<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/">
<title>EclectEcon</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>Eclectic views on economics, policy, sports, etc.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-07-25T23:07+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1214079648.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1195181751.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1192143077.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1186962394.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1170507553.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169492778.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169502863.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1133466762.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1214079648.shtml">
<title>Weather Report from Mars</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1214079648.shtml</link>
<description>This is not a joke (unlike the e-mail that claims to be a picture of water on Mars)....</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-04T05:07+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/exploration/phoenix_weather1.asp">This is not a joke</a> (unlike the e-mail that claims to be a picture of water on Mars). <BR />
<BR />
The Canadian Space Agency posts weather reports on a semi-regular basis, using data from the Phoenix.<BR />
<BR />
Highs near -30C, lows near -80C. As humans continue their colonization of space, perhaps Albertans could migrate there without much difficulty.<BR />
<BR />
<span class="small"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><strong>Note:</strong> I am pleased to see that the Canadian Space Agency uses the standard temperature protocol: C stands for Canadian temperatures; F stands for foreign temperatures.</span></span><BR />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1195181751.shtml">
<title>Pigou vs. Coase and Carbon Emissions&lt;br>&lt;i>EclectEcon Considers Leaving the Pigou Club&lt;/i></title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1195181751.shtml</link>
<description>A consistent theme running through the famous article, "The Problem of Social Cost" by Ronald Coase is that it is not always efficient to charge a tax on some activity...</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-19T06:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A consistent theme running through the famous article, "<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2186(196010)3%3C1%3ATPOSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F">The Problem of Social Cost</a>" by Ronald Coase is that it is not always efficient to charge a tax on some activity that generates costs borne by others. As I reflect on the social costs that might be attributable to global warming, despite what I have written <a href="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1161765244.shtml">earlier</a>, I wonder whether maybe Pigouvian taxes imposed on carbon-based fuels might not be the best way of dealing with the risk of global warming. <BR />
<BR />
I used to think that if carbon emissions are a problem, then we should just "tax the snot out of 'em". <a href="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1161765244.shtml">I wrote about this earlier</a> in a posting titled "To Pigou or Not To Pigou," but  even then I had concerns about whether the implementation of Pigou taxes on carbon-based fuels would be practical or politically feasible. <BR />
<BR />
As I ponder it more, I am even less certain that Pigou taxes are the most efficient route to take. Maybe it would be more efficient just to let global warming happen (especially given the uncertainty about whether humans can do anything about global warming, and given some questions about whether it is occurring, and if it is, whether it is attributable to human action: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1552639460?ie=UTF8&tag=theeconoclast-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1552639460">see this</a>). Maybe, given the costs of trying to implement any other policy, and given the risk that "doing something" now might involve high costs with little or no benefits,... maybe we should just let it happen, and if it does, then deal with it. <BR />
<BR />
Waiting; and then building dikes and moving people could well be a whole lot cheaper. That doesn't mean it would be efficient not to consider other options. That doesn't mean it would be efficient not to plan strategically for the building of dikes and levees. That doesn't mean it would be efficient not to plan for the future. It just means that the planning should include the possibility of not trying to prevent global warming but instead coping with it, should it occur.<BR />
<BR />
<center><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theeconoclast-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1552639460&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=F7F4D8&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe><a href=""></a></center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1192143077.shtml">
<title>Gore Gored</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1192143077.shtml</link>
<description>Yesterday, Jack sent me this from the Financial Post. It is a scathing attack on "An Inconvenient Truth" and the British School System's attempts to indoctrinate children using Al Gore's...</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-10-12T05:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Yesterday, Jack sent me this from the <a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=4b5691e1-b6c1-4de1-997b-95cb7f2d6756">Financial Post</a>. It is a scathing attack on "An Inconvenient Truth" and the British School System's attempts to indoctrinate children using Al Gore's film.<br />
<blockquote>... The 11 inaccuracies that the court found are not quibbles. They represent the film's most spectacular claims about the dangers of global warming, and form the very basis of the film. Were the film to be edited to have these inaccuracies removed, in fact, vanishingly little would be left.<br />
<br />
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro demonstrate global warming. The government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. <br />
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 caused temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period, the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800 to 2,000 years. <br />
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina, which it suggests was caused by global warming. The government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. <br />
- The film attributes the drying up of Lake Chad to global warming. The government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. <br />
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice. It turned out that Gore had misread the study: In fact, four polar bears drowned because of a particularly violent storm. - The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age. The claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. <br />
- The film blames global warming for species losses, including coral reef bleaching. The government could not find any evidence to support this claim. <br />
- The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. <br />
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting. The evidence was that it is in fact increasing. <br />
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over the next 100 years, and that there is no such threat of massive migration. <br />
- The film claims that rising sea levels have caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The government was unable to substantiate this claim and the court observed that this appears to be a false claim.<br />
<br />
The judge's final decision is expected within the week. It promises to change how and what students are taught, and to empower teachers and students alike who choose to think for themselves. In classrooms in Canada and elsewhere around the world, meanwhile, our children are not empowered to question the conventional wisdom on climate change, and teachers continue to show An Inconvenient Truth without any guidance to the children in their charge. </blockquote> <b>Update:</b> That he won the Nobel Peace Prize only renews and deepens my disrespect for that committee and its processes. Fortunately, the economics Nobel is decided by different people. For more, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html?wpisrc=newsletter">see this from WaPo</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1186962394.shtml">
<title>Warm-Mongers!</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1186962394.shtml</link>
<description>That's the phrase used by Mark Steyn in yesterday's column, in which he points out that NASA's reported data about temperatures in the US have been revised downward for the...</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-13T05:08+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[That's the phrase used by <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1804986.php">Mark Steyn</a> in yesterday's column, in which he points out that NASA's reported data about temperatures in the US have been revised <b>downward</b> for the 1990s and early 21st century:<BR />
<blockquote>Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.<BR />
<BR />
Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast.</blockquote> If all this is right, why are Al Gore, David Suzuki, and the other global warming fanatics still being listened to? If all this is right, then surely people will eventually stop paying as much attention to the warm-mongers.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1170507553.shtml">
<title>More On Getting Rid of the Penny:&lt;br>Greening the Currency</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1170507553.shtml</link>
<description>Scoop, an anonymous politico, sent me the following suggestion:...</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-02-06T17:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Scoop, an anonymous politico, sent me the following suggestion:<BR />
<blockquote>...you can bring back the ban the penny campaign and kick it into high gear...all you need to do is remind people that the mining and smelting of copper, nickel, and zinc creates green house gases. Ban the penny to save the world! </blockquote> For some background on getting rid of the penny (and nickel) see <a href="http://the-econoclast.blogspot.com/2005/01/lets-get-rid-of-pennies-and-nickels.html">this</a>, <a href="http://the-econoclast.blogspot.com/2005/02/son-of-ban-penny-and-nickel.html">this</a>, and <a href="http://www.eclectecon.com/posts/1145828274.shtml">this</a> or just follow this blog's category, "<a href="http://eclectecon.com/pennies/">Pennies</a>".]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169492778.shtml">
<title>How Long Until the End of the World?</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169492778.shtml</link>
<description>Jack sent me this article, which roughly suggests maybe 5 billion years until the earth is swallowed up by the sun. Maybe....</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-01-27T17:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jack sent me <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070122/sc_space/earthsmoondestinedtodisintegrate">this article</a>, which roughly suggests maybe 5 billion years until the earth is swallowed up by the sun. Maybe.<BR />
<blockquote>The Sun is midway through its stable hydrogen burning phase known as the main sequence. But when the Sun enters the red giant phase in around 5 billion years things are going to get a lot rougher in the Earth-Moon system.<BR />
<BR />
... If the Sun's photosphere reaches Earth, our planet too will experience drag and spiral into the Sun to be incinerated.<BR />
<BR />
There are possible natural alternatives, however.<BR />
<BR />
If the Sun as a red giant sloughs off enough material before Earth evaporates, our planet will be revealed from its stellar cocoon in a Moon-less guise. Earth,  robbed of its companion, would undertake a lonely vigil as the Sun turns eventually into a stellar corpse called a white dwarf Sun, fading to black over the ensuing trillions of years.<BR />
<BR />
Alternatively, if the swelling Sun loses 20 percent of its mass prior to it reaching our vicinity, both Earth and Moon could be spared incineration and remain together facing each other for eternity. The actual outcome remains a theoretical uncertainty because no red giant star has been observed during this crucial phase. </blockquote> To all this, Chris asks,<BR />
<blockquote>The only question on my mind is how Al Gore is going to be able to connect it to cigarette smoking and anthropogenic climate change.</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169502863.shtml">
<title>Shattered Fantasies</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1169502863.shtml</link>
<description>I have had this fantasy all winter that I would not have to snowblow at all this winter. It has been quite warm here, and we missed the horrendous snow storm...</description>
<dc:creator>EclectEcon</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-01-25T17:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have had this fantasy all winter that I would not have to snowblow at all this winter. It has been quite warm here, and we missed the horrendous snow storm in early December (and most of that snow had disappeared by the time we returned from Edmonton - <a href="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1165832421.shtml">see this</a>). <BR />
<BR />
We had had some snow now and then, but it wasn't much, and the temperature always rose again melting what little snow we'd had.<BR />
<BR />
It all came to an end on the weekend. I put it off as long as possible, but finally on Sunday I had to get out the snowblower and chip the ice off the gas can. So much for <i> that</i> fantasy.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1133466762.shtml">
<title>Can 10,000 Delegates Possibly Be Wrong?</title>
<link>http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1133466762.shtml</link>
<description>In "The Winds of Crisis" [Nat'l Post, Nov. 29, FP Comment, p64 ($), h/t to Jack], Terence Corcoran writes about the meeting taking place in Montreal about global warming:...</description>
<dc:creator>John Palmer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-12-01T19:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In "The Winds of Crisis" [Nat'l Post, Nov. 29, FP Comment, p64 ($), h/t to Jack], Terence Corcoran writes about the meeting taking place in Montreal about global warming:<br />
<blockquote>On the rock-solid assumption that 10,000 people from 180 countries cannot possibly reach a rational conclusion on any subject, it follows that the climate meeting launched yesterday in Montreal is destined to do something irrational. The only question is: How much crazier can global climate policy get?<br />
<br />
The last major United Nations climate control operation was the Kyoto Protocol, a carbon emissions plan so far off road that most nations, including host Canada, have been forced to ignore it as unworkable and unattainable.<br />
<br />
Execution of Kyoto would plunge the world into an energy crisis of massive growth-killing power.<br />
<br />
Kyoto expires in 2012. If they couldn’t generate a global energy crisis with Kyoto, they intend to try again with new, tougher targets for a post-Kyoto era.<br />
<br />
Collective delusion knows no bounds. No politician could sell carbon-reduction plans at home without getting laughed out of office. That’s why we have Montreal, where the absurdity can be glossed over by having 10,000 people — politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs, industry types — locked up for two weeks and forced to produce a declaration to end the world economy as we know it. If everybody’s doing it, then it must be OK.</blockquote>I have a friend who has written some items about global warming that have won world acclaim. He is equally skeptical, saying,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A few years back ... , my coauthor and I discussed that fact that Canada would not remotely have the capability of achieving the Kyoto targets. We debated whether the Liberals would be able to ratify it assuming the truth would eventually haunt them politically. I was of the view that they would ratify, then not live up to their commitment and just say they did, while paying no political price. I did not have any insight except shameful cynicism to go on. They did ratify, they committed to reduce CO2 production rates to 1990 rates but rates are now 24% *larger * instead of declining.<br />
<br />
This phenomenon seems to be widespread among those countries who signed Kyoto. (Ironically, the US has been vilified for not signing onto Kyoto but has only a 16% rate increase in the same period.) Now signing onto Kyoto will be put forward in the election as a great achievement for the Liberals. So I suppose I was right, not that it does me or anyone any good.<br />
<br />
Also, according to my forecast about "coincidences" Nature's most recent issue just happens to have a study claiming that global warming is already responsible for 150000 deaths...<br />
Nature is becoming like the National Enquirer. They really cannot help themselves.</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>