Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Alan Reynolds :: Townhall.com Columnist
Technological provincialism
by Alan Reynolds
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Many Americans believe President Bush pushed the price of gasoline down to help Republicans in the upcoming election. Congress believes it can ban Americans from gambling on the Internet. And the state of California believes it can change the temperature of the globe through government regulation.

What all such beliefs have in common is technological provincialism -- the naive notion that global commerce can easily be compelled to dance to the tune of national or local politicians.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that "three out of 10 Americans think the recent fall in gasoline prices is a result of ... White House and Republican Party efforts to influence the November elections."

To believe this, one would have to accuse the International Energy Agency in Paris of being part of this partisan conspiracy, since the IEA has been slashing its estimates of worldwide oil demand. Because natural gas prices have also been falling, one would also have to believe Republicans control that world market -- in which Russia is the biggest player.

These are global markets -- the whole world. Prices of crude oil, gasoline and natural gas did not fall in the United States alone and stay high everyplace else. To imagine the president or Congress could somehow push world prices down at will is to vastly underestimate the size and power of these markets.

Another excellent example of technological provincialism is the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act," which hopes to deter domestic banks and credit card companies from processing payments to and from Internet gamblers. That would apply only if some particular form of gambling is demonstrably illegal under state or federal law, which would be difficult in theory and impossible in practice.

Imagine some prosecutor trying to prove Miss Jones was playing poker on a particular laptop at some specific time and place. A gambler can easily disguise his location by using a foreign proxy, which then appears as the IP address on the Website's server. The location of a gambling Website can likewise be concealed or frequently moved. There are also numerous foreign and domestic financial intermediaries that can and do conceal the source and/or recipient of fund transfers. It is called the "Worldwide" Web for a reason.

Then there are California's quixotic efforts to affect the world's climate. Whatever you think about the causes, consequences or reality of global warming, it is the height of provincial arrogance to imagine the global climate could be perceptibly changed by a single state.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nonetheless signed The Global Warming Solutions Act, which states that "on or before January 1, 2011, the Air Resources Board shall adopt greenhouse gas emission limits and measures to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions."

The press gullibly reported the bill's rhetorical hopes and dreams for 2020, rather than the reality that what turns out be "feasible and cost-effective" will not even be estimated for several years.

Business Week noted, revealingly, that "the bill might have died on the floor without the energetic support of L. John Doerr, a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers." It turns out, coincidentally, that this famed billionaire's firm and its venture capital clients stand to benefit financially from this otherwise inexplicable legislation.

In a truly amazing act of Spitzerian judicial caprice, California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer is suing GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan for having the audacity to sell vehicles that emit carbon dioxide. He might as well sue California motorists for breathing, since that too emits carbon dioxide.

Hollywood producer Stephen Bing also spent $40 million to push Proposition 87, which would sternly tax any companies still foolish enough to drill for oil in California. In addition to being a terrific gift to Iran and Venezuela, this scheme would also dole out political grants and subsidies for "alternative fuels" and "energy-efficient vehicles" (he happens to have invested in a company producing electric cars, which means they would usually run on coal).

When it comes to greenhouse gases, alternative fuels are usually more problem than solution. Fermentation to produce ethanol increases carbon dioxide emissions, and producing energy-intensive crops to convert into ethanol increases nitrous oxide emissions. The resulting fuel also makes vehicles 30 percent less energy-efficient.

Ethanol subsidies and California air regulations are openly hostile to energy-efficient vehicles. Unlike nearly all Americans, Californians will not even be allowed to buy the extremely clean new diesel cars and fuels -- such as the fast and luxurious E-class diesel Mercedes, which gets 37 miles per gallon on the highway and 27 in the city.

When it comes to locating the sources of global greenhouse gases, regardless of their overall source or impact, the total insignificance California's cars and light trucks is quite simple to calculate.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the United States accounts for 21.8 percent of all carbon dioxide resulting from fuel combustion (rather than from evaporation of the ocean, forest fires, volcanoes, fermentation and breathing). Since California accounts for 13.3 percent of national GDP, the state's share of global carbon dioxide emissions is therefore 2.9 percent.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for a third of carbon dioxide emissions, but personal vehicles account for just 60 percent of that -- or 20 percent of the total (half as much as electric power plants).

In other words, all the passenger cars and light trucks in California account for one-half of one percent of global carbon dioxide due to fuel combustion -- a trivial matter in comparison to coal-fired power plants and factories in China.

California's pretentious posturing about changing the world's climate through stern regulation for some and lavish grants for others provides a suspiciously preposterous example of technological provincialism. Perhaps the interests involved are not quite as cosmic and high-minded as some would like us to believe.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Be the first to read Alan Reynolds' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Sounds about right
Someone once wrote that a politician is a person who can make a personal project sound like a national emergency. It sounds like California has more than their share.

If you are interrested in world polution one of the government agencies, I believe it's NOAA, has satellite photos of the earth that show polution levels. If you check the photos for a year a person learns that third world countries that are developing industry and China and India are the major polutors. The U.S., with the exception of major population centers, is relatively polution free.

I'm sure...
kraut:

***The U.S., with the exception of major population centers, is relatively polution free.***

ROTFLMAO! I am certain that the same thing could be said of China and India. :-D

Technology
The US loves the quick hit answer. The simple black and white. We love the idea we are the greatest and are in control. Everytime Bush opens his mouth he betrays this common "wisdom" of the US.

China is on a tear. It will pollute, consume, and acquire with abandon. They are not beholding to the people of the country. They are also not as short sighted like we are. While they line up deals with everyone to acquire today's and tomorrow's fossil fuels they are innovating ways to deal with their energy demands. They are actively working on new applications of technology like natural water temperature differential to heat large buldings, mini-grid energy distribution based on solar and wind, and large scale energy and development experiments like what is going on in Shandong Province. Pretty impressive. May not be enough but they have a 26% growth rate vs. our 4 so they need to be agressive.

We just sit back on our fat behinds with our overly restrictive patents that perpetuate monopolies, and borrow from the Chinese for day to day living.

Falling gas prices.
3 in 10 Americans believe that falling prices are due to GW, Republicans and Fox News. These people are going to vote in November.

The other 7...
***3 in 10 Americans believe that falling prices are due to GW, Republicans and Fox News. These people are going to vote in November***

That leaves me to wonder what the other 7 are going to do. :-/

More on ethanol
A curious fact: It takes the 7 gallons of diesel fuel to produce the corn required to make 6 gallons of ethanol. And there is less energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of diesel. So, in energy terms, it takes about 1.5 units of energy (in the form of diesel) to produce 1 unit of enery (in the form of ethanol). So strictly in terms of energy usage, growing corn for ethanol is a losing proposition. That's not countin the fuel required to truck the corn to the ethanol plant, or the fuel required to ferment it. Just the fuel required to grow the corn. Why, then, are we putting ethanol in our fuel tanks? Other than as another subsidy for farmers, that is.

Regards,
Trevor

Clean Diesel
quote: "Californians will not even be allowed to buy the extremely clean new diesel cars and fuels -- such as the fast and luxurious E-class diesel Mercedes, which gets 37 miles per gallon on the highway and 27 in the city."

Not only this, but by California and four other states adopting strictor limits on NOx, even as diesel autos will reduce emissions 70% in 2007 from the cleanest diesels sold in 2006; Americans will see far fewer clean, efficient diesel offerings than we could have otherwise.

In other words, if we did not have reductions of 90% on NOx from California and a few other states in just one year, and had a more reasonable reduction that is in-line with technology, we could be getting cars like the VW Lupo TDI that gets 90 mpg; scores high on greenhouse gases; can run on biodiesel fuel; and cost less than $15,000.

Instead we will get diesel offerings that will be $40,000 and up due to the advanced technologies needed to make them legal, even as conventional technologies have improved way beyond anything that could be produced last year. The EPA, California ARB and other regulators are focing too tough, too substantial reductions that does nothing good for America.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.