Although I’m still not sure whether the cause of global warming is due more to humans than to the sun, I keep an eye on the science. (I enjoy keeping up with the science—but pure GW science is a rare find. GW news is too frequently contaminated by confirmation bias, belief preservation, and rehearsed political dogma. I stop reading as soon as I detect any of that, which means I skip a lot of GW “news.”)
I was glad to see Freeman Dyson’s recent review of William Nordhaus’s new book about several possible policies the world could choose for mitigating global warming, and each policy’s estimated effect after 100 years. Nordhaus’s analysis netted the worldwide cost of each policy against its worldwide benefits over 100 years—using $1 trillion as the base unit of measure. A negative result means the policy in question would make our great-great grandkids worse off than doing nothing; a positive number means they’d be better off. Nordhaus used a discount factor of 4%—an assumption that’s perfectly reasonable to most of us, but highly controversial to those whose pet policies end up looking ugly as a result. [What a surprise.]
For fun, see if you can match each policy to its outcome, before peeking at the answer. Here’s the set of policies and outcomes:
Give it your best shot before you go to the rest of the article below.
Continue reading "Five ways to fight global warming, ranked worst-to-best" »
[In 1952] the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee considered endorsing [Ronald] Reagan for an open congressional seat but declined to do so on grounds he was "too liberal" . . . Reagan's vision of America as a free society that drew its strength from the courage and bloodstock of its immigrants was then considered a liberal view. Liberals in those days celebrated the American "melting pot" rather than the diversity of its human ingredients. The genius of America was not that it perpetuated differences but that it obliterated them and created a new being: an American.
There are distinct types of emotion: fear, anxiety, elation... It is clear why political campaigns seem always to "play to our emotions." In order to change a voter's standing (and mostly unexamined) decision, an appeal to the voter must arouse emotions. Since anxiety seems to be the factor that is causally related to reconsideration, it is natural that campaign managers would try to arouse anxiety.
I get the feeling it's unanimous: taxes will have to increase, whether the next president is Obama or McCain. Obama's team thinks it's because the government is not yet transferring enough money from oil companies and "the rich" to ethanol agribusinesses and the non-rich; i.e., that oil company tax rates are not yet high enough, income tax rates are not yet progressive enough, and social security contributions should be de-linked from subsequent social security benefits. McCain's team includes the Concord Coalition's deficit fear-peddlers, who think the only permissible deficits are the ones it takes to win wars after they start (as opposed to preventing them before they start). Presumably, they have his ear. 
