2005

Apply the Logic to Those Tax Cuts

ArchPundit March 7, 2005 No Comments

The Administration is happy to claim that not extending the 2001 tax cuts would be a tax increase.

The administration is also happy to claim that increasing the amount of pollution allowed under Clear Skies is a 73% reduction in NOx even though current law would reduce it further.

So, by their own logic, they are for more pollution. Damn that consistency….

The bill increases the amount of pollution projected to be released. The administration has tried to sell it as being a more efficient way to protect the environment. Under Clear Skies, air pollution will be reduced far less than under current law. One could be sympathetic to the notion that market incentives are a more efficient way to achieve the same goals, but in this case, the goals have been changed.

When the EPA was charged with coming up with a more flexible plan, the Bush administration gutted the proposal.

Under Clear Skies:
SO2
2000 11 million tons
2010 4.5 million tons in 2010
2018 3 million tons in 2018.

Under EPA’s 2001
2 million tons in 2010

NOx Under Clear Skies
2000 5 million tons
2008 2.1 million tons in 2008
2018 1.7 million tons

NOx under 2001 EPA
2008 1.9 million tons
2012 1.25 million tons

Mercury Under Clear Skies
2010 34 tons
2018 15 tons

Under EPA 2001
2008 24 tons
2018 7.5 tons with 70% facility-specific reduction

All of this is assuming there is a change. The arguments the Administration makes concerning the comparisons to the current CAA assumes that the EPA doesn’t enforce the current CAA and that’s a ridiculous assumption.

If the administration wanted to simply improve the effeciency of obtaining the same level of pollution through market based incentives, it could do so approximately throught the 2001 proposal.

Or it could have a real debate about the appropriate level of pollution before it adjusts that level–a lovel that in the CAA had to be done with science in a rulemaking process, not designated in the legislation. The Administration doesn’t want that though and the science behind the recent updates to air quality withstood every test.

The bill is far more problematic when one looks at it including federal preemption of stronger state standards through the permitting process.

Also problematic are the provisions that avoid monitoring of emissions compared to the acid rain system. To have a working permit trading system you need someone to actual make sure the permitted emissions aren’t being exceeded–that is significantly reduced in this situation which means smarter operators can figure out when they have to run clean and when they don’t. Further, several aspects of the system allow it to be gamed. NRDC’s testimony offers one specific example I find interesting:

Section 407(d) of the bill provides opt-in units with a menu of options from which to select the method of establishing their baseline emissions. These baseline options are designed to allow manipulation to create high emission entitlements — that is, opt-in units’ baseline emissions may be manipulated and inflated well above their normal actual emissions, to enable plant owners and operators to receive higher numbers of emissions allowances (rights to emit). In turn these bogus allowances permit higher amounts of emissions in the overall trading scheme. Because this flood of higher, artificial allowances from opt-in units may be traded to power plants and other affected units, the effect is to create additional authorizations to emit above the caps. Stated differently, the infusion of bogus allowances from opt-in units effectively raises the caps above the levels claimed by the administration.

The one thing we should have learned is that when a market is allowed to be gamed, it will be. This system will offer the same sort of problems as California’s deregulation of power, where by allowing producers to determine the starting points, they get to set the rules of the game. If it doesn’t bother you, then think of it as a barrier to entry for new, cleaner players in the system. If that doesn’t bother you, you are not concerned about the environment or a neutral market for capitalism.

James Baker Argues for Global Warming Initiative

ArchPundit March 7, 2005 No Comments

James Baker, as close of an associate to the Bush family as one can be without the Bush name, argued for more attention to be paid to Global Warming and a long term strategy to mitigate its effects through transition to other energy sources.
For a short note on his comments, the number of interesting statements is quite high.

First, on the hobby horse of environmentalists needing to speak a language of those who enjoy the outdoors

?It may surprise you a little bit, but maybe it?s because I?m a hunter and a fisherman, but I think we need to a pay a little more attention to what we need to do to protect our environment,? he told the Houston Forum Club.

Part of the problem getting people to focus on the issue is that most people glaze over at the long descriptions of the dangers of global warming. Most people stop at “Earth get hotter–Bad.” Of course, increasing the average global temperature by 5 degrees over 100 years doesn’t sound significant until one realizes the true impact isn’t the increase in temperatures, but the impact of global warming on ecosystems. If you like to hunt, fish, camp, float, or hike, the issue isn’t being hotter for you, but how relatively minor changes in temperature can radically affect ecosystems over time.

For hunters and fisherman that means radical change in populations that may well reduce the number of game animals as well as the enjoyment of an area as it undergoes change from one type of ecoystem to another.

Second, is his rejection of Kyoto, while still calling for action

he current Bush administration refused to sign on to the international Kyoto Treaty to combat climate change, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy.

Baker said he agreed with the decision not to join Kyoto, calling it ?a lousy treaty? because it did not include China and India.

He correctly diagnoses the problem with Kyoto. Rejection of Kyoto wasn’t the worst thing in the world. In fact, the problem from my perspective is that rejecting Kyoto without an alternative is the worst outcome. By not offering a different framework, the Administration sent the rest of the world down a path that will be incredibly difficult to change. Once Europe and other regions are focused on targets and methods contained in Kyoto, trying to renegotiate to a more effective regulatory regime becomes nearly impossible. Europe’s efforts will now largely be directed by the path dependencies contained in Kyoto that might not be the most effective long term strategies.

But he said he supported ?a gradual and orderly transition? to new fuels.

?I think we need to go forward with some sort of gradual, resourceful search for alternative sources,? Baker said.

This third quote is interesting in that Baker isn’t arguing for a Manhattan Project like effort, but a gradual and orderly transition that will make the eventual transition occur without creating giant bottlenecks in the economy.

Part of the problem is that R & D goes into fossil fuel research and development, but more problematic to me is that much of the R & D efforts on all fuels are done in situations where the research is divorced from the market. One can then find a ‘solution’ that works, but isn’t necessarily joined with a method to adopt the technology. The most obvious example of this is the SuperCar project that both the New Republic and the Trib have covered.

Fourth, and most importantly, despite talking heads on TV that decry the science behind global warming, the people with good scientists in their employ and a direct financial stake in regulation, admit there is a problem.

?When you have energy companies like Shell and British Petroleum, both of which are perhaps represented in this room, saying there is a problem with excess carbon dioxide emission, I think we ought to listen,? Baker said.

While the sound and the fury on talk television suggests that there isn’t consensus, that really only means that idiots paid for by conservative think tanks don’t agree (though many conservatives admit the problem). Industries are looking seriously at the problem and looking for ways to adopt solutions that will get ahead of the curve of legislation that they can see is coming sooner or later.

I’m sure there are areas of the policy area that I’d disagree with Baker over, but the larger framework from where he looks at the issue is I think the most productive and can eventually lead to a longterm sustainable solutions.

The question that no one seems to fully understand is that why isn’t there movement when major fossil fuel producers see a problem, when Ford’s CEO has made the issue a part of Ford’s marketing of the new Escape Hybrid, why is there still the kind of resistance in Congress towards the issue?

Downplaying industry resistance would be a mistake, but overplaying industry resistance is just as big of a mistake. Many of the industries most affected by future regulations see the problem, are adopting solutions, yet there is still stiff resistance. The answer appears to be that the ideology of the Republican Party doesn’t allow for any movement on the issue and it’s supported by conservative think tanks that generally are far more resistant than the actual industries.

As Democrats build up their infrastructure, this is an important lesson to keep in mind. The infrastructure should be geared towards developing and promoting new ideas that fit the Party’s values, but never should those efforts go further than the Party’s values where they become roadblocks to change.

Yeah, it was satire, but not by much

ArchPundit March 6, 2005 2 Comments

Fun discussions of the features of the sketch suspect at a white power site

In fact, they look nothing alike….

Hate Groups Evolution as they Become Marginalized

ArchPundit March 6, 2005 1 Comment

Via Peoria Pundit

Kevin McDermott writes a detailed column in the Post-Dispatch on hate groups and how they may be becoming more dangerous as the groups become more marginalized

White supremacist groups have been on the decline in the Midwest lately, with key leaders jailed or stepping down and membership in disarray. But experts warn the hate movement could actually become more violent under those circumstances, as angry “lone wolf” extremists take matters into their own hands.

McDermott is one of the few solid reporters left at the Post-Dispatch–or perhaps more correctly stated, one of the few hard news reporters left at the Post-Dispatch who is allowed to write worthwhile articles. I’m betting being outside of the mind numbing daily drag of the St. Louis based editorial team allows him to avoid inane supervision.

It’s a good overview of the state of hate groups. The one criticism I have is the same thesis has been bandied about since at least the murder of Denver Talk Show Host Alan Berg. It doesn’t make it wrong, it just means it lacks the historical context that this has been theorized for many years. The other critique of it that I’ve heard is that entirely depends if you are a black man in the South in 2005 or in 1955. I’ve got a feeling hate groups were a little more troubling at the time if you hit that demographic.

But the general trend appears to be true, as the groups become more marginalized the people in them have less to lose and violence like this is likely.

In Saint Louis, a rather bizarre radio station used to run two white supremacist radio shows. About two to three weeks ago, both of those shows were cancelled with one an idiot affiliated with the National Alliance and the other affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens–in fact the CEO of the CofCC, Gordon Baum, was the co-host of that show.

My run-in with the other co-host can be found here. That POS was a school board member here in St. Louis up until 1993.

Earl Holt is too much of a drunken ass to ever kill anyone (sue me Earl–I’d love to have you under oath).

While it’s true they are generally becoming more marginalized, it’s also true they aren’t so marginalized to not have connections to ‘mainstream’ politicians. As I pointed out the other day, Hailey Barbour has attended fundraisers by the CofCC for segregationist academy busing and let’s not forget David Duke who got about 60% of the white vote in a US Senate race in 1990 and did pretty well in later races. He now is active with the hate group Stormfront

Durbin on Meet the Press

ArchPundit March 5, 2005 No Comments

If you get this later in the day–remember they replay it on CNBC. He’ll be on the show taking on McConnell over Social Security. Given the polling data of the last week, I imagine Dick will be the relaxed one. And this kind of setting is perfect for him and why I was so happy he became Whip.

New Ads!

ArchPundit March 4, 2005 No Comments

Despite that I hadn’t mentioned his bill (or perhaps because) Jeff Trigg has placed a new ad supporting his initiative to reduce the barriers to non-established parties in the State of Illinois. His initiative would reduce signatures required to get on the ballot amonst other things. I was planning to voice support before, so by buying an ad, he puts me in the awkward stance of announcing my support as he buys the ad, but it’s still a good bill.

Allowing more parties on the ballot only increases potential participation in democracy and that is a good thing. Help Jeff out. Click on the ad in the upper right.

Two other ads–get your bracket manager Illini fans! and True Blue liberal is selling rubber bracelets to let you declare your political affilliation. Go for it!

Stealing Bill’s Hale Material Now

ArchPundit March 4, 2005 9 Comments

Sources indicate a Chicago Police Sketch Artist has been threatened by two associates of the World Church of the Creator. The sketches released seemed to indicate a darker skin tone than they felt was fair.

“The Police Sketch Artist is clearly trained by the Jewish Media which is trying to give credit for our work to those people. We simply will not stand for any suggestion we are not pure white Aryans,” said sketch one associate. “This is just another attempt to marginalize the white man in today’s society and we will not stand for it. We demand credit for our work and if the sketch artist doesn’t watch out, we’ll kill his family too.”

Police investigators who accompanied reporters to the quickly scheduled press conference looked at each other, shrugged, and placed both men under arrest. Bond is set at $10,000,000. The judge informed the defendants their insurance cards are not valid for bond in a criminal case.

Why Is It Acceptable for Charter Cable to Lie To Me

ArchPundit March 4, 2005 No Comments

Given Eric has been going off on grocery stores, I’ve been thinking about my testy relationship with the cable company. If Charter was simply incompetent I wouldn’t mind much, but the customer service reps actually lie to me with some regularity. The best example was when I requested an episode be put on the VOD schedule as Showtime had it listed, I was told that they didn’t decide what Showtime put on and sent me to complain to a web site that was a ticket broker. I’ll assume the ticket broker was a mistake and not a lie, but it’s hard to spin the claim that they weren’t allowed to include a show, when the show was supposed to be included other than lying and making up an answer to get rid of the customer.

Last night I was informed that if a signal was sent to the wrong box it would fry the digital box. Of course, this is absurd as sending a packet of information doesn’t send enough power to the box to fry it (perhaps screw up the settings but they can remote reset).

Is it really easier for cable companies to just make up an answer than try and fix the problem? The only way this makes sense is if everyone has given up and just tolerates it–other than those that switched to a satellite dish. But how does Charter make money?

Oh, wait, they lost like $2 Billion. IT’s quite a comeback strategery they have too!

Only an idiot would think that I would do this

ArchPundit March 4, 2005 No Comments

Hale in Time.

As Austin Mayor points out….really?

Both Hale’s parents have come to his defense with unintended black comedy:

Hale’s mother:
“Why does everybody think that it’s Matt?” And Austin offers up a pretty good reason

Her defense is that Hale isn’t dumb. Yeah, that’s why he not only threatened a judge who ruled in his favor, but was married to an Episcopalian.

And, of course, the “he was under surveillance” line is a bit weak.

It’s certainly true the police should investigate all avenues of possibllities, but when a guy says he wants a judge dead–believe him.