Doesn't global warming make more green?

I just received an alert that I was the only remaining "blogger" that has yet to comment on Global Warming (I guess that fellow in Bangladesh finally posted something), so it looks like it is time for me to give my 2-cents.

Not to keep you in suspense, let's get two things out of the way right now:

Q) Is the Earth getting warmer?

A) Probably.

Q) Is this man-made?

A) Most likely not - in a measurable way, anyway.

The New Religion
Many conservative pundits have referred to Global Warming (notice I made it a proper noun) as a new liberal religion. If you take the typical elements of religion - deity, sin, prophets, end-times, sacrifice, and salvation- and juxtapose that with the Global Warming movement, you have a very, very interesting comparison.

Deity
Many pagan religions worshiped a pantheistic array of nature gods, or at least gods associated with some aspect of nature. As monotheism took hold, "nature worship" faded. Global Warming seems almost an effort to combine the worship of one deity with the worship of nature. In this case, the being to which we all owe homage is the Earth.

Sin
Lucifer's sin was pride, as was Adam's. This led to the fall - first of Satan, then of man. For Global Warming-ites, pollution is the original sin. Pollution is a sin against the deity (Earth), the same as pride is a sin against God. And we all know what a sinful society leads to . . .

End Times
This is something common to most modern religions, and some ancient ones as well - belief that our time will come to an end in a great climax. For the Warmites, the end times are no less cataclysmic than Armageddon - floods, fires, natural disasters, etc. The difference is, rather than being brought about by the ethereal clash of good and evil, it is brought about by our disregard of the Earth. Incidentally, back in the 80's (before their conversion), many Warmites thought this cataclysm would be the result of Reagan's nukes. Little did they know it would really be because of Cheney's Haliburton!

Sacrifice
Forgo your evil ways, you sinners. You guzzlers of gas, users of disposal diapers, and non-car poolers. Put down your incandescent bulbs and pay $8,000 more for a hybrid. Only through the purchase of indulgences, er, carbon credits may you achieve redemption and enlightenment.

Prophets
Isiah. Elisha. Al Gore.

Salvation
If we all roll back our lifestyles (save the elites - see #3 in prophets section), melt our SUVs into unicycles (one-wheel crushes much less vegetation than do two), and cook our hot dogs with Ed Begley Jr.-brand solar ovens, then may we achieve ultimate enlightenment - the temperature may not skyrocket 1.1 degrees over the next 100 years. Peace will reign everlasting.

On a related note, has anyone consulted the Eskimos about this? I doubt very seriously they would have much gripe with a little warmer climate. I'll be they're not Warmites.

What really is happening?
I won't deny that data seems to indicate a slight warming trend over the past several years. I hesitate to call this "global" warming, as temperatures have not increased over the whole Earth. In fact, some evidence points to a slight cooling trend in Antarctica.

"But wait," you're saying (you can tell you are saying this because I'm using quotations), "isn't that Antarctica place where that ozone hole is?"

Why yes, allegedly our same polluting ways that have caused global warming have resulted in a "hole" in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I've admittedly never understood why, on the one continent where NO ONE REALLY LIVES is the one that got the hole. Anyway, that's a digression. The big question is - why have temperatures not increased at the South Pole.

I refer you to the most interesting and plausible theory I've heard on this matter, in a book called The Chilling Stars. My apologies to the authors if my layman's understanding doesn't translate exactly right, but here's the crux of the theory. The authors do believe that the temperature of the Earth is, generally, getting warmer. Additionally, they do not outright discount the proposition that some percentage of this could be contributed to the "greenhouse effect," and some percentage of that could be man made. However, they do reject the notion that global warming, as we understand it, is a man made issue.

Basically, the sun, which goes through various cycles of activity, has been going through a period of "hyperactivity" over approximately the past 50 years. The hyperactivity isn't necessarily hotter or brighter, but is "more active." (Consult your local astrophysicist for a more detailed explanation.) The result of this hyperactivity is a reaction with certain particles in our atmosphere that, through a process I don't pretend to understand, results in less cloud formation. Basically, when the sun goes through a period a hyperactivity, the Earth as a whole has less cloud cover.

From space, cloud tops are bright white, and highly reflective. They serve to bounce sunlight back into space. The hyperactivity of the sun results in less cloud cover, less cloud cover results in a greater quantity of sunlight reaching the Earth, resulting in a warming of the planet.

Now back to Antarctica. Why isn't this trend true for the South Pole? Because the ice covering the southern continent is the one terrestrial area that has essentially the same reflective properties (bright, white) as the cloud tops. Simplistic? Maybe. Which also means it is probably close to correct.

Climate Change - Live It, Love It

The photo to the left is from an area now in the deep Sahara Desert. The pre-historic glyphs represent neolithic man taking a dip. Yes, swimming in the Sahara. That's because, once upon a time, the Sahara was green and lush. And, cosmologically speaking, it wasn't that long ago, either.

In 8000 B.C., the only man-made carbon emissions came from exhaling. However, that is about the time that the climate changed, and the Sahara entered into a period of expanding desert. It is still growing today, but who's to say that won't be reversed at some point in the future.

All of this to say that, contrary to the belief that climate change is the greatest issue facing the planet today, climate change is actually a natural, cyclical part of the living planet. And who is to say that the climate we have today is the best it could be, anyway.

The facts are that, even during the brief period of human civilization, the earth has undergone several warming and cooling trends. Even if narrow the period to the post-classical era, we find a few remarkable examples of this.

Following the fall of Rome, the West plunged into what was basically a regressive (or at least not progressive) age. Yes, there were times when this was not true (England under Alfred, or the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty on the Continent), but in generally speaking, the moniker "Dark Ages" does fit. So what led to the more prosperous society we witnessed at the beginning of the second millennium and certainly during the Renaissance? There is good indication that it was climate change - Global Warming!

Leading up to the year A.D. 1000, evidence suggests that the Earth's climate warmed slightly. In Europe, this resulted in greater agricultural yields. Fields with greater yields meant more net calorie production per acre, which meant that less people were required to work the land to produce an ample, or surplus, of food for the population. Liberation from a subsistence society meant more individuals having the opportunity to pursue trades and crafts. It is no coincidence that the rise of guilds in Medieval Europe coincided closely with warmer weather. More specialized trades and crafts meant more construction and greater commerce, which generally improves life all the way around.

Consider that when Leif Erikson reached the coast of Newfoundland, the area was so abundant with grapes that the name given was Vinland. During this same period, a major EXPORT of the British Isles was wine. I don't think you find too many good English Merlots today.

Evidence also suggests that a cooling trend began after a couple of centuries. Some scientists theorize that effects of this cooling trend may have contributed to the catastrophic spread of the Black Death and the demise of almost half the population of Europe. Another warming trend is associated with the 15th and 16th centuries, a time which witnessed the great re-birth of Western society, and the beginning of the Age of Discovery.

All of this to say, if the climate is getting warmer, then it might not be a bad thing. As I said before, I don't think the Eskimos would mind a few more "balmy" days out of the year.

This is Free Market Issue
As is a re-occurring theme in this blog, I believe that the answer to pollution (forget climate change) will be the free market, not another bloated, inefficient, regressive government program. Mandatory mileage standards or carbon emissions caps would have little to no result on natural climatic variations, and would prove detrimental to the American industrial complex. This would also do little to curb the real issue, our dependence on foreign oil.

The first order of business, plain and simple, is that we need to drill in ANWR and in the Gulf Coast. It is our oil, and we should use it. I do not have a problem with offering tax credits for the development of renewable fuel sources. Regardless of what many would have you believe, conservative thought is not "pro-pollution." Just because I don't believe empirical evidence demonstrates global warming is man made do I think it is a good idea to continue to put gunk in the air and water. Even more to the point, I am sick and tired of desert potentates having such a powerful influence over our economy. Drill and refine our own oil, and we will need less of theirs. Find a cost effective, renewable source of energy, and we're not hostages anymore.

From the standpoint of providing electricity, it would seem that nuclear is the way to go. All the fear mongering aside, nuclear is clean, relatively inexpensive, and highly effective. For our transportation systems, I think believing that hybrids and electrics will ever become a preferred method of transit is a pipe dream. Combustible fuel is necessary, but we need a cleaner, more easily renewable source. Corn-based ethanol is not the answer, and that's a whole other post. However, I think the biggest point here is that, at some point, the free market will solve this problem. Someone will figure out a better, faster, cheaper way to get us where we need to go, and that will ultimately solve our "addiction to oil," both of the foreign and domestic flavors.

Back to my Point
If the climate is, indeed, becoming slightly warmer, is that a bad thing? It has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. In fact, history indicates that warming trends have actually been beneficial to humanity. If it gets warmer, we just have to adapt. And there's the dirty little secret the Warmites don't want you to know - we're not destroyers of nature, we're part of it.

Abolish the Federal Income Tax

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, America was economically fixated on two issues - the influence and anti-competitive nature of monopolies (trusts), and the imposition of an income tax to fund the federal government. While anti-competitive trust-type issues continue to crop up in the U.S. today (e.g. Microsoft, various telecom issues, 'big oil'), debate over having a federal tax based on strictly income has been relegated to the outskirts of ultra-conservative and libertarian "fringe" groups. In mainstream circles, debate centers around the level and structure of taxation - progressive versus flat - rather than the nature of the tax - personal income - itself.

Reading the Constitution sans amendments after the Bill of Rights, it can be rightly discerned that income tax, outside of a constitutional amendment, is unconstitutional. The Constitution firmly sets forth the method by which the federal government is to be funded - first by revenue from tariffs, and secondly from funds requested by the federal government from state treasuries.

Necessity of Additional Tax - Times have 'a changed
Many on the populist/conservative/libertarian side today advocate for a strict return to federal revenue funding as set forth in the Constitution. Under most every other condition, I am in support of a return to original intent. However, this is one instance where we must consider the radical changes that have taken place between 1789 and the 21st century.

First and foremost, let us take population. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, our population was approximately four million. Today, we are 30o+ million (and most of those here legally!). Obviously, the defense and infrastructure to support 300 million people, plus a vastly expanded geographic area, is exponentially more than that of four million primarily along the Atlantic coast.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the nature of our economic situation has changed since the late 18th century. America has always enjoyed a high standard of living. In fact, prior to the Revolution, the standard of living of the average American was higher than that of the average Englishman. But the economics were much different, as well. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, America was a sparsely populated area, with abundant agriculture which allowed for an over-producing class of industrialists and tradesman. Our domestic farm and industrial capacities resulted in massive over-supply relative to the domestic population, which resulted in highly profitable trade opportunities. Simply put, our small population consumed much less than we produced, and we sold the glut to the larger populations of Europe.

Obviously, today things are much different. With a population of 300+ million (legal), the United States is the third largest country in the world. With a GDP of approximately $14 trillion, American has (pay attention here, Sino-philes), by far, the largest economy in the world. Even more impressive is to consider that China's GDP - about $10 trillion, is the result of a population of 1.3billion. The United States manages 40% more with a population of just .3 billion. But that's a digression. Back to the main point.

I love and firmly subscribe to the doctrine of original intent. However, I do believe that the economic system established by the Constitution did not, and could not, anticipate the necessity of government today (even sans any 'entitlement' programs), nor the economic dominance of the modern American state. I do believe that, in regard to original intent, an overriding principle of the Constitution was a belief in and implementation of the free-market theories of Adam Smith. In the year 1790, the world was not the market as is the case now. The framers, I believe, would have no doubt supported the idea of free trade versus protective tariffs given their belief in free market efficiencies.

This does, however, leave us with the question of the validity of income tax. At its core, an income tax is a violation of due process. The framers understood that the various forms of property- wages, liquid assets, real property, stocks, bonds, etc. - formed an individual's private property. In today's terms, we would refer to it as a "portfolio." Just as you cannot deprive an individual of real property without due process - foreclosure, punitive seizures of stocks, etc. - you cannot deprive an individual of real monetary property, in this case wages, without due process. Legally speaking, the two, liquid assets and "property," are the same. This argument is set forth by some today to point to the unconstitutional nature of federal income tax. But, regardless of the validity of the spirit of the argument, and regardless of the suspicious environment in which the 16th amendment was passed, income tax has been made, through constitutional process, a legal funding mechanism of American federal government.

I would add that, although it may be legal, that does not make it right.

Back to Original Intent
As previously stated, I am a big believer in original intent, and I believe the incarnation of today's progressive federal income tax system is diametrically opposed to the original intent of the Constitution from both political and economic perspectives.

If we agree the original intent of American political philosophy was to establish a government under which the protection of individual liberty was the focus from the standpoint of the citizenry, and the allowance of a free market was the primary concern from an economic standpoint, then we have to understand how a progressive income tax is wrong. I would also point to the strong belief among our framers that local government is preferable to federal. The Constitution plainly restrains the federal government to those powers specifically enumerated, reserving all other rights to the states, and the people. As President Reagan so rightly pointed out in his 1980 inaugural address, the federal government did not create the states. Rather, the states created the federal government. That was, without a doubt, the original intent.

Return the Power of the Purse to the States
For a while, I was receptive to the idea of a consumption tax - a national sales tax - to replace the income tax. In my mind, as appealing and "fair" as a flat tax is, it is still the seizure of property (wages) without due process. Even moreso, while a flat tax is much more fair, it also is forced, considering in no degree of individual decision to pay or not to pay. That is just un-American to me. A consumption tax solves that problem. You, as the consumer, make the personal choice to purchase or not to purchase, with the full knowledge that a portion of the price you are paying is diverted to fund the federal government.

In theory, I still like the idea. However, in practice, I am increasingly afraid such an action would result in the suppression of another pillar of the American system, the free market. Technically, consumers would still be "free" to make choices in goods and services. However, as has been demonstrated by state sales taxes on various products, a consumption tax lowers the level of consumption. Beyond the immediate effect on federal government funding, there is a good chance such a tax could suppress consumer spending, holding money out of circulation, resulting in lower sales across the board, resulting in lower shareholder value across American companies, resulting in lower dividends, resulting in lower personal income, resulting in less cash to spend, etc. It is easy to discern the vicious circle here. Mainly for this reason, I do not believe a national consumption tax to replace an income tax would be a prudent idea.

So return even deeper to original intent - powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Outside of the 16th amendment, the Constitution allows specifically for two methods of revenue for the federal government - tariffs, and formal requests from the federal government made to state treasuries. As explained above, given the demographics and economics of modern America, tariffs would be counter-productive, and even serve to undermine the pillar idea of a free market economy. So, revisit the notion of the feds being funded by the states.

Many would classify this notion as outdated as the third amendment which prohibits the Federal government from quartering troops in private dwellings. But is it really outdated? Let's take the obvious - the United States is just that, a union of the many states (remember the Civil War?). We are not the "Federal Union of America" on purpose. Our founders believed that the more closely citizens were engaged with their government, the more effectively the republic would function. And the most efficient method of forming a national defense and for promoting the general welfare of citizens in the new continent was to form a confederation of the post-colonial (read 'state') governments. Back to the point, the states created the federal government.

Since the federal government was the collective creation of the states, should not the funding of the federal government be the duty of the states? Think of the federal government as the enterprise company, and the states as the venture capital fund. I believe that model holds true.

If we undergo such a radical change in government revenue, that states should provide the bulk of funding for the federal government versus the individual citizen, how exactly would that play out? It is an easy theory to propose, but in order to ensure the viability of free markets and the funding levels necessary to maintain government, a practical implementation of the idea must be defined.

Funding the Fed by Free Market Competition
As things now stand, you will pay the same amount of federal income tax whether you live in Maryland, Alaska, or Texas (assuming your income levels and deductions are proportionally equal). How would this change if the federal revenue stream was shifted from individuals to states?

First, let's discuss the nature of the revenue stream from the states. I could see a Constitutional amendment which repeals the 16th amendment, while concurrently establishing federal funding levels from state treasuries (which is kind of like 'asking the states') based on a percentage of state GDPs. In other words, California, Mississippi, Virgina, and all other states are responsible for paying the federal government X% of their overall annual gross domestic products. And this would be a flat rate across the country, so that "rich" states paid the same, percentage-wise, as "poor" states.

Here, I must digress to stave off a potential argument: Rich states pay more taxes, but poor states receive more federal benefits (this might even reverse the Democrat/Republican dynamic!). Okay, theoretically, yes, this is true. However, theoretically, it is also arguable that "rich" states have much more of a vested interest in international stability and national security than "poor" states, and considering that a good degree of federal revenue would be dedicated to these purposes, it shouldn't be an issue that "rich" states trade a little of their revenue for entitlements versus a strong national defense.

That being said, there is also the issue of a geographic free market that this system creates. This is my favorite aspect of this approach. Funding the Fed based on a percentage of state GDP will actually result, I believe, in competition among the states to attract populations. As we know, increased competition ultimately benefits the individual consumers, in this case, the citizens of particular states.

With Federal contributions being set according to state GDPs, states would be forced to find ways to raise revenue in their coffers earmarked for federal funding. This would likely take the form of state levied income taxes, state levied corporate taxes (although corporate taxes really don't exist - that's another post), and other tax/incentive packages. The result will be a competitive market among the states to attract higher-earning industries and higher-earning individuals with various tax packages. Today, states engage in this to some degree, but assuming the needs of their citizens are met to the degree of producing a relative complacent constituency (read as 'good for incumbents'), states typically aren't concerned about going above and beyond in terms of economic development. However, if state politicians understand that a dedicated part of their treasury is tied to funding the federal government, incentive exists on two levels. First, since the feds take money "off the top," the greater the gross intake to state treasuries, the more ability the state politicos will have to live up to their promises. Secondly, the more that state treasuries directly contribute to the federal government (rather than individual citizens), then theoretically the more influence particular states will have with the feds. States which are currently "poor" and thus would exercise little influence would no doubt launch aggressive programs to attract population and wealth to their boarders, in order to gain influence within the federal government. Wealthy states would implement programs designed to keep their influence at a premium. It doesn't take an Ph. D. in economics to discern how individuals would benefit from this entire arrangement.

Impact on the Individual
The direct impact on the individual citizen may not be immediately indiscernible. The bottom line is, to maintain the infrastructure and security that 21st century America demands, some level of personal tax must be paid. We must be careful that this tax does not have a detrimental and counter-productive result in regard to the economy (as I now think a consumption tax would), but also doesn't punish success and innovation (as I believe our current progressive tax system does). A tax system more in-line with original intent, as described here, would be the most preferable.

All that said, as an individual, a tax based on the amount of money the individual makes would ultimately be paid. The question is whether this tax be levied by the Federal government, or by the states with a backend requirement of state-subsidy to support the Federal government. While the Constitution sans the 16th amendment does not enumerate the power to collect income tax to the Federal government, it also does nothing to prevent the states from collecting a tax based on citizen's incomes.

As a benefit for the individual, this system accomplishes the same as introducing competition into a retail marketplace. Instead of a single tax system directly effecting individuals, you now have 50 such systems, each of which is geographically bound. That equals competition. That means individuals can, on a state-by-state basis, evaluate which taxation system devised by the state (with the knowledge of funding both state functions and a required contribution to the Federal system) is the best for them, and voluntarily enter into this system through state citizenship. The free market wins again.

Pakistan, Pakistan - What to do?

I agree that the most dangerous nation in the world today is Pakistan. Most would say Iran. I agree that the Iranian regime is the most dangerous government currently in power. However, if we take a purely situational stance, then Pakistan wins hands down. And that is not a difficult conclusion to ascertain. Consider that:

1. Pakistan maintains a small but nonetheless dangerous arsenal of nuclear weapons.
2. A significant number the Pakistanis, particularly in the more rural provinces removed from Islamabad and Karachi, support an Islamic/Taliban political movement.
3. Pakistan has primarily a Sunni Muslim population - a more friendly environment for al Qaeda.
4. Pakistan's current strongman, Pervez Musharraf, will be likely victim of coup, assassination, or forced exile.
5. In the event Musharraf does lose power, there will most likely be a vacuum for a time. Even if a "moderate" style government does emerge, there will be chaos in the change of power.

Pakistan is close to being Taliban-Afghanistan on steroids.

So what can the United States, have a huge vested interest in the situation, do? For one, we can continue to support Musharraf as much as possible. While we do have a legitimate gripe that he has not done all he can to support our war against al Qaeda, critics should realize that the general has also not done all he could to impede our war. Frankly, given the political environment, Musharraf has probably done the best he can. There's no doubt he has allowed, or "looked the other way" while CIA and special forces roam the boarder region with Afghanistan. He didn't impede our efforts to break up the nuclear engineering program that was being shopped out by rouge scientists, and by all accounts, the country's nukes are still under lock and key. In fact, indications point to a clandestine partnership with U.S. security forces to guard the weapons.

So, back to the original question - what to do? Honestly, I do like the approach the administration has taken thus-far. Publicly, they are telling Musharraf to return to democratic reforms, hold elections, etc. All while not demanding firm timetables. Privately, the state department seems to be doing what it can to stave off Musharraf opposition forces and solidify the General's tenuous hold on power.

However, for a more medium/long term perspective, the U.S. must have a plan to deal with the Pakistani issue. This is not only in the national interests of the U.S., but is paramount for all of Western Civilization. Which is where the issue becomes exceedingly complicated.

In some ways, it would have been preferable had this situation existed in Afghanistan rather than Pakistan, mainly due to the Indian factor. Tensions between the two nations have subsided in the past year or so, but this is in absence of a real solution to the Kashmir problem. Both nations have nuclear weapons technology, although Pakistan's are merely for deterrent purposes. Mildly put, Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims don't like each other. But the real issue is not relations between the subcontinent nations, but their individual relations to the United States. In the current environment, Pakistan is a key "ally" in the war against Islamic fascism, and U.S. security is linked to the stability of a moderate government there. India is much less important from a security standpoint, but exponentially more important - now and in the future - as an economic partner. India represents a huge and growing market for American goods and services with the red-tape and protectionist measures, and currency manipulation associated with red China. Beyond this, the potential for America as a market for Indian industry provides an excellent counterbalance to China, preventing the Chinese from having a quasi-import monopoly.

All this to say, the U.S. relationship with Pakistan cannot damage our relations with India, and vice versa. All of this makes for very, very tricky diplomacy.

A Pakistani Nuclear Missile

Although I am not as emphatically opposed to "nation-building" as some in the conservative school, I do not believe in nation-building should be engaged without clear reason, and certainly not in a situation that could likely backfire on the U.S. In Iraq and Afghanistan, situations on the ground and in the region made nation-building make sense. In Pakistan, it does not. Attempting to implement the strategy of Iraq and Afghanistan has the potential to alienate India, and would put Pakistan's WMD in danger of being lost to nefarious forces.

Our number one priority in Pakistan should be ensuring the security of their nuclear weapons program, with a contingency to quickly - via military means - destroy the programs and the weapons in the event of a Taliban-type takeover of the government. Secondly, we should seek to steer clear from the Kashmir dispute. While the conflict does have regional/international implications, it is at its heart a local dispute between two sovereign nations. Only in the event that Islamic fascists use the issue to attempt to gain a power foothold should we intervene.

Finally, stability and a slow trend toward democratic reforms is much preferable to radical democratic imposition. Just as Musharraf leaving would create a vacuum, a fast move to democracy would have the same effect. We want the Pakistanis to be free, but we cannot afford to have their freedom hijacked by pro-Taliban forces.

In the end, there are no "good" answers to the Pakistan problem. Ultimately, we must secure their nukes, do what we can to promote stability, and deal with hostile forces there when and where we can.