Last week, I found myself becoming angry at certain Congresspersons who were displayed on my television. It seems that the omnibus energy bill includes language protecting makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits with regard to groundwater contamination, and this has some of our elected officials on the warpath. Apparently, they care more for their trial lawyer friends than they do for logic.
'Yesterday,' Kim du Toit blogged about the matter, thus reminding me that I, too, am a blogger. I needn't settle for hurling objectionable phrases at my TV.
For my research, I went right to the source. From the EPA website:
MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace lead as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking"). Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980's.) Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. In one respect, the oxygen dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene) and sulfur. In another, oxygen optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons.
[snip]
Unlike ethanol, MTBE can be shipped through existing pipelines, and its volatility is lower, making it easier to meet the emission standards.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically require oxygenated molecules to be added to gasoline in "areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution," resulting in reformulated gasoline (RFG). Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is the compound used to satisfy this requirement for 87% of RFG, according to the page referenced.
This stuff has been in our gas since 1979. The amounts of it used were increased drastically in the 1990's, in direct response to Federal environmental legislation. And the makers of MTBE aren't even the people who spilled it. Perhaps, then, these so-called "leaders" could explain how suing the makers is remotely fair. Next thing you know, they'll want to sue gun manufacturers because of what someone did with the product. Oh, wait-- they already want to do that.
Well, at least I haven't heard about a lawsuit being brought against kitchen knife manufacturers, on account of involvement in a fatal stabbing. If that ever happens, I don't think I'll be able to retain my policy of not swearing on this site. No, not nearly.
Knowledge Problem links a comprehensive selection of articles with regard to the energy bill. Check it out, if my little tirade piqued your interest in this piece of legislation, which defines "omnibus" as an adjective for a bill with a lot of stuff in it.
Very early in the life of my blog, I knew that I wanted to talk about overfishing, and how to properly use the government to eliminate it. Time passed, and Steven Den Beste of USS Clueless wrote an article about something called "The Tragedy of the Commons." I thought, yep, that's the concept I was talking about-- except that I hadn't 'talked' about it at all. But when Lynne Kiesling of Knowledge Problem posted on the exact subject of reducing overfishing (hat tip: Insults Unpunished), I was finally spurred to action.
Allow me to explain the situation. The ocean is a big place, with a lot of fish, and it will support a certain amount of fishing without a perennial decrease in the fish population. As the harvest increases, a point will be reached where the population declines, because fish are being caught faster than they can reproduce (faster than they can reproduce in the wild, that is). Thus there is a smaller base population for future growth, and if 'nothing is done,' the decline will become increasingly precipitous.
Assuming that these fish are located in waters where anyone can catch them, the situation will play out like this: With fewer fish to catch, the harvest will become smaller-- putting economic pressure on fisherman to catch as many fish as possible, which only hastens the decline. There are only two options: keep fishing despite the diminishing returns, or cut your losses and do something else for a living. The latter seems reasonable, but bear in mind that commercial fishing involves a large capital investment in a boat. Selling that boat for decent money depends on someone else wanting to buy it, which is highly unlikely with the fishery in decline.
The government will step in at some point, having detected the situation via its AR-7(b) vote-sensing radar. Fishing will be regulated, and a common way to do that is to impose quotas on the catch, aiming to stop the decline in population. Basically, this worsens the economic plight of the fishermen, and really depresses the value of the fishing equipment. Quotas are assigned to individual fisherman by government decree, thus slashing earning potential-- still without benefit if you stop fishing (or if there is, it will be an expensive public bail-out, like the dairy herd buyouts back in the 80's). The incentive to illegally exceed the quota is immense.
What the government should do is assign individual tradable quotas, or ITQs (thanks to the Knowledge Problem article for the term), which entitle the holder to a certain portion of the total allowed catch, which is then scientifically decided upon every year. Being tradable, you can sell your ITQ to someone else on the open market, thus finally giving people a chance to get out of the business with some money to show for it. The fundamental problem is that too many people are trying to make a living catching fish, and ITQs are the obvious and fair way to let fisherman sell out, and simultaneously reduce the fish harvest to a sustainable level. Illegal overfishing would not only reduce future income, but also decrease the future value of the ITQ, and that's aside from the danger of getting 'caught.' With the economic picture no longer neither dire, nor worsening, the incentive to cheat is minimal.
The solution is obvious. So go forth, my loyal readers, and make the government implement such things.
If you read the entry at Insults Unpunished, then you're probably wondering what I think of Robert Prather's solution, which is fish farming. Fish farming is good, but that's a topic for another day...
Last Thursday, President Bush gave a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, advocating freedom and democracy for all areas which currently lack such-- but especially the Middle East. It was reported by CNN and FOX News (speech and Mid-East reactions). I found out about it from this segment on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The speech was written about at Insults Unpunished, USS Clueless, and Setting the World to Rights while I delayed.
Like the speech itself, I will also focus on the Middle East. That said, I'll let the Prez start us off:
Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Two things leap out at me. Firstly, I wonder why the expert in question believed democracy in Japan would 'never work.' Japan had a functioning, if tragically flawed, parliamentary democracy for decades before WWII. Secondly, someone was worried about the future of German democracy in 1957?! This underscores that pessimists can be wrong, and that things in Iraq are proceeding much faster than our previous adventures in imposing self-rule by fiat.
Back over to Dubya:
It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America. More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
There is this notion floating around, that Islam is incompatible with freedom. That's silly. Most monotheistic religions don't go out of their way to support sovereignty of the individual, but religious Americans of all stripes manage perfectly well. Oh-- and in addition to the good old US of A, Muslim men and women are also good citizens of Israel. Put that in your anti-democracy pipe, and smoke it.
Bush's assertion that it is poor economic policy which causes stagnation, rather than culture, is supported by a convenient example. France, of course, is part of the culture of Western Europe. But by adopting a policy of Socialism Lite (tm), France is floundering while other European countries like Spain and Ireland are thriving.
As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. [snip]
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.
We understand all too well that change doesn't happen overnight. Gradual, top-down democratization is better than none at all, as I always say. OK, so I can't recall having said that before...
And finally:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.
That pretty much explains the War on Terror for all to understand. As for Western nations accomodating oppressive regimes all over the world... well, that's a topic for another day.
Update: I managed to finish off the discussion of Bush's speech. That bit I wrote about Cold War thinking will be back, in a later article.
Update: Conveniently, that bit I wrote about Cold War thinking came back, in a later article.
I undertook my civic responsibility, yesterday. No, I didn't beat up a purse snatcher two-thirds my age. Instead, I voted.
Only in local politics will you see a candidate with both Democrat and Conservative party endorsements. Of course, agriculture is Orleans County's number one industry. Out here, even the Democrats raise cattle and hunt deer. That's a generalization, and I know it. Somewhat more factually, the Medina Journal-Register reports that, based on voter registrations, Republicans outnumber Democrats 2-to-1 in the county.
Incidentally, I know a lot about raising cattle, and almost nothing about hunting deer.
Some of the races were uncontested; no doubt this is common in local politics. The most important races seemed to be for two seats in the county legislature. I am pleased to report that the candidates I voted for-- one incumbent, one newcomer-- were victorious. As it happens, both gentlemen are friends of mine, so they'll be getting an earful if I feel my votes were misplaced.
Not that the legislature has the freedom to make bold policy moves. This is the great state of New York, after all, so local governments are saddled with more unfunded mandates than you can shake a voting lever at. Ah, well...
Robert Prather (of Insults Unpunished, formerly The Mind of Man) has been on my blogroll since the beginning. He actually believes in classical liberalism, and has an economic head on his shoulders. A follower of Thomas Jefferson, with economics that would make Alexander Hamilton proud. Somebody should convince this man to run for political office, so I can vote for him.
Anyway, over three weeks ago, he posted about going to New Orleans, and meeting with David Frey, of Bowl of Gumbo.
Dave showed up and we had a great conversation, when he could get a word in. He and I have reached a similar conclusion about blogging: we're in it for ourselves. I noted that I recently removed the PayPal button from my site and started writing more on economic issues, because that's what interests me. I get very few comments on those posts, not even people calling me an idiot. Either they're not interested enough to comment or the posts themselves are not interesting. Dave has been blogging about his latest obsession: PhotoShop. He doesn't care if anyone wants to read or not either. It's what interests him.
Funny that he should mention it, as on that very day (October 8th), I met with my mother's financial advisor, and I thanked the knowledge I had gained from Robert's site. Any time you can throw the word mercantilism into a conversation, you have something to be thankful for. :-)
So, I just wanted to point that I find the entries on economics interesting, and personally educational. I don't know jack about economics, really, which is why I don't comment more often. But I've learned enough to feel that I didn't sound like an idiot in front of a guy who manages money for a living. If it worked for me... it can work for you, too.