You can't swing a stick without hitting a global warming activist these days. 

When I first started reading about global warming, I was pretty skeptical.  After all, it was only in the 1970s that scientists were warning of another ice age.  So I read a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.  Bjorn is a mathematician and he digs into the available environmental data and starts to evaluate much of the published environmental literature.  He finds that a significant amount of the public rhetoric voiced by the environmental movement isn't so well documented.  He then starts to look at the trends in air pollution, contaminants, mortality rates, etc.  What he finds is that on most environmental metrics, we're much better off now than in the past.  So, I figured, here is a real conservative thinker and I'll bet he's going to try to disprove global warming.

He didn't.  

Global warming in real

The fact is, there is almost no scientific disagreement that global warming is real.  And there hasn't been much disagreement in years. But it has only been in the past 2 years that global warming has really captured the attention and support of the broader public.  

I mean, if there is a single issue that has more far reaching and (potentially) catastrophic consequences, I'd like to hear it.  There is considerable debate on exactly how global warming will play out, how long it will take, and exactly who will benefit and who will lose.  But what is clear is that there will be massive, global economic and geographic dislocation. Millions of people and families will have to leave the homes their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years due to drought, flooding or overheating (depending on where you live). There will be millions of lives lost.   And frankly, the consequences of global warming could be much worse.  We just don't exactly know yet.

Jared Diamond is brilliant.  In "Collapse" he recounts how on Easter Island, the population depended on trees to build boats for fishing, prevent soil erosion, and reduce the surface wind, all of which was necessary to feed and sustain their society.  Now, the Easter Islanders proceeded to cut down every single tree on the island in order to transport giant stone heads to their respective villages.  And then their society collapsed and most of them died.  One of his students asked him, "what do you think the islanders were thinking when they cut down the last tree?"

Indeed.

I'd like to know what the hell the United States is thinking right now by refusing to sign the Kyoto accord or refusing to take decisive action to save its citizens (not to mention the citizens of the PLANET) from this impending global warming catastrophe.  Even China has better fuel efficiency of their cars than we do.  In fact, we've been tinkering in the middle east for decades to try to secure even more oil!  It's like mass suicide, but nobody cares.  I just don't get it at all.

I mean, what's your senator thinking?  "Well, I've read the reports and our grand children are going to be really, really screwed.  But GM has donated an awful lot to my campaign, so I'll oppose any sort of reasonable measures to reduce carbon emissions and head off this disaster.  Yep, that seems pretty reasonable."

OK, enough ranting.  Let's talk about what we can do.  There is no silver bullet for global warming.  It's going to be a lot of simultaneous measures.

• Hybrid cars:  Have you driven a hybrid?  They're awesome.  You can get over 50 miles per gallon.  And they are a pleasure to drive.  The technology is there.  And it will only get better.  I mean, what's the downside? Let's make a wholesale shift immediately.  Not in 20 years, but in the next 5 or so years, we should have 95% of all cars produced be hybrid.  It's not going to be easy, but in 5 years (WWII) we went from being a peaceful nation to a highly industrialized war machine fighting on two major fronts halfway around the world. Longer term, fuel cells seem to be the consensus pick, but they are a little further off.  And electric is a good alternative to consider.  So let's pass a law tomorrow to the effect.  The auto makers will figure it out.
• Wind / Solar / Hydro: these are supplementary sources of power.  Their economics are quickly and dramatically improving and are becoming competitive with traditional sources.  The trouble is, if you have a couple cloudy days, you're out of luck.  These technologies can significantly reduce our carbon reliance, but they will never be a full replacement.  You need something more reliable.  To think that we spend a few billion each year on R&D in this area while we spend over hundreds of billions annually support a war in the middle east to secure our oil supply is patently absurd.  Let's spend $50 billion per year for a few years and see where that gets us.  A heck of a lot further than we've gotten in Iraq, that's for sure.
• Nuclear power: I'm a nuclear engineer by training, so I speak with some authority on this subject.  Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly source of energy of the main "base load" alternatives.  It's incredibly safe.  It has no carbon footprint.  And the waste issue is completely solvable.  On that topic, we need a combination of reprocessing (where a lot of the longer lived radioisotopes are recycled) and a long term storage facility.  This is an area that the private utilities are drying to fund.  It's just that the regulatory situation is such that if they spend $3-5 billion building one of these plants, there is still a risk that environmentalists will try to tie up the startup of the plant in the courts for years, driving them into bankruptcy.  So, basically, the government doesn't need to fund these plants.  But it does need to provide the utilities with a guarantee that if the plants are built according to the proper safety regulations and oversight, they will be allowed to operate.
• Fusion power:  Fusion is said to be "30 years from commercialization and it always will be."  We'll get it right one day.  Just don't hold your breath.

So how do we start addressing global warming?  I mean, it's only the fate of the world and the survival of humanity that rests in the balance. OK, maybe I'm being a little overly dramatic.  But, really, what did were they thinking when they cut down that tree?

First, we need to implement these measures on a mass scale in the United States.  And quickly.  For a country of our wealth, we could make massive improvements in the coming decade.  At the same time, we're going to develop a leading position in the technology behind global warming solutions that we can export internationally.  That's good for us and our businesses. 

But we can't just do this unilaterally. China and India, with over 2 billion people between them, will eventually dwarf the carbon footprint of the US.  It is said that China builds a coal power plant every week.  So the US needs to stop spending its political and economic capital on unpopular wars and start showing REAL global leadership and influencing the rest of the world to take the same measures. 

There is one issue here.  US industry benefited dramatically over the last 100 years from lax environmental regulation.  It's not exactly fair to deny developing economies such rapid growth by imposing hugely costly regulations on them.  There needs to be some fair incentive system that allows them to grow quickly while profiting from implementing environmental controls.  One model is the trading of pollution credits.  There are others.  All should be considered.

Look, I'm a pragmatist. And you should be too.  There should be no ivory towers in this debate.  We're not all going to stop driving cars.  We're not going back to caves.  Let's get over that right now.  But what we can do is dramatically reduce our energy consumption and emissions.  The technology is here.  We CAN do it now.  It's a choice, but one we have to take now.  If we fail to act, over the next 20-30-40 years, we'll probably be OK.  But 50-100 years down the road, our grandchildren are going to be saying, "what do you think they were thinking when they voted down the law requiring higher gas mileage for automobiles?  Maybe the Easter Islanders just didn't know, but our grandparents did."

That is, if you believe in that sort of thing. For those Hindus, he's not going to be reincarnated as a higher being.  For those Buddhists, he's nowhere near nirvana, let's put it that way. 

Why do I say this?  I cannot think of a president who has so consistently come down on the wrong side of morality. Just a few examples:

-Iraq:  Bush invaded Iraq without cause , made horrible decisions that resulted in the chaos we have today. Being incapable of admitting mistake, he clings to the righteousness of his decision in the face of 66% voter disapproval.  There is only one president in history with lower approval ratings - Nixon - and he was only at 67%.  Specifically, over 3800 US soldiers have died, a startling 80,000 iraqi civilians have died "violent deaths", and a mind boggling 655,000 total iraqi deaths are attributed to the war.  The cost so far has been $458,000,000,000 and this year he is asking for $190,000,000,000 , the highest level yet. "The end of major combat operations."  Indeed. 

-environment: To give you a sense of how Bush thinks of environment issues, he appointed Steven Griles, a lobbyist for the mining, oil and gas industries, as deputy secretary of the interior department.  Talk about a fox in the hen house!  He has steadfastly opposed mileage improvements. Has supported drilling in Alaska. He has not made the major investments needed in alternative energy. He has refused to sign the Kyoto accord (see my article on global warming .  About the only good thing he's done is support nuclear energy (which has the potential to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions). 

-AIDS and reproduction policies:  Supporting the radical religious right, the Bush administration focused international AIDS prevention resources and funds on ineffectual abstinence programs and opposed education on the use of condoms.  According to the New York Times , "President Bush's decision to stop the funds for any overseas family-planning group that mentions abortion has also effectively stopped condom provision to 16 countries and reduced it to 13 others, including some with the world's highest rates of AIDS infection."  By following this ineffectual and ideologically driven policy, this administration has forgone the investments needed to reduce AIDS transmission and is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional AIDS related deaths in Africa.

His latest morally bankrupt move, Bush vetoed a plan to expanded health care coverage to 4 million additional  poor, uninsured children. The bill enjoyed wide, bipartisan support in congress. It would cover uninsured children whose parents cannot afford coverage. The cost is $35 billion over 5 years.  See my article on health care reform for why this is a moral imperative.

I mean, really. We spent $458 billion on an unjustified war that has made us less safe, and we can't afford health care for our children? 

There has never been a president more interested (and dare I say evil?) in serving a few personal relationships to the detriment of an entire nation and world.

Yes, Bush is going to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Go directly to hell.

It occurs to me as I'm writing about US domestic policies that to this point I'm coming off pretty liberal-democrat.  Well, in some cases that's true, but in others, it's not.  I'm a strong supporter of capitalism who recognizes that there are real and significant areas where this system either fails or doesn't provide any solution.  In these situations, I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to step in.

I do believe the government has a strong role to play in individual welfare, for example 

• Providing equal opportunity to individuals through a high quality education and protection from discrimination.
• Providing universal access to quality healthcare . 
• Ensuring that those who are truly incapable of taking care of themselves are cared for.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the role of the government to

• Provide unconditional welfare or support to those who are able bodied
• Pitt the working class against businesses 
• Punish those who have seized their opportunities and done well for themselves through unreasonably high taxes  

In my view, this is where individual responsibilty kicks in.  And that's where the democratic party often get it wrong.  Once a society has provided an individual access to opportunity - through education, a fair legal system, etc - it is up to that individual to make the most of it.  If the individual seizes the opportunity, society benefits as does the individual.  If the individual doesn't seize the opportunity... well, we need uneducated workers too.  It's just that, statistically speaking, their wages are going to be far lower than a college graduate.  Don't want to work?  Too bad.  Neither do I.

Our government, particularly under democratic party leadership, has spent decades trying to establish a system where individuals were no longer accountable for their actions.  Don't have a job?  Don't worry, the government will provide for you.  The problem is, by destroying individual responsibility and de-linking individual performance from individual reward, you undermine societal and individual productivity.  That's why communism doesn't work.  Every communist state except North Korea (impoverished) and Cuba (impoverished) has failed.  China and Vietnam are no longer communist.  They are capitalist with a totalitarian political system.  The reason they failed was the destruction of individual incentives and individual responsibility.  Work hard on the farm today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Didn't work so hard today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Time after time we have seen this system fail. 

Let's dissect a couple social issues that I think can be significantly clarified.   

Take the role of society in supporting unwed mothers, a favorite beneficiary of the traditional liberal establishment.  For too many years the societal answer was to put them on welfare and support the family.  This had the perverse effect of creating a cycle of welfare and decaying morals among those we were trying to help.  Here is just one example of how this could play out:

• Unfortunate woman got pregnant out of wedlock.
• If the father is around, the mother gets no child support or medical coverage for her children if she marries him.  So she stays unwed.  The father, if he's around, feels a reduced sense of responsibility.
• If the father isn't around, the mother really has almost no choice but to go on welfare, but is forced into living in slums/impoverished neighborhoods because of the low level of support.
• The children grow up without a strong father figure, in a poor neighborhood, never knowing anyone in the family that works, and therefore lacking the strong role model that will help them get educated, break the cycle and get out of poverty.  They also grow up with a sense that the government owes them something.
• The children repeat the cycle when they grow up.

There is a better way.  First, everyone should be guaranteed healthcare.  Second, if the family income is low, the government should pay for the child care costs.  Third, the mother gets neither if she doesn't work. 

Let's also clarify that this doesn't mean there is no role for the government for those truly in need.  People with physical and mental disabilities, for example, should never be left behind.  Some of them have families to support them, others don't, but we should never let these people suffer for something they cannot control. 

Look, the Democrats did an amazing job over the past 100 years:

• Civil rights: check
• Women's rights: check
• Get out of Vietnam: check
• Social safety net: check

But I think they are somewhat rudderless and without a major "cause" that can galvinize the country like these major societal issues.  They should check out my articles on Healthcare, Education, Immigration and Global Warming for issues that can bring the country together.

Barack Obama has his work cut out for him, and he would be wise to heed this creed.  

I have a radical idea that I want to open to debate: 

    All laws should expire every 20 years. 

Now before you go off the handle on this, hear me out.

The first major issue with our current legal system I will illustrate by example.   It is illegal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia to have oral sex according to SFSU.  According to this analysis, "In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment."  Now, let's be real.  About 75% of the state of Georgia has violated this law.  So why is this law still on the books in so many states?  It's pretty simple.  There is no state legislator that wants to come out and take a public stance in favor of oral sex (although he/she would earn my vote). Now this goes much beyond a few out of date puritanical laws.  There are countless special interests that are continuing to get unjustified tax breaks, contracts, etc.

The second major issue is a little more subtle.   Imagine you're a legislator that ran a great campaign and got elected to office.  It's your first day on the job.  Things are going pretty well.  In fact, the country is doing just fine.  But all the good citizens of your state elected you to PASS LEGISLATION.  So now feel compelled to get busy and show them you've accomplished something.  You dig around and come up with some asinine law, lobby hard, and pass it.  In all likelihood the existing legislation was just fine, maybe even better.  But you had to do something, right?

Having all laws expire every 20 years solves both of these problems.  First, all the old stupid laws would quickly drop off the books.  And the good citizens of Georgia and enjoy their oral sex without fear of doing 1 to 20 years hard time.  But as importantly, the legislative branch would be kept supremely busy RENEWING THE IMPORTANT LAWS like murder, rape, etc.  Now the new legislator can go home and say that he renewed the laws preventing child pornography.  His constituency is happy.  He is happy.  The country is happy.  The good news is that this is a pretty self regulating process.  If a senator fails to renew the law for, say, murder, guess who the first person his constituents would murder legally? :)

The only major downside that I see is that a lot of the execution of laws is based on court interpretations and hundreds of years of legal precedent.  But I figure we're pretty resourceful and we can figure that out.

 JOIN THE DEBATE!  Comment on this article or discuss in the forums .

Bush is right.  There, I said it.  That was very, very painful. 

Immigration is perhaps the only issue that I think Bush hasn't got completely wrong.  Let's take a look at this hot and emotional issue.

We are a nation of immigrants.  My great grandfather, Emilio, came to the United States on a boat in 1907, exactly 100 years ago.  At the time, he needed work and the US needed labor.  It was a perfect match.  He spent one day in the coal mines of West Virginia and decided to start a grocery store.  It turns out he became a successful business man who employed may US worker and also funded many other local businesses.  It's the classic tale of successful immigration.  This influx of labor, energy and dedication is what drove the growth of the US economy for centuries. So what has happened that immigration has become such a controversy? 

Why do we need immigration?  Let's forget, for a moment, that we are all immigrants in the US and that it is part of the tradition and fabric of our society.  Let's be completely objective.

1. Our country is aging.  This is a well known and well documented impending train wreck.  The ratio of working age persons to retired persons is on its was from 7:1 to 2:1.  As a direct result, social security system is going to go bankrupt.  It is as simple as that. Without dramatically increasing the number of TAX PAYING, YOUNGER people in the US, our senior citizen will be forced to increase their retirement age by up to 10 years AND will see dramatically lower benefits.  Immigration is the answer.
2. We need low cost labor to do the menial jobs nobody else wants to do. Who do you know that wants to pick vegetables in the fields in 100 degree heat?  Nobody I know does.  The truth is, if we didn't have the vast pool of illegal immigrants in this country, many, many jobs would go unfilled.  And many of the goods and services we enjoy would be much more expensive.
3. We have an enormous trade imbalance.  The direct result is that our currency has ALREADY devalued significantly vs the other major world currencies.  Have you been to Europe lately?  For the first time in our generation, traveling the Europe and many other developed nations is almost completely unaffordable for Americans.  And it's only going to get worse. And the reason is simple.  We no longer manufacture good in the united states.  Why?  Because the cost of labor is too high.  Afraid manufacturing jobs are going to be lost?  Too late.  It already happened.  They are gone.  And more are leaving.  So we can pretend that this isn't happening and wait for our economy to implode and the cost of imported goods to skyrocket. Or we can make a huge, strategic choice to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.  And the way you do that is bring the low cost labor here.  If anyone tells you otherwise, they are just blowing smoke.

There is a mathematical equation that determines how much immigration the US experiences. 

Given 1: The US needs immigrants.

Given 2: Immigrants need the US.

Demand of immigrant labor = supply of immigrants

This equation says the number of immigrants has very little to do with our quotas or policies.  To tell the truth, the current policies are beyond idiotic. We have already established that the US needs low cost labor.  But because our policies limit the number of legal immigrants from low cost areas to an absurdly low number, we wind up with a high number of illegal immigrants.  This is not harms the immigrants, but also dramatically reduces the benefits to the US of immigration.

• Ethical problem 1:  Each year we get hundreds of thousands of immigrants that risk their lives to come into the US illegally.  While getting into the US, many are often subjected to dangererous or deadly crossing, others are forced to pay exhorbitant fees to smugglers, and others are forced into human slavery or the sex trade.
• Ethical problem 2:  These people have no protections if they are taken advantage of since complaining results in deportation.
  
• Practical problem 1: They don't pay taxes.
• Practical problem 2: They don't pay social security.
• Practical problem 3: Rhetoric to the contrary, we NEED their children to become educated and contribute even MORE tax revenue to our economy.
• Practical problem 4: The major manufacturing companies won't hire illegal immigrants because of the legal implications.  Could you imagine GM imploying illegal immigrants?  So they simply ship the jobs overseas where a different set of low wage workers do the job WITHOUT paying taxes and WITHOUT contributing to our economy and WITHOUT consuming other goods made in the US.  

So we're now in a brilliantly stupid position.  We have over 10 MILLION illegal immigrants in the US.  Many or most of them do not pay taxes.  Almost all of them cannot contribute to our imploding manufacturing sector.  Even if we brought in the army, we could never ID or deport even a fraction of them. And if we did, it would be disastrous to our economy.  Smart.  Really smart.

What do we do?

OPEN UP IMMIGRATION!  

1. Figure out how many people we can let into the US without significantly affecting or displacing our existing workforce and set the quota there.
   
2. Create a fast process to check the backgrounds of immigrants and get them on their way to work!  Get them paying taxes?  Get them into both low paying menial jobs and ALSO re-invest in the manufacturing sector. Get them productive! 
   
3. Leverage several classes of visas, also.  Some want to get on the track to permanent citizenship. Great.  Just learn English and get a steady job.  Others want simply to come here for a couple years, save some money, and go home.  Great.  Just learn English and get a steady job. And there is no reason to be bureaucratic.  If someone initially plans to be here for a short period but proves himself to be a productive member of society,let them easily change their visa track

Sorry Lou Dobbs.  

DEBATE THIS TOPIC

There are a few fundamental roles of a democratic government.  One of them is to provide equal opportunity to its citizens through education.  The  justification of this statement is twofold:  societal self-interest and moral imperative.

1. It is the right thing to do.  A person's position should be based upon their individual accomplishments, not hereditary entitlement.   There is significant inequality in the US today, across races and classes.  Education is the main equalizer.  Statistically, the higher the level of education a person receives, the higher their salary.  Without quality education, there is no reliable way for citizens to rise out of their current status and achieve their potential.  And without that, the American dream is lost.
2. It is in the direct self interest of the US government, as economic growth is correlated directly with education. 

 The trouble is, the quality of the US public educational system goes from outstanding to completely failing.   

What can be done?  That's the purpose of this DISCUSSION .

Or perhaps more accurately, make it permanent.

Here is my beef.  It's a December day in Boston.  You've been locked up in the office all day and it's 5pm.  You walk out the door at 5:01 pm, craving the feeling of the sun on your face, and.... it's dark.  You came to work and it was dark. You leave work and it's dark.  You're depressed, 

In fact, this is a well documented medical disorder.  As far back as 1984 the American Medical Association confirmed "The high rate of depression people experience in winter has been linked...to inadequate light stimulation."

So by making daylight saving permanent and eliminating the "fall back" clock reset, during the short days of winter workers would get at least an hour of sunlight after closing up shop for the day.  And our national mental health would be better for it.

DEBATE IT!  

Fidel Castro has been a horrible leader for Cuba.  I think there is no debate in the civilized world on this point.  I've been to "el museo de la revolucion" in Havana.  He basically blames the inevitable catastrophic results of his policies on US conspiracies .  I've seen ordinary people being harassed and arrested on the streets by the special police.  Locals aren't allowed to enter / visit the tourist hotels. There are chronic shortages.  A man begged me on the street to buy his children milk.  None of this is debated.

But we must face the facts.  Fidel has outlasted 6 (!) US presidents.  And while we've tried everything from economic embargoes to assassination attempts, we have failed.  Plain and simple.  And unfortunately the Cuban people have paid for it.  Their economy is in shambles.  How many times do we have to prove that economic growth is the ONLY way to improved standards of living.  So over the last 60 years maybe Fidel would still be there, but at least the average wage of a Cuban worker would be larger than the current $250/year.  That's right, per YEAR.  

And don't forget, once people get a taste of prosperity, social change is just a step behind.

DEBATE !