Second Answer On Western Climate Initiative

On the 17th, I wrote about Four Questions For Democrats. On the 18th, I wrote the First Answer on Western Climate Initiative. Let's look today at the second question:

2.Would it stimulate new technology investment across the region, especially on carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so that the West can participate in, and benefit from, the deployment of these technologies?

I know that there's a rush on the national level to nationalize industries. The two currently under assault today are the banking and automobile industry. In Oregon, and the members of the Western Climate Initiative, there is a push to "nationalize" the energy industry. If you're old enough to remember, as customers of private energy companies--PGE and Pacific Power--we've had to fight off efforts to fight for these companies repeatedly from attempts to create Public Utility Districts (PUD). The PUD movement was closely allied with efforts to remove PGE's investment in the Trojan Power Plant.

The ultimate problem for folks like Governor Kulongoski and his band of Merry Men in Salem is that technology doesn't spring from the forehead. When you look at how and where money flows, investments take place when the investor views the possibility and probablity of higher returns for his investment. By taking increased baseload plants out of the equation, and relying only on more expensive and unreliable sources of energy, the emphasis of the Governor's plan attempts to avoid Greenhouse Gas (GHG) as the only available path for future energy investment. That is, by cancelling proposed baseload plants--including two previously planned coal plants in Oregon, the state, and "our" partners in the WCI have pre-empted the technology shifts that would allow us to take advantage of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. I am not going to argue here whether GHG or Man Made Global Warming claims are valid or not. It isn't important to attempt that argument here. If you are a Democrat and believe and are in a majority, you can believe in whatever it may be that you want to believe. I can't stop that.

What I can attempt to do is put out for you the following: by avoiding the reasonable investment in baseload power plants, you are creating a barrier to the development of reasonable technologies that would meet your goals for sequestration of GHGs...while providing for low-cost sources of energy. But the more curious observation is, are these same zealots--those who adhere to WCI--aware of their own inconsistencies? I cite, as example, the Klamath Cogeneration Project.

The hatred of private capital motivates many on the Left. When governments do a thing, no matter how big or small, from the national level to the community level, the things a government do are "good" things. Just as the advocates of PUDs and opponents of nuclear energy fought private investment, these same advocates support the efforts of public agencies to spend "our" money on projects that lack participation by private, greedy capitalists. The failure of these projects should redline such projects in the future. How is it that we want private companies to invest in technology when it is in fact a wall of stupid regulation and mandates that face companies that attempt to invest in energy production in this state?

Much of the opposition to technology and investment in Oregon is based upon ideology. Public ownership is good. Private ownership is bad. Creating incentives for carbon capture and sequestration technologies is a victim of this inconsistency of our Democrat brothers and sisters in Salem. Are they making investment in energy more attractive in the state of Oregon? Or, since money leaks to low-cost investments with higher returns, will those dollars instead find homes in states where energy costs and technologies are encouraged? Will Nevada and Idaho find themselves the beneficiaries of WCI idiocy?

First Answer On Western Climate Initiative

You can make your Democrat friends responsible for their moonbeam Vision™. Simply ask them questions.

Yesterday I asked four questions. I'm not questioning the "agreed upon Science" of Man Made Global Warming. Let's assume that Man's Greenhouse Gasses are killing the Planet. Short of decimating the population, Democrats intend to decimate the economy. It might be cheaper in the short-run to simply decimate the population. Increasing poverty as a cure to Man's Existence will result in a lot of pissed off populees.

The First Question was, "1.Would it (the Western Climate Initiative) contribute to increased reliability of the region’s energy production and delivery infrastructure – would it help “keep the lights on” as the West works to create new jobs and pull itself out of economic recession?

The Western Climate Initiative is a collaborative effort of seven US governors and four Canadien provincial premiers. Included are the dynamic industrial powerhouses of Manitoba (pop. 1,196,291) and Montana (pop. 967,440.)

While Oregon's population contributes about 1-point-2 percent of the total population of the US, and 98 percent of the state remains undeveloped, Democrats view these tiny populations and huge landmasses--Manitoba has a total area of more than 261-thousand square miles; Oregon has a total area of more than 98-thousand square miles.)

These huge, sparsely populated states, or provinces in the case of Canada, have decided that "we" need to fix Man Made Global Warming. Even though it's hard to even prepare a case that anything we're doing in these areas contribute in any way whatsoever to the dilemma of Man Made Global Warming.

But, forget about that. Will the plan, promoted by the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) contribute to increased reliability of the energy we produce and the way we transport that energy?

Ask your state legislator. Is anything in this plan going to create new baseload power plants in the West? Is there a single power plant; coal, nuclear, LNG, hydro, planned for deployment over the next three, five or seven years?

Ask your state legislator. You are promoting intermittent energy sources; wind and solar. Are you aware of the risk you are putting our state's infrastructure as a result of these variable power sources on our state's energy grid? Are you aware that you are advocating a power supply system that threatens the reliability of our state's energy grid?

The answer to question number one is...no.

Maybe this rush to mandate change is ill-advised. Maybe, especially as we face the longest and worst economic downturn in a generation, maybe it would be smart to add some baseline energy production into our state's economic base. Maybe, if state money is to be spent, that money would be better spent upgrading our system's grid, before we start mandating a power supply system that relies upon intermittent energy sources.

Ask the questions of your state legislators. They don't have a clue of that which they are playing. They've moonbeams and Visions™ dancing in their wee little heads. They want to play Santa Clause with our economic future. What they forget is, there really is no Santa Claus.

Four Questions For Democrats

Let's ask some questions about the Western Climate Initiative.

1.Would it contribute to increased reliability of the region’s energy production and delivery infrastructure – would it help “keep the lights on” as the West works to create new jobs and pull itself out of economic recession?

2.Would it stimulate new technology investment across the region, especially on carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so that the West can participate in, and benefit from, the deployment of these technologies?

3.Would it deliver measurable and recognizable environmental benefits – measured in terms of reduced future global temperature – to consumers who will pay the costs of these programs and who often view the efficacy of government mandates through the lens of costs versus benefits?

4.Does it strengthen the West’s bargaining position in the upcoming federal policy debates over national GHG mitigation measures?

Tomorrow, let's take a look at some answers.

Some Good Economic News

Provided by your friends at RoguePundit.

Survivor: Who Would You Vote Off The Island

You're traveling in a plane and forced down, over water. The survivors of this tragedy find themselves on an island. Among these "lucky" survivors is...you.

What is your first impulse?

Let's be frank. My first impluse would be "Am I alright?" And, if not alright, to find help. And, if help is not available, to assess my needs and implement a reaction to those needs. Remember your ABC's from First Aid? If injured and alone, do you have the basics needed to help your body begin its repair?

Second impulse? Depends. Remember, there are survivors. You're not alone. You may or may not know it yet. It doesn't matter, really. Whether other survivors are nearby or not, your first impulse is--and should be--am I alright? If you are relatively alright, would you immediately throw yourself into the fray and begin helping your fellow survivors? Or, would you set back, remain hidden, and observe the others before making yourself known?

Let's say you have some skills that are going to be required by others to ensure their survival. Not taking care of yourself first might be ruinous to your fellow survivors. Remember the working thesis of triage? For the medical practitioner, it means working on those who "can be saved." It's a medico-economic problem. On what do you spend scarce resources? What resources are represented by your fellow survivors? And will it be more important in your future to have an acclaimed pianist or a steelworker? This is, after all, your survival at stake. Would you prefer saving the owner of a hardware store, or a community planner?

If you need help, are you sure that you would receive that help merely by showing up and revealing yourself to your fellow survivors?

In the first moments, hours, days, the problem facing you and your fellow survivors is reduced to attempting to create sufficient probability of overcoming your wounds and setting about the problem of long-term survival; food and water. And here is when you're going to begin to notice certain problems.

If you are well, uninjured, fit, you are going to be called upon to take care of the sick, lame and unfit. And, just to remove the uncertainty you would face on this island I'm going to let you know that you are not going to be found. Equipment failure prior to your crash meant that the last known position of your plane was hundreds of miles away. And you ended up travelling in a direction that no one would have been able to predict. You are lost. And you'll never be found.

What is your responsibility to your fellow survivors? And how would you assess your responsibility? In fact, do you have any responsibility for your fellow survivors at all? Would it matter that you were brought up in the Catholic Church? The Baptist Church? Would it matter if you were the only Asian, African, European and the rest of your fellow survivors were Australian? What happens if one of your fellow survivors is a liar and a thief? A killer? What happens if you are a Jew and your fellow survivors are Muslim men from Iran?

And, you are an educated woman? What is your responsibility to people who might be reasonably expected to treat you with a less than respectful promise of tomorrow?

There is a calculus to survival. Some effect this calculus to their advantage. Some find that this calculus requires cooperation. Some determine that this calculus must necessarily lead to the demise of those who threaten this calculus. Their death. It becomes necessary to expunge those who may not now possess a threat, but who could, upon reflection, pose a threat at some point in the future. To kill them.

I really would like to read your thoughts on surviving. How you would organize yourselves. The certainties of survival and the uncertainties of survival.

Oh, and Happy President's Day. Presidents Washington and Lincoln really did have to think about life and the existential threat posed by those who oppose us. How do you think they would have answered the questions above?

UPDATE: Read this.

Our Climate Is Out of Control

Planning Always Works

Originally published in Look magazine. Reproduced from a booklet published by General Motors, Detroit in the "Thought Starter" series (no. 118). Click on pic for full series.

(Found on Instapundit.) More thoughts here. (Humorous Graphic from quidnimis here.)

Do Policies Affect Employment?

In response to a comment on this post, I wrote the following comment, and then decided that it should be on the front page.

The comment was, " why can't businesses just raise the prices to off set increases?"

Here is my response:

"I often hear 'experts' state that taxes are simply passed on.

"I have a hard time accepting that. There is a thing in economics referred to as 'price elasticity.' There is a brief description of price elasticity here:

"http://tinyurl.com/634txb

"Here is an example from the cited source:

"Price(OLD)=9
"Price(NEW)=10Q
"Demand(OLD)=150Q
"Demand(NEW)=110

"The problem of simply trying to pass on cost increases--increased taxes increase the cost of business--is that typically, fewer units of a good are sold at a higher price.

"We know that Democrats lack a basic understanding of how economics--no, strike that--how the world works. It makes no sense to increase the cost of goods if it is your goal to increase employment.

"Given that taxes tend to be a given percentage of economic activity, even in the face of declining demand--due to price elasticity--the cost of good provided will be increased. Since we can only control our variable costs, the most likely impacted variable in the economic process will be the labour input. That is unless there is a quantitative technology shift that would make the production of a single-unit of the demanded good able to adapt its own process of production.

"But a pound of product typically requires a pound of input...steel, wood, sugar...whatever it is made of. And as taxes are increased, the suppliers of these good are going to tend to increase their prices as well.

"If fixed quantities of inputs are required for the production of a fixed quantity of output, the quickest short-term fix is to reduce the labour component of production. Of course, since there is a decreased demand for goods at higher prices, the demand for fewer goods--due to price elasticity--is a self-reinforcing by-product of increased taxes.

"Increased taxation in order to produce more jobs is a ridiculous idea.

"But, we're used to that in Oregon. In Oregon, expensive electricity is good electricity. Even though requiring us to use expensive electricity will result in an increase in unemployment.

"Can you figure out, from the example of increased taxes above, how that might be?."

Union employees particularly have a hard time understanding this basic concept. Everything they need for work shows up magically during the course of the day. Whether you teach or keep track of public records, you need a pen, a piece of chalk, a copying machine, all these inputs show up magically. The electric bill gets paid? Magic.

To the union employee, the cost of any product they may produce is effectively zero, since they don't see price tags attached to the items they use to produce whatever it is they produce. Does a school teacher think about the money we pour into education? Nope. They only think about their paycheck. How do we increase their paychecks? By increasing taxes.

Do increased taxes result in increased output?

No.

And neither do increased electric rates, gasoline prices or the price of a haircut. Democrats have a hard time figuring out math problems.

If you have $100.00 (one-hundred dollars) and electricity currently costs you $20.00 a month, gasoline costs you $70.00 a month, and a haircut costs you $10.00 a month, how many haircuts can you afford if electricity goes up ten percent and gasoline goes up 15 percent?

Hmm. You may want to re-think your support of your Green Governor's energy plan.

Just saying.