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.