Re-Forestation and Lumber

NPR published a story about encouraging the use of forests as carbon sinks to mitigate global warming. I did a paper about this back in an undergraduate class in environmental economics, but the interesting development is the use of re-forestation in carbon offset markets. Offset markets provide a relatively non-bureacratic way of putting the technique to use, compared to the massive, direct government program I contemplated as an undergraduate.

I'm surprised that we don't hear about more efforts to improve the carbon-sequestering benefits of building with wood. It seems reasonable that if wood can be modified into some long-lasting form suitable for truly large buildings, then we can sequester lots of carbon in our buildings. Under a straight forest sequestration plan, I'm sure that there is an upper limit to how much carbon can be sequestered per acre of forest. But if the trees are eventually converted into super-lumber for building purposes, then the same acre can potentially provide much more sequestration through an endless series of tree harvests.

Why You Should Die Next Year

Funny article about the end game for the Republican tax "reform" of 2001. Articles about taxes that are both informative and fun are rare.

Obama the Conservative

A lot of liberals, myself included, have been frustrated by Obama's apparent determination to be conciliatory towards conservatives, to achieve non-partisan policy solutions that include them, and to refrain from going for their political throat, even when they so clearly and richly deserve it.

I tend to think of this behavior as an error in political calculation. I want to tell Obama that he's wrong about conciliation, that attacking the conservatives would be a much more effective strategy. But it's possible that his behavior is something much deeper than a mere political calculation.

I was thinking about Obama's life story on my bike ride this morning. Obama's mother was someone who embraced liberal values and the spirit of the Sixties, embraced them to the extent of marrying a black man at a time when that was almost unthinkable for a white woman. In a sense, her liberalism brought Obama into existence. But in that quintessential Sixties determination to realize her personal potential and avoid being trapped by the responsibilities of straight life, she subsequently abandoned her son to free herself for further explorations and adventures.

When that happened, Obama was taken up, loved, protected, and raised, by his conservative grandparents. They were people who did accept responsibilities, and accepted the limitation on their freedom and adventures which responsibility always brings. Obama owed his survival to their conservatism as much as he owed his existence to his mother's liberalism. In Obama's life, he needed them both. So while we of the left may feel that Obama is clearly one of us, he may not feel the same way. Obama's past may have taught him that liberalism has a dark side, and that conservatism has virtues, and that we need both sides of our national character.

If I'm right, then I feel better about Obama as a person. It means that he's not making a stupid political mistake, but pursuing a deeper vision that is fundamentally true. But my theory makes me feel worse about America's prospects. Because right now the kind of conservative that the Republican Party really needs is the kind that will grab them by the scruff of the neck and whup them upside the head until they agree to knock this lying crap off.

Bicycle Efficiency is a Win for Everybody

I just heard about the Idaho Stop Law, and I like it.

When I think about making bicycle commuting more attractive I usually think about increasing the number of bike lanes and bike paths. That's a policy which would greatly benefit me as a bicylce commuter, but whose net economic value for the community is arguable. But the Idaho Stop Law is a costless means of making bicycle commuting more efficient and feasible.

I think that it's enough of a bright-line rule that the automobile-driving public would understand it and be able to apply it without much fuss. Plus, hopefully this policy would not only legalize some of the common practices of bicyclists (guilty) but reduce the amount of really annoying and dangerous bicycle anarchism.

I'm not sure about the advocacy video though.

Thanks to Common Tragedies for the story.

The Books of Summer

My last final exam was yesterday. The school year is over, and summer beckons like an endless realm of bright, golden possibilities.

Which means it's time to put together the summer reading list.

It's actually going to be a pretty short list. That's partly due to the voice of experience, and partly because I'm still waiting to see what's on other people's summer reading lists. Tyler Cowen has done a nice one before, and in general lists should be popping up like mushrooms on the Internet pretty quick now. So for the time being, I am limiting myself to the following:

1) Thinking Strategically, by Dixit and Nalebuff.
Game theory. This one actually came from Tyler Cowen's list a year or so ago. I've read just enough to know that I want to finish it.

2) The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama.
I know just enough about Obama to be convinced that he is easily our best choice out of the current crop, and I want to know more so I picked this up. On my first foray, I was initially put off by his tone in the book; there seems to be a pompous quality to his writing. But then in a moment of insight I realized that Obama hears himself speaking when he writes. He writes prose like he writes a speech, and sentence structures that work well in public speaking are often clunkers in print. I understand the error; it's very common and I've done it myself. No harm done now that I understand what's going on.

3) By the Sweat of Thy Brow, by Kranzberg and Gies.
This is a history of "how mankind has conceived of and organized work." It's a traditional, literary-style, history book. There is no economic theory in here that has ever had acquaintance of algebra, let alone calculus, or set theory, or general equilibrium models, or whatever godforsaken, formalist horrors may now lurk in the pages of the The Journal of Economic History. This one is just for fun, and at first glance it reads like it will be just fun. It's also dear to my heart because it's the only one of my three summer books that came from the Santa Cruz Library annual book sale, where used books are offered for $1.50 a pound. Which means that this little volume cost me 98 cents. I can't begin to describe the happiness I'm experiencing from my consumer surplus here.

Obama and Regulation

There is a nice little piece about the endorsement of Obama by Paul Volcker and three former SEC chairmen over on Teagan Goddard's CQ Politics site. As the article mentions, this endorsement was unfortunately overshadowed by the Edwards endorsement, but I think that it gives us more information about what to expect from an Obama Presidency, and the news is good. According to John Cranston, the author of the article, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has now signed onto the endorsement, which means that three of the four signatories are Republicans, two of them appointed to their posts by Reagan and one by Bush 43 himself.
You might think that this indicates that Obama has an anti-regulatory streak, or has been signalling an intention to pander to Wall Street, but you'd be wrong. According to the article, each of these men "leaned hard against the anti-regulatory wind when they were charged with overseeing U.S. financial markets" and otherwise showed a willingness to act "as guardians of the interests of individuals and the economy generally" against special interests. And hey, really, that's all I'm asking for in a regulator.
I try to be cynical about politicians, and that's not hard to do, but little signs like this make me hopeful about an Obama Presidency. I guess it's time to go give him another $25.

Let's Not Do Anything Rash About Global Warming

I found this photo of Houston in a story on io9. The story, by Annalee Newitz, describes how ozone in the atmosphere, while bad for the atmosphere, does create some beautiful sunsets.

I sense that Ms. Newitz wrote with a certain degree of irony. However, speaking as an economist, I must insist that all efforts to mitigate global warming be immediately placed on hold until we have done further research. We can't be taking rash actions without knowing all the facts, and we won't know all the facts until we know the extent to which utility is being increased due to the ability of pollution to improve sunsets. Blindly stumbling forward without further studies would be irresponsible, and constitute a craven surrender to the enviro-fascist conspiracy. If anyone would like, I could provide a graph with some curves and numbers to prove my point.

Thanks to io9 for the story, and thanks to eschipul for the photo.