On Sunday, March 28, 2010, Florida State Governor Charlie Crist debated Speaker of the House Marco Rubio on Fox News Sunday. Both are running in a GOP primary for the U.S. Senate. One of the more interesting moments in the debate occurred when Chris Wallace explored differences in opinion between the 53-year-old Crist and the 39-year-old Rubio on Social Security. Governor Crist gave the standard answer of, “we have to preserve Social Security,” meaning no changes can be made in the program even though it is about to implode. However, with rare candor, Speaker Rubio endorsed the position that Social Security, as it exists, is not sustainable and that reform is necessary. In his discussion, Speaker Rubio included the possibility that retirement ages may need to be raised and/or cost of living adjustments decreased to make Social Security solvent. He endorsed Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI), “road map” for Social Security reform, which also includes allowing younger workers to opt out of Social Security and in to personal retirement accounts. Congressman Ryan appeared the previous Thursday (March 26, 2010) on Fox Business Channel’s Stossel as part of a discussion about the growing threat of federal entitlements. Currently, spending on Medicare and Social Security account for 50% of the federal budget and that percentage will continue to rise if reforms (and cuts) are not made. Without serious alterations to the programs, the spending obligations will become unsustainable (and squeeze out federal spending for anything else). For too long, most Americans have viewed the federal debt as, “just a number,” but the debt crisis in Greece should remind us all that there is a breaking point. Arguing for the status quo and stating that these programs (Social Security and Medicare) have to be preserved for future generations, was a representative of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). Of course, maintaining the status quo essentially guarantees that these programs will not be there for future generations.
Like Speaker Rubio, Congressman Ryan (age 40) is also a member of Generation X. The generational divide on this issue is stunning, with the AARP and the grey-haired Governor Crist arguing for, “preservation,” of Social Security as it is and the younger generation that sees the proverbial writing on the wall and knowing that, without significant changes, the program is unsustainable. Speaker Rubio and Congressman Ryan argue for serious reforms to make Social Security solvent for future generations and these reforms would fundamentally change how we think about Social Security. Although Medicare faces larger looming short falls and represents a greater burden on future federal spending, it is harder to argue that some measure to provide health insurance for elderly persons who may be too high an insurance risk to obtain it privately. On the other hand, for most Americans, government help in retirement planning is both unnecessary and provides a lower return on the money, “invested,” than one could achieve investing the same sum on his or her own. Furthermore, the payment structure of Social Security is unsound economically and the funding source for Social Security is immoral. Speaker Rubio and Congressman Ryan have it wrong. Social Security should not be mended, it should be ended.
THE ECONOMIC CASE AGAINST SOCIAL SECURITY
When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, the program was designed not to be a welfare program for those who could not afford to plan their own retirement, but rather as an entitlement for all Americans, regardless of means, to assist with their retirement. Ostensibly money is taken from your paycheck, which your employer matches (just like with your 401K), it is placed into some sort of trust fund, retirement account, or, as Vice President Gore might say, “lock box,” for you until you retire and receive benefits upon retirement. That sounds nice. It is a program for working Americans, not welfare. They benefits paid out to you in retirement are from the money you paid in while working. It is not a government give-away, but rather something the individual has earned.
Unfortunately, Social Security does not actually work that way. The revenue from Social Security taxes (both the employee payroll tax and the employer matching) go into a general fund. That fund is not invested or put into a savings account somewhere, but rather it is used to pay current retirees Social Security benefits. In other words, the money that is taken from you as a worker in the payroll tax is given to someone who is currently retired, not put away and saved for you. When there has been surplus in the Social Security revenues (more is taken in by the payroll tax than is needed to pay retiree benefits), that money has not been saved or invested to bolster the solvency of the program. Rather, it has been applied to the general revenue as a way of lowering the federal budget deficit (or to be spent on other things). In fact, of the years in the mid 1990’s when the federal budget was balanced or ran a surplus, there would have been a deficit in all of them except one had the Social Security surplus money not been applied to the general budget revenue.
Such a system can be sustained for as long as there are more workers than retirees. However, the number of retirees is increasing. The largest generation in the history of the United States, the baby boomers, is now hitting retirement age. Taxpayers are eligible for full retirement benefits at the age of 65 (now 67 for those born after 1960), but can collect reduced benefits as early as age 62. The average life expectancy in 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed, was 62. The average life expectancy is now 78. Not only are the ranks of the retirees about to swell with new retirees, but the current retirees are living longer. In 1935, many people did not live to collect Social Security and those that did only collected it for only a few years. Now most retirees collect Social Security for at least ten or fifteen years and some for as long as twenty. During the period of Social Security surpluses in the mid 1990’s, there were five workers for every retiree (and of course all of the baby boomers were in the work force then). That number is now three and shrinking. It is apparent why such a payment structure is economically unsustainable: since revenue from current workers is required to pay current benefits, the ability to pay promised benefits disappears as the number of workers per retiree dwindles (and this year, for the first time, Social Security is taking in less money than it is obligated to pay out). There is a term for taking money from one group and using it to pay profits or benefits to another group rather than investing it for the benefit of the person the money came from. It is called a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff went to jail for doing exactly what the federal government is doing with your Social Security contributions.
THE MORAL CASE AGAINST SOCIAL SECURITY
Aside from the inherent immorality of a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is financed with an immoral revenue system. Social Security is a paid for by a payroll tax (yes, your employer matches what you pay, but who really believes this does not come out of what you could be making?). The payroll tax is a flat tax of 7%. It is interesting that the political left was adamantly opposed to a payroll tax holiday as an economic stimulus and yet equally adamantly opposes a similar tax for the federal income tax. You cannot have a flat income tax rate, they argue. It is unfair and regressive. It is a greater burden to those that have less and those that make more should share a larger percentage of their income with the public (pay a higher tax rate) because that still leaves them with plenty. Yet, this is exactly how we pay for Social Security. The billionaire pays the payroll tax on his own earnings at the same flat rate as the person making $20,000 per year. However, the Social Security tax is even less fair than a flat income tax. One could argue a flat income tax is fair because everyone pays the same proportion of his or her income. But the payroll tax is only levied on wages and salary. Income from investments (interest earnings, stock dividends, etc.) is completely exempt from the payroll tax. It is not a true flat tax, but rather it is the Steve Forbes flat tax (Forbes ran for President in 1996 on the flat tax and was accused of serving his own interest as a wealthy person because his flat tax also exempted income from investments and applied only to wages and salary). So, the hypothetical wage earner making $20,000 pays 7% of his entire income in Social Security tax, whereas someone who makes $50,000 in salary and another $50,000 from investment income pays only 3.5% of his or her earnings in Social Security tax. This further shifts the burden of the tax to poorer individuals. Furthermore, the payroll tax is only levied on the first $109,000 of salary. This means someone who has a salary of $1 million per year pays only about 0.7% of his or her income in Social Security tax (and considerably less if that person has other investment income). Social Security is paid for by an unfair, regressive tax, which is far more burdensome to those of low and middle incomes than it is to the wealthy.
Ostensibly, Social Security exists to help those who have limited means have more security in their retirement. However, when the program was created there was concern that the public might not support another program of welfare for the impoverished and therefore it was created as an entitlement for everyone, to insure everyone’s retirement security. For this reason, it was sold as a retirement account that you pay into and reap benefits from latter as if your money was being invested for you or kept for you. As noted above, this is not the case. However, to maintain this charade, Social Security benefit payments are proportional to the amount one pays in while working. Therefore, the benefit payments are higher for people who made more money while working and lower for those who had lower incomes. Anyone making $109,000 per year (provided that all of the initial $109,000 is wage earning) or more receives maximum benefit payments in retirement, but the person making $20,000 per year will get a much smaller Social Security cheque. Furthermore, the wealthy can and will, on average, retire at an earlier age and therefore collect Social Security for longer. A lower income person may not be able to afford to retire at the age of 65, may have to work for longer, and therefore will not start collecting his or her Social Security until later.
Putting the tax and benefits structures together, what we have is a tax that is born mostly by those of lower incomes to pay benefits that go in greater proportion to those of higher incomes. The Social Security entitlement represents an immoral transfer of wealth from the working poor to the more affluent.
CONCLUSION
Social Security has often been called the, “third rail,” of American politics and the suggestion that is should be reformed, changed, or abolished is often the death knell for a political candidate’s campaign (i.e. Barry Goldwater, Paul Tsongas). However, on close inspection, the program is unjustifiable. It is a Ponzi scheme that is about to become insolvent and represents a transfer of wealth from the poor to the affluent. Furthermore, it does not even represent a good investment. One could do as well with a savings account or purchasing a life insurance policy. One could do better, easily, with a modest investment portfolio. Despite recent volatility in the stock market, it represents a sound strategy for long term (decade or multi-decade) investments that can be converted to safer investments closer to retirement age. If workers could invest the 7% of their income taken in the payroll tax, they could have a much higher return on their investment (particularly if they also got paid the 7% of their income their employer matches in the payroll tax). Finally, there is simply no justification for the federal government to aid in providing retirement benefits for people who have the means to plan for their own retirement.
There are a number of proposals, opposed by demagogues committed to maintaining the unsustainable status quo in a cynical (and usually successful) ploy to garner votes in the short-term, to restore the solvency of Social Security and make it sustainable. These include ideas like raising the retirement age (to match the increase in life expectancy), means testing benefits (which would minimize the transfer of money to the wealthy), raising the amount of income that is taxed by the payroll tax, and reducing benefits (such as reducing the amount of inflation-triggered cost of living adjustments). Any or all of these might improve some of the problems identified above, but none of them change the fundamentally immoral nature of the program, or guarantee it will remain solvent in the long-term, as it will remain a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security should not be tweaked or mended. It should be eliminated. A welfare program to assist with the retirement needs of the working poor and a separate program of federal disability insurance can rise from its ashes, but these should be paid for from the general tax revenue and remain on budget, not paid for by some sort of trust fund chimera. Social Security commitments to current retirees and individuals nearing retirement (say 55 and older) should be kept, but younger workers with the means to save should be made to plan for their own retirement. The program should be replaced with personal retirement accounts that each individual owns. His or her own investments, grown over time, will then provide for his or her retirement. If there are concerns that such a strategy is “too risky,” or, “people won’t do it,” then contributions to such accounts could be mandatory and the federal government could regulate the accounts, setting standards for safer investment strategies (although, personally, I would favour allowing more individual freedom). There are better ways to assist Americans with retirement planning than this unworkable relic of the New Deal.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Bayh-Partisanship
One month ago, centrist Democrat Indiana Senator (and former Indiana Governor) Evan Bayh announced he would not seek re-election for a third term in the U.S. Senate. In his remarks, Senator Bayh stated he was leaving because there was too little bipartisanship in Washington and the Congress was unable to do the work with which it is tasked because of partisan battles. Citing the failure to establish a debt commission and the failure of a jobs bill, Senator Bayh said Washington was dysfunctional, "For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done." (http://bayh.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=2bb190de-ed11-4920-a3bb-fea51fcde0dc).
The notion that, "Washington is broken," has become conventional wisdom. The pundits tell us that the American people just want results and the Democrats seem to have staked their political future on this notion as they try to pass a health insurance reform bill by any means necessary to show they can "get it done," despite the fact that the bill continues to not poll very well(http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx). All decry the lack of bipartisanship in the health care debate. But, are things really different now?
Certainly there have been times when there has been broad bipartisan support for sweeping legislation: Social Security, Medicare, Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Each of these bills occured in a time that was ripe for them and therefore had broad consensus of support. The current health care legislation, however, is being proposed while on one hand, the federal budget deficit is growing out of control, two overseas wars are still being waged, economic growth remains sluggish, and a very large percentage of Americans remain out of work; yet on the other hand 85% of Americans have health insurance and like their current coverage. Under this set of circumstances it is no wonder the public are split on the bill (although most polls do show only minority support) and that, according to a recent Gallup poll, only 20% view health care as the most important issue, while 55% say it is jobs or the economy (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126614/Americans-Say-Jobs-Top-Problem-Deficit-Future.aspx). Our legislative system is designed to make it difficult to pass sweeping legislation precisely so that slim majorities cannot arbitrarily force their will on the minority. A bill must pass two houses of Congress, often requiring a supermajority to end debate in the Senate (for those who complain about this rule, recall that before it a single Senator could delay a vote for as long as he or she could hold the floor and keep talking...), then the bill must be reconciled between the two houses and the final version pass in each house. It still only becomes law when the President signs it (unless there is a supermajority to override a veto). Although the past two Presidents have enjoyed their own party in control of Congress, this has actually been an anomaly for most of the last 40 years and therefore there are a lot of hurdles, by design, to passing legislation. However, bills can pass easily, with bipartisan support, when there is broad consensus. Such consensus does not currently exist for health care reform. The purpose of the high bar for passing sweeping legislation is to make sure there is broad consensus before such major changes are enacted. Perhaps, therefore, this stall on health insurance reform is not an example of a system broken, but rather a system working.
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that just because there is broad bipartisan consensus that the bill is good. Baltimore talk radio host Ron Smith likes to point out that if one party is evil and the other is stupid (take your pick which is which), then anything bipartisan is guaranteed to be both stupid and evil. The invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and TARP (and I would argue Social Security) are all examples of bad policy that passed with broad, bipartisan support. Perhaps our problem is really too much bipartisanship. In addition to these public examples of bipartisanship is the more subtle and insidious bipartisanship of both sides promoting the same policies regardless of the public political posturing. When Republicans were in control, an expensive health care entitlement (Medicare D) that we could not afford was passed in the midst of a recession, two overseas wars were started, a program of eavesdropping on cell phone calls made overseas without proper FISA Court warrants was initiated, much of the financial insurance industry was effectively nationalized, a trillion dollar stimulus/bailout bill was passed (the latter after Democrats had regained congressional control), and the size of the national debt doubled. Now that Democrats are in control, they are trying to pass an even more expensive health care entitlement during a recession that we cannot afford, we have passed a second nearly trillion dollar stimulus/bailout bill, two-thirds of the auto industry has been effectively nationalized, the national debt is projected to double again, we are still involved in two overseas wars, and the current administration admits to a program of targeting U.S. citizens for assassination if they are suspected of terrorist activities (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491). There seems to be plenty of bipartisanship at the expense of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
Despite the Republican's hypocrisy of supporting the unprecedented expansion of federal government into our lives for eight years before suddenly becoming opposed to, "Obama's socialist agenda," if an unpopular health care bill that was attacked for partisan motives gives the American people, for one brief shining moment at least, a choice between alternate policy views, maybe that is not such a bad thing.
The notion that, "Washington is broken," has become conventional wisdom. The pundits tell us that the American people just want results and the Democrats seem to have staked their political future on this notion as they try to pass a health insurance reform bill by any means necessary to show they can "get it done," despite the fact that the bill continues to not poll very well(http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx). All decry the lack of bipartisanship in the health care debate. But, are things really different now?
Certainly there have been times when there has been broad bipartisan support for sweeping legislation: Social Security, Medicare, Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Each of these bills occured in a time that was ripe for them and therefore had broad consensus of support. The current health care legislation, however, is being proposed while on one hand, the federal budget deficit is growing out of control, two overseas wars are still being waged, economic growth remains sluggish, and a very large percentage of Americans remain out of work; yet on the other hand 85% of Americans have health insurance and like their current coverage. Under this set of circumstances it is no wonder the public are split on the bill (although most polls do show only minority support) and that, according to a recent Gallup poll, only 20% view health care as the most important issue, while 55% say it is jobs or the economy (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126614/Americans-Say-Jobs-Top-Problem-Deficit-Future.aspx). Our legislative system is designed to make it difficult to pass sweeping legislation precisely so that slim majorities cannot arbitrarily force their will on the minority. A bill must pass two houses of Congress, often requiring a supermajority to end debate in the Senate (for those who complain about this rule, recall that before it a single Senator could delay a vote for as long as he or she could hold the floor and keep talking...), then the bill must be reconciled between the two houses and the final version pass in each house. It still only becomes law when the President signs it (unless there is a supermajority to override a veto). Although the past two Presidents have enjoyed their own party in control of Congress, this has actually been an anomaly for most of the last 40 years and therefore there are a lot of hurdles, by design, to passing legislation. However, bills can pass easily, with bipartisan support, when there is broad consensus. Such consensus does not currently exist for health care reform. The purpose of the high bar for passing sweeping legislation is to make sure there is broad consensus before such major changes are enacted. Perhaps, therefore, this stall on health insurance reform is not an example of a system broken, but rather a system working.
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that just because there is broad bipartisan consensus that the bill is good. Baltimore talk radio host Ron Smith likes to point out that if one party is evil and the other is stupid (take your pick which is which), then anything bipartisan is guaranteed to be both stupid and evil. The invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and TARP (and I would argue Social Security) are all examples of bad policy that passed with broad, bipartisan support. Perhaps our problem is really too much bipartisanship. In addition to these public examples of bipartisanship is the more subtle and insidious bipartisanship of both sides promoting the same policies regardless of the public political posturing. When Republicans were in control, an expensive health care entitlement (Medicare D) that we could not afford was passed in the midst of a recession, two overseas wars were started, a program of eavesdropping on cell phone calls made overseas without proper FISA Court warrants was initiated, much of the financial insurance industry was effectively nationalized, a trillion dollar stimulus/bailout bill was passed (the latter after Democrats had regained congressional control), and the size of the national debt doubled. Now that Democrats are in control, they are trying to pass an even more expensive health care entitlement during a recession that we cannot afford, we have passed a second nearly trillion dollar stimulus/bailout bill, two-thirds of the auto industry has been effectively nationalized, the national debt is projected to double again, we are still involved in two overseas wars, and the current administration admits to a program of targeting U.S. citizens for assassination if they are suspected of terrorist activities (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491). There seems to be plenty of bipartisanship at the expense of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
Despite the Republican's hypocrisy of supporting the unprecedented expansion of federal government into our lives for eight years before suddenly becoming opposed to, "Obama's socialist agenda," if an unpopular health care bill that was attacked for partisan motives gives the American people, for one brief shining moment at least, a choice between alternate policy views, maybe that is not such a bad thing.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Find the Terrorist
One month ago, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab boarded a plane in Amsterdam, bound for Detroit, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Only the failure of his detonator to function properly and the quick action of passengers prevented Mutallab from detonating the bomb, destroying the plane, and killing the 350 people on board in the skies over Detroit. Mutallab is now in custody, but since his apprehension, we have learned that he was supported by Al Qaeda in Yemen, that his father warned U.S. officials in Nigeria of his jihadist tendency, and that he was on a terror watch list. Just today, Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility, on behalf of Al Qaeda, for the attack.
The incident has sparked renewed debate about combating terrorism and security measures at airports. Although Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially asserted that, "the system worked," on the Sunday talk shows following the attacks, that assertion was clearly absurd. A terror plot that was thwarted by passengers on the plane is an example of system failure. In analyzing the Mutallab affair, most of the media have focused on the "warning signs" that he was a terrorist: namely his father's warning to the U.S. government and the presence of his name on a large (500,000 names) terror persons of interest list, but not the smaller no-fly list. The media have tried to ascertain why the warning of his father wasn't communicated effectively through governmental channels in a way that would move Mutallab's name to the no-fly list and prevent him from getting on the plane. Wasn't the purpose of establishing a Department of Homeland Security and a new Director of National Intelligence to facilitate communication of intelligence through government?
While this type of systems analysis is important, it, to some extent, misses the point. The security measures implemented at airports are supposed to prevent terrorists from boarding the plane in the first place. The Mutallab case is different in the sense that he boarded at a foreign airport, but as we all remember the 9-11 hijackers boarded domestic flights. We are all painfully aware of the measures taken at domestic airports in the wake of 9-11: the extra searches, the x-raying of shoes, the restrictions about what can be taken into the cabin and what needs to be in checked bags, etc... We accept such minor infringements on our liberty because we believe they make us safer and ultimately preserve our greater liberty by preserving our lives. But the Mutallab case raises an awkward question: do these measures really make us safer?
The Mutallab case illustrates the uncomfortable truth that our airport security measures are doomed to failure. I can recall seeing an interview with an Israeli government official on one of the Sunday talk shows not long after 9-11. He was discussing security at Israeli airports. There has never been a successful attack on an Israeli flight, so clearly they are doing something right. This Israeli official said something interesting. He said in Israel airport security is aimed at finding the terrorist, while in the U.S., security measures are aimed at finding the weapon. Hence we x-ray everything; we remove our shoes and jackets; we have to through away bottles of liquid larger than 4 ounces; and we can't take pocket knives, razors, or knitting needles; on the plane. The argument made by the Israeli official is that searching for any and all possible weapons is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack and, since many everyday items can be turned into weapons and many potential weapons can be ingeniously concealed, ultimately futile. To make our flights safer, we need to identify potential terrorists, people boarding the plane with intent to harm, and keep them off the plane.
Trying to identify potential terrorists instead of screening everyone equally (or selecting people randomly for extra screening) raises uncomfortable questions about racial profiling. As a nation, we are appropriately squeamish about pulling aside middle easterners for extra screening. However, there are big differences between trying to identify potential terrorists in an airport and racial profiling in law enforcement. The innocent black citizen who is unfortunately pulled over for, "driving while black," gains nothing from the experience. He is harassed, threatened with arrest if he isn't cooperative, and if in the end left to continue on his way, has lost precious time and gained nothing. However, the innocent middle eastern man getting on an airplane is threatened with no worse than being denied a seat on the plane and has an equally vested interest in the safety of the flight as everyone else that is getting on board. What he gains from the harassment is the knowledge that measures are being taken to make sure he arrives at his destination safely. I have a friend from Syria who told me a story about flying shortly after 9-11. He was about 30 at the time and flying without his family. The TSA agents were randomly selecting people for extra screening and pulled aside and elderly caucasian couple and passed him, a 30-year-old middle eastern man traveling alone, through. He was upset that he wasn't screened because he knew the grandparents in front of him were no threat to the plane, but for all the TSA knew, he could've been. Time was wasted on people who were clearly no threat, diverting resources away from potential threats.
However, shifting focus from finding weapons to finding terrorists really isn't about any kind of racial or ethnic profiling. It is about behavioural profiling. In 2003, flying back to the U.S. from Scotland, my wife and I experienced such profiling. We had flown in to London-Heathrow a week prior, spent a few days in London, a few in York, and ended the week with my wife's uncle in Scotland. Apparently, flying in to one airport and out of another raised a red flag and we were pulled aside. We were asked how we got from London to Scotland (even asked to produce train tickets when we said we had taken the train) and had the bags we were checking searched in our presence. From our subsequent behaviour and our answers, it was evident we were what we claimed, American tourists returning home, and that was the end of it. We had done only one thing suspicious and since there was nothing else suspicious about us, we were allowed to board the plane. Mutallab, on the other hand, acted very suspiciously. He paid cash for his ticket at the last minute; he was traveling alone; he had no checked bags; he was flying to Detroit, in December, without a coat. These behaviours should have identified him as someone who needed a closer look and that closer look could, and probably would, have found the bomb he was smuggling onto the plane. Sure terrorists may respond by trying to recruit people that don't fit the profile (but, realistically, is a middle aged English businessman named Simon Fletcher from Suffolk really going to be recruited in to blowing himself up for Allah?) and train them to avoid such suspicious behaviour, but we really need to force them to change their game. The Mutallab attack was amateurish and yet should have succeeded. That is unacceptable.
If we want to fly safer, the answer is not to invade our privacy further with whole body scans and more invasive searches. The answer is not to try to keep everything and anything that can potentially be used as a weapon off the plane. The answer is not to mandate where you can put your hands for the last hour of the flight. If we want to fly safer, we need to adopt airport screening protocols that attempt to identify the people that represent a potential threat to the flight, based on their behaviour, and keep them off the plane. We need to find the terrorist, rather than trying to find the weapon.
The incident has sparked renewed debate about combating terrorism and security measures at airports. Although Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially asserted that, "the system worked," on the Sunday talk shows following the attacks, that assertion was clearly absurd. A terror plot that was thwarted by passengers on the plane is an example of system failure. In analyzing the Mutallab affair, most of the media have focused on the "warning signs" that he was a terrorist: namely his father's warning to the U.S. government and the presence of his name on a large (500,000 names) terror persons of interest list, but not the smaller no-fly list. The media have tried to ascertain why the warning of his father wasn't communicated effectively through governmental channels in a way that would move Mutallab's name to the no-fly list and prevent him from getting on the plane. Wasn't the purpose of establishing a Department of Homeland Security and a new Director of National Intelligence to facilitate communication of intelligence through government?
While this type of systems analysis is important, it, to some extent, misses the point. The security measures implemented at airports are supposed to prevent terrorists from boarding the plane in the first place. The Mutallab case is different in the sense that he boarded at a foreign airport, but as we all remember the 9-11 hijackers boarded domestic flights. We are all painfully aware of the measures taken at domestic airports in the wake of 9-11: the extra searches, the x-raying of shoes, the restrictions about what can be taken into the cabin and what needs to be in checked bags, etc... We accept such minor infringements on our liberty because we believe they make us safer and ultimately preserve our greater liberty by preserving our lives. But the Mutallab case raises an awkward question: do these measures really make us safer?
The Mutallab case illustrates the uncomfortable truth that our airport security measures are doomed to failure. I can recall seeing an interview with an Israeli government official on one of the Sunday talk shows not long after 9-11. He was discussing security at Israeli airports. There has never been a successful attack on an Israeli flight, so clearly they are doing something right. This Israeli official said something interesting. He said in Israel airport security is aimed at finding the terrorist, while in the U.S., security measures are aimed at finding the weapon. Hence we x-ray everything; we remove our shoes and jackets; we have to through away bottles of liquid larger than 4 ounces; and we can't take pocket knives, razors, or knitting needles; on the plane. The argument made by the Israeli official is that searching for any and all possible weapons is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack and, since many everyday items can be turned into weapons and many potential weapons can be ingeniously concealed, ultimately futile. To make our flights safer, we need to identify potential terrorists, people boarding the plane with intent to harm, and keep them off the plane.
Trying to identify potential terrorists instead of screening everyone equally (or selecting people randomly for extra screening) raises uncomfortable questions about racial profiling. As a nation, we are appropriately squeamish about pulling aside middle easterners for extra screening. However, there are big differences between trying to identify potential terrorists in an airport and racial profiling in law enforcement. The innocent black citizen who is unfortunately pulled over for, "driving while black," gains nothing from the experience. He is harassed, threatened with arrest if he isn't cooperative, and if in the end left to continue on his way, has lost precious time and gained nothing. However, the innocent middle eastern man getting on an airplane is threatened with no worse than being denied a seat on the plane and has an equally vested interest in the safety of the flight as everyone else that is getting on board. What he gains from the harassment is the knowledge that measures are being taken to make sure he arrives at his destination safely. I have a friend from Syria who told me a story about flying shortly after 9-11. He was about 30 at the time and flying without his family. The TSA agents were randomly selecting people for extra screening and pulled aside and elderly caucasian couple and passed him, a 30-year-old middle eastern man traveling alone, through. He was upset that he wasn't screened because he knew the grandparents in front of him were no threat to the plane, but for all the TSA knew, he could've been. Time was wasted on people who were clearly no threat, diverting resources away from potential threats.
However, shifting focus from finding weapons to finding terrorists really isn't about any kind of racial or ethnic profiling. It is about behavioural profiling. In 2003, flying back to the U.S. from Scotland, my wife and I experienced such profiling. We had flown in to London-Heathrow a week prior, spent a few days in London, a few in York, and ended the week with my wife's uncle in Scotland. Apparently, flying in to one airport and out of another raised a red flag and we were pulled aside. We were asked how we got from London to Scotland (even asked to produce train tickets when we said we had taken the train) and had the bags we were checking searched in our presence. From our subsequent behaviour and our answers, it was evident we were what we claimed, American tourists returning home, and that was the end of it. We had done only one thing suspicious and since there was nothing else suspicious about us, we were allowed to board the plane. Mutallab, on the other hand, acted very suspiciously. He paid cash for his ticket at the last minute; he was traveling alone; he had no checked bags; he was flying to Detroit, in December, without a coat. These behaviours should have identified him as someone who needed a closer look and that closer look could, and probably would, have found the bomb he was smuggling onto the plane. Sure terrorists may respond by trying to recruit people that don't fit the profile (but, realistically, is a middle aged English businessman named Simon Fletcher from Suffolk really going to be recruited in to blowing himself up for Allah?) and train them to avoid such suspicious behaviour, but we really need to force them to change their game. The Mutallab attack was amateurish and yet should have succeeded. That is unacceptable.
If we want to fly safer, the answer is not to invade our privacy further with whole body scans and more invasive searches. The answer is not to try to keep everything and anything that can potentially be used as a weapon off the plane. The answer is not to mandate where you can put your hands for the last hour of the flight. If we want to fly safer, we need to adopt airport screening protocols that attempt to identify the people that represent a potential threat to the flight, based on their behaviour, and keep them off the plane. We need to find the terrorist, rather than trying to find the weapon.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
NEWSPEAK IN THE 21st CENTURY
I originally wrote this on August 14, 2004, just after the Democrat Party National Convention just before the 2004 Presidential election. I was prompted to post it by this similar essay on the Campaign for Liberty website: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=461. -Publius.
Last weekend I read a syndicated column in the Baltimore Sun written by a chap named James Bovard (“Protests Pre-Empted”, August 6, 2004). He is author of a book entitled, The Bush Betrayal, and at first glance, perhaps not someone with whom I would have much common political ground (until I learned reading the blurb of his book in Barnes and Nobles today that his book is a criticism of G.W. Bush from the right, and from that direction there is plenty of room to criticize…). But his column got me thinking. He was talking about the designated protest areas at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I must admit when I first saw the news reports of these fenced off areas for protesters, I was a little concerned. But it was the Democrats, and the party itself was not complaining about the security or calling the Dept. of Homeland Security heavy-handed. The news reporters were nonplussed in their coverage of it and I let it go by as an unfortunate but necessary measure in a post-9/11 world…
It wasn’t until I read Mr. Bovard’s column that I began to re-think the issue. I learned from Mr. Bovard that the areas were called “free speech zones.” More than the existence of these extra security measures for the first post-9/11 political conventions (I think everyone acknowledges that finding the right balance between liberty and security after 9/11 is going to be a process of trial and error), I was upset by the name. How can they call a fenced in area, the sole purpose of which is to restrict protest a “free speech zone?” This reeks of Orwellian Newspeak. Orwell understood well the importance of language control in thought control and in 1984, introduced us to the principle of Newspeak. In Orwell’s totalitarian regime, WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Many words mean their opposite: The War Department is the Ministry of Peace. The secret police that enforce, through suppression and torture, the political orthodoxy work for the Ministry of Love. In Boston last month, zones restricting protest were called, “free speech zones,” and instead of having an anti-terrorism bill after 9/11, we have a PATRIOT Act, implying that criticism is unpatriotic (On the surface, I think the bill is a responsible one. Some of the provisions make good common sense, like issuing wiretap warrants for individuals, not specific land-lines. Most of the provisions are identical to ones proposed by President Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Further, taking the UK example, the provisions expire, so that provisions that are ineffective, or oppressive will be up for review by Congress. It is a responsible bill, but irresponsibly named).
At the end of Orwell’s novel there is an appendix explaining Newspeak:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium
of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to
devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism], but to make all other
modes of thought impossible.
Orwell further explains that, “This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words…” In other words the goal of Newspeak is to indirectly control thought by controlling the medium through which thoughts are expressed. This is done insidiously, not by restricting access to airwaves or publishing (although in the novel Big Brother did that too), but by restricting the actual language that is used for expression. In the end, “the expression of unorthodox opinions…was…impossible…” Such opinions, “…could not have been sustained by a reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available.” Orwell further describes how all words, other than those devoid of political meaning, developed orthodox political connotations.
In our society, for the last two decades, Newspeak has been the tool of the political left to win debate by shaping its expression. It is called political correctness. Of course this expression itself conveys the oppressive nature of the movement. If something is politically correct (orthodox), something else is by definition politically incorrect (unorthodox) and therefore wrong. Political correctness seeks to promote use of language aimed at promoting this acceptable point (goodthinkful in Orwell’s language) of view and limiting the conventional use of language that would express a contrasting point of view which is by implication politically wrong (crimethink). Fortunately for the left, since the term political correctness carries with it the implication of thought control, it has it’s own politically correct word – cultural sensitivity.
Political correctness is the spearhead of an atrocious assault on our language and an alarming assault on our liberty. In this world-view, policies favouring the expansion of government authority to address domestic problems is, “progressive.” Domestic problems become “crises” so large that only federal government can solve them (i.e. health-care crisis) and to oppose granting that authority is to be selfish or to be against some group that the proposal is supposed to benefit (the children, the elderly, the poor, etc…). It is all eerily reminiscent of James Madison’s warning that, “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant." Believing that the U.S. Constitution grants women the right to terminate a pregnancy is called being, “pro-choice.” But being for educational choice is being “against public education.” Diversity is defined as a group of men and women of different outward appearance and sexual orientation (but not different religious traditions) who share the same political view. Expressing a divergent political view is being against diversity, bigoted, or narrow-minded. Being black and expressing a divergent view is to be, “an Uncle Tom.” How close does that come to Orwell’s FREEDOM IS SLAVERY? At its most comical, the assault on language is reflected in Bill Clinton’s attempt to re-define “is” so he can explain how he didn’t perjure himself. At its most insidious, it designates hate as a crime. Hate crimes legislation imposes an extra penalty on a convict for his unorthodox world-view that motivated one to commit a crime. Homicide itself is a crime, but homicide with hatred is two crimes. How close is this to “crimethink?” How long before the hating becomes a crime without the associated act of violence?
But now, the right, through the vehicle of the Republican party, with George W. Bush as the standard-bearer, is in on the act. Expanding the role of federal government is “leaving no child behind,” and by implication opposing the bill is supporting leaving children behind. Opposing expanding the surveillance capacity of the federal government is unPATRIOTic. And speech is restricted in “free speech zones.” Of course the Democrats don’t oppose it, they have been doing it for two decades. Both parties now participate in the assault on liberty and language, and both see things through the same politically correct prism. Perhaps Ralph Nader is correct for the wrong reasons when he argues there isn’t any significant difference between the two parties.
Further, we finally have the final piece of the puzzle in Orwell’s recipe for tyranny. Orwell recognized that citizens will accept an expansion of governmental authority, even if it curtails some of their liberty, during time of war. Even our founding fathers, the gurus of limited government, acknowledged this and granted the Executive extra authority in wartime. Therefore, Orwell's novel, Oceania is perpetually at war. It is a war that continues day after day and year after year, a war with no end in sight, a war with an enemy that can never be completely defeated. We now have such a war, it is the “War on Terror.” Although (despite my opposition to invading Iraq), I fully acknowledge the necessity of taking measures to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil and of taking the fight to the terrorists in the countries that harbor them (like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan), what I find frightening is the knowledge that we will be perpetually at war. As such, we most certainly will accept encroachment on our liberty as “necessary.” My fear is, that we will accept too much encroachment. That we will, like I initially did, not notice such infringement on our liberty like the, “free speech zones."
Have I finally taken that step and become a full-fledged libertarian? Or am I just paranoid?
Last weekend I read a syndicated column in the Baltimore Sun written by a chap named James Bovard (“Protests Pre-Empted”, August 6, 2004). He is author of a book entitled, The Bush Betrayal, and at first glance, perhaps not someone with whom I would have much common political ground (until I learned reading the blurb of his book in Barnes and Nobles today that his book is a criticism of G.W. Bush from the right, and from that direction there is plenty of room to criticize…). But his column got me thinking. He was talking about the designated protest areas at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I must admit when I first saw the news reports of these fenced off areas for protesters, I was a little concerned. But it was the Democrats, and the party itself was not complaining about the security or calling the Dept. of Homeland Security heavy-handed. The news reporters were nonplussed in their coverage of it and I let it go by as an unfortunate but necessary measure in a post-9/11 world…
It wasn’t until I read Mr. Bovard’s column that I began to re-think the issue. I learned from Mr. Bovard that the areas were called “free speech zones.” More than the existence of these extra security measures for the first post-9/11 political conventions (I think everyone acknowledges that finding the right balance between liberty and security after 9/11 is going to be a process of trial and error), I was upset by the name. How can they call a fenced in area, the sole purpose of which is to restrict protest a “free speech zone?” This reeks of Orwellian Newspeak. Orwell understood well the importance of language control in thought control and in 1984, introduced us to the principle of Newspeak. In Orwell’s totalitarian regime, WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Many words mean their opposite: The War Department is the Ministry of Peace. The secret police that enforce, through suppression and torture, the political orthodoxy work for the Ministry of Love. In Boston last month, zones restricting protest were called, “free speech zones,” and instead of having an anti-terrorism bill after 9/11, we have a PATRIOT Act, implying that criticism is unpatriotic (On the surface, I think the bill is a responsible one. Some of the provisions make good common sense, like issuing wiretap warrants for individuals, not specific land-lines. Most of the provisions are identical to ones proposed by President Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Further, taking the UK example, the provisions expire, so that provisions that are ineffective, or oppressive will be up for review by Congress. It is a responsible bill, but irresponsibly named).
At the end of Orwell’s novel there is an appendix explaining Newspeak:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium
of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to
devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism], but to make all other
modes of thought impossible.
Orwell further explains that, “This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words…” In other words the goal of Newspeak is to indirectly control thought by controlling the medium through which thoughts are expressed. This is done insidiously, not by restricting access to airwaves or publishing (although in the novel Big Brother did that too), but by restricting the actual language that is used for expression. In the end, “the expression of unorthodox opinions…was…impossible…” Such opinions, “…could not have been sustained by a reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available.” Orwell further describes how all words, other than those devoid of political meaning, developed orthodox political connotations.
In our society, for the last two decades, Newspeak has been the tool of the political left to win debate by shaping its expression. It is called political correctness. Of course this expression itself conveys the oppressive nature of the movement. If something is politically correct (orthodox), something else is by definition politically incorrect (unorthodox) and therefore wrong. Political correctness seeks to promote use of language aimed at promoting this acceptable point (goodthinkful in Orwell’s language) of view and limiting the conventional use of language that would express a contrasting point of view which is by implication politically wrong (crimethink). Fortunately for the left, since the term political correctness carries with it the implication of thought control, it has it’s own politically correct word – cultural sensitivity.
Political correctness is the spearhead of an atrocious assault on our language and an alarming assault on our liberty. In this world-view, policies favouring the expansion of government authority to address domestic problems is, “progressive.” Domestic problems become “crises” so large that only federal government can solve them (i.e. health-care crisis) and to oppose granting that authority is to be selfish or to be against some group that the proposal is supposed to benefit (the children, the elderly, the poor, etc…). It is all eerily reminiscent of James Madison’s warning that, “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant." Believing that the U.S. Constitution grants women the right to terminate a pregnancy is called being, “pro-choice.” But being for educational choice is being “against public education.” Diversity is defined as a group of men and women of different outward appearance and sexual orientation (but not different religious traditions) who share the same political view. Expressing a divergent political view is being against diversity, bigoted, or narrow-minded. Being black and expressing a divergent view is to be, “an Uncle Tom.” How close does that come to Orwell’s FREEDOM IS SLAVERY? At its most comical, the assault on language is reflected in Bill Clinton’s attempt to re-define “is” so he can explain how he didn’t perjure himself. At its most insidious, it designates hate as a crime. Hate crimes legislation imposes an extra penalty on a convict for his unorthodox world-view that motivated one to commit a crime. Homicide itself is a crime, but homicide with hatred is two crimes. How close is this to “crimethink?” How long before the hating becomes a crime without the associated act of violence?
But now, the right, through the vehicle of the Republican party, with George W. Bush as the standard-bearer, is in on the act. Expanding the role of federal government is “leaving no child behind,” and by implication opposing the bill is supporting leaving children behind. Opposing expanding the surveillance capacity of the federal government is unPATRIOTic. And speech is restricted in “free speech zones.” Of course the Democrats don’t oppose it, they have been doing it for two decades. Both parties now participate in the assault on liberty and language, and both see things through the same politically correct prism. Perhaps Ralph Nader is correct for the wrong reasons when he argues there isn’t any significant difference between the two parties.
Further, we finally have the final piece of the puzzle in Orwell’s recipe for tyranny. Orwell recognized that citizens will accept an expansion of governmental authority, even if it curtails some of their liberty, during time of war. Even our founding fathers, the gurus of limited government, acknowledged this and granted the Executive extra authority in wartime. Therefore, Orwell's novel, Oceania is perpetually at war. It is a war that continues day after day and year after year, a war with no end in sight, a war with an enemy that can never be completely defeated. We now have such a war, it is the “War on Terror.” Although (despite my opposition to invading Iraq), I fully acknowledge the necessity of taking measures to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil and of taking the fight to the terrorists in the countries that harbor them (like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan), what I find frightening is the knowledge that we will be perpetually at war. As such, we most certainly will accept encroachment on our liberty as “necessary.” My fear is, that we will accept too much encroachment. That we will, like I initially did, not notice such infringement on our liberty like the, “free speech zones."
Have I finally taken that step and become a full-fledged libertarian? Or am I just paranoid?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Climates Change
This week, international leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss what can be done to combat climate change. Since the Kyoto agreement of the mid 1990's, international cooperation on the issue has stalled. The United States Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify the Kyoto Accords and two of the largest producers of greenhouse gases, India and China, refused to sign on. Nearly fifteen years later, the political landscape has changed. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has won both an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize for calling attention to the issue. Current U.S. President Barack Obama is more committed than his predecessor to address the issue, and his party controls Congress. Both the Chinese Premier and the Indian Prime Minister are attending the conference in Copenhagen. Despite this optimism amongst those anxious to do something about the problem, the conference occurs amidst controversy. A recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html) suggests that global warming is essentially irreversible (the report suggests it would take 1,000 years for warming to begin to reverse after carbon dioxide levels are reduced to zero), raising questions about whether the actions proposed can even accomplish anything. And, on the eve of the conference, hacked e-mails between climate scientists were released suggesting that some of the scientists promoting the consensus view of climate science massaged their data to make it more compelling and worked to suppress the publication of contrary data (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml). In the United States the, "cap and trade," legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions has stalled in Congress over concerns that it will raise fuel prices and increase economic hardship in this time of recession. Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an endangerment finding regarding green house gases, including carbon dioxide, stating that these gases, "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." (emphasis added, please see: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html).
OVERVIEW OF CLIMATE SCIENCE:
Most of us are familiar with the basics of the consensus view of global warming. A well-known phenomenon called the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping the heat of the Sun inside the Earth's atmosphere and heating the planet. To some extent, this is good because it makes life on Earth possible, but concerns have been raised that the planet is warming too much. Certain gases in the atmosphere increase this effect and are therefore called greenhouse gases. Many of these gases are produced as by product of the industrial activity of humans and carbon dioxide which is produced by, among other things, burning carbon containing fuels such as oil, gasoline, and coal, is one of the principle of the greenhouse gases. In the consensus view of climate science the warming of the planet may have catastrophic consequences. Most notably, it will cause rising sea levels as the polar ice cap melts, which may then produce coastal flooding and turn many into refugees. It must be halted or slowed to prevent this dire consequence and since it is caused mostly by human beings burning fossil fuels, we must curtail this activity to protect the planet.
The summary statement of consensus scientists is the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm). A few salient points should be noted about the consensus science. In the policymaker's summary of the most recent IPCC report (please see: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf for the following data), warming since 1850 has only amounted to 1.5 degrees F (or 1/1ooth of a degree per year) and the rise in sea level, presumed secondary to the warming and melting of the arctic ice cap, over this time period has only been 200 millimetres. Furthermore, the IPCC states that the sea level rise is only likely due to global warming and in their classification scheme, likely associations have a significant (33%) chance of not being related. Figure SPM-3 in the policymaker's summary shows a disconnect between warming and sea level rise (sea levels continued to rise even during decades when there was observed cooling) and the report concedes that the contribution of warming, glacier and ice cap melting, and Antarctic melting does not account for all of the observed rise in sea level. The IPCC summary also estimates only about half a metre (a little over eighteen inches) of sea level rise in the next century and that it will take a millenium to achieve the twenty-foot sea level rise predicted by alarmists. Although the IPCC predicts the possibility of as much as nine-degree F rise in temperature over the next century, their models suggest that with specific intervention but with simply a trend towards more balanced use of fossil and renewable fuels (the A1B scenario in the report) this can reduced considerably to 6 degrees F (please see table 10.4 in chapter 10 of the full report (temperatures in Celsius in the table: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf). In summary, the consensus science view, as expressed by the IPCC, is that global warming is real, it is cause by man (very likely in the IPCC report, a category they view as having a 90% chance of being correct), has already cause problems and will cause future difficulties; but it should be noted that the current negative effects of climate change are rather minimal and the future projections of the IPCC fairly modest.
Contrast that with the alarmist view. Climate alarmists, such as former Vice President Al Gore, argue a view that is widely divergent from the consensus science. Even many of the scientists involved in the IPCC report make claims outside of the report that are far more alarmist than the consensus statement (Chris Landsea left the IPCC when the lead author of the Observations chapter, to which he [Landsea] was to contribute made statement attributing increases in frequency and severity of hurricanes to global warming, a conclusion that the data does not support. Please see: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html) . They argue that global warming is not merely a problem to addressed (and balanced against other problems are also pressing), but rather that it is a crisis that requires the adoption of any and all measures to stop it. In his film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Pictures, 2006), Mr. Gore asserts that we have already seen horrific consequences of global warming. He states that the devastating hurricane season of 2005 was due to global warming and that both the number and severity of storms, like Katrina, that year were attributable to climate change. He also asserts and increasing number of droughts as a result of climate change. But, according to the consensus report of the IPCC, global warming is not expected to increase the frequency of hurricanes and, although they predict an increase in storm severity the report clearly states the severity of no one storm in 2005 can be clearly attributed to global warming. Furthermore, the IPCC report states that increasing droughts are only likely related to climate change, indicating a significant chance (33%) that they are not (please see policymaker's summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). Climate change alarmists also argue that the arctic ice cap will soon disappear and that a catastrophic 20-foot rise is sea level is imminent. In his film, Mr. Gore states we should devote as many resources to protecting ourselves from this rise in sea level as we do in protecting ourselves from terrorist attacks. Also in the film, Mr. Gore asserts that the arctic ice cap will be gone in the summer within 50-70 years. In his book, An Assault on Reason, he revised this estimate to 34 years (New York: Penguin, 2007). In his public remarks upon learning he was to share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC, Al Gore asserted that summer arctic sea ice will be gone in 23 years (http://blog.algore.com/2007/10/i_am_deeply_honored.html) and in a recent interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell he estimated the life expectancy of summer arctic ice at no more than 10 years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34345406/ns/politics-more_politics//). However, the IPCC consensus report estimates that late summer arctic sea ice will disappear toward the end of the next century [emphasis added] and a 20-foot rise in sea level would happen, incrementally, over the course of a millenium [emphasis added], not imminently causing widespread dislocation (please see both http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf and http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf).
Another view that diverges from the consensus view is the skeptical view. While some skeptics question weather warming is even occurring, most acknowledge the warming but question weather the observed warming is due man-made carbon emissions or other greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels and weather the consequences of the warming are necessarily catastrophic. These are important questions because if global warming is a natural phenomenon and not man-made, no action we could take will slow, stop, or reverse; and if the consequences of global warming will not be catastrophic then making large sacrifices and diverting resources from other priorities to combat it is inappropriate. A number of scientists are skeptical of the consensus view of global warming (Henrik Svensmark of Denmark, Russian Habibullo Abdussamatov, and Australian Ian Plimer, to name a few, can be added to four American skeptics interviewed by John Stossel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vpuslrB_cY). The skeptical view focuses on other, natural, drivers of warming, rather than man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Even the IPCC report discusses natural drivers of climate change such as changes in the Earth's orbit (historically the driver of ice ages and interglacial periods) and solar irradiation. Skeptical scientists believe these natural drivers of climate change are underestimated by the IPCC. There are several facts not accounted for by the consensus view of climate change. The IPCC admits in its report that their theory does not account for the lack of warming in the Antarctic (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). As noted above, the correlation between warming and rising sea levels is also questionable. The IPCC discusses atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as one of the prime drivers of global warming. In fact, they upgraded their certainty (from likely to very likely)that global warming was man-made based on the last ten years of data (prior to their 2007 report) showing the warmest decade on record and a sharp upswing in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to 379 parts-per-million (ppm), when pre-industrial highs are estimated at no more than 280-300 ppm. However, there is a clear disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. As the data in this figure from the NOAA show (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/sio-mlgr.gif), in recent decades there has been a linear rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, global temperatures were decreasing despite increasing carbon dioxide levels, which lead some to be concerned at the time about global cooling (see this article in Newsweek from April 1975 for the temperature trend over those decades: http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf). Buried on page 13 of the most recent IPCC summary for policy makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf) is the following statement, "Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic [man-made] emissions that remains in the atmosphere." In other words, the oceans release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are warmer (gases are less soluble in warm water). In the IPCC report chapter on paleoclimate, this release of carbon dioxide from the oceans is described as the driver of rising carbon dioxide levels associated with pre-industrial periods of warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf). Paleological data suggest that some of these pre-industrial warming periods were quite significant and the IPCC policymaker's summary points out that polar regions were significantly warmer than present 125,000 years ago and at that time the arctic ice had completely melted, resulting in 4-6 metre rise in sea level. This data calls into question whether atmospheric carbon dioxide is a driver of global warming, or a result of global warming, or some combination of both; and whether the current warming trend might be a natural phenomenon as the one 125,000 years ago was. Finally, the consensus view that global warming is a man-made phenomenon offers no explanation for the parallel global warming occurring on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html and also Nature 446: 646-649).
Skeptics argue that this data supports the notion that the primary driver of climate change is natural, and presumably solar. Although the authors are clear that solar activity does not explain all of the observed warming, Figure 4 in this 1998 paper by Lean and Rind (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Lean_Rind.pdf) shows a striking correlation correlation between global temperature and sunspot number (including the aforementioned cooling period in the 195o's, 196o's, and 1970's). Figure 1 in this paper by Soon (http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0516/2005GL023429/2005GL023429.pdf) also demonstrates a correlation between solar irradiance and temperature, including a decrease in solar irradiance during the cooling between 1940 and 1980. Henrik Svensmark has argued that solar activity governs low cloud cover and this low cloud cover has a profound effect on temperature. When there is more low cloud cover, heat is reflected away from the Earth and the Earth cools. When there is less low cloud cover, the Earth warms. Low cloud cover is generated by cosmic rays and the effect of cosmic rays on the Earth is dampened by an increase in solar activity. Therefore, increases solar activity, decreased cosmic rays, decreased low cloud cover, and warming and vice versa with decreased solar activity. This influence on cosmic rays may amplify the solar effect and explain why other researchers have concluded that the magnitude of solar irradiance is insufficient to account for the warming. Although Svensmark theory is not widely endorsed in the scientific community, there is data to support it, he has been able to experimentally show in a laboratory how cosmic rays influence cloud cover, and his theory has the added bonus of predicting the lack of warming in the Antarctic (please see link to review article here: http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/svensmark_2007cosmoClimatology.pdf/view. Svensmark's plot of cosmic ray activity in Figure 5 is remarkable similar to the NASA-Goddard recorded temperatures plotted here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif).
THE DEBATE:
The above brief review of actual climate science demonstrates that while data supporting the consensus view that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, related to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, this data is by no means conclusive. Several observations are not explained by the consensus model and there is at least some data to support the notion that some, or even most, of climate change is a natural phenomenon. Even if the consensus view is correct regarding the cause of global warming, estimating its severity or impact remains difficult. As noted above, the IPCC projections are relatively modest, but still serious. Yet, such predictions are made from mathematical models at it is unclear from the discussion above whether the mechanism of climate change and relative importance of variables involved are understood well enough to create a valid model.
Scientific consensus is not a substitute for data. In fact, the mere fact that global warming is generally discussed in terms of scientific consensus is proof positive that the data, while compelling, is not conclusive. When data is conclusive, consensus is irrelevant. Although consensus opinion usually turns out to be correct, the history of science is full of examples of minority opinions (Copernican model of the solar system, Big-Bang Theory, infectious cause of stomach ulcers to name a few) were ultimately proven correct and overthrew the reigning consensus opinion. Therefore, the fact that there are still skeptical scientists and research data suggesting the possibility of an alternate view means that the science is not, "in," and the consensus view has not been proven.
Therefore, debate about what to do regarding global warming, if anything, is legitimate. The risk of global warming needs to be balanced against both the cost and likely effectiveness of the proposed remedy. Policy decisions need to incorporate this debate, not gloss over it. Demagogues like Al Gore and other climate alarmist seek to stifle debate through fear. They do not discuss the data and its limitations (as noted above, Mr. Gore has a penchant for ignoring or exaggerating the data), but rather state summarily that the issue has been settled (when we have seen above that it has not been) and that anything other than following their proposed remedy is evil. In An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore asserts, "This is not a political issue so much as a moral issue. If we allow this [climate change] to happen, it is deeply unethical." Mr. Gore's rhetoric leaves no room for debate and is, in my opinion, deeply irresponsible.
Brushing aside such nonsense, what is the proper course? In his Sunday show on CNN on December 13, 2009, Fareed Zakaria presented a responsible consensus view. He argued that even if the chance of the catastrophic scenario is relatively small, it is real and perhaps some expense is justifiable as sort of an insurance policy against such a possibility. This is a very reasonable position, but this position then requires legitimate debate about what the appropriate cost for such an insurance policy should be. What climate change insurance premium would be reasonable? In his book, Physics for Future Presidents (W.W. Norton, New York, 2008), UCB Professor Richard Muller makes a similar argument and makes a compelling case that significant reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved with relatively modest interventions that he terms, "comfortable conservation."
Alternatively, the late Michael Crichton (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html) and Swedish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/13/gps.podcast.12.13.cnn) have argued that the science is too unsettled, the predictions too uncertain, and the utility of proposed interventions too unknown, to justify diversion of resources away from more pressing and immediate problems, such as global poverty. Standard of living in North America and Europe rose as a function of economic development. What developing nations need to escape poverty are cheap sources of energy. No renewable energy source even approaches the energy efficiency of gasoline (only butanolol, a potential biofuel, approaches gasoline in efficiency) and it is cheap, only about ten cents (U.S.) per kilowatt-hour. Coal is less efficient, but much cheaper at only a half-cent per kilowatt-hour. Contrast that with solar energy. The best solar cells are only 41% efficient, but these cost $100,000 USD per square yard. A reasonable commercially available solar cell is only 15% efficient and could power the electrical needs of a single family home for about $14,000 USD per cell. This means, the solar cell would have to last at least 22 years before requiring replacement for the buyer just to break even, assuming 2008 California power costs (Muller, Physics for Future Presidents, W.W. Norton, New York, 2008). With those costs in mind, it is clear that without the expansion of the use of fossil fuels in the developing world, billions will remain impoverished and millions will die as a result of that poverty. International cap and trade protocols that allow developed nations to pay underdeveloped countries to use less carbon fuels so that the developed nation can continue to use more will do nothing but ensure that impoverished nations remain impoverished.
CLIMATE POLICY IN A FREE SOCIETY:
This, then, is the debate. Are the consequences of doing nothing too dire to risk? Are the proposed solutions futile because climates change regardless of man's actions? Or, are the proposed solutions potentially effective, but not worth their costs? There are plenty of good arguments and all sides of this debate and in a free society policy is subsequently determined by vigorous debate of the issues amongst elected representatives expressing the will of the people. In a free society, demagoguery that glosses over controversy and labels one side as evil or immoral is unacceptable. By debating the actual data in support of and questioning man-made global warming, ultimately a political consensus may be reached that determines policy. Like it or not, in a free society the process of crafting policy is often slow as advocates attempt to persuade undecideds, through reason, that their position is correct.
However, the Environmental Protection Agency has hijacked this issue. The Constitution intends that regulation of economic or social behaviour should be decided by elected representatives. Congress makes laws that regulate economic behaviour and the President signs them. The President negotiates treaties with other nations and the Senate must ratify them. But now it matters little whether cap and trade legislation is stalled in Congress or whether there are votes in the Senate to ratify an agreement reached in Copenhagen. Now an independent regulatory agency has declared power to regulate carbon dioxide (and therefore carbon-fuels, and therefore the economic activity of every citizen) because it is a pollutant. The idea that carbon dioxide, a harmless gas that is exhaled by every man, woman, and child on the planet threatens the health and welfare of current Americans is laughable to say the least and yet the EPA has seen fit to declare it so and assume broad powers to control it without the least bit of responsibility to voters. Regardless of where we might stand on the climate debate, we should all be able to agree that this is appalling. The principle of the ends justifying the means is not an appropriate governing principle for a free and democratic society. It is the governing principle of totalitarianism.
OVERVIEW OF CLIMATE SCIENCE:
Most of us are familiar with the basics of the consensus view of global warming. A well-known phenomenon called the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping the heat of the Sun inside the Earth's atmosphere and heating the planet. To some extent, this is good because it makes life on Earth possible, but concerns have been raised that the planet is warming too much. Certain gases in the atmosphere increase this effect and are therefore called greenhouse gases. Many of these gases are produced as by product of the industrial activity of humans and carbon dioxide which is produced by, among other things, burning carbon containing fuels such as oil, gasoline, and coal, is one of the principle of the greenhouse gases. In the consensus view of climate science the warming of the planet may have catastrophic consequences. Most notably, it will cause rising sea levels as the polar ice cap melts, which may then produce coastal flooding and turn many into refugees. It must be halted or slowed to prevent this dire consequence and since it is caused mostly by human beings burning fossil fuels, we must curtail this activity to protect the planet.
The summary statement of consensus scientists is the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm). A few salient points should be noted about the consensus science. In the policymaker's summary of the most recent IPCC report (please see: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf for the following data), warming since 1850 has only amounted to 1.5 degrees F (or 1/1ooth of a degree per year) and the rise in sea level, presumed secondary to the warming and melting of the arctic ice cap, over this time period has only been 200 millimetres. Furthermore, the IPCC states that the sea level rise is only likely due to global warming and in their classification scheme, likely associations have a significant (33%) chance of not being related. Figure SPM-3 in the policymaker's summary shows a disconnect between warming and sea level rise (sea levels continued to rise even during decades when there was observed cooling) and the report concedes that the contribution of warming, glacier and ice cap melting, and Antarctic melting does not account for all of the observed rise in sea level. The IPCC summary also estimates only about half a metre (a little over eighteen inches) of sea level rise in the next century and that it will take a millenium to achieve the twenty-foot sea level rise predicted by alarmists. Although the IPCC predicts the possibility of as much as nine-degree F rise in temperature over the next century, their models suggest that with specific intervention but with simply a trend towards more balanced use of fossil and renewable fuels (the A1B scenario in the report) this can reduced considerably to 6 degrees F (please see table 10.4 in chapter 10 of the full report (temperatures in Celsius in the table: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf). In summary, the consensus science view, as expressed by the IPCC, is that global warming is real, it is cause by man (very likely in the IPCC report, a category they view as having a 90% chance of being correct), has already cause problems and will cause future difficulties; but it should be noted that the current negative effects of climate change are rather minimal and the future projections of the IPCC fairly modest.
Contrast that with the alarmist view. Climate alarmists, such as former Vice President Al Gore, argue a view that is widely divergent from the consensus science. Even many of the scientists involved in the IPCC report make claims outside of the report that are far more alarmist than the consensus statement (Chris Landsea left the IPCC when the lead author of the Observations chapter, to which he [Landsea] was to contribute made statement attributing increases in frequency and severity of hurricanes to global warming, a conclusion that the data does not support. Please see: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html) . They argue that global warming is not merely a problem to addressed (and balanced against other problems are also pressing), but rather that it is a crisis that requires the adoption of any and all measures to stop it. In his film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Pictures, 2006), Mr. Gore asserts that we have already seen horrific consequences of global warming. He states that the devastating hurricane season of 2005 was due to global warming and that both the number and severity of storms, like Katrina, that year were attributable to climate change. He also asserts and increasing number of droughts as a result of climate change. But, according to the consensus report of the IPCC, global warming is not expected to increase the frequency of hurricanes and, although they predict an increase in storm severity the report clearly states the severity of no one storm in 2005 can be clearly attributed to global warming. Furthermore, the IPCC report states that increasing droughts are only likely related to climate change, indicating a significant chance (33%) that they are not (please see policymaker's summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). Climate change alarmists also argue that the arctic ice cap will soon disappear and that a catastrophic 20-foot rise is sea level is imminent. In his film, Mr. Gore states we should devote as many resources to protecting ourselves from this rise in sea level as we do in protecting ourselves from terrorist attacks. Also in the film, Mr. Gore asserts that the arctic ice cap will be gone in the summer within 50-70 years. In his book, An Assault on Reason, he revised this estimate to 34 years (New York: Penguin, 2007). In his public remarks upon learning he was to share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC, Al Gore asserted that summer arctic sea ice will be gone in 23 years (http://blog.algore.com/2007/10/i_am_deeply_honored.html) and in a recent interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell he estimated the life expectancy of summer arctic ice at no more than 10 years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34345406/ns/politics-more_politics//). However, the IPCC consensus report estimates that late summer arctic sea ice will disappear toward the end of the next century [emphasis added] and a 20-foot rise in sea level would happen, incrementally, over the course of a millenium [emphasis added], not imminently causing widespread dislocation (please see both http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf and http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf).
Another view that diverges from the consensus view is the skeptical view. While some skeptics question weather warming is even occurring, most acknowledge the warming but question weather the observed warming is due man-made carbon emissions or other greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels and weather the consequences of the warming are necessarily catastrophic. These are important questions because if global warming is a natural phenomenon and not man-made, no action we could take will slow, stop, or reverse; and if the consequences of global warming will not be catastrophic then making large sacrifices and diverting resources from other priorities to combat it is inappropriate. A number of scientists are skeptical of the consensus view of global warming (Henrik Svensmark of Denmark, Russian Habibullo Abdussamatov, and Australian Ian Plimer, to name a few, can be added to four American skeptics interviewed by John Stossel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vpuslrB_cY). The skeptical view focuses on other, natural, drivers of warming, rather than man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Even the IPCC report discusses natural drivers of climate change such as changes in the Earth's orbit (historically the driver of ice ages and interglacial periods) and solar irradiation. Skeptical scientists believe these natural drivers of climate change are underestimated by the IPCC. There are several facts not accounted for by the consensus view of climate change. The IPCC admits in its report that their theory does not account for the lack of warming in the Antarctic (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). As noted above, the correlation between warming and rising sea levels is also questionable. The IPCC discusses atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as one of the prime drivers of global warming. In fact, they upgraded their certainty (from likely to very likely)that global warming was man-made based on the last ten years of data (prior to their 2007 report) showing the warmest decade on record and a sharp upswing in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to 379 parts-per-million (ppm), when pre-industrial highs are estimated at no more than 280-300 ppm. However, there is a clear disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. As the data in this figure from the NOAA show (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/sio-mlgr.gif), in recent decades there has been a linear rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, global temperatures were decreasing despite increasing carbon dioxide levels, which lead some to be concerned at the time about global cooling (see this article in Newsweek from April 1975 for the temperature trend over those decades: http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf). Buried on page 13 of the most recent IPCC summary for policy makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf) is the following statement, "Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic [man-made] emissions that remains in the atmosphere." In other words, the oceans release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are warmer (gases are less soluble in warm water). In the IPCC report chapter on paleoclimate, this release of carbon dioxide from the oceans is described as the driver of rising carbon dioxide levels associated with pre-industrial periods of warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf). Paleological data suggest that some of these pre-industrial warming periods were quite significant and the IPCC policymaker's summary points out that polar regions were significantly warmer than present 125,000 years ago and at that time the arctic ice had completely melted, resulting in 4-6 metre rise in sea level. This data calls into question whether atmospheric carbon dioxide is a driver of global warming, or a result of global warming, or some combination of both; and whether the current warming trend might be a natural phenomenon as the one 125,000 years ago was. Finally, the consensus view that global warming is a man-made phenomenon offers no explanation for the parallel global warming occurring on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html and also Nature 446: 646-649).
Skeptics argue that this data supports the notion that the primary driver of climate change is natural, and presumably solar. Although the authors are clear that solar activity does not explain all of the observed warming, Figure 4 in this 1998 paper by Lean and Rind (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Lean_Rind.pdf) shows a striking correlation correlation between global temperature and sunspot number (including the aforementioned cooling period in the 195o's, 196o's, and 1970's). Figure 1 in this paper by Soon (http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0516/2005GL023429/2005GL023429.pdf) also demonstrates a correlation between solar irradiance and temperature, including a decrease in solar irradiance during the cooling between 1940 and 1980. Henrik Svensmark has argued that solar activity governs low cloud cover and this low cloud cover has a profound effect on temperature. When there is more low cloud cover, heat is reflected away from the Earth and the Earth cools. When there is less low cloud cover, the Earth warms. Low cloud cover is generated by cosmic rays and the effect of cosmic rays on the Earth is dampened by an increase in solar activity. Therefore, increases solar activity, decreased cosmic rays, decreased low cloud cover, and warming and vice versa with decreased solar activity. This influence on cosmic rays may amplify the solar effect and explain why other researchers have concluded that the magnitude of solar irradiance is insufficient to account for the warming. Although Svensmark theory is not widely endorsed in the scientific community, there is data to support it, he has been able to experimentally show in a laboratory how cosmic rays influence cloud cover, and his theory has the added bonus of predicting the lack of warming in the Antarctic (please see link to review article here: http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/svensmark_2007cosmoClimatology.pdf/view. Svensmark's plot of cosmic ray activity in Figure 5 is remarkable similar to the NASA-Goddard recorded temperatures plotted here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif).
THE DEBATE:
The above brief review of actual climate science demonstrates that while data supporting the consensus view that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, related to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, this data is by no means conclusive. Several observations are not explained by the consensus model and there is at least some data to support the notion that some, or even most, of climate change is a natural phenomenon. Even if the consensus view is correct regarding the cause of global warming, estimating its severity or impact remains difficult. As noted above, the IPCC projections are relatively modest, but still serious. Yet, such predictions are made from mathematical models at it is unclear from the discussion above whether the mechanism of climate change and relative importance of variables involved are understood well enough to create a valid model.
Scientific consensus is not a substitute for data. In fact, the mere fact that global warming is generally discussed in terms of scientific consensus is proof positive that the data, while compelling, is not conclusive. When data is conclusive, consensus is irrelevant. Although consensus opinion usually turns out to be correct, the history of science is full of examples of minority opinions (Copernican model of the solar system, Big-Bang Theory, infectious cause of stomach ulcers to name a few) were ultimately proven correct and overthrew the reigning consensus opinion. Therefore, the fact that there are still skeptical scientists and research data suggesting the possibility of an alternate view means that the science is not, "in," and the consensus view has not been proven.
Therefore, debate about what to do regarding global warming, if anything, is legitimate. The risk of global warming needs to be balanced against both the cost and likely effectiveness of the proposed remedy. Policy decisions need to incorporate this debate, not gloss over it. Demagogues like Al Gore and other climate alarmist seek to stifle debate through fear. They do not discuss the data and its limitations (as noted above, Mr. Gore has a penchant for ignoring or exaggerating the data), but rather state summarily that the issue has been settled (when we have seen above that it has not been) and that anything other than following their proposed remedy is evil. In An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore asserts, "This is not a political issue so much as a moral issue. If we allow this [climate change] to happen, it is deeply unethical." Mr. Gore's rhetoric leaves no room for debate and is, in my opinion, deeply irresponsible.
Brushing aside such nonsense, what is the proper course? In his Sunday show on CNN on December 13, 2009, Fareed Zakaria presented a responsible consensus view. He argued that even if the chance of the catastrophic scenario is relatively small, it is real and perhaps some expense is justifiable as sort of an insurance policy against such a possibility. This is a very reasonable position, but this position then requires legitimate debate about what the appropriate cost for such an insurance policy should be. What climate change insurance premium would be reasonable? In his book, Physics for Future Presidents (W.W. Norton, New York, 2008), UCB Professor Richard Muller makes a similar argument and makes a compelling case that significant reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved with relatively modest interventions that he terms, "comfortable conservation."
Alternatively, the late Michael Crichton (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html) and Swedish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/13/gps.podcast.12.13.cnn) have argued that the science is too unsettled, the predictions too uncertain, and the utility of proposed interventions too unknown, to justify diversion of resources away from more pressing and immediate problems, such as global poverty. Standard of living in North America and Europe rose as a function of economic development. What developing nations need to escape poverty are cheap sources of energy. No renewable energy source even approaches the energy efficiency of gasoline (only butanolol, a potential biofuel, approaches gasoline in efficiency) and it is cheap, only about ten cents (U.S.) per kilowatt-hour. Coal is less efficient, but much cheaper at only a half-cent per kilowatt-hour. Contrast that with solar energy. The best solar cells are only 41% efficient, but these cost $100,000 USD per square yard. A reasonable commercially available solar cell is only 15% efficient and could power the electrical needs of a single family home for about $14,000 USD per cell. This means, the solar cell would have to last at least 22 years before requiring replacement for the buyer just to break even, assuming 2008 California power costs (Muller, Physics for Future Presidents, W.W. Norton, New York, 2008). With those costs in mind, it is clear that without the expansion of the use of fossil fuels in the developing world, billions will remain impoverished and millions will die as a result of that poverty. International cap and trade protocols that allow developed nations to pay underdeveloped countries to use less carbon fuels so that the developed nation can continue to use more will do nothing but ensure that impoverished nations remain impoverished.
CLIMATE POLICY IN A FREE SOCIETY:
This, then, is the debate. Are the consequences of doing nothing too dire to risk? Are the proposed solutions futile because climates change regardless of man's actions? Or, are the proposed solutions potentially effective, but not worth their costs? There are plenty of good arguments and all sides of this debate and in a free society policy is subsequently determined by vigorous debate of the issues amongst elected representatives expressing the will of the people. In a free society, demagoguery that glosses over controversy and labels one side as evil or immoral is unacceptable. By debating the actual data in support of and questioning man-made global warming, ultimately a political consensus may be reached that determines policy. Like it or not, in a free society the process of crafting policy is often slow as advocates attempt to persuade undecideds, through reason, that their position is correct.
However, the Environmental Protection Agency has hijacked this issue. The Constitution intends that regulation of economic or social behaviour should be decided by elected representatives. Congress makes laws that regulate economic behaviour and the President signs them. The President negotiates treaties with other nations and the Senate must ratify them. But now it matters little whether cap and trade legislation is stalled in Congress or whether there are votes in the Senate to ratify an agreement reached in Copenhagen. Now an independent regulatory agency has declared power to regulate carbon dioxide (and therefore carbon-fuels, and therefore the economic activity of every citizen) because it is a pollutant. The idea that carbon dioxide, a harmless gas that is exhaled by every man, woman, and child on the planet threatens the health and welfare of current Americans is laughable to say the least and yet the EPA has seen fit to declare it so and assume broad powers to control it without the least bit of responsibility to voters. Regardless of where we might stand on the climate debate, we should all be able to agree that this is appalling. The principle of the ends justifying the means is not an appropriate governing principle for a free and democratic society. It is the governing principle of totalitarianism.
Currency Competition
I wrote the following to my Congressman yesterday, urging him to support H.R. 4248, The Free Competition in Currency Act:
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 4248, The Free Competition in Currency Act, introduced by Representative Ron Paul on December 9, 2009.
The act would do three things: 1) abolish federal legal tender laws, 2) end prohibition of privately operated mints, and 3) eliminate capital gains taxes on gold and silver.
Although this may seem like an obscure issue, I can assure that none is more important. The role of money in modern society is critical. Without it, an individual would be forced to produce his or her own food, clothing, and shelter, or barter for it, hoping that the person that has what one needs, needs what one has to trade. Money introduces a common medium of exchange to facilitate economic transaction.
Sound money is critical to the long-term health and well being of a society. Although consumer prices have remained relatively stable in recent years, there has been considerable inflation in the money supply. Regardless of your view on the necessity of the two economic stimulus packages (one passed at the end of President Bush’s term and one passed at the beginning of the President Obama’s term), the money for this largess in federal spending comes largely from newly borrowed and newly printed money. In other words, this spending further inflates the money supply and will ultimately devalue the U.S. dollar. In addition to economic stimulus and other government programs you may deem valuable, this readily inflatable money supply also provides a means to finance wars. It is hard to believe that President Bush could have prosecuted an unpopular war in Iraq for so long if he actually had to confiscate wealth from citizens to pay for it.
A year ago, we saw how dangerous dollar devaluation could be when rising fuel prices, related to a weakening dollar, put a real pinch on working Americans. Not only did fuel prices rise, but this caused a subsequent rise in food prices and played no small role in precipitating the collapse of the housing bubble as more and more Americans could no longer afford to put gas in their cars, food on their tables, and make their mortgage payments all at the same time.
Congressman Paul’s bill would not eliminate Federal Reserve notes as currency, nor would it change the authority of Congress in the coinage of money, nor would it return the United States to a “gold standard.” What it would do is allow individuals choice in what to use and accept for payment. It would allow contracts to be written in other media of exchange besides Federal Reserve notes (i.e. precious metals or other commodities) and, more importantly, it would allow more Americans worried about the loss of their accumulated wealth and the diminishing of their buying power, due to inflation and devaluation of the dollar, to choose to use gold or other commodities as a medium of exchange or to protect their savings.
The first provision of H.R. 4248 would end the federal government’s monopoly on currency and give the consumer choice in his or her medium of exchange. The second provision would allow private companies to manufacture gold and silver coins, making the use of commodity-based money practical by introducing easily portable and transferable commodity money. The third provision is, in my opinion, the most important. Currently investors in gold and silver pay capital gains tax when the price of their gold and silver goes up. However, the rise in price of gold and silver is usually caused by devaluation of the dollar. We simply have to stop penalizing Americans for trying to save their wealth in a more stable asset. Furthermore, without this repeal, individuals using commodity money would pay a tax just to use it every time the Federal Reserve dollar lost value.
In the course of this letter, I have pointed out some of the problems with the Federal Reserve fiat currency. However, if the current U.S. dollar is truly superior to commodity money, if people continue to have confidence in it, and if the federal government pursues policies that strengthen it, then the U.S. dollar has nothing to fear from competition. On the other hand, having choice in currency will allow working Americans to protect their savings, protect their buying power, and use currency that everyone can have confidence in. As debate rages about whether to allow government to compete with private health insurance companies, I urge you to support competition in currency as well. Americans should no longer be forced to use devalued Federal Reserve notes and should have the choice to use sound money that retains its value.
Thank you for your attention to this very important issue.
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 4248, The Free Competition in Currency Act, introduced by Representative Ron Paul on December 9, 2009.
The act would do three things: 1) abolish federal legal tender laws, 2) end prohibition of privately operated mints, and 3) eliminate capital gains taxes on gold and silver.
Although this may seem like an obscure issue, I can assure that none is more important. The role of money in modern society is critical. Without it, an individual would be forced to produce his or her own food, clothing, and shelter, or barter for it, hoping that the person that has what one needs, needs what one has to trade. Money introduces a common medium of exchange to facilitate economic transaction.
Sound money is critical to the long-term health and well being of a society. Although consumer prices have remained relatively stable in recent years, there has been considerable inflation in the money supply. Regardless of your view on the necessity of the two economic stimulus packages (one passed at the end of President Bush’s term and one passed at the beginning of the President Obama’s term), the money for this largess in federal spending comes largely from newly borrowed and newly printed money. In other words, this spending further inflates the money supply and will ultimately devalue the U.S. dollar. In addition to economic stimulus and other government programs you may deem valuable, this readily inflatable money supply also provides a means to finance wars. It is hard to believe that President Bush could have prosecuted an unpopular war in Iraq for so long if he actually had to confiscate wealth from citizens to pay for it.
A year ago, we saw how dangerous dollar devaluation could be when rising fuel prices, related to a weakening dollar, put a real pinch on working Americans. Not only did fuel prices rise, but this caused a subsequent rise in food prices and played no small role in precipitating the collapse of the housing bubble as more and more Americans could no longer afford to put gas in their cars, food on their tables, and make their mortgage payments all at the same time.
Congressman Paul’s bill would not eliminate Federal Reserve notes as currency, nor would it change the authority of Congress in the coinage of money, nor would it return the United States to a “gold standard.” What it would do is allow individuals choice in what to use and accept for payment. It would allow contracts to be written in other media of exchange besides Federal Reserve notes (i.e. precious metals or other commodities) and, more importantly, it would allow more Americans worried about the loss of their accumulated wealth and the diminishing of their buying power, due to inflation and devaluation of the dollar, to choose to use gold or other commodities as a medium of exchange or to protect their savings.
The first provision of H.R. 4248 would end the federal government’s monopoly on currency and give the consumer choice in his or her medium of exchange. The second provision would allow private companies to manufacture gold and silver coins, making the use of commodity-based money practical by introducing easily portable and transferable commodity money. The third provision is, in my opinion, the most important. Currently investors in gold and silver pay capital gains tax when the price of their gold and silver goes up. However, the rise in price of gold and silver is usually caused by devaluation of the dollar. We simply have to stop penalizing Americans for trying to save their wealth in a more stable asset. Furthermore, without this repeal, individuals using commodity money would pay a tax just to use it every time the Federal Reserve dollar lost value.
In the course of this letter, I have pointed out some of the problems with the Federal Reserve fiat currency. However, if the current U.S. dollar is truly superior to commodity money, if people continue to have confidence in it, and if the federal government pursues policies that strengthen it, then the U.S. dollar has nothing to fear from competition. On the other hand, having choice in currency will allow working Americans to protect their savings, protect their buying power, and use currency that everyone can have confidence in. As debate rages about whether to allow government to compete with private health insurance companies, I urge you to support competition in currency as well. Americans should no longer be forced to use devalued Federal Reserve notes and should have the choice to use sound money that retains its value.
Thank you for your attention to this very important issue.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Trying Time
Attorney General Eric Holder has made news this week announcing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the alleged planner (I refuse to use the word, "mastermind," to describe a thug who allegedly planned the murder of thousands) of the September 11 attacks will be tried in a U.S. civilian court in New York City, rather than by a military tribunal. Predictably on the Sunday morning talk shows this morning, Republicans lined up to label this as a bad idea that threatens our national security and Democrats lined up to praise the move. Opponents argue that KSM does not deserve the protections of the accused afforded a U.S. citizen in a criminal trial, that such a trial may publicly expose sensitive information about U.S. intelligence gathering that will hamper our efforts to defeat international terrorism, and that the criminal justice paradigm is not appropriate for foreign terrorists who have committed an act of war.
Whether a criminal or a war time paradigm is appropriate in dealing with terrorists is somewhat of a false choice. An attack by international terrorists is BOTH an act of war and a crime. Surely a wartime footing is appropriate in going after attackers overseas and gathering intelligence that may help thwart future attacks. It may often be appropriate to gather information in ways that would be inadmissible in a criminal court if it will prevent an attack. This does not preclude formal charges and criminal trials for those apprehended after an attack.
Deciding if, when, and to what degree civil liberties can be suspended in time of war in a free society is difficult enough. However, in conventional war between nation states (or even in the U.S. Civil War), it is understood that such measures are meant to be temporary and last only for the duration of the war. Jihadist terrorism is something that the United States is likely to remain at war with for the foreseeable future. Shouldn't we then be more selective in what, if any, civil liberties we suspend in the interest of national security when the perceived need for such measures is indefinite? What good is victory, after all, if we have to sacrifice the liberty we are fighting for in order to achieve it?
But, the case of KSM presents its own challenges. Unlike Timothy McVeigh, KSM is not a U.S. citizen and not, automatically, guaranteed the protections of our Constitution. Unlike Zacarias Moussaoui (the "20th hijacker"), he was not even arrested on U.S. soil as the result of a criminal investigation. Rather, KSM was taken on the field of battle in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers as a prisoner of war. Why then should constitutional protections apply to him? Surely it is appropriate that he be tried, as a prisoner of war, by a military tribunal. Surely, his trial by a tribunal would in no way set any kind of precedent that erodes the rights if U.S. citizens. Some of the Republicans opposed to the move argued on the Sunday morning talk shows this morning that the public trials of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers made public information about American security measures that allowed Al Qaeda to plan a more successful attack. Whether this is true or not, certainly the possibility that KSM's public trial could make public sensitive information is an important consideration.
I don't know whether the criminal court or the military tribunal is the proper venue for the trial of KSM. What I do know, is that to be credible and just, the integrity of the process must be maintained. If there are valid reasons of national security why KSM should not be tried in a civilian criminal court, there is certainly appropriate legal grounds for not offering him that venue (he is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not protected by the Constitution and he was taken as a prisoner of war on the field of battle) then try him with a military tribunal. On the other hand, the United States should never be afraid to offer constitutional protections to non-citizens (as we would with any alien apprehended for a crime within our borders, like Zacarias Moussaoui). If we truly believe, as I do, that our principles of liberty are, "self-evident," and appropriate for all people world-wide then we should not shirk from proclaiming that to the world by offering such basic civil liberties even to our enemies.
But, the integrity of the process can only be maintained if the same procedure is followed for all terror detainees apprehended overseas. KSM is being offered a criminal trial, but other terror suspects are being tried by military tribunals. This approach smells of rigged outcomes. Attorney General Holder is certain he has met criminal burdens of evidence for KSM, so he gets a show trial in New York, but others in Guantanamo for whom evidence is not as solid will be railroaded through a military tribunal. The message this sends is that the process is irrelevant so long as we get the "right result." If we can't get you one way, we'll get you another (A supporter of the administration's plan to try KSM, Rep. Jack Reed (D-RI) went as far on Fox News Sunday today to suggest that even if KSM were acquitted he could and would still be held indefinitely because of the threat he represents!). If KSM deserves a criminal trial, then doesn't every non-citizen terror suspect apprehended overseas? If there are reasons why a prisoner of war paradigm for terror detainees is more appropriate than an indicted criminal paradigm, then shouldn't KSM also be tried by a military tribunal?
I have no problem offering KSM constitutional protections in a criminal trial, so long as these protections are offered to all apprehended terror suspects. I can live with the idea that terror suspects that are not U.S. citizens and were apprehended overseas can be tried by military tribunals, including KSM. What I find inappropriate and unacceptable is selective choice of venue. Justice can only truly exist when applied equally to everyone.
Whether a criminal or a war time paradigm is appropriate in dealing with terrorists is somewhat of a false choice. An attack by international terrorists is BOTH an act of war and a crime. Surely a wartime footing is appropriate in going after attackers overseas and gathering intelligence that may help thwart future attacks. It may often be appropriate to gather information in ways that would be inadmissible in a criminal court if it will prevent an attack. This does not preclude formal charges and criminal trials for those apprehended after an attack.
Deciding if, when, and to what degree civil liberties can be suspended in time of war in a free society is difficult enough. However, in conventional war between nation states (or even in the U.S. Civil War), it is understood that such measures are meant to be temporary and last only for the duration of the war. Jihadist terrorism is something that the United States is likely to remain at war with for the foreseeable future. Shouldn't we then be more selective in what, if any, civil liberties we suspend in the interest of national security when the perceived need for such measures is indefinite? What good is victory, after all, if we have to sacrifice the liberty we are fighting for in order to achieve it?
But, the case of KSM presents its own challenges. Unlike Timothy McVeigh, KSM is not a U.S. citizen and not, automatically, guaranteed the protections of our Constitution. Unlike Zacarias Moussaoui (the "20th hijacker"), he was not even arrested on U.S. soil as the result of a criminal investigation. Rather, KSM was taken on the field of battle in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers as a prisoner of war. Why then should constitutional protections apply to him? Surely it is appropriate that he be tried, as a prisoner of war, by a military tribunal. Surely, his trial by a tribunal would in no way set any kind of precedent that erodes the rights if U.S. citizens. Some of the Republicans opposed to the move argued on the Sunday morning talk shows this morning that the public trials of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers made public information about American security measures that allowed Al Qaeda to plan a more successful attack. Whether this is true or not, certainly the possibility that KSM's public trial could make public sensitive information is an important consideration.
I don't know whether the criminal court or the military tribunal is the proper venue for the trial of KSM. What I do know, is that to be credible and just, the integrity of the process must be maintained. If there are valid reasons of national security why KSM should not be tried in a civilian criminal court, there is certainly appropriate legal grounds for not offering him that venue (he is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not protected by the Constitution and he was taken as a prisoner of war on the field of battle) then try him with a military tribunal. On the other hand, the United States should never be afraid to offer constitutional protections to non-citizens (as we would with any alien apprehended for a crime within our borders, like Zacarias Moussaoui). If we truly believe, as I do, that our principles of liberty are, "self-evident," and appropriate for all people world-wide then we should not shirk from proclaiming that to the world by offering such basic civil liberties even to our enemies.
But, the integrity of the process can only be maintained if the same procedure is followed for all terror detainees apprehended overseas. KSM is being offered a criminal trial, but other terror suspects are being tried by military tribunals. This approach smells of rigged outcomes. Attorney General Holder is certain he has met criminal burdens of evidence for KSM, so he gets a show trial in New York, but others in Guantanamo for whom evidence is not as solid will be railroaded through a military tribunal. The message this sends is that the process is irrelevant so long as we get the "right result." If we can't get you one way, we'll get you another (A supporter of the administration's plan to try KSM, Rep. Jack Reed (D-RI) went as far on Fox News Sunday today to suggest that even if KSM were acquitted he could and would still be held indefinitely because of the threat he represents!). If KSM deserves a criminal trial, then doesn't every non-citizen terror suspect apprehended overseas? If there are reasons why a prisoner of war paradigm for terror detainees is more appropriate than an indicted criminal paradigm, then shouldn't KSM also be tried by a military tribunal?
I have no problem offering KSM constitutional protections in a criminal trial, so long as these protections are offered to all apprehended terror suspects. I can live with the idea that terror suspects that are not U.S. citizens and were apprehended overseas can be tried by military tribunals, including KSM. What I find inappropriate and unacceptable is selective choice of venue. Justice can only truly exist when applied equally to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)