24 February 2014
Who’s At Fault for Climate Change? It Doesn’t Matter.
There are many ways that the world’s richest communities can react to even the observed (as opposed to the modelled) warming of our global climate. We can diminish our habits that pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can invest in finding less harmful substitutes for those technologies. We can learn to live with the consequences.
But refraining from restricting the consumption of fossil fuels by the world’s poorest countries because it deprives them of the benefit of hydrocarbon-fueled economic growth is a red herring. As we in advanced economies increasingly rely on alternative energy sources which cause less environmental damage, we can make them affordable for the nations that need them to spur their development.
It’s all a matter of cost. Regardless whether climate change is man-made, cyclical, or caused by factors we don’t yet understand, it will be expensive to deal with if we want to preserve an ever-improving future. The piper has to be paid so we can keep dancing.
There are many ways that the world’s richest communities can react to even the observed (as opposed to the modelled) warming of our global climate. We can diminish our habits that pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can invest in finding less harmful substitutes for those technologies. We can learn to live with the consequences.
But refraining from restricting the consumption of fossil fuels by the world’s poorest countries because it deprives them of the benefit of hydrocarbon-fueled economic growth is a red herring. As we in advanced economies increasingly rely on alternative energy sources which cause less environmental damage, we can make them affordable for the nations that need them to spur their development.
It’s all a matter of cost. Regardless whether climate change is man-made, cyclical, or caused by factors we don’t yet understand, it will be expensive to deal with if we want to preserve an ever-improving future. The piper has to be paid so we can keep dancing.
07 February 2014
Apres Moi Le Deluge
Apres Moi Le Deluge
Like Louis XV, Saddam Hussein and the George W. Bush Administration knew
that without their respective costly repressions of dissent and
sectarian strife, French and Iraqi societies would descend into chaos.
But that doesn't mean that violent suppression is justified.
Stephen J. Hadley was wrong to imply in the January 31, 2014, WSJ, that
the credibility of the U.S. and U.N. depends on their instilling fear
that they will intervene militarily when they believe their interests
are threatened (even in an ersatz nation created by a deluded colonial
power following WWI). A slower, more painstaking process of
community-building would be longer-lasting. Perhaps the disassembly of
Yugoslavia in the nineties can serve as a model for bringing peace to
this troubled region of the world.
Like Louis XV, Saddam Hussein and the George W. Bush Administration knew
that without their respective costly repressions of dissent and
sectarian strife, French and Iraqi societies would descend into chaos.
But that doesn't mean that violent suppression is justified.
Stephen J. Hadley was wrong to imply in the January 31, 2014, WSJ, that
the credibility of the U.S. and U.N. depends on their instilling fear
that they will intervene militarily when they believe their interests
are threatened (even in an ersatz nation created by a deluded colonial
power following WWI). A slower, more painstaking process of
community-building would be longer-lasting. Perhaps the disassembly of
Yugoslavia in the nineties can serve as a model for bringing peace to
this troubled region of the world.
06 December 2013
ObamaCare's Promises
Tevi Troy’s article in the 12.01.13 Commentary, “The Three Failed Promises of ObamaCare,” is an enlightened discussion of the issues that bedevil ObamaCare, but its objective of measuring the efficacy of the law against its stated goals is only an evaluation of its marketing strategy (admittedly wrong), not of its efficacy, which I believe will prove satisfactory. As attributed to Liberals by the author, they are embarrassed that we’ve waited this long to make the effort to make basic healthcare available to everyone in our rich society. However, the three points Mr. Troy makes require the following comments:
1) First, Mr. Troy’s point that ObamaCare did not anticipate the Great Recession is well-taken. Inevitably, that made it all the more likely that some employed people would lose their current health coverage
2) The $2500 reduction in the cost of healthcare predicted by Obama is not simply Washington Speak, but an unspoken reduction from what all the benefits of the new program would have cost if the law had not been adopted. Of course, universal healthcare costs more than care for the health only of those who can afford it. Moreover, ObamaCare cannot be blamed for the American tendency to spend more on healthcare that derives from the belief that “we deserve it” or simply because a new therapy has been developed.
3) It was a gaff to say that you could keep your old healthcare plan if you liked it—that plan had to stay In existence for that assurance to be valid. Moreover, ObamaCare makes the common, and faulty, assumption that healthcare has a flat-line objective. It really strives to achieve continually more perfect states of physical (and mental) well-being as new discoveries in pharmacology and medical procedures are made—at increasing expense.
The differences between Liberals and Conservatives will unavoidably result in clashing takes on ObamaCare. Its implementation will certainly result in less choice and wealth for everyone, but also in a better general state of health.
Tevi Troy’s article in the 12.01.13 Commentary, “The Three Failed Promises of ObamaCare,” is an enlightened discussion of the issues that bedevil ObamaCare, but its objective of measuring the efficacy of the law against its stated goals is only an evaluation of its marketing strategy (admittedly wrong), not of its efficacy, which I believe will prove satisfactory. As attributed to Liberals by the author, they are embarrassed that we’ve waited this long to make the effort to make basic healthcare available to everyone in our rich society. However, the three points Mr. Troy makes require the following comments:
1) First, Mr. Troy’s point that ObamaCare did not anticipate the Great Recession is well-taken. Inevitably, that made it all the more likely that some employed people would lose their current health coverage
2) The $2500 reduction in the cost of healthcare predicted by Obama is not simply Washington Speak, but an unspoken reduction from what all the benefits of the new program would have cost if the law had not been adopted. Of course, universal healthcare costs more than care for the health only of those who can afford it. Moreover, ObamaCare cannot be blamed for the American tendency to spend more on healthcare that derives from the belief that “we deserve it” or simply because a new therapy has been developed.
3) It was a gaff to say that you could keep your old healthcare plan if you liked it—that plan had to stay In existence for that assurance to be valid. Moreover, ObamaCare makes the common, and faulty, assumption that healthcare has a flat-line objective. It really strives to achieve continually more perfect states of physical (and mental) well-being as new discoveries in pharmacology and medical procedures are made—at increasing expense.
The differences between Liberals and Conservatives will unavoidably result in clashing takes on ObamaCare. Its implementation will certainly result in less choice and wealth for everyone, but also in a better general state of health.
09 November 2013
Playing Your Advantage
If Megan McCardle means that the Democrats were foolish to take advantage of their victory in 2008 by adopting ObamaCare (“Obamacare Shouldn’t Have Been Managed Like a Campaign,” Bloomberg.com, November 5, 2013), my question is, What are Campaigns for? Universal healthcare has long been a goal of liberals, and their victory under the banner of Barack Obama was taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the golden opportunity finally to push it through.
What the Democrats failed to protect against, however, was the vulnerability of such an accomplishment to potential gaping holes, like over-dependence on a weak Internet website. The opposition was able take advantage of that when they came into sufficient power in a subsequent election. A possibly fatal error in judgment—hubris. Now President Obama is forced to apologize (not necessarily a bad thing) and hope that his administration can prove that universal healthcare is a good program even if it does not demonstrate mastery of the wonders of information technology.
Medical science has struggled with the use of information technology in matters as basic as record-keeping, diagnosis-sharing, and even drug-prescriptions. Tradition makes change difficult. What we can be sure of is that our society is wealthy enough to attend to the widespread health of our population. Arranging smooth access to it through the Internet will have to come later.
If Megan McCardle means that the Democrats were foolish to take advantage of their victory in 2008 by adopting ObamaCare (“Obamacare Shouldn’t Have Been Managed Like a Campaign,” Bloomberg.com, November 5, 2013), my question is, What are Campaigns for? Universal healthcare has long been a goal of liberals, and their victory under the banner of Barack Obama was taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the golden opportunity finally to push it through.
What the Democrats failed to protect against, however, was the vulnerability of such an accomplishment to potential gaping holes, like over-dependence on a weak Internet website. The opposition was able take advantage of that when they came into sufficient power in a subsequent election. A possibly fatal error in judgment—hubris. Now President Obama is forced to apologize (not necessarily a bad thing) and hope that his administration can prove that universal healthcare is a good program even if it does not demonstrate mastery of the wonders of information technology.
Medical science has struggled with the use of information technology in matters as basic as record-keeping, diagnosis-sharing, and even drug-prescriptions. Tradition makes change difficult. What we can be sure of is that our society is wealthy enough to attend to the widespread health of our population. Arranging smooth access to it through the Internet will have to come later.
25 October 2013
Obama Deals With Complicated Partners
Perhaps it’s foolhardy, but President Obama has leapt at chances to resolve long-standing problems when they have occurred in the course of doing business. Although the regime of Syria’s Bashar Al Assad used chemical weapons on civilians in the face of his “red line,” Obama jumped to accept collaboration with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin and invite the Syrians to destroy their chemicals arsenal as the price for avoiding a retaliatory American bombing.
Contrary to Daniel Henninger’s Opinion essay, “Obama’s Credibility is Melting,” in the October 24, 2013 WSJ, where he characterized Obama as joining with cynical and untrustworthy partners in Moscow and Damascus, the President views his number one job to be addressing long-term goals, even over humanitarian obligations like punishing murder with chemical weapons. Collaboration with the Russians and stability in the Middle East drive his strategy in Syria, not pleasing the Saudis.
Likewise, sanctions seem to have helped modulate the attitude of the Iranian government and bring that regime to the nuclear arms negotiating table. Keeping the pressure on at this point could only risk hardening the “tribal” behavior of the ruling mullahs, mirroring the desires of neighboring Arab monarchies identified by Karen Elliott House in the October 25, 2013 WSJ, “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup.”
When it comes to the badly named Affordable Care Act, Obama’s advisers unfortunately were seduced into believing that a technical device like a website was all that was needed to escape decades of resistance to the imperative of universal health care. The designers of www.healthcare.gov were certainly not cynics; they made a mistake that only makes Obamacare harder to execute in the end.
Perhaps it’s foolhardy, but President Obama has leapt at chances to resolve long-standing problems when they have occurred in the course of doing business. Although the regime of Syria’s Bashar Al Assad used chemical weapons on civilians in the face of his “red line,” Obama jumped to accept collaboration with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin and invite the Syrians to destroy their chemicals arsenal as the price for avoiding a retaliatory American bombing.
Contrary to Daniel Henninger’s Opinion essay, “Obama’s Credibility is Melting,” in the October 24, 2013 WSJ, where he characterized Obama as joining with cynical and untrustworthy partners in Moscow and Damascus, the President views his number one job to be addressing long-term goals, even over humanitarian obligations like punishing murder with chemical weapons. Collaboration with the Russians and stability in the Middle East drive his strategy in Syria, not pleasing the Saudis.
Likewise, sanctions seem to have helped modulate the attitude of the Iranian government and bring that regime to the nuclear arms negotiating table. Keeping the pressure on at this point could only risk hardening the “tribal” behavior of the ruling mullahs, mirroring the desires of neighboring Arab monarchies identified by Karen Elliott House in the October 25, 2013 WSJ, “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup.”
When it comes to the badly named Affordable Care Act, Obama’s advisers unfortunately were seduced into believing that a technical device like a website was all that was needed to escape decades of resistance to the imperative of universal health care. The designers of www.healthcare.gov were certainly not cynics; they made a mistake that only makes Obamacare harder to execute in the end.
17 October 2013
Climate Change and Sun Spots
Let’s not get confused about what the issue is with global warming. No one looks at the evidence, not economists, not scientists (aren’t economists scientists?), not “deniers,” no one refuses to acknowledge that average world temperatures have risen over the last few hundred years, if not tens of thousands of years. The issue is what we should be doing about it, not what the cause has been.
Whatever the cause--CO2, sun spots, unexplained cycles--the trend is longer term than our perspective for the future of our children or civilization. If we know that the production of carbon dioxide emissions at least contributes to global warming, then reducing its exacerbation of a trend that may inevitably change the world for the worse should be a goal of modern science, politics, personal and corporate behavior.
It may be just hubris, but we can’t have a more estimable aspiration than to leave to our descendants an improved, not deteriorated world. It’s not enough to make it possible for them to contend with future problems through education and wealth; we must also do our best to prevent those problems from arising to begin with. Now that we’ve detected that climate change is happening and that the consequences will be dire, we should not be looking for whom to blame. Our generation will deserve blame if we do not use the resources that our forbearers provided us with to improve the quality of life on our planet.
Let’s not get confused about what the issue is with global warming. No one looks at the evidence, not economists, not scientists (aren’t economists scientists?), not “deniers,” no one refuses to acknowledge that average world temperatures have risen over the last few hundred years, if not tens of thousands of years. The issue is what we should be doing about it, not what the cause has been.
Whatever the cause--CO2, sun spots, unexplained cycles--the trend is longer term than our perspective for the future of our children or civilization. If we know that the production of carbon dioxide emissions at least contributes to global warming, then reducing its exacerbation of a trend that may inevitably change the world for the worse should be a goal of modern science, politics, personal and corporate behavior.
It may be just hubris, but we can’t have a more estimable aspiration than to leave to our descendants an improved, not deteriorated world. It’s not enough to make it possible for them to contend with future problems through education and wealth; we must also do our best to prevent those problems from arising to begin with. Now that we’ve detected that climate change is happening and that the consequences will be dire, we should not be looking for whom to blame. Our generation will deserve blame if we do not use the resources that our forbearers provided us with to improve the quality of life on our planet.
06 October 2013
Is “Waffling” Always a Bad Thing?
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
