“The fact that the polynomial is an approximation does not necessarily detract from its usefulness because all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.”
– George Box*
- Modeling U.S. Energy Policy
By observing the impact of the Carter and Regan administration’s reciprocal attempts to affect national energy policy with a historical understanding of the FFCA as the genesis of Federal energy policy, we develop a model of energy policy in terms of legislative goals. Then, with an appropriate model, we are able to undertake realignment toward new political ends. Fortunately, much of the heavy lifting has been done via Professor Tomain’s “Dominant Model of United States Energy Policy,” a handy tool to explain past and current trends in energy policy and regulation.[1] Inherent in this model are the economic assumptions that: 1) the Gross National Product (GNP) is linked to energy production, and 2) economies of scale in energy production are achievable.[2] These assumptions are well supported, in as much as energy is necessary input for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, although the direction of causality between energy production and GDP growth has been difficult to ascertain and appears unidirectional for certain periods.[3] Importantly, these two assumptions suggest a national energy policy which “favors large-scale, high technology, capital-intensive, integrated, and centralized producers of energy.”
According to Tomain, the Dominant model has six goals, but, for our purposes, these are better distilled into two primary objectives for the lawmaker: 1) ensure an abundant supply of both primary and secondary energy 2) ensure reasonable and stable prices for energy.[4] There are many legislative options to achieve these objectives, but only a few selections appear to be currently supported. Consider, as evidence, the other goals Tomain identifies as complimentary mechanisms: i.e. limiting market power of large firms, promoting competition between fuels and between producers, generally subsidizing only mainstream energy sources, and allowing for both federal and state control of energy policy.[5] Whether legislators identify these as the means to the end of stable energy prices and abundant energy supplies or as ends – in and of themselves – has determinative impact on what objectives are actually achievable. If the real objective of Federal energy policy is to achieve carbon free energy independence in the United States, then a transition to non-carbon primary energy sources is a necessary condition. Policy ends which limit market power of firms, allow for decentralized control, increase competition, and subsidize current producers would, therefore, sit in conflict with that objective.
- Contemporary Legislation Does Little to Support a Transition Toward Energy Independence
For all the talk of an energy independent or carbon free future, the most recent series of energy policy acts, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, all conform to the Dominant Model. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains significant subsidies and incentives for traditional carbon primary energy producers.[6] Coal producers receive $1.6 billion of assistance.[7] They receive a further $1.7 billion for upgrading generation equipment and emplace advanced combustion processes.[8] Oil and gas producers are offered large production incentives and suspensions of royalty payments.[9] Tax incentives are provided to an array of carbon primary energy including coal projects,[10] oil and natural gas,[11] and biofuels.[12] All in all, some $85 billion of appropriations and relief is provided for in the acts with the bulk of funds directed at carbon based primary energy producers.[13] This support is consistent with Dominant Model goals of subsidies for mainstream energy, promoting abundant energy supplies, favoring large producers, and large capital projects.
The EISA, by attempting to promote competition between fuels and between producers in order “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security” and “increase the production of clean renewable fuels” with hopes to secure secondary energy supplies, is predicated on Dominant Model goals.[14] To achieve these goals, the EISA adopts the dual mechanisms of emplacing production quotas for carbon dependent biofuels and subsidizing US biofuel producers to the point that blending biofuels with traditional fuels becomes affordable to consumers.[15] Unfortunately, this does nothing to address the very real difference in the costs of production between biofuels and traditional fossil fuel producers.[16] Setting aside the questionable economics of biofuel subsidies, foreign oil producers will remain profitable at price levels where expenditure for biofuel subsidies is politically unjustifiable. It is also important to note, by focusing legislative effort on biofuel, the EISA targets sources of secondary energy without addressing the primary energy input inherent in the manufacture of biofuels, the origin of that primary energy, or the conversion rate of primary energy to secondary energy. Without looking at primary energy sources, there is little hope of any affecting energy independence through legislative means.
Fortunately, both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and later amendments added by the ARRA do make efforts at addressing primary energy. For example, the 2005 Act eased certain requirements of the federal licensing process for hydroelectric dams.[17] The 2005 Act extended and enhanced tax credits to ‘renewable’ primary energy sources such as hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal.[18] Importantly, the 2005 Act sets an objective of “increasing the conversion efficiency of all forms of renewable energy through improved technologies.”[19] In support of this objective, the 2005 Act provides $2.227 billion for “renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities.”[20] These provisions are buttressed by the ARRA which amends Title XVII of the 2005 Act to provide an additional $6 billion of loan guarantees for renewable energy projects.[21]
Furthermore, the 2005 Act provides support for the largest alterative producer of non-carbon primary energy, in the event of construction delays caused by regulators or by litigation, by extending funding to builders of nuclear generating stations to cover regulatory costs.[22] Additionally, the 2005 Act sets aside $1.25 billion for a prototype hydrogen generating nuclear reactor and reauthorizes the limitation of liability on nuclear plant operators provided under the Price Anderson Act.[23] Between the 2005 Act and the ARRA, some $41.7 billion are allocated across energy markets and technologies with the bulk of subsidies going to the largest producers.[24] While stimulus helps shift the competitive landscape to make minor producers and alternatives to carbon primary energy more attractive to consumers, the allocations are simply too diffuse to tip the balance in favor of any producer or technology thus preserving the current competitive landscape. This outcome suggests achieving energy independence entirely on non-carbon sources using policy and legislation keeping with the mechanisms of the Dominant Model will be ineffective and will require a reordering and rebalancing. Owing to the favorable economics of oil prices under the Dominant Model it appears that US energy independence “is more a political slogan than an actual policy objective.”[25] If however there were sincere efforts at achieving energy independence in the US what might they look like? We will explore this question in our next installment.
* George Box and Norman Draper, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces 424 (1987).
[1] Joseph P. Tomain, The Dominant Model of United States Energy Policy, 61 U. Colo. L. Rev. 355, 355 n. 4 (1990).
[2] Id. at 374-75.
[3] The authors note, unsurprisingly, that the differing results are influenced significantly by the differing regulatory environments. Jaruwan Chontanawat et al., Causality Between Energy Consumption and GDP: Evidence from 30 OECD and 78 Non-OECD Countries, SEEDS 113 (June 2006), http://www.seec.surrey.ac.uk/research/SEEDS/SEEDS113.pdf; see also Eden S. H. Yu and Been-Kwei Hwang, The Relationship Between Energy and GNP, 6 Energy Economics 186 (1984).
[4] Tomain, supra note 1, at 375
[5] Id. at 375-76.
[6] Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
[7] Id at § 401.
[8] Id at § 3103.
[9] Id at § 341-57.
[10] Id at § 1307.
[11] Id at § 1321-29.
[12] Id at § 1342-47.
[13] Michael Grunwald and Juliet Eilperin, Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud, The Washington Post (Jul. 30, 2005) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901128.html.
[14] Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1492 (2007).
[15] Id at § 201-48.
[16] Jonathan Kingsman, Oil Price Fall Adds to Biofuel’s Woes, The Financial Times (Jan. 9, 2015), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22bbd5ba-975f-11e4-be9d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3csqAQnGr.
[17] Energy Policy Act, supra note 6, at § 241.
[18] Id. at § 202-03.
[19] Id. at § 931.
[20] Id.
[21] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 140, 145 (2009) (codified as amended 42 U.S.C. § 16516).
[22] Energy Policy Act, supra note 6, at § 638
[23] Id. at § 601-10, 645.
[24] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Wikipedia (May 23, 2015), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Energy_infrastructure; Energy Policy Act of 2005, Wikipedia (Sept. 23, 2014), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005.
[25] The Oil Drum, China Energy Outlook: China’s Energy Strategy for the Future, Oilprice.com (Nov. 18,2012), http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Energy-Outlook-Chinas-Energy-Strategy-for-the-Future.html.
Comments
117 responses to “Modeling U.S. Energy Policy”
But what if the polynomial has a consensus?
Mathematically, consensus doesn’t make it any less wrong.
KOR POR RA SHUNSZ!
Consensuses (consensi?) are important in two fields: politics and religion.
No wonder that AGW / ACC is a political religion.
It just occurred to me that you might also be talking about Strong AI, if so, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Or sharks depending on your viewpoint.
Nice day for an outdoor speech.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39697987
*Chuckle* “Bone shaker”. Thanks for that sugar free.
Jesus, BBC. “so-called”? either that’s a dig @ Berkeley’s movement… which was unambiguously titled a ‘free speech’ movement… or its suggesting the concept of free speech itself is dubious. I can only assume its the latter. @#($*@*( limey fucks.
They aren’t the best these days. That’s for sure. Can’t believe that Churchill came from that lot. Though he was half american, so there is that
So, how long until Trump just goes off on Ryan? Even if he were intentionally trying to sabotage Trump’s agenda, could he be doing a better job?
Of course Ryan is intentionally sabotaging Trump, the establishment hates Trump, and Ryan id a leader of the establishment.
Trump should set Ryan up in one of his penthouse hotel suites in his tallest hotel with plenty of free booze, and make sure the windows are open.
Also, Russian hookers and a fluid-resistant bedspread.
“is” godammit
“Is, is, is; Monsters of the ‘is’.”
Last year Ryan had a fairly serious primary contender until he made peace with Trump. Would love it if Trump is actively campaigning against him and for a Republican challenger next year.
*raised hand* Is this going to be on the final?
“No.”
*scratches out DEAD WIFE from notepad*
He erased it, actually.
As little as I watch the simpsons that scene is inexplicably burned into my mind.
Maybe I’m different, but I never understood the concept of “teaching to the test.” If the objective is to transmit knowledge, then you must test what you teach – else, why teach if it is not worth testing?
Because if you only taught what was useful primary education would be over by grade 8 and most college in 2 years?
You’d think someone would create the market for that. Or maybe that was what originally underpinned Junior College?
In a free market, sure. In the distorted market of guaranteed students loans and over regulation via credentials, the incentive is longer and longer programs. In my personal situation, the requirement went from certification to bachelor to master to now doctorate for entry level.
I fully understand that, what I mean is this: Employers are losing value by hiring individuals who are over-credentialed. This practice continues because nobody seems to have convincingly made the case as to what they can gain from correcting that hiring practice (particularized of course to the industry). Admittedly this is a demand side attack, but it isn’t unworkable as a solution I think.
More precisely, that lost value is economic rent paid to the government (courts and legislatures), which has eliminated most other forms of assessment on the basis of “discrimination”.
The SC has decided aptitude testing is verboten due to disparate impact.
Hiring anyone who can score 80% on an aptitude test will get you slapped with a lawsuit.
Hiring anyone who can present a bachelor’s communications from State University College is just clearly a meritocracy.
Got a cite for that Viking? Haven’t drilled to far into employment law yet, but there ought to be at least a few creative ways around a testing decision given all the ‘aptitude’ testing done for government jobs.
Some of the legal history:
Griggs v. Duke Power said that any test which had a “disparate impact” but wasn’t related to “job performance” was forbidden, and who better to determine the proper assessment of job performance for every job in the country than the Toppest of Top Men in SCOTUS? It’s notable that the Opinion of the Court specifically mentioned degrees and diplomas as similar instruments to broad aptitude tests (i.e. not related to job performance) but in practice, the lower courts have ignored that part.
Ricci v. DeStefano complicated the matter by saying that the CRA also requires tests to not be thrown out if they are related to “job performance” but have a “disparate impact”. While the conservative majority probably thought this was a good thing, in practice it means the safest way to act is to not administer any tests in the first place.
They aren’t losing value if they’re paying the over credentialed people less than they are worth.
Take me for example. I have a masters in engineering, yet I am only making 50k a year. My company is getting a masters level engineer for a bachelors level salary.
This breaks down what tests are allowed under federal law.
Why’d you take that salary if you think your work is more valuable than that? I’d be looking for a better paying job if that’s the case. You do EE?
ME, although right now in my current job I am only doing CAD. I took this job because quite frankly I wasn’t being offered any more than that. Guy’s gotta feed his overweight girl and all that.
For those above, thanks for the cases. I’ll check ’em out. For what it’s worth Vhyrus, I empathize. The valley is a tougher market for ME guys, its all semiconductor out here. You don’t need me to tell you, but some excellent advice from my old man regarding engineering work: never take less than you’re worth. It only seems to hurt your career prospects, take a job outside engineering if you just need to make ends meet. I’ve known hiring managers who would look at employment history on a resume and say, “Why is this M.Me doing the work of a draftsman? What’s wrong with him?” If you were doing something else you can answer honestly that, “I was waiting for the right opportunity” or that you wanted to “Gain experience with X” to be more well rounded as an engineer or something.
I think the current wave of credentialism might be brought to a quicker end by the SJW idiocy going on on many college campuses these days. The value of degrees from certain universities might even go into the negatives if that crap doesn’t stop. As these thoroughly indoctrinated snowflakes start to percolate through the workforce, employers are going to realize that a degree – especially from certain SJW-heavy colleges – is no longer a reliable indicator of work ethic and intelligence. Think about it: these SJW morons graduating from Berkeley are going to sue the company the first time a white male gets promoted ahead of them, run to the EEOC every time they hear a boob joke, and throw a shitfit if they are paid below what they deem to be a “living wage”. What employer in their right mind would hire these people other than government agencies and dumbass lefty “think” tanks?
I think it would be a wholly positive thing to see more promotion from within and (voluntarily) employer-financed training. The only thing that could stand in the way is the government with their “anti-discrimination” efforts, as many here have pointed out.
If you are a) not allowed make up the test and b) solely judged by your students’ achievements on said test, you will teach the test.
Hence why I am not a public school teacher. I understand the practical outcome of incentives, I suppose I’m more philosophically interested in why educators seem to think that other people shall know X as oppose to ought to know X. It falsely presumes a need.
The simple solution is to administer the test twice, once at the beginning of the class and once at the end, and judge the teacher based on change in score rather than the raw score.
Of course, this assumes the test actually measures what it is supposed to measure, and moreover that what it measures is itself useful.
I had a pretty worthless US History teacher when I was a junior in High School.
It went like this–we’d copy notes off of Powerpoint slides for days until we’d covered a chapter, we’d spend one day where the teacher handed out highlighters and literally read the questions and answers off the test–which we were to highlight in our notes–and then the very next day, we’d test on that exact material.
I can’t say anyone really *learned* anything, but how everyone else didn’t get an A, I will never understand.
My last job before this one there was no interview. There was simply a 2 hour safety presentation and then a test afterwards on the material. If you passed the test you got the job. The answers to the test questions were highlighted green on the applicable slides (we got a print out of the slides to follow along) and every time the presenter read an answer to a question on the test, he would cough, repeat the answer, and stomp his foot three times. I am not trying to be funny, he actually did that. Out of about 15 people only 10-12 passed.
Some people are so lazy they can’t even be bothered to take advantage of a good thing. of course, they probably also feel it was unfair for you to get an A because they didn’t.
It’s just crazy to me. Vhyrus’s story is so similar, too.
Why can’t studying for financial advisor licenses be that way now that I’m a burnout?
I assume that telling people Social Security is a Ponzi scheme will not get you your license.
In my day we didn’t have powerpoint.
Transparencies on overhead projectors, and filmstrips.
Ah – the warbly sound of the fimstrip audio cassette.
Were you the kid who always had to get the wet paper towel because the teacher wasn’t prepared?
You are implicitly accepting a sensible idea which is nevertheless politically unacceptable: if the test is not exhaustive, then improve the test. Why is it politically unacceptable? Because then people would fail and we just can’t have that. You don’t get 80%+ graduation rates with strict tests that have strong predictive power. The central goal of education policy, since well before NCLB, has been to improve pass rates even if it means lowering standards.
So, complaining about “teaching to the test” is an implicit admission that there is dissonance between the stated and revealed preferences of educators and education bureaucrats.
That’s not entirely fair. The central goal of education policy for decades has been to employ more educators, functionaries, and mandarins. Juicing pass rates is more of a means to that end.
I will forever lament our adoption of the Prussian model.
Who could believe that the Germans were such pioneers in the field of statism?
*monocle*
+1 Too small to fail
Modeling U.S. Energy Policy
I prefer Sports Illustrated modeling.
WHO SHALL WIN THE BATTLE OF THE FOOTNOTES?!? REIGNING CHAMPION, EDDIE-“THE-PEDANTIC-CATHOLIC”, OR CHALLENGER, “I CANT TELL IF ITS A SWORD OR A HAIRY-PENIS”-SYMBOL?!? THIS LONG-AWAITED ENGAGEMENT PROMISES TO TEST THE FINEST TALENTS OF OUR GENERATION IN AN EPIC BATTLE OF MONUMENTAL POSTCRIPTERY
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE
You got a cite for that, missy?
Works cited
😉
Heyyyyy…
I’m just giving you a hard time! Promise!
I like this one:
http://www.digyourowngrave.com/one-year-later-update-on-the-tortoise-and-the-baby-hippo/
Oh my god. That was too cute. Way too cute. I love unlikely animal friendships.
Hippos seem cute, but apparently (sort of like moose) they’re one of the most dangerous animals in the wild when full grown, and kill people all the time for no apparent reason. And i mean no reason. One killed a boat full of children just because it felt like it.
Dont fuck with Hippos.
They’re considered the most dangerous mammal on earth, way above lions, bears, and other predators. They’re extremely strong and extremely territorial, and they really have no time for your excuses about why you’re pissing in their part of the river.
Hippos (a) live in Africa and (b) share habitat with frickin’ giant crocodiles. Big, strong, and vicious are what evolution decreed for them, given their environment.
Male hippos are highly territorial. Very aggressive.
Most people are killed at night by panicked hippos charging back to the river for safety. Dumbass humans get between the nighttime grazers and their safe haven.
It was intended as more of a “howard cosell” voice, but i think the growl of the Kurgen works as well
For my next act, I will trace the contemporary proponents of the precautionary principle and Anti-GMO movement, ostensibly founded on scientific skepticism, back to their roots in the radical Green movement in 70’s Europe as anti-empirical ideologues.
Me reading this.
For some reason, I’m fapping
And i’m sure you’d do a superb + painstakingly-footnoted job of it.
But isn’t that probably a point you could make in a few sentences? The environmental movement’s “Scientism” has always been rooted in this hippy-dippy whole-earth-catalogue eschatological “humankind is morally-unfit to survive”-thinking.
I’d think it stretches back to the “splitting of the atom”, where even within the scientific community there were many people saying that ‘science ‘unchecked’ will inevitably go too far“
It does generally. The difficulty is convincing lawmakers. They’ve adopted rhetorical attacks with an ostensibly scientific basis, thus, they are effective against technocratic regulators. If, however, you can reveal that their arguments are underpinned by ideological dicta and not anything empirical then, more often than not, the technocrat will ignore them.
Setting aside the questionable economics of biofuel subsidies, foreign oil producers will remain profitable at price levels where expenditure for biofuel subsidies is politically unjustifiable.
The Valenzuelians are doing their best to refute this.
Maybe I’m different, but I never understood the concept of “teaching to the test.” If the objective is to transmit knowledge, then you must test what you teach – else, why teach if it is not worth testing?
I had a teacher in high school who referred to tests as “learning experiences” as I recall. Tests were not supposed to be punitive; the only object of tests was to determine what he needed to teach us.
He was an outlier.
Sciences or practical arts course?
I tried to explain to one of my professors that I had learned how to take tests much better than I had learned the actual material. Her response was “Shut up and pass the course.”
So, off topic CSB:
I’m at work right now. I am kind of stuck on a design and I need some feedback, but the guy I would get the feedback from is gone, and no one I know knows where the hell he went. This is my only project right now, so I am literally stuck doing nothing until someone drops something in my lap (unlikely as the MIA guy is my only real source of work) or he shows up. I don’t want to do nothing for the next 5 hours but I may not have a choice here.
The obvious solution is to let us help you.
MWAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAaaaaaaa…….
Add a laser and a supercharger.
I would have to model them, so no. In fact, fuck no.
Start drinking.
Two words:
Racing Stripes
On a camera bracket? You’re an animal, Ricky.
Yeah, what kind of primitive troglodyte are you?
Obviously it needs to be flat black with tribal pin-striping and spikes.
I don’t want to do nothing for the next 5 hours
Hanging with the glibs ain’t doing nothing.
You’re welcome!
I got some “as built” drawings that need to be updated. Or existing parts need to have their part numbers updated for our new ERP system. Take your pick.
I would actually do both of those for you if I could.
Make it Möbius band-shaped.
Sciences or practical arts course?
Math teacher. He had a hell of an arm, too; he could drill you with a piece of chalk from anywhere in the room if you were talking instead of listening.
My kind of teacher. Probably unemployable in today’s public school system.
I don’t want to do nothing for the next 5 hours but I may not have a choice here.
You could always work on your space laser while you wait for him to rematerialize. Be productive, Man!
What is it with you people and lasers? They aren’t even that cool. Besides I’m not in the laser department. No that wasn’t a joke, they’re literally down the hall.
I will accept a maser in a pinch.
Fuck that. Rail gun, Baby!
Accelerating a slug of material to the point that it turns into plasma is the absolute best use of down-time.
One does not simply design a rail gun.
You don’t already have one handy?
What kind of engineer are you?!?
The employed kind 😛
One of the biggest problems with energy regulation (and pretty much all utility/health care regs) are Certificate of Need (aka CoPN) laws. Letting cronyist regulators decide if there is enough “need” for a good or service is ludicrous. I don’t really need to speak here about how this kills competition, since glibertarians.
We have a perfectly good method of determining ‘need’. It’s called the market. Yes BP you are preaching to the choir here but it cant be said enough.
Exactly. And what’s frustrating to me is that every time I end up discussing healthcare with a “progressive” and they’re touting the wonders of regulation, I bring up CoN (how apropos) laws and what they do to the healthcare market. I’ve never met any other human being (in meatspace) who was even ware that CoN laws exist in healthcare. Yet, during the whole Obama”care” debate, all I heard was shrieking about how “unregulated” the healthcare industry was.
I am terribly disappointed that Professor Tomain’s first name isn’t Pete.
I was thinking Prof. Ptomaine, myself.
Importantly, these two assumptions suggest a national energy policy which “favors large-scale, high technology, capital-intensive, integrated, and centralized producers of energy.”
This statement gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Thus the Executive did decree and the Congress went about its scrivening and lo; the market concentrated.
I see a lot of terms that make flags go up for me. Biofuels. Renewable energy. Energy independence.
Ever wonder why every ethanol plant includes a fuel oil tank? Why they cant run on ethanol? Biofuels aren’t about energy independence. They are about laundering tax money into the pockets of cronies. If that wasn’t clear before the Obama administration made it fucking crystal. Renewables are exactly the same.
To be fair, there are legitimate ways to make ethanol. Corn, however, is not one of them. You need something like sugar cane or sugar beets which aren’t nearly as easy to grow in the breadbasket.
If you want ethanol, sure. If you want energy that is different. There is no way to make significant amounts of ethanol without putting more energy into the process than you get out of it. It is an energy sinkhole.
Precisely! And stay tuned for further exposition on that point…
Only if using corn. Sugar cane and beets actually have enough sugar to make it a net energy gain.
Including an accounting of the energy required in fertilizer production, growing/harvesting operations, and equipment? I thought saw-grass and algae were the only things close to breaking even but show me what you got.
I’ll get a little pedantic, just because I don’t get the opportunity very often around here…
Most (I’m tempted to say ‘all’, but I suppose I couldn’t really know that) new ethanol plant energy centers are fueled by natural gas, not fuel oil. There may be some older oil burning ethanol factories still on line, but I would guess that most have converted to NG or have been mothballed by now.
Your larger points about (in)efficiency and cronyism still stand.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
critique of media bubble.
Something akin to the Times ethos thrives in most major national newsrooms found on the Clinton coasts—CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico and the rest. Their reporters, an admirable lot, can parachute into Appalachia or the rural Midwest on a monthly basis and still not shake their provincial sensibilities: Reporters tote their bubbles with them.
It’s called moral superiority. If you go in knowing that you’re documenting a tribe of subhuman savages then it’s extremely easy to dismiss their curious and ignorant opinions.
Two thoughts after just finishing the article. It seems like they almost torpedo their own argument in the third last para:
“It’s worth mentioning that Fox and Breitbart—and indeed most of the big conservative media players—also happen to be located in the same bubble. Like the “MSM” they rail against, they’re a product of New York, Washington and Los Angeles. It’s an argument against the bubble, being waged almost entirely by people who work inside it.”
And, also, I’m not a mathematician, but this seems dumb: “Breitbart now attracts more than 15 million visitors a month, according to comScore, which isn’t far behind more established outlets like the Hill’s 24 million and Politico’s 25 million.”
Well, actually, it is far behind: 15m is only 63% or 24m and 60% of 25m.
OT: China’s mega statues
I like the caption to #10:
Haze, you see. In the US, that’s known as smog, which is raping Mother Gaia as we speak. But it’s just hazy in Beijing! Darn the luck, you hope for a clear winter’s day, but that haze just mysteriously rolls in without warning!
Hmmm… From the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005) section 401.
Well well … lets check the numbers.
So it is actually $1.8 billion over 9 years. So what about the part that “coal producers receive”?
I wouldn’t consider institutions of higher education to be “coal producers”.
To call this boondoggle “subsidies” seems to stretch the meaning of the word. I would be curious to know what percentage of funding went to “coal producers” and what percentage went to institutions of higher education.
My recollection is that it is 1.6 b that goes to coal, which is that 1.8 figure less the 200m. There is plenty of other fat in that law and I was pairing it down to the largest relevant parts. Economically, its all subsidies.
Since the disbursements are now history can I presume you have a list of who got what?
Would that I had! I’d need to sit down with a congressional research librarian to start compiling that information. I suspect it might also include some FOIA filing.