Government policy is not just a blunt instrument, it's a toy instrument, a nerf bat, a ceremonial symbol of no value if it has to actually be used. I don't mean that it can't do great harm - we have all of history to provide examples of that - I mean that it can't do good, can't deal with real problems.

But, in a bureaucratic world the response to every serious issue is to kick it upstairs. Not my yob, every underling says, and we are all underlings. The problem is that the penthouse is occupied by sociopaths who don't give a crap about anything but their own well being. It could not be otherwise since any honest and caring person would soon be destroyed by the realization of their inadequacy to the task, their inability to deal with the problems kicked upstairs to them.

I think that this may be why actors and confidence men do well in politics. They are comfortable playing a part. They can be the doctor or super hero or whatever since they don't ever have to actually do anything, they just have to play the role. Give them a script and they can sell it.

We all know this, so how do we reconcile the failure to deal with problems with our continued support for politicians? We have the astounding ability to reshape reality to fit our expectations. With hammer and tongs we torture the facts and with scalpels and dynamite we cut and explode past events until they support the script well enough for us to suspend disbelief. We want to believe and that's enough. Remarkable.

Unfortunately, we currently have two good examples of this: financial problems and environmental problems. Various cures are offered though none of them can work even in theory unless a host of other fortuitous events occur in future, and it may be that such a fortuitous alignment of the planets would work as well without the policy placebos.

Here's a more detailed example of this nonsensical system.

Conservatives, even those vehemently opposed to GHG controls, should like this deal because it is substantially better than the status quo. As a consequence of Massachusetts v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency will be required to regulate GHGs, and not just from motor vehicles. The EPA has affirmed the potential negative consequences of climate change too many times for it to avoid making the endangerment finding that triggers regulation under several Clean Air Act provisions. As a consequence, it is only a matter of time before agency is mandated to control such emissions from new motor vehicles and a wide range of other sources, including power plants, factories, and perhaps even non-industrial buildings. Such regulation would be tremendously costly, but not terribly cost-effective, and thus much worse than a revenue-neutral carbon tax. A tax trade of this sort is also the best chance conservatives have to enact pro-growth tax cuts in the current environment.

Will such regulations or taxes actually accomplish any useful objectives? Will GHGs stop accumulating? No. There will be no measurable effects. But we must do something since that's the law, so let's try to find a least harmful do-nothing policy. The more rational approach of changing the silly law is not on. That would destroy the illusions of the audience and put the actors out of work. Won't happen. Worse, GHG problems are intimately connected to all the other problems, notably the financial mess. One fake solution undermines another fake solution so that things won't go according to the script, which isn't too big a deal since it may still be entertaining. We love dramatic setbacks that advance the plot.

Our national rescue policies differ little from cult fantasies - passing UFOs will beam us up and take us on a glorious adventure. But the UFO script doesn't have many viewers, can't pay the bills, so it gets cancelled after playing for a short time in a few houses. We get a few reruns on late night cable or satellite broadcasts. Anyone up at that time is a fringe character desperate for a sufficiently improbable fantasy that even they can suspend disbelief.

But, the little differences matter for ratings. A fantasy about carbon taxes has some juicy parts that advance careers. Leading men (of every gender) with good hair and enough dog in their voices to command attention can wear flattering costumes and pretend to expertise, babelicious ingenues will give them smiles and warm eyes, viewers can project themselves into the fantasy for a while and have a good time.

It won't do to get too upset about the ruse. Things won't change. We have some duty to call bullshit, but we also need to go Buddha about it and smile on the follies of human kind. Some things are invariant if not actually eternal, and the actors are cute. We can get on with the real business of living our brief lives, toiling as necessary, whelping the babes, keeping the faith or trucking or whatever analogy works. Semper Fi.