Bicycle Pollution

The WSJ has an amusing story today about a battle over bike paths in San Francisco. The fundamental issue is whether bicycles contribute to air pollution. What? The argument in favor of viewing bicycles as polluters is this: the presence of bicycle in traffic causes motor vehicles to reduce speed and spend more time idling, thereby creating more pollution. The bicycles, in other words, have a secondary impact.

I’m not going to worry about the bicycles. But the issue raises an interesting question: what about mass transit? Do buses and light rail systems have a similar secondary impact? They must. Does anyone know the net effect on pollution? It must be circumstantial. But does anyone know the circumstances under which different forms of mass transit have different impacts on pollution? Has anyone thought to ask?

Government Work

One of the most maddening things I hear is the claim that such and so government project will create jobs. Government spending doesn’t create more jobs, it just changes the jobs that are done. Usually this means favoring low productivity jobs over high productivity jobs, making us all less wealthy. Isaac Morehouse explains.

Energy

With all the concern about gas and oil, some people are starting to get enthusiastic about electric cars. Well, maybe electric cars are a great idea, but the real thing of interest is BTUs, whether they come from petroleum, coal, solar, wind, or rotting vegetation. You don’t hear much about BTU numbers, but I found some. The useful unit of measure is quadrillion BTUs. In 1970, the world consumed 300 quadrillion. In 2025, the prediction is 645 quadrillion. That’s more than a doubling of global energy consumption. The percentage consumed by the industrialized world is dropping - it will be less than half by 2025. The emerging economies will consume more energy than the mature economies.

Of course, this huge increase in energy consumption implies a huge increase in the well being of the billions who live in utter poverty today. Most of us underestimate how powerful the forces are that are pushing us in this direction. Billions who want better lives for themselves will not be denied.

Great Advice!

I’ve written before about how heuristics, instead of thinking things through, can get you in trouble. But heuristics can also be a wonderful boon. Mr. Caplan gives us excellent heuristics for dealing with uncertainty.

The Deterrence of Uncertainty

I admit to having been puzzled about why the Russians object to the US placing defensive missiles (aimed at missiles incoming from Iran) in eastern Europe. Here’s a good explanation. What makes deterence work is not the certainty of the response, it’s the uncertainty - and that’s what the Russians object to.

Happy 4th!

Better than I could write for this day:

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Phony Environmentalists

This analysis of the environmental movement has a lot of painful truth in it. I’m sure that there are sincere environmentalists, people who live an eco-friendly lifestyle at great personal sacrifice. But there are many more who demand 21st century comforts for themselves while depriving others of the same comforts. They may be willing to make some token sacrifices, like recycling, but aren’t committed enough to do anything meaningful. How do you identify the phony environmentalists? Here are some identifying characteristics of phony environmentalists:

• Anyone who uses a clothes dryer rather than a clothesline
• Anyone who uses air conditioning in their home or car
• Anyone who eats convenience food
• Anyone who buys bottled water, soft drinks, or beer

You get the idea. No one I know advocates wanton destruction of the environment, but I also know no one who wants to live a primitive and bestial existence - even if the price is some environmental degradation. Mankind began damaging the environment when our ancestors invented agriculture. The question isn’t whether we disturb the environment or not - the question is how and how much.

Gay Marriage

This is about the smartest thing I’ve read on the subject.

Intellectual Honesty

This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on the subject of intellectual honesty. You may not care about the specific subject matter (conspiracy theories about economic data published by the government), but the general issue of intellectual honesty and flawed logic in the blogosphere is relevant to a much wider range of subjects. I sometimes disagree with Mr. Ritholtz, but he always makes a good solid argument. I hope that I adhere to the same standard.

Mark Twain’s Dog

This brilliant posting explores a problem that is very vexing. As Mark Twain put it:

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

The essay explores the problem of “freeloaders” and their resentment of those who actually provide for them. But looking at the situation in that light alone can lead you to a wrong answer. Here’s my fuller description of the problem.

In every society, there are those who cannot provide for themselves. Human empathy drives us to provide for these truly needy. Yet, whenever we do, there will be some people who fraudulently go along for the ride. They could provide for themselves, but they choose not do, and they pose as truly needy and benefit from other’s charity.

It’s tempting to tighten standards to ensure that undeserving do not benefit from the aid intended for the deserving. But enforcing tighter standards can increase the burden on the deserving and even cost more than what would otherwise be misdirected to the undeserving. I can only conclude that any attempt to help the deserving, no matter how efficient, will also help the undeserving. Our true choice, at the extremes, is between helping the undeserving or not helping the deserving. And whether we help the deserving or the undeserving, we will always have the problem of Mark Twain’s dog.

Despite all this, the best answer is not to abandon charity. We should know in advance that charity will be abused and resented. That only goes to make it more charitable.