Apologies if you're getting bored with this, but here is Jeffrey Sachs weighing in on the cap-and-trade debate:

A straightforward carbon tax has vast advantages. (1) It can be levied upstream at a few dozen places — at the wellhead, the mine face, and the liquid natural gas depot — rather than at thousands or tens of thousands of businesses. (2) A carbon tax covers the entire economy, including automobiles, household use, and other units impossible to reach in cap-and-trade. (3) A carbon tax puts a clear price on carbon emissions for many years ahead, while a cap-and-trade system gives a highly fluctuating spot price. (4) A carbon tax raises a clear amount of revenue, which can be used for targeted purposes (R&D for sustainable energy) or rebated to the public in one way or another, while the revenues from a cap-and-trade system are likely to be bargained away well before the first trade ever takes place.

(Numbering mine.) This is amazing.  Sachs is a smart guy.  He's a famous economist.  But as near as I can tell, there's only one true statement in that entire paragraph.  Let's take a look.

First: Cap-and-trade can be implemented either upstream (i.e., you require permits for the inputs, like coal and oil) or downstream (i.e., you require permits for the outputs, the carbon that's actually emitted into the atmosphere).  It's just a matter of how you write the legislation.  The Waxman-Markey bill combines both methods, with electric plants and industrial sources covered downstream while refiners and other producers of liquids and gases are covered upstream.  On this score, there's no inherent difference between a tax and cap-and-trade.

Second: Cap-and-trade can cover the entire economy just as well as a tax can.  Again, it's just a matter of how you write the law.  Waxman-Markey would cover an estimated 85% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Third: Yes, a carbon tax does place a clear price on emissions — though it's worth keeping in mind that every serious tax proposal envisions changing the tax rate regularly in order to hit emission targets.  So this sentence is sort of true.  (On the other hand, it's worth noting that under a cap-and-trade system, the price of permits naturally decreases whenever demand for energy decreases, as it does in a recession.  So cap-and-trade acts as an automatic stabilizer, which is a handy feature.)

Fourth: Revenue is revenue.  There's simply no reason to think that revenue from cap-and-trade is any more likely to be bargained away than revenue from a tax.

On balance I think cap-and-trade is superior to a carbon tax on several grounds, but there are nonetheless perfectly good arguments in favor of a tax.  So why make arguments like these instead?  It's embarrassing.

How much of a socialist is President Obama? According to Jim Gilmore—the former Republican governor of Virginia whom Democrat Mark Warner trounced in last year's Senate race—Obama is so much of a socialist that he's created his own form of socialism.

We have learned a lot in the first one hundred days of the Obama administration. The most important lesson is that this administration’s operating ideology isn’t old-style liberalism or even old-style socialism. President Obama and his team are delivering a “New Socialism.”

Their “New Socialism” doesn’t need to capture property. It is content to control the economy through taxation and regulation and the attitudes of our citizens by the establishment of a culture through the power institutions of our society: the media, the education establishment, and powerful business interests. Moreover, the “New Socialism” seeks to create a conventional wisdom that discredits all alternative thought.

So now socialism doesn't even have to look or act like socialism to be socialism. New Socialists just have to try to control someone's "attitude" about something through the media, education, and/or powerful business interests.

That's a pretty big umbrella. (After all, trying to change an attitude about something through powerful business interests is "New Socialism." Does that make our last administration New Socialist?) So it got me thinking: What other politicos fit under Gilmore's New Socialism tent? How about Jim Gilmore? Let's see: Gilmore now heads up USA Secure, a security think tank comprised of "key national technology and infrastructure companies." What do they do?

Our goal is to gather a broad group of industries, first-responder non-profits, think tanks, and universities to speak with a steady and strong voice to all the different departments of government, particularly the Department of Homeland Security.

So it looks like Gilmore is using industry and universities to peddle influence to the government. That might end up changing or controlling some attitudes. Sounds pretty New Socialist to me.

Today's student activism news: High schoolers at Ursuline and Cardinal Newman, two Catholic high schools in California, think it's freakin' unfair that administrators canceled their prom due to the fact that students were freaking on the dance floor. To express their outrage, they're showing up at school in promwear this week.

Surely you've heard of other creative feats of student activism this past school year. MoJo, Campus Progress, and WireTap want to hear about them in time for the Hellraisers, our first annual student activism awards.

Here's how it works: You tell us about your favorite activism antics. Selected nominees will be featured in the September/October 2009 issue of Mother Jones.

Anyone can nominate any current student activists (and we're not just talking college here! High schoolers, grad students, kindergartners—all okay).

Nominating is quick and easy. Do it here.

 

A new study in Science shows the best way to maximize "miles per acre" from biomass is to convert it to electricity, not ethanol.

Compared to ethanol used for internal combustion engines, bioelectricity used for battery-powered vehicles would deliver an average of 80 percent more miles of transportation per acre of crops, while also doubling the greenhouse gas offsets to mitigate climate change.

"It's a relatively obvious question once you ask it, but nobody had really asked it before," says study co-author Chris Field, director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution.

The researchers performed a life-cycle analysis of bioelectricity versus ethanol technologies, taking into account the energy produced and also the energy consumed in each.

Bioelectricity was the clear winner in the transportation-miles-per-acre comparison, regardless of whether the energy was produced from corn or from switchgrass.

A small SUV powered by bioelectricity could travel nearly 14,000 highway miles on the net energy produced from an acre of switchgrass. A comparable internal combustion vehicle could only travel 9,000 miles on the highway.

"The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles," says lead author Elliott Campbell of the U of California Merced. "Even the best ethanol-producing technologies with hybrid vehicles aren't enough to overcome this.

While the results of the study clearly favor bioelectricity over ethanol, the researchers caution the issues facing society in choosing an energy strategy are complex.

"We found that converting biomass to electricity rather than ethanol makes the most sense for two policy-relevant issues: transportation and climate," says David Lobell of Stanford's Program on Food Security and the Environment. "But we also need to compare these options for other issues like water consumption, air pollution, and economic costs."
 

Now Jay Bybee wants to explain his legal advice to members of Congress. Roll back the clock to February 2003, and Bybee's stock answer to members of the Senate judiciary committee considering his nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: "As the head of the Department's Office of Legal Counsel, I am obligated to keep confidential the legal advice that my Office provides to others in the executive branch. I cannot comment on whether or not I have provided any advice on this matter, and, if so, the substance of that advice." Asked about the opinions his office rendered on everything from the establishment of a Violence Against Women office in the Justice Department to the Pentagon's use of data mining to the administration's enemy combatant policies, Bybee refused, on more than 20 occasions, to provide any information.

Recently, Bybee has gotten a lot more talkative. And it's no wonder why. There's a mounting drumbeat to impeach him from the federal bench for his role in drafting memos that provided a legal rationale for harsh interrogation techniques that many believe amount to torture. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is finishing up an internal probe that may recommend disbarment proceedings—though likely not criminal prosecutions—against Bybee and ex-OLC official John Yoo. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Bybee has recently reached out to members of Nevada's congressional delegation in order to "tell his side of the story."

The step suggests that Bybee believes maintaining the judicial branch’s customary distance from the political process is no longer in his best interest.

Ever wonder whether the nutritional labels on your food are telling the truth? Wonder no more: For just $800, you can order "Typical Diet," two six-ounce bottles of a freeze-dried blend of four days' worth of all your daily recommended fat, protein, calories, vitamins, and minerals, prepared by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

Nutritious and delicious? Maybe not. I'm not sure anyone has ever tasted this concoction (and in fact NIST warns it's not for human consumption"). It's used as a standard against which food manufacturers test the nutritional content of their products. The Guardian points out that fans of Typical Diet might want to check out NIST's other fine food products, which include baby food composite, meat, and a standard issue fish from Lake Superior, methylmercury and all. But the fun doesn't stop there:

Nist offers many kinds of useful and, to the connoisseur, delightful Standard Reference Materials. Its catalogue runs to 145 pages.

Prospective purchasers can peruse page after page of bodily fluids and glops, among them bilirubin, cholesterol and ascorbic acid in frozen human serum. There are other speciality products in dizzying variety: toxic metals in bovine blood, naval brass, domestic sludge and plutonium-242 solution, to name four.

Prices are mostly in the $300-$500 range. There are bargains to be had, including an item called "multi drugs of abuse in urine", on offer at three bottles for $372.

Good news for all you 2012ers out there: Typical Diet doesn't expire till 2016, so you can start stocking up now.  

 

From Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC):

"Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts.  The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."

The noteworthy thing about this quote isn't that Patrick McHenry is a Republican, it's that he's Patrick McHenry.  This is not Olympia Snowe.  McHenry is a young man who made his bones by insisting loudly and on all occasions that, no matter who else was in the room, he was still the most right-wing guy there.  But he's also a young man who made his name as a guy willing to do whatever it took to climb the political ladder.  If he's decided that maybe taxes aren't the road to electoral glory anymore, the GOP better start looking for another issue.

For more, read "Getting Ahead in the GOP," Ben Wallace-Wells's profile of McHenry in the Washington Monthly a few years ago.

Walter Pincus has an interesting piece about the newspaper biz in the Columbia Journalism Review this month.  The points he makes aren't exactly new, but they're worth making anyway.  For example:

We have turned into a public-relations society. Much of the news Americans get each day was created to serve just that purpose — to be the news of the day.

....In 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, Michael Deaver — one of the great public-relations men of our time — began to use early-morning “tech” sessions at the White House, which had been a way to help network producers plan the use of their camera crews each day, to shape the television news story for that evening. Deaver would say that President Reagan will appear in the Rose Garden to talk about his crime-prevention program and discuss it in terms of, say, Chicago and San Francisco. That would allow the networks to shoot B-roll. The president would appear in the Rose Garden as promised, make his statement, perhaps take a question or two, and vanish.

After a while, the network White House correspondents began to attend these sessions, and later print reporters began showing up, too. On days when the president went off to Camp David or his California ranch, Sam Donaldson, the ABC News White House correspondent, began his shouted questions to Reagan, and Reagan’s flip answers became the nightly news — and not just on television. The Washington Post, which prior to that time did not have a standing White House story each day (publishing one only when the president did something newsworthy), began to have similar daily coverage.

At the end of Reagan’s first year, David Broder, the Post’s political reporter, wrote a column about Reagan being among the least-involved presidents he had covered. In response, he got an onslaught of mail from people who said they saw Reagan every night on TV, working different issues. It was a triumph of public relations.

....Today, mainstream print and electronic media want to be neutral, presenting both or all sides as if they were refereeing a game in which only the players — the government and its opponents — can participate. They have increasingly become common carriers, transmitters of other people’s ideas and thoughts, irrespective of import, relevance, and at times even accuracy.

Read the whole thing.

A long, sternly worded letter about President Barack Obama by billionaire hedge fund manager Clifford Asness made its way around the blogosphere on Thursday. The letter, which first appeared on Zero Hedge, accuses Obama of favoring the United Auto Workers union and its members in the deal to bail out Chrysler. The Obama administration has criticized some of Asness' fellow fund managers for refusing to accept its bid for the Chrysler bonds their funds hold. Most Chrysler bond holders, including several TARP recipients, had agreed to take big losses, but nine hedge funds held out for a better deal, forcing the company into bankruptcy. So Obama criticized them as "speculators" who were "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else" and who wanted "to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout." Asness thinks that's a horribly unfair thing for the President to say:

The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through [the bankruptcy] process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Arlen Specter may have lost his seniority when he defected to the Democratic Party, but thanks to the generosity of Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) he's getting his hands on a gavel nonetheless:

Senate Democratic leaders have reached agreement with Sen. Arlen Specter to partially restore the party switcher's status on the Judiciary Committee, by granting Specter the chairmanship of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee.

Under the deal, which Senate Democratic aides outlined this morning, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) would give up the gavel of the prestigious post, which holds jurisdiction over most Justice Department activities.

So Specter now controls the hearings for "most Justice Department activities."  Not bad.  No wonder he took the news of his demotion the other day so calmly.