Bush's new energy policy

Bush spoke yesterday at a small business conference and outlined his bold national energy policy. I’m amazed at just how worthless this thing is. I didn’t expect that the administration would take any of the most damaging problems with American energy policy seriously (i.e., carbon dioxide emissions, particulate damage, petroleum dependence, etc.), but some of these initiatives are plain hopeless.

Here’s a basic outline of what Bush wants to do:

(1) build us some more nookyaler power plants and, in order to facilitate their construction, get rid of some of those pesky regulations we have on nuke plants;

(2) get drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska;

(3) build more liquefied natural gas terminals;

(4) put money into “clean” coal research;

(5) also put $500 million into hydrogen research over the next five years (almost a 50% cut from the $1.2 billion we put into hydrogen research over the previous five years);

(6) $1.9 billion over ten years for wind-power;

President Bush also mentioned a few other programs in passing but with much less specificity such as a biodiesel requirement for certain fuels and a sulfur removal program.

So here’s my beef. First of all, nuclear power. Bush laments that there hasn’t been an order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s and calls it clean, safe energy. He thinks we should loosen nuclear regulations to make it more feasible to build a plant. There are so many problems with this, I don’t even know where to begin. Nuclear power is not safe. Those two words should not even be used in the same sentence. Anyone remember Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fermi? No one has ordered a reactor not simply because there’s too much red tape; on the contrary, they’re too much of a liability. In the 1950s, the federal government attempted to lessen this liability through passage of the Price-Anderson Act, which placed a cap on reactor owners’ liability provided they had the maximum amount of insurance possible (roughly $200 million). If a nuclear accident were to occur, the federal government would be on the hook for roughly $10 billion. Without Price-Anderson (which I believe has been extended by Congress until roughly 2017), the nuke industry would go belly-up—no one in their right mind would insure a nuclear power plant.

Now, I assume this isn’t the nasty regulation that Bush wants to get rid of. Regardless, more nuclear power plants means a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear power advocates know that and won’t build unless someone’s there to cover the cost of a potential accident. Guess who that is.

ANWR is useless as a solution to oil dependence. Bush knows it, I know it, everyone knows it. Oil drilled anywhere other than the Mideast—be it in Alaska, Texas, or Afghanistan—is going to cost more than Middle Eastern oil. Even if that weren’t an issue, there’s simply not enough there to make any difference in either prices or dependence. So why go tear up a pristine habitat if it’s not even going to do any good?

Natural gas is obviously preferable to some of our other energy sources, but it’s still a fossil fuel. We have plenty of natural gas here in the U.S. Liquifying natural gas makes it much easier to import, a problem we don’t have right now.

Clean coal. I love this. It’s an oxymoron. Granted, it is possible to take some of the particulates and toxins out of coal such as mercury, nitrogen, and sulfur, there is no way to prevent the creation of carbon dioxide, the primary culprit in the greenhouse effect. Promotion of coal as an energy source for the future is entirely irresponsible.

As for Bush’s initiatives on renewables, they are a step in the right direction but by no means anywhere near what’s necessary. Bush notes in his own speech that he’s giving far less money to his hydrogen fuel program than he has in the past and allocates paltry amounts to other technologies spread out over five or ten years. Quite frankly, Europe and Japan are sticking it too us in renewable energy R&D. Ironically, their lack of resources has made them prepare for the future whereas our abundance has left us vulnerable. When we wonder why we’re behind in these markets twenty years from now, we can blame our current inertia.

Hopefully our next President will have the foresight to cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, phase out Price-Anderson, and throw some serious dough towards renewable energy technologies. Our current one has no interest in finally taking us in the right direction.

Let's back off of Putin.

There is a growing mass of articles lately in the western media bemoaning the strong-armed tactics and nationalist rhetoric of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Americans are beginning to perceive his policies and statements to be reactionary and anti-democratic.

They’re absolutely right. Perhaps, however, the problem isn’t with Putin but with our perception of Russia and democratic movements abroad. Americans need to understand that a secure economy and high morale are the best medicine for a democratic future in Russia. In this context, Putin’s moves might very well be what’s best for his country.

A democracy has to be the most difficult form of government to create. This is largely true in any country but especially so in the former Soviet bloc where citizens are used to living under an iron fist. They aren’t used to free markets or choosing their own leaders. Despite this, many Eastern European countries have been successful in developing democratic governments over the last fifteen years. The path for Russia has been more difficult for multiple reasons.

In a December 1997 article entitled “Was Democracy Just a Moment,” Robert Kaplan theorized that two prerequisites must be satisfied in order to bring about a successful democracy. First, a nation must have economic stability and a secure middle class. Second, it must have a literate and educated electorate. If either of these elements is missing, a democracy may quickly become a tyranny:

“Because both a middle class and civil institutions are required for successful democracy, democratic Russia, which inherited neither from the Soviet regime, remains violent, unstable, and miserably poor despite its 99 percent literacy rate. Under its authoritarian system China has dramatically improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of its people. My point, hard as it may be for Americans to accept, is that Russia may be failing in part because it is a democracy and China may be succeeding in part because it is not. Having traveled through much of western China, where Muslim Turkic Uighurs (who despise the Chinese) often predominate, I find it hard to imagine a truly democratic China without at least a partial breakup of the country. Such a breakup would lead to chaos in western China, because the Uighurs are poorer and less educated than most Chinese and have a terrible historical record of governing themselves. Had the student demonstrations in 1989 in Tiananmen Square led to democracy, would the astoundingly high economic growth rates of the 1990s still obtain? I am not certain, because democracy in China would have ignited turmoil not just in the Muslim west of the country but elsewhere too; order would have decreased but corruption would not have. The social and economic breakdown under democratic rule in Albania, where the tradition of precommunist bourgeois life is nonexistent (as in China), contrasted with more-successful democratic venues like Hungary and the Czech Republic, which have had well-established bourgeoisie, constitutes further proof that our belief in democracy regardless of local conditions amounts to cultural hubris.”

Russia has a similar ethnic burden to that of China. But unlike China, as a democracy it must unite ethic groups spanning from the Ukrainian border to the Bering Strait. This means boosting national morale, building the economy, and fighting separatist movements. Upon becoming Acting President in 2000, Putin allowed a series of interviews that later became a biography with the title First Person. In it, Putin comments on the threat of separatism and why it must be stopped:

“I’ll tell you what guided me and why I was so convinced of the threat that hung over our country…I have never for a second believed—and people with even an elementary level of political knowledge understand this—that Chechnya would limit itself to its own independence. It would become a beachhead for further attacks on Russia.

After all, the aggression began there. They built up their forces and attacked a neighboring territory. Why? In order to defend the independence of Chechnya? Of course not. In order to seize additional territories. They would have swallowed up Dagestan, and that would have been the beginning of the end. The entire Caucasus would have followed—Dagestan, Ingushetia, and then up along the Volga River to Bashkortostan and Tartarstan, reaching deep into the country.

You know, I was frightened when I imagined the real consequences. I started wondering how many refugees Europe and America could absorb. Because the disintegration of such an enormous country would have been a global catastrophe. And when I compare the scale of the possible tragedy to what we have now, I do not have a second of doubt that we are doing the right thing.”

The point is simply this. We cannot export democracy as a product. Proper democratic formation takes time and conditioning that often comes from within a country. What we can do is help to shore up future democracies with economic initiatives aimed at solidifying a middle class. In the mean time, it is little more than armchair quarterbacking for comfortable westerners to presume they know the proper path for the future of Russian democracy.

A Republican rationale for kicking the oil habit

The Republican Party has never quite made up its mind on issues like energy dependence and global climate change. Our party leaders will often give half-hearted lip service to the problems they present, but have yet to enter the market of ideas on change. George H.W. Bush sent a delegation to the Rio de Janeiro conference on global warming and came away with a promise to “voluntarily” reduce emissions. Our current President acknowledged in his first campaign that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the climate to heat up. He subsequently withdrew from all talks on the Kyoto Protocol.

The cold, hard facts are these: America’s energy usage is spiraling out of control and Republicans cannot continue to ignore the problem. Our ideology of economic prudence demands it.

All are familiar with the laundry list of harms that are a direct result of our dependence upon foreign oil, which President Bush and the Republican leadership generally acknowledge. Our economy is wholly dependent upon the most volatile region in the world. This dependence has caused us to sustain brutal regimes that we would not tolerate under any other circumstances. These regimes serve as inspiration for a generation of young terrorists who then associate America with their own oppression.

President Bush’s solution to this problem is more drilling. He looks to sources like the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The plain fact of the matter is that no source either at home or abroad can supplant the constant flow of cheap oil coming from the Mideast. We need new sources of energy that can not only be produced in the U.S. but that can be renewed (hydrogen power, for example). Unfortunately, these energy sources do not receive the support needed from a government more concerned with keeping the price of petroleum low than creating a cost-competitive alternative.

As Republicans, it is essential that we begin to support these technologies over fossil fuels. Economic common sense demands it. More turmoil is inevitable in the Middle East from any number of sources (Iraq, Iran, Saudi instability, Kurdish-Turkish conflict, and Israel’s rivalry with...well, everyone). When it comes, the shock within the oil markets will make two dollars a gallon seem like chump change and the potential impact upon the American economy will be devastating. The only way the U.S. can avoid such a future is by heavily subsidizing not only alternative technologies like hydrogen but also the infrastructure necessary to bring them into the mainstream, not to mention a scale-back of petroleum subsidies.

Our European and Japanese counterparts are already doing this. They have recognized their long term interest in energy security and therefore are beginning to push ahead on renewables. These technologies will become valuable in the future when oil becomes scarce or the Middle East blows itself up, whichever comes first. When that day arrives, we are likely to find ourselves far behind in the race for energy technology. By delaying, we risk America’s economic preeminence in the world.

But the greatest threat to our long term economic interest is global warming. Natural disasters inevitably bear out an economic cost as well as a human one. That being assumed, the economic impact of global warming stands to be gigantic. A substantial portion of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of a coastline. Meanwhile, sea levels are rising as a result of polar ice melting. As heat levels continue to rise, populations will eventually find their homes underwater. If the human costs of warming are not enough to justify an abrupt correction, the prospect of running the American economy smoothly with New York and Miami beneath the Atlantic should give one further pause. If allowed to continue unabated, global warming stands to be the greatest economic spoiler in human history.

Pure reliance on the free market has never been Republican policy. We tariff steel when Ohio jobs depend upon it and make loan guarantees to United when airline employees are on the line. Even if it were our policy, the free market is clearly not combating this problem. The risks are evident. It’s time for the Republican Party to step up to the plate and do something about it.

The world according to Tom...

This latest episode of Republican whining about judicial activism is really chapping my ass.

Here’s the deal. I am a Republican. Have been ever since I began my recovery from Libertarianism in summer 2000. I dabble in liberalism periodically to the point where many of my friends at home and in Minnesota question how I can possibly classify myself as such. No one knows, including myself much of the time. That’s an issue for another day. What always has attracted me to the Republican Party is its adherence to the set of governing principles embodied in our very Madisonian federal constitution. Division of power amongst three branches? Reservation of authority at the state level? Wicked kewl.

So naturally, few things annoy me more than when a court will either ignore clear statutes or constitutional provisions in favor of its own opinion or stretch said statutes and provisions so far as to render their intended purpose void. Admittedly, this is something I used to accuse the Left of all the time. Heck, I still do on occasion. But no matter what, my beloved GOP was always there to condemn the action and highlight the miscarriage of justice it would inevitably cause. “Activist.” It became such a nasty word. And Republicans just love to use it.

That’s where the problem comes in. Tom DeLay and his minions have become so used to associating liberal judicial decisions with activism that now any progressively colored decision can be declared “activist” regardless of whether it is a strict interpretation of the law or not.

I have some serious issues with Tom DeLay and his comments today haven’t helped matters. Ever since he got his jockeys in a bunch over the whole Terri Schiavo matter, he’s had it out for such “activist” judges. Today, he took aim at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as an activist for his majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons that the execution of juveniles violates the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. DeLay: “We’ve got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States. That’s outrageous.”

DeLay’s perception of the opinion as activist has less to do with Kennedy and more to do with DeLay’s complete ignorance of what’s actually in it. Had the Court actually found that the juvenile death penalty was illegal under international law, then he might have a legitimate case that activism was at play here; however, that’s not what the opinion says.

When interpreting the Eighth Amendment, the Court has always rejected the notion that it should be weighed according to what was considered “cruel and unusual” in 1787. American values have evolved significantly since then (well, most Americans’ values…maybe not Tom’s). Determining what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” requires not only a survey of American practice and sentiment but that of the world as well. Upon considering that the U.S. is the only nation-state that still officially sanctions the juvenile death penalty as well as other sociological and constitutional factors, Justice Kennedy and four other justices ultimately concluded that the practice violates the Constitution.

What DeLay disliked was not the reasoning. After all, his own statements demonstrate that he didn’t understand it and probably never read it. He disliked the Court’s conclusion because it did not conform with his right-of-Attila-the-Hun worldview (to borrow a phrase from Mike Paulsen). Thus, “activist.”

DeLay’s incapacities are too numerous to list, but his clashes with the federal courts and the House Ethics Committee are hopefully exposing his true nature to Americans. If he is willing to change ethics rules for his own benefit as he has done this year and disown his own mother for allowing his father to die a dignified death, then there is no doubt that he would pull the trigger at our federal judiciary in a heart beat. I can only hope that his political boat is sunk by the time he gets the opportunity.

Benedict XVI: The Panzer Pope

Ouch...Not what I was hoping for at all.

I was sitting in Jurisprudence this morning when an AIM window pops up from Abra Belke announcing white smoke and bells. This being a Catholic law school obsessed with its mission and also seeing as how there had been close to a dozen JP2 references in class thus far, I figured this might be worthy of mention. So I raised my hand. Dr. Reid called on me and I announced that the conclave had chosen a new Pope. "That must mean you're not paying attention, Mr. Clark." For the next two minutes he gave me grief about interrupting class. I defended the intrusion, though. This is a big deal to young Catholics. No one under the age of 28 has ever seen the election of a Pope. Besides that, I had been innocently following class when a friend briefly informed me of what was going on in the world. Reid doesn't have the perspective that most of us do. He's probably seen a good dozen or so conclaves. I haven't. It's a big deal to us. About fifteen minutes later in class, he gets that big Monopoly man grin on his face and asks me if there is any further news. Said that I wouldn't even tell him if there was after his previous rebuke. We chatted in the elevator later and I explained to him that I wasn't surfing the net and just happened to be told by a friend. He was fine with it, though I still didn't appreciate him giving me crap in class about it.

Alas, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed with the result. A genuine opportunity has been squandered here. If Cardinal Francis Arinze had walked through those balcony curtains, the conclave would have sent a message to the Third World that the Catholic Church is not a Europeans-only club. I might have understood if it was a progressive Italian even who could take the Church into new territory. But Ratzinger has all of the conservatism with none of the charm.

For all of John Paul's faults, it was impossible not to like him. He was warm, inviting and inspirational. I disagreed with him on issues like birth control and marriage, but on the whole I felt that he was a leader very worthy to hold the post as St. Peter's successor.

Benedict has the potential to become a very dividing figure. He was a member of the Hitler Youth and was drafted into Munich's air defense. This I don't hold against him personally because avoiding the Nazi taint was practically impossible. Besides that, his experiences under Nazi Germany only shaped him for the better. Still, his personality is very cold and calculating. He's the quintessential grizzled old man who never appears to be happy about anything.

All in all, this is his honeymoon and I'm more than willing to give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt. He's 78 years old and likely to be a "transitional" Pope. His impact will not be long lasting. Still, it might be a long few years before the Church takes up progression again.

Ethanol is crap energy.

One thing I’ve always found unique about politics in the Mountain West states, especially Montana, is that voters will look past their own self interest and vote on social issues important to them. At times it’s a blessing; others a curse.

An increasingly popular issue in my home state and other agricultural states is the mandatory mixing of ethanol with gasoline. A bill is currently being debated back home in Montana on the issue. My hometown newspaper recently wrote an editorial chastising state legislators who opposed the measure but didn’t give due consideration to the many reasons ethanol exacerbates all of the problems it is supposed to remedy.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about reducing American dependence on foreign oil and improving air quality. By that same token, measures that will increase the price of ag products coming from Montana would help some struggling farmers who could use a push.

My problem is with ethanol specifically. A single gallon of ethanol has an energy value of 77,000 BTUs. Producing that gallon, however, requires 131,000 BTUs of energy. Therefore, roughly seventy percent more energy is needed.

What a waste of power. And guess where all of the power will come from to produce that ethanol? Much of it will come from petroleum and some will come from hydroelectric power, but because the Midwest is heavily dependent upon coal (as is a sizeable chunk of Eastern Montana), burning that clean, renewable ethanol will cause more damage to the environment than if a gallon of simple unleaded had been used.

This in and of itself is enough for me to swear off ethanol as a possible energy alternative to fossil fuels. Beyond that, however, how much sense does it make to subsidize the burning of food? As much sympathy as I have for the American farmer, the hungry of this world are of far greater concern.

Nonetheless, Governor Schweitzer and a majority of the state legislature will support the measure because of its political efficacy. It seems that our unique ability to look past our own noses has its limits after all…

More Fantasy Conclave

My buddy Kris Goss from college sent me this. Get your bets in soon:

Irish Bookmaker Taking Bets on Next Pope

By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer

DUBLIN, Ireland - While the cardinals huddle over who should become the next pope, Ireland's largest bookmaker has been doing a big business that for some gamblers would mean thousands of dollars going up in smoke.

Paddy Power PLC, which often features irreverent gambling opportunities, has been taking bets for the past five years on who will succeed John Paul II. With Monday's start to the secretive conclave, gamblers have flocked to the company's Web site.

"It's unbelievable. This is the biggest novelty bet we've ever run, much bigger than the Oscars," said Paddy Power, a spokesman for the firm of the same name, in a telephone interview from the outskirts of Vatican City, where his grease-pencil odds board highlights the market dynamics.

Power said more than 9,000 bets have come in since John Paul's death, including 1,500 Sunday and about 700 more by midday Monday, worth a total exceeding $195,000.

Several other Web-based bookies also are listing their own — and often very different — papal odds, including British-based Pinnacle and William Hill.

But Paddy Power offers the most options, with odds for 89 of the 115 cardinals, led by Francis Arinze of Nigeria at 3-1, while 14 cardinals at the bottom rate 125-1. A winning $1 bet at 3-1 odds would pay out $4, while 125-1 would return $126.

A few big bets have shifted the odds substantially. Arinze surged Monday from 8-1 after receiving several large bets Sunday, including one for $1,300.

The cardinal he replaced as favorite, Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, saw his odds lengthen Monday to 5-1, in second place with Jean-Marie Lustiger of France. The odds were current as of noon EDT.

Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy, the early betting favorite while John Paul was on his deathbed, remained alone in fourth place at 7-1.

Italy's Cardinal Carlo Martini, who attracted the biggest single bet of $2,600, nonetheless saw his odds slip Monday to joint fifth place at 8-1. Alongside him was one of the betting market's rising stars, Claudio Hummes of Brazil, the most populous Catholic nation.

The odds on four American cardinals stand at 100-1, but Power said that may have more to do with the fact that U.S. credit cards — almost alone in the world — are barred for use on gambling sites. Most bets from Americans were coming through friends with European credit cards, he said.

"The betting can have a definite nationalistic tone," he said. "Croatians were calling up and asking why their cardinal wasn't on the list — he's on now! — and the Australians were extremely quick to bid up their cardinals."

Substantial sums are also landing on how long the cardinals' conclave will take before it sends up the puffs of white smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney that signal the election of a pope. A decision Tuesday or Wednesday both merit 6-4 odds, while a deadlock lasting more than six days is considered unlikely at 7-1.

Yet another angle seeks wagers on the new pope's name. Benedict is favorite at 3-1, John Paul just behind at 7-2. Augustine and Damian trail the pack at 80-1.

Power's advertising odds board in Rome cannot take any cash bets directly. Nonetheless, it has drawn attention from Vatican City security forces.

"Yesterday, we set up right outside St. Peter's Square and were nearly arrested by undercover police," he said. "Today, we're staying on the edge of the city so we can make a quick getaway if we have to. We don't want to end up in the slammer."

Church policy takes a more sanguine view toward gambling, particularly for its own parish fund-raisers.

Its teachings, as updated by John Paul II, advise that "games of chance or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement."

Gambling is in the soul of Ireland, a European center for horse racing. It's common here to have a bookmakers shop beside a pub playing live sports events.

But with the advent of the Internet, bookie chains based chiefly in Britain and Ireland have developed international pitches, as illustrated by Paddy Power's other novelty offerings Monday: odds on who'll win the "American Idol" TV show and be cast as J.R. Ewing in "Dallas the Movie."

Fantasy Conclave?

So this whole Pope thing has me kinda intrigued. This is the first time in my life that a Pope has passed away. The last conclave was something like October of 1978, way before my time. JP the Deuce is the only Pope my generation has known (I love that Pollack).

In 1978, there was no internet, there were no cell phones, and there certainly was no fantasy baseball. This sucker’s going to be totally different from anything previous. I guess the last few days they’ve been sweeping St. Peter’s Basilica for bugs. I find that humorous. You’re telling me that not a single one of those cardinals has a T-Mobile account and an itch for gossip?

Anyway, the most interesting part of all of this is the buzz about who the cardinal college will select. Choosing an archbishop from communist Poland was a pretty big step; wonder if they’ll keep it in stride and pick a South American or even African Pope, play it safe and elect the Pontiff’s right hand man from Germany, or even step backward and draft an Italian.

Here’s what I don’t get though. If we can set up fantasy baseball leagues online and do the same with basketball, auto racing, and even The Apprentice, then surely it can be done with papal elections. You could amass points based upon the number of votes your candidate picks up per round of voting. There could be some sort of jackpot for whoever actually gets elected Pope. All it takes is just a single cardinal willing to pass along some info to the outside. Heck the Vatican could run the show themselves. Yahoo makes plenty of cash off of this sort of thing; I’m sure they could too. Regardless, I think it’s an idea whose time has come…