700 words on Obama's energy policy

United States President-elect Barack Obama’s energy platform makes bold promises to transform the United States’ energy usage mix and represents a significant departure from previous US energy policy, differing significantly from the reference cases presented in the United States’ Energy Information Administration (the ‘EIA’)’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (the ‘Energy Outlook’ ). While implementation may not necessarily be smooth, the Obama platform would be a solid step in the right direction for the United States and its policies would accord with the recommendations made in the International Energy Agency’s 2008 World Energy Outlook (the ‘WEO’ ).

The Obama energy plan has several main objectives designed to increase the energy independence of the United States. The plan emphasizes efficient energy use in the transport sector- this is natural, as a majority of the gasoline used by the United States is used in vehicles: the plan therefore mandates higher fuel economy standards for vehicles, tax credits for purchase of efficient vehicles, and increasing use of hybrid automobiles. The plan has been supported by Chairwoman of the US Senate Committee of Environment and Public Works Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who recently announced her plan to introduce legislation in January which would invest US$15 billion per year for innovation in clean energy and establish a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions . The Obama plan also includes incentives for greater energy efficiency, which is often considered to be one of the ‘low hanging fruit’ in the area of energy use. Increased efficiency in heating and insulation would slow the growth of domestic energy use and also create jobs for workers involved in the implementation of efficiency measures. Finally, the Obama energy plan also would promote some use of domestic oil, coal and gas reserves, with a focus on keeping carbon emissions low in order to conform with the administration’s goal of decreasing national greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and would also consider the possibility of increased nuclear power use.

The EIA has projected several different scenarios for possible US domestic energy use to the year 2030. The reference case projection assumes that the United States’ energy mix will not change greatly and that current energy policy will remain roughly constant, with fossil fuels continuing to meet 80% of US energy use needs in 2030, down 5 percentage points from 85% in 2006. Nuclear and renewable fuels would grow to 20% of total energy needs from 15% in 2006, and the fossil fuels mix would also be adjusted, with more coal and less oil and natural gas. The energy mix in the reference case would therefore produce a 16% increase in national greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, which is an entirely different direction of growth for greenhouse gases compared to the Obama plan.

In the face of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction needs as well as current trends for policy change, I would not consider any of the reference cases presented in the Energy Outlook to be acceptable possibilities. As the WEO states, “current trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable”: clearly, changes to the status quo of energy use must be made. On the other hand, the Obama plan, while ambitious and broad in scope, represents only the first step in what must be an even more far-reaching effort to improve mankind’s climactic footprint on the Earth. Recently, NASA scientist James Hansen has stated that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced to at most 350 parts per million and unrestricted burning of coal stopped within the next decade, and former US Vice President Al Gore, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, has stated that the United States should eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels for energy production within 10 years. The Obama plan admirably and commendably addresses the superficial effects of overproduction of greenhouse gases; however, it does not address the root causes, which include auto-reliant infrastructure design, ignorance of externality costs and an overemphasis on consumption as a measure of standard of living. Furthermore, efforts must be made to include the entire developing world in efforts to mitigate climate change. Having spent the last five years living in the People’s Republic of China, I have seen firsthand the effects of coal burning power generation and poor emissions controls. At this point, the United States needs not only to reverse its path, but also to persuade China and India from following in its footsteps, and I feel that the Obama Plan will need to be revised before it can tackle these more ambitious goals.

Risk and its rewards. Disjointed thoughts on a Friday Morning

I have been following the recent comments by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on the recent subprime loan crisis with great interest. He has stated that in future, he will implement regulations which will prevent the occurrence of a similar investment banking crisis.

The sympathetic tone taken by the writers of various NYT and WP articles dealing with fate of the employees of Bear Stearns made me smirk a bit:

'Awww those poor bankers'

But then I stopped and thought: 'really, that could be me right there. I know people who work at Bear Stearns and really, they aren't bad people.'

This got me thinking about why society tends to channel people who are very hardworking, intelligent and motivated into investment banking.

I currently work in an adjunct function to the financial industry and I would say that most people that I have encountered work rather frantically. To quote Jon Candy's character Barf from the Mel Brooks' 'Spaceballs', the reason financial services professionals work so hard "isn't for a lotta money, it's for a SHITLOAD of money". Financial services is an industry where people work as hard as possible and try to find all edges possible in order to maximize their take of the overall resources.

If Paulson really carries out his plan to throw further regulation into the mix, a fair amount of the edge that certain players in the game possess will be negated, thereby make the game unprofitable.

To me, it seems as though the cart has been put before the horse. Changing the rules of the game doesn't really change the fact that everyone is playing. As long as the prizes are the same, people will want to play, and will always work hard to win, at times bending the rules.

From an economic standpoint as long as society in the US rewards greed, things won't change. I hate talking about human nature but really it is obvious that the goals of a person without any spiritual motivation are just to maximize resources and reproduce. Aunque el mono se vesta de seda, el mono se queda...

As to which jobs should ideally receive the maximum reward, i would prefer that jobs competing against nature, or creating things which are useful, rather than jobs which involve competition against other people, should receive the highest amount of benefit. In such a society, firefighters, policeman, doctors, engineers and artists would make more than bankers and lawyers.

However it seems that in many ways there are two axes to this graph. On one hand, we have the level of benefit to society- this axis determines the level of desire that an overall society should have for individuals performing a certain job.

Firefighters, for example, are very beneficial- on the other hand, while performing the work of a firefighter is physically strenuous and dangerous, it is not mentally taxing. Being a banker is marginally beneficial to society, but the work is exhausting, and hence highly lucrative.

The level of reward and also the level of difficulty channel people with various disparate talents into various fields of work...

Granted, I like making bling (and the nice steaks, trips to Japan, and assorted stuff I can use my money to buy) as much as the next guy, but it would seem that in a macro sense, the work that I am doing, while it is beneficial to ME, is not necessarily particularly beneficial to everybody...