Thrashing our Way to the Precipice

2279798341_ac30de592e_b1_edited

Despite Trump’s business credentials, the most immediate dangers of his presidency have always been economic. The promotional hoopla around current unemployment numbers hasn’t changed that risk.  It is worth remembering that no one foresaw the last Republican disaster in 2008, and there are similarities to that situation now.

Our basic problem is that Trump has never stopped thinking of the Presidency as a business, and that is fundamentally at odds with the reality of running a country.

Trump’s approach as a businessman is easy to describe: get all you can get away with and kill the opposition.  It doesn’t matter who gets hurt as long as you don’t get caught and come out a winner.  Even in bankruptcy.

That sounds great (“he may be a crook, but he’s OUR crook”) but as President of the most economically powerful country in the world, you can’t ignore consequences.   That’s obvious in the case of bankruptcies, but it also affects how you deal with the rest of the world.  On the positive side the progress of the world economy since the second world war shows how shared prosperity has raised all boats.  The Marshall Plan was not just benevolence, it was good policy—helping others helped us.  However the reverse is also true—disasters propagate.  Beggar thy neighbor policies have a way of biting back.

The EU, Canada, and Mexico each account for $250B in US exports—downturns in any of them affect us.  Corporate supply chains now link many countries.  China’s cheap hardware has been the basis for Apple’s profits and even for software service companies such as Google and Facebook.  We’ve already seen with the steel and aluminum tariffs that it’s easy to lose more jobs than you save.  The web of relationships can be so complicated that it’s hard even to identify all the consequences of tariffs or other such actions.  Unanticipated consequences are the order of the day.

That doesn’t mean we’re powerless to deal with problems, but “trade wars are easy” is a good way to lose big.  In the trade war with China where we just gave up half our leverage to try to get a special deal and drove China into the arms of the EU.

And there’s one more factor to keep in mind. As the IMF has warned, the world has become increasingly awash in debt, a concern for global stability.  It’s easy to be playing with fire.

te5

To understand the risks, it’s worth looking back at the George W. Bush administration.  There were a number of unanticipated consequences.

– Deregulation of the economy worked great for a while until it undermined the banking system and produced the worst recession since 1929.   No one saw it coming, as they didn’t know where to look.

– The collapse of the Russian economy produced abject misery.   The Bush administration refused to offer assistance (Dick Cheney’s position was “they’re the enemy, let them starve.”) The unexpected consequence was the return to authoritarianism under Putin and the rise of Russian nationalism.

– The attacks of 9/11 led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  No one foresaw the consequences for political instability in both countries.  That in turn led to $3T wars with at most very limited benefits.  The financial consequences are still felt here today in the lack of money for education and infrastructure.

 

The risks of today’s policies are at least as bad.  We’re thrashing around inconsistently and in all directions.  We’re obsessed with trade imbalances, incorrectly treating them as a kind of scorecard with our competitors. (China sure doesn’t think they’re winners for giving us cheap iPhones that we sell worldwide at huge markup.)   We institute tariffs supposedly to protect workers but lose more jobs overall and fight unions to depress wages.  We have no plans for dealing with consequences of automation.  We’re unaccountably limiting spending on both education and basic research.

The current strong US economic position is based on technology, innovation, and the associated value chains.  We’ve now decided the current order is stupid and we’re going to fix it—without restraint.  We don’t even bother to see if we’re doing what the protected industries want.

There are explicit parallels with the Bush issues:

– We’ve gone even more gung-ho for the private sector.   They’re going to fix everything, and it’s perfectly fine to overstimulate the economy at full employment, so that they can get going.  And run a deficit to do it.  And we just don’t have to care.

The charts below show where we are in the business cycle (one could also add the yield curve), so chances are we’ll care sooner rather than later.  Maybe we’ll undermine the EU (Trump offered France a special deal to leave the EU), maybe we’ll cripple our own supply chains in China, or maybe we can’t just keep prolonging our 10-year-old business cycle with deficit-funded tax cuts.  With all the thrashing around there are just too many chances.  Giddiness about economic success didn’t work for 2008.

dow_pastte10

– China not Russia is the issue this time around.  They’re a tough customer, but they’ve gotten to the stage where their continued prosperity depends on ours.  We need a working relationship with them in order to develop a system of shared prosperity.   Throwing our weight around with tariffs before negotiation and insisting on our inherent right to supremacy will only make the real issues tougher.

Further we need to work through the WTO for maximum leverage.  Insisting on unilateral deals just hurts us.

– With all the generalized belligerence it’s hard not to worry about war now too.   Perhaps with Iran, perhaps not.  Perhaps Bolton is only in the administration to shut him up.  But perhaps not… With history as evidence this is the ultimate for unpleasant unanticipated consequences.

 

The world is more leveraged and more interconnected than in 2008.  We’re going off the rails in the same ways as before.  Time to stop this train.

The Firebug

448276456_82de10ff01_z

As the NY Times reported, Jimmy Kimmel had a concise summary of Trump’s treatment of immigrant children: “Thank you, Mr. President, for lighting the house on fire and now taking credit for putting the fire out.”

It’s good that someone noticed, but this case is far from unique.  Trump’s firebug behavior happens all the time, and he almost always gets away with it.  As with a real firebug, you can see the permanent damage once the false heroics are over.

Example number 1 is North Korea.  Trump started the fire with his visions of an imminent attack and then whipped it up as he played the out-of-control lunatic preparing a preemptive strike.  There never was any scenario where it made sense for Kim to attack the US, so Trump was in complete control of the perceived nuclear threat.  In a truly virtuoso performance he kept the fire going for many months of ups and downs (no surprise that the meeting was “almost cancelled”).  And the final act did no more than put out his own fire.

The nuclear security of the US is no better or worse than it was at the beginning.   There was no disarmament or even a concrete plan.  All the concessions were on the US side—approval of the regime and the cancelled military maneuvers (a signal of intended withdrawal).  All we’ve got is Trump telling us that Kim is now a buddy—which recalls George W. Bush’s famous comment on Putin: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy—I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

The damage is on two fronts.  The first is the ringing endorsement of nuclear proliferation.   The best quote is from Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) “We support diplomacy and peaceful solutions. But there is no agreement on nuclear disarmament and this all looked more like a big welcome party to the nuclear-armed club.”  The second problem is the signal of intended withdrawal.  China was undoubtedly happy to hear it.

However, firebug behavior is even worse when it substitutes for addressing a real problem.  That’s what seems to be happening with the Chinese trade war.  It looks like North Korea all over again.

We started the trade wars, and they’re in the news every day.  As with the Korean affair, we get a steady diet of Trump’s tough-talking belligerence together with analyst worries about the consequences.  That’s all self-created fire.  Despite the fuss, the real worry is that we’ve been set up for the deal to dowse it. Since the Chinese have already announced willingness to do something, and since Trump needs very little to cry success, there should be no problem getting the kind of PR-oriented agreement we got from Kim.  Market access can be as murky as denuclearization.

There’s another factor too.  China matters to Trump in a way no one should ever forget.  The development of China is the biggest single opportunity for the future of Trump’s businesses.   The $500 M already reported is the tiniest bit of it.  That’s another reason this great deal is going to happen.

And the damage will be monumental.

For starters, the Chinese are not amused and have cut back Chinese investment in the US to almost nothing.  Deal or no deal, there’s no reason to believe they’ll turn that around.  It also says a lot about the level of true cooperation we’re going to get on any deal.

The main point, though, is that we will miss a historic opportunity to get real trade concessions from the Chinese.  By antagonizing our European allies as well as the Chinese, we’re losing half our leverage, and Trump’s need for a deal undercuts negotiations even more.  Following the North Korean model, we’ll take what we’re given.  As the Business Roundtable of CEO’s pointed out from the beginning, there’s a real danger of missing the boat entirely.

Arson is not a victimless crime.

 

Instead of Trade Wars

3067527866_b13ca1137a_b

It tells a lot about our current economic policy to compare it with China’s own plan for their economy.  They want to move up the value chain—to be Apple with the big profits instead of a hardware supplier in a highly-competitive business.  They want to do that across the board in all technologies.  They aren’t afraid of automation’s impacts; they want to push it as hard as they can.  Having transitioned their economy to free market concepts, they are ready to transition their workforce to what it takes to win.  They want to be us!

Except that we don’t want to be us anymore.  We don’t like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. because those companies don’t hire very many people without technical skills.  We need to set tariffs to bring back the 1950’s, so that those people can have jobs.  And our country is a disaster area until we do that.  So we need trade wars to be great again.

There are a number of problems with that logic.

1.You can’t support our standard of living on non-competitive businesses. To be rich you need to be on top of the value chain.  That involves a number of factors, such as

–  A skilled workforce.  Implies support for education.

–  Equality of opportunity, so that we can use all talents and ideas.  Education is a big part of it, but healthcare and other contributors to family stability are important too.

– To be the place where people with entrepreneurial ideas will want to come realize them.  Google (with an immigrant founder) and Apple (Steve Jobs’ father was a Syrian immigrant) are convenient examples.

– Creating a global environment for trade and cooperation where we can be successful.  That means international engagement.

If we want to maintain our standard of living, these items are primary and we should be doing everything necessary (as China understands) to be successful.  There is not necessarily just one winner, but you have to be playing the right game.

2.The well-being of the population requires separate attention. The problems today are not because business is hurting.   It isn’t.  The population is not prospering as it should from our financial success, because we (through our government) have chosen NOT to make it happen. We have blocked investment in the population and the public good, and just given more and more of the created wealth to the wealthy.  That’s why we can’t fund education or infrastructure.  The new tax plan is a recent and extreme example.

It says a lot about the political climate that Trump can make a statement like “cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vile infrastructure” (in rejecting the Paris Climate agreement) and get away with it.  The statement is true, because he and others like him have made it that way.

3.Tariffs are not a miracle solution; they are a tax. Tariffs are designed to raise the price of the products sold internally, so as to protect domestic businesses. That means that non-competitive businesses are supported at the expense of others (businesses or individuals) that use those products (e.g. steel).  The markup is effectively a tax.   You can do some of that, but just as with any other tax you have to look at who gets hurt (e.g. anyone who builds with steel).   The effect is not all that different from using taxes to support public works (and public works directly pay people not companies).  You just have to decide what, as a nation, you want to get done.

It should be noted that protected companies have little incentive to make themselves more competitive on an international scale, so the tax is usually forever.  Also companies that need tariffs to compete are by definition highly cost-sensitive, so wages need to be tightly controlled.  Tariffs—like other presents to businesses—are a way of dealing with exceptional or temporary issues (e.g. real national security or bankruptcy), and they certainly don’t help with automation.  They are not a miracle tool for recreating the 1950’s.

4.Isolating ourselves behind trade barriers is conceding the game to China. Compared to Europe, the US had a much bigger domestic market than any other player, and that helped the US to evolve for financial success.  China already has a bigger domestic economy than we do, and they’ve just gotten started.  They’re putting money into infrastructure and education.  Their AI systems have bigger databases to learn from.  They’ve taken over our leading role for technologies of climate change.

With trade barriers, and xenophobia, and intellectual property paranoia we risk losing our edge.  China’s industrial espionage is a problem that requires continuing attention, but the effects of our new isolation policies may make matters worse.

 

That’s where we’re going.   What’s especially bad about it is that we’re making a mess of what is actually a promising situation.  The rise of China is at this point an opportunity, and we’re missing the boat out of sheer greed and ego.  What has to happen is

1. We need to open the Chinese market. China is now rich enough to be significant as a market.  One way to think of the opportunity is the enormous recent increase in the number of Chinese now traveling abroad.  Those people are our potential market and even the Chinese government has to listen to them.  Further, the US plus Europe represents 36% (18 + 18) of the Chinese output.  With that kind of leverage we don’t need a trade war (as emphasized by the Business Roundtable of corporate CEO’s), we just need to use it for the situation we’re in.  Instead we are stuck with two trade wars, because in Trump’s world we’re fixated on being the only winner—a good way to make sure that everyone loses.

2. We need to do everything possible (including all points noted earlier) to support the economic strength of the country in the current technological world—as opposed to the world of the 1950’s.

3. We need to go back to translating economic success into well-being of the population. It is to our benefit to get everyone on-board with what it takes to be successful.  Furthermore, we need to remember that there is an important place in the economy for public works—and not just roads and bridges.  There’s no shortage of work that needs to be done, and we just gave companies $1.4 T to not do it.  Even Adam Smith knew that not every job that needs doing will spontaneously arise from the private sector.

It’s a simple as that.  Most wars are fought out of stupidity.  Including trade wars.

 

Trump’s Fabulous Foreign Policy Triumphs

441215899_67bd8c207a_b1

Trump’s foreign policy has been a media success. David Brooks has decreed that Trump’s “Lizard Wisdom” is far superior to liberal elitism.  Others have called attention to Trump’s fiendishly-clever strategy of brutal attack followed by pull-back to less crazy positions.  That approach hasn’t done much for the real world, but it sure has worked with the press.

With North Korea the press turned from hysteria at the “rocket man” rhetoric to admiration when Trump decided to cool it by accepting Kim’s meeting proposal.  All that  happened, though, is that Kim received a gift that North Korean leaders have wanted for years—certified international status—with no preconditions, which is to say with no commitment to do anything at all.

Kim is running this show for his own benefit.  Whether there will be advantages or disadvantages to the US remains to be seen, but Chinese president Xi sure doesn’t look unhappy.  And the presumption of success adds pressure on Trump to get an agreement under whatever assurances Kim will accept.  The only success in this picture is Trump’s convincing the press of an accomplishment.

Next about China.  David Brooks was crowing about a new opening for American cars—ignoring that Xi had already announced an opening for American cars before the trade war.  Trump’s trade war with China seems to be following the pattern of North Korea:  bluster followed by an agreement that can be trumpeted as “great”.  And the press is likely to fall for it again, overjoyed that the trade war has been replaced by “reason”.

In fact the dual trade wars (China and the EU) have greatly weakened the negotiations with China, and Xi can be quite happy with the cards Trump has dealt.  The U.S. represents 18% of China’s exports; the EU is almost the same.  Trump took half his leverage off the table with the attack on the EU.  As far as Xi is concerned—only in his dreams!

The third issue is the cancelling of the Iran nuclear deal.  This isn’t a case of bluster and retreat, but it’s another pretty story for public consumption.  Trump, Brooks and others talk about the moral imperative (ignoring the nuclear weapons consequences) of imposing sanctions for Iran’s other transgressions.  However, not only is it clear that the sanctions strengthen the hand of the fanatical clerics, but also by turning on the sanctions we have just played our last card.  We’re simply out of the game in Iran, waiting for rescue by regime change.   It’s interesting that we expect ordinary Iranians to love us and hate the Mullahs, because we choose to starve the poor and bankrupt the middle class.

Iran now has no reason (short of war) to care about US policy,  a position they succinctly expressed with the immediate rocket attack on Israel.  We have taken one more step to complete irrelevancy in the Middle East, this time leading to a possible war and a nuclear Iran.

As Trump has said over and over again:  he can’t lose because he owns the press—he’s just too good as copy.  On foreign policy you can push that one step farther: the copy is all you get.

Tesla and Ice

13466619083_803e381a03_b

This is a short note on a couple of issues related only in that they say something relevant about the future we should be planning for.

The first relates to Tesla and its production difficulties with the new, lower-priced model 3.  The highly-automated production of the model 3 is well-behind schedule, to the point where it is a big hit to the cash flow of the company.  We mention it here, though, because the delay is an indication that mass production of electric cars is something fundamentally new.

An electric car is a much simpler machine than an ordinary, gas-powered vehicle.  In principle the construction should be both cheaper and easier to automate.  Current production of Teslas is intrinsically a low-volume operation.  The model 3 will be the first indication of what newly-imagined electric car production is like.

I don’t know if we’re in for a shock or not (this is after all a first go at it), but this could be another big change to conventional middle-class employment.  And there will be follow-on effects for gas stations, and especially maintenance and repair.  This is another of many indications that broad, technology-based disruption of jobs is going to happen.

 

The other story is about the commissioning of a new class of Russian icebreaker—targeted at clearing northern ship lanes freed up by the retreat of polar ice with global warming.  The phenomenon is already clear, although the amount of traffic is still small.  The Russians are preparing for the opportunity with multiple classes of new machines planned for release up to 2025.  The Chinese have announced cooperation with the objective of reducing shipping times to Europe by a third.

The US is of course uninterested in consequences of climate change.  The only Coast Guard ice breaker is 40 years old, and they have a hard time getting authorization to get a new one.  The Bering strait, however, could be a shipping lane.

This is a very small example, but climate change affects many things, and as a country we’re trying to avoid finding out about them.

 

The current federal budget is put together for a world where the private sector will take care of everything.  That has always been a fantasy—the efficiency of the private sector comes in large part from its ability to ignore everything not relevant to immediate financial success.  It is particularly false for a world undergoing fundamental change.  We either recognize it and help people through it, or we fall behind and revert to the nightmares of the nineteenth century.

Keeping Score on North Korea

nkorea

Now that Fox News has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump, it’s time to go over what has happened thus far with North Korea and what is likely to happen from here on out.  Here’s the timeline.

1. Trump and Kim Jong-un exchange rocket launches, military maneuvers, nuclear tests, insults, and other hysterics, so the world gets worried something disastrous might happen. This enhances the domestic position and international profile of both participants.

2. The South Korean President—elected on a platform of better relations with the North—takes the occasion of the Olympics to try to calm the situation.

3. Kim seizes the opportunity and opens a full-scale charm offensive toward the South. Kim’s sister easily bests Mike Pence in the Olympic charm event.

4. Trump reverses decades of US policy and agrees to a one-on-one meeting with Kim without pre-conditions. Score 1 for Kim.

5. South Korea’s president, seeing Trump’s threats and how little South Korea’s welfare figured into US policy, realizes he can’t count on the US as a reliable ally. This is a strong incentive to conclude a peace process agreement with the North.  Score 1 more for Kim.

6. For US consumption Kim has now been declared “very honorable” and Trump is a hero for resolving the situation. The negotiation is considered a success before it has begun.  On the basis of negotiating position, score 1 more for Kim.

7. The most probable outcome is a staged denuclearization of North Korea in exchange for a draw-down of US military personnel and equipment in the South. The “staged denuclearization” we’ve seen many times before; the US military disengagement is new.  Trump exults over the money saved.  Score 2 for Kim.

8. The final situation essentially replaces US influence in South Korea with North Korean influence. Further this is one more step in the US disengagement from Asia to the benefit of China.  Score 1 more for Kim, 4 for Xi Jinping.

9. Final score:  Kim 6, Xi 4, US 0

Update on Climate Change

s09_FossilFuel_and_Cement_emissions_1990

This note is an update to the climate change article from last year.  The story hasn’t gotten any better, but there is enough that’s new to warrant a revisit.

The most fundamental piece of bad news is the opening figure, which comes from the Global Carbon Project.  After three years of seeming stability, the world production of carbon dioxide increased significantly in 2017.  (The figure says “projection” just to indicate that the final computations are in process.)  Without too much evidence we might as well call that the Trump bump.  As we noted last time, worldwide unanimity on climate change is important precisely because the advantages of cheating are so obvious.  We—with probably the most to gain from the Paris Agreement process—are the cheaters in chief.  So it’s not surprising others will have fewer second thoughts as well.

We have to put this change into perspective.  Even a stable value of CO2 emission means things are getting worse, because it is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that drives temperature change, and it all adds up.  The stable value was attractive, because it seemed to indicate that CO2 had finally peaked and might start to decline.  And the decline might mean the total CO2 could be bounded.  We’re now back to worrying about the peak, with no idea how bad things will get.

Two more new slides from the Global Carbon Project show what we stand to gain from Paris Agreement unanimity.  The first shows the current per capita production of carbon dioxide.

s12_Top_FF_Emitters_percapita

As has been true for many years US per capita usage sits way above everyone else, more than twice both Europe and China.  That is a direct expression of our carbon-powered standard of living.

The second slide shows who is going to have to make changes to protect that US standard of living from the effects of climate change.

s11_Projections

This shows that the major growth in carbon dioxide production is not from the biggest economies (note that even China has stabilized), it’s from the have-nots trying to achieve some fraction of our standard of living.   We are asking them to ignore not only our past exploitation of fossil fuel resources but even our current high per capita use and to delay their own immediate hopes for a better life in order to make the world a safer place for everyone.  So much for the question of who benefits from the Paris Agreement process!

That introduces the next topic—public attitudes to climate change.  There were enough strange weather events in the past year to give people pause, so we’re getting close to—but still not over—the hump.  The latest poll numbers have both good news and bad.  First the good news:

Overall, 45 percent of those surveyed said global warming would pose a serious threat in their lifetimes, the highest overall percentage recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. Despite partisan divisions, majorities of Americans as a whole continue to believe by wide margins that most scientists think global warming is taking place, that it is caused by human activities and that its effects have begun.

Then the bad—the improvement is only partisan:

Gallup asked whether people agreed that most scientists believe global warming is occurring, and 42 percent of Republicans said yes, down from 53 percent a year earlier and back to a level last seen in 2014. Just 35 percent of Republicans said that they believe global warming is caused by human activities, down from 40 percent.

This seems like another proof of a much-discussed feature of human nature—when people are confronted with proof that their beliefs are wrong, they double down on defending those beliefs.   Unfortunately those are the people running the show.

How can turn that around?  A recent Steven Pinker book made an interesting point.  Much of the rhetoric around climate change focusses on conservation and a new world view of collective responsibility.  But conservation actually isn’t the main point—since we’re not repealing the industrial revolution, the main point has to be new energy sources.  We’re not creating a new world where no one drives Chevy Suburbans anymore, we’re just changing the power source.  Conservation, however important, is about buying time until we can get there.  Perhaps that’s one way to get climate change out of the culture wars (as it should be).

In any case the focus has to be on the reality of climate change, and everything else is tactics. With tactics it’s easier to be bipartisan.   One indication is that Congress, over Trump’s objection, passed a bill continuing tax breaks for solar, nuclear, geothermal, and carbon-capture projects.  This effort united left-wing and right-wing approaches to climate change largely under the radar.  However, it must be recognized that even with such efforts the US is now lagging far behind in support for the technology of climate change.

Carbon capture (separating out CO2 and storing it underground or elsewhere) deserves some special mention, because it has become a bigger topic in the past year.  On one hand this is an idea that has been around for decades without going very far, and what’s more the coal industry supports it as a lifeline.  On the other hand the technology seems to be improving, the Obama administration supported it as a transitional technology, and even the IPCC climate studies assume some form of it will be used.  It currently exists as an expensive add-on for power plants, and some still-speculative variants have been proposed to pull carbon dioxide straight out of the air.  Both the power plant and out-of-the-air applications have a common need for CO2 storage technology, of which there are many variants.

The biggest issue with carbon capture is that it can be (and is being) used to delay doing anything about climate change—why worry about carbon getting into the atmosphere if we’ll pull it all out later.  The problem is that the technology still has such big questions about cost and scaling, that “later” could be very late or never (and some effects, such as melting glaciers, are irreversible).  What you have to say is that the technology investment is necessary and at worst it at least gets the climate dialog past the hoax stage.  And if we could just get the Kochs interested in that business (which is largely oil industry technology), it would settle the Republican perception of climate change once and for all!

Returning to reality, we have to conclude the past year seems like a pause for progress.  After Trump took the US out of the Paris Agreement, many wanted to talk about all that could be done to maintain momentum nonetheless.  The chart at the beginning shows the limits of that point of view.  There are other indicators as well:

– The auto industry’s step back from future fuel efficiency standards

Exxon’s declaration that climate change is no risk to their profits

– Business as usual in the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook:

iea_weo

– Even the new preoccupation with carbon capture has to be viewed as a vote of no-confidence in the progress of conservation.   If prevention isn’t going to happen, then repair is all we’ve got.

What’s more than there has even been a preoccupation with a more drastic step, so-called geo-engineering.  This means injecting chemicals or particles into the atmosphere so as to dim the sun and cool the earth despite the increasing CO2 concentration.  There are many risks:  continuing ocean acidification, reduced photosynthesis and food supply, and weaponization of the technology.  Since CO2 would continue to accumulate, any loss of protection would have disastrous effects.  These are desperate measures.

As to what we should be doing, the picture is not too different from last year, but we can be perhaps more explicit.

  1. Because burning carbon is now recognized to have definite costs (i.e. whatever is necessary to counteract the CO2 increase), we need some kind of carbon tax so that the free market economy can react correctly. Since that cost is not currently captured, our economy is incurring a significant distortion that needs to be fixed.
  2. We need to get back into the Paris Agreement process to return focus to the goal. To repeat the obvious, the Paris process was always intended to be iterative—with countries readjusting their goals to eventually reach the target. We’re only at step one, so we had better help the world get back on-track.
  3. We have to recognize that at this stage we’re in no position to judge winners and losers among contributing technologies. So the solution has to be all of the above: nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, batteries, carbon capture, even substituting gas for coal as a temporary measure.  The IPCC gave us what they called a carbon dioxide budget—the amount of CO2 we can add and still stay below a global temperature rise of 2 ⁰ C.  In 2014 (the year of the report) it was 800 giga-tons.  It is now below 700.
  4. People have to recognize that despite confusing news reports, we are all in this together. Some people will be hit by sea-level rise, some by drought, some by sheer temperature, some by storms, some by an effect we haven’t seen yet. Some may even be a little later.  But ultimately there’s nowhere to hide, and even “later” comes fast.
  5. There is no excuse for not funding research in all the contributing technologies and also research to understand the climate effects we are going to live with for however many years it takes to get past fossil fuels.
  6. Ideally all elements of society should be involved in planning such major changes. The carbon tax will help make that happen, but it’s not the whole story. We can’t keep fighting about this.

This administration likes to talk about itself as bringing business practices to government.   The evidence for climate change is such that any reasonable business would be doing its best to quantify the risk, so as to take appropriate action.   Businesses that choose to ignore disruptive new technologies or entrants are the ones that disappear—along with their disparaging comments on how the new stuff will never amount to anything.  Unless we choose to wake up—that’s us.

It’s time to be real.

 

Yet Another Gift to China

9031550701_8a4fc41710_o

The first point to make is that the current hysteria about a trade war with China is parallel to what happened a few months ago with North Korea.  Then we had weeks of unhinged bluster that kept the press busy around the clock.  Finally it dissipated without a trace when Trump gave in to Kim’s request for a meeting—ignoring all of his and other Presidents’ demands for preconditions.

Trump had his weeks of media-certified toughness and was on to the next photo op.

(It’s not clear what will come out of the meeting, but if the South Korean trade deal is any model—it takes very little to put on a media show of triumph.  Also, it’s hard not to wonder what would happen if the two Koreas got together and decided to keep the nukes.  After all, Trump campaigned on a platform of forcing allies to take full responsibility for their own defense!)

A trade war with China is a God-given opportunity.   The Chinese have already announced as yet unspecified trade openings for the West.  So the punch line is already there—all that’s necessary is the prelude.  We’re currently getting our full-scale dose of Trump toughness on trade.  Every time the stock market goes up or down it’s just that much more publicity.  And the conclusion will be a triumphant proof of Trump’s populism for the mid-term elections.  But since Trump needs a deal, that means—as with Kim—that the Chinese are running the show.

As we’ve noted here before, this is a critical time for negotiation with China.   The West needs to be united in setting the stage for what could be a major period of international growth.  By definition this needs to be done within the framework of the WTO.  Instead of that, however, we have Trump claiming a “national security” exemption for every act of his trade war—thereby undermining the whole notion of WTO-based standards for trade.

There’s just nothing that won’t be sacrificed to a photo op.