TT`s Lost in Tokyo - All Comments

re: Luboš Motl 4: His considered plan to eliminate enviros: they should be treated like N*zis, so it may be necessary to kill millions (less if we get started soon!)

TokyoTom — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:16:32 GMT

Lepus: Thanks for your comments.

May I suggest that one of the best ways to engage skeptics on the right is on their own terms? Namely, that it is largely voluntary cooperation among millions/billions through markets, based on private property that is responsible for the creation of our wealthy societies. However, it is well-recognized that this mechanism doesn't work for resources that are UNOWNED (or are "public" but used for private gain by corrupt elites) - like the ocean (and its fisheries, which no one has any incentives to protect and are being destroyed), tropical forests/wildlife and the atmosphere.

Even die-hard rightists ought to be able to recognize that the absence of effective property rights (individiual or group) is the road to ruin, so that we need to find a way to manage such resources, rather than to continue to subsidize their destruction.

Such people ought also to be sensitive to what church leaders say about abusing nature.

re: Luboš Motl 4: His considered plan to eliminate enviros: they should be treated like N*zis, so it may be necessary to kill millions (less if we get started soon!)

Lepus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:43 GMT

TT. Thank you for your both your responses; it has taken me a few days to understand them--and also maybe what I was thinking.

We are faced with a whole ecosystem in the denier movement. I've done some research--I read Lomborg (ik), and visit the Beck and Limbaugh sites (groan). Then I read their references. And so on.

There are the enablers like Soon and their funders. The millions of voters that have been coopted by the anti enviro propaganda, often through the skillful use of memes (existing or planted?, I wonder)(and if existing, how many generations have they survived?).

Many curious species are less easily spotted-- Spencer, Pielke, et al, who are entitled to an opinion in this issue, but have strong motives from other issues (ear tip to the big bunny).

All of it seemingly cohering into a do nothing or do little course which is basically suicidal for the planet.

My (previously unrecognized) instinct is to categorize the different species in this ecosystem. Track the flow of energy. Develop a taxonomy. Ask a zillion questions.

Enter LM. He is like every puzzle in the denier ecology rolled up into one person. An engine of contradiction, juxtaposing concepts like euthanasia and freedom in some fractured logic. Using reason to unseat reason.

I applaud your efforts to talk with Lubos. (now, i am heading over to his blog for a little observation...)

Lepus

So, my instinct here is to try to understand this

[Update] Mind Games: Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal panders to "skeptics" by abjuring science and declaring himself an expert on "mass neurosis"

TT`s Lost in Tokyo — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:17:14 GMT

[Update: For an ongoing case study of the startling irrationality and "sick souls" of some

[Update] Mind Games: Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal panders to "skeptics" by abjuring science and declaring himself an expert on "mass neurosis"

TT`s Lost in Tokyo — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:17:13 GMT

[Update: For an ongoing case study of the startling irrationality and "sick souls" of some

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

TokyoTom — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:09:28 GMT

Jeff, clearly privatization of most of the federal lands is desirable. Federal "management" has often been inept (information problems and incentive mismatches) and/or corrupt (good ol' rent-seeking). But outright privatization simply isn't going to happen, as politicians like to have royalty and other payments coming into the Treasury for them to play with. If privatization were to occur, I would agree that the feds should simply auction off the land to the highest bidder.

My point in referring to environemental groups was not they they should be favored, but simply that, if they owned these lands, they WOULD develop them too - the point being that the current deadlock is simply a result of federal ownership preventing parties from agreeing to compromises, while incentivizing grandstanding and rigidity.

What I have suggested here is simply a way to break the current deadlock over ANWR and the OCS, while paving a way for improved federal resource management generally.

My chief grounds for skepticism here is not that environmentalists or oil and gas firms are not interested in compromising, but that the federal government/Congresscritters will be reluctant to let Americans directly capture the benefit of resources that, after all, WE are supposed to own. Instead, politicians like to sport about in fields of cash, with administration relatively unfettered by citizen oversight(other than by those evil enviros).

But I do see a great opportunity here that is worth exploring. Congresscritters would be very popular if they found ways to give royalty checks to citizens - and this would set the path for further quasi-privatization as well as for a recycled carbon tax.

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

jtucker — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:32:06 GMT

Ok, so long as you are on the hotseat, another angle here: why bias the ownership in favor of environmental groups? Why not just privatize the thing by selling it to the highest bidder? Aren't you merely "picking winners and losers" in the marketplace, same as a central planner?

In general, you have real insight here, but I'm not for limiting the privatizing possibilities to only those that conform to my values.

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

TokyoTom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:50:22 GMT

James, thanks for the comments.

The environmentalists and others supporting them have until now prevailed over those advocating development in ANWR using the argument you mention (and others). But I think they should be interested in shifting, for a number of reasons; primarily because if public/legislative opinion shifts, then a portion of ANWR will be developed, but with little control by environmnetalists. I think that environmentalists ought to be more proactive, and look at a wider big picture that improves federal resource management greatly, rather than playing these continuous rear-guard battles that are inevitable when a resource is owned by the government.

"the point of refuges is usually to preserve ecosystems in a pristine state". I appreciate your idealism, but in the real world "reserves" are set up only in very remote places that are difficult to develop, and for which a primitive state (open for recreation) is probably the best economic use. Even where the demand for recreation/environmental use is high, much of our vast BLM and USFS lands are used for tree and mineral resource extraction. Our politicians love to cave to whomever makes the greatest campaign contributions.

And, as noted, there are important concerns to balance. If TNC, Audubon or Sierra Club owned ANWR, they would certainly proceed with careful, limited development. Besides protecting ANWR, they could use the revenues to protect the Amazon, Western rivers (and salmon), etc.

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

James Haughton — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:59:57 GMT

I don't see any reason why environmentalists would (for example) pump oil out of the ANWR. Resource extraction is intrinsically an environmentally damaging activity, no matter how well managed, and the point of refuges is usually to preserve ecosystems in a pristine state, not an only-moderately-degraded state. Any financial benefit would be more than offset by their massive loss of credibility with the public if they pursued such a strategy. That said, I could see such groups getting involved in e.g. the ecotourism business.

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

TokyoTom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:06:39 GMT

John, thanks for your comments.

The right way to manage the primary environmental risk is through a carbon tax. Even with such a tax, ANWR is valuable, primariliy because natural gas and coal are much preferable in many ways to coal.

BTW, I do not assume that all lands with "high commercial value" should be developed. Rather, all values should be considered and balanced. That doesn't happen when resources are socialized, either because one party wins the political battle or gets favorable treatment for bureaucrats, and because bureaucrats have few incentives to really balance all interests fairly.

Such a balancing would also happen if we turned our public lands into public trusts that had to live on their own budgets.

The upper hand that the environmentalists have had up until now on ANWR and OCS is obviously unsteady, and they could improve their overall position by trading for a general rebated carbon tax and royalty pass through, that would probably be loved by taxpayers worried about the costs of climate change policies.

I disagree with you on how royalties should be used. Without a deal such as I propose, they will continue to go into our general pork barrel slush fund, from which we can expect nothing but more Congressional giveaways. The administrators could use incentives like a slice of the royalties in order to be a little more concerned about actually collecting them. I also think that cutting a roylaty check to citizens, like Alaska does, would help boost support for better oversight, and end the favoritism and uneconomical giveaways we see in BLM and USFS.

I am NOT in favor of using extraction royalties to give poliicians more money to spread around to well-connected friends and on boondoggles, or expand the range of bureaucratized activities (which is why I see a carbon tax as much preferrable to cap and trade). We already do enough environmental damage with our sugar and ethanol subsidies, and as we saw with synfuels, the government is just not the right actor to be determining what we should invest in. For this, simple carbon pricing without further meddling (other than continuing general climate research, emissions monitoring and dissemination of information) is the best way.

Regards,

Tom

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

TokyoTom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:46:43 GMT

Frank, I see my proposal as a way to defuse debate, improve resource management and to even win a better climate deal. If the land were given away to Sierra Club, TNC or Audubon, would they develop it? You'd be darned sure! They could use the funds to protect the Amazon, Kalimantan, and do a bunch of other things - even bring climate law suits and push for carbon taxes. Locking up resources in public lands means these groups have no interest in balancing even their own priorities, as the best they can do under the current situation is to simply to stall.

As the Arctic warms, other resources up there will be developed. In fact, OCS development, which is much riskier that land development, is already being considered.

Another factor is that Inupiaks have development rights in ANWR that Congress locked up after the Inupiaks bartered away other land to the US. We should uphold our end of that deal, and allow exploration and development of at least their portion.

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

TokyoTom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:35:25 GMT

David, this is not so much an anti-commons tragedy as a classic battle for control over a socialized commons. Up until now, those who prefer environmental, recreatational and other values over development value have been winning.

The political consensus that supported the status quo is unsteady, and environmentalists and others ought to be able to recognize the advantages gained from improved managment.

Environmentalists could perhaps also, by agreeing to the steps mentioned here, help to persuade Congress to approve a carbon tax/rebate program.

re: Citizens fight wildfires in Northern California ...

TokyoTom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:20:47 GMT

Good point, that others mentioned on threads last year. The insurers help to fight fires, because that's cheaper than paying out on their contracts, and they set their premiums based on the degree of fireproofing of the construction and lanbdscaping.

In my view, we out to just let fires burn - except where private individuals, communities and public forests/parks - on their own budgets - make decisions to prevent and or extinguish. The $1 billion open checkbook that Congress now gives for wildfire fighting is great for agency budgets, but pays almost zero dividends (and maybe worse - by kicking the problem down the road).

re: Citizens fight wildfires in Northern California ...

ghuff — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:09:39 GMT

I saw on the mainstream nightly news (nbc?) that insurance companies were helping too!@!omg

re: Breaking the senseless impasse on ANWR and OCS exploration and development - a tax and rebate proposal

John Davidson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:05:58 GMT

I'll limit the scope of my response to oil and natural gas resources.

As a matter of pure, present, economic efficiency, your proposal may make sense. But when future economics and environmental concerns are factored in, I'm not sure it does.

The underlying assumption -- that all lands with "high commercial value" should be developed -- seems to me misguided. The implication is that we should design our land management policies to insure the extraction of all "valuable" oil and gas. The problem is that it makes no sense to extract it unless we're going to burn it. And if we pump out and burn everything that's economically feasible to pump out and burn, we're going to cook ourselves. The politically incovenient truth is that we're ultimately going to have to decide to leave some of the ancient sunlight in the ground if we want to survive, no matter how "valuable" that sunlight may appear to be in the short term.

On another note, if we're going to distribute the proceeds of any extraction tax, those proceeds should go primarily towards the development of alternative energy sources, as the carbon tax in England does. This would offset the costs, in the form of global warming, that are presently being externalized onto posterity. Distributing the proceeds in the present on a per capita basis would constitute generational exploitation.

Valuable and win-win?

bi -- IJI — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:30:10 GMT

"we have deadlock, with valuable resources sitting in the ground, and possibilities for mutually beneficial deals lost."

Eh, not so fast. Oil companies haven't even used up all their existing offshore drilling leases at the Gulf of Mexico, so why on earth is ANWR and OCS suddenly so "valuable"?

And I'm not sure how opening them up will be "mutually beneficial". I mean, Sierra Club drills oil and causes more global warming, so that Sierra Club can later use the proceeds from selling oil to, um, protect against global warming? I don't know... this sounds like a win-win situation, where the winners don't include the public.

(Could it be that the proposal to open up ANWR and OCS is just an election gimmick by McCain that only benefits vote count? That can't be, right?...)

Anyway, if you ask me, I'd probably suggest the government cede the land to wind power companies. Or Al Gore.

-- bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/