New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

“By now you may have heard of the economic questions regarding using corn for ethanol production, but less attention has been paid to the environmental impact of using ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Is ethanol more of a pollutant than gasoline? Surprisingly, the science says yes.”

Here is the link to the article

Popularity: 44% [?]

In last night’s Democratic Presidential debate, Hillary provided one of those lines that’s enough to make any reasonable economist cringe:

CLINTON: … But this issue of energy and global warming has the promise of creating millions of new jobs in America … So it can be a win-win, if we do it right.

Things not seen:

1. The fact that there is only a limited amount of resources in an economy at any given point in time and these “new” jobs would only be coming at the expense of diverting economic resources from other industries to “alternative energies”. Hence these new jobs would be coming at the expense of (a) other jobs that would necessarily be lost in other sectors as well as (b) productivity–because this investment is not warranted by the incentives of the private market but rather from politically manufactured incentives.

2. Intelligent economic commentary from Sen. Clinton.

Popularity: 41% [?]

In the past, the Live ___ concerts have been hugely successful. Both, Live Aid and Live 8, have had a clear purpose in mind: raise money to either pay off debt or help to feed starving children. Al Gore, however, utilized his well-publicized Live Earth to “kick start a global movement” to react to global warming. Not everyone agrees with global warming, and there are certainly ways to persuade individuals to look at scientific backup in its favor.

Is a concert, however, the best way? After briefly attending the Washington, DC gathering at the National Museum of the American Indian and watching bits and pieces of the concert on TV, I can conclusively say that it’s most definitely not. Although it was the most watched webcast ever, it was not very well attended at the various locations throughout the world. Furthermore, would an anti-global warming activist attend or watch the concert? Short snippets between musical acts were dedicated to global warming lessons, most of which were ridiculously stupid.

The LA Times and several other sites point out some interesting facts about the concert, showcasing the hypocrisy of many of its participants. LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg sums up the concert perfectly:

considering the energy required to put on the show, the nine Live Earth concerts doubtlessly raised more CO2 than awareness. NBC’s three-hour televised version got trounced by “Cops” and “America’s Funniest Home Videos.” Moreover, surely most of the people who attended or tuned in already knew about global warming before they saw the video tutorial about Ed Begley Jr.’s eco-friendly home and sanctimony-powered go-cart.

While I appreciate Gore’s efforts in attempting to help to solve the global warming problem, it’s difficult not to view much of this global warming “awareness” as hypocrisy as well.  I’m not a staunch global-warming observer, but I don’t refuse to acknowledge that it exists either.  Gore’s excellent film “An Inconvenient Truth” provides some excellent facts and justification for his claims.  Regardless of global warming’s existence, Gore should have realized the impropriety his concert practiced.  Why hold a concert railing against a problem you’re claiming to solve?

Popularity: 56% [?]

Get ready for the dramatic rise in sea levels that Al Gore warned us about in An Inconvenient Truth because it’s about to happen 30 years earlier than scientists previously thought. The new study used “satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice”, different methods that the computer models employed by the IPCC in their global warming report. Not only will the melting of the Arctic ice caps induce dramatic flooding in nearly all cities at current sea level, but it will escalate the rate at which global warming is currently progressing at.

“Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Scambos said in a telephone interview. “Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

This news comes at a time before what may be a turning point in human history. Not only is the Kyoto protocol scheduled to wrap up in 5 years, but a new President is scheduled to be elected in 2008. The next few years are essential to what happens to our world. Currently, only a handful of European countries have been successful at reducing their carbon footprints.

This has to change! We already know that reversing climate change is going to be a hard and arduous task. We already know that even if all the nations of this world stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, that global warming will continue to get worse before it gets better. People across the globe need to snap out of it and realize that their planet is in danger. No planet; no life. This threat is the greatest we’ve ever encountered and I’m not sure if we’ll be smart enough to overcome it in time.

It’s unfortunate to think that it may just require the disappearance of Arctic ice and extreme flooding around major cities on the world for civilisation to wake up and begin taking action.

Popularity: 36% [?]