I often skip to the end of an argument or paper and read the conclusions first. The writer had the conclusion in mind from the beginning and worked backwards from there, offering evidence or arguments to support that conclusion, so it makes sense to read that way too. It makes it easier to see where the writer goes astray, succumbing to confirmation bias or simply fudging the tricky bits - then a miracle occurs - in order to reach desired conclusions. For example, the answer is “biofuels”.

a bipartisan group of 42 members of Congress has decided to tell EPA what scientific methods it should use to evaluate the carbon dioxide footprint of biofuels, based on its judgments as to the scientific merit of those methods. . .

The answer is “biofuels”. Thus, the science needs to be produced in such a way as to support that answer.

I won't repeat all of my arguments why biofuels are not desirable from an environmental or climate management perspective. The point here is that these arguments have been ruled inadmissible by the political court since they do not support the desired conclusions. They answer the wrong question, which is something like how do we leverage angst about climate and security to enhance political power.

Or, perhaps the answer is fuel standards.

The Obama Administration’s announcement this afternoon of tightened fuel efficiency standards provides an excellent example of what the Congressional debate over cap and trade does not — a direct and obvious connection between the policy and the outcome, in this case reduced use of gasoline and by extension greenhouse gas emissions. If emissions are to be reduced then efficiency gains will necessarily have to be a big part of the equation. . .

Over the life of the fuel economy program (7 years) this equates to a reduction of about 0.046 gigatonnes per year (i.e., = 0.32/7). In 2007 the US had about 7.28 Gt of greenhouse gas emissions, so the effect of the new emissions regulation on greenhouse gas emissions from a 2007 baseline are a reduction of about 0.6%. If this seems like a small number consider that the U.S. consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day (!), meaning that 1.8 billion barrels represents about 90 days worth of gasoline usage, or 13 days per year for the 7 years of the program.

So if the program actually saves 1.8 billion barrels of gasoline then the new standards over 7 years will free up 90 days of gasoline and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (from a 2007 baseline) by 0.6%. These numbers may seem small, but they are actually quite significant. Piece by piece, step by step are how efficiency gains are achieved in practice, and perhaps more importantly, when established as performance standards can be made permanent so the benefits continue (and indeed increase) indefinitely.

Does it make any sense to assume that vehicle usage will remain the same? Are people constrained by fuel usage now? A great deal of research shows that they are, that an increase in fuel cost results in lower usage, and that a decrease results in higher usage. It's not a simple linear relationship over time but it clearly shows that assuming constant usage makes no sense. If vehicles get better mileage they are likely to be used more and so raise total fuel consumption, perhaps consuming all of the imagined savings in both fuel and emissions.

We have another example of the bed wetting problem discussed in the previous post. Raising fuel standards will have some effect, such as raising the price of vehicles, but adaptation, evasion and resistance will be very unlikely to have the net result of emissions reduction shown in the simple calculations used to support the desired answer. Some possible results are that a shake-out in vehicle manufacturers will take place since those in the best position to exploit the new standards have been handed an opportunity, while those least able to respond have been dealt a blow. Also, those least able to afford vehicles will now be even less able to afford new ones, and may drop down market into used vehicles that may not be so cost efficient to operate, but those are deferred costs and the task of poor people is just to survive today and deal with tomorrow when it comes. Worse, there may be more poor people if the effect is to decrease jobs by shifting them to some remote low cost producer.

Brute force doesn't work. Rules and regulations don't have the results that politicans claim they will have. Consider the various banking regulations intended to force bankers to be prudent. In some nations one sort of regulation was used and in others a different one was used. So, they just swapped assets and risks in ways that satisfied regulators, but didn't actually achieve prudent banking.

There's an attitude problem. The political classes view society as the enemy, a cohort that needs to be controlled, nannied, and if convenient oppressed. That attitude colors legislation and regulation, makes it adversarial. The desires of society are dismissed as the ignorant yearnings of lesser humans, or even the evil desires of an amoral horde.

A more ethical and more effective attitude is that the legitimate task of governments is to assist society in achieving its purposes - to help and serve not obstruct and control. There is no evidence that the fashionable enthusiasms of the political classes ever achieve any good, indeed, quite the opposite. Those few instances where the political classes have acted ethically and effectively were belated acquiescence to overwhelming demand from society, where good originates.

Society wants abundant, cheap and clean energy to achieve its legitimate purposes of mobility, productivity and well being. That has always been so, it will always be so, and opposing that is simply insane. The only legitimate task of the political classes is to assist in any way possible to help society achieve its energy objectives. Nothing ever justifies attempting to thwart society. Waffling on about externalities such as pollution and security does not lead to a sensible conclusion that society must suck it up and go without, it merely highlights the real work of developing improved energy systems. Squandering time and resources on senseless distractions such as fuel efficiency standards or emissions reductions is an evasion, an abdication, a ruse to increase power and control, and loot society. We have massive political and so government failure.

There's a pattern

Should we put a carbon tax on China?

Paul Krugman seems to say yes:

As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.

I cannot agree with what I think is his recommendation. . .

I do understand the basic instinct of "this problem is really bad so we must do something...and now!" I would suggest that we keep in mind the less obvious, but no less important intuition: "this problem is really bad and that means a lot of what we are tempted to do could make it even worse."

There are several supportive points in a bullet list in the post - read them if you need them though I should think that it is painfully obvious that Krugman is an idiot. One of the points can make the case:

We cannot credibly penalize the Chinese until we solve our own pollution problem. Even under Obama's proposed policies, in their purer forms, that is at best decades away. In the meantime, what is it that is really being advocated? Non-credible threats?

Bed wetting again. There's a saying among graziers that herd management requires that you be smarter than a cow. This is often not the case and so drovers, like Krugman and Obama, resort to brute force and just make a mess. They get the animals all lathered, break things and hurt people, spend way more time than is needed, use far more equipment than required, and generally make asses of themselves. Our problem is that we have elevated people who aren't really smart enough to do the jobs we have given them, and not mature enough to work cooperatively to do group problem solving. They are petty tyrants - bullies - who make life a bit uglier while doing nothing useful.