Kemper County Catastrophe

If you're not familiar with the Mississippi Power Company's integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) project called Transport Integrated Gasification (TRIG), you should read about it here.

MPC claims that this new technology, which is being developed and tested in China, is a cleaner way to burn coal.  That may be true, but a "cleaner way to burn coal" is still very, very dirty. And with coal, CO2 is the least of our worries; secondary emissions like sulfur and mercury are much more dangerous.

The lignite needed to generate electricity will be mined in Kemper County, and "22,000 acres of prime forest land and small farms will have to be eliminated" in order to install and maintain this unnecessary power plant. Contamination of rivers and acidification are just a few of the environmental hazards associated with coal, and with a huge project, environmental degradation is unavoidable.

This project is also economically devastating, and it will cost Mississippians billions of dollars in a time when families are already under a lot of financial pressure.  The Mississippi Public Service Commission originally set a $2.4 billion cost cap, but MPC proposed a higher cap.  I doubt you'll be shocked by the fact that MPC got its way, and they've already requested permission to charge a higher rate for electricity to finance the project before the plant is operational.  The cost of electricity would increase by over 11%, and MPC has pointed out that increases of up to 45% might be necessary to secure full funding.  The kicker? The people whose rates will go up aren't even the people using the electricity this new plant will generate, as Kemper County isn't in MPC's service area.

The company claims that the Kemper County coal plant represents a multi-billion dollar investment in our state, but in reality, it's just a redistribution of almost $3 billion from MPC's customers to MPC for an investment in something they don't need at all.  Consumers will be forced to pay more for electricity. Only about $270 million of the project will be funded by the federal government's clean carbon initiative, and only because that funding was left over from a failed attempt to build a similar power plant in Florida.  Moreover, MPC's biggest clients, including casinos and shipyards on the coast, are exempt from rate increases.

And what happens when prices go up?  Basic economic theory tells us that when prices go up, demand goes down.  Mississippi already has much more generation capacity than it needs, so increased costs will only translate to more waste, and as usage decreases, prices will have to increase even more to pay for the new plant, since future rate increases were based on current consumption levels.

MPC also claims that the project will create over 1,000 temporary jobs and around 260 permanent jobs, but a little skepticism is necessary, since companies usually mean "job transfer" when they say "job creation".  Even if MPC is telling the truth, and 1,200 or so jobs are magically created, back-of-the-envelope math shows us that spending well over $2.2 million per new job may not be the most efficient use of money.  If we only look at permanent jobs, that's a little over $11 million per worker.  Those must be some highly trained engineers.

Finally, calling coal-powered electricity generation "clean" is a farce.  You can't retrofit an old plant to gasify coal, so new plants have to be built.  In 2011, spending a single dollar on new coal-powered generation capacity is stupid.  The US Department of Energy estimates that by 2016 (when plants under construction now will be operational), the cost per megawatt hour of electricity generated from Kemper County power plant and similar facilities will be $136.2.  Compared with nuclear ($113.9/MW hour), wind ($97/MW hour), geothermal ($101.7/MW hour), hydro ($86.4/MW hour) and biomass ($112.5/MW hour), it's mind-boggling to think that this project was ever considered a sound investment.

The failure of the Mississippi government to protect its citizens from both the hidden costs and the unavoidable dangers of this is just another testament to the corruption in our government and blatant disregard for our well-being.  Wasteful spending, shameless corporate pandering and serious environmental threats make this an issue that Republicans and Democrats can - and should - jointly oppose.

Shame

I try to avoid using words like "ashamed" on my blog because, frankly, I've never been ashamed of the US. I'm proud to be American, and I love my country.  I'm often critical, but I always hope, perhaps naïvely, that my criticisms will help amplify the voice that is calling for change.

However, the United States' performance in Durban this week has been dismal, and for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country.

Climate change, at least the rapid climate change that we're experiencing, is a result of man's interference with natural processes.  Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased exponentially.  In all the talk about carbon dioxide, people often forget other more potent GHGs like methane, which has increased even more rapidly than CO2.  These GHGs cause the earth to warm, and the science that supports that is very clear.  The uncertainty surrounding climate change comes from predictions of future warming, and it's exacerbated by ratings-hungry media that skew the truth, or just lie.

America, Europe and Japan have enjoyed the most obvious benefits of industrialization, and out of those three, America is the only one unwilling to bear the burden of responsibility.

Now, some people may say "America shouldn't be responsible for the world's problems." But they're hypocrites, because it's very likely that the people who think America shouldn't pay for climate change are the same people who think America has some sacrosanct charge to spread democracy all around the world, or something.

The US response to climate change represents the carelessness that has pervaded American culture and the laziness that is eroding the foundation of our country's greatness.  Corporate greed has permeated our politics, and businesses are strangling the democratic process.  A government's only role is to protect the welfare of its citizens, from enemies both at home and abroad.  The United States is failing to do that.  Examples of this manifest daily.  Most recently, a tainted aquifer in Wyoming was linked to hydraulic fracturing, a disgusting process that I've discussed numerous times on this blog.  Scientists warned us that this was not only possible, but likely.  Congress ignored them, and this failure of government is indicative of a  much more widespread and serious problem.  Even now, people are actually ignorant enough to listen to industry representatives who question the motives of the EPA.

As if the US's self-destruction weren't bad enough, its combative stance at Durban is hindering other countries from taking meaningful action.  But, as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, the dialogue has shifted.  NGOs and other countries are no longer willing to pander to the US's lack of accountability; instead, they're saying "Get out of the way."  The selfishness of US officials is embarrassing enough by itself.  The intentional obstruction of progress is criminal.

For almost two decades, the United States has been spouting the same empty rhetoric about binding emissions targets and global responsibility.  As I said the other day, developing countries like China have indicated that they're willing to commit to binding goals, and America's childish response (or lack of response, rather) highlights its selfishness and hypocrisy. Is America the reprobate of international climate negotiations? In the infamous words of Sarah Palin, you betcha'.

Feeling ashamed of my country is new, and it's upsetting.  I've lived in China and Europe, so I'm used to hearing people criticize the US, and I've certainly been embarrassed by some of our policies.  But usually they're justifiable to some extent, or at least the consequences are more or less easy for me to ignore.  Environmental protection is different.  I was brought up to love and respect my country.  Both of my grandfathers were in the US military, but I'm convinced that the country they fought for then isn't the country I live in today - one that pushes aside the rights of people for the profits of companies and one that shamelessly shirks its responsibilities to the global community.  Like Abigail Borah, I'm scared for my future, and the one country that could and should be working to ensure that it's safe is wasting my time and yours by ignoring the truth.

Is it time to prepare for the inevitable?

Sage Magazine recently featured a blog post from Durban titled "COP 17: What to expect when you're expecting climate change".  The post focuses on two things: extending the Kyoto commitments and "securing financial commitments to the Green Climate Fund", which would provide funding to projects like REDD+ and other emissions reduction schemes in the developing world.

At the pace climate negotiations are currently progressing, however, it seems unlikely that we'll see anything substantial come out of Durban, especially when we consider the United States' continued unwillingness to commit to meaningful targets.  With that in mind, it may be judicious to be a bit...pessimistic.  Instead of wasting time bickering over details that probably won't matter in the long run, countries should begin preparing for the inevitable.

There are two key elements to this: the costs of adaptation and climate migration.  The first should be relatively straightforward.  We know climate change is happening, so we should invest money in things that help us prepare for it.  For big, rich countries, this isn't an issue; if the sea level rises, the UK can afford to build a sea wall.  But for states like Tuvalu, Madagascar and Indonesia, this will be a challenge - one that's insurmountable without the help of developed countries like the US.  Morally, we're obligated to do it, since it definitely wasn't Tuvalu's GHG emissions that induced climate change.  That should be priority number one.

Another important issue is conflict and migration that climate change will inevitably spur.  Jeffrey Sachs is kind of silly sometimes, but he's right that most future wars will be fought over resources.  In Africa, for example, it's easy to see how a lack of fresh water or arable land - resources that are already too scarce for the continent's rapidly growing population - could lead to genocide.  If there are too many people, the most obvious solution is...less people.  International organizations and powerful countries must be willing to obviate these problems.  They must also be willing to accept immigrants. To use Tuvalu as an example again, they're out of fresh water, and importing it from Guam is obviously unsustainable.  They'll probably have to migrate to Australia and New Zealand, and richer countries have to be prepared to accept immigrants whose home countries have become uninhabitable.  It's important to start designing these legal frameworks now.

China and Durban

China has indicated that it is willing to commit to binding pollution reduction targets.

I posted this on Facebook a few days ago, but as I was travelling in Cardiff and Bristol, I didn't have time to comment on it. This is huge news, and it's important to understand just what it means for the future of climate negotiations.

In the past, China has demanded "common but differentiated responsibility", which means everyone is responsible for climate change, but developing countries have less responsiblity than richer countries like America and the UK.  Because of that, the Chinese have been very hesitant to accept binding emissions targets (i.e. where they would be penalized if they don't reduce their emissions by a certain amount), and their excuse has been that America and Europe were allowed to emit when they were industrializing, so China should have that luxury, too.

Aside from the fact that we live in a different world where climate science is much clearer and more advanced, this they-did-it-so-we-can-do-it-too rationale is childish and irresponsible.  China has finally realized that. Their 12th Five Year Plan is the most aggressive yet in terms of environmental protection, and their commitment to environmental protection is fortified by a group of very progressive leaders like Xie Zhenhua, Pan Yue and Su Wei.  From an economic point of view, China has incurred exhorbitant costs as a result of climate change and pollution, and taking all of this into consideration, it is very likely that China will develop a meaningful strategy for addressing its environmental challenges over the next few years.

But what does this mean for the US?  Obviously, as the article I linked to in the beginning points out, China's new pro-active stance should pressure the US into accepting binding goals, but it probably won't.  American negotiators often say the US shouldn't be held to different standards as China and other developing countries with high emissions levels.  They call the Kyoto protocol "unfair", but what's really unfair is the fact that American laziness is wreaking havoc on the earth, and the people who should be responsible for it use flimsy economic excuses to justify their inaction.

In Durban this week, Jonathan Pershing said the US would only accept binding limits as long as other big polluters do the same, and although China will probably accept that challenge, I doubt it will do much to change the US attitude (both official and unofficial) toward climate change.  Instead, American hypocrisy will be underscored (once again), and congressional "skeptics" will be given the loudest voice.  Our politicians will point their fingers at India and Brazil, until there's no one left to blame.  As the world's biggest economy, the US has an obligation to be responsible, an obligation that it's shirked most visibly since the failed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. 

Happy Thanksgiving!

The world is doomed.

Small World

I was just walking to my dorm from LSE, and I saw a man in an Ole Miss hat with his wife.  I passed them, did a double take, turned around and tapped the man on the shoulder. Turns out they're from Mississippi, we know some of the same people, and their daughter goes to Ole Miss.  We might even meet up to watch a bit of the Egg Bowl this weekend in Paris.

Small world, indeed.

Mundus vult decipi, part II

Here we go again.

To the delight of skeptical idiots like Anthony Watts and the Tea Party, someone has leaked e-mails that were stolen from the computers of a number of respected climate scientists.

They're calling in Climategate 2.0.  Incredible.

(Please note: if you waste my time trying to talk about this, I'll defriend you on Facebook.)

Like Climategate 1.0, these e-mails will no doubt be taken out of context and used by the right to "disprove" the science of climate change.  Words like uncertainty and scheme and error will be reprinted in the media with no explanation of their scientific meanings, and rightwing blowhards will latch onto this non-issue like they did last time. Cue Sarah Palin, and RIP EPA.

With Durban fast approaching, it's very obvious that whoever's behind this is politically motivated and cares little about the scientific process or uncovering the truth.  It's a pathetic attempt to shift the dialogue from the consequences of climate change (and what we can do to prepare for them) to the legitimacy of climate science in general, which will do nothing but delay climate negotiations.

What's even more pathetic is that it'll probably work. Again.

Janet Daley said what???

So it turns out Janet Daley is kind of an idiot.

In a recent op-ed in the Telegraph, Ms. Daley says that OWS has "failed the essential test of protest" because its political objectives aren't well-defined, unlike the protests she participated in during the 1960s at Berkeley:

"The abolition of racial segregation in the Southern states of America (and de facto segregation in its Northern ones), the right of black US citizens to register as voters, and opposition to American military action in Vietnam still seem to me to be issues on which it was necessary and right to take a stand. The reason that I find it impossible to feel any kinship with the erstwhile campers of Zuccotti Park – let alone their imitators in London – is not because I repent of my own youth, or no longer accept the value of public protest. There is all the difference in the world between what we did then and what is going on now."

Janet's absolutely right.  There is "all the difference in the world" between then and now.  When she was at Berkeley there was a war going on in Vietnam.  "End the war in Vietnam" was a clear and easily-defined goal, and it fit nicely on a poster.  As for racial segregation in the South, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in direct response to the concentrated efforts of protesters and civil rights advocates, both in the South and across the United States.  In both of Ms. Daley's examples, it was possible (and relatively easy) for protesters to demand specific, achievable policy changes.

Unfortunately, OWS is attacking a different monster, one that has infiltrated every aspect of our social, political and financial institutions.  You can't write a law that outlaws greed and corruption, and it's not the responsibility of protesters to demand specific policy changes.  I'm sure a philosophy major from Berkeley could suggest a 0.002% financial transactions tax, but what would that number be based on, and who would consider his/her suggestion to be legitimate?

Ms. Daley is pandering to the Telegraph's conservative audience with this piece, and it's annoying that a woman who's smart enough to see the obvious differences between the 1960s and the 2010s is ignoring them for personal gain.

Are Republicans Earth-Hating Hypocrites?

Well, the GOP is at again, this time trying to pass legislation that would allow border patrol agents to circumvent environmental regulations that protect drinking water and fragile national parks.

Northern Montana, post "border enhancement"

This is a thinly veiled attempt to wrest even more power from the already frail EPA.  Republicans claim that there's a market solution to pollution, and when certain conditions are met, that's definitely true.  But what they don't realize is that their ultra-conservative anti-government babble is making it impossible to implement successful market-based instruments (MBIs).  Instead, they create obstacles to success, and when environmental policies (undoubtedly) yield ineffective results, they scream "Big government!" and blame it on the left.

The success of MBIs depends on certain institutional structures.  In particular, regulatory agencies must have the power to enforce contracts.  Firm 1 won't be willing to negotiate a carbon trade with Firm 2 if neither of their emissions will be monitored by an independent agent (aka the EPA) because they'd both be better off just lying to the regulators.

So Republicans, if you're going to advocate for the free market, fine.  But be brave enough to craft an institutional framework in which the free market can succeed.  If you shoot your opponent in the leg before the race starts, victory means nothing.

Hope China doesn't get it...

The State Department has decided to "postpone" its decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline project until an impact assessment of other routes can be completed.  This probably won't happen until 2013, after the presidential election.

Some people have accused Obama of pandering to his base, which threatened immobilization during the 2012 campaign if he didn't concede to their anti-Keystone demands.  I think it's more than that - Keystone XL was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans questioned the safety of a massive oil pipeline crossing sensitive ecosystems and important sources of drinking water.

It's definitely a good idea to make sure the research is sound, as it's possible that there were some conflicting interests surrounding the first Environmental Impact Statement.  Boener is definitely nuts to suggest that "more than 20,000 new American jobs have just been sacrificed".  You can't really sacrifice something you don't have, can you?

Like I said the other day, the Athabasca Oil Sands are nasty, but they're going to be developed whether America buys the oil or not.  We better hope that Joe Oliver and his ilk aren't too trigger-happy with the contracts.  If the oil flows west to China instead of south to Texas and Oklahoma, well....

Environmentalists Should Support the Keystone XL Pipeline

I was standing at St. Paul's Cathedral on Saturday listening the Occupy LSX rally, when an American hopped up on the podium.  He called on the protesters to abandon their tents for a day and move the demonstration to the American Embassy, where he and some of his friends were planning to publicly express their opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

I'm not sure how successful his event was because I was too busy being a graduate student, writing papers on rational choice theory and applying for fellowships, jobs and PhDs, but I read the next day about a rather dramatic campaign in Washington, DC, where thousands of protesters surrounded the White House shouldering a huge rubber replica of an oil pipeline.

Source: Reuters

Keystone XL is a contentious issue in the US, and for good reason.  The pipeline would bisect America, carrying oil from Canada's Athabasca oil sands in Alberta to refineries on the coast of Texas.  It would cross the Ogalalla aquifer, a major source of fresh water for millions of Americans.  The threat of oil spills is low, but credible, and with the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe still fresh on our minds, many Americans are unwilling to accept even the slightest chance of that happening.  A number of prominent environmentalists, as well as a few congressmen, have called on Obama to block the Keystone XL Pipeline.

A question that a lot of people haven't asked, though, is "What happens if the White House does red-light the project?"

Thankfully, Canada's Minister for Natural Resources Joe Oliver has already answered this question for us.  He's made it clear that if Obama doesn't approve the project, they'll just sell the oil to China.  Instead of running vertically across the United States, the pipeline would run horizontally across Canada to shipping ports on the West Coast.  From there, it would be pumped into tankers and shipped across the Pacific Ocean to refineries in China.

That's the last thing we want to happen.

The Chinese government's main priority is economic development, and as people get richer, their energy consumption is rising tremendously:


Source: Chinese National Bureau of Statistics

What China needs is to develop its renewable energy sector, and an economic incentive to do so.  What China does NOT need is unfettered access to one of the world's dirtiest and largest oil reserves.

The Athabasca oil sands are going to be tapped, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.  The question, then, is whether we want the Chinese government or the American government to be responsible for its safe transport to refineries.  I prefer the latter.  Sure, it's the lesser of two evils, but given our options, the choice should be clear.

My IQ just plummeted...

....because of this.

Brain...atrophying...help.

We are the 53%

I'm sure by now most of you have seen "We Are The 53%", a silly backlash against Occupy Wall Street that confuses lack of opportunities with laziness.  They chose the number 53 based on a report from the Tax Policy Center that says almost 47% of people pay no federal income taxes.  This number doesn't reflect the reality that the overwhelming majority of those people make less than $20,000 a year, but when you're a hardworking member of the 53%, numbers are a triviality. Oh wait...

A symbol of this movement is Frank Decker, who claims that he and his wife used to live below the poverty line while raising three children, but then they decided to go back to school and become teachers.  Now that Frank's comfortably middle class, he has a message for the OWS crowd: He does not intend for "lazy ass people" to snatch up his hard-earned tax dollars, which they would no doubt spend on cocaine and prostitutes.

"You want to 'occupy' something?" he asks. "Occupy a job and start contributing [to society]."

Hawt.

Clever, Frank. But one has to ask, how did Frank and his wife manage to improve their lives so quickly? Was it on their own? If they were living below the poverty line in the 1990s, chances are they were already receiving some kind of "government handout".  And when they went to school, it's even more likely that they received federal funding (because they were poor, non-traditional students (read: old) with children) in the form of Pell Grants or other state- and federally-funded scholarships.  I guess those handouts are only okay when they're being handed to you, eh Frank? Again, wrong-wing stupidity right-wing hypocrisy at its finest.

Another member of the 53% - a self-proclaimed "middle aged 'white guy'" who has "personally experienced discrimination and bigotry" [note: he has a two postgraduate degrees, including an MBA, and seems really bitter about something] - claims that he "personally believe[s] that in life we all eventually get what we earn & deserve. It's a natural law, just like gravity."  He also believes that Goldman Sachs executives ride unicorns to work and are paid in rAiNbOwS & hApPiNeSs! Very cute.

Newsflash: If simply deciding not to be poor anymore meant you weren't poor, there wouldn't be any poor people, and the world would be a great place to live.  If "good people" were rewarded for their virtue with more money and a lower Gini coefficient, there would probably be a lot more people in church every Sunday.

But the the truth is, we don't live in a Horatio Alger plot, where poor people can change their ways and suddenly become members of the upper middle class.  It's 2011, and "Ragged Dick" doesn't mean what it used to.

A lot of Republicans think that poor people are poor because they choose to be. No one actually believes this, especially not the Tea Party fruitcakes/leading GOP candidates who espouse it, and anyone who does is an idiot. The system we live in is broken, and it's a shame that the people it's affecting the most - teachers and nurses and police officers - are doing everything in their power to undermine this important and very necessary movement toward greater equality (buzzword!).

Perhaps what's most unsettling about this working class hostility toward the OWS movement is the irony that poor and middle-class people are actually willing to sacrifice their welfare for that of the uber rich.  Everyone knows the marginal utility of a dollar is greater to a poor person than a rich person, and yet many conservative voters - despite facing very tangible financial challenges - are choosing to follow free-marketism to their graves.

So silly.

How to Talk to the Willfully Ignorant

Talking to people who ignore science and use flawed logic to justify their positions is always fun.  A lot of them are fanatics, and they can't engage in civil debate because, well, most of the time there is no debate to be had.

So when I posted a comment on this well-known "skeptic's" blog post, I wasn't surprised to get some nasty responses. Here was my initial comment:

This is ridiculous. Obama is open to domestic oil production, but it hardly makes him a bad person or an irresponsible leader because he wants to reduce our dependency on oil and produce less GHGs. Quite the contrary, actually. 

Reducing oil use, by definition, reduces the demand for Middle Eastern oil, so it’s hypocritical to argue AGAINST green investment while simultaneously arguing FOR reduced demand for ME oil. It’s always so interesting to hear a righty pick and choose the numbers that support their case.

A high school student who’s sat through just a few hours of introductory economics can tell you that pollution – which relatively simple science has shown, with very high levels of confidence, leads to climate change – is an externality, and that products and processes that are energy/pollution intensive should be taxed or regulated to reflect their true social costs. Any serious economist will agree with this. 

And in response to some of these “corrupt Democrats” comments, please, please don’t get me started. That’s an argument the right will ALWAYS lose. 

Of course you say a word about greenhouse gas emissions to these people, and they go nuts. People on this thread were vicious, which they have to be since their arguments go against an almost universal consensus. They immediately started picking at the science of climate change.  Then they descended to arguing things like (paraphrased) "CO2 isn't a pollutant because we breathe it out and it's made naturally, plus it helps plants grow".  One guy even argued for incandescent bulbs (against their less wasteful alternatives), saying:

The much-derided ‘wasted’ heat thrown off by incandescent lights is often NOT wasted at all! There are many situations when the efficiency of an incandescent bulb approaches 100%, for example in lights that are at lower height levels like lamps where the heat warms the air and rises. 

Arguing that incandescent bulbs are efficient because they can be used as heaters is absurd, but it's obvious that for Tea Party members, that's not really what it's about at all.  Instead, "Blade" asserts that my support for cleaner alternatives - and government regulations to enforce them - shows that "freedom and the Constitution is (sic) [my] enemy." Not exaggerating.

So the arguments continued to devolve, as I presented pretty sound scientific evidence supporting my case, and other commenters ignored it.  To the kind of silly suggestion that CO2 isn't bad because it's produced naturally, I asked about methane and sulfates, which are also found in nature.  That was question was ignored, and I was instead labeled a "carbon demonizer", or something to that effect.

The forum reached its nadir when a moderator used my private information to reveal some personal details about me, including where I go to school (which one commenter has subsequently attacked). I would be pretty upset if I weren't also a very amateur blogger, but when you cross that line of decency, it's hard to take you seriously anymore.  Anthony Watts, a retired TV and radio weatherman, asked if my "supervisor at LSEPS would approve of the use of [my] time to hurl insults." He's obviously not very familiar with the reputation of the School; otherwise he'd be well aware that we rarely even entertain skeptic drivel like his. By the way, friend, we call it the LSE. 

People who enjoy being underdogs, even when it flies in the face of reason, will always be the loudest, and that's a shame.  You show them a report compiled by leading researchers, and they scream that it's liberal, politicized propaganda.  You say something that's actually quite moderate, and they label you an oppenent of American ideals. Their only arguments are buzzwords like "green liberal agenda" and "anti-Constitutionalism" and "liberty," things that rarely have a place in serious dialogue. A sane person argues for a tax on carbon, referencing pretty straightforward science that shows, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Deniers respond by screaming "there's no proof!" (there is) or "you're a liberal, elitist mouthpiece for the Obamunists!" (I'm not.) As we discussed in class today, misinformation is just another form of market failure, and it's ironic that the people who worship the free market are the same people rendering it ineffective.

It's sad that rational scientific and economic debates like climate sensitivity, emissions trading and green technology are so easily undermined by these cranks.  Instead of focusing on the real issues, scientists have to waste time defending what we already know - time that should be spent figuring out what we don't. 

For the record, here are some of my views:

• Green technology should compliment existing infrastructure, but as we continue to develop, we should focus on exploring alternative forms of energy instead of relying on outdated technology that science has shown has and will continue to have negative effects on our well-being.
• Obama should stand up and say "We are going to do this because it's the responsible thing to do." Climate change is real, and even if you haven't been personally convinced of its existence, you should respect the vast amount of scientific research that supports it.  Personal decisions should reflect the fact that the best available science makes a clear case for anthropogenic climate change.
• The economics of climate change is complicated, but certain ideas are not. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from private interests, whether that's air and water pollution or energy security, and pollution taxes are, as the Economist put it, an "elegant solution to a complicated problem."  Polluters should pay more for the right to pollute, as those who are adversely affected by their harmful emissions usually go uncompensated.  Only then will the price of pollution reflect its true social costs.

So how do you talk to the willfully ignorant? The answer is simple. 

You don't, because they don't want to learn.

Let's Talk about Rich People, or Why Poor and Middle Class Republicans Are Stupid

There's a lot of debate right now over tax increases on the wealthy.  Obama and most Democrats suggest that extraordinarily rich Americans should honor their social contract and pay a more substantial tax rate than their secretaries, while Republicans argue that this is "unfair" and "socialist."

But let's look at how those people got rich. Most extremely wealthy people start with much less than they end up with.  Lloyd Bankfein, for example, attended public primary and secondary schools, lived in subsidized housing, and was the son of a US Postal Service employee. Now he's the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Obviously, there are exceptions, but most people don't inherit all their money, not in the United States anyway. An industrialist's success depends on quite a few things: a well-developed infrastructure, a trained labor force, a political system that allows entrepreneurs to take risks and (in the US at least) some degree of protectionist policies to keep low-wage and labor-intensive jobs from migrating abroad.  Roads, bridges, high schools, universities, and the various economic tools that encourage entrepreneurship and domestic employment are all funded by government.  Despite the benefits of these publicly funded enterprises being tilted toward the mega-rich, the poor and middle classes often contribute a higher percentage of their income into the tax system than their employers.

Obama is trying to fix this via the Buffett Rule, based on an editorial by billionaire fund manager Warren Buffett in which he pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. 

And that's what the ultra rich oppose - the idea that they should have to pay more, or even the same, percentage of their incomes as the rest of us.  They own factories that hire up all the recent graduates of local public high schools, their shipping trucks run on public roads, their fuel and energy prices are kept artificially low by the state and federal subsidies and they are catered to by powerful officials at every level of government.  

Let's look again at Lloyd Blankfein, the man whose early success depended entirely on the opportunities afforded to him by public services.  Even his father's income at the USPS was subsidized by taxpayers.  Fast forward to now.  Mr. Blankfein made well over $14 million in 2010, about 417 times the average salary of a worker in the United States, and that was a down year. In 2006, he made $54.4 million; in 2007, he made $54 million.  And now, his accumulated wealth hovers around $450 million.  This is the same man who once joked that, as a banker, he's "doing God's work." Seeing how extravagantly the Lord must compensate his angels, I guess all the rest of us can do is pray that there's some gold left to pave the streets of Heaven when we get there.

But perhaps that's an unfair example, since Goldman Sachs controls almost $1 trillion in assets, so let's consider something a bit closer to home: Last year in Mississippi, the average CEO earned over $1.8 million in compensation, almost 68 times more than the median income of Mississippi workers. These are the CEOs of businesses like Trustmark, Sanderson Farms, Renasant, Parkway Properties, Hancock Holding, Eastgroup, Callon Petroleum, Cal-Maine Foods, and BancorpSouth.  All of these companies rely on public education to provide them with skilled laborers, whether it's a bank teller who went to Ole Miss, a geological engineer from Mississippi State or a line worker who's just earned a high school diploma or GED from a public high school.  The companies that have to ship things from their factories to various retail outlets depend on public funds even more.

Imagine how much it would cost Mr. Sanderson if he had to transport his chickens on a privately-funded road, one that would likely charge huge tolls.  And how much more would Mr. Patterson at BancorpSouth have to pay in wages if all of his tellers had attended private high schools and colleges instead of federal- and state-subsidized institutions.

Austerity measures had to be implemented at Sanderson Farms after public infrastructure was privatized andaccess to highways was restricted.

All the while, poor and middle class Republicans have been brain-washed by the rich, who have convinced many Americans that it's greedy to ask millionaires to pay their fair share and lazy to expect them to.  They cling to faux conservative values that at their very core chip away at the foundation of American democracy. Some of the people who would benefit the most from social programs like better access to family planning, public health insurance, and subsidized education, are the the ones whose opposition to these initiatives is the loudest.  It's irrational that a teacher in a public high school would support a Tea Party candidate who thinks the Department of Education is unconstitutional.  How can a man whose parents depend on their monthly Medicaid checks justify his support for a candidate who has called that safety net that so many people rely on an unconstitutional Ponzi Scheme?

Obviously there are smart Republicans, but they've listened to rich, well-connected politicians and their disillusioned ilk croak about Jesus and saving babies and death panels so much, that they've actually come to believe that there is somehow a moral - even religious - aspect to our tax code, our debt ceiling and our federal agencies.  They've allowed rich people to convince them that a flat tax represents equality, but this is a fallacy.  A 15% tax, for example, means a person making $50,000 will take home about $42,500 after income taxes alone.  That same flat tax would allow a person who made $10,000,000 to keep $8.5 million.  The rich argue that a tax increase would discourage spending and hurt the economy, but riddle me this: Is it logical to believe the spending difference between a man whose net income is 8.5 million dollars and a man whose net income is 5 or 6 million dollars will have any more than a marginal impact on the economy? Maybe he'll buy one less Ferrari that year. A flat tax spread across the entire range of incomes is unjust - equal percentages of income along the earnings spectrum represent vastly unequal financial burdens, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.  

Unfortunately, the fools today are many, and it's sad that "conservatism" in America has come to be associated with greed and ignorance. I was reading an essay last night by Oscar Wilde, and this quote seemed especially relevant:

"As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and have sold their birthright for very bad pottage.  They must also be extraordinarily stupid." 

For context, Wilde was discussing how poor people should protest their socio-economic situation, and that suggesting that the impoverished accept additional burdens while the rich soar on the wings of "free market ideals" is insane. Wanting a better life is human nature; accepting a lower standard of living when it's not necessary is irrational. In fact, Wilde finds it "incredible" that "a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws [that make his life harder] can possibly acquiesce in their continuance," even if his "morals" would normally encourage him to do so.

The question, then, is what's more important to you - the welfare of millions or the ability of the uber-rich to shirk their societal obligations under the guise of conservatism and fairness? Those who choose to support an oppressive, backwards ideology that forces them to take on even heavier burdens because it's what they believe is "good and right" - an idea created and propagated by the people it benefits the most - might just be our generation's group of extraordinarily stupid people.

And they are to be pitied, not admired.

London, Day 1

My first impression of London couldn't be any better. The second I stepped off the tube at Holborn Station, I knew I was where I was supposed to be.  I looked like an idiot hauling over a year's worth of luggage through the station, and two old ladies were quick to point it out.  They were joking, of course, and when I told them I was moving here for graduate school and possibly (probably) a career afterwards, one of them snatched one of my bags up and helped me wag it up the stairs while the other one told me everything I have to do and see in London.

After I dropped my stuff off at High Holborn, the temporary housing I'm staying in until I can move to Bankside, I walked down Kingsway to LSE, where this was my first glimpse of campus:

And another...

I walked around for a bit more, grabbed a bite to eat (at a pub that was founded before America and located on Drury Lane), and went back to High Holborn to check into my room (check-in wasn't until 3:00).  After a quick nap, I walked around the area and found this little side street, full of cafes, restaurants and shops.

Everything I've seen in London so far is unbelievably British, whatever that means.  There are double decker buses everywhere, all the people I've had to ask for directions seem very hospitable and the weather has been perfect. Maybe I'm just really used to living in China, but when I saw people lined up (queuing) at the ticket counter, I almost had a heart attack.  I haven't seen anyone spit on the sidewalk, there are no overflowing trash cans, and I haven't seen a single dead animal hanging from a window.  Obviously, there are a lot of really great things about China, but London really demonstrates the huge cultural differences between China and the West, especially when you compare it with Shanghai. Instead of seeing fake Apple stores or massage parlors, there are handmade umbrella stores and local boat shops that look like this like this...

So, from the High Holborn area, I walked down to Victoria Embankment and onto some more touristy spots.  The architecture in London is amazing, and the lighting they use on the outside of buildings really showcases it.  My favorite thing, though, is the monuments - everywhere you look there's a sculpture or an obelisk dedicated the guy who engineered London's first sewage system, or to Queen Boudica, who led an uprising against the Romans in AD 61.  The sheer magnitude of British history is also amazing, and it's so well-documented along the streets via plaques and monuments that you don't even need to buy a history book.  The coffee shop I went to this morning for breakfast pre-dates the country I'm from.

Ok, this picture doesn't really fit here, and it's already on Facebook, but I wanted it to be on the blog, too, because I was very proud of it.  I'm still learning how to use this camera, so I surprised myself last night when this picture turned out almost exactly how I wanted it to. 

Alright, well that's all for now.  I'll just be rambling around London until classes start on 29 September, except for registration/orientation on the 21st.  I still haven't mastered the usage of "Cheers" but I gather that it's used kind of like 好 in Chinese and a bit less like "OK" or "alright" in American English. There's a party for incoming graduate students tonight at the Walkabout pub near Temple, so hopefully I'll meet a few people there.

Until next time,
Matthew

Hopping Across the Pond

Well, today's the big day.  In about 45 minutes, I'll depart Jackson International Airport for Houston, TX, and then to it's off to London.

I've been getting ready to move since I found out I got into LSE in February, so the past few days haven't really been stressful.  I'm more excited than anything, and I have very high hopes for the upcoming year.

Expect another post in 15 hours or so, when I get settled in my temporary housing at High Holborn.

Until then,
Matthew

High Points from the GOP Debate

Well, it'll actually be mostly low points, because if I stuck to high points only, this would be a pretty short post. I'm going to discuss each candidate separately.

Mitt Romney thinks green jobs are silly and that knowing how to start businesses is akin to running the world's biggest economy.  At least he's sensible on things like Social Security.  But, then he started talking about immigration, which he thinks a fence would fix.  Then he said there's a "magnet" attracting illegal immigrants to the US, which I presume we know colloquially as the American Dream.  Very strange, Mitt.  He's kind of a joke sometimes, but I would have considered voting for him if he had screamed "NO!" when Brian Williams asked if he's a member of the Tea Party.  Instead, we got another obtuse "sorta kinda" answer. Pathetic.

I was just really jealous of Jon Huntsman's hair all night. Why, oh Lord, was I not blessed with such supple magnificent locks?! Also, cool it on the spray tan, brah.  His gold tie was a little too matchy-matchy (with his skin), too. Jon, you probably should have stayed in China, let Obama finish his second term, and he might have supported you as a popular ex-president in your (likely successful) bid for the president as a moderate Republican in 2016.  Oh well, now you're forgettable, and you'll probably be forgotten. BUT WAIT, there was a sensible moment when Huntsman said he was anti-pledge, suggesting that he's willing to listen to academics and economists and professionals who say taxation is necessary for a government to be effective.  He's also the only Republican on that stage who had the balls to say "I believe in climate change and evolution, because it's a scientific truth". Bravo, Mr. Huntsman.  Bravo.

Rick Perry's modus operandi tonight was to ignore questions and blame the federal government for EVERYTHING.  When asked why Texas has the worst heath insurance record of any state (compared with Romney's MA, which has an individual mandate and almost no uninsured constituents), he said that people would rather be able to choose for themselves.  Oh really?  I'd rather the government help me by providing affordable insurance instead of letting me "choose" that I'd rather feed my kids than take them to the doctor.  He also thinks Social Security is unconstitutional and a Ponzi Scheme (which Karl Rove and Dick Cheney think is a little too right-wing...ummm...WTF). Apparently, Perry's not quite sure what a Ponzi scheme is, or the Constitution for that matter.  He was sensible, though, on his HPV executive order, where he required 12 year old girls to submit to the vaccine (with an opt-out option, obviously), and it was nice to see him defend a good decision.  Unfortunately, that was overshadowed by the fact that he thinks we should employ predator drones to monitor the US-Mexican border, along with 3,000 more federal border patrol agents (wait, I thought you opposed government spending? Can't border patrol be privatized?).  Perry didn't do anything tonight except snake his way around relatively straightforward questions, mispronounce "Keynesian", and prove once and for all that he is completely unfamiliar with science and completely full of bullshit.  Let's not forget that he killed an innocent man on death row once.

Michele Bachmann was surprisingly quiet in the beginning (and middle and end), except when she vowed to basically appoint 15 Republican (read: Tea Party) Senators.  Bachmann got a little sassy about energy dependence, arguing that we should life all restrictions on energy production.  She wants to make gas cheap so we can use it more freely, probably because she thinks 1) climate change is fake and 2) God put oil here for humans to burn. And apparently Bachmann thinks a country can yield national sovereignty to its own federal government.  Maybe I'm too stupid to understand her political science theories, but I doubt it.  Her economic theories are beyond me, too, apparently, since an immigrant who comes here legally to work and thus pays taxes can somehow be a drain on the American tax payer. And, like, for real, what the HELL is on top of your head?? You need to call Palin and see what's up. Then you need to GTFO.

Newt Gingrich made a fool of himself yet again. He accused Brian Williams of promoting Republican infighting (really, though, isn't that just like a few hens pecking each other to death over a few spilled kernels of corn?).  Then he admitted that his only goal was to get rid of Obama.  The worst Gingrich idea, though, was when he suggested providing Pell Grants to all K-12 students and their families so they can pick which charter school they want to attend.  Horrifying.  He also thinks immigrants should be forced to learn English and American history, which must have been super awk for him to say standing so close to Michele Bachmann.  And HOW DARE YOU INSULT BEN BERNANKE you ignorant prick.

Ron Paul is a crackpot anarchist, which is weird since HE'S RUNNING FOR A GOVERNMENT POSITION.

Rick Santorum just looked terrified all night, his jacket was ill-fitting, and he was unusually squirmish (a frothily fitting description).  He can't be president because he'd be too easy to make fun of.  At least he's anti-isolationist, I guess, although I wish he'd isolate himself in an insane asylum somewhere.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan (or Nein! Nein! Nein! Plan according to Andy Borowitz) is really stupid. He agrees with Ron Paul that the government shouldn't be responsible for air safety (i.e. dismantle TSA and the Department of Homeland Security). So crazy.

OVERVIEW: These people are nuts.  They fight with each other like kids in a school yard, and they just scream shit like "class warfare" and "bureaucratic socialism" and "Obamacare" - and then they wait for applause.  It's completely inappropriate to host this circus in the Ronald Reagan Library, since (as Think Progress pointed out earlier today) he would be "an outcast" in the modern GOP.  Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are out, because they both looked weak and were largely ignored by the moderators.  Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were never even serious contenders, which only leaves Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.  Huntsman started off weak, but he came back really strong when he painted himself as a smart, pro-science candidate who appreciates the values of fiscal conservatism but recognizes the merits of Keynesian economics.  Perry and Romney were trying to appeal to the Tea Party, which isn't what's going to win this election.  Huntsman may not be too popular with the most conservative fringe of the GOP, but his ideas will reverberate among those who consider themselves moderates.

I'm extremely pretty liberal, but Huntsman convinced me to vote for him tonight because he was sensible and honest (and again, that hair!).  That's why I think he's the clear winner of the GOP Debate.

"Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices"

Inflammatory, right? Well, Mitt Romney has vowed to make this one of the five executive orders he'll issue on the first day of his presidency. He claims that he'll support free trade policies like no president in history (unless they don't benefit America's big business bosses), but apparently he thinks it's a good idea right now to ostracize China, whose rapidly expanding middle class is creating a huge demand for American exports. Sounds stupid to me.

 And while we're here, let me point out a stupid analogy he made about phones and the economy, in which he claimed that Obama's "payphone strategy" isn't working because he's pushing quarters in the slot (maybe hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus money injected into the economy is like quarters for Mitt?), but the payphones are no longer connected. Paraphrased: "Well, Mr. Obama, we're living in a smart phone age and payphones don't work anymore."

Actually, Mitt, even though a new BlackBerry may look cooler, payphones do still work. Unfortunately, America can't afford your "smart phone strategy" right now because we're broke as hell, i.e. THE PROBLEM. Looks like it's time to break out the quarters, a-hole. Here's a better analogy: There's a payphone near your house, but you'd rather have a new iPhone 4 because it looks good and everyone will think you're cool. So you save up your money (by using a payphone), and you buy one, only to realize that it was a stupid purchase because now you're out of money and have to pay a lot to use it. Hmm, sounded good on paper, but oh shit, looks like it didn't work in the real world. I guess the only option now is to cling to that outdated free market ideological nonsense iPhone and blame your fiscal woes on the payphone users.

Romeny also seems to hate smart people, parroting the Tea Party's anti-academic rhetoric. Again paraphrased: "I don't surround myself with professors and academics and economists who sit alone behind a desk all day. I have real world experience." Yeah, my dad's owned a pretty successful small business for almost 20 years. Maybe he should replace Ben Bernanke and lead the Fed in making decisions about federal funds rates, repurchasing agreements and money creation. I bet his experience in wholesale electrical supplies has prepared him to make decisions about regulatory institutions like the Asset Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, colloquially known as the ABCPMMMFLF (ain't that a bitch to remember). Sure, it's possible he'd be able to make successful fiscal and monetary policy decisions based solely on his business skills, but I kind of doubt it.

And what the hell?! Mitt Romney claims to have business experience in the "real world" that Obama doesn't have. Oh really? See, I thought Barack Obama came from a poor family, worked his way up the social ladder, to Columbia and then to Harvard, became a very successful public servant and eventually president of the United States. And I thought Mitt Romney's father was an extremely wealthy businessman and influential politician, who was CEO of American Motors and governor of Michigan, and who named his son Mitt after his best friend, J. Willard Marriott, THE FOUNDER OF MARRIOTT HOTELS. Mitt's story of struggle and triumph is inspiring. Not. Stop bullshitting us with your "I'm just like you" story. Because you're not.

To Mitt's credit, he did say that he thinks Obama is a good person and a good American, so that was a nice contrast to ignorant Michele Bachmann and her ilk.

This is going to be a rough year.

BREAKING: Barack Obama joins the Tea Party

In a devastating blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's already frail public image, President Obama has gone on the attack once again, rejecting EPA administrator Lisa Jackson's suggestion for updated air quality standards and effectively nullifying years of scientific research and pro-environment lobbying in one fell swoop.

Obama cited one of his executive orders from earlier this year that requires environmental regulations to be "based on the best available science". This was an attempt to discredit the EPA's scientific rationale for trying to impose stricter ozone regulations, but claiming that research conducted over the last five years is somehow inadequate or outdated is preposterous, and he should be ashamed for disguising his political weakness as a call for academic integrity. Propping up hack science in the public sphere has been a right-wing tactic for as long as I've been paying attention to politics - from family planning, to environmental policy to marriage equality. Barack Obama, welcome to the Tea Party.


Perhaps President Obama knows something the public does not, and the toxic industrial emissions that contributed to thousands and thousands of premature deaths just five short years ago - not to mention innumerable respiratory, cardiovascular and childhood development problems - has reconsidered its position on being harmful. How thoughtful!

Taking that into consideration, I guess this 1999 report is now outdated and irrelevant, as well, the one that says "Ozone [which the EPA's recent proposals were aimed at reducing], when it occurs at ground level, presents a serious air quality problem in many parts of the United States. When inhaled—even at very low levels—ozone can cause a number of respiratory health effects". That's great news! Because back in 1999, ozone was proven to have adverse effects on young people, old people, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, adults who spend a significant amount of time outdoors and some completely random healthy people. Since that includes almost everyone on the planet, I guess all we can do is thank God that smog 12 years later is no longer dangerous. Let's try not to breathe a collective sigh of relief, though, just...well...it might still be kind of risky.

Obama even tried to argue that the new regulations would further impede businesses trying to crawl out of the recession, and that it would discourage employment growth. For a second, I thought Christine O'Donnell or some other Tea Party magician had put a mind control spell on poor old Barack:

I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time.

At its core, the notion that environmental regulations hinder economic growth is bullshit. In the United States, there is almost zero empirical evidence that suggests environmental regulations reduce the international competitiveness of our domestically-manufactured goods [1]. As for economic growth and jobs creation, common sense should tell us that stricter regulations spur innovation. Requiring manufacturers to invest in cleaner technologies further diversifies the economy, creating MORE JOBS in a sector that has previously been all but ignored in the US. Opposing environmental regulations and supporting the theory of free market economics are not the same thing. On the contrary, it demonstrates a clear lack of faith in the strength and sustainability of the American economy.

Alas, if common sense fails us, we can turn to Paul Krugman for a cogent explanation:

And now you can see why tighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point! And with corporations sitting on lots of idle cash, the money spent would not, to any significant extent, come at the expense of other investment.

The federal government has a responsibility to implement legislation that protects our nation's business interests, but its responsibility to protect the physical health and well-being of American citizens supersedes it. A government that knowingly and willingly sacrifices the safety of its constituency for the sake of big businesses is demonstrative of a political system that has failed.

Obama seems less and less environmentally conscious every day. He has been dishearteningly quiet on energy and environmental issues since he was elected (which is even more dangerous in a country where the government allows public schools to ignore climate change in the science curriculum), his response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was lackluster, and he has allowed "conservatives" to chip away at the EPA's authority. He also seems increasingly incapable of fending off Republican/Tea Party attacks, and regardless of their absurdity and childishness, the attacks seem to be working.

It's important to have passionate people in Washington, and I think Barack Obama really is trying to do great things. But, if a leader is incapacitated because he's let a terrormongering fringe of the Republican Party paint him as weak and ineffectual, then he is, in fact, weak and ineffectual.

If you can't do your job, it doesn't matter how good of a person you are. You need to get out and let somebody in who can stand up to the idiots.

-----------------------------------------

[1] Jaffe, Adam B., Steven R. Peterson, Paul R. Portney, Robert N. Stavins. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?" Economics of the Environment, Selected Readings (Fifth Edition), ed. Robert N. Stavins. Norton: New York, 2005.

Alan Krueger Is In!

Obama announced this morning that Alan Krueger will take over the White House Council of Economic Advisors. This is great news for the country, as Professor Krueger is one of the most prominent labor economists in the world.


For me, this nomination is even more exciting because he's one of the pioneers of the Environmental Kuznet's Curve theory, a central element of most environmental economics literature. I used it extensively in my undergraduate thesis, and I know it will play a big role in my master's degree.

This is a good step forward for the US. Best of luck Dr. Krueger! You'll need it.

What the Frack?! An Earthquake in Washington, DC

Hydraulic fracturing could have caused the earthquake today that shook DC, New York, and other major US cities.


I've read before that fracking is commonly associated with earthquakes, which makes sense considering that the process involves pumping a toxic cocktail of water and chemicals almost two miles into the earth's crust to break apart the dense shale that contains natural gas. I've also read about widespread fracking in neighboring West Virginia. So today when I saw the news about the earthquake in Virginia, I put two and two together and did a bit of research on Google Scholar.

As it turns out, Bame and Fehler (1986) found a statistically significant relationship between microearthquakes (between 0.4 and 3.1) and their proximity to fracking sites. Fehler, House and Kaieda (1987) also found a significant relationship between fault and joint planes, i.e. where earthquakes occur, and the fluid path created by the hydraulic fracturing injection process. The science must be convincing, as even Fox News reported earler this year that Arkansas earthquakes were very likely associated with fracking.

It's sad that despite the overwhelming evidence against fracking, oil companies and their Washington shills are still able to get away with this blatantly deleterious practice. Not only have they repeatedly enacted dangerous legislation that helps companies hide their chemical lists, they've even gone so far as to encourage fracking with tax subsidies and other government benefits. Remember, these companies are some of the most profitable in the world, yet the US government continues to reward them for polluting our water, land and air.

Now, that's not to say that natural gas extraction is 100% bad or that mitigating its environmental impacts is impossible, merely that it's poorly regulated. In fact, it's much cleaner than coal and petroleum, generating about half as much CO2, less than a fifth as much CO, and a fifth as much NOx as coal. Obviously, problems still exist, but a recent study by researchers at MIT notes that:

the environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable. Shale development requires large-scale fracturing of the shale formation to induce economic production rates. There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. There is, however, evidence of natural gas migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators.

Moreover, There are some economic benefits from expanding natural gas use. For one, it's cheaper, cleaner and more readily available than coal and petroleum. There are also some national security benefits, as we would be significantly less dependent on foreign oil. For more of the benefits on natural gas (and no drawbacks!), visit the American Natural Gas Alliance.

Stricter regulation is necessary, especially if a misstep by a well-worker can lead to groundwater contamination for a local population. Congress has to allow the EPA to do its job and make the distinction between science and politics.

But, even if regulation is improved and the process is cleaned up, the relationship between fracking and earthquakes is hard to deny. More broadly, it's also difficult to deny the relationship between human-induced climate change and the increasing occurrence of natural disasters. Hard decisions have to be made, and it's unfortunate that our voices will be ignored, even though the general population is the most directly affected.

Sources:

Bame, D., and M. Fehler (1986), Observations of long period earthquakes accompanying hydraulic fracturing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 13(2), 149-152.

Fehler, M., L. House, and H. Kaieda (1987), Determining Planes Along Which Earthquakes Occur: Method and Application to Earthquakes Accompanying Hydraulic Fracturing, J. Geophys. Res., 92(B9), 9407-9414.

你胖了!

"Nihao, Ma Shukai! Ni pang le!"

This is how I was greeted today as I saw my host family for the first time in almost two years.

"Hey Matthew! You've gotten fat!"

It's alright to say that in Chinese culture (right Kelli?), but it still shocks me a little every time I hear a Chinese person say it. In Aunt Pan's defense, I was pretty skinny last time I was here.

Other than being verbally assaulted (I'm kidding, obviously), catching up with Aunt Pan and Uncle Zhou has been great. I think they were genuinely happy to see me, and I am definitely glad to be back in Shanghai with my Chinese family.

At dinner, Aunt Pan handed me a big bowl of....红烧猪肉 or pork braised in soy sauce. Thanks again to Chinese cultural traditions, it would have been very rude for me to refuse it, even though I'm a vegetarian now. My stomach hurts a little bit now, but I'm going to go to bed early and see how I feel in the morning. I guess a two week break from vegetarianism won't kill me...

China!

Greetings from the Coffee Bean in Shanghai!

I forgot to mention that I'll be in China for the next two weeks. I've come for two reasons: first, to present my thesis at the Shanghai International Conference on Social Science, and second, to visit friends and (host) family who I haven't seen in almost two years. A huge thanks to the Croft Institute and the SMB Honors College at Ole Miss for funding!

Shanghai is HOT and HUMID, but I'm used to it, so it's not unbearable. The sky seems a little clearer here, but it may just be because the rain/monsoon has washed some of the smog away. I'm sure when it heats back up, I'll see those beautiful orange skies I'm used to.

I have a pretty exciting schedule of things to do while I'm here. On Monday, I'm meeting with the author of a book on water pollution and droughts along the Yellow River in China, Bert van Dijk. He also writes for a newspaper in the Netherlands, so he's basically doing exactly what I'd like to do for a career, at least before I go back for a PhD (if I decide to do that). On Wednesday, I have to go register for my conference, and after that I'm going to an LSE send-off party hosted by the Alumni Association. I couldn't go to the one in Atlanta because it was too close to my China trip, so hopefully this will be a good way to meet some people before I leave for London in September. The next day is the first day of the conference, and I'll present my paper on Saturday. Needless to say, I'm very excited. I'll leave Shanghai on Monday, August 22.

I'll try to post again before I leave.

Until then,
Matthew

On the London Riots

There's a lot of terrible news coming out of London right now. Unfortunately, this kind of "activism" is a sham, just like the rioter's putative hardships - an excuse to act like animals and take what's not theirs, all under the guise of social change. These self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" are spitting in the face of real activists - people in Syria and Libya and Tunisia and Egypt who have given their lives for a real cause and continue to face real struggles. Sure, every country has its problems, but this kind of behavior doesn't solve problems; it exacerbates them.

London rioters are thugs, they're thieves, they're cowards, they're domestic terrorists, and they deserve to be punished under the fullest extent of British law. There is no excuse for burning down people's businesses or stealing their livelihoods. There's no message to be sent by blowing up buses or looting every store you see.

And do you really want to talk about police brutality? Perhaps it's my Republican upbringing or my experience in China, but these delinquents better be glad I'm not their Chief of Police...

A final word, true activists don't have to cover their faces when they protest because they're not ashamed of what they're doing. These people in London are pathetic and deserve sympathy from no one.

Call Mr. Nunnelee about fracking

I called Congressman Alan Nunnelee's (R-MS) office a few days ago to let him know how I felt about this whole debt ceiling debacle. Today, I received a very nice letter from his office thanking me for my input. I noticed on his letterhead that he's a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, so I went to his website to see if he was taking advantage of his position on such an important subcommittee.


Nowhere on his House website does Nunnelee mention climate change, despite the fact that his district is currently facing unbelievably high temperatures. It was 117° in North Mississippi this week. My car read 121° the other day in a parking lot. He touts his participation in the American Energy Initiative, a Republican effort to "address rising gasoline prices and expand American energy production." However, despite the Initiative's support of the development and implementation of sustainable energy production techniques (e.g. wind, geothermal, etc.), there is little mention of climate change, and searching "climate change" yields a list of inflammatory, anti-Democrat articles, as though Congressional liberals have somehow conjured up higher temperatures, melting glaciers, desertification and increased frequencies of natural disasters. Both the Initiative and Congressman Nunnelee's websites mention alternative energy, but focus almost primarily on US energy security.

Certainly, expanding domestic energy production is necessary and is in the interest of our national security. But, a huge part of that must be research and development of NEW and SUSTAINABLE energy options. A solid first step is admitting that climate change is real, and to stop citing bogus science that suggests otherwise and planting doubt in the public's mind. It must be a central issue for every politician, regardless of political affiliation, especially those who sit on relevant committees and subcommittees. For example, Nunnelee is part of a Republican movement called the House Energy Action Team (HEAT), but despite their name, there is no mention of global warming. Ironic? Yes. Surprising? Not at all.

Republicans have vilified environmentalists, legitimate climate change scientists, politicians who support environmental legislation, and economists who tackle pollution and abatement issues. The health of our communities has been politicized, and it's a shame.

But Mr. Nunnelee has an opportunity to do something great. As hydraulic fracturing (also known as "fracking", which I've discussed here before) continues to spread across the country, it has met very little political resistance. The EPA is powerless to stop this extremely harmful practice; they haven't even won the battle that would require oil companies to disclose what chemicals they use. And recently, a New York law that would have forced a more comprehensive review of the environmental and health ramifications of fracking in the Delaware River basin was struck down by the US government, citing "sovereignty" issues. It seems the government may be scared of what a complete report might uncover, and the fact that our government is so quick to dismiss such an obvious health hazard is very frightening.

So what can Mr. Nunnelee do? First, he should publicly condemn hydraulic fracturing, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, his doing so would be very powerful. It would also make him look like a strong, open-minded conservative leader, rather than a pawn of Tea Party fruitcakes like Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton (a documented liar and quite possibly the worst, most corrupt, most ignorant person in our government, evidenced here and here). There is no room for compromise (an idea most Republicans seem especially comfortable with following the recent debt talks) when it comes to pumping unknown chemicals thousands of feet underground to break up the rocks. Remember, it makes tap water flammable. This isn't a partisan issue, and conservative members of Congress - members like Alan Nunnelee - now have the opportunity to show Americans that Republicans are capable of caring about more than big corporations.

It's time for Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the people they represent, and Robert Stavins discusses the possibility - and feasibility - of market-based environmental protection initiatives that would allow for "flexible compliance" options and should pacify both Democrats and Republicans (and, like, save the world, obviously). He goes on to warn us about the consequences of falling prey (again) to partisan politics:

[R]egardless of what they think about climate change, conservatives should resist demonizing market-based approaches to environmental protection and reverting to pre-1980s thinking that saddled business and consumers with needless costs.

Market-based approaches to environmental protection should be lauded, not condemned, by political leaders, no matter what their party affiliation. Otherwise, there will be severe and perverse long-term consequences for the economy, for business, and for consumers.

These kinds of regulatory policies would be an easy sale to Democrats. So now it's time for Republicans to step up. A good place to start is for Republican Congressmen like Alan Nunnelee to use their positions on relevant committees and subcommittees to make a difference. They must recognize the legitimacy of climate chance science and the exigency of its implications, and they must act now.

If you agree, call Mr. Nunnelee at (202) 225-4306 and let him know.