Rove: Brooks, Blago, and Gays
16 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Tuesday, February 26 at 4:26 PM.
From David Brooks today, who was quoted by Greg Mankiw (Mankiw should be required reading for liberals and conservatives who pretend to understand economic policies):
agreed with his arguments, and I also find legitimate logical support for gay marriage in libertarian thinking and in a progressive moral route.
An interesting NYT article that corresponds with my feeling, that many people are rejecting organized religion, even if they are not rejecting God, "The rise of the unaffiliated does not mean that Americans are becoming less religious, however. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion “as nothing in particular.” Pew researchers said that later projects would delve more deeply into the beliefs and practices of the unaffiliated and would try to determine if they remain so as they age." Furthermore, there appears to be a trend toward convergence between Protestants and Catholics.
Finally, here is some good analysis on the not too surprising revelation of Blago as Public Official A.
In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies.Also, Volokh has something to say about our recent gun debates, a topic I personally have little interest in, considering the weight of poverty and disease and lack of education that simply overwhelms significant devotion to gun rights. I had the good fortune of having lunch yesterday with Volokh Conspiracy contributor Dale Carpenter, who presented an excellent case at the law school for why Burkean conservatives should actually favor gay marriage rights. I personally
agreed with his arguments, and I also find legitimate logical support for gay marriage in libertarian thinking and in a progressive moral route.An interesting NYT article that corresponds with my feeling, that many people are rejecting organized religion, even if they are not rejecting God, "The rise of the unaffiliated does not mean that Americans are becoming less religious, however. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion “as nothing in particular.” Pew researchers said that later projects would delve more deeply into the beliefs and practices of the unaffiliated and would try to determine if they remain so as they age." Furthermore, there appears to be a trend toward convergence between Protestants and Catholics.
Finally, here is some good analysis on the not too surprising revelation of Blago as Public Official A.
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, Blagojevich, David Brooks, gay marriage, McCain, obama
Billy Joe, did you see the article at the top of the page in VC on crime in Virtual Worlds bleeding over into Meatspace?
Tom
A sideline to that story said that atheists currently make up only 4% of the population.
Tom
Ethanol sucks.
That's a bit extreme, Kevin. It's a wonderful product, ideal for cleaning electronics and for putting in Jello shots.
In addition, when was the last time that you heard of anyone with "gas-line freeze"? Before they blended ethanol with gasoline, it was endemic in the wintertime. Ethanol is also a lot less dangerous than a number of the additives that they put into gasoline in places like Massachusetts.
As a solution to our energy problems--nah. Be more economical and ecologically friendly to have battery-powered cars plugged into sockets with electricity from nuke plants.
Tom
Ethanol as an alternative fuel sucks.
A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline.
Every time I hear about how awful ethanol is supposed to be, I can't help but wonder if things would be different if ethanol was primarily made in California or Massachusetts. While the merits of corn ethanol are slim, even the most ardent supporters agree that corn ethanol is just the first step in developing viable biofuels. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing coalition of bootleggers and baptists out to kill biofuels in the womb.
Also, Volokh has something to say aboutour recent gun debates,a topic I personally have little interest in, considering the weight of poverty and disease and lack of education that simply overwhelms significant devotion to gun rights.
Is this Billy being sarcastic? Poverty, disease, and lack of education are certainly problems that exist in the world, but they are hardly so overwhelming as to crowd out other topics.
Finally, can we send Blago to jail yet? Maybe he and Ryan can share a cell.
Allan
Allan,
It wasn't sarcasm and I believe they should crowd out other topics...particularly when considering the world in its entirety and not merely the humans within our borders.
The future of the automotive industry is in fuel cells, not biofuels. Research should be focused on reducing the cost of cars with fuel cells from hundreds of thousands of dollars to tens of thousands, which would be affordable. I recently attended a presentation Re: alternative cars by GM, and they basically echoed this, along with the worthlessness of ethanol as a solution.
Wouldn't a lot of people who describe their religion as "nothing in particular" probably, when pushed to elaborate on those beliefs, end up being classified as agnostics? I would tend to think so, but I'll definitely be interested in the further research that Pew does.
Sure, Brian, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between an agnostic and an atheist, and it is a disservice to lump the two of them together.
Tom
The future of the automotive industry is in fuel cells, not biofuels.
Well, first of all, biofuels and fuel cells are not incompatible. A fuel cell could oxidize ethanol, for example.
Second, biofuels and fuel cells are really directed to two different problems. Biofuels are directed to the problem of obtaining a source of energy other than oil. While fuel cells could also help with that problem, fuel cells are really directed to increasing the efficiency of energy use in vehicles (because internal combustion wastes an enormous amount of energy).
Fuel cells don't really help with the problem of replacing oil because, for the most part, the alternative fuels that fuel cells could use are awful. Hydrogen, the most touted, is especially bad. First, there is no natural source of hydrogren, so it will have to be produced, requiring a huge amount of production infrastructure. Second, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to transport and store, requiring significant technological development and infrastructure just to get it to the vehicle. Third, it requires bulky vehicle storage tanks because it has a relatively low energy density per volume. Using fuel cells with a fuel made of anything other than hydrocarbons or alcohols is unlikely to be effective.
Finally, fuel cells are an expensive and unproven technology.
Of course, that doesn't mean that fuel cells shouldn't be pursued, rather, it just means that it would be foolish to put all our eggs in the fuel cell basket. Right now, the prudent thing to do is not to attempt to pick an alternative fuel winner. The best bet is to let a thousand strategies bloom. Personally, I think that biofuels, including ethanol for now, should be one of those strategies. I am also impressed by the improvement in batteries that could lead to fully electric cars.
What I would not do is listen to what GM has to say. The GM corporation was only really ever good at one thing--making cars--and its not even that good at that anymore. Having been consistently behind the curve on new technology, I don't find it to be an authoritative source on how this will all shake out.
Could someone more intelligent on this subject than I address the following question:
How do fuel cells or other electric address the issue of charge cycles? I heard Lotus had a car out that runs on dozens (hundreds?) of lithium ion batteries. What happens in two years when the batteries only hold a charge for thirty minutes?
Fuel cells don't really help with the problem of replacing oil because, for the most part, the alternative fuels that fuel cells could use are awful.
I really don't see how this makes sense. I assume your argument is that because we'll have to have lots of production plants for making fuel cells and transporting hydrogen, that we'll still be dependent on oil for the production aspect. Or something like that. So are you saying then that plants producing bio-fuels aren't going to use oil at all? I don't get the logic that switching to a production system to make cars that emit . . . nothing (well, H2O) is somehow a terrible terrible thing.
First, there is no natural source of hydrogren, so it will have to be produced, requiring a huge amount of production infrastructure.
There's no natural source of gasoline either. It has to be produced at refineries, which were "huge amounts of production infrastructure" in their day and age (and are currently). A switch to fuel cells, whenever that happens, would involve the gradual switch from having a ton of these refineries to "fuel cell production plants" or whatever you want to call them. Are you really arguing that we should be deterred from switching to emission-free cars (when cost-effective) because we have to build production plants?
Second, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to transport and store, requiring significant technological development and infrastructure just to get it to the vehicle.
Gasoline is difficult to transport and store. Alcohols are difficult to transport and store. Hydrofluoric acid is pretty damn difficult to transport and store. And now, I can carry each in my pocket if I want to. Fact is, hydrogen is transported and stored currently, the aim now is to make it cheaper. The "significant" technological developments are finished, its just about refining.
Third, it requires bulky vehicle storage tanks because it has a relatively low energy density per volume.
Yay for wikipedia! Yay for low energy density per volume! Seriously, bulky storage tanks? Come on now, that isn't even an argument worth responding to, given the size of cars, and the fact that fuel cell hardware requires less room than regular 'ol IC engines; I think the designers can find room.
While I agree that as much research should be performed as possible, bio-fuels simply won't do it. Ethanol is still horrible for the environment; fuel cells would work to fix both prongs; they are great for the environment and would reduce the dependence on oil.
And Kofi, it's a huge problem. Even w/ the Li-on batteries making huge leaps recently, it's still basically impossible to build a car running on them alone, because the charge capabilities run out after a couple years, and cost in the $100,000s to replace. A fully electric car able to perform as well as a Camry or Mustang is a while away.
Are you really arguing that we should be deterred from switching to emission-free cars (when cost-effective) because we have to build production plants?
The point is not that we couldn't make the switch, but that it would take a long time. Not to mention, that even if we wanted to build the hydrogen infrastructure, what would we power it with? The most natural thing to do would be to pull electricity off the grid, but that just replaces burning fossil fuels in your car with fossil fuels burned at a power plant.
There may be hope if solar power were to drastically drop in price. But while we're waiting for cheap solar cells(which, I must note, have a non-negligible effect on the environment in their production), we could use the solar power that we already have: plants. Because while everyone's waiting for magical technologies like cheap fuel cells and cheap solar cells, in the interim it seems likely that we will develop cellulosic ethanol plants.
Now while I think biofuels are going to play a role in our future energy supplies, I don't favor the subsidies currently given. Maybe they were necessary a few years, back, I don't know, but I think it is clear that they are wasteful now and should be phased out. (But while we're eliminating goverment handouts, we might as well go all out--why the hell have we agreed to pay the medical expenses through Medicare of baby boomers who could be or could have been saving for their retirement themselves?)
Still, I think the best solution is to let a thousand solutions bloom. Maybe GM and Honda can get us cheap, effective fuel cells and soon.
Allan,
I agree with you on the farm-subs. What about the increased food costs to consumers from the use of corn in biofuel? Corn is used to feed everything from hens to cattle. Eggs, pork chops, ground beef, bacon, milk? It's all going up in price because the cost of feed is rising.
For the Obamaniacs out there,
I won't rub in the latest global 'warming' news because we all know the climate is 'changing' and it'd be impolite to point out that 'I was right.' Although I miss several posts a per week on the subject, I will take the absence of promulgation of junk science as a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity. Congrats.
My real question, however, relates to the one posed to Allan. What of biofuels? Corn prices are impacting Americans but they have been and continue to impact food prices worldwide. Should we continue to use agriculture to support oil use and if so for how long?
I agree with you on the farm-subs. What about the increased food costs to consumers from the use of corn in biofuel? ... What of biofuels? Corn prices are impacting Americans but they have been and continue to impact food prices worldwide. Should we continue to use agriculture to support oil use and if so for how long?
First of all, we don't use agriculture to support oil. Ethanol is intended to be a replacement for fossil fuels. Admittedly, it isn't a terribly good replacement yet, but it isn't supporting oil use or oil prices.
Indeed, the use of corn ethanol has lead to significant increases in the price of corn. However, we may have already seen the peak of its effects on prices. Ethanol demand seems to be peaking, as we are putting it into fuel almost everywhere we can. Thus, unless there is rapid adoption of E85 vehicles, ethanol demand and corn prices will likely moderate.
Of course, the most sensible thing to do would be to phase out the ethanol subsidies and tariffs and slowly transition to Brazilian sugar cane ethanol--at least until cellulosic technologies become available. Unlike corn ethanol, Sugar cane has a high energy multiplier (ratio of energy out to fossil fuel inputs in production) meaning that it would offset a much greater amount of oil use. On the other hand, if importing ethanol from Brazil becomes too much of a success, it could increase the rate of rain forest destruction.
Indeed, as long as ethanol or other biofuels result in a net increase of energy out over energy inputs, we should use them. Of course, this may result in more expensive food, but that is offset by more moderate energy costs. The short-term experience of rising energy and food costs is probably an anomaly. It is as much of a result of bad fiscal and monetary policy as it is a result of bad biofuels policy.
Ultimately, biofuels are just a part of a solution to a very large problem. Over the next 50 years, world economic production is likely to increase about 10x. Our energy needs will grow proportionally. Oil isn't going anywhere, but proven reserves aren't increasing fast enough to satisfy the growing energy needs. It is unavoidable that we will have to diversify our energy supply. As I've said before, it would be best if we let a thousand solutions bloom.