Blogs

It's not done by any means, but I'd still appreciate your feedback none the less.  Send it to my Gmail Account - ssn139@gmail.com

1/29/2010 - I have a new super-secret project that's been taking up all of my free time as of late.  It is thematically related to The Finite World, but has a radically different approach. 

For now, I'll just say this - it combines two of my favorite topics on this blog: resource management and money. 

I'll post more soon, and hopefully a real article after that.

(12/27/2009) - A few months ago I wrote that, "The thing that I think makes me a liberal is that my position is almost always opposed to the entrenched interests that are trying to leverage their power to maintain their dominance."  I think the "almost always" might have been an overstatement, but the sentiment remains accurate. 

Then a few days ago, I had another thought that I think makes my point clearer - it's easier to define my liberalism in the negative - what are the reasons I'm not a conservative?  When I say "conservative," I don't mean in the sense that the modern Republican Party is considered "conservative."  This is more of a branding thing.  In many ways, they are not.  For me, conservative political ideology is based on the idea that the way things have been done in the past is the correct way to do them. 

So instead of just taking positions against entrenched interests, my liberalism is based on the idea that I think we can always be working on changing things and improving them, and the argument that "we've done things for a hundred years and things have worked out fine" is not persuasive. 

(12/9/2009) - Ta-Nehisi Coates has a post up on writing.  He's one of my favorite writers/bloggers (though not the most accessible - take a few weeks with him before you pass judgement), and I think this post hits on something I've felt a lot, and one reason why I've stopped/put on hold my desire to write for large amounts of monetary compensation (we'll have to see where life goes to see which one of these options comes true).  Writing is scary, and if you write something read by a lot of people, it can have tremendous power. 

On one level, I'm attacted to this idea.  This is why I write - to share with people how I see the world in what I guess is a bit of a vain hope that they will begin to see things as I do, or at the very least share with me what I'm missing. 

On another note, I'm sorry that the writing hasn't been happening recently.  I have an article about 3 pages long that's on hold because I'm really stumped on what I want to say - what reality I want to try to express.  Plus work is a killer - holidays and all that. 

From the Mineral Information Institute.  All averages of course, and not determination. But still scary.

(9/3/09) - I tend not to put a whole lot of stock in broad categories applied to schools of thought or groups of people.  This is especially true when it comes to political ideologies.  It probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise to those of you who have ever read this blog or talked with me about politics in person, but if forced I’d put myself in the “Liberal” category of American political thought.  How liberal has always depended on who I’m around, ranging from incrementalist moderate to flaming commie motherfucker.

Its only been recently, however, that I’ve began to decide what core part of my political thinking me makes me a liberal.  The thing that I think makes me a liberal is that my position is almost always opposed to the entrenched interests that are trying to leverage their power to maintain their dominance.  I am a tremendous fan of meritocracy and relatively equal opportunity.  Thus, if a policy or idea promotes opportunity or general welfare and causes entrenched interests to dig in against it, I’m more than likely on the side of opportunity and general welfare.

I first started to become conscious of this bias while watching The Wire.  The show covers dozens of topics, but one of the main overarching themes is institutions and how they shape the people who participate in them.  These institutions provide incentives to individuals (such as political power, income, or the ability to pursue an obsession such as busting the bad guy), and in return the individuals have lots of reasons to defend the entrenched interests of their institutions.  Its not that all institutions are bad, but this helped me think about their limits and how difficult it is to change them.

(7/11/2009) - The last two weeks have been busy, perhaps the two of the busiest weeks of my life.  I got a job, packed up my apartment, transported my furniture to my parent's house, drove across the country in three days, unpacked, turned an old basement storage room into a livable space, worked 52 hours over eight days, and saw a half-dozen people I haven't seen in almost a year (or more).

Long story short, The Finite World got the shaft.  But I'm back, and am in the middle of composing a long article I hope to publish tomorrow/early next week.

But while I'm here, I wanted to comment on a short article by Luis de Sousa at The Oil Drum: Europe.  The premise of the article is simple: the term "sustainable development" is an oxymoron.  In general, I agree with him.  However, I don't think that his emphasis on self-delusion or the supirior morality of his Future world are particuarly helpful or even morally right.  I don't think most people live their lives in self-delusion, but simply live their lives and deal with the struggles that are thrown at them in the short term.  The reason people aren't concerned about the "End of Civilization" isn't that they know about it and consciously reject it.   People are currently living the game of survival.  That's always the game.

The question is, what are the rules of the game?  That's what will shift dramatically.  But until they do, I don't expect people to change their minds.  The key for long-term policy makers is to try and "artificially" shift the rules of the game early so that we can ease into them.

(6/25/2009) - I started this post as just a quick response to a comment Landon made on my previous article.  I kinda kept going, and it turned into something of an article, so I thought I'd repost it here.  Here's Landon's comment:

"The only thing on that list I'm not willing to give up would be a computer. In fact, the only other items on the list I own are a cell phone (which I would rather not have, but seems essential for any job at this point) and a TV, which I only have because it was in the apartment when I moved in. I unplugged it months ago. I realize, though, that perhaps I shouldn't count since my ascetic lifestyle has more to do with my frugality than with concern over the environment, though that was my motivation for selling my car six years ago."

And here's my response:

I think left on my own, in the right city, I would lean toward the same asceticism you describe, if only because I prefer to spend my money on things that aren't listed above but aren't exactly "good" for the environment (i.e. air travel).  I've also realized more recently how my general outlook on spending and posessions has been influenced by a kind of protestant ethic that looks down on material pleasure and promotes thrift.  

(5/22/2009) - Sometimes, when I reflect upon the fact that my 25th birthday is now visible on the horizon, I vainly feel that I am becoming old.  Then, I read things that make me feel young.  I didn't know this, but apparently cap-and-trade is not a new or untested mechanic - it was introduced in a 1990 bill that has successfully limit sulfer dioxide emissions and curb the effects of acid rain.  From a excellent profile of Congressman Henry Waxman:

"The most novel facet of the legislation was its answer to the question of what to do about acid rain, one of the most high-profile environmental concerns of the era. Fixing the problem required major reductions in the pollutants released by coal-fired power plants. In 1988, Daniel J. Dudek, an economist working for the Environmental Defense Fund, had hit upon an elegant free-market solution: utilities would be granted a certain number of emissions allowances, allowances that could then be traded if they didn’t need to use them. It was called "cap and trade." Bush loved the idea, and Waxman borrowed it."

"The utilities protested. A study by the Edison Electric Institute claimed that the acid rain provisions would add $5.5 billion annually to consumers’ electrical bills. The result turned out to be something quite different: as of 2006, nationwide electricity rates had actually dropped below their 1990 levels, while the costs to utilities, according to the EPA, were a quarter of what industry had predicted. Sulfur dioxide emissions, meanwhile, have dropped by 46 percent since 1990. The legislation’s success is one of the principal reasons that a similar system has become the preferred paradigm for drafting climate change legislation."

(5/16/2009) - I've written before that, if I could design and implement a carbon controle scheme, I'd go with a cap-and-trade system that sells 100% of the permits.  However, life and Congress are not perfect, and I understand that, especially on the first go-around, global warming activists are going to have to accept something that's less than ideal if we want carbon legislation at all. 

Thus, I find it very encouraging to see two Republican lawmakers (via Andrew Sullivan), along with a Democratic counterpart, introduce a carbon tax bill that will help America reduce its dependence on carbon-based energy.  The bill would produce a $15 a ton tax on carbon in its first year, and raise it to $100 a ton over the next thirty years.  The income would then be evenly redistributed to individuals and businesses via a cut in the payroll tax (i.e. Social Security/Medicare). 

I can see many areas where I would improve the bill, including the method of distribution (I'd prefer it to be split between every man, woman, and child), and the amount of the tax (it starts off right, but probably rises too slowly). 

Despite these differences, the bill acknowledges that global warming is a problem and attempts to employ market-based incentives to curb pollution.  This is much more than I've seen from any other Republican Congressmen.  I also think that in the current political climate its more important to pass a global warming bill that follows the two principles I've put forth than to try and use carbon taxes to pay for other inititives if that effort makes climate change legislation too toxic to pass.