Forget Climate Change

Forget Climate Change

Besides the absurd “debate” about the science, climate change rhetoric has caused some to lose sight of other national goals worth pursuing.

Because the previous administration couched many of its initiatives on clean air, renewable energy, and energy independence in terms of fighting climate change those initiatives are now linked to the “hoax of climate change” by the current administration.

Forget about climate change! Are not cleaner air, renewable energy and energy independence important goals for our nation regardless of climate change? Shouldn’t we, couldn’t we pursue reduced emissions for health reasons? Wouldn’t it be good to be less reliant on oil and coal? It will run out some day.

Hasn’t energy independence been a national goal since we figured out that we are paying and have paid a heavy price (never –ending military action, foreign aid etc.) for Middle East oil?

Tax Cuts

TAX CUTS

Who doesn’t like tax cuts? Count me in but I just don’t like the rhetoric and hypocrisy. Republicans always run for office on tax cuts and the idea that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy enough to make up for loss of revenues. That works if taxes are truly so high that they are significantly hurting economic growth. Republicans also complain about the deficit and the debt and promise to reduce it. They love to point to the Reagan era when taxes were greatly reduced and the economy increased but oops! The deficit under Reagan increased by 1.4 trillion or a 142% over the previous administration.

No one (including myself) really wants to take on the debt and deficits. People smarter than me say it’s ok for a powerful economy like ours to engage in modest deficit spending and carry some debt. But other smart people say it’s all getting a little out of hand relative to GDP and ultimately threatens our economy and thus our security (how will we buy more bombers if no one will loan us the money?).

If we really cared about the debt/defict we would reduce spending (Democrats go crazy) and keep taxes where they are or increase slightly (Republicans go crazy).

One thing that has always bothered me in this is the unwillingness of both parties to ask Americans to make some financial sacrifices (ask your parents, if they are still around, about sacrifice and  WW 2).  Going back to Desert Storm and moving forward to the second invasion of Iraq and through the war on terrorism, no one has asked us to pay a little more for the cost of being more secure. In fact the cost for much of that activity was not even put in the budget – it was “off the books”.   Shouldn’t we have  had a “war tax” to pay for all that?

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study. The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said. Washington Post.

The War on Terror is a military campaign launched by the Bush Administration in response to the al-Qaida 9/11 terrorist attacks. The War on Terror includes the Afghanistan War and the War in Iraq. It added $2 trillion to the debt as of the FY 2018 budget. The Balance.

Republican War on Clean Coal

Clean Coal

My title," Republican War on Clean Coal" is a little hyperbolic but isn't that how we do things these days? I just read a good article by Paul Bledsoe (Politico) that makes the case for cooperating with China on creating technology for burning coal more cleanly. I will expound further but in order to not bury the lead here is the one thing that caught my eye:

"Many Democrats have become too captive to far left environmental advocates who disingenuously contend that renewable energy alone can easily meet America’s near-term climate, economic and energy imperatives. Meanwhile, climate denial by Republicans has greatly contributed to coal’s collapse. By not coming to terms with coal's emissions and climate change liabilities and by refusing to support climate legislation needed to fund investment in technologies to address them, the GOP has left coal with nowhere to turn, and so every major U.S. coal company has gone bankrupt.

In other words Republicans, who have relentlessly campaigned against "the job killing war on coal" (in Alabama virtually every politician ran on this even though the elected position had no say or influence on environmental policy), could have helped coal more by embracing its polluting nature. 

Just to be clear, I am very skeptical about "clean coal". The whole operation is dirty:  mountain top clearing, dumping wastes into valleys, failure to mitigate as required by law, conditions in the mines (improving I'm told), transportation and storing of coal (coal dust), burning (mercury, CO2, particulate matter etc.), and coal ash disposal. Currently there is no economically feasible technology to burn coal as cleanly as natural gas.

But, coal isn't going away in the US or in world. So if it is going to be burned, it should be burned more cleanly. Republicans would be loath to spend money under the guise of fighting climate change but they might support "saving coal".

Confused Editorial Follow-Up, Ocean Acidification

In my  previous post, I made an argument against an editorial which proposed that CO2 was not a pollutant. In that brief post I did not mention recent observations on the gradual change in pH of ocean water (ocean acidification). The above graph (a little fuzzy) shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 (red line) since the 1950s as measured at the same location in Hawaii, The green shows increasing amounts of CO2 in seawater near Hawaii and the red shows the decline in pH (more acid). The decline is small but remember the pH scale is logarithmic. While there is not a lot of solid information on the current effect of declining pH there is plenty of concern for the future based on our knowledge of how shrimp, crabs, oysters, corals etc. react physiologically to lower pH.
It seems pretty logical to me that if a gas (CO2), at unusually high concentration,  causes a decrease in the pH of water it is a pollutant. 

Confused editorial on the Clean Power Plan

A recent Alabama editorial, written by an "energy consultant" (see: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/03/canceling_clean_power_plan_sav.html#incart_river_index) argues in favor of recent action to roll back the Clean Power Plan. There are cost versus benefit arguments I have seen before and I am not in a position to dispute but suspect  some fiddling.
But in rationalizing his argument he says the following:

"In truth, the "pollutant" being regulated under the CPP is carbon dioxide (CO2), the inert gas that all humans and animals expel every day. And while the climate debate is still raging over CO2's potential contribution to a warmer climate, it's simply wrong to argue that it is pollution. "

I am not going to look up what the technical definition of a pollutant is, I just offer the following. Many of the things we think of as pollutants (arsenic, lead, oil, coliform bacteria) are naturally occurring and we are exposed to them daily BUT usually at concentrations too low to be a problem. They become pollutants when there is enough arsenic, lead etc. in the water or the food or the environment. to threaten humans or the environment. 
As I pointed out in a previous blog "Social Costs 2" (below) the Supreme Court found that if CO2 causes harm then it is within the scope of the EPA to regulate carbon. EPA did so.

This idea that CO2 is not a pollutant is new kind of climate denial. The writer seems to say that even if CO2 contributes to  global warming, we cannot regulate it because its not a pollutant. Very strange logic.

Flynn Tweet - the rest of the tweet

The national media had a lot to say about Mr. Trump's tweet regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's immunity request.It was all focused on the first part of the tweet with little attention the second part.

The Tweet: "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"


Mr. Trump has made similar claims about the election before and often for no apparent reason.
The objective facts are that in only 11 other elections out of 56 did a candidate have a smaller electoral college margin of victory (the analysis I saw used some adjustment factors to account for changes in the electoral college over time so we can quibble if its a few more or less than 11th). And we all know the results of the popular vote - 46%. Fifty three percent voted for someone else.

The "historic" claim is more subjective. Perhaps historic in the sense of the polls getting it wrong or that he was the first president elected since Ike who had not held a public office. It was also historic in  that only 5 people have won the presidency and not won the popular vote.

Mr. Trump's ongoing penchant for bragging about the election, often out of context, has brought others to question  the balance between ego and insecurity.
Sometime I wonder if he is just "mess'n with us to get a reaction like the one you just read.