Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

By Julian Dunraven, J. D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingness to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

The Rise of Gold and Fall of The Dollar

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Last month I wrote that the bailout total, which has now reached more than $8.5 trillion, with another $850 billion stimulus to come this year, will eventually force us into dangerous levels of inflation. I thank the Bangor Daily News and Bridget Johnson at The Rocky Mountain News for picking up on that post. Since then, although the Fed printing presses have been running at a frantic pace, nearly doubling the money base, much of it has not yet reached the money supply. That is about to change.

As the credit crisis hit and companies began to deleverage in earnest, selling anything they could to obtain dollars and pay down debt, U.S. treasury bonds sold very well. Our people, seeing the credit crunch and falling prices, began to fear a deflationary trend and flocked to treasury bonds as well. Truly markets are psychologically driven—and often insane. More rational heads have reminded us that real deflation requires a contraction in the money supply—which the Fed’s printing has made all but impossible. It seems, however, that reason is beginning to reassert itself.

U.S. treasuries are now selling at almost zero percent interest rates. As a result, $1 million invested into a one month treasury bill, rolled over each month, will earn you only a meager $100 annual interest. A one year treasury bill for $1 million will earn you only $4,300. No one can live off such pathetic returns, certainly not our retirees. As for other governments, such returns offer little incentive to continue financing our debt, which increasingly looks to be utterly unmanageable. As a result U.S. Treasury sales are beginning to decline.

As the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out, our biggest creditor nations are unlikely to increase their investment. Japan has been a net seller of U.S. Treasuries and it has its own problems to deal with from demand destruction affecting its exports. OPEC nations are suffering from falling oil prices and their own resulting economic woes render them unable to finance more of our debt. The Caribbean banks are suffering from the credit crunch forcing liquidity and in no position to offer help. That leaves China, which is passing its own $585 billion stimulus, of which the government is providing only $170 billion, leaving the rest to be financed out of its foreign exchange reserves—such as U.S. treasuries.

To further complicate the matter, Chuck Butler’s Daily Pfenning yesterday picked up on news that Chinese officials are now contemplating selling U.S. Treasuries in part out of retaliation that the U.S. government has cast blame on China for the global financial crisis. Yu Yongding, a former member of the People's Bank of China's policy board, also warned that “supply of Treasuries may far exceed demand in the future.”

Thus, as the Fed finds itself unable to sell sufficient treasury bonds to finance all the government spending, it will have no choice but to begin quantitative easing, a polite term for printing money and injecting it directly into the money supply. In other words: massive inflation.

As part of their efforts to accomplish this enormous monetary expansion and devaluation in a vain effort to stimulate the economy, the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out that the central banks have finally abandoned their attempts to artificially suppress the price of gold through naked short selling and dumping. Slapstick Politics discussed this inevitability back in October.

As I predicted last month, the result of all of this has been a drop in the value of the dollar and a precipitous rise in the price of gold as people try to find a way to preserve their wealth. The other major fiat currencies of the world are no better, as James Turk of Gold Money illustrates. The central banks of the world have all embarked on this strategy of bailouts and spending together, and they are all devaluing their currencies together. That trend is likely to continue for some time, and gold remains the best protection against it.

For those of you who still have yet to purchase gold and are cringing at its current price surge to around $900 per ounce, there are some hopeful signs to watch for. Although I do not think the bailouts and stimulus packages will be at all effective at solving the financial crisis in the long run (a topic Slapstick Politics will continue to address), I do expect them to produce a short term boost in confidence in the near future. The strange aura of hope that the Obama administration has coming into office will assist this as well. There may also be another period of deleveraging in the near future. In either scenario, several investment specialists speculate that the price of gold could plummet back down to $650-700 per ounce. If that happens, it would be a wonderful time to purchase. Before the central banks have completed their efforts at quantitative easing, most gold investment experts are estimating the price of gold could rise to anywhere from $1,500-5,000 per ounce. The Ludwig von Mises Institute goes quite a bit further, speculating that gold could climb to almost $10,000 per ounce. While I tend to lean toward the more conservative estimates, gold continues to provide the best possible protection against the inflation and devaluation the central banks of the world are now foisting upon us in what is perhaps the greatest theft of wealth in history.

Barack Obama’s Fashion Faux Pas: Whatever It Was, It Was Not White Tie

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

The magical aura of change and hope that seemed to bewitch the nation today was not quite strong enough to ensorcell Wall Street, which continued its consistent, if volatile, fear driven trend downward. But today, I am told, is not about policy or economics; rather it is about fun and fashion. Fair enough. It is rare that I get to talk about etiquette in politics, so I will take advantage of the opportunity. Besides, while I am sure that virtually all fashion editors will be critiquing Michelle Obama’s evening gown, however lovely the rest of us may think it, and ignoring her husband entirely, someone needs to say something about that ghastly conglomeration Barack Obama tried to pass off as white tie attire.

I suppose I need to give him credit for at least attempting white tie, which is the strictest type of formal evening wear, and something few of our overly casual citizenry, including presidents, even try anymore. Because of that unfamiliarity though, few will ever realize how badly he botched his effort and wound up looking more like an inexperienced prom king than a president, an appearance only reinforced by his pathetic attempts at dancing. One would think America’s first couple could be bothered to learn at least a simple waltz before the inaugural balls. Nonetheless, for those gentlemen who perhaps aspire to wear white tie correctly one day, allow me to point out our new President’s faux pas.

White tie, properly speaking, involves a plain fronted, stiff white shirt with French cuffs and a wing-tip collar. Mr. Obama’s collar was full, quite improper for the occasion. The coat for white tie must be black, have tails, and satin peak or shawl lapels. Mr. Obama’s jacket lacked tails entirely, and notched lapels, while barely passable for black tie, are far too similar to the daily business suit to ever be appropriate for the ultra formal white tie style. The pants for white tie must be black with a braid down the sides. Mr. Obama’s trousers had only a satin stripe. Naturally, white tie also requires a white piqué waistcoat and bow tie, and gold and or mother of pearl cuff links and button studs. The President got that much right at least.

In contrast, the less formal black tie tuxedo, used for private entertaining such as weddings rather than public occasions and balls, consists of a white shirt with a pleated front, French cuffs and full fold-down collar. The jacket should not have tails and may have shawl, peak, or notch satin lapels. In the summer, the jacket—and only the jacket—may be white. That is as exciting as is permissible. The black pants must have a satin stripe down the sides. As the name suggests, it requires a black bow tie with a black waistcoat or cummerbund with black and silver cuff links and button studs. Colors are never permitted, no matter what a gentleman’s date is wearing, unless he wishes to look like an organ grinder.

Both white and black tie have daytime equivalents as well. However, I won’t complicate things further with those. It suffices to say that the president managed only a bizarre and awkward amalgamation of the two styles, though I am glad he did not go so far as to include colors or the tacky variation of ties cheap haberdashers so carelessly foist upon us these days. I have only one further suggestion for the well groomed man: visit a barber or stylist before putting on formal evening wear. Sideburns should either be present on both sides of the head or not at all.

If today really was about fun and fashion, and if Wall Street was paying attention, perhaps it explains the decline. How can a gentleman be expected to manage the nation’s economy if he cannot even manage to properly dress himself?

Sen. Inhofe Asks the People to Help Fight Second TARP Bailout

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

From what I have been reading, I doubt there are many people left in this nation, outside the District of Columbia, who still believe that the TARP bailout was a good idea. Despite this, only a few members of the Senate have shown courage in representing the people against this horrendous and immoral plundering of our country’s wealth. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), along with Senators Barasso (R-Wyo.), Wicker (R-Miss.), DeMint (R-S.C.), Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Enzi (R-Wyo.), have cosponsored legislation that would halt the second installment of the $350 billion bailout.

They face tough opposition, however. Obama, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, has demanded that Congress release the money to the incoming administration. Obama has threatened to veto any attempt Congress makes to withhold the money.

The U.S. Senate is due to vote on the issue this afternoon. Many people have told me that they feel helpless to prevent what seems to them to be inevitable. It is not. Sen. Inhofe and his allies are committed to fight it, but Inhofe has asked for the help of the people. All it takes is a few moments to find your senator’s web page, type a quick objection to the bailout, and e-mail the message. The Senate needs our help to stand up against this pressure, but it can be done.

Already, CNN reports that Republican senators, anticipating that Obama will get the money, are asking his administration to promise that he will only use it on the financial industry, and not alter the purpose—for the auto industry for instance—as the Bush administration did. There was a time when such a request would have been silly. The Constitution, after all, prevents a president from altering legislation to his whim—he is charged merely with enforcing it. Yet, today, Congress must beg the president to even follow the laws they pass. As Sen. Inhofe has stated before, and I have echoed, our Republic is in dire straits.

If we are unhappy with this state of affairs, then it is up to us, the people, to correct the government which should be answerable to us. It is our responsibility to defend the Constitution and to make our will known to the spineless and feckless fools currently sitting in Congress that we do not want more money to go to these bailouts. It is not hard, and requires only a few moments, and a few clicks of the mouse. I hope you will all join me in answering Sen. Inhofe’s call to contact our senators, and to send them all but one powerful word: “NO!”

Just War: Why Christians Should Not Falter in Support of Israel

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

The Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations has quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying of the conflict in Gaza “that the military options are no solution and that violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.” Naturally, I would expect the pontiff to be praying for peace. However, I am surprised that the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would make such a careless comment so wildly out of line with the Church’s teachings. Such slips only encourage the type of behavior I saw this weekend from a few guests at a wedding who, though totally uneducated on the subject, pronounced their condemnation of both Israel and Palestine while piously declaring that war is always wrong. Such statements are as contemptible as they are intellectually lazy, and I grow weary of listening to them.

While Christianity has perhaps lamented that war is always tragic and unfortunate, it has never declared that war is always wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single mainstream Christian Church so foolish as to make such a declaration. Certainly, Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be called wrong by any rational observer. To fully understand how incredibly imbalanced the ethics of this conflict are in favor of Israel, there is no better teacher than Charles Krauthammer in his last two columns, “Excruciating Moral Clarity,” and, “Ending Hamas Rule.”

However, for those of you who, like me, have an assortment of Christian friends who refuse to sanction any war no matter how powerful the justification or how clear the moral reasoning, I suggest you refer them to the Christian Just War Doctrine. Going all the way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, it predates all the schisms and is a part of every mainstream form of Christianity.

The Just War Doctrine, codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states in §2308 that, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Section 2309 goes on to list the conditions under which a just war may be prosecuted:
· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Considering what we know of Gaza, despite all international effort over the past several decades, no authority has been successful at persuading the Palestinian militants to desist from launching rockets into Israel. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, rocket fire on the Israeli population has continued unabated even after Israel withdrew all settlers and military, and ceded governmental control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005—effectively doing everything the Palestinians had demanded for an end to hostilities. Negotiations have gone on for decades, yet only Israel attempts to abide by any of the agreements reached. There is nothing more Israel can offer save its own annihilation. Thus, I would say negotiation has proved most ineffective.

Israel does have a good chance of permanently ending this conflict, though, if its assault can topple Hamas’ control and demonstrate that Islamic militants will succeed only in bringing greater hardship down on Palestinian people. The hardship endured by the Palestinian people is indeed unfortunate, but Hamas has deliberately orchestrated that hardship by using its own civilian population and humanitarian centers as shields against Israeli counterstrikes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that the problem of proportionality is “aggravated if one side deliberately positions military targets in the midst of a civilian population.” Though Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties, they are inevitable. Nonetheless, after so many decades of failed negotiations, if Israel can succeed in destroying Hamas utterly, the permanent peace to follow will be worth the terrible price.

As the Catechism states in §2304, the peace Israel fights for is “not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” According to Pope John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message of 1982, “Unconditional and effective respect for each one's unprescriptable and inalienable rights is the necessary condition in order that peace may reign in a society.” Currently, only Israel offers such respect—going so far as to offer warnings and aid to enemy noncombatants in its quest for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, is dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. Unless it is clearly defeated, that ideology of hate will remain as an impenetrable barrier to peace for yet more decades to come.

As the USCCB states, “This is why Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.”

Rather than making foolish statements about how all war is evil, if Christendom truly wants to see an end to conflict in the Middle East, they would do well to bring real pressure to bear on Hamas, Palestine, and their Arab allies to prevent the continual flow of weapons and armaments into Gaza, and to enforce real consequences for mortar attacks beyond occasional dispatching another diplomat for talks while the militants rearm. The USCCB reminds us that a true “Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation.”

Berg v. Obama Denied Certiorari

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A..

(For earlier posts on this case click here.)

Honorable Friends:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Berg v. Obama. Despite this denial, there is still a chance it may be heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is still pending. Berg reports that his brief is due by 20 January 2009. Ironically, that is inauguration day. Though it saddens me to say so, as this case will not even be heard, much less resolved, by the time Obama is sworn into office, I cannot imagine any court would presume to review the qualifications of a sitting president. Thus, I do not expect that there will be any further developments in this case. As such, the question of Obama’s constitutional qualifications falls to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has accepted Obama as fully qualified for office, and he will thus become the next President of the United States on January 20th.

Begin the New Year with a Laugh: We Can All Cry Soon Enough

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Happy Twelfth Night! This is the last day of Christmas. Tomorrow is the Epiphany and, as the Magi commence their visit, the holidays will sadly draw to a close. Before I get back to commenting on the New Year, though, which is quickly filling up with many mad events (El Presidente has already pounced on the insane appointment of Sen. Who), I thought I would share a few light hearted reflections on 2008.

This first video comes from Jib Jab. Their annual, “Year in Review” series of videos never fails to entertain, and the “2008 Year in Review,” is no exception.

The second video recap of 2008 comes from “Uncle Jay Explains the News.” Uncle Jay seems to be quite an entertaining and sensible fellow, and his other news briefings are worth a glance or two as well.

I hope you enjoy the levity. Tomorrow the Dunraven will be back to his usual raucous squawking.