Friday, July 18, 2008
Sen. McCain doesn't seem to remember how he voted on birth control
Folks who are pro choice should consider that Sen. McCain is probably not going to be an ally of women's health.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What if gas goes to $10 a gallon?
Remember the what if we threw out all the illegal immigrants article I reposted from MSN Money, the one which got the xenophobe nuts so upset? Well, they did another simulation, this time with gas at $10.
First, do note that gas isn't likely to just shoot up that high without warning. It's going to be $4, maybe $5 this year, but not $10 barring some immense geopolitical disaster.
That said, the economy would be incredibly disrupted. Filling up a Honda Civic would be over $100. People would eat out less, use less plastic, stop using plastic bags, and basically stop flying. Plug in hybrids would strain the current electricity grid, even though they are markedly more efficient than gasoline cars. Folks would recycle compulsively. Many of these things are what we should already be doing.
Additionally, resistance to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the coast would disappear. One poster whose comment I deleted earlier is seemingly very eager to drill all over the place, including in the ANWR.
And in the long run, the economy would adapt. Jobs in the sciences and engineering would boom as efficient and alternative energy technologies came online. Additionally, with increased transport costs, I imagine offshoring production will become less attractive. I obviously don't mean to be protectionist, but it will be good for the US to have more industries start in the country.
First, do note that gas isn't likely to just shoot up that high without warning. It's going to be $4, maybe $5 this year, but not $10 barring some immense geopolitical disaster.
That said, the economy would be incredibly disrupted. Filling up a Honda Civic would be over $100. People would eat out less, use less plastic, stop using plastic bags, and basically stop flying. Plug in hybrids would strain the current electricity grid, even though they are markedly more efficient than gasoline cars. Folks would recycle compulsively. Many of these things are what we should already be doing.
Additionally, resistance to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the coast would disappear. One poster whose comment I deleted earlier is seemingly very eager to drill all over the place, including in the ANWR.
And in the long run, the economy would adapt. Jobs in the sciences and engineering would boom as efficient and alternative energy technologies came online. Additionally, with increased transport costs, I imagine offshoring production will become less attractive. I obviously don't mean to be protectionist, but it will be good for the US to have more industries start in the country.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Police, roads, buses feel gas pinch
CNN Money has this story about how increasing gas prices are pinching the budgets for many vital American public services.
An excerpt:
An excerpt:
Less lucky are city bus departments. That may seem like tough love in a time when high prices are causing more and more people to take public transit. But in Cleveland and other cities across the country, that's exactly what's happening.
"We're planning on laying off some staff and cutting some routes that are poor performers," said Jerry Masek, a spokesman for the Greater Cleveland Regions Transit Authority. "People will still have service, but not as much."
The cuts are necessary because Cleveland has seen it's bus fuel bill go from $5 million a year in 2003 to a projected $21 million in 2008. Out of a total budget of $230 million, that's a lot of cash.
"You just can't absorb that without doing something," said Masek. He didn't know how many bus lines would be cut, and said a combination of fare hikes could spare some neighborhoods.
"[Riders] would rather pay more than loose service," he said. "No matter how much we raise fares, it's still cheaper than driving."
And undoubtedly easier on your car, especially if the road repair crew is in a situation like New Jersey's.
It's not the cost of driving those big dump trucks that's straining the budget at the New Jersey Department of Transportation. It's the price of paving.
What many people don't know is that asphalt is made largely from oil. It's the heavy oil at the bottom of a barrel that can't be refined into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel or other lighter products. And it's risen in price right along with gasoline.
It takes a school, not missiles
Courtesy of Nicholas Kristof, one of those evil liberals at the New York Times.
Since 9/11, Westerners have tried two approaches to fight terrorism in Pakistan, President Bush’s and Greg Mortenson’s.
Mr. Bush has focused on military force and provided more than $10 billion — an extraordinary sum in the foreign-aid world — to the highly unpopular government of President Pervez Musharraf. This approach has failed: the backlash has radicalized Pakistan’s tribal areas so that they now nurture terrorists in ways that they never did before 9/11.
Mr. Mortenson, a frumpy, genial man from Montana, takes a diametrically opposite approach, and he has spent less than one-ten-thousandth as much as the Bush administration. He builds schools in isolated parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, working closely with Muslim clerics and even praying with them at times.
The only thing that Mr. Mortenson blows up are boulders that fall onto remote roads and block access to his schools.
Mr. Mortenson has become a legend in the region, his picture sometimes dangling like a talisman from rearview mirrors, and his work has struck a chord in America as well. His superb book about his schools, “Three Cups of Tea,” came out in 2006 and initially wasn’t reviewed by most major newspapers. Yet propelled by word of mouth, the book became a publishing sensation: it has spent the last 74 weeks on the paperback best-seller list, regularly in the No. 1 spot.
Now Mr. Mortenson is fending off several dozen film offers. “My concern is that a movie might endanger the well-being of our students,” he explains.
Mr. Mortenson found his calling in 1993 after he failed in an attempt to climb K2, a Himalayan peak, and stumbled weakly into a poor Muslim village. The peasants nursed him back to health, and he promised to repay them by building the village a school.
Scrounging the money was a nightmare — his 580 fund-raising letters to prominent people generated one check, from Tom Brokaw — and Mr. Mortenson ended up selling his beloved climbing equipment and car. But when the school was built, he kept going. Now his aid group, the Central Asia Institute, has 74 schools in operation. His focus is educating girls.
To get a school, villagers must provide the land and the labor to assure a local “buy-in,” and so far the Taliban have not bothered his schools. One anti-American mob rampaged through Baharak, Afghanistan, attacking aid groups — but stopped at the school that local people had just built with Mr. Mortenson. “This is our school,” the mob leaders decided, and they left it intact.
Mr. Mortenson has had setbacks, including being kidnapped for eight days in Pakistan’s wild Waziristan region. It would be naïve to think that a few dozen schools will turn the tide in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Still, he notes that the Taliban recruits the poor and illiterate, and he also argues that when women are educated they are more likely to restrain their sons. Five of his teachers are former Taliban, and he says it was their mothers who persuaded them to leave the Taliban; that is one reason he is passionate about educating girls.
So I have this fantasy: Suppose that the United States focused less on blowing things up in Pakistan’s tribal areas and more on working through local aid groups to build schools, simultaneously cutting tariffs on Pakistani and Afghan manufactured exports. There would be no immediate payback, but a better-educated and more economically vibrant Pakistan would probably be more resistant to extremism.
“Schools are a much more effective bang for the buck than missiles or chasing some Taliban around the country,” says Mr. Mortenson, who is an Army veteran.
Each Tomahawk missile that the United States fires in Afghanistan costs at least $500,000. That’s enough for local aid groups to build more than 20 schools, and in the long run those schools probably do more to destroy the Taliban.
The Pentagon, which has a much better appreciation for the limits of military power than the Bush administration as a whole, placed large orders for “Three Cups of Tea” and invited Mr. Mortenson to speak.
“I am convinced that the long-term solution to terrorism in general, and Afghanistan specifically, is education,” Lt. Col. Christopher Kolenda, who works on the Afghan front lines, said in an e-mail in which he raved about Mr. Mortenson’s work. “The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with books. ... The thirst for education here is palpable.”
Military force is essential in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban. But over time, in Pakistan and Afghanistan alike, the best tonic against militant fundamentalism will be education and economic opportunity.
So a lone Montanan staying at the cheapest guest houses has done more to advance U.S. interests in the region than the entire military and foreign policy apparatus of the Bush administration.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground, and join me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/kristof.
Since 9/11, Westerners have tried two approaches to fight terrorism in Pakistan, President Bush’s and Greg Mortenson’s.
Mr. Bush has focused on military force and provided more than $10 billion — an extraordinary sum in the foreign-aid world — to the highly unpopular government of President Pervez Musharraf. This approach has failed: the backlash has radicalized Pakistan’s tribal areas so that they now nurture terrorists in ways that they never did before 9/11.
Mr. Mortenson, a frumpy, genial man from Montana, takes a diametrically opposite approach, and he has spent less than one-ten-thousandth as much as the Bush administration. He builds schools in isolated parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, working closely with Muslim clerics and even praying with them at times.
The only thing that Mr. Mortenson blows up are boulders that fall onto remote roads and block access to his schools.
Mr. Mortenson has become a legend in the region, his picture sometimes dangling like a talisman from rearview mirrors, and his work has struck a chord in America as well. His superb book about his schools, “Three Cups of Tea,” came out in 2006 and initially wasn’t reviewed by most major newspapers. Yet propelled by word of mouth, the book became a publishing sensation: it has spent the last 74 weeks on the paperback best-seller list, regularly in the No. 1 spot.
Now Mr. Mortenson is fending off several dozen film offers. “My concern is that a movie might endanger the well-being of our students,” he explains.
Mr. Mortenson found his calling in 1993 after he failed in an attempt to climb K2, a Himalayan peak, and stumbled weakly into a poor Muslim village. The peasants nursed him back to health, and he promised to repay them by building the village a school.
Scrounging the money was a nightmare — his 580 fund-raising letters to prominent people generated one check, from Tom Brokaw — and Mr. Mortenson ended up selling his beloved climbing equipment and car. But when the school was built, he kept going. Now his aid group, the Central Asia Institute, has 74 schools in operation. His focus is educating girls.
To get a school, villagers must provide the land and the labor to assure a local “buy-in,” and so far the Taliban have not bothered his schools. One anti-American mob rampaged through Baharak, Afghanistan, attacking aid groups — but stopped at the school that local people had just built with Mr. Mortenson. “This is our school,” the mob leaders decided, and they left it intact.
Mr. Mortenson has had setbacks, including being kidnapped for eight days in Pakistan’s wild Waziristan region. It would be naïve to think that a few dozen schools will turn the tide in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Still, he notes that the Taliban recruits the poor and illiterate, and he also argues that when women are educated they are more likely to restrain their sons. Five of his teachers are former Taliban, and he says it was their mothers who persuaded them to leave the Taliban; that is one reason he is passionate about educating girls.
So I have this fantasy: Suppose that the United States focused less on blowing things up in Pakistan’s tribal areas and more on working through local aid groups to build schools, simultaneously cutting tariffs on Pakistani and Afghan manufactured exports. There would be no immediate payback, but a better-educated and more economically vibrant Pakistan would probably be more resistant to extremism.
“Schools are a much more effective bang for the buck than missiles or chasing some Taliban around the country,” says Mr. Mortenson, who is an Army veteran.
Each Tomahawk missile that the United States fires in Afghanistan costs at least $500,000. That’s enough for local aid groups to build more than 20 schools, and in the long run those schools probably do more to destroy the Taliban.
The Pentagon, which has a much better appreciation for the limits of military power than the Bush administration as a whole, placed large orders for “Three Cups of Tea” and invited Mr. Mortenson to speak.
“I am convinced that the long-term solution to terrorism in general, and Afghanistan specifically, is education,” Lt. Col. Christopher Kolenda, who works on the Afghan front lines, said in an e-mail in which he raved about Mr. Mortenson’s work. “The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with books. ... The thirst for education here is palpable.”
Military force is essential in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban. But over time, in Pakistan and Afghanistan alike, the best tonic against militant fundamentalism will be education and economic opportunity.
So a lone Montanan staying at the cheapest guest houses has done more to advance U.S. interests in the region than the entire military and foreign policy apparatus of the Bush administration.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground, and join me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/kristof.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Setting precedent, Exelon plans a huge cut in emissions
Matthew Wald of the NY Times has a story about Exelon, a large utility and operator of nuclear reactors. Given the urgency of reducing carbon emissions, nuclear power must be an option on the table.
Exelon, the electric company based in Chicago, will promise on Tuesday to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by an amount larger than its total emissions in 2008, in a bid to shape the debate on carbon dioxide rules and to get a jump on compliance.
Many academic researchers and nonprofit groups have made proposals for cutting emissions, but Exelon’s will be an unusual public presentation devised by a company that hopes to make money in the process. The plan relies heavily on conservation and having existing nuclear plants produce more power, but it includes smaller contributions from wind and sun energy.
The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will come by making Exelon’s operations more efficient, cutting the energy use of its electricity customers and building low-carbon generators that would displace older, less-efficient plants, many operated by rivals, the company said.
One reason for the pledge is to seek credit for actions that cut emissions of other companies, said Exelon’s chairman and chief executive, John W. Rowe.
For example, Exelon plans to help the factories that it serves do the same work with less electricity so that some generating stations, owned by Exelon or others, will burn less fuel. Exelon also wants to build generating stations that use natural gas more efficiently to replace coal plants in the Midwest and East — probably owned by other companies — that emit far more carbon dioxide.
“Dealing with greenhouse gases, while essential, is very costly,” Mr. Rowe said. “If you have an adequate way of accounting for offsets and displacements, we think we can offset our carbon footprint at a reasonable price.”
Some components of the plan, like trying to bolster the output of its nuclear plants, are moves that Exelon would have taken anyway, Mr. Rowe acknowledged. One major step is made financially feasible by changes in the fuel markets: the price of natural gas is now so high that efficient generating stations can be built profitably to replace older plants.
The plan’s biggest components are cutting customers’ use of energy by improving efficiency and increasing the output of existing reactors. Each of those moves would contribute 23 percent to the carbon reductions.
By the company’s calculation, some of those steps save money on a net basis. Some of the improvements would cut costs up to $70 a ton of carbon dioxide saved after expenses. Some of the nuclear changes would earn $60 a ton net of expenses.
Operators of most of the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear reactors have raised output, usually by making small changes to pumps and valves and performing engineering analyses to show that they can safely produce more heat — akin to raising a highway speed limit.
Exelon is counting on this source for about 16 percent of the savings. But it holds open the possibility that it could exceed its goal, and more than half the planned greenhouse gas reductions use this method.
But the plan is remarkable for what it does not emphasize. Despite a national focus on solar and wind power, discussions in Congress about renewed tax credits for investments in windmills and solar systems and debate over a federal requirement for a minimum level of “renewable” energy, Exelon calls for relatively little.
New “renewable” energy, including plants that run on landfill gas or wood or crop waste that can be burned, makes up just 7 percent of the carbon savings. In the region that the company serves in Pennsylvania, where state law requires electricity distributors to buy “renewable energy credits,” it will buy the equivalent of another 6.5 percent.
Sequestering the carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants is not a technology that Exelon thinks will be available by 2020.
In contrast, the plan calls for improving the efficiency of its fossil-powered plants. It also calls for cutting the release of sulfur hexafluoride, a gas that is used to insulate circuit breakers but which is 24,000 times more potent for global warming than carbon dioxide, molecule for molecule.
“This is a mix of things that any sensible person would do, and of things that you only can economically do if the cost of climate are incorporated into the marketplace,” said Mr. Rowe, referring to carbon taxes or limits that require emissions trading.
Exelon’s carbon footprint is relatively small, because it has many nuclear reactors, he said.
Exelon, the electric company based in Chicago, will promise on Tuesday to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by an amount larger than its total emissions in 2008, in a bid to shape the debate on carbon dioxide rules and to get a jump on compliance.
Many academic researchers and nonprofit groups have made proposals for cutting emissions, but Exelon’s will be an unusual public presentation devised by a company that hopes to make money in the process. The plan relies heavily on conservation and having existing nuclear plants produce more power, but it includes smaller contributions from wind and sun energy.
The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will come by making Exelon’s operations more efficient, cutting the energy use of its electricity customers and building low-carbon generators that would displace older, less-efficient plants, many operated by rivals, the company said.
One reason for the pledge is to seek credit for actions that cut emissions of other companies, said Exelon’s chairman and chief executive, John W. Rowe.
For example, Exelon plans to help the factories that it serves do the same work with less electricity so that some generating stations, owned by Exelon or others, will burn less fuel. Exelon also wants to build generating stations that use natural gas more efficiently to replace coal plants in the Midwest and East — probably owned by other companies — that emit far more carbon dioxide.
“Dealing with greenhouse gases, while essential, is very costly,” Mr. Rowe said. “If you have an adequate way of accounting for offsets and displacements, we think we can offset our carbon footprint at a reasonable price.”
Some components of the plan, like trying to bolster the output of its nuclear plants, are moves that Exelon would have taken anyway, Mr. Rowe acknowledged. One major step is made financially feasible by changes in the fuel markets: the price of natural gas is now so high that efficient generating stations can be built profitably to replace older plants.
The plan’s biggest components are cutting customers’ use of energy by improving efficiency and increasing the output of existing reactors. Each of those moves would contribute 23 percent to the carbon reductions.
By the company’s calculation, some of those steps save money on a net basis. Some of the improvements would cut costs up to $70 a ton of carbon dioxide saved after expenses. Some of the nuclear changes would earn $60 a ton net of expenses.
Operators of most of the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear reactors have raised output, usually by making small changes to pumps and valves and performing engineering analyses to show that they can safely produce more heat — akin to raising a highway speed limit.
Exelon is counting on this source for about 16 percent of the savings. But it holds open the possibility that it could exceed its goal, and more than half the planned greenhouse gas reductions use this method.
But the plan is remarkable for what it does not emphasize. Despite a national focus on solar and wind power, discussions in Congress about renewed tax credits for investments in windmills and solar systems and debate over a federal requirement for a minimum level of “renewable” energy, Exelon calls for relatively little.
New “renewable” energy, including plants that run on landfill gas or wood or crop waste that can be burned, makes up just 7 percent of the carbon savings. In the region that the company serves in Pennsylvania, where state law requires electricity distributors to buy “renewable energy credits,” it will buy the equivalent of another 6.5 percent.
Sequestering the carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants is not a technology that Exelon thinks will be available by 2020.
In contrast, the plan calls for improving the efficiency of its fossil-powered plants. It also calls for cutting the release of sulfur hexafluoride, a gas that is used to insulate circuit breakers but which is 24,000 times more potent for global warming than carbon dioxide, molecule for molecule.
“This is a mix of things that any sensible person would do, and of things that you only can economically do if the cost of climate are incorporated into the marketplace,” said Mr. Rowe, referring to carbon taxes or limits that require emissions trading.
Exelon’s carbon footprint is relatively small, because it has many nuclear reactors, he said.
Silvio Berlusconi lies about welcoming immigrants
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has issued a bald lie about how his country welcomes immigrants. He's forgotten about the Roma.
The article reports that his government decided to have the Roma fingerprinted - a clear incidence of targeting an ethnic group.
Authorities in Rome are more sensible than he, and have refused to execute the order. The European Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the process. Berlusconi says that somehow, fingerprinting the Roma will ensure that children go to school. He needs a lesson in causality, and he needs to be stopped. How far behind can internment camps be?
The article reports that his government decided to have the Roma fingerprinted - a clear incidence of targeting an ethnic group.
Authorities in Rome are more sensible than he, and have refused to execute the order. The European Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the process. Berlusconi says that somehow, fingerprinting the Roma will ensure that children go to school. He needs a lesson in causality, and he needs to be stopped. How far behind can internment camps be?
In the long run, GM is dead
Rick Wagoner, GM's CEO, announced today a series of actions GM was taking to adapt to the changing North American environment. CNN Money is deeply unimpressed.
The author called it addressing the symptoms but not the underlying causes.
Long run, GM is dead. It won't go as spectacularly as the US financial system, but it will go.
That will really be a net positive for the nation. The auto companies and the unions have long stalled better fuel standards and long insisted on foisting monster trucks off. The country is paying for that now in a very real way. The environment has long been paying for that in terms of global warming.
At least one of the Big 3 should. That will reduce overcapacity and reduce their now disproportionate political clout. In 10+ years, I would hope that someone has to go into bankruptcy and liquidate. It doesn't really matter which of company goes, and I'm not equipped to speculate on who's most likely to go.
This will not be pleasant for the state of Michigan, which is still heavily dependent on the auto industry. But it has to happen. Anyway, all we really need is for oil prices to stay high, which demand from China and India will do, and for business conditions to keep changing. The auto industry has refused to adapt in the past, so that should be the nail in someone's coffin.
* Wagoner expects GM's U.S. market share to level off at 21%, this despite removing about one million units of light truck capacity. A couple of years ago, Wagoner expected GM to be cruising at 30% market share. Given GM's ability to stabilize sales in the past, 21% is surprisingly optimistic.
* Wagoner expects oil to prices to remain in the range of $130 to $150 between now and the end of 2009. A couple of months ago, that would seem outrageous. But since oil prices seem capable of violating the laws of gravity and growing to the sky, even $150 sounds more hopeful than realistic.
* Wagoner expects to improve working capital by $2 billion by tightening up operations, notably by reducing in raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods inventory. This is the Detroit equivalent of balancing the federal budget by cutting pork barrel spending. If it was so easy to do, why hasn't it been done already?
The author called it addressing the symptoms but not the underlying causes.
Long run, GM is dead. It won't go as spectacularly as the US financial system, but it will go.
That will really be a net positive for the nation. The auto companies and the unions have long stalled better fuel standards and long insisted on foisting monster trucks off. The country is paying for that now in a very real way. The environment has long been paying for that in terms of global warming.
At least one of the Big 3 should. That will reduce overcapacity and reduce their now disproportionate political clout. In 10+ years, I would hope that someone has to go into bankruptcy and liquidate. It doesn't really matter which of company goes, and I'm not equipped to speculate on who's most likely to go.
This will not be pleasant for the state of Michigan, which is still heavily dependent on the auto industry. But it has to happen. Anyway, all we really need is for oil prices to stay high, which demand from China and India will do, and for business conditions to keep changing. The auto industry has refused to adapt in the past, so that should be the nail in someone's coffin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
