Obama's Wimpy Call for Better Fuel Economy

Obama's energy proposal:

In a frontal assault on the automobile industry, Sen. Barack Obama's call Monday for tougher fuel-economy standards and new financial incentives for hybrid cars would force a retooling of the way autos are built -- triggering a sometimes tepid response from business leaders in the Motor City.

The Illinois senator outlined a detailed energy proposal that echoes calls by other Democrats for higher fuel-efficiency standards and seeks to demonstrate he has environmental credentials as robust as those with longer voting records.

...

Obama, speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, said his proposals would cut the nation's oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2020 and remove 50 million cars' worth of pollution from the air. He would achieve his goals in part by targeting a 4 percent annual increase -- approximately 1 mile per gallon each year -- in fuel standards.

This is a bit disappointing. Instead of a serious solution like a gas tax, Obama is asking for minimally higher fuel standards. It seems to me that one of the biggest reasons for the current state of affairs with the environment is liberals' refusal to propose real solutions.

Population and the Environment

It seems to me that the debate about the environment is missing one very important element: population growth. I vaguely remember that people used to talk about this, but I never hear it anymore. The basic point is this: With 6 and a half billion people in the world, even if we cut our energy consumption in half, which no one is even seriously proposing, we would still be spewing out enough greenhouse gases to cause the global warming that is said to be occurring. Sure, by cutting back or stabilizing the amounts, we may be able to delay warming by 20 years or so. But is that really a satisfactory solution? So the question is, why not talk about population control? The answer, obviously, is that it makes all sides of the debate a bit uneasy, as once this principle is established, it is open to much abuse. Nevertheless, I don't see how we can really talk about the environment without addressing the issue.

Al Gore and "Peace"

Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to promote a cleaner environment.

OK, first off, the obvious. Peace? Really? What, does peace include peace with nature? This is really kind of silly. If they want to give him a prize, create an environment prize.

More importantly, though, how can they give this guy a prize when he had eight years as Vice-President to say the things he's saying now but was too gutless to do so. Sure, he made occasional remarks here and there about the environment, just like Bush does now. By and large, though, he had his chance to make a real difference when he was in office and he chickened out. Saying it now is easy. Many non-politicians are saying the same thing. The key is to get the politicians on board. If he had been this active about it when he was a politician, the world might look a lot different now.

The Supreme Court Takes on Global Warming

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in a case that addresses the questions of:

"Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under [the Clean Air Act]"

and

"whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in [the Clean Air Act]"

As I understand it, the basic issue is whether the 1970 Clean Air Act covers air pollution from carbon dioxide, which is thought to lead to global warming (and was clearly not in the minds of the legislators at the time because no one thought there was global warming back then). The Supreme Court has to determine whether carbon dioxide is covered by the terms of the statute.

To me, this seems like an awful way to make policy. The better way to determine whether Congress wants carbon dioxide covered is to have Congress legislate on the matter now. Don't ask the Supreme Court to apply legislation drafted in1970 to a 1990s issue. Sure, they can make up an answer, but it's going to be very unsatisfying reasoning whichever way it comes out.

Deep Sea Fishing Treaty

An effort to establish a UN treaty regulating deep sea fishing has been scuttled, and Greenpeace is hopping mad. The are particularly mad at Iceland: "The international community should be outraged that Iceland could almost single-handedly sink deep-sea protection and the food security of future generations," said Karen Sack of Greenpeace International." (Canada appears to be happy with the failure of the talks as well.)

I can see why some folks want the treaty, as they are concerned that the practice "can cause damage to extremely slow growing ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, and also depletes other marine life that is captured by the nets." But I wonder if the treaty approach is really the best way. You have a few countries, including Iceland, that have powerful fishing groups who want to maintain the practice. Is a treaty really going to be effective in these circumstances?

This situation reminds me somewhat of whaling, where there is a ban but nevertheless some countries are able to take advantage of exceptions to keep catching whales. Furthermore, these same countries continue to lobby to get rid of the ban, and

Carbon Trading "Markets"

In this week's Economist, Charlemagne says the following about the EU's emissions trading scheme:

Yet at a time when policies on climate change are coming under scrutiny, the European Union's flagship programme, the emission-trading scheme, is in serious trouble. It was set up last year amid high hopes: it is the first international arrangement that uses markets to reduce soot and smoke. But unless reformed, it will go down as a good idea, badly executed.

The system works as follows. National governments decide how much carbon the five dirtiest heavy industries in their countries may spew forth (the industries are things like power generation, pulp and paper, and metal bashing). They then allocate “permits to pollute” to each company in that line of business. If a firm wants to go over its limit, it must buy “pollution permits” from cleaner firms or credits from developing countries that have set up special projects to lower emissions.

To me, there is a bit of a deception in the characterization of the scheme in the first paragraph above and the description in the second paragraph. In the first paragraph, it is stated that the arrangement "uses markets." But in the second, the detailed description makes clear that it is a government regulatory program. Based on the description, it is clear that the scheme bears little resemblance to the "free market." Now granted, the word used was "market," not "free market," so it is not as though the writer claimed this was a "free market" policy. But nevertheless, the statement that the arrangement "uses markets" seems to me an attempt to distract from the governmental nature of the plan. It's a regulatory program, plain and simple. Don't try to sugarcoat it by saying it "uses markets." Perhaps it does, but that doesn't mean it's not a regulatory program.

Of course, it might be said that it works in a way that is less interventionist than other regulatory programs, and thus the phrase "uses markets" is appropriate. But I'm not sure that it is less interventionist. I would judge regulation not by whether it incorporates elements of markets but by its simplicity and effectiveness. If the goal of a program is to reduce carbon emissions, the relevant questions are how and whether it does so. If a tax (or even a ban) does this better and more simply than a program with market elements, then I say go with what works.