Apropos of McCain's apparent vendetta against Amtrak, Matt says:
That's just one piece of the larger, somewhat odd, McCain puzzle on climate change. He's adopted a cap-and-trade proposal, but not really one that's far-reaching enough according to most scientists. And he doesn't flesh out his vision of a low carbon America very much -- there's nothing about increased transit ridership or any other explanation of how emissions will be reduced. Nothing, that is, except a love of nuclear power.
I'm still digging into the two proposals, but on first glance, the major differences between them are more apparent than actual. The extent of the political compromise required is going to lock such a scheme into a pretty narrow range, no matter who pushes it. Obama's probably more committed to cap-and-trade, but in the "Only Nixon can go to China" sense, McCain probably would be able to push his plan through with fewer changes.
Under Lieberman-Warner, carbon-dioxide emissions would have to have been 19-percent below the 2005 U.S. level by 2020, and 71 percent lower by 2050. Since the US currently emits ~19% of total global carbon emissions, a 71% reduction in US emissions would represent a reduction of ~13% of current annual carbon emissions, or ~1 billion metric tons per year.
Since atmospheric carbon concentrations began increasing in ~1850, when the annual emissions were ~54 million metric tons, and began increasing more rapidly in ~1950, when annual emissions were ~1.6 billion metric tons, it is extremely unlikely that Lieberman-Warner would have resolved the AGW issue, even assuming no increases in emissions by other countries. However, Lieberman-Warner, as a US law, would have had no impact on the emissions of other nations.
China also currently emits ~20% of total global carbon emissions; and, China’s emissions are currently increasing at ~10% per year. If this trend persists, as is currently projected, China’s emissions growth through 2015 would totally offset the US reductions which would have been required by Lieberman-Warner through 2050. Therefore, absent major emissions reductions by other nations, global carbon emissions would have increased in spite of the Lieberman-Warner reductions.
Megan,
Multiple Star Wars references, now a Star Trek reference? Is this Sci-Fi Friday and I didn't get the memo? A heads up would be appreciated.
Ed:
Of course, it's worse than that. Some of the US emission cuts will be achieved by outsourcing carbon-intensive activities (i.e., manufacturing) to China, where they may be even more carbon-intensive. Thus, we could expect the rate of emissions from China to increase even faster under this law.
And yes, you could try the carbon tariff, which would be an incredible accounting nightmare even if it didn't violate GTO rules and wasn't going to get hijacked by local protectionists...
Nothing, that is, except a love of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is quite enough, thanks. It keeps the paperwork simple. And you can store all the waste for the next century in a few square miles rather than filling our lungs with it. It doesn't require a fleet of trucks and workers to maintain far-flung panels or windmills.
And yet environmentalists oppose it. Why? There has never been a death related to nuclear power in the US and thousands related to gas fumes. But people seem to like the devil that they know.
Any candidate that opposes nuclear immediately loses my vote, and the more emphasis a candidate gives it the better.
"Only Nixon can go to China"
Nixon built a career on anti-communism. So if we're using that rubric, I think we have to concede that the only man who can save the climate is James Inhofe.
What's with this stupid "mass transit" supply-side mantra? You build the "mass transit" and magically everyone's going to cram into highrises so that they can take the trolley to work, packing in like sardines, saving the poor atmosphere the load of CO2 all those cars would emit? As opposed to...mmmm...a whole lot of trains running around near empty, under which cirx they're worse than cars in their environmental impact?
Don't make me laugh. The "mass transit" meme is just a vote-buying payoff to city-dwelling yuppie constituencies. I bet New York City twentysomething childless singles would like to have the rest of America spend a few $billion in taxes building them a sweet urban rail and subway system, with trains that arrive every 2 minutes to every workplace and hot dance club in the city.
Howevah, out here in flyover country, we think you snots should build it your own damn selves, either by raising your taxes enough, or pricing the tickets appropriately.
So basically it sounds as if Obama is more willing to try to micromanage how exactly we should go about trying to meet the emissions levels with various regulations and subsidies (and all the lovely economic distortions and inefficient allocation of resources that come with them) whereas McCain wants to set a target level and let the market or States figure out how to achieve it so long as they get it done.
Just out of curiosity Megan, you had said originally when you endorsed Obama that you thought that he rather than McCain would be more likely to respect the “spontaneous order” rather than try to regulate everything under the sun. How has that estimation been holding up so far?
"... there's nothing about increased transit ridership ... Nothing, that is, except a love of nuclear power..."
There's no posturing about an absurd ludicrous sinkhole? Instead he wants to focus on what could actually make a real difference right away?
How'd this guy get into politics?
Nuclear is CO2-free and here right now. France is near 80% nuclear powered today. With nuclear you could plug in your electric car, and get your hydrogen for your hydrogen car.
Simple test: If you aren't seriously pro nuclear you aren't serious about being anti-CO2. It's as simple as that. Which shows what we need to know about most politicians generally and Democrats in particular.
Here's my "Hari Seldon" politics-based predictive analysis for world CO2 policy:
1) Politicians hate to say "tax" and love to meddle in policy on a selective basis for gain. Hence their unanimous preference for cap-and-trade over a transparent carbon tax. They avoid saying "tax" with C&T and can meddle in it to help themselves, undermining the policy objective.
Thus we see the fiasco of the Euopean C&T system which has resulted in big new profits from trading allowances to favored big busineses while emissions increase. Which system Congress is now busy copying.
2) Nonetheless, C&T effectively is a tax. To see the size of the tax necessary, the plan in Congress today would reduce emissions in the US in 2050 (with projected GDP of $33 trilllion for 440 million people) to the same amount they were in 1922 (GDP $700 billion, 110 million people). That is a BIG TAX.
3) It is extremely unlikely, given their record to date on the issue in both Europe and America, that when push comes to dollar/euro-paying shove, the politicians in these countries will ever force a tax THIS BIG on their voters in such a short time frame.
4) Given the behavior of the rich nations in #3 above, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the leaders of China and India will keep their billions of people in poverty for a couple extra generations for the benefit in the indefinite distant future of far richer people.
5) We had better hope and pray for carbon-sucking Dyson Trees.
6) The market today provides far greater financial incentives for innovators to develop new acne medicines than Dyson Trees.
7) The secularists among us, instead of putting our hopes in prayer, may want to establish a prize for the first innovator who successfully genetically engineers a Dyson Tree. Call it the "Dyson Prize". Let's start taking a collection.