Global Warming Worse for Blacks and….

There is the old joke that the New York Times is so knee jerk politically correct that if the world were about to be destroyed by an asteroid that it would run a headline reading, "World to End Tomorrow: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest." In a similar vein, BET.com is running a story headlined, "Global Warming Could Spell Disaster for Blacks." The BET.com article notes,

Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups. If global warming gets worse, many African-American communities will be more vulnerable to breathing ailments, insect-carried diseases and heat-related illness and death. But asking Black folks to give up gas-guzzling SUV's and other bling is a tough sell.

Whatever the risks posed by global warming, it should be noted that if more black folk had had gas-guzzling SUVs, more of them could have gotten out of New Orleans before Katrina crashed the levees.

Hat tip to David Ridgely for the link.

Comments

[Robert Cote]

Wall Street Journal: "ASTEROID APPROACHES, Markets to Close Early" (Story pg A-12)

[mk]

In other news, The thinning of the ozone layer will disproportionately affect pasty white guys of celtic origin like me.

My take on this is that they just want their readers to give a shit. So they personalize it.

[ND]

The version I heard, that was the Boston Globe. The Times subhead was simply "World Leaders To Meet." The Post was "Super Bowl Cancelled."

[Jeff P.]

Did anyone see the Boondocks last week where Martin Luther King lays into BET? It was very funny.

[Ed]

Relatively, Blacks are environmental Good Samaritans. Per capita, we emit approximately 20 percent less carbon dioxide than Whites, well below 2020 targets set by the U.S. Climate Stewardship Act. Not only do we use more energy-conserving public transportation, we spend considerably less per capita on energy-intensive material goods.

Um, is this a clandestine Friday Fun Link?

[Deus ex Machina]

This is really a stretch. Doesn't every natural disaster affect the downtrodden more-including earthquakes and tsunamis? Now the Pacific Islanders might actually have an argument wrt Global sea level rise.

[Dan T.]

Reason Magazine: ?If Not For Government Regulations, The Free Market Would Have Built A Ship Big Enough for Everybody on Earth to Escape?

[rac]

I say we cut the budget a billion or so, and buy every minority a big fan. I ain't giving up my Yukon for nothin'. And you know what I mean.

[Phil]

SPECIAL-INTEREST MEDIA OUTLET IN "POSITIONING NEWS TO APPEAL MORE TO CORE AUDIENCE" SHOCKER!!!!!!

[MikeP]

Per capita, we emit approximately 20 percent less carbon dioxide than Whites, well below 2020 targets set by the U.S. Climate Stewardship Act.

I'm always irritated by statements that the US produces a quarter of the greenhouse gasses of the world. Well, yes. It's because the US produces a quarter of the Gross World Product! Duh.

Here we see the reverse of the argument: "We want to be even better stewards of the climate. Impoverish us more!"

[theCoach]

Good one DanT.

and for RC Dean and John:

?If Not For Liberal criticism, Commander in Cheif Bush Would Have Built A Ship Big Enough for Everybody on Earth to Escape?

More seriously, I am having a hard time finding out what the point of this post is supposed to be, other than to repeat a lame old joke only explicable by strawmen versions of the NYT that live in some misguided heads.

Is it that it is silly to think that blacks were hardest hit by Katrina (the type of natural disaster that would arguably occur more frequently with GW)? No, That cannot be it.

I think the real point is that through prosperity we would have been able to avoid the major problems with Katrina, but it seems a little crass given that virtually nothing was done to hurt properity in Kyoto-like terms, and that the problem at hand had much more to do with the distribution of prosperity rather than a general lowering of productivity do to environmental concerns.

[methodman]

Somebody tried to use this to get me to give a shit about Eskimos recently. Seems to me they could use a break from the cold.

[Robert Cote]

Reason Magazine: ?If Not For Government Regulations, The Free Market Would Have Built A Ship Big Enough for Everybody on Earth to Escape?

don't laugh. My old boss had trouble until the Mojave airport was redesignated "The Mojave Spaceport" before launching his private space vehicle. We used to bitch about the stagmnation of private aviation. think about autos in 1956 and private aircraft in 1956. Fast forward a half century to 2006. Except for electronics the airplane has lost 45 years of advances to regulation. My old boss used to tell Beechcraft that it would be cheaper to make owners sign a binding contract that the airplane would absolutely kill them within 40 years and pay the settlement after 40 years than it was costing to pay for lawyers and judgements for those that were suing under current rules.

[Phil]

I'm always irritated by statements that the US produces a quarter of the greenhouse gasses of the world. Well, yes. It's because the US produces a quarter of the Gross World Product

So, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas production scales in an exactly linear manner with contribution to GWP? I find that . . . hard to believe, to put it mildly.

[John]

Coach,

Interestingly, according the WSJ yesterday, the U.S. has actually cut greenhouse emmisions in the last 5 years by a small percentage and greenhouse emmissions in the U.S., while up something like 15% since 1990, increased at a slower rate in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe. This despite or maybe because of the U.S. having much better growth rates than either Canada or Europe. The sollution is prosperity not government enforced poverty.

[John]

So, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas production scales in an exactly linear manner with contribution to GWP? I find that . . . hard to believe, to put it mildly.

Actually, the U.S. produces much lower emissions per dollar of GNP because we have a more modern and effiecient economy than most of the rest of the world. Developing countries produce much more green house gasses per dollar of GNP than the U.S. The U.S. of course produces much more greenhouse gas in absolute terms than anyone else regardless of efficiency because our economy is so much bigger.

[Evan]

Dues Axe Machinery:

"Now the Pacific Islanders might actually have an argument wrt Global sea level rise."

Read Crichton's "State of Fear"...it's all about that (a bogus lawsuit against the EPA on behalf of an island nation called Vanutu). And about how the sea levels aren't actually rising.

[Naughty White Person]

Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists [i.e. propagandists] say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups. If global warming gets *worse*...

Regardless as of asinine combination of racial professional-victim status and self-congratulation, this is pure BS. Worse than nothing?

[Marlin]

See level, schmee level! There's plenty of room in Kansas. And think of the fishing! My God, the fishing!

[bubba]

On a tangent:
A study last year of the 44-turbine Mountaineer wind farm estimated that at least 1,364 bats were killed there during a six-week period in 2004.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_sc/bat_conservation

And I learned at http://www.terrapass.com that I can offset 12,000 miles of SUV CO2 for only $80. Part of me thinks it's cool that I can drive a 4x4 Yukon with less environmental impact than a hybrid. Part of me thinks, $80? That's all? I pay $XX,XXX a year in taxes, and I'm getting crap from lefties over $80?

Wasn't Vanuatu where they filmed a Survivor series? Weren't they also wiped out by a typhoon? They have more urgent problems than sea level changes.

[Evan]

"Wasn't Vanuatu where they filmed a Survivor series? Weren't they also wiped out by a typhoon? They have more urgent problems than sea level changes.

"Vanutu" was a fictional island for the purposes of the book, no doubt a mask for "Vanuatu"

[Dan T.]

Back to the original H&R entry, what is the point here except to take a shot at the black community?

I know that the mindset of the bourgeois white libertarian is usually ?I?m doing okay, so if somebody else isn?t it?s their own fault? but usually it?s not so blatant.

If anything, BET could be accused of stating the obvious, I suppose.

[Timothy]

Actually, the U.S. produces much lower emissions per dollar of GNP because we have a more modern and effiecient economy than most of the rest of the world. Developing countries produce much more green house gasses per dollar of GNP than the U.S. The U.S. of course produces much more greenhouse gas in absolute terms than anyone else regardless of efficiency because our economy is so much bigger.

Environmentl Kuznets Curve, anyone?

A public economics professor of mine made this observation and then put forward the idea, mostly jokingly, that the US should be the only country allowed to pollute because we're so much more efficient at it. The hippies in the class were not impressed.

[Robert Cote]

Depending on metrics the US is 25%(+) of the world economy and 23%(-) of atmospheric GW. This is an impossible comparison. Is the production of the chip that controls a thermostat a Korean charge, a US company designer charge or a Swedish end user charge? I mention Sweden because their rail transportation network is remarkably energy efficient. They use "free" hydro to achieve this. Care to extend this to nuclear energy and the US? Still free?

[Ed]

Dan T,

I think the point was to take a shot at tribalism and the politics of victimization. That's why I laughed, anyway.

[R C Dean]

and for RC Dean and John:

Thanks for thinking of me, but where do people get the idea I'm some sort of Bush fan?

I don't know how many times I've said I can't think of anything he's done domestically that I approve of since the tax cuts 5 years ago (which are beginning to phase out, eff you very much). Geez, I even put more effort into my insulting nicknames for Chimpeachment W. Smirklerburton than anyone else around here.

I suppose if you don't fly into knee-jerk BDS hysteria at every opportunity, you must be a Bushbot.

[smelly hippie]

"I suppose if you don't fly into knee-jerk BDS hysteria at every opportunity, you must be a Bushbot."

See, was that so hard to admit?

[MikeP]

So, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas production scales in an exactly linear manner with contribution to GWP? I find that . . . hard to believe, to put it mildly.

No, it doesn't scale in exact linear manner. Far from it. I would say it's an accident that the US's higher productivity per watt-hour balances against its greater transportation needs and lesser carbon-free electricity sources to make the two approximately equal.

But the "US produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gasses" platitude is brought up to indicate what resource-consuming pigs Americans are, ignoring the fact that the US consumes a lot because the US produces a lot and the fact that greenhouse gasses are a side-effect of production itself.

[John]

RC,

There was a second round tax cuts, which were a lot more significant, in 03. I assume you approve of those. To ask a stupid question, what the hell is BDS hysteria?

[bubba]

For some reason our economy never gets credit for saving the world's ass from various genocidal regimes and natural disasters. Let the French navy respond to the next tsunami.

Some Eskimo's snowmobile (!) falls through the ice, and it's our fault. Next time they demand the right to hunt whales, tell them they have to use kayaks and harpoons. No bombs. No rifles.

[Brian Courts]

John, from Urban Dictionary it is:

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Originally coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer as - the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush
Symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome include:
1. Believing that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina.
2. Believing that Bush was behind 9-11.
3. Calling Bush stupid despite the fact that he has degrees from Harvard and Yale and is a trained fighter pilot.
Source: AussieMurph, Australia, Sep 12, 2005

[John]

Thank you Brian. My favorite is the Bush is a chimp/idiot except when he is an evil genius bent on taking over the world.

[John]

Bubba,

Ha Ha Ha

[science]

"ignoring the fact that the US consumes a lot because the US produces a lot"

Ummm... wouldn't this be more accurate if you switched that around or spiralled it or something... We consume lots of energy because we produce a lot because we consume a lot... But we also consume more than we produce even though we produce more than anyone else... we consume more than anyone else but we do it more efficiently (I bet that's not true by the way, once you calculate all costs in the system) so we can more with less so we produce more so that we can consume more because we do it so well.

Result. We both produce and consume more than we NEED to, and hence we are one of the major contributors (disproportionate to our population or production) to the problem if you believe in the problem ... which you should if you have any propensity to think about things in terms longer than a couple of decades.

[joe]

Mike P,

Overall production is only part of the story. That Americans produce much more carbon per capita from commuting than the Germans, for example, has nothing to do with higher rates of production, but with longer commutes, higher rates of single-occupant-automobile travel compared to all other modes, less efficient automobiles, and a hundred other differences that are wholly independent of per capita economic output. Though, clearly, that plays a role.

And if we all admit that black people are more likely to be poor, and that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm, why is it so Libertarianally Incorrect to use the transitive property, and conclude that black people suffer disproportionately from environmental damage?

[wayne]

"And if we all admit that black people are more likely to be poor,..."

In actual total number, poor whites outnumber poor blacks in the US, hence whites suffer more poverty in total.

"and that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm..."

Big leap of faith here. How do you know that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm? We all breath the same air, drink from the same municipal water supplies.

, why is it so Libertarianally Incorrect to use the transitive property, and conclude that black people suffer disproportionately from environmental damage?"

See the above two objections to your reasoning.

[Isaac Bartram]

...why is it so Libertarianally Incorrect to use the transitive property, and conclude that black people suffer disproportionately from environmental damage?

Just a thought, but it's just possible that they may suffer even worse because of the increased poverty brought on by excessive, ill-conceived and unnecessary environmental regulations.

[Pedro Bento]

In other news, "Blacks and Women to Benefit Most from Social Security Reform/ School Vouchers/ etc...", and "Blacks and Women Harmed Most By Rent Control/ Minimum Wage/ etc...".

Libertarian writers are just as enamored with these kinds of stories.

[MikeP]

And if we all admit that black people are more likely to be poor, and that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm, why is it so Libertarianally Incorrect to use the transitive property, and conclude that black people suffer disproportionately from environmental damage?

It apparently cannot be said often enough: If the statement one wants to make about race can be explained by income or class, one ought not make the statement about race.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that middle class blacks have a exposure profile to environmental damage different from middle class whites.

So it's not a black issue at all: It's a poor issue. And calling it a black issue merely obscures the reasons it's an issue and the ways it can be solved.

[Ned]

Wayne,
"Big leap of faith here. How do you know that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm? We all breath the same air, drink from the same municipal water supplies."

I don't think this is any leap of faith at all. I think it's pretty well-established that overall the poor suffer disproportionately from pollution and other environmental harm. I'm late for dinner so no time to look anything up now, but I can't imagine data on this would be that hard to find. And it seems pretty clear that we don't all breath the same air or drink the same water either - sources of air pollution are much more commonly found in poorer areas, and the rich are much more able to move away from pollution, clean their water, etc....

[JD]

science: "We both produce and consume more than we NEED to..."

Define "need", please. If you don't answer to my satisfaction, I shall declare that you don't NEED anything more than the bare minimum of calories a day and just enough warmth to keep you from freezing to death!

[Paul]

So, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas production scales in an exactly linear manner with contribution to GWP? I find that . . . hard to believe, to put it mildly.

And you'd be correct. Poorer, less 'capitalistic' nations produce far more co2 per capita than we do. Sure, they only produce 15 lbs of c02 a year, but that's because they're entire transporation economy consists of four deuce-and-a-halfs which get 6mpg. Get it?

[Paul]

"Big leap of faith here. How do you know that poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental harm? We all breath the same air, drink from the same municipal water supplies."

I don't think this is any leap of faith at all. I think it's pretty well-established that overall the poor suffer disproportionately from pollution and other environmental harm. I'm late for dinner so no time to look anything up now, but I can't imagine data on this would be that hard to find. And it seems pretty clear that we don't all breath the same air or drink the same water either

No, it's not a big leap of faith. What is the cause of most poor people (which, in most of the world are the minority populations- another subject) is because of proximity living. Poorer communities tend to live in less desirable areas, usually bordering on heavy industries which have a localized contaminating effect. Soil, density of air pollution around said industrial areas. But when it comes to storms per se, the leap does get more faithful. Katrina had less to do with these factors than it with infrastructure issues. Again, poor people support a lower tax base and, unfortunately are often de-prioritized for city infrastructure expenditures.

But the Katrina situation brings to light some interesting complexities. For instance, I believe that the highest death RATES resulting from Katrina were in richer, white neighborhoods. Reasoning: Wealthy people were much more reluctant to abandon what they owned, because what they owned had high value. And it makes sense:

Storm coming, I own a 1981 Vega with oxidized paint and a bad set of valves... do I try to save it, or get out of dodge?

Storm coming, I own a 2004 Lexus with leather upholstery and a luxury package, do I try to save it, or get out of dodge?

[Paul]

...why is it so Libertarianally Incorrect to use the transitive property, and conclude that black people suffer disproportionately from environmental damage?

Because most media outlets place these 'zinger' headlines with horrendously poor depth of reporting. "Women earn less than men, study finds." It's not 'Libertarianally Correct' to doubt that issue, but libertarians tend to be much more circumspect as to the underlying causes. To Maureen Dowd, it simply means that a bunch of cigar-smoking 'old-boys' are keeping women down, no further investigation necessary. But a deeper look often finds answers which make the subject much more complex, and often THAT'S the real subject that people AREN'T talking about, because complex subjects don't make for punchy copy.

[SixSigma]

Result. We both produce and consume more than we NEED to, and hence we are one of the major contributors (disproportionate to our population or production) to the problem if you believe in the problem ... which you should if you have any propensity to think about things in terms longer than a couple of decades.

I second the call for the definition "need" in this context.

[wayne]

Is there anything that does not affect blacks disproportiately in our modern, affirmative action driven, nanny state? Certainly the illegal invasion is very detrimental to the black community, one might even say disproportionately so.

I have to stop now. My illegal alien gland is filling my blood stream with with its potent IA hormone; my pupils are narrowing; my heart is pounding and I am sweating in anticipation of being badgered by Thoreau and maybe even Jennifer, and lets not mention Joe.

[Phil]

So it's not a black issue at all: It's a poor issue. And calling it a black issue merely obscures the reasons it's an issue and the ways it can be solved.

Except, you know, in a story published on a black-owned media outlet and targeted towards an all-black audience, which may therefore want to narrow the scope of its coverage and attract more eyes, and do so in ways that might appeal to the black middle class and the black upper class to find more ways to help the black poor.

For fuck's sake, it's like complaining that Reason writes its copy in a way designed to appeal to libertarians specifically even on issues that affect everyone.

[joe]

wayne, do us a favor: define "more likely" for me.

[wayne]

Joe,

Sure, I will be happy to. More likely means a probability greater than 50%. But, since you used the term, what did you mean by it?

[science]

Two calls for a definition of "need to."

Impressive how often these threads ask for definitions of common words in the language. I recognize the need for precision in debate, but "need" is kinda like reality, you don't know which items fit into the category until they aren't there (Phil K. Dick, [badly cited] "reality is what's still there after you stop believing in it").

My first thought is to tell you to figure that out for yourself, but that is the basic problem... Americans as a culture don't have a sense of the difference between "want" and "need."

So I will turn this around. Please come up with a short list of items that you are pretty sure you don't need that are within arms reach of you while you are looking at this thread (if there is a book that you could've gotten at the library, that counts). If you can do this honestly (not to win the argument, but to gain insight into your own definition of need), you will see my point. If you think you need a definition of "need" that includes more than caloric intake, you are just being difficult.

The game that we are talking about here is production and its influence on the economy as it currently exists. The current system is biased. It does not accurately reflect the true costs of our products. The current economic system is based on a model that takes into consideration only short-term local costs, and ignores long-term systemic costs. This allows us the luxuary of consuming not only what we need (as balanced against our ability to afford it), but also those things that we only want (because we get a discount in the biased system that doesn't take into account the true costs of the items over longer time frames). We in very real terms let those who will live in the future "pay" for our wants at the cost, perhaps, of their needs.

If you want to argue about the local time frame, then feel free to justify the disproportionate consumption of the US (taking into account our production)...we still look like greedy bastards.

If you want to advocate a freer market, then think about the importance of that market being based on a system of exchange that accurately reflects costs. As soon as we move past bartering, we are working within a socially determined contract that defines costs systematically using an inexact model of costs/benefits. If that model is skewed, it will create distortions in the market that have real world consequences. In the current system, that distortion drives the market towards production and therefore consumption of disposable products over those that have a smaller long-term impact on the system. In the currently biased system, growth is necessary for the system to work, a sustainable exchange is unworkable.

But I am sure you could have come up with this on your own if you had thought about it for a second. Read your Adam Smith again, carefully this time, in light of our current understanding of the nature of complex systems (try Fritjof Capra for the beginners look at this stuff). Find the flaws in Smith's thinking (they have to be there). Think carefully about modern economics, which relies so heavily on a false assumption of "all things being equal" and remember that economics is one of the softest of soft sciences.

Damned if I don't sound preachy here, but christ, anyone who argues that America doesn't have a problem with consumption? How does one walking around with such ideas manage to learn how to tie their shoes, let alone run a business, or hold a job?

[Rick Barton]

Didja notice that the global warming action advocates used to assert that we will never notice the effects of GW until its to late? A silent killer! But now they attribute every weather anomaly to GW! Whatever they think will sway public opinion. Science be damned.

[science]

So, I call for everyone to define some terms for me before they continue in a discussion of the impact of economic activity on the environment.

Term the first : Entropy
Term the second: Environment
Term the 3rd: Production
Term the 4th: Cost

Put economic activities in the context of those concepts (and their relationship to each other) and discuss.

Then we can discuss "need to" in the context of the current discussion.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Well, this has certainly been an interesting thread. I must say that when I forwarded the link to Mr. Bailey (an old friend), I didn't expect him to post it here precisely because of some of the sadly predictable reaction.

Of course BET aims for a black audience and therefore tailors its articles accordingly. (And so, of course, does Reason, though I rather doubt it would run an article implying that libertarians, per se, were especially harmed by bad economic policy. But who knows? I may be wrong there.)

I suppose it is arguable that under some circumstances certain groups are disproportionately affected by certain sorts of Tragedy of the Commons problems, though it is unclear to me that "disproportionate" implies or entails "unfair." However, even if the incidence of poverty among blacks in America is disproportionately higher than non-blacks as a whole and the harmful effects of global warming is shown to be greater among the poor in America than among non-poor Americans, that still wouldn't entail the conclusion that blacks, per se, were more greatly harmed. Maybe, maybe not.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that we produce and consume more than we need to. I wouldn't want to live in a world where only my mere needs were met and I don't know anyone else who would, either. Of course, the implicit notion here is that my 'excess' consumption or production unfairly harms others and, by further implication, especially harms those whose mere needs are not, in fact, being met. Put me down in the skeptical column on that one, too.

[Rick Barton]

...shoulda been:

"Didja notice that the global warming action advocates used to assert that we will never notice the effects of GW until its *too* late?"

Remember I said that I was gonna start always using the Preview button post Jan 1? Well, I spaced it.

[science]

"my mere needs"

I want to emphasize, that I am not talking about a radical reduction in the basic standard of living here folks.

For a practical example, I live in a city, Seattle, near my place of work. I walk most days. When I need a car I get one using a car sharing service (Flexcar). The car(s) are used by a large number of others who are in a similar situation. The energy of production, with its associated cost of increased entropy, is used more efficiently by being shared. I can't remember the exact figure (it's easy to look up), but for every flexcar on the road, a large number of personal cars (that spend most of their time parked... a poor trade off for the increased entropy) are not needed. Doesn't harm my standard of living, but avoids un-needed production. Saves some resources for future users in need.

This is a simple example of "excess" production and how to solve the problem without harming the economy.

[D.A. Ridgely]

science:

The problem is that what counts as an efficiency for you that doesn't harm your standard of living is not properly generalizable. (Your example, that is, is an example of both the fallacy of composition and the dubious supposition that interpersonal utilities can meaningfully be compared. Not everyone can or wants to live close to work in Seattle or to share automobiles.)

The only person who can decide what counts as harm to my standard of living is me, which is why allowing you or anyone else to make such decisions for me typically results in a loss of efficiency. (Efficiency in the 'soft' economic sense, not the 'hard' but inapplicable physics sense here.) And even if that were not the case, there would be messy moral issues about who should have the right to make such decisions.

More to the point, however, once you get past "mere needs" of the sort that would indeed involve a radical reduction in the standard of living, it then really does become reasonable to ask what, precisely, you mean since we are now beyond the common sense meaning of the term.

Neither you nor I have a very good idea of what "future users in need" will, in fact, need in the way of either type or quantity of resources. Resources are always and everywhere scarce, but it doesn't follow generally that foregoing production now will result in a greater productive capacity later. It all depends on what is being produced and for what purpose. Somewhat similarly, the same goes for consumption. The best way to encourage cattle ranching is to eat more beef. And as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, for all practical purposes there is just about the same amount of matter and energy kicking around the planet as when our ancestors still lived in caves. The trick is in knowing how to work with what you've got here and now, now worrying about what your (probably much richer) great-grandchildren will need.

[science]

D.A.

Although we can agree on much of what you say, I do believe you are missing my point.

Entropy is used both metaphorically and literally in my above quickly patched together comments. A reasonably similar amount of matter and energy kicking around the planet is more or less true. The same amount in forms readily usable by current technology, less true, but beside the point. The point is that there are better ways to do things than the way we typically do them even if we never produced better technology (we includes all of us not just USA).

You say that not everyone can live in Seattle, walk to work and use a car sharing service. Okay. But that misses the point that this was an EXAMPLE of how one can use less resources, get what one wants (or needs), and not negatively impact their living standard appreciably. It is interesting that you bring up the ranching example. My grandfather, a rancher, was a member of a rural version of the car sharing service I use. It was a coop that shared a silo, buying power, and some other essential infrastructure so that their community could run a viable cattle ranching industry. It would have been wasteful for each farmer to own their own combine, silo, etc. But when they shared them via a coop, the were more efficient, the production costs of the combine were utilized more fully since it rarely sat idle during harvest, for example. If they could have converted their community to ranching ostrich instead of beef, they would have been even more efficient.

As far as living near your job. The structure of our society is built upon the already biased short-term local reward system I am positing. If the system were to be brought more in line with longer-term impacts on the system (the metaphorical entropy), then the very freer-market forces that libertarians advocate would help re-adjust the way our communities are structured so that people would recognize the fallacy of living in an overly large house 30 miles from where they spend most of their day. The more accurate cost structure would encourage solutions like those that my grandfather and his fellow coop member used to meet their needs. For those who "needed" to live farther away, there would be similar solutions to their needs. Not me deciding what you need to do with your resources, but all of us deciding what your resources are really worth.

When you posit much richer great-grandchildren, you make yourself feel better, but you don't show yourself to understand the worth of the resources you are preventing them from gaining access to.

Don't confuse my argument with that of one from the mythical nannies that so many of the hit&run regulars see hiding in all the shadows (so many of libertarians are such sissies, scared, scared, scared of the forces that control their lives).

I never said anyone should make decisions for you. I was encouraging you to examine your own choices and make wiser ones that take into consideration more than you local short-term objectives. The coop that my grandfather belonged to and the Flexcar service I use are/were not in anyway encouraged by government regulations (but wouldn't it be nice if Flexcar were given at least equal treatment by regulations compard to GM). Both Flexcar and the coop were/are better business models that people freely choose/chose to participate in.

Once we get past barter, there are artificially imposed regulations on the exchange or goods and services that are systemic (no such thing as a free market... strangely falls under the law, so oft quoted by libertarians, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). I think that there are ways for the society as a whole to bias the system that take long-term impacts into consideration (just as the current system favors short term thinking). This does not need to involve more controls on the market (which can not exist without the regulatory effects of the monetary system), it involves reprioritizing, reshaping, and re-biasing the controls on the system so that it gives better results.

George Bush ain't smart enough to figure that out. I think you might be.

If we can think of a better way to model the real (long-term) costs of the transaction of goods and services, why wouldn't that be something that should be considered, discussed, voted on, planned, and acted upon?

[D.A. Ridgely]

science:

This will probably be my last comment on this thread, but only because I try not to get too involved in protracted discussions of this sort. Nothing personal, and feel free to get in the last word.

I don't posit richer great-grandchildren to make myself feel better but because that is the most likely course of the future. It is most likely both because they will inherit more wealth to begin with and also be better able to use what they have more efficiently. And that continued gain in efficiency is created largely by an economy that encourages people to pool cars or silos if, but only if, it makes sense to them personally to do so but also permits others to choose to act differently.

Frankly, even if they were likely to be poorer it wouldn't make me feel particularly bad simply because as a matter of psychological fact my interest in the well being of unknown others diminishes as they become farther removed from me. In any case, I freely admit I have little idea of the worth of the resources I am preventing future generations from gaining access to and suggest, again, that neither you nor anyone else does, either.

We already have a system to determine worth that also takes into consideration the mid term, if not the (unknowable) very long term, value of resources -- the price system in an open market. Of course there is no such thing as an absolutely free market, but part of the problem with this conversation is that inherently ambiguous terms and concepts like "free," "need" and so forth have been used inconsistently. Now you tell me you are using "entropy" at least in part metaphorically, too?

Well, if you are only suggesting that there may be better ways for markets to both reflect and capture the cost of externalities, you'll probably get no serious argument from libertarians. It is when you seem to move into advocacy of society as a whole imposing any particular reprioritizing, reshaping, and re-biasing solution that we scared sissies begin to worry, even (or especially) those of us who just might be smarter than, um, George Bush.

[science]

DA,

In all due respect, the terms used here were used consistently. Need, free, entropy, are all common words used in the language (metaphorical extensions and all). It is the discourse as a whole that determines their meaning and it was the point of the discussion to come to an mutual understanding of what they mean and how they are related to the topic at hand. We might have failed on that front, but the intended meaning did not change from my end.

"It is when you seem to move into advocacy of society as a whole imposing any particular reprioritizing, reshaping, and re-biasing solution..."

This is a position that puzzles me. To deny the fact that society as a whole will impose priorities on the economic system no matter what (even in a perfect Libertarian Utopia) requires a leap of faith that I am unwilling to make. It seems that since society as a whole will always impose priorities on the economic system that we would want those priorities to be chosen as wisely as possible(and involve both long-term and short-term effects, no matter the psychological reality that the now is easier to think about than the future). This requires input from all sides of any issue, but must eventually lead to decisions. Some of those decisions (the majority maybe) will involve freely associated groups with common interest acting directly upon the problem using democratic mechanisms (in our current situation). If those groups include Libertarians, then priciples of individual freedom will be sure to be considered in the decision process.

If libertarians deny the legitimacy of the process, however, they will never have an impact on the decisions. An unwillingness to engage the systems of power in a realistic fashion dooms any chance of influencing those systems to act according to principles that will lead towards Libertarian goals. The very fear of the system making decisions without them should motivate Libertarians to get involved. But often it seems to engender an attitude that the process is not worth engaging in since the motivation of any group actions are based on unwarranted concern over the behavior of the individuals in the group (i.e. they are violent attempts to control, nanny busy bodies, etc.)

It is this attitude that led to my characterization of some libertarians as sissies, used to contrast their characterization of those who try to find solutions to problems in the society as nannies (by which they mean bullies, nanny is just not as scary... but try to listen to how it sounds to an outsider and you'll notice is resonates with the complaints of the teen --"my Mom still treats me like I am a little kid" made when the teen is unwilling to take on responsibility for their actions).

My opinion. I think the sissies are in the minority. At least I hope so. I don't have evidence that you are one of them.

[joe]

"More likely means a probability greater than 50%."

Good, wayne. Now, do you see why this definition makes your comment: "In actual total number, poor whites outnumber poor blacks in the US, hence whites suffer more poverty in total."

is a really bad rejoinder to my: "And if we all admit that black people are more likely to be poor?"

[wayne]

Joe,

No, actually I don't. What percentage of blacks are poor? How about whites? What percentage of the population is black? How about whites? I don't know the answers exactly, but how about these numbers:

black percent of population - 15%
white percent of population - 70%
percent of blacks that are poor - 40%
percent of whites that are poor - 15%

So, a 100 person sizes bucket of people chosen randomly would have

15 blacks
70 whites
15 others
6 poor blacks (40% of the 15 blacks)
10.5 poor whites (15% of the whites)

If you reach into that bucket and pluck out a person there is a 6% chance that will come out with a poor black, and 10.5% chance that you will come out with a poor white. Looks to me like the probability of being poor and white is greater than being poor and black.

If you are interested in alleviating suffering, and you believe that poverty equals suffering, then if you are not racially motivated you ought to concentrate on poor whites because that is where most of the poverty is. But, of course, you are racially motivated.

[Ned]

wayne, do you realize that you're talking about the probability that a poor person is black, and joe's statement was about the probability that a black person is poor? Those are very different things, and it seems from your posts yesterday evening and right now that maybe you didn't catch the distinction.

Regarding your last paragraph, if there's such a clear discrepancy in the _rates_ at which different racial groups are affected by something like poverty or pollution, even if the group with the higher rate is a minority so that they're smaller in absolute numbers, it seems necessary in the interests of justice to recognize that fact and try to understand why.

[wayne]

Ned,

So, is it better to cure the few, or the many?

[wayne]

by the way, I don't mean to imply that only poor whites are deserving of sympathy. what I am saying is that the criterion for sympathy ought to be poverty. That is the monstrous flaw with affirmative action: it is all about race.

[Ned]

Wayne,

"So, is it better to cure the few, or the many?"

In this context I think that question reflects a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the situation. Like you, I'm not trying to say that one racial group is inherently more deserving of sympathy than another. But if there are such clear discrepancies between races, I think there's a lot of value in recognizing that and trying to understand it. There are different underlying causes of poverty, for which the gov't (and other institutions) have varying levels of culpability, and for which there are different (and partially overlapping) solutions. Those discrepancies may reflect an underlying (in some cases institutionalized) injustice, and from a practical point of view its not healthy for a society to not make an effort to be aware of and understand them.

And as an aside I hope you'd agree that blacks and whites at the same economic level are still not necessarily treated equally. As I understand it, even after taking into account economics there are often still sizeable differences in such things as positive/negative interactions with police, arrest/conviction/incarceration rates relative to actual guilt (especially for drug-related offenses), etc.

[kwais]

Also we may want to think that perhaps our attempts at curing racial inequality are perhaps perpetuating it. I think that Affirmative action is in effect racial profiling. I also think that welfare does more to hurt black families than anything else out there.

[joe]

"So, is it better to cure the few, or the many?"

I'd try to change the subject, too, if I were in your shoes.

Not interested.

[wayne]

"As I understand it, even after taking into account economics there are often still sizeable differences in such things as positive/negative interactions with police, arrest/conviction/incarceration rates relative to actual guilt (especially for drug-related offenses), etc."

There is anecdotal "evidence" for this stuff, i.e. "driving while black", etc. I am not convinced this is anything more than victimology though. As far as A/C/I rates relative to actual guilt, I am at a loss as to what you mean. I understand the sentence, but to be truthful it would require evidence, i.e. you need to show how blacks (or any group) is imprisoned while innocent. If you what you really mean is that blacks are imprisoned disproportionately, I would agree, but that just means that they commit disproportionately more crimes, not that they are innocent.

[Ned]

wayne,

For drug-related offenses, the rates of arrest compared to actual guilt are based on surveys of use compared to arrest rates. Perhaps you don't find those very convincing, but I think they accurate enough that within their margin of error it's clear that blacks are disproportionately arrested (even taking economics into account). With regard to rates of conviction and severity of sentence, that difference is even better documented.

Regarding general interactions with police, those data are probably generally more difficult to interpret, but from what I've read it's pretty clear that there's more going on than victimology. Again I don't have time to look stuff up (damn job!), so you probably won't find this too convincing. But I think the evidence is out there, and it's fairly clear.