654sd6513sd2f4654132s1adf5423fsadf354sdaf685sd35241sdf
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Three cheers for paralysis
You can find Joe Scarborough "Morning Joe" program on MSNBC. Political discussion is interesting too, but a true conversion of Joe South careful assessment of the progressive conservative New York liberal. I suppose that views are left wing uniform MSNBC hosts (Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and Ed Schultz) and co-hosts of Joe (Mika Brzezinski, Willie Geist, Robinson Jin, Mike babies, Jon Meacham and others) tend to rub after a while.
Show this morning (Friday, August 27) included a scene in which all people, including Joe, bemoaned the fact that the representatives of Republic Bashtltot of autumn this will lead to paralysis national only when we need to resolve the issues pressing government action lmigor us face. In reality, I believe that most Americans love actually. Why? Because most of the Federal Government takes actions for our freedom and the economy. The founding fathers is recognized, there are several things to do only the Government: to defend the country, the base currency, set up patents, copyrights, and the number of other activities. This is why they tried (mostly in vain) limit the powers of the Federal Government. Politicians, however, you should never buy into this view.They were always free to say, that there is nothing you can do or the Federal Government to address grievances. instead, they believe, that the Government must always do something when anyone is miserable.
When the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, we extend the great privilege of history (Medicare drug program), economics protectionist (steel and transportation West Virginia), spending approving the "K Street project" Tom delay to provide access to the Government's favorite GOP donors. Travelers who choose tossed them.When the Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, we got two to Bill disastrous economic reform medical, has amazing. look a mess that select set to throw out the Democrats in November. To be fair, programs and TARP, vmchosim economic recovery were bipartisan efforts to the handset.
Medical profession provides a good analogy here.We expect our doctors will be able to diagnose illnesses and to understand the benefits and side effects of treatment options. We also expect them to tell us when they have no effective treatment options available. When you have a cold, each physician worth his salt will tell you to go home, get some rest, drink plenty of fluids. The doctors did not (or at least not recommended) to take the view that they have, do something whenever a patient shows their Office.
When the Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he made an interesting: ?????? always recommend surgery as the best handling, while the radiologists recommend almost always radiation.Why?, because what they are trained to do. Research suggests a very ob-gyns do more Caesarean sections and hysterectomies than are warranted. Why? Because what they are trained to do.
Politicians are trained to make policy.This is what they are doing.Unlike doctors, however, they would never recommend mcapaoni Government, even when it would be the best approach is a very comfortable Democrats. during this process, since they tend to believe that broaden the scope and power of the Federal Government is the best way to solve any problem in our face.Republicans not comfortable with the extension of the Government but diluted, perhaps afraid, recommend mcapaoni.Instead, they tend to recommend that government programs that cheaper than do the tepid less damage than their democratic.This process leaves the Republican obstructionism accusation injury (the Party of no.) should stick to their guns Republicans and in the case of public works market better than centralized planning, left to its own devices, and recover, the economy faster than under Government's administration.
The public can't rely on the Republican party to do the right thing, just to do a little less thing wrong. Hence the best result for the country is that you have other Republicans Vdmokrtim throats, only occasionally came together when clearly needs to be compelling, (such as sorting out war in Afghanistan) needs to be addressed. it is precisely through ??'???? Madison envisioned the celebrate it and process. "funeral, Joe.
Friedman Watch 10-12-10
I really hate to do two posts, Tom Friedman on the line, but I plan to respond every time he writes one of the columns in its terrible power. The last was 12 October op-early in the New York Times titled "build them, he come." Ironically, Mr. Freedman shows this column by reference to his conversation with Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the school of Luk Yu Li and public policy at the National University of Singapore. Singapore is Mr. Friedman a cup of tea: trendy modern, high tech, autocratic. Once, wit and observed all in Singapore is mandatory or prohibited. Only, you can achieve this laudable properly when a country ruled by people who know everything.
Mr. Friedman is aglow over the Secretary of energy Steven Chu proposal for eight 25 million in energy innovation hubs – mini-projects "Manhattan" solve all our energy problems. The idea is national universities, laboratories and companies in their store privacy best scientific talent to compete with $ 25 in value annual grants in the areas of smart grid solar power, carbon capture, storage, extreme materials, batteries, energy storage, energy efficient buildings, nuclear energy, initiatives from the Sun.In other words, just get some smart guys together over a cup of beer, anything is possible. Mr. Friedman refers to this concept as "quality shot of the Moon".
The problem here is not Mr. Friedman might be wrong, but he might be right. Consider for a moment, let's what "Moon shot" means. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the United States fell 12 astronauts on the Moon for the total cost (in dollars) of around 150 billion or 12½ billion each astronaut. Apollo program was a exciting, but what exactly it achieve? We currently have retail space, available to the average citizen? Not exactly. Three people rich uber (Greg Olsen, Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth) to buy their way to the international space station for a reported $ 20 million each.All of us, however, are still quite a lot of Earth bound. Richard Branson virgin Atlantic talks about people that offers a 15-minute suborbital flights at any point in the future for the mere $200,000. I remain a strong highlight of the space program for reasons of national security, but do not have the same proposed a hundred much the average person (except of course Tang, powdered drink Orange preferred by astronauts).
Smart transportation technicians together under the auspices of the Government can help resolve some technical issues. The world, however, this approach has produced a commercially viable technology. For example, consider a supersonic flight. In 1947, Chuck Yaeger of u.s. air force plane broke the sound barrier rocket Bell X-1 – great technical achievement by bright, very brave people. We are currently producing our fifth generation of supersonic aircraft, military. Some commercial airliners are currently plying the sky? No one.Why?, because this capability, so critical for the army, is expensive, not very much to civilians. How many people are willing to pay the extra $ 5,000 airports from New York to London 3½ hours instead of six hours? Technical problem solution does not resolve the issue trademark.
There is a question not great minds that can come together in a meeting with some cool ideas, but ideas are not commercial technologies. If we want to build huge solar power, we do not care what we can do so now. In fact, we are. Americans, however, you don't have power that costs 50 ¢ kilowatt-hour when integrated cycle of natural gas is clean, efficient power can be generated at 7 cents.
In the 35 years since the "energy crisis" of the 1970s, the u.s. Government has spent on approximately 125 billion research and development of energy without producing anything any commercial value. Some people have the capability, hard work have made some good science, but we wouldn't know the difference if the money it had never been. Innovation does not come under the Government think tanks. In the real world, a very small number of powerful commercial technologies emerge from thousands of ideas developed by individuals, sometimes in organizations, sometimes in garages. Just like the lottery, most ideas never pay, even if they are really nice and at the beginning.
The Government is uniquely to play this game. when private investors make money, they tend to focus on success and is difficult to be a very hard-just about commercial options. If they don't their idea, and they work out or run out of money. Not the Government. If Congress were foolish Fund innovation hubs of energy, giving energy Secretary Chu doesn't advance to the smartest people or ideas likely to be successful. Money instead of going right to the districts of Senators support preferred volume and congressmen.One time, instead of these programs will be very hard to turn off, even if they could produce something year after year.
Mr. Friedman suggests several millions of dollars to provide incentive for bhammshla finance people to work on new technologies of energy.The global market for energy supply is on the order of $ 5 trillion year commercial Prize for good ... really new energy technologies – these could provide consumers with improved performance and lower costs – is enormous.Bill Gates have assessed in 54 billion, mainly from the development of Microsoft Windows.Fruit of the low cost, high-capacity battery is enormous – billions of dollars.This is true for solar energy, carbon capture, storage and other idea how energy of millions of dollars the Government Award "Silver" will create incentives for it even does not exist is a fool.
If we create technology by whiz kids sit around the table, why bother with solar energy and smart? Let's go right transporter beams, a faster-than-light, anti-telepathic communication of shoes.
My brother Ted Everett, Professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Geneseo, used to have a pet of a Guinea pig. He wondered aloud one day if he or she can teach his pig Guinea fly when when it was in the air, punishing him when he was on the ground. sounded just like ideas Mr. Friedman. why not set up a hub of innovation of the year and give it a try and rodent?
Not for infrastructure stimulus
President Obama has already looking for something to boost economy before the November elections. To be precise, is looking for anything that might give the impression that select that he is to give the economy a boost. He sat down on the 50 billion infrastructure program. After all, who could possibly resist fix our roads, railway being Sarah? Well, I have one. The reason here.
You need to manage public works to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible. The primary goal is to offer the infrastructure of the President is to create jobs. Create a task does not target malum, but the way the Federal Government is not it terrible. First of all, the process of federal spending, is political, not economic. Money tends to be allocated not areas where you will use most or where spending would be worth it in the most important modes but politically or powerful congressmen home States, senators. Federal funding, such as managing Obama 787 billion stimulus package, they are usually by the State, and local politicians regard of free money. "Look what I got for you!" they feds provides a conveniently forget that the Federal Government has the money besides extracting it from the population.All spaces of one man, someone else loses. Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, from poor countries to win this game, but in New York, Massachusetts, California, will always be losers.
Rarely services on political sense to carefully take, for example, the express train Acela from Washington, DC to New York, entered service in 2000. The word "express" is the ironic here. If flying DC to New York, Reagan National Airport take, land at LaGuardia 40 minutes later. This is because very hard (though not always successfully), airlines try to make a profit by giving consumers what they want.Not so with the Federal Government since Amtrak Acela, operator, and heavily subsidized by the Federal Government, its politicians and immediately got in their planning and action. Instead of a simple, fast, service point, Acela was made locally.
If you take the express train Acela # 2110, for example, to leave Union Station of Washington: 00: 00. After twenty minutes train stops at BWI Airport. Fourteen minutes later, the train stops at Baltimore. Then a long track of 43 minutes in Dover, Delaware (so you can get off Biden President), 17 minutes 30 Street station in Philadelphia, two minutes (that's right, per minute) to Philadelphia North, 54 minutes to Newark, then the final 17 minutes Penn Station in New York. This is a total of six stops.The top speed of 150 mph train, but its average speed is only 70 miles per hour (200 miles in 2 hours 48 minutes). compare performance with Eurostar from London to Paris (average speed of 120 mph), the French TGV from Paris Marseille (average speed of 140 mph) or a high speed train Guangzhou Wuhan (average speed of 200 mph). In addition to its high capital costs, Amtrak is approving the annual operations of around 1 billion. All the jobs that were created by an employee of this train more offset by burdens it places on taxpayers.
Furthermore, Federal infrastructure projects require usually what is called the barrier Project work agreement (PLA). PLA requires essentially the contractor to hire only Union child. Not only is this a commitment to increase the cost of the project, sometimes dramatically, but also to permit the change unbreakable Union from suggestions and requires no winning bidders withhold dues from employee Union--whether the employee paychecks liked it or not. These debt securities are then used to support the Democratic Party and to lobby for more federal spending.
Bindings are often describe their activities as attempts to distribute the profits of the company the company's employees. In fact, Union wages they pay high by consumers of non-Union employees. There is a reason that the private sector unionization has declined your significantly during the last few decades has thrived while employees of the public sector and bindings. Bashok global competitive private companies cannot deliver the Union salary to consumers.If employees get greedy bindings (they always do), they become uncompetitive, lose access to capital and eventually out of business. staff know and prefer usually non-Union job with a company thriving class warfare exercise self-destructive. When Governments agree to pay above market, on the other hand, they just stick taxpayers with the Bill. Irony, Union of Teamsters plan decided to build their new work, however, a Union with non-Union. Apparently, the Staff Union. Do not get better.
50 billion for infrastructure stimulus of President a question from China, and federal budget can be saddled with an interest payment for decades, all for a printout of the political advantage glimmer for Democrats this November. One of the many benefits to the constitutional principle of the bck federalism is that it is much more difficult for countries, districts operate at approving.This is a good thing because it constrains the municipality officials to perform the actual choices regarding spending priorities like they do, but they do so.States and municipalities are much more likely to be selective in their infrastructure and attentive to their real costs and benefits.They like to create a task of infrastructure projects, but only when other people have to pay for them.
President Obama wants to give me as much off the hook by providing federal funding they borrowed the debt to the national accounts.Governors, including many Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger nominal, like this concept.Should hate it.
Bail-out plan of the Bank the stimulation package, offering President new infrastructure common to all shared component: the direct assignment of capital by the Government of President Obama preference. essentially saying, "economic growth requires that you can decide who gets the capital and who has not."The correct term for this approach is the "central planning."Central planning had never worked before, most likely to work now.(Remember the Soviet Union lost the cold war). a central plan for economic recovery nothing. earlier expressed the view that select all contests, earlier in the country can begin to flourish again.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
More Cape Cod wind power
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 8965.
?-8 ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ("Hot ?????? ?? ??? ????"). ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????-op 13 ??????? ?- Times ???? ??, ??? ???? ????? ?????? http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100913/OPINION/9130319. ????? op ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? (MMA) ?? ???'????. ??????? ???'?? Gurnon, ???? MMA, ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? Times ???? ?? op-?????, ?????? ??????? 21, ??? ???? ????? ?????? http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100921/OPINION/9210331. ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?????, ????? ??????? Gurnon ???? ?????, ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??. ??????, ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????. ??????? Gurnon ??? ??? ?????, ??????????, ???????, ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????. ???? ???? ????, ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????.
?????, ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????. ???? ? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????.???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??????????, ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????, ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????.
????, ??????? Gurnon conceded, ?????, ??? ??? ?????? taxed, ?? ??? subsidized ??????. ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? 0.40 $ ??? ???? ???? ?, ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????.
??????, ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????.MMA ??? ??? ???? ???????. ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ????????? ??????, ???? ??????? ?????, ?????. ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ????, ?????, ???, ???, ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????.
??? ?????, ?? ???, ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ???? ?? renewables. ??????? Gurnon ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????, ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????. ??? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????.?????, ??????? ?????? ????? uncommercial ??????????? ???? ????? ???????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?????????.
????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????, ??? ???? Gurnon ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ???.MMA ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????.?????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ???-???.
???? ??????? Gurnon ????:
21 ?????? 2010
??????? ???'?? Gurnon
?????
??????? ????? ?? ???'????
101 ??????? ????
???? Buzzards, ???'???? 02532
Gurnon ??????? ????:
????? ?????? ????? ??? "???" ?????"???????? ?- Times ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???, ??? ?? MMA ??????. ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????, ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ??????.
???? ??, ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???. ??????? ???? 1.47 ?????? ???? ???? 2006 ? ????? 170,000 ???? ???? ?-20 ??? (3.4 ?????? ???? ????? 20) ??????. ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????. ????????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? O & M ?? 4% ?? ?????? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ??, ???? turbines ??? ???? ?????? O & M ???? ?? ????. (???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??.)??? ????? ????, ??? ???? O-M ???? ??????? ??? ??? 2% ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? $30,000 ????. ????? ?? ???? ????? ????, ??? O & M ????? ?? ???. ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? 140,000 ?? ????? ??????? ?? $1.47 ?????? – ????? ?? 7.2% ????? ??????. ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? NSTAR ???? ????? – ??? ??????? ?? ratepayer – ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? MMA ??? ??????? ??? ???? ????. ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???, ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????.
????, ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ???'?? Elrick ?????? ?????? ?? 16 ???????. ?????? ?? "???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? incentivizing, $13.50 ????? enticements ???? ???, ??? ??? ????." ????? ??? ??? ?? ???, ?? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????, ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ??? http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#Exhibit28-8. ????? ????? ??, ???? 2006, ?????? ??????? ??? ???? 3.5 ??????? ????, ??????????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? 2.8 ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?? 6.3 ??????? ????. ????? ???, ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? 460 ?????? ????, ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????-1. ????? ??, ?? ???, ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????.????? ????? ???? ??????, 2006, ????? ??? ? 100 Btus quadrillion ??????, ???? ??-800 ??????? ?????? ?????. ?? ?????, 677 ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????, ?- 2 ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????. ???, ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ? 1 ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? (6.3 ????? 677), ???? ???? ?????????? ??? 23 ??? ??? ???? (0.460 ????? 2).?????? ?????, ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?- 20 ?????.
??? ?? ??, ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??????. ?????? ??????? ?????? ? 18.4 ??? ??? ???? ?????, ???? ? 24.4 ??? ??? ????. ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????. ?????, ??? ????? ???'???? ???? ?? ?? ??? 23.5 ?? ????? ?????. ????? ????, ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????. ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????.
??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????. ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ????? ??????. ?? ???, ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ? 1% ?? ???? ????-????, ????? ???? ?????? peaking, ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????. ???? ??? ?????, 1% ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????.?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????, ?? ?????????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????. ???? ????? ?????, kWh ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ??????? ???.
??? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????.?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????-??????? ????? ???????????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? 100 ????.???? Chevy $41,000 ?? ????, ??????? ????? ?? Corolla ?????? $17,000 ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????????.
???? ?????? ?????? ?? MMA ?????? ?????? photovoltaic ? ????? ????? ??????.?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????.??? ??? MMA ??? ??? ????'???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????.? taxpayer, ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? MMA ?? ?????? ????? ?? "???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?? ????? ????," ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????, ????? ????? "????? ??? ?????? ??????/????".??? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????.???? ?????, ?? ???, ???? ???? MMA ??? ???? ?????? ?- taxpayer ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????.???? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????.indoctrinating ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? "???? ?????? ?????" ???? ???? ??.
?????? ?????, ?????, ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????, ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????.??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???.??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ????, ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???.?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ????, ???? coarsening ?? ????????? ????.???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ????, ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??-??? ?? ?????? ??????.
??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????.???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??.
???? ?????,
???? ? ?????
The myth of energy independence
Last week, I had the honour order to give a talk and contribute to a seminar of the United States air force command and staff college (ACSC) at Maxwell Air Force Base Bmontgomri Alabama on energy security. ACSC trains field – grade officers, majors in General, not just a narrow skills of the Warrior, but also the broader skills of foreign policy, economics. Attached a copy of the presentation I used material that offers the following conclusions.
There are no viable economic alternatives for the oil transportation today. There may be one day, but as Aragorn said rings "that today is that day." As a result, crippled the u.s. economy by attempting to eliminate the imported oil real, Rob us of our social and economic mobility. The u.s. economy is deeply integrated with the global economy. Always we were a nation of trading, and our economy cannot survive without a secure international trading system. In the United States has a strategic interest in the world secure and these responsibilities will not change if we can stop the import of oil. Do we really will allow Iran or China to take control of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia's Middle East, Kuwait? How our allies in the statement of the indifference shown to fate of oil market?We do not choose not only out of the oil market in the world we are really disturbing, but we do not but choosing to deal with the vulnerability as well as our ability to.
We share much of the anxiety over u.s. faces difficulties in the world today, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation rise of China.Will encourage our military leaders know that are among the best and brightest, as well as the most powerful and displayed in our company.Knowledge and skills in all ASCS are analytic monitor equality of all students in our graduate top. good maybe even more, since men and women has a wealth of practical and real personal stake of United States foreign policy. I, but not very encouraging, surprised at least.
Version CODE AZ presentation 9-2010 blog
A new low for the New York Times on climate change
God bless the New York Times for giving me the River are topics. Their most recent, and one of the most egregious, gifts was an article by John m. Broder on October 20 paper titled "climate change-is a tea party and the article of the faith."
Read this short article, or if you prefer to read only the following: "skepticism and immediately to global warming are among the belief of the articles of the tea party movement here in Indiana, across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction;For others, it is driven by a lack of trust in these are the readers and other elites. yet, efforts to address climate change seen as conspiracy to force a Government in the world, this sweeping redistribution of wealth.
Remember that it was offered by the times as story news, op-early or editorial. Mr. Broder offers us the classical logic of "climate community," which works as follows.
1. all right thinking people of wisdom, understanding that we are in front of man-made climate change catastrophe, perhaps at the end of life as we know it and solve the problem will require a massive government forces and the severe restrictions on the stand of our life.
2. it really wonder that the public is not buying into this view, it is the job of the journalist to discover the basis this failure of the American people. (The public doesn't like ObamaCare or, but we have to sort out another time this faith rational reasons).
3. because the current home of extreme lunatics party tea, our search for pathologies climate change should start there.
4. Why does the CAP trade tea Partiers to resist? Could be because the science of climate change is ambiguous or because the proposed legislation would be a very expensive still ineffective?There can be no tea Partiers trust politicians to run the economy? Nah. it must be because these yahoos are religious (always a good explanation of rational behavior), see their betters, or wild conspiracy theories tends to believe.
5. in other words, "" climate scepticism is viewpoint, this is a flaw in a character or maybe diseases.
Last week a news analyst, NPR fired for expressing Williams Juan heretical view that people see bshmalanit Muslim planes made him nervous. Vivian Schiller NPR President said Williams has you must save his views on Muslims between him and his psychiatrist "." in other words, his sanity views Williams bring into question. Another how it could explain the fact that contains incorrect views of Juan?
There is, of course, one other possible explanations for the tea party's bizarre views on climate change.Broder explains that "industries of petroleum, coal, service collectively spent 500 million since the beginning of 2009 the lobby against legislation to address climate change and to win the candidates ...Who supports it, according to new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a group of u.s. ?????? left in Washington.Their message appears that fell on the ears increase. "Get it?Perhaps tea Partiers are mental stability, but only a fool.An energy companies have spent $ 2.50 to the hopes of the brain of each of the 200 million American adults.It is truly amazing that oil companies so much power.Expensive advertisement campaign of the BP in the wake of the oil spill last April, Deepwater horizon convinced the American public was to blame for BP spill ... Oh, wait a minute. forget that argument. in any case, it's no wonder that people like strange ideas. good thing its own community climate gets millions "educate" the public about the wonders of renewable energy, expensive bulbs, compact fluorescent.
Mr. Broder make up really scary vision where average people can make their own by examining all of the different perspectives and policy issues, even incorrect observation. How can I see the Six pack Joe correct conclusions when it receives an intentionally unfiltered information was released by people with agendas? how can a person-a-street sort that unless supervised by people actually smart? the next thing you know, people who are not professional politicians are allowed to run for public office and then we really have for the hell in a hand.
Friedman Watch 10-5-10
As anyone who was aware of this last year, barely even or know so, California is a serious trouble. Unemployment is above 12%, Government payrolls, pensions and entitlements are out of control, investors are fleeing the status and plummeting of tax. How Governor Schwarzenegger that address these issues? By choosing to fight with the oil companies, of course. Tom Friedman has jumped into the fray as expected when you with October 5 oped titled "the terminator vs. big oil" New York Times
2006, California passed a global warming solutions Act (GWSA)--still another piece of legislation as absurd. The law requires a California greenhouse gas emission reducing its 1990 levels in 2020. In fact, the signing of California to Sadr is dead. The two oil companies — Valero, Tesoro--support 23 high, postpone the implementation of GWSA until California achieves four consecutive quarters of unemployment below 5.5%.Critics claim that Prop 23 effectively kill GWSA. it is true, but the law deserves to die.
Mr. Friedman lists benefits of GWSA things, neither any sense. In the first instance, this law does nothing to reduce the global warming effect. Even if you think the science behind man-made climate change is a near-term catastrophic failures, California cannot do anything by himself. The world now emits around 30,000 million tons of carbon dioxide. USA accounts for 20% of the total amount or 6000 million tons. California emits about 400 million tons, and reducing the emission reduction in the levels of 1990 requires 25%, or 100 million tons.Therefore, GWSA would reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall by about 0.3%, no other country in the world making a serious effort to reduce carbon emissions. What sense is the Act of California "solution"?
Again, Mr. Friedman pound the table "green jobs". Let me take a deep breath and say this one more time.Constructing expensive Sun, wind, other equipment may create some jobs, but rising electricity costs in prices of other jobs, balance cannot increase the overall economic activity by making more expensive input is critical. According to energy information administration, California electricity consumers to industrial prices already 60% above the national average.Exactly how to attract investments in California watch this way?
Finally, Mr. Friedman quotes George Schultz, 23, that opponent Prop GWSA is "clear the air".Reducing carbon dioxide does nothing ambient air quality. dioxide of carbon emissions are a global problem. 0.3% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions does nothing at all air California or anywhere else.
With weak arguments, it's no wonder that Mr. Friedman decides to fill op-his invective against the term "polluter lobbyists", "right wing", mega-funders "outside financiers country", "climate denialism" and "fraud" California has a chance to solve problems of its economic threats while its municipality officials choose fashionable but not meaningful environmental posturing over the difficult steps necessary to make the investment and jobs to California.
More bad arguments for climate change
The so-called "climate change community (CCC VISITOR CENTER)" is a bunch of caring, passionate. They really want to save the world from what they see as a threat to humanity long existential. Over the last decade, however, they have been steadily losing the argument inexorably. As the public faces gradually their Al Gore and company, CCC VISITOR CENTER continues to respond with new research, old same fallacious arguments. The last suggestion is "global Warming and Extreme weather: the forecast for science, the impacts on America" from the Massachusetts Institute of technology research and policy environment. You can read the report in any http://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/uploads/ef/32/ef3292763077e289788469edf5abdcde/extreme-weather-vma.pdf.
Their argument runs as follows: (1) the Earth has warmed during the last years of hundreds or so, he raised a hand scientists CCC VISITOR CENTER (2) predict warming rush rushed, bringing extreme weather events, recent extreme weather events (3) give a taste of what it's going to be bad and (4) so we need to get the massive reductions in carbon emissions in our mind the cost. Timing of the new Massachusetts report does not surprising.Oak was a very bad winter June September brush very hot with count hurricane. therefore, the people, Massachusetts and is quite frightened by the arguments of climate change.
Here's the problem. As I have already many times in previous posts, science is simple. Start with hipotzt and then check it against an empirical evidence. The hypothesis is valid depending on whether its forecasts are consistent with observations. For example, Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation offered him a mathematical way. Who would want to be able to drop an object to see if its movement followed Newton's equation.This is a good scientific hypothesis. If Newton said, "object orientation and speed dropped will move that dictates of God", there is a way to test it. In other words, this claim was not a scientific hypothesis.
CCC VISITOR CENTER fall into this trap when it loads a hypothesis climate change predicts the weather changes. weather changes ALWAYS. There is no logic in cold winter, the argument especially hot winter exceptionally are two human-induced climate change evidence. CCC VISITOR CENTER needed to make a prediction and the actual against which you can examine its.
Imagine lighting strikes home your neighbor, burn it on the ground. The next day the agent conceals your door and wants to sell you a lightning ™ system distributes 2010 $ 50,000 guaranteed to protect you from lighting strikes. Its sales pitch goes like this, "good morning. I'm here to protect you from certain disaster. Your neighbor's House was destroyed by the lighting, our research team has concluded with absolute certainty that frequent lightning strikes almost, eventually destroying the whole city. Here are some photos of what happened to the neighbor's House of fire. Pretty soon, which happens to every country, including yours. You can imagine what it would be like?Started to flood the ability of the Fire Department and emergency and other shipping food stops running. People on the streets fighting for its providers. Death, illness and destruction to reign. You can prevent all this with a mere $ 50,000 purchase. "
Most people will see right away that the agent as a con artist. There he offered no evidence indicates the directions that strike lightning single neighborhood, the tragic may be, in fact, and a common disaster, he offered no evidence of its product actually make any difference or benefits of their product than the significant cost instead of his own. All he was trying to do is to intimidate you into doing something he wanted to do.An existing logic and science in this approach.
If THE CCC VISITOR CENTER wants to persuade people to reduce their carbon footprints of in nothing more than perfunctory way, they need to establish testable hypothesis on the form: "x" amount of carbon created by person will produce "y" impact on the atmosphere.If this prediction is true proves, supports the hypothesis.The current hypothesis, says "carbon emissions will continue to really bad things to happen," he is not falsifiable and therefore scientific hypothesis.CCC VISITOR CENTER cannot continue to argue any weather event exceptional support their hypothesis or some evidence supports that many scientists believe it despite a lack of empirical evidence. Furthermore, it must demonstrate a carbon reduction steps equal to their cost.
CCC VISITOR CENTER it became itself into binding. so many people, many of them intelligent, thoughtful, educated and have staked their reputations on the need to reduce carbon emission of away from this location. backup would be mortified. in this sense, there are many members of THE CCC VISITOR CENTER with advanced technical degrees terminates scientists are only now advocates.
If a new report of Massachusetts environment is best, it's no wonder the public is to treat it with a big yawn.
August 20, Friedman Watch 2010
Tom Friedman of the August 17 column, the New York Times is doing us a great service by beautiful framing the discussion about the current economic policy. In the last paragraph of the portion of Mr. Friedman says it all, "the President should take forced labor of America, business and leadership Medal for Kemp David and not without a bargain sum for taxes, promoting trade, energy, stimulation, cut some market uncertainty budget proposing we move together — not only on economic but bmhdsh for subsequent to the 21st century."
Simple, right? Let's get great shots together and make them do the right thing. The problem here is not to "bargain" to actually grow global economy. Only the free market do it.Mr. Friedman's access offers many names by spent, including industrial policy, capitalism and State – all designated terms Dirigism confuse, to lighten. correct name for this view is in the planning center, belief that Governments allocate capital more efficiently than the market can be.
Obama administration, Tom Friedman and others on the left seem to think of central planning political as wonderful new idea – the way forward into the 21st century. In fact, it's an old idea with a long, ugly as reference, including the Soviet Union in fascist Italy, Germany, Cuba, North Korea. Each of these countries seem worthy of emulation?As a nation, we discussed the benefits of centralized planning at great length during the 1930s, when Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin looked on the rise in the fascist and Communist economy. were many admirers in Washington, DC. Debasement of these regimes into violence, corruption and collapse put the debate on hold – but only for a while.
Economic woes Alliance faced in the 1970s and early 1980s, the following two decades of growth and prosperity, rekindled the debate. This time, Japan is the world's largest economic chdinmo. Finally, a democratic country appeared, pacifistic how central planning can work really. Between 1970 and 1990, the Japanese economy is growing at an annual average rate of 4.2% compared to 3.4% in the measly.The conventional wisdom in Washington was the success of Japan was a direct result of its "industrial policy" (that is, the central planning), that Japan quickly take control of the United States if we kept our archaic reliance on free markets but in 1992, before we put our economy was on the route planned centrally, the Japanese economy hit a brick wall. Growth during the last 15 years, on average, about 1.3% per year, less than half the rate of 3% in the USA. Oops, never mind.
After the rest of the Decade, enter China – Darling new central planners, including Mr. Friedmann. China, the Communist country, was forced to higher growth rates (above 8%) More than any major Western countries for several years. QED. Central planning jobs.But be careful with this argument. China is still desperately poor country. C. its target only large is a huge population and productive as his. China started to grow quickly modernize only when it was abandoned in the central planning and the market. Those parts of the Chinese economy is free because the Central do well, but hundreds of millions of people, especially the Interior of the country, bahlk languish still in poverty of the organizations of the Government in agriculture.
The core argument central planning was unchanged for at least 200 years: justice, Hobbes, Locke was incorrect. The Government is not a social contract that is created by the consent of the governed. Instead, the control is a mechanism to maintain the population ignorant, greedy, hhamdniim from killing each other.Only smart people (like Mr. Friedman) can really understand the needs of society and the appropriate decisions for the economy.The masses that eventually there will be many and happy if people really know what they are doing make decisions on how we live, how much and what type of energy we consume, what type of health we are, what we eat, the way we live, how we are educated, etc.
There are two fundamental problems with this approach.First, as soon as the democratic institutions are gone, the power inevitably goes the most cruel, not the smartest.Second, even if smart people running the country, they do have an idea of what to do in the modern economy. a very complex and requires millions of transactions carried out in real time. Mr. Friedman may think they know everything, but we have to worry about.
Nobody in his right believes that the officials of the municipality, you'll find company bosses are being forced out everything except their interests to give them the authority and a chance to create a "grand bargain" just give them a chance to line their pockets at our expense. what leads me to Catch 22. people like Mr. Friedman, who think that people need to run the economy, smart, they are clearly not smart enough to run the economy.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
"The green house effect"
People who live on or near Cape Cod have seen probably story latest news about old Chatham historic village house. John Hallett, structure of Greek-revival white columned known for decades as the Calico cat, was already looking for a bit seedy when its owner is a long-dead a few years ago. Property to buy in the price of 1.9 million hcharotiam by private owners who wanted to restore it, move it back a bit and turned into a road within walking distance of the widow, several other features. Unfortunately the new owners, the House is a national Historic district. Any offer for a property so you need to navigate the maze of almost impossible of regulations, including the old Chatham village Association, the city of Chatham Cape Cod Commission Board design.
Let's be clear. Everyone wants to preserve the character of the old village. The principle which the new owner is suggested a violation. But that's not how the system works. Boards and commissions are different you don't want to influence the architecture in the old village, and they want to input or the ability to stop changes most egregious. Our local government wants full control of everything happens absolute and right to say "no" to everything that is offered, no matter how trivial. We have seen this problem when working in a painful process of building the new CVS Pharmacy conserving our local supermarket in only a portion of the Chatham's commercial. Although Dvrm amazingly support the project. The city was not so sure.Last year, the storyboard of the Transport Committee, the Committee of Chatham County historical business, other committees held 21 discussions, a few hours over time, discusses whether the city should approve items such as color carpets and employees CVS should wear uniforms. Government is out of control – not only to the federal level.
The new owner of Calico cat has been finally frustrated with the process of planning and bloated. After all, they are the owner of the House and pay taxes on it. Anyway, a few weeks ago, with which the property owner with a new paint job: lime green, dark green trim and bright yellow columns and Kadar.If you really want to see this, look at the monster http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/08/11/chatham-outdoes-ptown?blog=69. However, a much narrower may sympathize with that have this property forms and reports, and their response that face, that's a lose-lose situation. No one gets what he wants, everyone suffers.
Unfortunately, this process has become standard operating procedure in the United States. Current management wants to control, not influence. We have seen it work with financial management, health, economic reform and, potentially, energy, climate. Rather than focus on a significant reform, fundamental, the management wants to just keep everything down our throats. We, for example, reduce carbon emissions with our national nuclear program, quickly exploit rejuvenated in our new found shale gas, electricity rate reform and a few steps.It is not good enough. The Federal Government wants to control how we use energy, what we drive, how we drive, how hot or cold, we keep our houses, which we will use the lights and anything else there is flexibility, and without compromise.My or the RTE. seek and destroy.
I am going to start teaching my oil economics class at the school Fletcher at bloriot. My advice is simple: before my students rocked the location all an important issue, write the talking points and set out to fight, do two things.
First, do your homework and analyze the problem.Find out what's important, what's not.Run the numbers.Investigate the problem.Consider different points of view.Our municipality officials and live in a world of perception, but actually is the real world, the real implications of policy have real people here more to life than to have moved the focus groups hmhog. Second, make common cause with people really looking for solutions, if they agree with you or not. be careful about joining with the zealots, even if they support your positions frequently I agree with the head of Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, but they shout too much for my taste. I prefer to discuss the thinker and the citizens.
If we after two large-scale these principles, the way we have done during the second world war, cold war, then maybe, just maybe, we reduce the effect of "Green House".
New issue of Ecology Law Quarterly
Race California Attorney & environmental
The New York Times article notes why race California Attorney is very important for our national energy policy national environmental. As the observer of this Office will work closely on environmental topics as well as General California Deputy Attorney formerly myself, I believe surely true type. Race matter in terms of quality of the environment. (Co-blogger Dan Farber blogged about this race a few months ago, distinguishing this candidate Steve was emphasized at the time of the voice without these topics posts on its Web site.)
NY Times article notes significant national initiative's legal force local governments take climate change into account their environmental reviews under the law, CEQA analysis environmental impact of the country, he discusses the key role in particular must run ??'?? Brown protect aggressive greenhouse gas reduction laws our country and in proactively pursue litigation-such as a lawsuit against the Federal Agency AG to our local governments try to keep pace with clean energy financing programs – push for energy and environmental policy, and sound.
In fact, there are years – AG California long before Jerry Brown arrived at the location-independent and connected by a disgruntled environmental cases in a variety of initiatives, including different domains did not hold back in advocating for federal land conservation, abatement of our paint hazards, curbing pollution and greenhouse gas emission CEQA enforcement and 65 high California. in these cases there are significant body structure of the work at the Office of the AG over time. (My Frank Rick blogger at the Office of the firm is aware of these, as well as in similar cases in other areas such as consumer protection laws and the law of judgment, for several years as a Senior Attorney under former Bill Lockyer AG.)
While the AG must represent State agencies such as the air resources Board, he or she has a very wide discretion about whether to pursue independent initiatives to protect public health and natural resources of the country. It is clear that in the past, funding and resource allocation decisions, as well as important decisions regarding what Chase with varied widely with each successive legal advisor.
For three decades, some Attorney Generals – including Bill Lockyer, for which I worked there, as well as Brown and John van de Kamp-environmental protection must be prioritized than others, such as Dan Lungren and George Deukmejian. This race, the candidates appear to offer a clear difference in how they approach environmental protection. N.Y. Times article notes, "the voice becomes a reference to his campaign site environment, declined to answer during 5 October if he supported high 23," a hint that he believes the obligations of the local climate change may harm our economy and Governments. Harris, on the other hand, came forward as strong highlight of the environment protection.
Some people are cynical about our role in environmental protection AG framing it as a political grandstanding or scoring points.Once, after I wrote a letter pointing out flaws in many important environmental impact analysis for developing housing Empire inland have devastating impact on wildlife, even blame me and was a city of a worker at the AG and contribute a key rival wife.(Accusation was baseless; I actually brought the matter to the attention of the Ministry of information obtained from the project's impact on wildlife, and my own conclusion that environmental impact review exhibits.)My experience, this cynical view is simply not true.AGs our Deputy work hard to use the law to do what is right for the environment and the changes you made during the years when their boss gave them enough resources and the big difference.(There are many wonderful attorneys, but particularly important example is Ken Alex, has been a guest blogger here. Ken prize of ABA for unique achievement might law a few years ago, and now the environment section of the Office.)
My former Office of the AG must find ways to make the most of the State one way or another; they did great work consistently over the years, but I know the shattering this significant influence on their work.
Thumbs up, thumbs down
The first good news:
SPOT and NHTSA has proposed greenhouse gas reduction and efficiency standards chapter of gas for medium and large, those trucks to move freight across the country. "The proposed standards to assess agencies have combined to reduce potential GHG emissions by almost 250 million metric tons and save approximately 500 million barrels of oil over the life of the vehicle were sold during the 2014 to 2018, provides an estimated 35 billion in net benefits the trucks or 41 billion net social benefits when the benefits are." talk about your low-hanging fruit. Rules offered beyond as far as current technology will allow, in accordance with the most recent report from the national research, probably because the Office of management and budget was a case of SPOT to help reduce costs. Still, they are much better than that of the current status quo. Although he initially declined to say so publicly that SPOT has received the next step towards vetoing a permit granted by the Army Corps of engineers to allow Valley fills from coal removal of 1. Spruce ??????? mine. Having sent each sifted through evidence note this public hearing, spring, 3 SPOT area is recommending to veto, based on its determination, the impacts ????????? downstream water, fish and wildlife that depend on them will be accepted. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Assistant Administrator for water, Peter da Silva, who will make the final determination. Ken ????? has many more great coal has its tattoo blog, starting with this post. The California Condor population has reached a new milestone.In 1987, Condor wild nine years were captured and put in an effort to ????? hshboi reproductive save the species.Reintroduction in nature began in 1992 in California, later in Arizona now by Bettina Boxall of the Yedioth Chshaacim, 100 wild Condor, free flying in California. Although periodic releases of chicks born detainee out still arrive most population growth, the birds are cultivated in nature.Lest we accept every bbhila, now for some bad news:
Climate Science Watch reports that a California approved the textbook to use its program initiative bahinoch and ends does not mention the environment global warming can be easily read offer environmental impacts of renewable energy sources are coal research satellite image equivalent. A by the European space agency that Gulf oil spill models hit single bamkom wrong (Prime spawning Habitat) and simply bad time (end of the reproductive season) for bluefin tuna, possibly reducing the production upon species where the already critical it by 20%.(Hat tip land judge Unearthed a blog).UCLA releases new analysis of high 26 ′ s impacts on the State of the environment programs
As written of light, 26 high wasn't getting much attention in the media as well as measures in the environmental and other anti-in California ballot next Tuesday, but it has the potential to pose a real sleeper. UCLA Law only carefully analysis released high 26 ' s impacts on State funding for environmental and public health programs, concluding that it is "significant funds to erect barriers in many of these programs in the future," what "could have significant impacts, luckily on the implementation of the health, safety and environmental laws of the State."
The full report is available here.
Other key conclusions are high: 26
Undercut polluters should pay principle for the harms they have caused. 26 proposal to change the basic principle of the State of the law that allows the Government to charge payments in advance for polluters to external costs they impose on public health risks, such as environmental harms. Proposal 26 make more difficult, for example, to force some regulatory fees are dangerous products to address the negative effects on the health of their communities. product sustainability laws repeal probably at least two. This year, the legislature enacted AB 2398 and 1343 AB, fund the product stewardship programs prevent entering landfills of harmful chemicals and the attendant. Proposal 26 to repeal these laws unless the legislature reenacts them in compliance with strict 2/3 supermajority requirement 26 high. Creates a new barrier to ensuring that there are environmental and public health fee to catch up with the changing needs or with inflation. Legislative changes or updates to existing salary, environmental health fund programs at both public and many require vote supermajority 2/3 to enact unless they belong to one of the exceptions. The scope of the exceptions is narrow enough and foggy future risk of many payments. Undermine establishing a stable funding streams for key environmental efforts, such as green chemistry initiative on the global warming solutions Act, already have already enacted that but that are not yet well funded.The country currently uses the standard fee — the type can be transformed into taxes by 26 high — to assist environmental health payment and the general public. Proposal 26 make it more difficult to impose or modify fees fund these programs in the future.For example, it might threaten the future regulatory fees to fund new green chemistry initiative status, which are aimed at control of exposure to dangerous chemicals.Affect revenue neutral measures also surprising ways.26 the proposal requires the vote of 2/3 not only revenue bills, but each legislation that brings an individual to pay more tax. language of high is pretty broadly stated, transforming into the tax change law who "causes and every taxpayer pays higher tax." under the new definition of "tax" high, the account that will result in one business to pay even higher than the regulatory requirement that the vote could be subject to the 2/3. it is therefore unable to read set number, for example, the proposal to reduce the burden and the California taxpayers pay to protect public health by billing polluting industries to protect it.
Allegiance Republicans to attack the climate change efforts vdtiiim
New York Times reports that senior Republicans say they aggressively attack the management of our environment and climate change initiatives, if their party wins majority with a House. SPOT will be on the defensive, resource usage, to protect against these attacks, rather than move forward with regulatory initiatives required by the Court and supported by the evidence.
At the same time, industry lobbyists — particularly those representing the oil, coal and large – they push Congressional lame duck to ability to SPOT not regulate greenhouse gases from sources stationary even before the next Congress seated. key number was wavering Democrats or negative towards this area already SPOT authority.
Unfortunately, these developments are likely to mean the absence of climate and energy legislation vdtiiim, that the Federal Government from doing anything hamstrung significant at all to fight climate change, maybe for years to come.Even more before the State regulatory initiatives, including California, but know who has this problem due to the actions of the United States federal level will need to be our country's significant benefit to participate in discussions of international climate, there is no moral authority in international climate addresses. This is depressing news.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Meet new BOEMRE, just like the old MMS
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 8598.
????-???? ??? CPRBlog.
????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?- 1982 ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????. MMS ???? ??? ?????? ???????, ???? ???? ???????, dogged ??-??? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????.???? ?????? ???? Deepwater ??? failings ??????, ????? ????? ?? ???? reorganized MMS ???? ?????, ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? "???? ?????, ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? Continental ????????."
???? ????? MMS ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???????-?????, ?????? (?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? BOEM ?? BOEMRE, ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? "?????"). ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ????, BOEMRE ????? ?????? ?????: ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???????, ????? ?????;??????, ????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????; ? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????.
????, ???? ???? ???? ????? LA Times op-????? ????? ????? MMS ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ????.
BOEMRE ?????? ?? ????? ???? EIS ?????? ????? ????? 193 ??? Chukchi ???? ???? ?????.??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????, ?????? ?? 2007, ??? ??? ?? ??-??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? MMS ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???, ????? ??-??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ????????. ???????, ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? "?????? ????? ??? ??????" ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? "????." ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ????.
????? ?????? ??? ? ????? ????? EIS, MMS ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???????, ???? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????.
????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????, BOEMRE reinvented ????? ???? MMS unlamented ????????. ???? ???? ???, ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ?????: (1) ??? ?????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???;(2) ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??-?? ??????? ???????, ??? ??????, ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????; (3) ????????, ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ???????; (4) ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????; ? (5) ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????.
?? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???. ???? ?? ??????? ???.
(1) ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????. ????? ???? ??, ??? ?? ???? ??. ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? spill ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????.??? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? harms, ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???????. ????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????, BOEMRE ???? ????, ?? ????. ?????? ?? ??????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????.
(2) ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????. ???, ???? ?? decisionmaker ???? ?????. ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? spill, ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????.
(3) ?? ?????? (???? ??? ?????) ???? ??????? ????. ?? ???? ????, ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???.
(4) ????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????. ????? wishful. gusher Deepwater ???? (?????) ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ? ??? ???? ?????. ????? ???, ?? ???, ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????.??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? MMS, ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???, ??? ??? ??????. ????? ????? NEPA ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ????? ?? ????, ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??, ????? ???? ???? ???.
(5) ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????, ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???. ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????, ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????.??? ?????, ???. ?????, ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????, MMS ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ???? ????. ????, ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? feds ??????. ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ????? commit ??? ?? ?? ???, ?? ?? ???? ?????. ?????? ??, OCSLA ???? ?? feds ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?????. ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? 2.6 ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ? none.
???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? cavalier ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? cavalier ?? ??????? ?????? ???? Deepwater. ???, ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??????, ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????. ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? — ???, ????, ????? ?????? drilling ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? spill ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????. ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????;NEPA ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????, BOEMRE ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????.??? ???? ?????, ????? ????? ??????? ?? lessees, ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????????.
????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? CEQ ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????, BOEMRE ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??. ????? ???, ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????.BOEMRE ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??????, ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? remand. ?? ???? ????? tenable ????, ?? ???????? ???. ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????.???, ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????, ?? ?????? ?? ???-????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????. ???????, ?????? ?????? ???? ??? BOEMRE ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? Deepwater ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????. ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ????, ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ???????? ????? ?????. ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???????;?? ??, ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????????.????? ???, BOEMRE ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??.
BOEMRE ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? reassuring ????:
?? ????? ???????? spill ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? spill ??? ??? ????.
???? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ???????.?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ????? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? decisionmaking.
??, ??? ???, BOEMRE ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? hydrocarbons ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? (???????? ???? ????? ??????), ?? grounds ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????.???, ??? ????? ????????.NEPA ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ?????.
????? ???????-?? ???, ????? ???? ????.??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???????.???????, ?? ??? ?? ?????.??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? rubber-stamp affirmance ?? ????? ?????.
Why Maureen Gorsen incorrect: Prop 26 to undermine environmental regulation
Followers of this blog know, yesterday, UCLA Law in light of the analysis of the effects of 26 ' s high on State funding for environmental and public health programs. Today, the campaign 26 hit back with Maureen Gorsen suggested press release fails to understand 26 and we ignored the facts of the Prop.
(Yes the campaign 26 has relied almost exclusively on Maureen Gorsen, now Attorney at Allston + birds, for this type of legal analysis, probably because of its background as well as former Director of the California Department of toxic substances control of former General Counsel of CalEPA.)
In light of the ongoing controversy, wants to examine how this claims Ms. Gorsen in more detail.
First, some background.Modern environmental programs forces just vbonshim ?????? with environmental laws. instead, the regulation in certain industries and create environmental identifies methods for business, environmental and public health externalities. Our country the local governments impose fees to capture these externalities and to reduce the costs of environmental and health of the public these harmful. in other words, the polluters pay for harms that are factors.
For example, oil spill prevention, managing principal receives funding – every barrel of oil loading transferred all of California's marine stations. payment is used to reduce the risk of spills of oil, by financing the oil spill programs prevent spill control technology.
Now, in addition to the claims of campaign 26. analysis of the most elementary of Prop 26 Gorsen probably yes "fact sheet" environmental campaign 26. Below, you can examine three claims misleading from this fact.
Misleading claim # 1: environmental laws remain the change:
No set up fees prop 26 all or most even as taxes.Commissions, such as those for licenses or permits for a specific government services or products, those for fines, penalties or reasonable regulatory fees are necessary to implement and enforce environmental laws of California, are excluded from the definition of article 26 in Prop.
If you expect to find a similar language in 26 Prop actual, enough disappointed. Prop 26 defines "tax" broadly enough: "all levy, payment or any exaction." Prop 26 five exceptions "counter" tax imposed by the State, of which two are relevant here:
Exemption (1): "a particular benefit paid lpcaio ... Which does not exceed reasonable costs to the State of conferring an advantage ... payor. "
Exemption (3): "charge levied for the costs of regulatory reasonable State licenses, permits issuance events."
Exemption (3), with payment spill oil as our example, it is a small help. The sense was attempting to recover incidental costs State licensing, permitting when she put the oil spill.
And in how we construe the exemption (1)?What is exactly the advantage lpcaio by billing 0.05 per barrel oil unloaded in California to the East? What Prop 26 meaning when restrict payment of "reasonable costs State of conferring an advantage?"Whether the courts would allow the country to include all of the possible environmental and health costs "means costs are reasonable status" when ruling on whether oil spill 26 Prop "tax fees" or fees?
The findings in section 1 of the Prop 26 offer reasonable cost narrow definition: fees which are "simply imposed to raise revenue for the new program" be considered "taxes".And this is what environmental charges as the fees spill oil trying to do: address environmental and health costs of pollution by funding new programs to address these harmful effects through education, research, technology, regulatory monitoring, emergency response.
The fact is, Prop 26 contains no language that protects the environmental laws of California application.Maureen Gorsen has pointed not specific exemption or language on 26 Prop that do so.
Misleading claim # 2: relevant test "primary purpose":
The "primary purpose" test adopted by the Supreme Court to determine whether the tax was not paid for standard items under Prop.26: "[I] f earnings is the primary purpose, the regulation is merely incidental, placing the tax, but whether the regulation aim, the fact that income tax is also not resting."
This is beside the point. courts not continues to use the test of "primary purpose" because they will be obligated to curious instead interpret the language of the Prop and never Prop 26.26 test "primary purpose" that, while not compromising especially Prop 26 "primary purpose" test, the test result is irrelevant when you are asked to determine whether a piece of legislation imposes "tax" or "payment", the courts will look to define instead included 26 Prop.
Misleading requirement # 3: Polluters pay still:
The ability of the legislature to require parties to penalize those responsible pay or damage to the environment will not be affected by Prop .26.Statutes of California to ensure that the parties responsible for paying the necessary environmental remediation left in the current law.
This is a strawman argument. Yes, the legislature could still enforce fines and vbonshim polluters under Prop 26, without vote of 2/3. but I have said, to casually modern environmental statutes impose fines and penalties. we have moved in the past after the fact that the only effective tool vbonshim. modern regulatory environmental regulation uses the fee address environmental, health and in turn because while we get fines, vbonshim harm is already in progress.
It is the intention of cooks Prop 26 Shui to prevent taxpayers pay "hidden" in the form of fees and taxes. but when it comes to public health, environmental regulation, Prop 26 complete opposite taxpayers would be forced to pay. environmental harms caused by industrial pollution and health of the public, because they become more and more difficult to legislature to obtain the vote supermajority to enforce these payments polluters.
Did you SPOT only get Snookered on Trucking emission rules?
Retrieving those are not the actual rules, but the rules proposed only; They must go through a year of notice-comment rulemaking.Verify if the GOP takes over the House, they work with truck water them further. nut grafs from the report below the New York Times:
Standards proposed by the Administration, after extensive consultation with manufacturers, trucking companies and review detailed by the White House Office of management and budget, they are significantly less ambitious keep the, the costs of officials said.
American Trucking Associations praised the access that provides manufacturers and truck and find ways to meet new standards setting was preferable to tax enforcement travel fuel or carbon emission reductions broad program dioxide on the entire transportation sector.The group said he was disappointed that more detailed comment until she learned of the proposed regulations.
You know what comes next. American Trucking Association, after managing bent over backwards to satisfy its concerns, suddenly find new issues with rules the Administration he regrets offers "job killing regulations", Sue SPOT once they vatf final rule would be proud. Lucy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)