The Gospel of Luke records the angel announcing to Mary that she will be the mother of the messiah, sayings, “you will ... bear a son, whom you are to name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High God. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever....” The fact that Jesus would receive the throne of David acknowledges an abiding bond between Christianity and Judaism.
Although David is at the center of several entertaining and compelling stories, many Christians fail to grasp the central role that he played in the Jewish heritage. Jesus was a Jew. He lived in the context of the Jewish heritage. It was extremely important to the early church that he came out of the line of David as had been prophesied.
The indigenous tribes were not driven out of Israel when Joshua conquered the promised land. . They were merely subjugated. Nor were the Israelites a truly united people. The land was divided into twelve sectors controlled by tribes which were descendants of different sons of Jacob. There was no single nation of Israel. No single leader.
Consequently the Israelites were plagued by chronic violent conflict with their displaced co-habitants. Tired of defending their new home from a position of weakness, the Israelites formed a single nation led by a king appointed by God.
Saul, the first king, was a capable leader, but he was flawed. David, the second king, finally accomplished the goal of uniting the people of Israel and establishing secure borders. He proved to be a ferocious general, defeating virtually every enemy of Israel at that time. By the end of his life, Israel was a legitimate member of the league of nations. Therefore, David enjoys a position in the history of Israel somewhat akin to George Washington in our country. After all, Washington converted a conglomerate of colonies into a nation.
But David’s greatness was not limited to military and political success. He had abilities that raised him above others. He was a poet. Think about it. How many generals do you know who are poets? I don’t mean roses are red and violets are blue either. His Psalms are read and beloved even today. On the other hand, how many poets do you know who could successfully lead an army into battle? They require different skill sets.
He showed remarkable capacity for compassion and forgiveness. As David’s reputation grew Saul’s jealously matured into a rage, and he sought to kill David utilizing the full strength of his army. Nevertheless, David never wavered in his devotion to Saul, who had been his patron. David declined to kill Saul when he had an opportunity, and genuinely grieved when he died.
David’s complex character is inextricably tied with his moral and ethical lapses, too. The most famous is his liaison with Bathsheba. David arranged to have her husband killed in battle so that he could marry Bathsheba and dump his wife. He was also a terrible father to Absolom.
Despite his failings, David was quick to confess to God and repent. Much of Psalms written by him demonstrates the humility and repentance which were integral parts of his character.
David’s thus presents an impressive blend of paradoxes. A general but also a poet. A powerful king who could be ruthless, but also one who was forgiving and gracious to his adversaries. An enemy to be feared, but a friend of unflinching loyalty. At times heroic and superhuman. Other times, a woeful sinner. Susceptible to sinfulness, but repentant and accepting of God’s punishments.
These paradoxes make him more than a hero. He embraces the noblest ideals of humanity along with the inherent weakness in us all. He was truly a great human being, warts and all.
God rewarded David with a promise that the House of David would be established as the ruling family of Israel. Later God, through Jeremiah, promised that the messiah would come from the House of David. The promise of the messiah carried with it the implicit hope that Israel would return to the glory once brought upon it by David. These two promises became the imprimatur of David’s enduring influence on the course of the Jewish history.
To the Jews, it was imperative that their messiah conform to the descriptions contained in the prophecies. If so, the ultimate emolument of messiahship was the throne of Jesus’ ancestor David. Jesus inherited the throne and carried it to new levels of greatness. The throne was no longer a small kingdom but a heavenly scepter. The reaches of the kingdom were not limited to the land between Dan and Beersheba, but spread to the ends of the earth. A temporal rule was extended to the end of time.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sessions and Sotomayor on Making Law
Senator Session and Judge Sotomayor agreed during her confirmation hearing on at least one thing - good judges should not make law. They were both wrong.
The fact is that judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, do make law. They cannot avoid it. Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote the definitive work explaining how judges make law. Judges rely upon precedents, which are decisions in other cases with similar facts and issues. In most cases these precedents are not “on all fours.” The court must select the most persuasive precedent which controls the case at hand. In so doing they extend the influence of one precedent and limit the application of another. Cardozo thus pointed out that the law is made in the interstices between precedents.
Consider the Firefighters case in which Judge Sotomayor’s court was reversed by the Supreme Court last month. The City of Hartford had given a civil service test to firefighters in order to determine who was entitled to promotion. All of the successful applicants were white, and if the test were allowed to stand, no Afro-American firefighters would have been eligible for promotion. The white firefighters claimed that this action was reverse discrimination. Essentially the case involved the primacy of two competing values. On the one side the City was concerned about its duty to avoid discrimination against the historically disadvantaged, primarily Afro-Americans and women. They were apparently concerned that failure to promote any non-whites would be deemed to be unlawful discrimination itself. The white firefighters challenged the city’s action as discriminatory towards them who had achieved the eligibility to be promoted based on merit. The Second Circuit panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, deemed the city’s concerns to be adequate to avoid constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court reversed.
Did the Supreme Court make law in that case? Absolutely. You can be assured that city attorneys throughout the country are writing opinion letters advising their clients that from now on, when they give these tests, they should be prepared to live with the results.
Would the Supreme Court be making law if it had ruled for the city? Absolutely. The opinion letters would have contained different advice that even after the test is taken the city must take a second look to determine whether the exam results had a discriminatory effect.
Regardless of the ruling, the opinion letters would treat the decision of the United States Supreme Court with the same respect and authority as a statute enacted by Congress on the subject.
The Supreme Court makes law in another way. There are thousands of cases filed with the Court every year and which actually hears only about a hundred of them. The decision as to which cases will be heard is highly discretionary. The court does not necessarily pick cases on the basis of whether the decision in the lower court is right or wrong. They search for the cases the are of sufficient importance for them to address the issue.
This process of deciding what case will be heard gives the court the opportunity to pick the subject which the court itself wants to speak about. For instance, when Earl Warren was Chief Justice, a liberal Court took many case involving criminal justice and civil rights. A more conservative Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist look harder as cases dealing with states rights.
Which brings me to another misstatement which Sessions and Sotomayor also cozily agreed upon. They seemed to agree that the personal values of the judge do play a role in judicial decision making. I do not know where they got that from. Court opinions are rifled with explanations as to why their decisions produce a just result. The determination of justices as to what is just is inexorably tied to their own personal moral, practical and ethical values.
Judge Sotomayor made a gaffe in her speech at Duke University when she suggested that a Latino female may be able to decide cases wisely than others. After all a gaffe is frequently an inadvertent blurting out of an unpopular truth. It is foolish to deny that judges are not strongly influenced by their own life experiences when defining what is just and fair. From her point of view I am sure that she believes that her humble beginnings allow her to bring a fresh point of view to the Court. I am disappointed that she backed down on that point.
I am not suggesting that Senator Sessions was making an improper inquiry. He simply did not frame the issue correctly. Court should act within the framework of the law and not stray into matters that are legislative. Activist courts are sometimes accused of attempting to achieve a desired result by disregarding the legal framework in which they operate. Two cases that have been heavily criticized as being non-judicial are Roe v. Wade and the presidential election case which broke the tie between George Bush and Al Gore. Sessions was addressing a concern as to whether Sotomayor acknowledged the constraints that should be placed on the exercise of judicial power. Sotomayor understood what he was driving at and professed that she knew her place. By so doing she has probably avoided a bloody fight over her nomination.
The fact is that judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, do make law. They cannot avoid it. Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote the definitive work explaining how judges make law. Judges rely upon precedents, which are decisions in other cases with similar facts and issues. In most cases these precedents are not “on all fours.” The court must select the most persuasive precedent which controls the case at hand. In so doing they extend the influence of one precedent and limit the application of another. Cardozo thus pointed out that the law is made in the interstices between precedents.
Consider the Firefighters case in which Judge Sotomayor’s court was reversed by the Supreme Court last month. The City of Hartford had given a civil service test to firefighters in order to determine who was entitled to promotion. All of the successful applicants were white, and if the test were allowed to stand, no Afro-American firefighters would have been eligible for promotion. The white firefighters claimed that this action was reverse discrimination. Essentially the case involved the primacy of two competing values. On the one side the City was concerned about its duty to avoid discrimination against the historically disadvantaged, primarily Afro-Americans and women. They were apparently concerned that failure to promote any non-whites would be deemed to be unlawful discrimination itself. The white firefighters challenged the city’s action as discriminatory towards them who had achieved the eligibility to be promoted based on merit. The Second Circuit panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, deemed the city’s concerns to be adequate to avoid constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court reversed.
Did the Supreme Court make law in that case? Absolutely. You can be assured that city attorneys throughout the country are writing opinion letters advising their clients that from now on, when they give these tests, they should be prepared to live with the results.
Would the Supreme Court be making law if it had ruled for the city? Absolutely. The opinion letters would have contained different advice that even after the test is taken the city must take a second look to determine whether the exam results had a discriminatory effect.
Regardless of the ruling, the opinion letters would treat the decision of the United States Supreme Court with the same respect and authority as a statute enacted by Congress on the subject.
The Supreme Court makes law in another way. There are thousands of cases filed with the Court every year and which actually hears only about a hundred of them. The decision as to which cases will be heard is highly discretionary. The court does not necessarily pick cases on the basis of whether the decision in the lower court is right or wrong. They search for the cases the are of sufficient importance for them to address the issue.
This process of deciding what case will be heard gives the court the opportunity to pick the subject which the court itself wants to speak about. For instance, when Earl Warren was Chief Justice, a liberal Court took many case involving criminal justice and civil rights. A more conservative Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist look harder as cases dealing with states rights.
Which brings me to another misstatement which Sessions and Sotomayor also cozily agreed upon. They seemed to agree that the personal values of the judge do play a role in judicial decision making. I do not know where they got that from. Court opinions are rifled with explanations as to why their decisions produce a just result. The determination of justices as to what is just is inexorably tied to their own personal moral, practical and ethical values.
Judge Sotomayor made a gaffe in her speech at Duke University when she suggested that a Latino female may be able to decide cases wisely than others. After all a gaffe is frequently an inadvertent blurting out of an unpopular truth. It is foolish to deny that judges are not strongly influenced by their own life experiences when defining what is just and fair. From her point of view I am sure that she believes that her humble beginnings allow her to bring a fresh point of view to the Court. I am disappointed that she backed down on that point.
I am not suggesting that Senator Sessions was making an improper inquiry. He simply did not frame the issue correctly. Court should act within the framework of the law and not stray into matters that are legislative. Activist courts are sometimes accused of attempting to achieve a desired result by disregarding the legal framework in which they operate. Two cases that have been heavily criticized as being non-judicial are Roe v. Wade and the presidential election case which broke the tie between George Bush and Al Gore. Sessions was addressing a concern as to whether Sotomayor acknowledged the constraints that should be placed on the exercise of judicial power. Sotomayor understood what he was driving at and professed that she knew her place. By so doing she has probably avoided a bloody fight over her nomination.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Global Warming III - What is the solution?
Even if we have the political will to address the global warming threat, what can we do about it?
Carbon emissions increased globally from a rate from about 1.1% per year in the nineties to more than 3% a year in 2001-2004. Broecker and Kunzig comment, "[N]o matter what happens in the West, the world’s energy consumption is going to increase dramatically in this century, not decrease. And most of that energy will probably continue to come from fossil fuels, above all coal. They are cheap, readily available, and incredibly convenient to use - and we have a global infrastructure of power plants and refineries and pipelines and gas stations that is built around using them." (P.189)
The environmental lobby has understandably focused on conservation measures that cut down on the volume of emissions. The list of energy saving ideas is long and growing. Each proposal has its champions- higher gas mileage, electric and hydrogen powered cars, windmills, solar systems, nuclear power, ethanol and so on. All of these proposals appear to be more of a palliative than a solution. For instance, it would require a sixty five foot wind mill for every man woman and child to meet our needs. Nuclear power is promising, but until nuclear fusion or some other safe, reliable system of waste disposal is developed, it will continue to be limited. Solar power is a long way from becoming cost efficient. It now costs about twenty times as much as coal fired energy. And then there is ethanol. The best I can tell, the chief function of ethanol is to help politicians win votes in the Iowa caucus.
A second approach would be to remove carbon emissions before they reach the atmosphere. The power industry is enthusiastic about flue-gas scrubbing that removes carbon from the emissions before they are released into the air. Scrubbing can be effective on new plants under construction but there is no economical way to add scrubbers to existing power plants. Scrubbing is not practical for automobile emissions, which represent 20% of the carbon emissions. Scrubbing may never become a universal solution to carbon dioxide removal. Nevertheless, coal is the cheapest and most plentiful energy source, and technology that can make the product environmentally friendly should be a welcome addition to the arsenal.
Still another approach involves preserving the capacity of nature to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Much is made of the reduction of rain forests in places such as South America. A green world will be cleaner than not, but land sources for absorbing carbon dioxide such a rain forests tend to be overestimated as the means of containing the spewing of carbon into the air. Only about 15% of the carbon dioxide emissions are consumed by natural forces on land, less that half as much as is absorbed in the ocean. That leaves 50% to remain in the atmosphere. I suspect that the best means of retaining nature’s capacity to absorb carbon may be to avoid heating up the earth, because warm waters actually release carbon dioxide into the air. So we are in a Catch 22. The earth warms and the earth consumes less carbon. The carbon retained in the atmosphere heats up the earth in turn releasing more carbon. And so on.
There remains one more option, namely the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This alternative was once considered the most ineffective solution because carbon is far less concentrated in the atmosphere than at the source of emissions. Flue gas is reduced from approximately one part in ten to one part in a million when it reaches the atmosphere. As a result, the scientific community long ignored that alternative.
Claus Lackner, a theoretical scientist, came to the conclusion that there is existing technology available that could remove carbon from the atmosphere efficiently and economically. He sold Walter Broecker on the idea, and Broecker became his champion. Through the use of venture capital, Lackner teamed up with Allen Wright to form a company that built an air extraction prototype. The prototype has been completed and Lackner’s company has declared the project a success.
If it works, the air extraction project solves many of the seemingly intractable issues. The new technology takes only a fraction of the space of wind power and does not raise the esthetic and environmental issues that wind power presents. A carbon waste must be disposed, but it can be done without presenting the toxic threat of nuclear waste. Also, because the carbon is found everywhere, the scrubbers can be located conveniently in the parts of the world where disposal is undertaken. Most important, this technology may prove to be affordable.
Broecker believes that the Lackner project holds the best prospect for fixing the climate. I certainly hope that he is right. Under any circumstances, I am convinced the ultimate solution, if there is one, will come out of our capacity to invent new technologies and that the best investment of public and private resources lies in research and development projects such as the Lackner company.
References:
Broecker and Kunzig Fixing the Climate (Hill and Wang 2008)
"Scrubbing the Skies," Economist.com (March, 5, 2009)
Carbon emissions increased globally from a rate from about 1.1% per year in the nineties to more than 3% a year in 2001-2004. Broecker and Kunzig comment, "[N]o matter what happens in the West, the world’s energy consumption is going to increase dramatically in this century, not decrease. And most of that energy will probably continue to come from fossil fuels, above all coal. They are cheap, readily available, and incredibly convenient to use - and we have a global infrastructure of power plants and refineries and pipelines and gas stations that is built around using them." (P.189)
The environmental lobby has understandably focused on conservation measures that cut down on the volume of emissions. The list of energy saving ideas is long and growing. Each proposal has its champions- higher gas mileage, electric and hydrogen powered cars, windmills, solar systems, nuclear power, ethanol and so on. All of these proposals appear to be more of a palliative than a solution. For instance, it would require a sixty five foot wind mill for every man woman and child to meet our needs. Nuclear power is promising, but until nuclear fusion or some other safe, reliable system of waste disposal is developed, it will continue to be limited. Solar power is a long way from becoming cost efficient. It now costs about twenty times as much as coal fired energy. And then there is ethanol. The best I can tell, the chief function of ethanol is to help politicians win votes in the Iowa caucus.
A second approach would be to remove carbon emissions before they reach the atmosphere. The power industry is enthusiastic about flue-gas scrubbing that removes carbon from the emissions before they are released into the air. Scrubbing can be effective on new plants under construction but there is no economical way to add scrubbers to existing power plants. Scrubbing is not practical for automobile emissions, which represent 20% of the carbon emissions. Scrubbing may never become a universal solution to carbon dioxide removal. Nevertheless, coal is the cheapest and most plentiful energy source, and technology that can make the product environmentally friendly should be a welcome addition to the arsenal.
Still another approach involves preserving the capacity of nature to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Much is made of the reduction of rain forests in places such as South America. A green world will be cleaner than not, but land sources for absorbing carbon dioxide such a rain forests tend to be overestimated as the means of containing the spewing of carbon into the air. Only about 15% of the carbon dioxide emissions are consumed by natural forces on land, less that half as much as is absorbed in the ocean. That leaves 50% to remain in the atmosphere. I suspect that the best means of retaining nature’s capacity to absorb carbon may be to avoid heating up the earth, because warm waters actually release carbon dioxide into the air. So we are in a Catch 22. The earth warms and the earth consumes less carbon. The carbon retained in the atmosphere heats up the earth in turn releasing more carbon. And so on.
There remains one more option, namely the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This alternative was once considered the most ineffective solution because carbon is far less concentrated in the atmosphere than at the source of emissions. Flue gas is reduced from approximately one part in ten to one part in a million when it reaches the atmosphere. As a result, the scientific community long ignored that alternative.
Claus Lackner, a theoretical scientist, came to the conclusion that there is existing technology available that could remove carbon from the atmosphere efficiently and economically. He sold Walter Broecker on the idea, and Broecker became his champion. Through the use of venture capital, Lackner teamed up with Allen Wright to form a company that built an air extraction prototype. The prototype has been completed and Lackner’s company has declared the project a success.
If it works, the air extraction project solves many of the seemingly intractable issues. The new technology takes only a fraction of the space of wind power and does not raise the esthetic and environmental issues that wind power presents. A carbon waste must be disposed, but it can be done without presenting the toxic threat of nuclear waste. Also, because the carbon is found everywhere, the scrubbers can be located conveniently in the parts of the world where disposal is undertaken. Most important, this technology may prove to be affordable.
Broecker believes that the Lackner project holds the best prospect for fixing the climate. I certainly hope that he is right. Under any circumstances, I am convinced the ultimate solution, if there is one, will come out of our capacity to invent new technologies and that the best investment of public and private resources lies in research and development projects such as the Lackner company.
References:
Broecker and Kunzig Fixing the Climate (Hill and Wang 2008)
"Scrubbing the Skies," Economist.com (March, 5, 2009)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Global Warming II - Do we have the political will to solve the problem?
In 1798 Thomas Malthus predicted that the world would be reduced to subsistence living as a result of overpopulation. Here we are in the twenty first century. Population has consistently expanded and, by and large, the Malthusian projections have not materialized.
Malthus underestimated the capacity of human beings to adapt to change. He did not anticipate the industrial revolution that has allowed many more people to live on this planet.
We will ultimately adapt to global warming. The question is whether we have the capacity and will to address the threat intelligently and effectively.
There are reasons to be pessimistic. There is considerable uncertainty over when the gradual increase in temperature will reach the tipping point. Governments work best in a crisis mode.
We watched Hitler storm across Europe without making more than minimal preparations for the impending war. It took Pearl Harbor to convince this country to realize that World War II was for real.
There is a strong possibility that our government and others will slack off on the global warming issue in the same manner. A massive effort to reduce carbon emissions would carry an enormous price tag, and it is hard to believe that we will place global warming the top of our priorities soon.
Moreover, as Sam Rayburn famously stated, all politics are local. Democratically elected officials respond best to the narrow interest of their separate constituencies. Global warming is not a local issue. An effective attack on global warming will require a heavy dose of altruism, which is in short supply in the world of geopolitics.
On the other hand, the environmental lobby has been very successful in capturing the attention of western democracies. The water and air quality in this country has been transformed since the Environmental Protection Agency was created during the Nixon administration. Maybe we will wake up, but crisis cannot be avoided merely by tilting wind mills and burning corn.
A United Nations sponsored group drafted the Kyoto Protocol which, among other things, required industrialized countries to reduce emissions on the average by 5.2% below 1990 levels.
Although almost all the major industrialized countries and underdeveloped countries signed and ratified the protocol, the United States never ratified it.
President Bush was bludgeoned by many environmental groups for withholding the treaty from the Senate, but opposition to Kyoto was bipartisan. In 1997, before the protocol was submitted to the countries for signature, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution, sponsored by Senator Byrd of West Virginia among others, condemning any treaty that failed to imposed limitations on underdeveloped countries, which is the case with the Protocol. President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification. President Obama deftly avoided the issue by stating that there is no reason to ratify it now because it will soon be terminated.
The Protocol has not done particularly well even on those countries that ratified the treaty. Many of them will not comply with the terms of the treaty. In the mean time, although environmental regulation has been rigorous in the United States, the emissions increased by 20% between 1990 and 2007. Moreover, it has been predicted that compliance would cause a 1% to 4% reduction in our gross national product by 2010,and even the proponents concede that compliance would have a minimal effect on global warming.
One bone of contention has been the fact that China was exempted from limitations placed on other industrialized countries. China was not even on the map in 1990 with respect to carbon emissions. It is now the largest emitter in the world, although its contribution is more modest on a per capita basis than the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol has served the useful purpose of laying bare the complex matrix of differing national interests with respect to carbon emissions. Hard choices must be made to decide what are the legitimate needs of countries in various states of economic development.
Unfortunately seems to have withdrawn from its role as leader on world environmental issues by refraining for joining the Protocol and filing to initiate constructive alternatives. Like it or not, nothing will be accomplished without effective leadership coming out of the largest economy in the world.
We are probably farther away from constructive solutions than ever, even though we have a president who ran on a pro-environment platform. President Obama’s dance card is quite full. He may talk a good game on the environment, but look at his agenda. The economy has slipped into the top spot and allowed him to find new ways to spend amounts never imagined before. But he is not through. He is trying to avoid making universal medical care another empty promise. We are told that another trillion thrown at medical insurance will still leave a gigantic gap of uninsured persons. The social security mess will most likely come up again. And, by the way, did you notice? We are carrying on two wars in the Middle East. We can now update the old cliche and note that a trillion dollars here and a trillion there can add up to real money.
I suspect that a really serious effort to handle global warming is decades away, unless we can find a way to deal with the issue in a simpler less expensive manner. But that is the subject for another posting. See you next time.
Malthus underestimated the capacity of human beings to adapt to change. He did not anticipate the industrial revolution that has allowed many more people to live on this planet.
We will ultimately adapt to global warming. The question is whether we have the capacity and will to address the threat intelligently and effectively.
There are reasons to be pessimistic. There is considerable uncertainty over when the gradual increase in temperature will reach the tipping point. Governments work best in a crisis mode.
We watched Hitler storm across Europe without making more than minimal preparations for the impending war. It took Pearl Harbor to convince this country to realize that World War II was for real.
There is a strong possibility that our government and others will slack off on the global warming issue in the same manner. A massive effort to reduce carbon emissions would carry an enormous price tag, and it is hard to believe that we will place global warming the top of our priorities soon.
Moreover, as Sam Rayburn famously stated, all politics are local. Democratically elected officials respond best to the narrow interest of their separate constituencies. Global warming is not a local issue. An effective attack on global warming will require a heavy dose of altruism, which is in short supply in the world of geopolitics.
On the other hand, the environmental lobby has been very successful in capturing the attention of western democracies. The water and air quality in this country has been transformed since the Environmental Protection Agency was created during the Nixon administration. Maybe we will wake up, but crisis cannot be avoided merely by tilting wind mills and burning corn.
A United Nations sponsored group drafted the Kyoto Protocol which, among other things, required industrialized countries to reduce emissions on the average by 5.2% below 1990 levels.
Although almost all the major industrialized countries and underdeveloped countries signed and ratified the protocol, the United States never ratified it.
President Bush was bludgeoned by many environmental groups for withholding the treaty from the Senate, but opposition to Kyoto was bipartisan. In 1997, before the protocol was submitted to the countries for signature, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution, sponsored by Senator Byrd of West Virginia among others, condemning any treaty that failed to imposed limitations on underdeveloped countries, which is the case with the Protocol. President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification. President Obama deftly avoided the issue by stating that there is no reason to ratify it now because it will soon be terminated.
The Protocol has not done particularly well even on those countries that ratified the treaty. Many of them will not comply with the terms of the treaty. In the mean time, although environmental regulation has been rigorous in the United States, the emissions increased by 20% between 1990 and 2007. Moreover, it has been predicted that compliance would cause a 1% to 4% reduction in our gross national product by 2010,and even the proponents concede that compliance would have a minimal effect on global warming.
One bone of contention has been the fact that China was exempted from limitations placed on other industrialized countries. China was not even on the map in 1990 with respect to carbon emissions. It is now the largest emitter in the world, although its contribution is more modest on a per capita basis than the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol has served the useful purpose of laying bare the complex matrix of differing national interests with respect to carbon emissions. Hard choices must be made to decide what are the legitimate needs of countries in various states of economic development.
Unfortunately seems to have withdrawn from its role as leader on world environmental issues by refraining for joining the Protocol and filing to initiate constructive alternatives. Like it or not, nothing will be accomplished without effective leadership coming out of the largest economy in the world.
We are probably farther away from constructive solutions than ever, even though we have a president who ran on a pro-environment platform. President Obama’s dance card is quite full. He may talk a good game on the environment, but look at his agenda. The economy has slipped into the top spot and allowed him to find new ways to spend amounts never imagined before. But he is not through. He is trying to avoid making universal medical care another empty promise. We are told that another trillion thrown at medical insurance will still leave a gigantic gap of uninsured persons. The social security mess will most likely come up again. And, by the way, did you notice? We are carrying on two wars in the Middle East. We can now update the old cliche and note that a trillion dollars here and a trillion there can add up to real money.
I suspect that a really serious effort to handle global warming is decades away, unless we can find a way to deal with the issue in a simpler less expensive manner. But that is the subject for another posting. See you next time.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Global Warming I — Is Global Warming a hoax?*
Wallace S. Broecker wrote an article in a 1975 issue of the Science magazine in which he asserted that "We may be in for a climatic surprise." That sentence has instigated a maelstrom of scientific activity related to what we now know as global warming.
Critics have frequently commented that environmentalists are more concerned about the snail darter than human beings, but global warming is not simply an effort to preserve ecological balance. True, the polar bear is endangered, but human habitats are also directly at risk. Our grandchildren may witness an abrupt rise in the sea level that will submerge coastal areas and turn lowlands into swamps. Desert areas would expand dramatically, further reducing the livable areas in the world. The Arctic and Antarctic regions would melt and become more moderate climates causing adverse effects on the ecological system. The destruction of major habitats for humans may well result in gigantic economic catastrophes as well as land wars among millions of people displaced by the revamped earth. To help understand how people can fight over living space consider the ferocity of hostilities generated the last sixty years over a relatively small geographic area in Israel-Palestine. It is not a happy prospect.
We cannot afford to underestimate the threat. Nevertheless skeptics are alive and well. Politicians and various special interests believe that the cost of reducing carbon emissions is not justified by the evidence produced by the scientific community. The question is whether global warming is like the swine flu where the alarmists anticipated an epidemic that never came or more like the levees of New Orleans where the warnings were oft repeated, but nobody listened.
It appears to me that in order to disbelieve Broecker’s science, you must successfully challenge at least one of three premises. They are as follows:
1. Carbon dioxide and other gases collectively known as the greenhouse gases preserve heat in our atmosphere. The first proposition has been an accepted fact since the nineteenth century. Without these gases, heat from the sun would bounce off the earth, and we would freeze like other planets. On the other hand excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will overheat the earth. I understand that even the severest critics do not contest the existence of the greenhouse effect.
2. Over the last century, industrialization has been accompanied by carbon emissions of unprecedented amounts. This second premise is based on a plethora of scientific measuring that has been thoroughly documented for at least fifty years. Fossil fuels are far and away the principal contributor to this increase. I am not aware of much dissent on that issue either.
3. If the greenhouse emissions continue to grow, the livability of the planet will be materilly affected at some time in the future. This third proposition is the bone of contention. Are gases being emitted of sufficient quantity to cause a material alteration of climate?
The mean temperature on the earth has been rising over the last century. The year 2005 is reported to be the hottest year on record. Glaciers are melting, and rain forests are receding. The dissenters contend that the rise is fully explainable by the natural rhythms which occur in nature. They deny that fossil fuel deposits are a significant factor. It is noteworthy that the critics have not been very successful in convincing their peers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the most influential worldwide body in climatology, concluded that greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the rise in temperatures in recent decades. That conclusion has been endorsed by 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
I do not claim to have any expertise on a subject so complex and futuristic as global warming. Nevertheless, I have more confidence in the scientists of academia than those employed by political lobbies to come up with a specified result. Scientists, good scientists, are loyal to the advancement of knowledge regardless of the consequences. When Galileo declared that the earth revolved around the sun, he was merely reporting his findings. The church that forced him to recant had a fixed view on the universe and expected science to affirm its own dogmatic vision.
It would be unfair to characterize any one who disagrees with the scientists as seeking to alter the truth. Nevertheless, the case for an impending global catastrophe seems to represent the work product of the best minds in the world who have dedicated their professional lives to the study of our environment.. Moreover, the skeptics are up against Pascal’s wager. If the skeptics should persuade us that global warming is a hoax and they are wrong, the consequences would be horrendous. On the other hand the risk of error by the scientific establishment is not so great. Admittedly the collective cost of a wild goose chase would be significant, but the reduction of carbon dioxide would still produce a more pleasant, healthier climate. On balance, I consider it risky for our society to ignore the warnings of a coming global warming surprise.
[I have relied on Broecker and Kunzig Fixing the Climate (Hill and Wang 2008) and the article on global warming in Wikipedia for most of the material of a technical nature. Both are provocative, informative and excellent reading for a mainline novice such as me.]
* This posting is the first of three installments discussing global warming.
Critics have frequently commented that environmentalists are more concerned about the snail darter than human beings, but global warming is not simply an effort to preserve ecological balance. True, the polar bear is endangered, but human habitats are also directly at risk. Our grandchildren may witness an abrupt rise in the sea level that will submerge coastal areas and turn lowlands into swamps. Desert areas would expand dramatically, further reducing the livable areas in the world. The Arctic and Antarctic regions would melt and become more moderate climates causing adverse effects on the ecological system. The destruction of major habitats for humans may well result in gigantic economic catastrophes as well as land wars among millions of people displaced by the revamped earth. To help understand how people can fight over living space consider the ferocity of hostilities generated the last sixty years over a relatively small geographic area in Israel-Palestine. It is not a happy prospect.
We cannot afford to underestimate the threat. Nevertheless skeptics are alive and well. Politicians and various special interests believe that the cost of reducing carbon emissions is not justified by the evidence produced by the scientific community. The question is whether global warming is like the swine flu where the alarmists anticipated an epidemic that never came or more like the levees of New Orleans where the warnings were oft repeated, but nobody listened.
It appears to me that in order to disbelieve Broecker’s science, you must successfully challenge at least one of three premises. They are as follows:
1. Carbon dioxide and other gases collectively known as the greenhouse gases preserve heat in our atmosphere. The first proposition has been an accepted fact since the nineteenth century. Without these gases, heat from the sun would bounce off the earth, and we would freeze like other planets. On the other hand excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will overheat the earth. I understand that even the severest critics do not contest the existence of the greenhouse effect.
2. Over the last century, industrialization has been accompanied by carbon emissions of unprecedented amounts. This second premise is based on a plethora of scientific measuring that has been thoroughly documented for at least fifty years. Fossil fuels are far and away the principal contributor to this increase. I am not aware of much dissent on that issue either.
3. If the greenhouse emissions continue to grow, the livability of the planet will be materilly affected at some time in the future. This third proposition is the bone of contention. Are gases being emitted of sufficient quantity to cause a material alteration of climate?
The mean temperature on the earth has been rising over the last century. The year 2005 is reported to be the hottest year on record. Glaciers are melting, and rain forests are receding. The dissenters contend that the rise is fully explainable by the natural rhythms which occur in nature. They deny that fossil fuel deposits are a significant factor. It is noteworthy that the critics have not been very successful in convincing their peers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the most influential worldwide body in climatology, concluded that greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the rise in temperatures in recent decades. That conclusion has been endorsed by 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
I do not claim to have any expertise on a subject so complex and futuristic as global warming. Nevertheless, I have more confidence in the scientists of academia than those employed by political lobbies to come up with a specified result. Scientists, good scientists, are loyal to the advancement of knowledge regardless of the consequences. When Galileo declared that the earth revolved around the sun, he was merely reporting his findings. The church that forced him to recant had a fixed view on the universe and expected science to affirm its own dogmatic vision.
It would be unfair to characterize any one who disagrees with the scientists as seeking to alter the truth. Nevertheless, the case for an impending global catastrophe seems to represent the work product of the best minds in the world who have dedicated their professional lives to the study of our environment.. Moreover, the skeptics are up against Pascal’s wager. If the skeptics should persuade us that global warming is a hoax and they are wrong, the consequences would be horrendous. On the other hand the risk of error by the scientific establishment is not so great. Admittedly the collective cost of a wild goose chase would be significant, but the reduction of carbon dioxide would still produce a more pleasant, healthier climate. On balance, I consider it risky for our society to ignore the warnings of a coming global warming surprise.
[I have relied on Broecker and Kunzig Fixing the Climate (Hill and Wang 2008) and the article on global warming in Wikipedia for most of the material of a technical nature. Both are provocative, informative and excellent reading for a mainline novice such as me.]
* This posting is the first of three installments discussing global warming.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Restraints on Power
There is a certain freedom afforded to the loyal opposition. The opposition can stay on the attack and constantly criticize incumbents without the need to be consistent or even responsible for the consequences of an action proposed. There is nothing new about this phenomenon. Politicians from Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Disraeli to Richard Nixon would not want history to judge them based on their behavior during the time when they were ascending to power.
Moreover, a negative position is always easier to sell than positive change. Lobbyists will charge their clients much more to push legislation through, than to defeat a bill.
Nevertheless, the day of reckoning comes when the minority party seizes the reins of power. That day has arrived for President Obama. A case in point is the consternation brewing within the Democratic Party over the so-called torture issue. This appeared to be a perfect issue for the Democrats. They were claiming the moral high ground when they protested that prisoners were not being treated humanely. Because the military intelligence apparatus operate in secrecy, their defenders would not reveal what was actually going on. Therefore the Democrats could conjecture and make accusations of all sorts of misconduct and the military would not fully respond. It was not a fair fight.
President Obama is now charged with carrying out his promises to get rid of torture, to abolish Guantanamo, to try those charged with crimes in American courts applying our constitutional principles, or to send some of the accused terrorists to other countries for trials governed by their laws. He is discovering that reform is not quite so simple either as a matter of policy or practicality. Other countries are refusing to bail him out by accepting these hot potato inmates. (Their politicians want to be reelected.) Senators are willing to authorize trials in our courts but not in their state. (They want to be reelected, too.) He is learning that the maligned military tribunals serve a useful purpose, so he is replacing them with a newly reformed tribunal. I suspect that the principal reform is that he will give them a new name. His first attempt at transparency was to renege on his agreement to release pictures of torture.
The sad part is that the torture issue was somewhat mooted even before the 2008 campaign, for the simple reason that most of the work had already been done in the Bush Administration. It now appears that the Bush administration had gone a long way to eliminate the worst abuses. I understand that the last water boarding occurred in 2003, and none is contemplated in the future. There was no need for the Democrats to engage in this debate on that technique other than to preserve an issue for the 2008 political campaigns.
Moreover, I suspect that the Democrats are learning that public support for so-called torture is broader that they realized. I cannot remember an instance where a suit against law enforcement officers for violation of civil rights of persons in custody was sustained by a jury. In one prominent instance, a federal jury in Birmingham refused to award damages against police officers who allegedly used electric cattle prods on the prisoners. I thought that perhaps the strong pro law enforcement sentiment is limited to the conservative South. But when a California jury ruled in favor of the police officer defendants who were caught on tape beating a Rodney King while he was lying on the ground, I decided that jury unwillingness to hamper law enforcement efforts, even when violent and abusive, reflects a national rather than regional attitude among middle class voters. (Democrats are politicians, and they want to be reelected.)
What conclusion is to be drawn from all of this? If you are not an Obama fan, I am sure you can enjoy watching him squirm. I believe, however, that there is a more important message coming out of this mess. It is simply that our President is willing to back off when he sees that a former course is going awry. To me, his actions of implicit retraction are signs of strength. It is better to be strong in the face of criticism from his own party, even if he is called a coward, than to be cowardly in order to appear to be strong.
Moreover, a negative position is always easier to sell than positive change. Lobbyists will charge their clients much more to push legislation through, than to defeat a bill.
Nevertheless, the day of reckoning comes when the minority party seizes the reins of power. That day has arrived for President Obama. A case in point is the consternation brewing within the Democratic Party over the so-called torture issue. This appeared to be a perfect issue for the Democrats. They were claiming the moral high ground when they protested that prisoners were not being treated humanely. Because the military intelligence apparatus operate in secrecy, their defenders would not reveal what was actually going on. Therefore the Democrats could conjecture and make accusations of all sorts of misconduct and the military would not fully respond. It was not a fair fight.
President Obama is now charged with carrying out his promises to get rid of torture, to abolish Guantanamo, to try those charged with crimes in American courts applying our constitutional principles, or to send some of the accused terrorists to other countries for trials governed by their laws. He is discovering that reform is not quite so simple either as a matter of policy or practicality. Other countries are refusing to bail him out by accepting these hot potato inmates. (Their politicians want to be reelected.) Senators are willing to authorize trials in our courts but not in their state. (They want to be reelected, too.) He is learning that the maligned military tribunals serve a useful purpose, so he is replacing them with a newly reformed tribunal. I suspect that the principal reform is that he will give them a new name. His first attempt at transparency was to renege on his agreement to release pictures of torture.
The sad part is that the torture issue was somewhat mooted even before the 2008 campaign, for the simple reason that most of the work had already been done in the Bush Administration. It now appears that the Bush administration had gone a long way to eliminate the worst abuses. I understand that the last water boarding occurred in 2003, and none is contemplated in the future. There was no need for the Democrats to engage in this debate on that technique other than to preserve an issue for the 2008 political campaigns.
Moreover, I suspect that the Democrats are learning that public support for so-called torture is broader that they realized. I cannot remember an instance where a suit against law enforcement officers for violation of civil rights of persons in custody was sustained by a jury. In one prominent instance, a federal jury in Birmingham refused to award damages against police officers who allegedly used electric cattle prods on the prisoners. I thought that perhaps the strong pro law enforcement sentiment is limited to the conservative South. But when a California jury ruled in favor of the police officer defendants who were caught on tape beating a Rodney King while he was lying on the ground, I decided that jury unwillingness to hamper law enforcement efforts, even when violent and abusive, reflects a national rather than regional attitude among middle class voters. (Democrats are politicians, and they want to be reelected.)
What conclusion is to be drawn from all of this? If you are not an Obama fan, I am sure you can enjoy watching him squirm. I believe, however, that there is a more important message coming out of this mess. It is simply that our President is willing to back off when he sees that a former course is going awry. To me, his actions of implicit retraction are signs of strength. It is better to be strong in the face of criticism from his own party, even if he is called a coward, than to be cowardly in order to appear to be strong.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Every decade some politician proposes to cut back on the tax deduction for charitable giving. Previously it was Steve Forbes with his flat tax. Now the Obama administration is floating the idea. In the previous post, Vastine discussed the impact such a proposal would have on the arts. I will examine its impact on other areas of charitable giving.
Proponents seem to be driven by two motivations. First, it would allegedly generate revenue for the Federal government. Second, there is a desire to punish the rich in order to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Unfortunately, restricting charitable giving is a clumsy tool for accomplishing those purposes.
The treasury may benefit at first, but the government should weigh what it would lose when charitable giving is lowered. Private giving plays an enormous role in supporting various eleemosynary organizations in fields such as health education, and aid to the disadvantaged.
The walls of hospitals are plastered with the names of benefactors who contribute major support for the construction of ongoing capital improvements. Private funding has joined with government in seeking and finding ways to cure many diseases which were once deemed fatal or permanently disabling. Universities, even public universities, depend on private funds to support faculties, research, capital improvements, scholarships and even routine maintenance of their schools. In fact university giving for scholarships have allowed more and more universities proudly claim that any qualified applicant can earn a degree regardless of the level of their family income. United Way has been embraced by the business community and become an a dominant force in identifying and supporting the many social services in the local community.
As the world grows flat, so does the benevolent spirit. Multi billionaires such as Ted Turner and Bill Gates, have addressed the problems of world poverty. Rotary International joined with the World Health Organization and others to eradicate polio. The United Methodist Church founded Africa University in Zimbabwe, which has dramatically opened the doors of opportunity to young African that could not have been dreamed about a few decades ago. Doctors Without Borders are bringing the blessing of modern medicine to remote parts of the earth.
These and many other examples underline the fact that private giving has created a gigantic infrastructure which, if it did not exist, would drop into the lap of government agencies. Therefore, the effort to raise money for the government by reducing charitable giving deductions would contribute to new demands on the treasury in the long run.
Private is extremely effective in identifying causes meriting support. The donor tends to support the cause that is most important to him or her. Thus private support is spread in different directions. Many eyes looking at the needs of society should be preferred over leaving the decision making power over the use of available funds to handful of bureaucrats.
Moreover, much has been said about a trend toward a widening gap between the income of the rich and the poor. Assuming that the gap is growing, philanthropy tends to counterbalance that trend. After all, philanthropy involves giving by the rich to the poor.
Finally, charitable giving has the effect of lifting the human spirit. I submit that sharing our resources encourages us to be more understanding of each other. Monty and I had the privilege of participating in a mission trip to Panama, not long after our government had bombed Panama City. Each member of the group contributed money and labor toward the construction a community center in a small development that had been constructed by our denomination for families whose homes had been bombed out during the raid. When it was time to return home, one of our members removed his shoes and give them to a young Panamanian who had worked beside him that week. Reversing roles, my friend left Panama barefooted and the Panamanian said goodbye to him wearing shoes.
In the mean time, if you are ever in Birmingham, please come by our church, Highlands United Methodist Church. We try to do our part. We feed over a hundred homeless every day, give them clothing, wash their clothes, and obtain identification cards for those who need them to get jobs. We provide Santa Claus for children in one of our economically depressed areas. Some of our members participate in an annual medical mission to Central America. Our youth travel to Appalachia every year where they repair run down houses.
These programs are supported by our members— and their gifts are tax deductible.
Proponents seem to be driven by two motivations. First, it would allegedly generate revenue for the Federal government. Second, there is a desire to punish the rich in order to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Unfortunately, restricting charitable giving is a clumsy tool for accomplishing those purposes.
The treasury may benefit at first, but the government should weigh what it would lose when charitable giving is lowered. Private giving plays an enormous role in supporting various eleemosynary organizations in fields such as health education, and aid to the disadvantaged.
The walls of hospitals are plastered with the names of benefactors who contribute major support for the construction of ongoing capital improvements. Private funding has joined with government in seeking and finding ways to cure many diseases which were once deemed fatal or permanently disabling. Universities, even public universities, depend on private funds to support faculties, research, capital improvements, scholarships and even routine maintenance of their schools. In fact university giving for scholarships have allowed more and more universities proudly claim that any qualified applicant can earn a degree regardless of the level of their family income. United Way has been embraced by the business community and become an a dominant force in identifying and supporting the many social services in the local community.
As the world grows flat, so does the benevolent spirit. Multi billionaires such as Ted Turner and Bill Gates, have addressed the problems of world poverty. Rotary International joined with the World Health Organization and others to eradicate polio. The United Methodist Church founded Africa University in Zimbabwe, which has dramatically opened the doors of opportunity to young African that could not have been dreamed about a few decades ago. Doctors Without Borders are bringing the blessing of modern medicine to remote parts of the earth.
These and many other examples underline the fact that private giving has created a gigantic infrastructure which, if it did not exist, would drop into the lap of government agencies. Therefore, the effort to raise money for the government by reducing charitable giving deductions would contribute to new demands on the treasury in the long run.
Private is extremely effective in identifying causes meriting support. The donor tends to support the cause that is most important to him or her. Thus private support is spread in different directions. Many eyes looking at the needs of society should be preferred over leaving the decision making power over the use of available funds to handful of bureaucrats.
Moreover, much has been said about a trend toward a widening gap between the income of the rich and the poor. Assuming that the gap is growing, philanthropy tends to counterbalance that trend. After all, philanthropy involves giving by the rich to the poor.
Finally, charitable giving has the effect of lifting the human spirit. I submit that sharing our resources encourages us to be more understanding of each other. Monty and I had the privilege of participating in a mission trip to Panama, not long after our government had bombed Panama City. Each member of the group contributed money and labor toward the construction a community center in a small development that had been constructed by our denomination for families whose homes had been bombed out during the raid. When it was time to return home, one of our members removed his shoes and give them to a young Panamanian who had worked beside him that week. Reversing roles, my friend left Panama barefooted and the Panamanian said goodbye to him wearing shoes.
In the mean time, if you are ever in Birmingham, please come by our church, Highlands United Methodist Church. We try to do our part. We feed over a hundred homeless every day, give them clothing, wash their clothes, and obtain identification cards for those who need them to get jobs. We provide Santa Claus for children in one of our economically depressed areas. Some of our members participate in an annual medical mission to Central America. Our youth travel to Appalachia every year where they repair run down houses.
These programs are supported by our members— and their gifts are tax deductible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)