TT`s Lost in Tokyo : government

Obama uses climate change concerns to mandate a slimming of government energy use and carbon footprint

TokyoTom — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:42:00 GMT

I`d like to see how conservatives can figure out how to bitch about Obama`s new executive order. From WaPo on Monday (Juliet Eilerin)

The federal government will require each agency to measure its greenhouse-gas emissions for the first time and set targets to reduce them by 2020, under an executive order signed by President Obama Monday.

The measure affects such things as the electricity federal buildings consume and the carbon output of federal workers' commutes.

"As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," Obama said in a statement. "This executive order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government's commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."

Each agency must report its 2020 emission targets to the Council on Environmental Quality within 90 days.

Administration officials said they could not estimate the federal government's carbon footprint, since it has never been measured before, but the government ranks as the nation's largest energy consumer. It occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles and employs more than 1.8 million civilian workers.

Under the executive order, all federal agencies will have to meet a series of environmental targets over the next decade. They include 50 percent recycling and waste diversion by 2015; a 30 percent reduction in vehicle-fleet petroleum use by 2020; and a 26 percent improvement in water efficiency by 2020.

President George W. Bush signed an executive order in 2007 that asked four agencies to draw up regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks by the end of his administration, but didn't ask for specific targets. His move came after the Supreme Court ruled that his administration did not follow Clean Air Act requirements in not regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles.

Okay, I got one: if it applies to "defense" spending, how dare Obama cripple our ability to defend America!

Jim Manzi/Cato: Climate progressives?

TokyoTom — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:43:00 GMT

Jim Manzi has just posted the close-out essay in the online forum (at Cato Unbound ) that the Cato Institute has devoted recently to the issues of climate change risks and policy. I alerted readers to the Cato effort and provide comments here , here and...(read more)

Fighting over the President's Council on Bioethics (and human "dignity") - is Steven Pinker wrong?

TokyoTom — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:05:00 GMT

[Update below.] When government is involved in making decisions about the use of tax dollars or regulatory power to favor or hinder particular activities, it is not surprising that political struggles often ensue between groups that wish to obtain a policy...(read more)

Frank Zappa: Slime is the tool of the Government (and of modern politics)

TokyoTom — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:46:00 GMT

[I ran this originally as a "page" rather than as a "post", when I had simply put up Zappa`s lyrics. Since "posts" might be more visible to visitors I`ve decided to post this as well.] I ran across some interesting and topical...(read more)

Fighting over the wheel of government

TokyoTom — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:43:00 GMT

[update below] Fundamentalist states on an interesting thread: "Most Americans are outright socialists; the rest are socialist sympathizers. They believe that only the government can save them from capitalists."

In response, I raised the following questions:

Do you think Jefferson was wrong when he urged:

"I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm

The concentrated wealth and long lives of corporations have long made them a special and powerful class of rent-seekers, eliminating liability for shareholders and vanquishing restrictions on life and acceptable business activities. Are citizens wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, using in part the very tool of government that corporations have effectively seized?

Let me add here the comment that while ultimately the way forward lies in hacking back government, one cannot deny that rent-seeking by corporations has been and continues to be a major factor in politicizing and hardening conflicts that could otherwise be resolved privately. While bashing "socialists", "enviros" and other citizens groups, it behooves us not to forget the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

[update in response to comments:]

I agree completely that the best way to lessen rent-seeking is to reduce the rents that are available through government.

This implies smaller government, but also suggests that we can make progress by focussing on breathing more life into the federalist structure of power-sharing with the states, the checks and balances between the branches of government, by limiting the ability of either political party to get a local lock on power by gerrymandering.

I appreciate the agreement that citizens are not wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, but you've missed a point. Corporations are the 800 lb. gorilla not because of ongoing corporate welfare - that's simply the effect. Their powerful advantages over citizens in influencing government comes from their size and financial power, which derives from legislative grants of unlimited life, unlimited purposes and limited liability for their investors. To reduce government, some effort must be made to moderate these advantages.