Indonesia, and a long-term ex-patriot mother?  He does not share the thousand little stories from history, literature, the arts, religion, and sports that make up the American mosaic - Washington's cherry tree; the "good Samaritan"; the landing at Normandy.  One must hope that the alternate stories offered by Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers did not take root. It is unlikely that either John McCain or Sarah Palin - who shared the roots of most of us - could articulate a clear 21st Century vision. They do understand, however, (as do most of the "Town Hall folks") that the Unites States of America is the greatest country on earth in terms of economic, political, and military power; democracy; ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity; generosity; and individual liberty and opportunity. One can only hope that Obama sees this as the basis for defining our world role going forward.  

  And the managerial competence? Hopefully the Olympic experience will help Obama understand that it isn't all about him (see George Will's column) , and that there is a large difference between popularity and leadership.

    -----

This week's You Tubeis a humorous, if premature, dirge for ObamaCare.

bill bowen - 10/9/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.