Author Archives: Nuetzel

Cut CO2, But What About The Environment?

20 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

al_gore_climate_change

Reducing CO2 emissions can carry a high cost to the environment, as explained by The Climate Skeptic.  The tradeoff is all too real because the resources available for mitigating environmental damage are scarce. The simple economics of pollution abatement suggest that small reductions in CO2 are the best that can be achieved even as opportunities for large reductions in more dangerous pollutants are foregone. From The Skeptic:

“Coal plants produce a lot of CO2, but without the aid of modern scrubbers and such, they also produce SOx, NOx, particulates matter and all the other crap you see in the Beijing air. The problem is that the CO2 production from a coal plant takes as much as 10-100x more money to eliminate than it takes to eliminate all the other bad stuff. … Thus the same money needed to make an only incremental change in CO2 output would make an enormous change in the breath-ability of air in Chinese cities.”

In the developing world, the reductions  in CO2 emissions might also mean the sacrifice of gains in the standard of living and public health. To make matters worse, the actual benefits of reducing CO2 emissions are highly questionable: a warmer climate, should it come to pass, is unlikely to be any catastrophe, and in fact it could produce substantial net benefits for humanity.

Along the same lines, President Obama’s recent call for reduced CO2 emissions is described by Alan Caruba as a “Cruel and Costly Climate Hoax“. The climate panic has been inflamed by a community of climate researchers who have perpetrated fraud in the management of temperature data and corrupted their field’s peer review process,  and who continue to rely on climate models with terrible track records. After roughly 25 years of warming temperatures had dispelled fears of a new ice age, these researchers have recognized the latest 18-year pause in that trend with reluctance, marshaling a variety of excuses for the poor performance of their models: the ocean has acted as a heat sink (false), a series of small volcanic eruptions have caused solar energy to be reflected back into space (speculative at best, and without data prior to the year 2000 to back up the claim), or my favorite… that Chinese carbon emissions have limited solar radiation! How ironic is that?

Reductions in carbon emissions are resource intensive. Those resources have alternative uses that are too valuable to make a cavalier sacrifice. Opportunities for other kinds of environmental enhancements, improvements in public health, and better living standards should carry the day, not carbon reductions.

Negative Net Taxes For Most Is Not A Good Sign

18 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

IRS Spider

Carpe Diem (Mark Perry) reports on a new CBO study showing that nearly all net federal taxes (taxes net of transfer payments received) are paid by households in the highest income quintile. The fourth quintile pays a small, positive amount of net taxes, but the lowest 60% of  households pay negative net taxes, with average tax rates on market income plus transfers ranging from -13.7% for the middle income quintile to -35% for the lowest quintile. From Perry:

“The second-highest income quintile basically just barely covers its transfer payments, so it’s really the top 20% of “net payer” households that are financing transfer payments to the entire bottom 60% AND financing the non-financed operations of the entire federal government.”

A heavy concentration of taxes at one end of the income distribution is not a healthy development for a democracy when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

In a second post, Perry uses the same study to show that adjusting market income for net taxes reduces income inequality by almost 50%. Advocates for greater income equality always focus on market income alone because it tends to show a more dramatic gap between rich and poor. This distortion understates the extent to which policies already in place reduce income inequality and amplifies the unabating contention that more must be done. In addition, standard measures of income inequality tend to distort trends, as SCC has noted in the past.

At the same time, OECD data reveal that the U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the industrialized world. The author of the OECD post cited the data in testifying before the Senate Budget Committee:

“This prompted one Senator to point out that if the richest 10% of taxpayers earn the most of any OECD country, shouldn’t it make sense that they bear the largest tax burden of any country?”

The Senator’s premise was false, as there are countries with higher or similar income shares earned by the top decile, but the tax burden on that decile in the U.S. is the highest. In addition, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, a point on which SCC has posted before.

The ongoing debate over inequality is counterproductive. Calls for higher taxes will certainly do nothing to encourage economic growth and job creation. Quite the opposite. And inequality, in principle, is not in any way synonymous with decreasing standards of living. However, I certainly agree that inequality can be harmful when it is induced by rent-seeking activity and cronyism, which become a way of life with growth in the public sector.

Achievement In Space Upstaged By Rage Over Shirt

17 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIGOT, RACIST, HATERS

That poor scientist working on the comet probe, castigated by feminists for wearing a shirt featuring comic book images of scantily-clad women brandishing weapons! Matt Taylor, of the European Space Agency’s Resetta project team, was reduced to a tearful apology on camera after a media uproar initiated by some condemnatory tweets from women on Twitter, especially Atlantic writer Rose Eveleth: “No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt.” Richochet has some comments with which I’m in complete agreement:

“Several miserable harpies joined Ms. Eveleth on the public shaming, turning a staggering scientific achievement into a colloquy on restoring Victorian dress codes. For the record, the shirt was made by a woman named Elly Prizeman as a fun gift for her physicist friend. No doubt, she shall be placed in the village stockade for her grievous sin of consorting with a male and having her cartoon ladies show too much ankle. Her repentance will only be accepted when she covers them up in burkas.”

Now, on a big day for the ESA and the project team, and on a day when the unconventional Taylor just might have expected to be interviewed by the media, he could be accused of making a poor judgement in his shirt selection. I sometimes wear Hawaiian shirts to my office, but the imagery is more “traditional” and understated. Some might even think Taylor has been guilty of poor judgement in saturating his body surface with tatoos, but to each his own. Tolerance and a well-developed sense of humor are assets in a free society, and they are better at keeping it free than humoring those afflicted by hyper-sensitivity.

And there is this reaction:

“I’m furious. This is simply unacceptable. It is not ok to let the bullies win. I’ve spent years telling my daughters that it’s ok to be different, to not dress like every other girl in school. It’s ok for them to be geeks, to love science, to be in band, to not do what all the cool kids think they ought to do. And now, this comes along and suddenly all the work I have done is set back by the prissy mean girls who can’t stand that geeks are Odds.”

Brava!

One can define “feminist” in a number of different ways. Does it refer to an individual who believes that women are entitled to compete for the same opportunities as men? That women are inherently capable of performing intellectual and physical tasks within the limits of their training, capacity and qualifications? Then I’m in! That implies nothing about gender quotas, reparations for perceived injustices, taxpayer subsidies to offset perceived gender-driven differences, or equality of gender outcome. If those things are required in order to be considered a feminist, then I’m out. And count me out if a humorless condemnation of a little sexually-inspired kitsch is a requirement. On the other hand, I truly believe that men and women should have equal opportunities to be objectified by the opposite sex. Again, no quotas!

Glen Reynolds has some thoughts about this unfortunate episode in his USA Today column. On a related note, here’s a piece from The New Republic defending the always grey t-shirted Mark Zuckerberg after certain feminists accused him of sexism for an otherwise innocuous “anti-fashion” comment.

CO2, Vegetation and Ocean Heat Sink Fiction

15 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

China CO2 Deal

A new paper reported here debunks an important feature of IPCC climate models: that the oceans absorb infrared radiation from greenhouse gases, thus heating the oceans and accounting for the “missing heat” predicted by climate models. No, they do not. The research, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, identified several physical reasons that ocean warming from CO2 is all but impossible. From the link above:

“For all … of these physical reasons… ocean warming can only be related to solar activity and modulators of sunshine at the surface like clouds, and not increased far-IR radiation from increased greenhouse gases.

This is a death knell for conventional climate models, which falsely assume the opposite of the … physical reasons above, thus falsely claiming IR from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans (70% of Earth’s surface area) and where allegedly 90% of the ‘missing heat’ has gone.”

One of those physical reasons is related to whether water and water vapor act as “blackbodies,” which is assumed by climate models embodying AGW. They do not:

“The significance to the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ is that the climate is less sensitive to both CO2 and water vapor since both are less ‘greenhouse-like’ emitters and absorbers of IR radiation as temperatures increase.”

So the oceans are not the massive AGW heat sinks that we hear about so often. And much of that “nasty” CO2 finds eager vegetative consumers: This article reports research suggesting that 90% of CO2 emissions are stimulating forest growth around the world:

“Even NASA’s own satellite data shows that the planet is steadily greening, by as much as 1.5 percent a year in northern latitudes. Yet in May last year, the world’s media mournfully reported that atmospheric CO2 had just passed the 400ppm mark for the first time in three to five million years, with NASA clamouring to paint the news in a calamitous light. …

Nova says ‘the northern Boreal forests are probably drawing down something like 2 – 5 gigatons of CO2 every year, and because the seasonal amplitude is getting larger each year, it suggests there is no sign of saturation. Those plants are not bored of extra CO2 yet. This fits with Craig Idso’s work on plant growth which demonstrates that the saturation point — where plants grow as fast as possible (and extra CO2 doesn’t help) is somewhere above 1000 and below 2000ppm. We have a long way to go.’”

I believe a greener world is preferable to a less green one. In fact, I believe a somewhat warmer world is preferable. That would bring many obvious benefits to mankind, not least of which is a reduction in weather-related misery and death. (No, severe weather is not an implication of a warner climate.) I therefore find it bizarre that so many have been successfully propagandized to believe that we should sacrifice vast amounts of resources to prevent AGW. It is not a danger of much significance. There are explanations for the propaganda, of course, but they will have to be the subject of another post.

Obamacare Gets a Whole New Grube

13 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

obamacare-cartoon

Is anyone unaware at this point that Obamacare (the ACA) was built on a foundation of lies? The “tax vs. penalty” controversy was squirrelly, as the administration shifted positions in defending the individual mandate before the Supreme Court in 2012. Surprisingly, that court decision went in favor of the ACA despite the obvious flip-flop. Of course, we heard Obama say, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” both of which were patently false statements. Now, we have the curious case of Jonathan Gruber, the celebrated MIT economist and a chief architect of the ACA. A citizen journalist (“real” journalists were asleep at the switch) uncovered a series of video clips of Gruber in which he strongly asserts that there was willful deceit involved in the crafting and selling of the health care law. Some Gruber:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….”

Ron Fournier, at the first link above, writes:

“Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration’s dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public’s faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives. …Gruber’s remarks are evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs. …And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies.”

Even worse for those clinging to hope that the ACA will survive intact, in July, a year-old video came to light in which Gruber confirmed that the Obamacare subsidies were intended as an inducement  to states to provide their own insurance exchanges, rather than relying on the federal exchange. This is now the subject of another case before the Supreme Court, King vs. Burwell. Sacred Cow Chips featured a post on Gruber’s statement in July, when he attempted to pass-off the remarks as mistaken, a “speak-o” as he put it, but he said the same thing on at least three separate occasions. In so doing, Gruber helped to make the case that subsidies were not intended for individuals purchasing insurance through the federal exchange.

There has been a spate of recent contentions that Obamacare is “working” after all. Lest any hypocrite take solace that the lies and deceit were worthwhile after all, the positive news is scant. Of course, the number of uninsured has declined to some extent, but almost entirely via Medicaid enrollment, for which access to providers is often problematic. Premia have increased for many previously insured under individual policies. Overall measures of premia are distorted by subsidies and the so-called “risk corridors,” basically bailout funds kicked back to health insurers to keep them profitable. There are a host of other problems. You can read about some of them here.

The Non-Neutrality of Network Hogs

11 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

internet

President Obama wants to regulate your internet. Today, he encouraged the FCC to adopt rules requiring “net neutrality,” ostensibly rules that would keep the internet “free, open and fair,” as a common jingo asserts. Here’s a six-minute interview of Thomas Hazlett that gets to the heart of the problem: the FCC does not know how to impose a central plan on internet services. Nick Gillespie, who conducted the interview with Hazlett, says:

“There are specific interests who are doing well by the current system—Netflix, for instance—and they want to maintain the status quo. That’s understandable but the idea that the government will do a good job of regulating the Internet (whether by blanket decrees or on a case-by-case basis) is unconvincing, to say the least. The most likely outcome is that regulators will freeze in place today’s business models, thereby slowing innovation and change.”

I posted on the subject of net neutrality a few months ago. Gosh, I just hate to quote myself, but here’s a brief slice:

“Internet capacity is not like the air we breath. Providing network capacity is costly, and existing capacity must be allocated. Like any other scarce resource, a freely-functioning price mechanism is the most effective way to maximize the welfare surplus to be gained from this resource. Net neutrality would eliminate that solution.”

Of course, “net neutrality” is a misnomer. It is hardly a “neutral” situation when big users of internet capacity can soak up all they want, having paid for a plan with a certain download speed. 30 mgs per second is one thing, and that is typically how ISPs price their services (by speed). But that speed, for a large number of movie downloads (for example), can absorb lots of capacity, leaving that much less for other users. Again, that is not neutral in its effect across users. In fact, it is a classic tragedy of the commons: the under-priced resource is over-consumed, and there is little incentive to expand capacity, as the rewards flow to the over-consumers. Is that fair in any sense?

Advocates of net neutrality often contend that ISPs have an interest in limiting network capacity in order to extract monopoly rents from users. Under conditions of rapidly growing demand and competition for end users, that hardly seems plausible. A limited network is a liability under those conditions, so this rationale for net neutrality rules is completely misplaced.

Privileged White Males May Not Comment

10 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Patriarchal Society

On Friday, I was called a privileged white male who couldn’t possibly understand issues of race and gender discrimination. This from a “friend,” who was getting a bit off-topic after I rebutted a meme praising President Obama’s economic record. The meme is another topic (heh…), but I have written about the blanket “check your privilege” dismissal before. In this case, I responded to my critic, a woman, that Libertarians like me give women full credit for their strength and ability to compete. And they do compete: the gender pay gap in the U.S. is largely a fiction, though propaganda to the contrary still circulates.

On the issue of gender politics, what bothers me about today’s radical feminists is that they all but encourage a mentality of victimhood: women have been put-upon by privileged white males, made to submit socially, economically, and yes … sexually; forced to accept employment at below-market wages, locked out of many occupations like IT, firefighting or demolition work.

No doubt there has been discrimination against women in the past, before and during their integration into the labor force. Today, there may be vestiges of discrimination, but in a liberal, market economy, men and women are both empowered to seek the kind of education and career they wish to pursue. There is no guarantee that they’ll find employment in a particular field, however. Free individuals, men and women who want to work, participate voluntarily in a labor market with the objective of entering into mutually beneficial employment contracts at market-clearing wages. Yet liberal feminists often advocate for aggressive government intervention on behalf of women — see here and here, for example. From the latter:

“[Anne] Alstott and others argue that the state must ensure that the socially essential work of providing care to dependents does not unreasonably interfere with the personal autonomy of caregivers. Policies proposed to ensure sufficient personal autonomy for caregivers include parental leave, state subsidized, high quality day care, and flexible work schedules. Some recommend financial support for caregivers, others suggest guaranteeing a non-wage-earning spouse one half of her wage-earning spouse’s paycheck.”

Those proposals qualify as a set of highly aggressive state interventions. They would require redistribution of resources on a massive scale and would lead to dislocations and market failures. At a minimum, to accept such a costly platform, one must buy into the narrative of ongoing victimhood promoted by radical feminists, as well state control of economic life rather than individual initiative. Not all women agree, for example, the brilliant Virginia Postrel and Cathy Young.

The victimhood narrative, and the strong preference for relying on state action rather than individual decisions, extends to the recent push for an “affirmative consent” law in California. I leave it to Dr. Helen Smith to destroy this idiotic legal doctrine.

But back to my new designation as a “privileged white male.” As I tried to explain to this mudslinging individual, I find the accusation insulting on (at least) two counts: first, it implies that any success I’ve earned in life is less than fully deserved, but more importantly, it is a transparent attempt to disqualify me from debate. This “friend” hurled more insults, both petty and elitist, in an attempt to denigrate my career (as if she had any clue about what I do for a living, or what I earn). She also called my opinions “scary,” another weak effort to disqualify me. This is what weasels are made of. I told her she needed a good night’s sleep, and I really think she did! She repeated a refrain several times: “Sad,” without elaboration. She also “unfriended” me, which is fairly typical of leftists who engage in on-line debate. And I am sad for her, but I must move on!

Divesting of Human Well Being

04 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

guilt-ridden

The movement to be “politically correct” among college endowments and other funds has included a push to divest of assets in industries that extract, refine or distribute fossil fuels. A bright student at American University named Julia Morriss penned this opinion piece on divestment in the university’s student newspaper. She says:

“As you read this on your iPhone, eat an organic avocado grown in California and buy a plane ticket home for winter break, I urge you to think about what a world without fossil fuel use would mean. Energy is embedded in virtually everything we do and consume, from life-saving drugs to our clothing. …This would be a different story if a viable option to fossil fuels existed that could handle all the world’s needs. But sadly we are not there yet.

And this isn’t just about getting to keep your iPhone. Lower-income households spend almost a quarter of their income on energy. Cutting out fossil fuels would cause energy prices to soar, punishing the poor the most.”

Harvard’s President sensibly voiced his opposition to fossil fuel divestment in a recent statement. Here is a well-articulated condemnation of the divestment movement from Benjamin Zycher entitled “The Breathless Hypocrisy Driving Energy ‘Divestment’“. He says this:

“So if investment in fossil-fuel sectors engenders some sort of moral quandary, does the same principle apply to investment in industries that use energy? After all, they are responsible for the very existence of the energy producers; will the divestment campaign expand to agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, retailing, the household sector, and all the rest?”

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Dislike Campaign Spending, Don’t Restrict It

03 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

money_in_politics

Here is interesting perspective from the Institute For Justice on an issue that is often blown out of proportion: money in politics. The graphic above from IJ tells the story. From the IJ post:

“Americans spend more money on Halloween candy, parties and costumes than was spent by all federal candidates, PACs and party committees combined in the last presidential election cycle.”

This comparison is a striking contrast to the rhetoric of totalitarians who wish to cast aside First Amendment rights by restricting political spending. Yes, campaign ads can be tiresome, but they usually convey information, and the loudest complaints seem to come from factions who simply don’t like what their opposition is saying. From IJ Attorney Paul Stevens:

“… campaign spending is nothing to be afraid of. This money is spent persuading American voters about the most important issues of the day. In a democracy with more than 200 million voting-age citizens, the amount Americans spend on campaigns is neither scary nor unreasonable.“

Obamacare Shills Try Heroic Measures

01 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

obama-health-care

Die-hard Obamacare supporters are in full denial over the lousy results of the health care plan in its first year. They’re tone deaf, living a delusion. This piece from Forbes.com notes that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been an abject failure thus far on six of seven major counts, and even the one “success” is terribly blemished. Close to 90% of the increase in the number of insured is due to expansion in the Medicaid and state Children’s Health Insurance Program roles. Both of those welfare programs predate the ACA and certainly could have been expanded without Obamacare and its collateral damage to existing health plans and the health care industry. In fact, according to Business Week, less than half of physicians now accept Medicaid, so it’s not always easy for those “newly insured” individuals to gain access to actual care.

In fact, Medicaid patients are not the only ones with access problems. This USA Today article linked by Forbes notes that physicians are limiting the number of Obamacare exchange-covered patients they’ll accept. After the disastrous unraveling of the “if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it” fiction, it was revealed that many of the policies foisted upon the “previously-insured-but-no-longer” group through Obamacare exchanges offered severely limited provider networks. If you liked your doctor, you might well have lost your doctor.

For the majority who do not qualify for taxpayer subsidies under Obamacare, the health insurance premia on policies acquired on the exchanges have risen drastically. This problem is covered in the Forbes article. Far less expensive short-term plans are being offered by insurers as an alternative to Obamacare, but they are only renewable if the insured remains healthy. It is precisely these kinds of circumstances that might devolve into a death spiral for Obamacare: an increasingly sick risk pool and universal rating may lead to accelerating premium hikes for the exchange policies.

So, prospects for improvement under the ACA are quite bleak. We’ve seen a botched rollout of the Obamacare website, the chief enrollment vehicle, which is still problematic; a wrecked individual market with policies cancelled and replaced by coverage with limited provider networks; a medical device industry battered by new taxes; a negative impact on full-time employment as firms reduce hours to avoid coverage requirements; expanded welfare programs with a concomitant burden on taxpayers; increased emergency room utilization; physicians opting out due to inadequate reimbursement and high compliance costs; healthy individuals opting out and sick individuals opting in; higher premia with more increases on the way and the prospect of an insurance death spiral; and we’ve seen arbitrary exemptions carved out for various cronies of the Obama administration all along the way. Oh, and we’ve seen lies, delays, and every effort to back-load costs and front-load benefits, an implementation governed by political considerations rather than improving health care. The next shoe to drop is likely to be widespread cancellation of employer-sponsored coverage as the ACA coverage mandate hits employers in 2015.

Desperate propaganda continues to flow, but that can’t change the fact that Obamacare is terrible policy with results to prove it. Here is government failure.