The recent bailout package passed by Congress, the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP), was meant to restore confidence in the financial system and get money back in to hands of those who need it. Congress meant for the capital injections provided to the banks by the Treasury to be used for lending while these banks untangled toxic assets that were affecting their ability to gauge their own worth.
In a move that may not be seen as surprising to many critics of the reigning financial oligarchy, a recent New York Times piece divulges that many banks are using the initial injections of capital from the Treasury not to buck up the ailing small business sector, but to purchase their stumbling competitors.
For those with the biggest appetites, the free lunch continues! And why should we as taxpayers be surprised by this?
From the New York Times:
"On Thursday, at a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, the chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, pushed Neel Kashkari, the young Treasury official who is Mr. Paulson's point man on the bailout plan, on the subject of banks' continuing reluctance to make loans. How, Senator Dodd asked, was Treasury going to ensure that banks used their new government capital to make loans -- "besides rhetorically begging them?"
"We share your view," Mr. Kashkari replied. "We want our banks to be lending in our communities."
Senator Dodd: "Are you insisting upon it?"
Mr. Kashkari: "We are insisting upon it in all our actions."
And yet, the article continues, unlike Great Britain, which has mandated lending requirements in return for the cash, our own government has stipulated no such return. Instead, they have merely requested it. As a favor.
"[W]hat the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn't spend."
-Paul Krugman
"In times like these, the best a sensible leader can do is to take the short-term panic and channel it into a program that is good on its own merits even if it does nothing to stimulate the economy over the next year. That's why I'm hoping the next president takes the general resolve to spend gobs of money, and channels it into a National Mobility Project, a long-term investment in the country's infrastructure."
-David Brooks
China's greenhouse gas emissions could more than double by 2020, according to a new report released by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Beijing has been reluctant to release official data on greenhouse gas from the nation's fast-growing use of coal, oil and gas. This new study from the state-run institute breaks that reticence and sends another clear reminder that China is where our quest for climate stability will be won or lost.
"To a significant degree, our planet's energy and environmental future is now being written in China," says the study's authors. And the only way that story has a happy ending is if China has access to clean and cheap energy sources to power its sustainable development.
Will greens let the defining opportunity of their movement pass them by, or will they join a broad progressive coalition that is already gaining traction and moving forward?
Over at CAP, Matthew Yglesias has coined the term neo-Hooverite to describe politicians like incumbent Senators Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman, or GOP candidate John McCain, who are proponents of reducing the deficit and cutting spending in a time of economic downturn. I completely agree with Yglesias' argument that focusing on a balanced budget in this economic climate is almost completely wrong headed. He captures the argument here:
"But if consumers cut spending at the same time businesses are reducing investment and state and local government are cutting spending and then the federal government also reduces spending well, then, everyone is going to be spending less and less. Which means everyone is going to be earning less and less. And things are just going to get worse and worse."
"As long as the [financial] industry won their bets, they could pretend that they were acting on their own and had no need of the government. However, when they lost big, as they did with the collapse of the housing bubble, they had no choice but to go running to the government for help. Wall Street executives, who might complain about a government support check of a few thousand dollars for an unemployed single mother, suddenly were demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from the government to keep their banks from collapsing."
"He said that [the next president] should not be trying to solve problems one by one- first, get the economy on track, next deal with health care, next with energy, etc.- instead should put together an economic package that makes progress across the board."
The financial crisis has caused many economists to reconsider their ideas regarding financial markets and the economy. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic puts it best:
"Economists all over the ideological spectrum are rethinking the lessons we thought we had learned from the Great Depression and the Japanese experience. As it unfolds, we will no doubt be seriously rethinking our model of the relationship between the financial markets and the real economy."
From the Washington Post: "Metro and 30 other transit agencies across the country may have to pay billions of dollars to large banks as years-old financing deals unravel, potentially hurting service for millions of bus and train riders, transit officials...
"Metro and 30 other transit agencies across the country may have to pay billions of dollars to large banks as years-old financing deals unravel, potentially hurting service for millions of bus and train riders, transit officials said yesterday.
The problems are an unexpected consequence of the credit crisis, triggered indirectly by the collapse of American International Group, the insurance giant that U.S. taxpayers recently rescued from bankruptcy, officials said.
AIG had guaranteed deals between transit agencies and banks under which the banks made upfront payments that the agencies agreed to repay over time. But AIG's financial problems have invalidated the company's guarantees, putting the deals in technical default and allowing the banks to ask for all their money at once."
"One might ask just what the hell was the point of giving AIG government credit worth $122 billion (and counting) if it wasn't going to prevent the deals the firm guaranteed from falling apart. Go read the Post story; it will disgust you seventeen ways fron Sunday."
"WTF is happening here? Can't we, in exchange for all the money we're giving AIG, force the company to keep guaranteeing deals that are vital to keeping our public services running? Something about the implementation of this bailout is very troubling."
"Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the issue. AIG is still guaranteeing the deals. The problem is that the contracts with the banks terminate automatically if AIG doesn't maintain a high credit rating. Which, needless to say, they haven't. So now the banks are demanding payment.
Which just goes to show how all this stuff trickles down not just to Main Street, but to the subways underneath Main Street too. However, a Treasury Department spokesman says, 'Treasury is aware of this situation.' That should make us all feel better, right?"
"Like other ideologues, libertarians react to the world's failing to conform to their model by asking where the world went wrong." -Jacob Weisberg, in his piece on Slate.com, "The End of Libertarianism"...
Despite the extension of the clean energy ITC/PTC, the economic downturn has had an especially bad effect on the clean energy industry, affecting its ability to get a foothold in the market.
On October 4th, when Congress passed the bailout, they also passed the clean energy production tax credit and investment tax credit (known collectively as the PTC/ITC) as a sweetener to secure the necessary votes for the bailout. This was a boon for the clean energy industry and its advocates, as the credits had been left for dead just weeks previously.
Keith, a Breakthrough Generation intern, wrote about the importance of these tax credits when the bailout passed:
The Breakthrough Institutes' position on carbon pricing and cap and trade is frequently mischaracterized. As sometimes vocal critics of cap and trade and regulation-centric approaches to climate solutions, we're all too often thrown together with realopponentsof serious action that misuse similar arguments to sow confusion and inaction.
In stark contrast, the Breakthrough Institutes' criticism and concerns about cap and trade are motivated by the desire to see advocates and policymakers adopt successful strategies and policies that can truly put our nation and our planet on a path to climate stability and sustained prosperity. With the climate crisis increasingly urgent, our economy heading south, and a new president and congress soon to be elected, climate and clean energy advocates face a critical moment to re-evaluate our strategies and policies and ensure that we can successfully advance climate solutions in the coming year. In that context in particular, we remain steadfast in the position that our efforts are ill-served by continuing forward with a blinding focus on cap and trade that frequently obscures the critical technology innovation challenge at the true heart of our quest for climate stability (and continued and expanded global prosperity).
In a recent discussion with Eric Pooley, I tried to set the record straight and articulate as clearly as possible where the Breakthrough Institute stands on emissions caps and carbon prices and why. Since that piece was long and covered several subjects, I've reposted and reprised the section on cap and trade and carbon pricing here. So, let the record stand...
"Finally, if Congress passes another stimulus package, it can't just be another round of $600 checks to go buy flat-screen TVs made in China. It has to also include bridges to somewhere -- targeted investments in scientific research, mass transit,...
"Finally, if Congress passes another stimulus package, it can't just be another round of $600 checks to go buy flat-screen TVs made in China. It has to also include bridges to somewhere -- targeted investments in scientific research, mass transit, domestic clean-tech manufacturing and energy efficiency that will make us a more productive and innovative society, one with more skills, more competitiveness, more productivity and better infrastructure to lead the next great industrial revolution: E.T. -- energy technology."
In the coming weeks a monumental decision will be made that will influence the future evolution of global climate policies. A single country has in its power the ability to alter the course of global negotiations and change the dynamics of a political debate characterized by gridlock. That country is . . .
In
the coming weeks a monumental decision will be made that will influence
the future evolution of global climate policies. A single country has
in its power the ability to alter the course of global negotiations and
change the dynamics of a political debate characterized by gridlock.
That country is . . .
Poland. Yes, Poland. (It is not the U.S. presidential
election.) Over the next 6 weeks, the EU, with France taking the lead,
must convince Poland (plus other Eastern European countries and Italy)
to fall in line with (i.e., not veto) its ambitious climate policies or
else see them utterly fall apart. The following graph helps to explain
the political dynamics...
"Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe - just maybe - it's too big, period... ...We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from...
"Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe - just maybe - it's too big, period...
...We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful. Too powerful in that so many other companies depended on them, so many jobs turned on them, and so many consumers or investors or depositors needed them - that the economy as a whole would be endangered if they failed. Too powerful in that they could wield inordinate political influence - of a sort that might gain them extra favors from Washington."
Liberal consensus is beginning to form around the need to increase deficit spending in 2009 in order to help the economy as November 4th draws closer and large Democratic majorities in both houses look inevitable. Liberals and other leftists might be ready to spend, but what about those moderate Democrats who so often make a name for themselves as deficit hawks?
It has taken astoundingly little time for elite consensus to build around the federal deficit. Those who don't actively advocate deficit spending like Robert Reich have at least agreed that now is not the time to try and shrink the deficit. With the financial sector close to collapse, unemployment rising and credit frozen, it has become increasingly important for the government to continue to spend, not only to extend unemployment insurance, but also for things like the bailout and a second round of economic stimulus.
In fact, some organizations whose core principle is to advocate for a balanced federal budget have even ceded the point:
"[D]omestic policy outcomes are unlikely to hinge crucially on the relatively subtle differences between mainstream Democratic Party politicians. Rather, the views of relatively conservative congressional Democrats are likely to be decisive." Matthew Yglesias, on the power that centrist party members...
"[D]omestic policy outcomes are unlikely to hinge crucially on the relatively subtle differences between mainstream Democratic Party politicians. Rather, the views of relatively conservative congressional Democrats are likely to be decisive."
Matthew Yglesias, on the power that centrist party members like the Technology 16 yield over the legislative process.
Back before Wall Street was burning, Main Street was already feeling the heat from another very real economic crisis: the soaring price of oil. The credit crisis and our slowing economy have driven oil prices down and the energy crisis out of our minds, for now. But that doesn't mean the threat - to our economy and our quality of life - is gone. If we ever want our economy to truly recover, we'd be wise not to forget the other economic crisis.
I know it's hard to remember, given the events of the past weeks, but back before Wall Street was burning, Main Street was already feeling the heat from another very real economic crisis: the soaring price of oil.
The credit crisis and our slowing economy have driven oil prices down from historic highs. As stocks plummeted in the past two weeks, so to did the price of crude, falling by more than half, down from it's July record of over $140 to under $70 this week. That's the lowest price in fourteen months, but it's still three times higher than it was just six years ago, and prices are still over $3.00 a gallon across the nation.
Still, as prices at the pump have receded and the focus on the banking bailout bumped "Drill Baby, Drill!" out of the presidential election spotlight, the energy crisis is now out of most of our minds. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the threat - to our economy and our quality of life - is gone. Oil prices will rise again - they are already inching up again amidst news of a likely OPEC cutback in production - and when they do, they'll continue to drag down our struggling economy. If we ever hope to see real economic recovery, we would be wise not to forget the other crisis that contributed to today's ailing economy.
I'll delve into this more next week, but for now, enjoy the new article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine (online here) by Roger Lowenstein, entitled "What's Really Wrong With the Price of Oil," which takes a close look at the temporarily forgotten but very real threat oil prices pose to our economic wellbeing. Excerpts below the fold...
"It's politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." -Paul Krugman...
"It's politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold."
In 1993, Bill Clinton based his economic policies on the recommendations of Robert Rubin and focused on reducing the deficit. But in 2009, on the brink of recession, Robert Reich's emphasis on public investment might be the order of the day.
The current financial crisis has ended the chapter of Greenspanomics in American history with a resounding boom. With it go many assumptions about the benefits of deregulated financial trading, government inaction in markets, and an overall free trade mentality that has dominated economic policies on the left and the right since Ronald Reagan.
One democratic economic advisor who worked closely with Greenspan was Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury Secretary during both Clinton Administrations. Rubin was a proponent of the power of markets, and helped Greenspan engineer the deregulation of derivative markets in the 90s.
Our sometimes blinding focus on emissions caps and carbon prices can obscure the critical technology innovation challenge that lies at the heart of our quest for climate stability (and continued and expanded global prosperity). In the face of a rapidly shifting political climate, it would be a tragedy to hold any one solution to this core challenge hostage to any other.
Eric Pooley's recent piece in Slate, "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," sparked a lot of discussion and thought here at Breakthrough. Pooley is right that climate advocates would be best served finding a "Trojan horse" to advance climate solutions within an economic recovery framework. But his recommendations that the next president advance a cap and trade program sparked both my response, "Can Cap and Dividend Really Save the Economy or the Planet?" and a round table discussion with several climate and policy experts on the opportunities and challenges for new U.S. administration.
I invited Pooley to respond to my post, which was highly critical of the political chances of a Cap and Dividend scheme in today's political and economic climate. Below the fold you'll find our continued dialog on the political challenges and opportunities facing climate advocates in the coming year.
Policy analysis is not laboratory science. But fortunately, the real world is full of "experiments" that while not conducted in the controlled conditions that researchers like, nevertheless provide much useful knowledge. On climate policy, this week Canada and the EU provide some interesting lessons for understanding global climate policy focused on decarbonization. The main lesson, which seems inescapable is the following- policies that lead to increased costs of energy are politically doomed. Here is some of the reporting from Canada and the EU:
Breakthrough Senior Fellow Marty Hoffert explains about how to create the conditions in the Executive Branch of Federal Government for a quick transition to a clean energy system.
When it comes to creating a clean energy system in America, Presidential leadership is key, but a re-organization at the White House will also be necessary to move things effectively. America must upgrade the Secretary of Energy position to cabinet level equivalent to Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, in recognition of the international issues such as the rapid pace of coal plant construction in places like China and the need for a post-Kyoto international treaty and of the national security dimensions of energy such as the concentration of remaining oil deposits in unstable countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, and weapons proliferation among terrorists from nuclear reactors and processing plants.
Yesterday was election day in Canada, a fact that I hope I'll be forgiven for missing amidst the frenzy of election politics here in the States. However, this stunning headline from the UK Telegraph grabbed my attention:
"Canadian election: Carbon tax proposals sealed Liberal defeat"
That's right, the opposition Liberal party was just dealt a stunning defeat, and their Achilles heal turned out to be their proposal to enact a carbon tax on coal, natural gas, gasoline and home heating fuels.
The leaders of eight Eastern European countries said the EU must balance the wish for cleaner air against "the need for sustainable economic growth" at a time of "serious economic and financial uncertainties."
In yet another sign of the political challenges carbon pricing faces in times of economic insecurity, AP reports that leaders from eight Eastern European countries are calling on the European Union to ease up on greenhouse gas reduction targets under the EU's cap and trade program, arguing that it would be too much of a burden on their nation's already stressed economies.
Since all 27 EU member nations must approve a proposal for it to become law, the eight European nations could derail efforts to enact the next phase of the EU's Emissions Trading System. If the EU can't bring these eight nations back to the table, forcing the Europeans to back off on their emissions reduction program, it could be a major blow to the United Nations climate talks scheduled to continue in December in Poland.
Everyone's talking about the prospects for cap and trade legislation in the context of economic recession and financial uncertainty. Greens are arguing that cap and trade would provide revenue for investments in technology and infrastructure. Is legislation that would raise energy prices politically feasible now? Breakthrough senior fellows and staff discuss. This conversation was sparked by a recent column in Slate, "Save the Economy, Save the Planet", by Eric Pooley of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
The participants in the discussion were Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute, Steve Rayner, professor at Oxford's Said Business School, Chris Green, professor of economics at McGill University, Roger Pielke, Jr., of UC-Boulder, and Peter Teague, director of the environmental program at the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
Michael Shellenberger (the Breakthrough Institute):
"I'm already sick of talking about me. Meanwhile, we still have the financial crisis of our lifetimes to deal with. And let me point something out: while the stock market has been going gangbusters, we haven't yet seen anything like...
Meanwhile, we still have the financial crisis of our lifetimes to deal with. And let me point something out: while the stock market has been going gangbusters, we haven't yet seen anything like a return to normality in credit markets."
-Recently named (and humble) Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, explaining that the recent stock market surge is not necessarily indicative of an upswing in the economy.
As responses to Michael and Ted's LA Times op-ed surface, it is clear that the climate change community is in a state of denial and ignorance about the import of the summer's energy debate, and the challenges and opportunities it has created.
In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, the New Republic's environment and energy blog, The Vine published a post entitled, "The Green Bubble Hasn't Burst," by Dayo Olopade. This piece misses the thrust of Ted and Michael's argument, and, in an effort to counter it, proves them right.
Working backwards, my first objections with this post come at the end:
"I've argued that the derided June bill [the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act], which won 48 votes in the Senate, was clearly a two steps forward, one step back situation, and a good step forward at that."
A clean energy economic stimulus plan could truly be climate advocates' "Trojan horse," as columnist Eric Pooley writes. But NOT if they follow Pooley's advice about how to formulate that plan and advance a full-on, economy-wide Cap and Dividend program next year.
The economy is all that matters now, and climate advocates - and the
next President - would be wise to develop a strategic "Trojan horse" to
advance their ecological goals within the framework of economic
recovery. That's the thesis of "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," an article appearing in Slate last week by Eric Pooley.Â
Pooley gets the political analysis right, accurately diagnosing the
potentially incurable political malady that dooms the chances of expansive
carbon regulation in today's economic climate. But when it comes time
to prescribe the remedy, Pooley is off-the-mark, arguing that a Cap and Dividend proposal is just what the doctor ordered.Â
Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Unfortunately, Pooley is not alone in his
prescribed solution, and it's time we took a close look at the
obstacles to climate action and see just how far Cap and Dividend gets
us (hint: it's not very far...)
"It's also a unique opportunity to bring together the public sector, the private sector, industry, the national labs, the universities. By doing that, not only do you make breakthroughs, but you already have this community involved, so they can take...
"It's also a unique opportunity to bring together the public sector, the private sector, industry, the national labs, the universities. By doing that, not only do you make breakthroughs, but you already have this community involved, so they can take it to the next step, to the market."
-Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) in an interview with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, discussing the need for an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, with a mandate to invest in potentially game changing energy technologies.
A relatively small percentage of Americans strongly believe that climate change requires urgent action, according to a comprehensive survey conducted by a coalition of environmental groups, and opinion is strongly split along party lines.
Yesterday's E&E News PM (subscription) has an interesting article
about a new poll out on U.S. view of climate change, sponsored by a set
of environmental groups and consultants. It supports many arguments
that we have made here at Prometheus, such as the fact that support for
action on climate change is broad but shallow, the public generally
accepts a significant human role in climate change, and Al Gore has
played a big role in making the issue partisan (an even more
interesting finding because Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is a
sponsor of the poll). I don't have the poll yet, but have requested it.
Meantime, here is an excerpt from the E&E News PM story:
A group of moderate Democratic senators is organizing into a force to be reckoned with on climate legislation. Climate and energy advocates should be advised: climate legislation could be controlled by centrists in the 111th Congress, and real issues around cost-containment and tech deployment are far from resolved.
A group of moderate Senate Democrats are joining forces to take the lead in climate legislation next year. We originally dubbed the group the "Technology Ten" in June, when the centrist Democrats sent a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer indicating their reservations about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act that had just been voted down on the Senate floor.
The groups' concerns revolved around the effect of expansive climate change legislation on energy prices, and hence on energy consumers, businesses and manufacturing and the letter centered around the need for stronger cost-containment measures and greater investment in technology innovation and deployment -- hence the moniker "Technology Ten." That group has now grown to include sixteen Democratic senators, and they are redoubling their efforts to take charge of the global warming debate next year, according to a recent article in E&E Daily (via Climate Progress; $ubs required for E&E Daily).
Given the fact that the new gang of senators represents almost one third of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, the "Technology Sixteen" will be a force to be reckoned with in the coming year.
"[T]he U.S. economy is never going to be really healthy until the country figures out how to provide work at decent pay for all, or nearly all, of the men and women who want to work."
"[T]he U.S. economy is never going to be really healthy until the country figures out how to provide work at decent pay for all, or nearly all, of the men and women who want to work."
Europe is planning on building more coal plants in the coming years, and are talking a great game about carbon capture and storage. But when push comes to shove, will the Europeans be willing to make the extra capital outlay?
Yesterday, I mentioned a set of important environmental votes taking place in the EU Parliament (pictured). One of these votes involved the future of coal with carbon capture and storage with the result being that the EU is betting big on this technology. The vote is very important because it provides justification for building new coal-fired plants to meet Europe's growing energy needs. Building coal-fired plants will ensure that coal will for many decades play a prominent role in EU energy supply. And if coal has a big future in Europe, then it is safe to say that it has a big future everywhere. Thus emissions reductions from the power generation sector will all but certainly now depend up the capture and storage of carbon dioxide, a technology that is not yet in wide deployment. Like it or not, a winner has been picked.
The financial crisis can be partly attributed to good intentions translating into bad social policy. Will we learn our lesson and rethink the way we conceive of solutions to social problems?
I've spent the past few weeks learning about the financial crisis, but it has felt more like a crash-course in economics and society. One thing that stands out to me is that depending on who you read, and his or her ideological leanings, you will get a different explanation for what caused this crisis. But more often than not, the people writing for "typical-slightly-right-of-center-libertarian.blogspot" and the people writing for "left-wing-trending-socialist-progressive.wordpress" write about all the same causes, but then point to this one thing that made the crisis really bad. Everyone is more than ready to recognize the confluence of variables that caused our current problems, but depending on ideology, one of these variables was obviously wrong and a mistake.
Well, I am taking a stand here and now. As a self-proclaimed progressive (or according to facebook, "pragmatic progressive"), I am choosing to write about one of the causes of our financial crisis that I take the least issue with: trying to create pathways to homeownership for people lower down on the economic ladder who wouldn't be able to otherwise.
Scientific, economic and political realities at the end of 2008 fly in the faces of carbon-price advocates. As 2009 approaches, we must learn how to reduce carbon emsissions in a post-pricing world by learning what killed it in the first place.
Next January there will be a new President and Congress, and the American public will have at least a somewhat better idea of the success or failure of the bailout that passed last week. A multiplicity of variables, from the state of our economy, to the outcome of the election, to the nuclear program of Iran will affect the American political landscape heading into 2009. Over the next few months, tons of organizations and movements will begin to take stock of how these shifting variables might affect their missions and objectives. Few could benefit from this self-evaluation more than groups demanding federal action on climate change. The long time standard of these organizations, cap-and-trade, is becoming increasingly less relevant to today's political world.
The quest for a carbon price by these green groups met abject failure back in June with the failure of Lieberman Warner. As energy prices rise, our economy stumbles and credit shrinks, it seems less and less likely that hard caps on carbon will be a viable political vehicle. Carbon pricing orthodoxy has run headlong into political and economic realities in at least three major ways.
Real Climate is a popular blog that advocates action on climate change. Its authors often uses bullying tactics to enforce a view that their views on science are the sole authoritative basis for judging political action. In turn, here at Prometheus I've occasionally used the actions of Real Climate as excellent illustrations of how climate science becomes so politicized and partisan by activist scientists. In this way the skeptics and the activist scientists engage in a dance that requires both to participate to reinforce the belief that science provides the basis for political action. So both have an interest in keeping debate on matters of science, rather than more explicitly on the far more important questions of policy and politics.
Lucky for us, the best example yet of these dynamics can be found in the post that Real Climate have put up today on Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Real Climate post seeks to elevate the importance of skepticism in the climate debate (yes, you read that right) so that it can knock it down, while at the same time ignoring far more meaningful issues related to climate policy, like whether a cap and trade program has any chance whatsoever of actually succeeding. In this way Real Climate serves to politicize climate science, make climate policy an even more partisan issue, and draw attention away from the policy questions that really matter most.
"Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state." -Francis Fukuyama, in a recent Newsweek article about the end...
"Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state."
-Francis Fukuyama, in a recent Newsweek article about the end of Reganism
By passing a bill left for dead just weeks ago, today the U.S. House of Representatives decided the country actually ought to keep its burgeoning clean energy industry. But they didn't really mean to. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, the biomass/solar/hydropower PTC, and solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) got their one-, two- and eight-year extensions, respectively. But they only got passed by being strapped to today's bailout bill, as a "sweetener" to aid its passage.
So how, exactly, does the key federal policy supporting new energy become just another packet of Splenda slipped into a murky, half-caff bailout bill?
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that...
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Romm revealed multiple flawed assumptions in his latest attack, but one stood out above all the rest. Despite all the empirical evidence, Joseph Romm believes global warming is a high public priority. Romm and other greens will continue to peddle this false belief at their peril.
Joe Romm, who runs the Climate Progress blog, has launched another set of hysterical attacks on the Breakthrough Institute, comparing Michael and Ted to Karl Rove for their latest LA Times op-ed.
Who will write the history of the U.S. Financial Crisis? Contrary to those on the left declaring the "death of market fundamentalism," so far it's the right wing. The majority of the literature so far supports the market fundamentalists (in part because the majority of economists are market fundamentalists). Where are the progressive economists?
Who will write the history of the U.S. Financial Crisis? Contrary to those on the left declaring the "death of market fundamentalism," so far it's the right wing. Here is a roundup of some of the most popular articles on the root of the crisis:
By Roger Pielke, jr., cross posted from his blog, Prometheus.
From the University of Calgary, this news release:
In research conducted at the U of C, Keith and a team of researchers showed it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming - using a relatively simple machine that can capture the trace amount of CO2 present in the air at any place on the planet.
Ted and Michael's latest op-ed from the LA Times, "The Green Bubble Bursts," makes the argument that the Democrats lost control of the energy issue when they tried to pass the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would raise energy prices at a time when anxiety over energy prices was at an all time high because of four dollar a gallon gas. Republicans hammered them on the floor of the Senate, and then picked up on drilling and took ownership of energy in their biggest victory since they lost both houses in 2006.
Here are some responses to the LA Times piece:
At Daily Kos, Meteor Blades recaps the need for an investment-centered energy agenda in a post called "Making Clean Energy Cheap".
On The New Republic's environment and energy blog, Day Olopade has taken issue with Ted and Michael in her post, "The Green Bubble Hasn't Burst."
And over at Climate Progress, our colleague Joe Romm has rolled out this.
I will be updating this post as more responses surface. Stay tuned.
In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, Joe Romm criticized Michael, Ted and Breakthrough on his blog. This post is an open letter from Michael to Joe Romm, dated October 1, 2008.
Your strategy, as usual, is to shoot the messenger rather than confront the facts. This is what you did when you attacked Nature for publishing Roger Pielke, Chris Greene, and Tom Wigley’s “Dangerous Assumptions” about faster-than-expected emissions increases. This is what you did when the International Energy Agency came out and said that stabilization requires technology “breakthroughs” (their word). This is what you did when you attacked those of us who support adaptation as “delayers.” And this is what you are doing in response to the accumulating evidence that governments won’t raise the price of dirty energy to deal with global warming.
"It's a larger issue of the House and Senate just don't talk to each other enough, work out trust and understanding. That's what this really is. They're in their little world, we're in our little world. It's sitting down like...
"It's a larger issue of the House and Senate just don't talk to each other enough, work out trust and understanding. That's what this really is. They're in their little world, we're in our little world. It's sitting down like adults, both sides, House and Senate, and working out solutions."
Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus on the apparent failure of the Democratic Congress to pass an extension to the critical renewable energy tax credits before the end of the 110th Congress.
