You probably did not notice that the auto bailout bill has such a provision. It does; it is the very provision to which Eugene drew our attention yesterday:
(g) WITHDRAWAL FROM CERTAIN ACTIONS. — The terms of any financial assistance under this Act shall prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer from participating in, pursuing, funding, or supporting in any way, any legal challenge (existing or contemplated) to State laws concerning greenhouse gas emission standards.
Section (g) sounds like a prohibition but recall that the bill does not obligate automakers to do anything. Automakers have the option to turn down financing offered by the “czar.” Suppose, then, that automakers believe that the net present value of challenging some current or future state greenhouse gas regulation is 100. Automakers will give up this option only in return for an amount of money greater than or equal to 100. This would take the form of favorable financing terms—interest rates, or whatever. Thus, Congress—that is, the taxpayer—pays automakers not to challenge state greenhouse gas laws that presumably do or will cause automakers to reduce emissions.
You might think that automakers are in no position to demand an extra 100, but that would misconceive what is at stake here. The automakers have quite a bit of bargaining power: if the czar does not give terms that increase the value of equity, then the automakers can go out of business, causing immense suffering to the two important constituencies driving the bill—workers and creditors. Of course, the automakers will be better off with financing than without it, but the point is that they will be better off only if they are better off—meaning taxpayers must give them that extra 100 to cause them to drop positive net present value projects worth 100, on top of everything else.
Well, so what? It is surely better for the automakers to comply with state greenhouse gas laws than to challenge them, and if we have to pay them to comply with these laws, then maybe that is the best we can do. After all, the normal legal response to pollution is to tax or restrict behavior—a federal law that curbs greenhouse gas emissions (several are floating around), and not just of automakers but of everyone. The normal response would impose enormous costs on automakers at the same time that we are trying to reduce their costs! With one hand, we give by reducing the cost of credit; with the other hand, we take away by increasing the cost of production.
If you support the bailout bill as a kind of public works project, then you might have second thoughts. Wouldn’t it be better to pay people to engage in useless activity (digging and filling holes, say) than destructive activity (working in factories that emit greenhouse gases and cars that no one wants). If you support the bailout bill because you believe the public relations reason—that it is temporary financing necessary to save a healthy industry during a credit crunch—then you should be uneasy about section (g). Here’s why:
1. It almost never makes sense to pay polluters to stop polluting. That exacerbates tax distortions and encourages new entrants into the industry, who will have to paid off as well. Ask yourself how you would respond to this headline: “Congress announces that it will pay industry to stop polluting.”
2. The state laws could well be idiotic, and, even if not, inconsistent with the states’ constitutions. Why should Congress pay people not to challenge defects in state law? (At present, few, perhaps no, state laws impose meaningful restrictions on automakers but that could change in the future.)
3. Section (g) does not apply to any automaker who refuses a deal; it also cannot apply to foreign automakers. That means foreign automakers remain free to challenge the state laws (by the same token, it won’t be necessary to pay domestic automakers much to refrain from doing so).
4. State laws that restrict automakers probably will have virtually no benefit for the climate. Any sensible climate regulation has to apply to all or nearly all sources of greenhouse gases (to avoid substitution to non-regulated activities) and has to apply to the entire nation, indeed to the entire world.
For more on the bill, see Randy Picker, David Zaring ("tough oversight"? where?), and Steven Davidoff.
The States and Congress driving business out of the country?
Good idea.
Maybe however, California's increasingly immigrant households, whose "sueno Americano" also includes suburban housing and private transportation, will wake up and stop automatically voting for Democratic "eco-obsessives".
It conditions federal funds on giving up the well-established First Amendment right to challenge state laws that may violate the federal constitution or be preempted by federal law.
Litigation is protected by the First Amendment if it is not meritless. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) (state court lawsuit that failed on technicality but had reasonable basis was protected against liability or investigation initiated under the Fair Housing Act) and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
Harsh.
Tax credits and incentives are well-established "carrots" for encouraging positive environmental decisions by industry. See, e.g., state_pollution_control.pdf (listing state-based environmental tax breaks).
As you point out in your third criticism, foreign automakers and automakers who refuse the deal may still challenge "idiotic" state laws. If a state's laws were too restrictive, and that state's market critical to the automakers, they remain free to turn down the deal.
Foreign automakers are financially viable partly because they recognized and capitalized on the market for fuel-efficient vehicles. See, e.g., Lack of investment clue to Detroit's demise. Of course, American automakers also suffer from a competitive disadvantage in their worker benefits and compensation. However, I read section (g) as discouraging automakers from investing their bailout money into fighting carbon emission regulations in state courts. Instead, they would ideally use this money to develop and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles that comply with state laws. Foreign automakers do not need this additional incentive.
Although addressing climate change will require a comprehensive, world-wide response, these responses must start somewhere. If the federal government refuses to seriously regulate greenhouse gases—from cars or any other source—the states may (and should) step into the void. State regulations, and section (g), will not stop all climate change, but they are a logical first step.
Personally, I've never seen the big deal. There are only two possible standards, California's or the federal standard, and, by law, California's standards are 100% inclusive of the federal standards. So all car-makers have to do is build to California's standards, and they can sell the same cars nation-wide.
My old adminisrative law professor at Hastings said that the Bureau of Indian Affairs had achieved a state of bureaucratic nirvana in which there were regulations allowing them to do whatever they wanted, or to not do anything in a given instance, and all at their sole discretion.
That assumes that the provision applies only to existing laws. Posner's original post seems to assume otherwise ("that could change in the future"). Even if it makes economic sense to take the aid in exchange for accepting existing greenhouse gas laws, it's very difficult to predict the degree of idiocy of future state legislators, or the extent to which idiocy may be encouraged by this very restriction.
In a few years AGW will come apart. So take the real green stuff and don't worry about the imaginary green.
Since it is protected by the First Amendment, the government generally cannot condition its being dropped on the receipt of federal funds. See Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001)(striking down as unconstitutional the restriction prohibiting LSC grantees receiving federal funds from challenging welfare reform laws when representing clients seeking specific relief from a welfare agency).
But the provision of the bailout discussed above conditions federal funds on giving up the well-established First Amendment right to challenge state laws that may violate the federal constitution or be preempted by federal law.
Sound like a good idea.
/sarcasm
Water soluable paint doesn't work so protecting metals in seawater. So the low voc paints were used inside the ship where they work and the outside areas of the ship had to be painted in amazingly small sections.
Anyone care to guess how much extra it cost to keep a ship in drydock while this ridiculous restriction was in play? Moreover, it is one of the reasons Long Beach, a nuclear qualified shipyard, went bye-bye. Yeah...... that worked.
Not so fast.
Foreign automakers completely ignored a segment of the market. It's not surprising that they were more successful in the segments in which they participated.
The big 3 would be in much better shape today if they had abandoned the small car market and concentrated on trucks and big cars. Yes, sales of those vehicles recently took a big hit, but abandoning the small car market would have let the big 3 keep the money it made on those vehicles instead of spending it to subsidize their small car attempts. They could have spent that money improving the fuel performance of big cars and trucks.
CAFE is the only reason that the big 3 didn't abandon the small car market.
Wall Street Journal
A straight-up carbon tax would be more effective than a patchwork of tailpipe standards. Perhaps we could condition the bailout on automakers and their oil company friends disclosing all the money they have funneled into junk science to promote the illusion of a scientific controversy regarding the reality of global warming.
http://scienceblogs.com/
illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
If China and India don't get on board with CO2 reductions, and they won't, how much difference will it make if the U.S. cuts C02 emissions by even 50%?
Why not?
Because they want their economies to continue to grow.
You don't know what India and China will do; you're just speculating. Everyone is adverse to the economic pain of reducing carbon emissions, but everyone is going to be hurt if we continue on as we are. There's no reason to think the Chinese and the Indians are less capable of reaching a good decision than the Europeans and the Americans are.
Your argument is an appeal to authority, which is a known logical fallacy. We do not decide scientific questions by consensus. For an essay on this subject see Michael Crichton's Alien's Cause Global Warming. Moreover many of the organizations you cite have a vested interest in keep the public and politicians alarmed about AGW. It only takes one scientist to demolish a theory, consensus is irrelevant.
One does not answer problems with the cloud physics by appealing to a consensus. Moreover there are many good scientists who are critical of AGW. There are problems with the data, the models and the logic.
Nonsense. The source in question is evidence of broad agreement among the vast majority of scientists worldwide in the theory of global warming. In their work, readily accessible via the IPCC report or the NASA website, one can find the tens of thousands of observations and the analysis thereof which supports the theory.
You do not decide scientific questions at all; you are not a scientist. We dedice scientific questions by doing the science; what the science showed in reflected in the consensus of the scientific community.
How would you know? Any evidence for this laughable assertion? You are alleging a worldwide conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries.
Many scientists have tried to demolish global warming; all have failed. They've had their say in the journals, and their arguments have been refuted. The argument that one scientist can overturn a scientific consensus (an extremely rare event in modern times) is relevant only if you have such a scientist. You don't.
One does not challenge a scientific theory with random allusions to crackpots and industry shills. You are not conversant in cloud physics; those that are have overwhelming accepted the scientific consensus.
Nope, you're wrong. There are a small number of bad scientists who are critical of global warming.
Wrong again. All three are looking good. You've got nothing. If you, or any other denialist, have discovered a serious problem in the data, the models, or the logic, it'd be published in a respectable scientific journal and debated there. You can repeat your slogans all you want; the scientific debate has been settled decisively in favor of man-made global warming.
What new entrants into the auto industry are we likely to see in the near future? Given the barriers to entry into the auto industry, do you really think that the bailout has the potential of making the Big 3 instead the Big 4 or the Big 5? And, furthermore, what makes Eric Posner think that such new entrants, to the extent that they do come into being, will be able to participate in the bailout plan? If you were an investor, would you invest in a proposed new entrant into the auto industry on the assumption that you would be able to participate in a bailout?
I think the idea that the result of the proposed policy in this case could result in a new entrant into the auto industry in reality as oppossed to in theory is pretty clearly off.
In other words, this generally valid line of argument is just not applicable in this particular context. In general, I think as an intellectual matter, one probably should not bother making arguments that might be valid in some hypothetical general case, but are not just not likely applicable in the specific case in question.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/
For a guide to the various ways in which Michael Crichton's GW denialism falls apart with a little investigation, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/
index.php/archives/2005/09/
inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/
For a comparison of the climate model to observed temperatures since Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988 (the model succeeded spectacularly) see:
http://www.realclimate.org/
index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Data, model, and logic all holding up nicely. Z's conspiracy theory requires us to believe all of the following:
1) Multiple independent measures of global temperatures, which demonstrate clear global warming, have been falsified or misinterpreted.
2) Governments all around the world (including ours), who would be forced to impose painful changes to their economies to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, are secretly and in perfect concert conspiring to promote a theory that implies that they need to drastic reduce CO2 emissions.
3) Tens of thousands of scientists and dozens of prestigious national and international associations of the sciences are either conspiring with the governments, or have been cowed into silence by unspecified pressure.
4) All reputable scientific journals are in on the conspiracy, preventing them from publishing the articles that would disprove global warming.
5) All of the associated evidence of global warming, including ice sheet loss, longer growing seasons, habitat shifts, and coral bleaching are all perfectly normal, expected phenomena which are being twisted by the conspiracy -- which evidently includes botanists, ecologists, marine biologists and many other specialties that have reported evidence of global warming.
6) Despite the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 can be demonstrated in any high school science lab, despite the fact the we have been pumping gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere for many years now, despite the fact that we know that the CO2 we put in the atmosphere hangs around, in large measure, for hundreds of years -- despite those facts, there is no reason to associate record high CO2 levels in the atmosphere with record high temperatures below.
Pu-leaze.
The truth likely lies somewhere in between. Some corrections:
"1) Multiple independent measures of global temperatures, which demonstrate clear
globallocal warming,have been falsified or misinterpretedare accurate."The global cooling may be temporary, however, and masking the severity of the problem.
"2) Governments all around the world (including ours), who would be forced to impose painful changes to their economies to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, are secretly and in perfect concert conspiring to promote a theory that implies that they need to drastic reduce CO2 emissions."
Painful to citizens, but not necessarily to those making or benefiting from the changes. It's the opposite of secret.
"3) Tens of thousands of scientists and dozens of prestigious national and international associations of the sciences are either conspiring with the governments, or have been cowed into silence by unspecified pressure."
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a "grant"? The pressure is not only specific, it is pervasive and well-documented.
"4) All reputable scientific journals are in on the conspiracy, preventing them from publishing the articles that would disprove global warming."
Reputable by what criteria? AGW orthodoxy?
"5) All of the associated evidence of global warming, including ice sheet loss, longer growing seasons, habitat shifts, and coral bleaching are all perfectly normal, expected phenomena which are being twisted by the conspiracy -- which evidently includes botanists, ecologists, marine biologists and many other specialties that have reported evidence of global warming."
At the risk of dating myself, see Kuhn. It's happened before.
"6) Despite the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 can be demonstrated in any high school science lab, despite the fact the we have been pumping gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere for many years now, despite the fact that we know that the CO2 we put in the atmosphere hangs around, in large measure, for hundreds of years -- despite those facts, there is no reason to associate record high CO2 levels in the atmosphere with record high temperatures below."
This is indeed a concern, but needs stating in a risk management frame, rather than a theological one. What needs establishing is that gigatons is a relevant measure. Gigameters seem to span immense distances, but really don't get you very far on the cosmic scale. So how does the human contribution compare to, say, the bovine or the volcanic, or the capacity of engineered remedies, organic or otherwise, to absorb it?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.