"...now that the White House is open to alternatives to pricing carbon. "

Perhaps there's a shift in the way we're thinking about pricing carbon-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38599.html

Maybe they saw the polls showing Americans prefer incentives to caps-

http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/six-americas-study-of-climate-views

Research Note

News just came out that April was the largest U.S. trade deficit in almost a year and a half, putting the U.S. on pace for another $500 billion deficit like 2009. The current account deficit was larger still in 2008 at some $700 billion. There is nothing inherently wrong with deficits, so long as they can be financed with GDP growth. However, if they continue to increase, it could undermine international confidence as doubts linger about the seriousness of long-term U.S. fiscal and trade policy, or drive uncertainty around whether there is high currency risk via the U.S. monetizing the debt by printing money, reducing creditor's purchasing power. Add to the fact that as China grows in prominence over the coming decades, U.S. denominated assets and debt obligations may become less in demand. China will in all likelihood surpass Japan in 2010 as the second largest national economy and is on pace to surpass the United States by mid-century. The U.S. dollar may become the secondary currency for international trade in the long-term. In the short term though, correcting this imbalance could be achieved through the double prong strategies of reducing the fiscal deficit and promoting U.S. exports, thus creating jobs and reducing the need for foreign savings.

The current account deficit is a rough measure of U.S. economic competitiveness relative to the global economy. It is the difference between national saving and national investment, or the net of foreign reserves entering the U.S. economy and U.S. dollars going out. The U.S. buys more (dollars out) than it sells abroad (reserves in), financed mainly by foreign purchases of our debt. The biggest factor in this imbalance is the mutual dependence between the U.S. and China. China depends on U.S. demand for export growth, the largest driver of their GDP growth, while the U.S. depends on China to buy and roll over our debt, used in large part to buy their exports. Each needs the other, and so it is both an unsustainable, and self-perpetuating, cycle. Here are three things the U.S. should do to lower this balance and increase foreign demand:

1) Biggest long term priority should be innovating new products and exporting this trade advantage to the world. This would lead to some dollar appreciation, but the increased demand would create sustainable jobs and generate reserves. The biggest market here, both in terms of marginal return on investment and depth of demand globally, is clean energy technology and services. A domestic price signal on carbon would catalyze the U.S. economy to leap ahead in this area and close the trade imbalance as we export smart energy applications, concentrated solar, consulting services, wind turbines and other carbon neutral or carbon negative technologies abroad. The U.S. could get ahead of the curve by adopting this price signal before other countries.

2) In the shorter term, bring the fiscal deficit down.

3) Continue to make progress with the U.S.-China Strategic Dialogues, nudging China to stop suppressing their currency to promote U.S. demand, and to create a stronger domestic credit environment and social safety net to prevent cash hording and exorbitant savings. Freeing up Chinese savings for consumption would help decrease the net trade imbalance between the two economies.

Dear Mr. President

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for acknowledging the need for a new, comprehensive national energy and climate change plan. It’s refreshing. This was a pillar of your campaign and a main reason we supported you. As the Senate prepares to consider the American Power Act we urge you however to think bigger about the energy sources that can power this nation, and job growth, while not imperiling future generations. We urge you to support a fee-and-dividend framework in lieu of the flawed cap and trade.

Political sweeteners for specific industries, such as coal, natural gas, ethanol, utilities, and old nuclear, are not examples of such big thinking. Yet the American Power Act is chalk full of them. It is also full of emissions goals. The fact is you can set all the GHG abatement goals you want, but so long as you keep permitting OCS drilling, new coal plants, or tar sand pipelines and oil shale mines with Canada that will burn and emit for decades, if not centuries, with no proven capture technology, there is no realistic pathway for such reductions.

The American Power Act also provides billions of tons of unverifiable GHG offsets/exemptions some 40% above the total cap. In addition to significantly diluting any potential GHG reductions, such offsets create all manner of perverse incentives. Some examples include encouraging the creation of pollution just to sell the rights to destroy it, or enabling someone else to buy energy inefficient goods because one entity emitted below the cap, or giving an economic incentive for accountants, companies, and governments to inflate future emissions projections to claim higher current offsets, or encouraging dictators to over report their populations or suppress their economy to generate surplus credits to sell to the rich world. These perverse incentives just further increase the likelihood that U.S. goals will fail like those of the U.N. set under the Framework Convention. Japan for instance made the goal of a modest 5% baseline reduction under Kyoto, and even with significant investment, honest effort and a stagnant economy, actually increased emissions 10% over that period.

Goals are at best guiding principles, not self-executing mechanisms. Goals are also endless excuses for haggling and bickering among nations over who gets the rights to emit GHGs and under what inexact assumptions (basing it on past emissions benefits the developed world, basing it on current emissions benefits emerging economies, basing it on future emissions benefits poor economies; there are many such abstract issues of equity in originating and distributing emissions rights). A primary reason the world still lacks a climate treaty 20 years after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified in 1990 is because a top-down "all at once" global regime requires asset distribution that inevitably hurt certain countries ex ante. Climate change also represents a tragedy of the commons, where no one stands to lose in the status quo, but there are potential private gains from assigning property rights to these public goods, and so a strong incentive for hording, gaming and free-riding. The most effective way to lead in such a case is not by decree or simultaneously negotiating with dozens of countries. As the UNFCCC shows, and theory supports, there is not necessarily a rationale to expect such an approach to ever work. The best way to lead is by demonstrating the gains to be made from clean energy investment at a domestic level. Once you show the gains to be made by a more efficient tax system (by shifting taxes from socially beneficial things like income to costly things like GHGs) there is a strong incentive for similar regional and global reform, and increasing demand for U.S. GHG technology exports.

Goals are nice but meaningless without incentives, such as a fee-and-dividend approach. EPA has estimated the marginal utility value of CO2 at $21/ton. Other organizations have estimated it to be more in the $30-40 range. If you introduced a carbon tax below this rate that gradually increased above it, offering predictability for industry and business, and returned 100% of the revenue to households, via for instance quarterly checks, you would have a real incentive and economic mechanism for emissions reductions and clean energy investment and demand- much more so than any top-down “goals”. You would also have a majority of lower and middle income families that emit below average, who really love getting more money back from the government than they pay in energy taxes. Not to mention huge demand for new labor to renovate the nation’s aging energy infrastructure. Fee-and-dividend would be a strong, tangible signal for global cooperation on the grounds of self-interest, while maximizing employment effects by neither increasing the tax burden nor assigning property rights imperfectly.

We know you know all this. And we recognize fee-and-dividend is not currently as politically tenable as the opaque and ill understood cap and trade, a tax which provides widespread exemptions, escape valves, and a huge new secondary market for Wall Street to game, inflate, and ultimately distort. Do we really need to go through this again with GHGs like MBS? Do you have that much confidence in the SEC and CFTC who let a simple pyramid scheme go unchecked for years to parse what are real and fake emissions, or prevent a speculative bubble in a brand new market they have little experience with? Mr. President- scrap the cap, see the fee.

As the legislative process proceeds, hold off on new OCS and Arctic permitting. They contain a small amount of reserves compared to either U.S. demand or global reserves, yet spews billions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 150 years for your children and the countless unborn to reckon with. The paleoclimate record already suggests we are near committed to a 2 degree centigrade global mean increase, overwhelming natural temperature forcing nearly ten-fold.

Three policy recommendations:

1) Enact a revenue neutral carbon tax, i.e. fee-and-dividend. Carbon equivalents could initially be taxed at a low level to provide an early signal for the market to begin transitioning to a carbon constrained world. The tax could begin in 2012 at $10/ton (about 10 cents per gallon of gasoline) and increase over time as a multiple of inflation. All revenues must be 100% returned to the taxpayers, a central element for both economic efficiency and fairness. Each legal adult resident should get an equal share via electronic transfer to bank accounts or debit cards, with half a share for children up to two children per family. Opposition will attack you no matter what you do. Framing this as a multi-hundred billion dollar tax cut to stop global climate change and drive innovation and job creation is a potent (and true) counter-argument, one that cannot be made with cap and trade. WTO compliant cross-border tariffs could be applied at the port of entry on imports that do not meet this requirement in order to prevent free-riding and emissions leakage. Allowing each nation to keep the revenues from its carbon tax will align the individual interest of sovereign governments with the common interests of the global community. China for instance seemed open to strong incentives for clean energy at Copenhagen. Instead they were presented a cap on future emissions based on the past emissions of Europe and the U.S. They not surprisingly rejected it. The world will listen to incentives that create and drive new markets.

2) Invest in and build a demonstration fast-breeder (4th generation nuclear or FBR) nuclear facility as a prototype for industry to study and scale up. These reactors can reduce nuclear waste nearly 100 fold compared to current commercial models, and can burn a much wider portfolio of fissile materials, including waste from current generation reactors (which we have centuries worth). Fast-breeder reactors also reduce the depletion timeframe of waste production from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of years, making storage vastly more feasible. DOE had a demonstration plant in the 1990s called the Integral Fast Reactor that was close to completion, but it was mistakenly cancelled/defunded in 1994 because of unwarranted environmental alarmism. Nuclear should realistically be 10-20% of the energy supply to provide reliable baseload energy. Great work being done here by Bill Gates and others: http://intellectualventures.com/Libraries/TerraPower/IV_Introducing_TWR_February_2010.sflb.ashx

3) Lease federal land parcels in the Southwest U.S. for the development and expedited permitting of concentrated solar plants (CSP). There’s ample solar forcing, cheap unused land, and green jobs would help the whole economy. The parcels could generate revenue via auction; these parcels and CSP would be quite valuable because of the fee-and-dividend. CSP is vastly more efficient than traditional photovoltaic systems and can provide up to 80% baseload reliability- more than enough to meet normal household needs. It would be cheaper to produce and buy with a gradually increasing carbon tax. Today CSP costs about $.10/kWh compared to coal at $.05kWh, which would imply a real tax of about $50/ton. Additionally, tax credits and land for the construction of next generation transmission lines are necessary.

Stop throwing money at every technology and leaky window in the country while not reducing the deficit in the process. Instead, set up clear rules of the road with a fee-and-dividend framework that would put many more people to work than fast expiring, temporary job-creating appropriations and let the market scale up clean energy. This will take some audacity.

Sincerely,
Wyatt Boyd

cc:
Rahm Emanuel
Lawrence Summers
Christina Romer
Peter Orszag
Steven Chu
Melody Barnes
Lisa P. Jackson
Nancy Sutley
Carol Browner
Timothy Geithner
Neal Wolin
Mona Sutphen
James Jones
Xav Briggs
Phil Schirilo
David Axelrod
Valerie Jarrett

Happy Friday

Just a few reasons why things are looking up for the U.S. Fiscal position (the largest single component of the American economy):

1) The economy is growing, jobs are being created, and tax receipts are growing as a result. Nearly 300,000 non-farm jobs were created in April. No one is saying employment levels are where they need to be, but they're trending in an encouraging direction. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

2) Since February the federal government has been operating under Statutory Paygo, meaning any additional spending must be accompanied by an equal offset- it's the law. This combined with #1 will reduce the deficit. The President has also frozen all non-security discretionary spending for the next 3 years. This freeze is expected to reduce federal expenditures $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf - Table 2 ; http://budget.house.gov/laws/CRS-stat-paygo.pdf)

3) Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. For individuals earning more than $200,000/year, rates will return to pre-cut rates- accounting for an estimated $678 billion over 10 years and further reducing the deficit gap. 39% of these cuts went to the 99th percentile of income earners, while the middle 20% of income earners recieved 8.5% (and under Obama will continue to). These cuts have caused the lowest level of federal tax collections as a share of GDP since 1950. When these temporary cuts are allowed to expire tax levels will not exceed those of the Reagan Administration. (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811)

4) Healthcare reform. Officially this will reduce the deficit around $100 billion over the next decade of outyears and one $1 trillion the following decade (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf). This is likely a very conservative scoring as it only accounts for direct cuts, not savings or efficiency gains, for example through the dozens of pilots it establishes to learn about cost control.

5) National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform). The President's Budget lays out a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2015, from 10% of GDP to 5%. The (very) long-term sustainable rate of deficit spending is equivalent to the economic growth rate, e.g. the ability to finance current borrowing with future growth in a non-zero sum fashion. The 50% reduction in the size of the deficit is an enormous accomplishment; the President's FY 2011 Budget released in February represented the largest reduction in the deficit in over 10 years. The previous Administration never proposed a budget that reduced the deficit, not one penny. Obama's budget reduces it over $2 trillion in the outyears, before throwing in the commission and likely the largest domestic policy reform in 50 years- healthcare.

Four papers i wanna write if I'm ever patient

Local Organizing in a Global World: The Marginalization of Bright-eyed Idealists
(Post-industrialization has largely worked itself through the developed world, this means more and more problems are driven by external forces fundamentally outside the control of communities or would be activists. An organizer in the Rust Belt today might do better to work in New Delhi. But what does this mean for the identity or prospects of the individual who wants to affect positive change?)

The Evolution of Real versus Derived Profits on Wall Street from 1970-2010
(This information is so proprietary- but I imagine the shift from primary to derived assets would be interesting. There is no normative judgment that derived or synthetic profits are bad, but it's a macro analysis I don't know that's been done. Additionally, a larger real asset base only potentially provides a broader base for structured income products. At some point though, productivity necessitates actually making something in the first place.)

Prisoners Just Want Community: Lessons in the Green Prisons Movement
(This idea of hardened criminals wanting to cut the pesticides out of the prison yard, or compost their food or install solar cells is very interesting. What motivates this? Boredom? Manipulation? Atonement? I assert that if prisoners had access to these programs in the first place they might never have committed crimes, as the green movement connects people profoundly not just with a broader purpose, but an entire community. Parole programs could incorporate these services into their programs as both service and therapy.)

Speed of Thought as Speed Bumps for Information Transmital
As the vectors of information delivery expand and accelerate now on a seemingly annual basis, the rate limiting step of our ability to celebrate or appreciate, yet alone digest, information may increasingly be our innate capacity to process such exposure. In 2005, the email checking and AOL searching of 2000 seemed pedestrian, and in 2010, the blogging and i-tuning of 2005 seems pedestrian compared to our tweeting and i-padding, and there's little to suggest it won't be the same in 2015- my guess would be in the direction of integrated devices reaching out to us, rather than passively responding to our requests, based on the many known preferences it has compiled from our routine requests, a sort of Amazon suggested purchases feature for all media across all platforms. Yet I find myself sometimes simply unable to make sense of everything I see before me, the children's book Where the Wild Things Are turned into a major motion picture turned into a digital dowload turned into an instant App on my i-pad, to watch on the side as I work an excel sheet and check my blog-feed. There is more that I want to watch and do, and am now capable of, than I could ever complete. In these moments the brain almost freezes akin to a hardrive. Which one to open? Which to prioritize? In other words, there may be a limit to how useful such devices may be, the rate limiting step being our thoughts patterns themselves.

P.s. - As Goldman Sachs testifies today, I have a hard time understanding the allegations and think the SEC's case is going to have a hard time (it was only voted out by 3-2). Goldman was selling income streams from insurance on mortgage debt (synthetic CDOs) to two global institutions that engaged in this all the time. Any transaction necessitates a buyer and a seller, the idea that these funds would go long by buying in assumes there is a counterparty that would go short. It's immaterial what Goldman thought of the deal, they are the market maker. The funds requested assets of a certain type to buy, Goldman obliged, and in the process consulted with individuals of varying perspectives. For someone to make money on long positions, there has to be another party willing to cover the positive spread if they are proven wrong, which would be the shorts. Our regulatory system is about 30 years behind the curve and needs to be upgraded, but this vilification of the bankers society collectively depends on for basic finance as well as investment finance can at times look like a modern day witch hunt, or the populist version of McCarthyism. I am no deep sympathizer with speculators, particularly in the non-deliverable commodities sector, but last time I checked people are innocent until proven guilty. Also, derivatives need to be regulated, but this can be done through registries, clearinghouses, or exchanges, or some type of self reporting. Why the fixation on exchanges? Most of these contracts don't even involve public entities, they should just report their balance sheet to the SEC/CFTC and be done with it, John Q. Public doesn't need to be able to Google their proprietary deals so we can hear a bunch of mindless quipping and potentially damaging adjustments to market confidence.)

Sit back and enjoy the show

There seemed to be at least two over-riding criticisms of the newly passed healthcare reform law:

1) It would not, contrary to official estimates, reduce the deficit, but rather add to it.

2) It would represent something more or less "un-American"- a significant expansion of government at the cost of free market choice and competition and a general ideological move towards socialism.

What I am perhaps most pleased about with this bill is that over the coming years, certainly the next 5-10 years, we can evaluate these claims with real world results and see who is right. We can test these claims, comparing Congressional estimates of cost with those of the Administration and the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh and the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings- and we can see who was most correct. Afterall, prejudging outcomes and assuming away complexity in favor of one sized fits all answers and ideology is anathema to science. So let's sit back and see the results of this experiment. These arguments will not linger abstractly out in the ether of public debate and controversy forever, with two sides eternally duking it out over fundamentally unproveable philosophical or moral questions (I'm sure more than a few come to mind). We will get hard data about how many more people get healthcare, on the rate of price growth, on the cost of these new mandatory government spending programs on the budget and tax rates, on the success and replicability of the 27 cost control and quality care pilots this bill establishes, on whether we remain a country of elections and predominantly privately produced and procured goods and services, or whether we become the new Venezuela. All of this, and much, much more, time will reveal.

For instance, the intent of these new pilots is to look for best practices, cost control measures, and general innovation in healthcare delivery. The point is to test new things for proof of concept, cutting funds for what doesn't work, and scaling up what does. Evidence based, pragmatic cost control measures are good ideas whether in corporate America or government. Many (potentially) good, cost-saving ideas are in this bill, and the potential savings weren't even priced into the budget estimates. Stuff like bundling payments across hospitals and outpatient services to reduce administrative costs and create greater negotiating leverage, paying hospitals with higher infection and readmission rates less, sending out undercover inspectors to look for waste and abuse, working on payment systems that reward quality of outcome and care over sheer volume (as is currently the case for the fee for service model) and clearly conveying the state of peer reviewed medical literature to practitioners in the field, so there is no ambiguity about the state of scientific knowledge on what works, and what is a waste, both of treatment and money. After all these assertions and claims that have been discussed the last 14 months during the genesis of this law, we will get to concretely see what savings and best practices come out of these 27 seperate case studies. For economists or researchers looking for good data sets and means to test null hypotheses, it's almost overwhelming to think of all the good analysis that could be done. Yet one thing is for sure, we know what healthcare costs today, we know how much waste there is, we know how many errors there are, we know how many people are covered- and now we are about to discover which way this law pushes all these indicators.

One could spend a great portion of her life reading criticisms and attacks of every aspect of this law (and even criticisms of things not in it!) from countless think tanks, research institutes, lobbies, and yes, gasbag bloggers such as myself. But what is so exciting about this historic piece of legislation, in addition to the potential to provide care for millions and root out inhumane abuses in the insurance industry and expand competition and choice- is that we will get to test these assertions very clearly. I just hope we keep score, and in 2020 if everyone takes for granted that kids can't be denied health coverage, or domestic abuse can't be classified as a preexisting condition, or a consumer isn't forced to buy into an oligopoly because the government now forces companies to post their plans side by side online to drive choice and innovation, or that healthcare costs are growing slightly above inflation rather than 250% of it- that we don't shrug this off as just the natural progression of things, as some inevitable outcome or industry innovation. No, like any good science experiment, we have been operating a good control scenario for about the last 50 years, and now we can compare it to the future. If these changes come about, we can make clear scientific arguments of attribution. Whichever side has it right, it will be a triumphant essay they pen in the National Review or Cato blog- an epic example of "told you so!" In other words, after 40 years of debate, it's finally down to the 4th quarter of a close contest, and we're getting closer to seeing who the winner is.

As a caveat, on the first two criticisms- deficit control and socialism- I would point out that this bill cuts $550 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years by eliminating 15 cents on the dollar of Medicare Part D (because it's 15% more expensive than public run plans and gets no better results). CEOs and turnaround private equity guys gets plaudits for this constantly, ruthelessly cutting waste and ineffeciency to force better results and make hard decisions. Oh, and in this case, it will also fulfill a promise the previous administration made to seniors about prescription drug coverage but didn't actually fund. But cutting medicare funding hardly seems like adding to the deficit to me, and curtailing the size of government payouts hardly seems like expanding government. Also, creating competitive transparent online exchanges, for customers to review and scrutinize plans, none of which will be government programs by the way, hardly seems like something that would be expected to increase prices, and hardly something that is socialist, in fact it seems like the essence of market based capitalism.

And from a behavioral economics standpoint, I've decided to take this new system for a spin, test out all my new government benefits by being a little clumsier here and there. JK

In Remembrance: Rachel Corrie (1979-2003)

Seven years ago today Rachel, from Olympia, died in the name of freedom. This isn't about politics or one side versus another, it's about a brave soul giving her life for a cause, and remembering. Looking at ongoing developments in the Middle East today, more reflection and remembering is needed.

Saving the World one Popsicle Stick at a Time

I truly believe we are going to solve global climate change by switching over the Federal vehicle fleet to Priuses and squeezing some more caulk between our door shims and window panes and recycling the deep fried remnants of our Whoppers to power the farm combines endlessly plowing our Corn Pops. And that ought to employ tens of millions of people in real good-paying jobs for many years to come, at a minimum. I mean, fuck incentives- let’s mandate the world to behave itself with a Bible of regulations.

There is a reason why two installments of the Cash for Clunkers tax credit program sold out in a matter of weeks and put tens of thousands of cleaner cars on the road, and a year later the stimulus program’s $5B grant based weatherization program has retrofitted less than two percent of intended houses. Not surprisingly, people rushed to save themselves money, and not surprisingly, an army of state bureaucrats couldn’t give a fuck if your house is weatherized. Generally, it’s difficult to argue that incentive and choice do not trump rules and enforcement when it comes to social policy. This is not an argument against government, but a plea for government to use a stronger set of tools.

I mean we spend 25 years of our careers trying, usually in vain, to add 1.4 years to our lives. We subtract more years trying to add more years than we statistically predict could be added. The stress level involved in decades long regulation and litigation and political triangulation aimed at reducing environmental stress seems to cause more stress than the old bastard windbag we call “the climate” could ever muster. Apparently there are legions of people waiting just a few more years for some environmental and culinary rapture, where everything is flawlessly clean and carries no risk. They’ll finally cast a line in their favorite river when the Mercury concentration drops just a few more parts per billion, or tongue that bucket of spicy KFC hot wings when the hormone levels at the chicken mills they monitor from their i-phone app dips a tosh. I for one have always just cast the line and eatin’ the fuckin’ fish. I am not so confident as to think I have much say as to when environmental Jesus will decide to make on Earth as it is in the great organic farm in the sky.

There couldn’t be a better example of this self-celebratory environmental small think than in our Nation’s capital, where they decided to Save the River and Be Green, (“Keep the River Green”?), by making you pay 5 cents for a grocery bag. For starters, if you don’t buy a grocery bag, a disposable bag to store the things you just purchased (for likely many hundreds of cents), because it costs a nickel, you have far greater things to worry about than climate change slowly whittling away at your children’s health over the next millennium, should you not starve to death before they reach adulthood, or your trash bags blowing into the pristine waters of the Anacostia- than ignoring a few inconvenient truths. Namely, the state of your personal finances and next meal.

And I wonder if the City Council that passed this even knows anything about global climate change. Do they know that a majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from coal plants, and nearly all the rest from cars, planes, trains and forest fires? Or that plastic bag curtailment could save the greenhouse gas equivalent of 14 nanoseconds of China’s economic growth? Policy like this, that lacks all perspective of magnitude or context, and yet is pitched like the Great Leap Forward at every bus station and financial transaction, forcing many an awkward conversation at cash registers across the District about whether you want a plastic bag for your tampons or 17 cans of cat food, is the codification of denial- the timeless political calculus that feigning productivity and progress while claiming credit beats the appearance of doing nothing.

I empathize deeply for the bureaucratically enmeshed career environmental regulator who has to attempt to solve global problems via a thousand little regional solutions, when obviously a couple big ones are what’s required. They usually look like they haven’t seen the light of day in four weeks, having to fill out three forms to get their three different bosses to let them write a report to seek interagency clearance, to then languish in Committee on the Hill while be slowly mutated by lobbyists beyond anything that abnormal levels of hormones could achieve. By the time they reach this point a good portion of their career, and will, has passed, and they would not last two days in the wilderness they so seek to protect- slowly adopting the same ghostly hue of the countless memoranda and email chains that pile around their cubicle sized windowless office.

No wonder so many of my generation have adopted “unorthodox lives”. No wonder so many of us hate polluters, and the fucking politicians they pay off- because we see the answer and the impediments all too clearly. In fact, it’s pretty obvious. My generation (read the surveys) says something like, “Jesus! You want to fix climate change- macro econ 101 says put a fuckin’ price on carbon, offset taxes elsewhere, and watch the clean economy build around you, employing millions of modern day Rosy the riveters and decent lower middle class jobs- the jobs that gives this country stability in the first place! But so long as coal is cheap as dirt, your plastic bag policies are a pipe dream.” After all, the primary function of government is to create middle class jobs- that soothing ointment for the many wounds of life that makes all the tedium and drudgery usually tolerable.

The more people lobby to stop global, fucking global, climate change by opting to pay a Citibank credit card bill online in lieu of getting a piece of paper mailed once a month, or inflating their fucking tires 3.2 more PSI, or turning down the thermostat two degrees, the more America loses- the whole point, a whole generation and a peerless opportunity. If irony is when something’s actual meaning is totally opposite the literal- then nothing could be more ironic than modern populist environmentalism.