The American Spectator

Reader Mail

In a Bad Place

10.7.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

William Tucker's review doesn't tell us whether "...In fact, the (world population) numbers are generally expected to level off at around 8-10 billion in 2050..." is his own assertion or was paraphrased from the book he is reviewing. May I ask, "generally expected" by whom? Why? What reason is there to believe that human reproduction will do anything other than what it always has done, namely, increase at about 150 percent of the rate of the growth in economic accommodations available to it? As for Friedman's book (I haven't read it and I won't if Thomas Malthus isn't in the index), what point is there in rigging the planet for an additional five billion souls (nuclear power is the only non-pipe dream option) if, while it is being done, 7.5 billion more souls appear. Nothing will have been gained; everyone still will end up standing back-to-back and belly-to-belly, ankle deep in each others (radioactive) jelly. Sooner or later, some are going to have to go over the side of lifeboat, or not be allowed onto the lifeboat in the first place (think China's policy: one child per female).
-- Ty Knoy
Ann Arbor, Michigan

"The way to stimulate this kind of innovation...is by generous tax incentives, regulatory incentives, renewable energy mandates, and other market-shaping mechanisms that create durable demand for these existing clean power technologies...That kind of [progress] will come about only if government uses its power to set prices, regulations, and standards to reshape the energy market and force utilities and other big players to either innovate or die."

This Friedman guy is brilliant! The genius of the American system is demonstrated by the
marshalling of market forces to achieve socially desirable ends. Recent experience suggests that the government can enter a market directly and a have a huge impact. Greedy oil men and coal barons will never invest their ill-gotten gains in renewable energy. These slow-thinking millionaires are too dim-witted to see the profit potential in solar and wind. Skeptics like William Tucker don't help.

No, what this crisis calls for is a cabinet-level executive with a mandate to direct investment towards those energy projects that hold promise for a greener future, and the spin-off of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) to do the heavy lifting that a free market, hitherto left unfettered and unregulated, has ignored. Let's call it the Department of Non-Traditional Energy, or DONT.

The ability to provide an immediate return on investment should not be a criterion in evaluating research grant proposals. The mission will be to promote liquidity, stability, and affordability in the green energy space. And, of course, to promote a diverse and inclusive workforce.

Special consideration should be given to those projects headed by members of the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered Community, or whose primary researchers include minority community members. (For the purposes of this research, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and engineers of ethnic Chinese origin will be considered qualifying minorities.)

The government's regulatory apparatus needs to be set in motion for the purpose of increasing the price of traditional energy. Then, it is simply a matter of redirecting the surplus to the renewable-friendly enterprises. These enterprises, in turn, will support high levels of employment, providing green jobs to the millions of persons displaced by the inefficiencies of impersonal free market forces.

Will there be risk? Yes, but the risk of doing nothing is far greater! Besides, some of the aforementioned mathematicians and physicists can be enlisted to engineer financial instruments that will mitigate the risk. Imagine a vast secondary market that is invested in a basket of securities representing the underlying value of the direct research, grants, loans, and enterprises that have been authorized under DONT. Even those nations that are indifferent to our green initiatives will unwittingly support our vision via the investments made by their dollar-swollen sovereign wealth funds. These secondary markets will work side-by-side with carbon offset and cap-and-trade initiatives. It will truly be a global undertaking.

This initiative dovetails with Barrack Obama's vision for America. It will require a strong executive willing to make the hard choices for patriotic Americans to do their share, to step up to the plate. Tax incentives, regulatory regimes, pricing mandates, the leadership required to compel utilities to innovate -- these are the traits required of the new-breed executive that we seek, one who has the vision to see a five-year plan to fruition, and beyond. In Barack Obama, we have the executive talent to undertake this bold initiative. The only remaining question -- can a President Obama find the selfless public servants, willing and capable, of manning the bureaucracy?
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

If by "saving the earth" Friedman means freezing the global status quo (or an arbitrary status quo ante), Darwin would think him mad.

Since evolution (Gaia in Newspeak) evolved the current "mess," is it not adaptive, by definition?

Hence, the Friedman Freeze is counter-evolutionary.
-- David Govett

WORTH SEEING?
Re: Judah Friedman's Do I Dare?:

So funny, so resoundingly true and insightful! Judah is right on the mark once again!
-- Tamar Rudnitzky
New Jersey

Please. Sincere beliefs, thought out, mean things to thinking adults. Go see the movie. Take your friends, take your enemies. Don't hide. Discuss, laugh and enjoy.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Trade, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Business, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Energy, Oil