Cloud Cuckoo Land

I argued recently that the American Left is empty of ideas and has become a conservative movement, for all practical purposes. Like a herd of water buffalos facing a pride of lions, the Left has formed a circle around its cherished offspring: entitlements.

That is not quite fair. The Left has one big, relatively new idea: the threat from anthropogenic global warming (AGW). That idea is particularly attractive to the Left for two reasons. One is environmental morality, which is the closest thing to a grand mythology the Left has left (Marxism having lost its reptilian luster). The other is that the AGW threat justifies increased government control over the economy. Gotta like that!

There are, however, two really big problems with the AGW program. One is that it is politically impossible. In order to have any credible chance of actually slowing down AGW, you would have to make energy a lot more expensive than it is at present and thus retard economic growth. Even if you believe that green jobs and energy independence can be achieved if only we shift enough investment into wind, solar power, biofuels, etc., policies like Cap and Trade try to force that shift by increasing the cost of energy sources that now fuel the economy. In the short run, that means that everything becomes more expensive and that is the very opposite of "stimulus".

The Democrats couldn't pass Cap and Trade when they held the Oval Office and both Houses of Congress. That is because the people (see of, by, and for in the Gettysburg Address) won't go along. This explains the recent court case, celebrated by the New York Times.

The case about global warming scheduled to be argued on Tuesday before the Supreme Court is a blockbuster. Eight states — from California to New York, plus New York City — sued six corporations responsible for one-fourth of the American electric power industry's emissions of carbon dioxide.

Rather than seeking money or punishment for the defendants, they seek what everyone should agree is the polluters' responsibility: abatement of their huge, harmful part in causing climate change. The purpose is not to solve global warming or usurp the government's role in doing so. It is, rightly, to get major utilities to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions before the government acts.

Let's unpack this. The Times wants the courts to force "one-fourth of the American electric power industry" to curb emissions of carbon dioxide in order to abate "their huge, harmful part in causing climate change." Consider what the courts would have to do. They would have to reach a judicial determination concerning global warming. They would have to seize control of one quarter of America's power supply. They would have to make it stop supplying so much power. Can one really imagine that any of this is within the competency of the courts?

This is profoundly undemocratic. Having failed to push its AGW program through the elected branches of government, the NYT's wants the courts to enact it by legislative fiat (at least until "the government acts").

If this really happens, can one imagine what the political fallout will be? The electric bill of Americans all over the country will rise dramatically. Everything that is produced with electric power (see: everything) will go up in price. The GOP will patiently explain why this is happening. Hitherto loyal Democrats will excoriate their leadership for letting this happen. The fate of Democratic Party will depend on exactly when, in the election cycle, the people first grasp what is going on. The AGW program may be the only hope for saving the earth from boiling seas, but it spells political doom for the Democrats.

There is another big problem with the Democrat's one big, new idea. It is altogether at odds with their conservative stance on entitlements. As the Economist puts it, there are only three ways to deal with the budget imbalance with or without punitive cuts in government spending: growth, inflation, or default. The last item would be a disaster for everyone. The second item would (probably will) eat into the benefits that entitlements distribute. While no realistic projections for economic growth are sufficient to cover the cost of entitlement expenses, vigorous expansion of the economy would make the problem a little more manageable. It is precisely economic growth that the Times wants the courts to put a lid on.

So it wasn't entirely fair of me to say that the Left has no new ideas. It has at least one big one. The big one will kill everything else that the Left thinks it stands for.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

This is really cuckoo stuff you're writing here. It's so unrelated to reality that it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's have you explore a few of your ideas. First, the anthropogenic caused climate change is a scientific fact, not a "threat." Climatic changes are having and will have effects, most of which impart considerable costs. Sane people, when confronted with a reality this important and this costly to human society, face that reality, and attempt to ameliorate or mitigate the problem. Others get paid to obfuscate facts. Others have an ideological bent which makes them easy for those paid handmaidens of obfuscation to manipulate. Others are simply too far out there in la-la land to even understand the issues.

Where do you get the idea that "you would have to make energy a lot more expensive than it is at present and thus retard economic growth?" Energy would not become more expensive. Costs would remain the same, but more of the externalized costs would be factored in to the price of the energy. The price of energy would begin to reflect true costs of the energy. Certain forms of energy would be priced according to true cost, rather than subsidized costs, and the market would be able to respond more efficiently to select the cheapest energy source. In all likelihood that would not be coal and nuclear.

Second, why would reflecting the true costs of energy in the price retard economic growth? We are paying those costs already, through increased medical bills, lost opportunity costs, climate impacts, national and international security, etc. Pricing according to unsubsidized costs is more likely to lead to economic growth, than to retarding that growth.

It's clear you have no understanding of the case brought by the states.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"the anthropogenic caused climate change is a scientific fact"

No it is not, the evidence does not exist, which makes you a liar!

"Energy would not become more expensive."

From the horses mouth in reference to Cap & Trade Legislation:

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," - Obama 2008

"In all likelihood that would not be coal and nuclear."

The technolgy does not exist to supply the U.S. with more than 20% of it's energy needs outside of Coal. Any shift away from Coal and Nuclear energy increases the price based on the infrastructure required alone. The United States public is already subsidizing the use of Solar and Wind for private homes and buisness.

"Certain forms of energy would be priced according to true cost, rather than subsidized costs,"

Yep, and it would be a hell of a lot more expensive, not to mention all job destruction that will have to be dealt with. The subsidization of the fossil fuel industry is mainly in the form of a tax break. Only 16 Billion was given during the entire Bush Administration in the form of research and development of fossil fuels. Corn Ethanol and all other renewables recieved $11 Billion over the same period. Compare that with this last years deficit, and there isn't much of a leg to stand on.

"Pricing according to unsubsidized costs is more likely to lead to economic growth, than to retarding that growth."

How is that possible? We don't have the infrastructure for it, and the technology is twenty to thirty years away at best. Corn ethanol is more expansive and less efficient. It increases the price of food. It has recently been discovered that the production of corn ethanol produces more CO2 than it saves. Solar technology can only be used on a local basis, and wind is unreliable & expensive.http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

[duggersd]

Donald, currently wind and solar energy have a subsidy of nearly $25/KWH. The next highest is nuclear at about $2.5/KWH. So, let us use unsubsidized figures. How much would we have to pay for solar and wind energy/KWH? One study predicts rates will increase by about 20%. You are also not figuring in the cost of the area of land that is needed to produce energy. One small nuclear plant is able to produce electricity on a small piece of land while wind turbines and solar panels require acres and acres and acres to create the same amount of electricity. But no matter, that land was being wasted growing tomatoes. Then you factor in days of no wind or days of no sun. Plus, the sun only shines for up to 18 hours per day.
California recently enacted a law requiring CA to get 33% of its energy from renewable sources. As I understand it, CA industry already pays about 50% more in electrical rates. After this goes into effect, they will pay even higher rates. They will be even less competitive. I for one do not want to see what is happening in CA spread across our lovely country for a reason that may or may not be true. BTW, just saying it is a fact does not make it so.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: it is clear that you do not understand the terms "energy" and "subsidies". Since solar power, wind power, and biofuels are all heavily subsidized, the wealth that the subsidies represent has to be generated elsewhere by other means. Am I going too fast for you? I'll slow down.

Wind power cannot produce enough power to pay for the cost of building, maintaining, and connecting wind farms. In the absence of subsidies, the industry would collapse immediately. Coal and oil do produce enough power to cover the costs of acquiring and using those fuels. If they didn't, what would keep the lights on? Fairy flatulence?

The idea that we can make significant cuts in carbon emissions without retarding economic growth is completely divorced from reality.

[Dave]

Oh what a dick... Oil and gas get over 25% of US Federal energy subsidies!
OIL and GAS are highly profitable and need NO external manipulation by the US government in order to encourage production... Ethanol gets over 30% so if you've got a farm and are growing corn you are officially a "Welfare Queen"... Coal gets 20%. Nuclear gets 9%. And wind? Wind gets 3.5% of federal energy subsidies...

The fact is that solar power, wind power, and biofuels receive less than 10% of government energy subsidies...

[William]

Sadly, those most firmly convinced that magical thinking will create the world of their dreams will likely be both amazed and horrified when those duped into supporting them realize the consequences and turn on them.

If the energy industry of the US is destroyed through the courts or extreme "green policies", the devastation to the US standard of living will be both swift and extreme.

"Champions" of AGW deemed responsible, will likely fair poorly if the reality of their vision is realized.

Modern civilizations, particularly those with large, densely populated urban areas need affordable energy, and lots of it to survive. Without that energy, things can get uncivilized, in a hurry...

[William]

This is why pushing back against them is so important: Like President Obama, they’re not used to real opposition. They’re unused to being questioned. They consider any challenge to their bogus “moral authority” (based on what, one might ask?) to be tantamount to treason.

[Donald Pay]

William talks about "the energy industry of the US," but that's really naive. The oil industry is virtually all multi-national, and oil and its products are traded internationally. Even the coal industry is mostly controlled by multi-national corporations. Right now over 5% of coal production is being exported, coal use here is declining as US utilities are backing away from coal, and the coal industry is trying to build new export terminals in Washington state. The multi-nationals don't give one stinking #2 about the US "standard of living." If William cares about "our standard of living" and our "survival" he'd be calling for the coal multi-nationals to stop exporting our coal and uranium.

Just to bring a little South Dakota focus to a blog on South Dakota politics, Powertech wants to mine South Dakota uranium for use by a European nuclear cartel which has been negotiating with Middle Eastern countries to build nuclear infrastructure. So maybe when the Muslims you righties are worried about get around to using dirty nukes to terrorize us into Sharia law, they will at least use enriched South Dakota uranium.

I don't think anyone will ever figure out a way to make wind power into a terrorist weapon, or export it to China.

[Mark Anderson]

Of course Ken, only conservatives like yourself have any new "ideas". All you have to do is read 93 year old Stephane Hessel's short book Indignez Vous which points out the shortcoming of vitually all of your arguments.

[Miranda]

Mr. Anderson leaps in to prove that liberals can, indeed, come up with new arguments and ideas by...telling us to read someone else's book.

[duggersd]

Dave, the only way you can vilify is by distorting. Let us assume for the time being subsidies are a necessary evil. I am not necessarily accepting your daffynition of a subsidy, but at this time we will assume you are correct.
Oil and gas get 25% of energy subsidies; wind, solar and biofuels receive less than 10%. But how much per KWH? If you have to subsidize by nearly $25 for wind and solar energy or $2.5 for coal, which is the "better" investment? And if you take away ALL subsidies, which will cost more? Trick question. Coal will cost more because wind and solar won't exist.

[Dave]

@duggersd,

Where and what is my "distortion" and when did I submit a "daffynition of a subsidy?"

Sounds like a trick question.... I don't know... I haven't bothered to check the KWH output of my 2001 Jeep...

And your think that coal prices are at a disadvantage because wind and solar are subsidized at a fraction of what coal gets? And you think that subsidies for wind and solar are good because they hold the price of coal power down???

[Jimi]

Dave,

You couldn't be anymore obvious that you really haven't a clue what exactly you are talking about.

Duggs point is, The subsidy that the coal industry gets is mainly in the form of a tax break. A tax Break is not a handout, which is what the Solar and Wind industry gets, because they don't produce anything, and are still in the research and development stages. The reason the tax break exists for coal and oil is because the majority investment is up front in exploration and extraction. If you don't offer an incentive in finding new sources, the price goes up...and the incentive is the tax break. That benefits the economy, and that benefit from the economy gets passed down to you in your everyday life. You benefit more from cheap energy than any other economic force in the system.

The reason he said it was a trick question is because until a new technology comes to light that can compete with the fossil fuel industry, the subsidy required to make Wind and Solar work on a large scale, would outway any benefit gained, and the economy would grind to a hault. The trick of the question was assuming nobody in their right mind is going to be willing to subsidize an industry that can not compete, therefore the coal subsidy would be larger becasue the Wind and Solar Energy Industry will not exist......Get It?

I cannot believe we have to explain this to you. Sheeeez!

[Donald Pay]

The use of coal in energy production gets it main economic subsidy from lack of/inadequate regulation of its poisonous gaseous and and particulate emissions and from improper regulation of ash waste products.

[William]

Donald,

Unless you're willing to live an Amish lifestyle, complete with bovine and equine emissions and cleanup, your policies make no sense.

Even if you ARE willing to revert to a late 19th Century energy policy, you must realize that the rest of the world is unwilling to do so. There are BILLIONS of people in India and China that are quite willing to improve their lifestyles at our expense.

I'm still waiting to hear a coherent argument that "global warming" would actually be more harmful than beneficial. The greatest advancements of human civilization have generally corresponded with warming periods. Unless you really don't like humans and think the earth would be "healthier" without them, I cannot comprehend why we should deprive ourselves of the energy we need to maintain our current standard of living.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: I wonder that you don't work for the Administration. Your redefinition of subsidy to include costs that the federal government doesn't impose on consumers mirrors the Administration's phrase "spending through the tax code". In each case the assumption is that the government has the authority to tax or regulate anything it wants out of existence. To the extent that it doesn't do that, it is spending or subsidizing. Good work!

[Ken Blanchard]

Mark: Perhaps a book with the title: "be indignant!" can really explain how we can place punitive taxes on coal, oil, and gas, stop drilling for oil off shore, get rid of nuclear power, and all without seeing the price of electricity go up or the economy slow down. Perhaps I can lose weight while eating just as much of the same things as I do now, and a eating a lot more of other stuff, without exercising. Pardon me if I am not interested in reading either book.

[Dave]

Sorry guys. A tax break is a handout. But as usual you define either way to move the goal post of your arguments. Why is it handouts are bad for encouraging new energy, but great for areas of energy production that are already hugely profitable?

[duggersd]

Dave, corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporations either pass the tax expense on to the end user or they do not pay as high of a dividend to the shareholders. So when an oil company or any other corporation gets a "tax break", it is not a handout. When an ethanol corporation gets a cash payment it is a handout.

[Dave]

Sorry duggersd, but where do you get this rainbows and unicorns fantasy that "corporations do not pay taxes"? It's in the freakin' tax code! Corporations use tax breaks, subsidies and flat out dodges to avoid paying taxes and pass the profits up the ladder to management and to share holders who in turn pay a greatly reduced (and flat) rate on capital gains. I would ask what you would think if you knew one of your neighbors was a tax cheat and you would be forced to pay more because of that, but I suspect that you live in the realm of "everyone's doing it, so why shouldn't I"...

BP will be asking for a handout in the form of a tax break to cover it's losses from the gulf oil spill and clean up... They will be rewarded for their incompetence and the American people will get screwed again! Please explain how this is NOT a handout, and and why it is good for the government to help foreign corporations who F up.

It would also be nice to know how "free market" advocates can justify any sort of government intervention either in the form of tax rates that are different from those of the general public (because corporations think they are "people" too), or subsidies in general... Maybe KB can answer that one...

[Jimi]

Dave,

"It's in the freakin' tax code!"

Hello???????and when you raise taxes on corporations what happends? They leave, raise prices, cut the workforce/salaries, and stop expansion. That is why they don't pay taxes. If you increase taxes on corporations your only taxing yourself more.

"Corporations use tax breaks, subsidies and flat out dodges to avoid paying taxes and pass the profits up the ladder to management and to share holders who in turn pay a greatly reduced (and flat) rate on capital gains."

This is what you geniuses on the left can't seem to figure out. The stuff you just stated is not cheating....it's not your money......is called Free-Market Capitalism....you may want to look into it.

Once again your showing your absolute lack of understanding of how our economy and government revenues work. What you are doing is participating in Class Warfare. The cheaper it is for corporations to operate the easier it is for them to expand and employ more people, and the more people that are employed the more money the government can take in. Also, the cheaper they can keep their prices the more competitive they are in the world market. Do have any idea about our trade deficit?....do have any idea what causes it?

You have created yet another strawman arguement by assuming Free-Market Capitalism means no Government. Government can be the referee, but it cannot be a player competing agianst it's own interests. Subsidies in the form of tax cuts, and tax breaks is not a hand-out......the government does not own the money first.

[Dave]

Jimi,

Does the government buy (and deliver)goods and services? Of course it does! Therefore, it IS a player...

And your condescension could be considered "elitist"...

[Jimi]

Dave,

Your not making sense. The Government does not compete against the Free-Market. Just because it is buying goods and servicss does not mean it is competeing against the Free-Market.

Competeing against the Free-Market would be when the Government creates it own construction company, for example, and then bids work against a Private Company.

In cases like the Post Office, Amtrak, and GM it is competeing in the Free-Market but not doing it sucessfully, and relies on government to keep it proped up. The Post Office is not supposed to make a profit, and it does not pay taxes on it's revenue. Relying on tax payer monies to keep the buisness afloat is still not competeing in the Free-Market by defintion, and it is the idiocy of the general population to allow it to continue.

[Dave]

Jimi,

I find your free-market fundamentalist views interesting but deluded... In spite of my conservative upbringing, I somehow missed the free-market indoctrination. Perhaps you could suggest a book for me. Perhaps you could write it. Call it "FREE-MARKET FOR IDIOTS." Or maybe a different title, the proclamation "FREE-MARKET FOR IDIOTS" might be too harsh (or obvious) for most.

In any case, you said I'm not making any sense... Perhaps you could go back and read your 3 previous post.