Detailed Abstractions

Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Reason review here), now has his own movie, “Cool It”:

The movie’s specific goal (here):

Amidst the strong and polarized opinions within the global warming debate, Cool It follows Lomborg on his mission to bring the smartest solutions to climate change, environmental pollution, and other major problems in the world.

& Considering the only other major films such as “Inconvenient Truth” are nothing more than fear inducing propaganda, Mr. Lomborg’s rational style and willingness to deal with the reality should make for a good film.

DA Posts on Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus here & here

Over @ The Economist’s new-ish debate section, they are currently debating the proposition This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change and currently, 74% believe in this proposition.

I know I’m unlikely to change many minds, but it’s always seemed to me that when trying to evaluate one country’s international progress on any one specific ideal, we end up narrowing the debate to such an extent as to make the question irrelevant.

In what seems to be a strong desire to answer questions objectively without respect to questions of ethics or other governmental policies, the intelligent ones among us miss the forest for the trees.

Towards that end – my two cents:

Dear Sir,

It seems maybe we should define leadership to an extent that either includes ethical behavior or can exist without ethics. For as long as the term leadership includes some notion of ethics, “ability to move fast” or the ability to put up light rail for the Olympics, simply can not matter in light of governmental policies designed specifically to limit the freedom of the individual and make the peasant serf work for the state.

Even *if* one wants to make the argument that ethics aren’t integral to the question, it’s still useful in evaluating “leadership”. For instance, when China starts implementing new green policies and initiatives, what’s the likely source of technology they will use? American? German? British? Swedish?

& Why? Because when people are allowed opportunities to flourish through a system that protects them with basic contract rights, innovation will flow much more easily. This is why China might manufacture most of the toys and basic electronic gadgets in the world, but the design process certainly came from someplace else.

An an example, they only recently successfully launched a satellite into orbit.  Prior to 1996, 2 out of 3 attempts ended in massive failures, meanwhile those freer countries had hundreds of them for various purposes including GPS, with even private companies using the technology successfully as well.

& lastly – it’s unlikely China would even admit a problem at all if they still retained the control that was possible just a few short decades ago. Today, they try to control press from earthquakes, the forceful removing of millions to make Olympic Village, their crime rate, and any number of other things they consider “bad” press.

Due to the explosion in the sharing of global information however, China finds it difficult to hide as much as they used to. Even the very closed off North Korea is finding this difficult as well.

So long as they continue to hide bad press, there’s no reason to think this “leadership” is anything other than a play at international recognition while hopefully strengthening their core domestic support.

In strategic thinking, this is known as a two-fer.

Either way – both goals have only one thing in common – staying in power and retaining as much control over the population as possible.

Removing ethics and the results of their standard operating procedure seems the only way to think of China as leading the world in anything.

What are the odds that a government agency tasked with identifying research priorities, research performance management, and reviewing the impact of completed research will come up with a solution that doesn’t involve the government?

Today & tomorrow the EPA are meeting for just this reason (@eScienceNews):

…The goal of the meeting is to develop a collaborative framework to ensure future research and development dollars are spent wisely and in a coordinated manner….

Of course it doesn’t really matter what the answer is, because “spent wisely in a coordinated manner” is almost mutually exclusive to good R&D.  As should be expected by now, the EPA is wasting money on answering a question for which recent literature already exists.

Back in 2001, a Jack Welch underling, W. James (Jim) McNerney, Jr was hired as 3M’s CEO.  In the fanfare associated with being a protege of Mr. Welch, when Mr. McNerney joined 3M, investors had high expectations of pushing some of the GE magic onto the 3M culture.

One of the first and most prominent of these culture changes Mr. Mcnerney instituted was a heavy does of SixSigma.  From the beginning, leading business thinkers were asking whether pushing a very creative culture into the narrow focus of SixSigma might not work.  Or at least, it should not include the whole company.  Sure, use SixSigma for accounting procedures, but leave out R&D.

Of course proponents of SixSigma disagreed.  If it can help manufacturing and then be translated to service related products, why not R&D?

Regardless of the writing public, 3M went forward with implementing a SixSigma policy that included training all workers to a Green-belt level and use SixSigma methodology for every department, including R&D.  How’d it fare?

As you’d expect, the results are mixed.  But asking former 3M scientists, engineers, and the like?  Overwhelmingly they tend to agree it wen too far (@DesignNews):

…While 3M emerged financially stronger from the McNerney era, many long-time 3M researchers, engineers and scientists chafed under the strictures of Six Sigma. Critics argue that excessive metrics, steps, measurements and Six Sigma’s intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled. Proponents contend such methodologies’ rules keep researchers on track and accountable for producing. Striking the right balance between the application of Six Sigma and unencumbered research is often seen as key….

In fact, a then board member and the former 3M scientist who developed Post-It Notes stated that he believes that in the SixSigma environment, Post-It Notes would simply never have been developed.

History is also rife with examples.  In the book, Sex, Science and Profits: How People Evolved to Make Money,  written by Terence Kealey (review @ Reason.com):

…Kealey shows in nearly every case the crucial inventions of the past two and half centuries were called forth by markets, not invented by scientists working from ivory towers. These include the steam engine, cotton gin, textile mills, railroad engines, the revolver, the electric motor, telegraph, telephone, incandescent light bulb, radio, the airplane—the list is nearly endless…

In fact, a government-funded research paper showed public money can hurt innovation.  Mr Kealey writing about it(@AllBusiness.Com):

…n fact, the evidence shows otherwise. In 2003, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries, reporting on a comprehensive regression analysis of the factors that might explain the different growth rates of the world’s 21 leading economies between 1971 and 1998. This indicated that only privately funded R&D led to economic growth, and that publicly funded R&D did not. Worse, the public funding of R&D crowded out private funding, and thus slowed economic growth…

No worries though, I’m sure the government will tell you, that this time is different.   Just ask them.  They completely understand it’s failed many times before, but what you (read: citizens) are too ignorant to understand, is that those failures were under other people and not the worldly, brilliant, omniscient, and yes, even death-defying leaders of today.

& if that doesn’t work for you, remember that it’s “Green”, which we all know are now established unqualified goods.  As such, regardless of how much money taxpayers have to spend to subsidize “green” stuff, the end results are worth it.

Last, but certainly not least, if both of these arguments don’t work to mitigate your concerns, welcome to the club: Disgruntled Americans Against Government Stupidity (DAAG)

In an effort to increase sales of large sized Saudi Prince dolls to burn in effigy, the Saudis are seeking (again) world welfare in case of a decline in oil revenues due to global warming policies (here):

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers….

This would ordinarily send me into a rant with lots of words ending with something like, “Why do they think we owe them?”  It would likely also include a discussion on OPEC and their unnatural control  of the market which allows them to set the price much higher than it would be otherwise.

However… considering the kingdom’s hatred of women, children, and consistent human rights abuses through Sharia law and the Wahhabi religion, using this to call out Saudi Arabia would be like getting angry at Jeffery Dahmer for having a bad sense of fashion.

President Obama, among other distinguished guests, got together at the UN for a conference on Climate change.

This pressing issue, that Mr. Obama cares so much about – that issue which his party fights for daily was so important, that his words must have been strong and firm on our commitment to the environment, right? (here):

…”I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted I believe in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”…

Ok – so unilateral action in our interests are different from other unilateral actions other countries make how?  And should we care why?

I know, this again will make me be seen as heartless and I do understand that we have to act in a way that is semi-consistent with international laws, but it’s not our job nor is it our responsibility.  I would like to think that when despots are killing their own citizens, we can act unilaterally if we wish.

Please understand; I’m not for an expansion of foreign entanglements mind you, I’m only saying that when something is a just cause and others are unwilling to do anything, then unilateral action is the moral response.

But, he did go on to say that he wouldn’t apologize for defending the nation’s interests.  So there’s that… but this as well:

…”We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

“On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.  “…

Maybe the President is out the loop or something, but GITMO remains open, and without knowing the specific interrogation techniques which are now being allowed, “not allowing torture” is a joke.  I think it’s obvious that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t believe they were “allowing torture”, but maybe he meant something else – like;

“I started a committee to look into closing GITMO, but I still support the Patriot Act, sending prisoners to other nations who torture, and really, most of my predecessors policies, with the exception of the committee and DOJ investigation.”

But this is politics, so he continues:

…”We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies — a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we — and many nations here — are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”…

Where’s Iraq?  Oh, here:

…”In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.:…

Well, that’s not really true.  We’re pulling back troops and have a date to leave, but the Iraqi government can ask us to stay and we would likely oblige… but even without that, does this match the campaign promise?

Hmmm….:

…On Tuesday, Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007,” which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders….

It’s almost becoming too easy to poke holes in damn near anything he says, but remember first and foremost that this was a UN Conference on Climate Change.

To be fair, he did get there.  Out of roughly 1000 words spoke, he spent 46 words on climate change.  For an administration that recently published a report described as this:

…The report describes in vivid detail how our urban infrastructure will be placed in peril from intense hurricanes and storm surges, how heat waves, poor air quality, and insects will increase, and how a rapidly intensifying climate change will make it difficult for both society and the natural resources we possess to adapt….

His discussion on the world stage leaves a lot to be desired.

For real climate change discussions and solutions: I highly recommend the Copenhagen Consensus.

Unless you were lucky enough to be traveling or otherwise unavailable on Sunday, you were likely deluged with Mr. Obama’s media storm to sell not only health care, but apparently many other items as well.

First, it should be noted that this WH is above all, extremely insecure.  The President could be seen on 5 Sunday news shows: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Univision.   But he didn’t have time for Fox, the number one rated Sunday news show…

Regardless of the WH being extremely petty and worrying more about perceived injustices than an honest discussion with those who might disagree, what he actually said is far more serious.

When asked if a health care mandate was a tax increase on ABC’s this week, the President responded:

…”I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said….

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance . Nobody considers that a tax increase.”…

Using flawed logic is nothing new for Presidents, but this one isn’t even close.  Hhe’s analogizing the privilege of driving with the “privilege” of being a citizen.

The difference of course as that by my very birth, I have a “right” to be a citizen, whereas driving has always remained a privilege with constraints.  You see, I can forgo auto insurance, so long as I don’t drive.  There are many ways around without a car in this day and age, but if I “choose” to drive, then constraints can be placed on me.

Health care on the other hand would be required simply because I existed and no other reason.  & If the government says, “You have to buy this” – it is a tax increase as not paying it can land you in very serious legal troubles.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, with an omnipotent sense of when health care, our fearless leader goes further:

…Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”…

Even ignoring the fact that this goes against his basic premise that more people need more health care, one wonders if there is anything our President doesn’t know.  So far, he’s taken over banks, car companies, told car companies with whom to merge, who to hire, who to fire, what to build… and now we find out he knows how much health care is too much.

But let’s not stop there.  Not only is our community organizer one of the smartest men in America when it comes to economics and health care, he’s also a brilliant strategist with respects to Afghanistan:

…”What I’m not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question,” Obama told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have.”…

I’m not sure exactly what happens to man to think he has the answers to every single last question. Maybe it’s just arrogance and ignorance, as Hayek stated:

If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this.

Whatever the reason he believes so strongly in his ability to decide what’s best for our own good, history shows us without question where this inevitably leads.  Hayek again:

To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

Let’s hope we begin to understand the value of humility before we do too much damage.

In another installment of serious people doing serious research for the betterment of society without government intervention at all, I present to you Michael Pritchard and his recent video describing his wonderful invention on Ted.com (see the whole thing here).

What has he done?  He’s taken a very basic problem that affects billions or people and through his own ingenuity, is working to solve that problem.

As most know, for the last ten years or so, we’ve seen article after article in science magazines,  news weeklies, TV news reports, political pundits, and environmentalists tell us that all future wars will be fought over water.

I personally didn’t believe their line of reasoning in the least, but they are generally correct on their facts.  The just take those facts and they push their internal beliefs into the results without even hinting that other possibilities might exist.

The basic argument goes like this: the world is running out of clean water.  Trends show that we seem to be using more water per capita each year.  Meaning that if every person on the earth used roughly 1 gallon of water a day, going forward it will be 2 gallons for each.

Combine this trend with the population trend that our world population continues to increase and we can see there is something on the horizon which will need to be mitigated.  We need to be able to increase drinkable water supplies across the world and try to conserve water better than we do today.

According to the UN (via Wired), “2.8 billion people won’t have enough water to meet their basic needs by 2025.”

Where their predictions fail, is that they seem to assume that the problems can’t be mitigated through normal human innovations.  Besides this displaying the fact the writers don’t think much of their fellow man’s abilities, this idea also shows a stunning lack of historical perspective.

If we take a look at something relatively analogous, like agriculture, we can see that humans are more than capable of resolving problems on their own.  Through the last few centuries, technology has increased to the point that we make more food for more people using less water and less land than we ever thought possible.

For water, we can get there the same way.  Enter Michael Pritchard, a man working to solve one piece of the puzzle (from Ted.com):

With cutting-edge nanotech, Michael Pritchard’s Lifesaver water-purification bottle could revolutionize water-delivery systems in disaster-stricken areas around the globe.

He in fact demonstrates the water purification system he has designed (I urge you to watch the video – short & sweet).  The system itself is very small and very portable.  Though he does make the mistake of assuming governments need to be the distributors, but if his product were provided to those in need, it would allow billions in poverty stricken areas around the globe to be able to cheaply purify the water they currently pull from rivers and streams. This would save countless lives now, and for the fear mongers among us, potentially prevent wars.

To be fair, this isn’t the only issue which needs solving.  We also need to be able to desalinate water through a much cheaper and resource intensive process, but that is being worked on as well and we should be confident that it will happen.

Maybe it’s just more fun for the writer’s to imagine a desolate world with people killing each other over water like some Mad Max fantasy world, but clear thinkers should see these predictions for what they are.  They are a simple reflection on the writers of this propaganda (examples here and here) and it’s being used as a scare tactic to drum up support for their ideas.  So they can fix them for us…. because it’s for your own good.

Either way – necessity is always the mother of invention and there’s no reason to believe this is a problem which isn’t solvable.

This past Friday, the 25th of June, Democrats, with 8 Republicans in the House have passed sweeping environmental regulation known as Cap and Trade.

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama’s ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it…

Despite the numerous problems with the bill and still open questions remaining as to what the full financial impact will be on average consumers, Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman is full of praise (here):

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

Which is perfectly fine.  I honestly tend to expect more out of an economist, like asking questions about cost versus benefits and the like, but I’ve gotten use to Mr. Krugman using his very large bully pulpit for his politics, and not economic principles.

As is his trademark for completely disregarding anything that fails to comport with his world view, he moved from praise directly into false logic:

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

So from the very beginning, he places everyone into two basic camps – those who voted for the legislation and those who are anti-science, treasonous bastards, how don’t understand the fundamental science behind climate change.

Instead of acknowledging the well known fact that many opponents of this legislation are not global warming deniers, he presents a false dichotomy in which there are only two sides – his side and those that don’t believe in global warming.

From this basic setup, his article flows smoothly as he defends the science behind global warming all the while pretending the strawman he is busy burning exists in real life.

As usual, outside of his partisan world, the issue is not nearly as cut and dry.  Many of the best argued positions come from people opposed to this bill have absolutely nothing to do with the science of global warming at all.  The generally tread a few main points:

1. What are the true costs of the bill to individual consumers? This question is almost impossible to ask as 300 additional pages were added to the 1000 page bill just a couple of hours before a forced vote.  None of Congress had time to read the additions prior to voting.
2. If we can detail a good cost estimate, do we fully know what benefits to expect in order to balance costs with benefits?
3. & lastly, the politics of the bill are being setup for corruption.  Instead of opening an exchange where the initial carbon offsets can be purchased through a free market system, the government will be handing out those directly to business.  They will get these carbon credits free of charge and be able to resell them on the market once that happens.  Allowing congress the ability to decide who gets free money is a system setup for corruption.

Critiques :Reason, Cato.org, and just a lot of additional BS on politics of the entire thing

Of course Mr. Krugman should know and likely does know exactly what he’s doing.  He frames the debate as a false dichotomy, only allowing two choices, then pretends to make one choice look completely stupid by comparison through the ceremonial burning of the strawman he invented.

Not terribly surprising from a columnist who was arguing in 2004 that the economy needed a housing bubble to get us moving forward again, only to completely reverse course and pretend he never did any such thing after the collapse of that market (here).

Is it really any wonder why the self proclaimed 4th branch of the government is trusted less and less everyday?