The View from Right Field

@BernieSanders’s “Green New Deal”. Is He Trying to Re-elect @realDonaldTrump?

Senator Bernie Sanders was an early supporter of the Green New Deal, and last week he issued his version of what that would mean.  Let’s just say his plan is big.  It would require lots of government and lots of money, though as to the latter, his plan says it’s all paid for with taxes on big energy, reduced military spending (because we can “scal[e] back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence”), taxes paid by all the people with new, good-paying jobs, and, of course, the rich “pay[ing] their fair share.”

Most of the news articles did not go into the details of Senator Sanders’ plan, though “Vox” did include some of them.  Perhaps the most comprehensive list was in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial this morning.  (Not surprisingly, the WSJ’s editorial page is not supportive.)  On the other hand, if you really want to see what’s in the plan, just go to berniesanders.com.  It’s there.

Climate Change: A Bonus Question

This is to follow up on Tuesday’s post, “Climate Change Is a Two-Part Question.”  In June, The Economist wrote about “Green New Democrats” and in particular about Joe Biden’s and Elizabeth Warren’s plans for climate change.  While neither of them has endorsed the “Green New Deal,” they both have big dollar/big concept environmental plans. 

After reading the article, however, my question is this: How can you seriously claim to have a plan for climate change and not address a carbon tax or some kind of a plan for carbon pricing?  I know that cap-and-trade couldn’t pass the Democratic Congress of 2009-10, that the Liberal/National Coalition (i.e., center right) in Australia won re-election twice after repealing Australia’s carbon tax (here and here), and that the "yellow vests" in France were protesting a gasoline tax increase that was part of a climate change program. 

Climate Change Is a Two-Part Question

The Democratic debates, the European heat wave (not to mention the 90 degrees in Anchorage), et al, are getting people to talk even more about climate change, assuming that is possible.  Many of the Democratic presidential candidates support the “Green New Deal.”  Even those that don’t, have their own plans for dealing with climate change (and getting votes from those for whom this is the number one issue). 

The thing to remember about climate change, however, is that it is a two-part question.  Just because you’re right about mankind affecting the climate through increased CO₂ emissions, etc., doesn’t mean you are right about what the solution is.  The second question is not whether we need to reduce emissions.  The second question is how we reduce emissions – and how much we need to reduce them.  Do we need to reduce emissions to zero or can we just reduce annual emissions to 25% of current levels?  Or do we need to get them to below zero, because we need to reduce the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere?

Here’s Why Self-Driving Cars May Be a Long Way Off

A column in Wednesday’s Financial Times by Brooke Masters noted:

“Consolidation is sweeping through the self-driving cars sector like the last dance at a high school disco – everyone seems to be grabbing a partner or two for fear of being left out.”¹

Car companies are joining with each other and/or with technology companies in a race to get to the size necessary to compete in the self-driving race.  But I wonder how soon self-driving cars are really going to happen for one reason: lawsuits.

“Investing” in Light Bulbs

I needed to buy some light bulbs last week, and when I went to the store, I had sticker shock.  I have noticed that light bulbs are costing more, but the price increase really hit me the other day at Menards.  Maybe Menards is not the cheapest place to buy light bulbs, and maybe the ones I bought weren’t the least expensive.  But still, four 100-watt equivalent light bulbs cost me $16.97 plus 10.5% sales tax – and that was only because I had a 15% off coupon.  Otherwise, they would have been $19.97 plus 10.5% sales tax.  That’s $5.52 per bulb.

I can afford to pay that much for light bulbs, and I understand that, over the long run I will save lots of money on my electric bill (the 100-watt equivalent bulbs only use 16 watts and the supposedly last for thirteen years), not to mention that they are better for the environment because I am using less electricity.

Increasing Gasoline Taxes to Save the Planet. I Wonder How Emmanuel Macron Feels About That Now.

I think I can say, without needing to provide a link, that the consensus among Democratic (and many Republican) politicians, most scientists, and the almost all of the media is that Donald Trump’s views, and the views and policies of his Administration, on climate change are beyond being just wrong.  They are almost maliciously wrong.  The facts are clear, the consequences are grave, and we need to start doing something now.

One question, though.  Even if the facts are clear and the consequences grave, what do you do if the voters won’t approve “what needs to be done”?  While the protests of the gilets jaunes, or yellow vests, in France seem to have morphed into all-around protests against French President Emmanuel Macron, it is important to remember the issue that ignited them: an increase in fuel taxes that was part of France’s plan to reduce its carbon emissions.

Is Judge Brett Kavanaugh Anti-EPA or Just Pro-Proper Process?

Environmentalists are worried about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.  According to David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, “Environmentalists fear that if Kavanaugh joins the court, he would vote to block anti-pollution regulations for decades, long after President Trump has departed.”  Pat Gallagher, legal director for the Sierra Club, goes perhaps further:

“He would be a disaster for the environment.  He has a disdain for regulation, particularly from the EPA.  Kennedy was the swing vote in this area.  If we have to wait for Congress to act on climate change, we are doomed.”

The last sentence gives the story away.  Environmentalists haven’t been able to convince Congress to pass the legislation they think is necessary so they have been relying, during the Obama administration, on federal agencies, especially the EPA, to do what they want.  What environmentalists don’t like about Judge Kavanaugh is that he has been skeptical of federal agencies doing things that are arguably beyond what Congress has authorized them to do and that, ultimately, he is unwilling to let policy ends prevail over the means of proper process.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal

In an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said:

“America is and remains the superpower, but at the moment it doesn’t recognize multilateral agreements in all areas, as shown by the decision to leave the [Paris] climate accord and now the tariffs that President Trump has levied against Europe.”

I would agree with Chancellor Merkel with respect to the tariffs that the Trump administration has levied (or is threatening to levy, I am not sure which it is) against Europe (and other places).  However, when it comes to the Paris climate accord, and similarly the Iran nuclear agreement, I think Chancellor Merkel is missing an important point regarding the American system.

When Housing Is Expensive, the Solution Is to Make It More Expensive

With California already being one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, what is the only sensible thing to do?  Make housing more expensive, of course, which is what California is on course to do.  Last Wednesday, the California Energy Commission voted 5 to 0 to require all new residential buildings, up to three stories high, including single-family houses and condominiums, to have solar panel installations beginning in 2020.  The commission estimates this will add $9,500 to the cost of a single-family home.¹ 

Of course, with the median price of a house in California already being almost $565,000, $9.500 is not going to matter much to somebody buying an above-average price home.  Also, there are tax credits, etc., that can help cut the cost – for people who can already afford a house and probably don’t need a government subsidy anyway.

Paying for Harvey

Hurricane Harvey has been mind-boggling, and the costs for the people in Texas, and beyond as Harvey moves east, will be massive.  Now is probably not the best time to talk about flood insurance, but Congress’s failure to address it when there wasn’t a national emergency means we have to deal with it now.

Because private insurance companies have been unwilling to provide flood insurance, or at least have been unwilling to provide flood insurance at prices people are willing to pay and/or at prices state governments are willing to approve (in those states where the state has the right to approve insurance rates), the federal government provides flood insurance.  Unfortunately, there are two problems with the federal government’s flood insurance program.  First, it is set to expire at the end of September.