China, US, make largely toothless #climatechange agreement

Just how green are these solar panels, and how does that relate to an announced
US-China carbon-dioxide emissions accord? Photo via National Geographic

You can tell it's relatively toothless by the fact that the New York Times devoted less space to it, as part of a combined two-subject article, than to the other issue — free-trade talks.

It's relatively toothless in that China pledges to have its carbon emissions peak in 2030 and be at 20 percent renewables by then.

It's also relatively toothless because, as this story shows, solar panel manufacture itself can have high carbon emissions, as well as otherwise being environmentally dirty. And, there's only one sure-fire way to fix that: a carbon tax domestically and tariff on imports. More here on the relative lack of greenness of solar, as well as of dams and the trendy new one of wood pellets, among other things.

Now, as for why China would publicly agree to an even-toothless carbon accord?

Well, China's coal is not only relatively dirty but running lower. It's potential reserves of shale-based natural gas aren't provable let alone proven yet in any great amount. And, it's roughly the same latitude to more equatorward than the US, and with lots of sunny deserts and higher elevations, so it's situated well for solar. It's a large country with plenty of high-wind areas, so it's situated well for that. And, as the Three Gorges Dam shows, it's got further hydropower in mind.

So, the 20 percent pledge? China, unlike U.S. red state wingnut politicians, knows this makes good economic sense. And, speaking of those wingnuts? How much will they restrict Obama's pledge to accelerate the rate of cuts of U.S. carbon emissions?

As for China having its emissions peak in 2030? Well, beyond the planned increase in renewables, that's also because China's overall population is expected to peak in ...

Wait for it, wait for it ...

2030. Give or take a few years.

We, and much of the rest of the west, have of course exported a lot of our carbon to China. But, China's absorbed that. China will likely never be as car-intense as the U.S., or even as Western Europe. And, starting from scratch, hybrids and full-electric vehicles can be a bigger part of the mix sooner.

And, that population link cautions us to also look this "agreement" more closely in the mouth.

First, the US population will not peak in 2030. And, we will be at 400 million by 2050.

Other 2030 things to note?

Shortly after that, India will pass China in population. And, likely have a "dirtier" economy. Another reason to not put too much stock in yesterday's deal. Also on that link, note the even more rapid growth rate of Pakistan, with further ecological — and international politics — implications. And, the explosive growth of some sub-Saharan countries.

A different website gives slightly different numbers, but the same general idea.

In a related item, feel free to vote on my poll about Obama and Keystone XL, at top right.

Texas GOP? #Fracking bubble more reason to stop depleting Rainy Day Fund

The Texas Republican Party, rather than being responsible, and actually paying for general budget items out of the general budget, seems to be getting ever more fond of having voters make the tough choices for them by passing constitutional amendments to pay for necessary water supply improvements (Proposition 6, last year) and transportation upgrades (Proposition 1, this year). Unfortunately, for the second straight year, voters were suckers at the polls.

Not only is this an abdication of GOP responsibility, it may not be sustainable.

Those of us who know a bit about fracking, not just its environmental concerns but the difference between actual reserves and rate of extraction of reserves, have known for some time that natural gas fracking's claims of an explosion of new resources have been somewhat bubbly. And, the latest confirmation of that is here.

Now, the evidence that the same is true of fracked shale oil is continuing to increase.

(N)oted Canadian energy analyst David Hughes says that even if the drilling could somehow continue, the bounty simply will not last. 

Last month, Hughes released “Drilling Deeper,” a report he authored for Santa Rosa-based Post Carbon Institute, scrutinizing the U.S.’s two largest oil booms in the Bakken and Eagle Ford fields. By examining industry data, Hughes projects that the booms in both fields will peak before 2020 and, by 2040, will be producing at a tiny fraction of their current levels. “[If] the future of U.S. oil and natural gas production depends on resources in the country's deep shale deposits, as the Energy Department contends, we are in for a big disappointment in the longer term," Hughes said in a press release. 

The fundamental problem, Hughes explains, is the ephemeral nature of the average deep shale oil well, which declines in production by 83 percent after three years. This, Hughes explains, translates to an annual decline rate in the Bakken and Eagle Ford fields of over 40 percent. (The Bakken and Eagle Ford, he says, are not unique in this regard. All shale oil plays are afflicted with steep decline curves.)

In other words, the Texas GOP, as incorporated in the Texas Legislature passing these constitutional amendments, is officially running a Ponzi scheme. (All emphasis in the above quote is mine.) 

And, it's a Ponzi scheme based not only on ephemeral production, but also ephemeral production that's not's being adequately taxed for all of its destructiveness.

Click the links within that pull quote, as well as clicking the main link for more. It should open your eyes. For example, Hughes expects Eagle Ford oil production to peak in 2016! That's from his "Drilling Deeper" report. And, it needs to open the eyes of people at larger media companies than me. The latest installment of the alleged Texas miracle of economics simply doesn't appear to be sustainable.

And, in a related issue, feel free to vote on my poll about Obama and the Keystone XL, at top right. (Note: The plunge in oil prices may also affect Obama's decision.)

Meanwhile, on both oil and gas, it seems like the Energy Information Administration become less trustworthy all the time.

Update, Jan. 16, 2015: Houston Chronicle columnist Chris Tomlinson notes that more recently fracked wells give some signs of not declining so quickly. That said, Hughes' graphs, linked above, do not show a sharp decline for either the Eagle Ford or the Bakken formations, among others, so I don't think Chris' note really undercuts Hughes' analysis.

Veterans Day and the WWI centennial

Today is the first of four Veterans Day celebrations that also fall within the observation of the centennial of World War I.

I've long contended that:
1. Woodrow Wilson was more British-biased than most mainstream histories present
2. We shouldn't have gotten involved in World War I
3. A true neutrality would have kept us out of World War I.

As we reflect on our veterans today, remember that, from World War I on, most our wars (including, to some degree, Cold War "Red scare" ones) were based in part on Wilsonian idealism. World War II, besides Japan attacking us, arguably had a strong Realpolitik component; all others, lesser ones.

We had no vital interests at stake in 1914, other than, possibly, freedom of the seas, which was threatened just as much by the British blockade by extension as by German unrestricted submarine warfare, if not more so.

Had we stayed neutral, we could have let "old Europe" punch itself even more senseless than it actually did. What would have happened?

At a glance, the British and French would have pulled troops from the Balkans and Near East to stop Ludendorff in 1918 just shy of Paris. But, without American troops, and with British and French senior commanders far stupider than Pershing, no major counterattack would have resulted.

If one realizes that German casualties on World War I on both the Eastern and Western fronts were less than French and British casualties, almost all of those on the Western Front, one realizes just how great the difference in generalship — and training of enlisted men, in general — was between the Allies and Germany (The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary is different; in part, because of rising internal nationalism, it fought about as bad as Russia in the first 18 months of the war, and not a tremendous amount better than Italy.)

Then, the November 1918 revolution would have hit Germany (and the Dual Monarchy) as it actually did.

And spread to British and French front-line troops. All combatants, Allies and Central Powers alike, would have scrambled for some truce.

The Dual Monarchy would have disintegrated anyway. An independent Poland would have formed — but likely without the Polish corridor. Wilhelm might have abdicated anyway, whether for his son in a constitutional monarchy or in a republic, I don't know.

Just a few thoughts from alternative history about how different the world could have been today.

And, beyond that, about how we need more Realpolitik in foreign policy.

Your NL Manager of the Year should be ...

Mike Redmond,
Miami Marlins

Mike Redmond, at least by one line of reasoning.

Who, you say?

The guy who managed the Miami Marlins to a 15-game improvement from last year, despite losing young hot hurler Jose Fernandez for the majority of the season due to Tommy John surgery and Giancarlo Stanton for the last month or so due to a severe beaning.

By the middle of the season, the Fish were starting to gain signs of respect and respectability, to boot.

Now, I know that it's as rare for this award as for an MVP to go to someone on a sub-.500 team. Right, Andre Dawson? Even though Tony Gwynn, Eric Davis, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy, and Ozzie Smith (among others) were all more deserving by WAR, and the Wiz, certainly, by team finish.

That said, Redmond's case is different. Just his second year with the team.

One drawback? The team finished 1 game below Pythagorean expectation.

Cardinal trolls who want to tout Mike Matheny? Please. His stubbornness with Mark Ellis vs Kolten Wong, and Allen Craig vs Oscar Taveras, says enough. That said, even with that stupidity, the team shockingly was 7 games above Pythag. Which makes me wonder how useful it is as a "WAR for managers" tool, even though I've touted it before.

Contra that, though, and while noting all BBWAA awards are voted on at the end of the regular season and based on regular season performance only, he was a bad manager in the playoffs.

Matt Williams improved the Nats 10 games from last year. But, they were a game below Pythag.

The Brewers under Ron Roenicke improved eight games, and they were two games above Pythag.

Anyway, there are various ways to skin the MOY cat — Pythag and improvement from last year are two of them.

On the former, Donnie Baseball had the L.A. Dollars two games above Pythag.

Rick Renteria,
stylin the classic
’70s Pirates hat.

On the latter? Rick Renteria, recently dumped in Chicago by Theo Epstein in favor of Steve Martin Joe Maddon, improved them by seven games, and was two above Pythag to boot.

Frankly, it would be funny as hell to see him get the award.

Unfortunately, BBWAA has shown for years that it has absolutely no sense of humor, and award voting is already done, so this ain't happening.

Too bad.

Texas GOP sees #mandate for further slashing — schools face new knife

My header should offer enough explainer for this press release by state Sen. Charles Schwertner:

Today, Senator Charles Schwertner, MD (R-Georgetown) filed SB 134, also known as the Small Business Tax Relief Act.  If passed, SB 134 will establish a permanent $5 million total revenue exemption from the state's business franchise tax and provide critical tax relief for tens of thousands of Texas businesses.  

"Today, I'm proud to file a landmark tax cut for the hard-working small business owners that create jobs and drive our Texas economy," said Schwertner. "For many small and medium-sized businesses struggling to make it, the state franchise tax represents an unreasonable and unnecessary tax burden that only serves to limit job growth and stifle new investment. 

The Texas Comptroller's Office estimates that the Small Business Tax Relief Act (SB 134) would provide over $440 million in annual tax relief, while exempting over 65,000 small businesses that would otherwise pay the state's business franchise tax.  These small businesses represent over 55% of all entities required to remit payment under the current franchise tax structure. 

Unlike past proposals to eliminate the franchise tax entirely, SB 134 won't generate a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall and can be achieved with modest impact to state revenue.  The Comptroller's Office estimates that raising the exemption to $5 million would result in a 9.17% decrease in overall revenue collected by the franchise tax.
"This fiscally responsible approach provides meaningful tax relief to the small businesses who need it most, while still maintaining a balanced budget," said Schwertner. "It just makes sense." 

Small business advocates have consistently argued that the franchise tax disproportionately affects small to medium-sized Texas businesses -- particularly in those industries marked by high gross receipts but marginal overall profits.

Let's work through this baby.

First, is paragraph 2 correct? Along with the last graf, probably, in part.

Is Schwertner's answer the right one?

Not at all, without getting higher end business to pay more.

And, no, a $440 million tax cut is small potatoes to a multi-billion tax elimination, of course.

So, Schwertner comes off tries to come off looking like a kinder, gentler Republican.

Wrong!

$440 million is $440 million, period. 

It's "only" a couple of hundred dollars per each child in Texas public schools.

And, beyond that, every time a Texas Republican tries to perform actual math on the Texas franchise tax, they get it wrong, and the cuts are worse than claimed, to boot.

I hope this gets brought up in the state's appeal of Judge John Dietz's ruling that Texas' school finance system is unconstitutional. Gov-elect Strangeabbott has claimed to see nothing wrong with it, and now, his minions want to cut school finance even more.

The myth of Teddy Roosevelt, part deaux

A few months ago, I blogged about the start of Ken Burns' latest PBS American whoregasm, "The Roosevelts," wondering what he'd get wrong about Teddy. (Answer: A decent amount, but not quite a huge amount. Click the link.)

Now, via a Facebook friend, we have the laughable wonder of TR calling Woodrow Wilson laissez-faire, in a 1912 campaign speech.

Really?

The man who refused to cut the tariff, did't push to get Congress to pass the 16th Amendment on income tax, and, even after the Panic of 1907 and his failure to push for something like the Federal Reserve, calls Wilson laissez-faire? Well, that's a chuckle.

It's true indeed that Wilson, a unreconstructed Southerner who, if he had pushed for Obamacare today, would have found a way even more than today's red states are doing to restrict its benefits to white folks, was saying that only keeping government power was coherent with protecting individual liberties.  That said, per the paragraph above, TR wasn't in much place to critique Wilson, and that's my critique. Beyond that, contra later parts of that TR speech, Wilson strengthened antitrust laws with the Clayton Antitrust Act, created the Federal Trade Commission, and battled to cut child labor, before legislation he pushed Congress to pass was declared unconstitutional.

In the speech, Roosevelt also lies about the accomplishments of Taft, some of which were more progressive — and more legally grounded — than TR's. See my first link.

Teddy Roosevelt would be a hoot for today. We'd have twice as many dams in the West as we actually do, we'd have czars for everything, TR would himself be talking to Kurzweil about putting his engrams in a computer, and he'd be dropping nuclear bombs in ISIS in the name of vigorous Christianist nationalism.

Burns did somewhat get this right. An activist government, for Teddy Roosevelt, boiled down to one thing: An activist Teddy Roosevelt. It's also was "Battling Bob" La Follette disliked TR forming his Bull Moose party and disrupting the growth of broader progressivism.

With a population four times that of his U.S., I thank doorknobs that, for some of his attractiveness, he's not president today. Had he been president when Truman was, he probably would have tried to shoot Congress before it could pass the 22nd Amendment. He almost certainly would have nuked North Korea, and maybe China, too, during the Korean War.

In short, he would be a hypercaffeinated (he bespoke Maxwell House's slogan), jingoistic Just.Another.Politician.™ Were he president today, he'd scare the hell out of me.

And, even a pre-modern TR would have been bad enough.

Had he been able to pull off the 1912 third-term win, and an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 had happened as in reality?

He would have gotten us into World War I two full years before Wilson, in all likelihood.

He might then have used that as an excuse to run for a fourth term in 1916.

As for presidential rankings? We know why he's on Mount Rushmore. In actuality, for all of his good on environmentalism, and for his trust-busting for partially selfish reasons, he's not one of our top five presidents. He's probably not in the top 10.

That said, other than that the game of ranking presidents requires 10 of them to be in the top 10, we don't really have a 10 best presidents list.