A Curious Little Blog

Biden has now rejoined the Paris climate accords.  Back when Trump withdrew from them, there was a lot of talk about how there was no need to withdraw since all the targets were voluntary anyway.  (One wonders what the point of being party to the agreement is in that case, but we'll leave that aside.)  In what I believe to be an unprecedented developement, private organizations in France sued the national government for failing to live up to its commitments under the agreement and actually won in court.  This is unusual on multiple levels.  For one, I'm not sure what standing any group could possibly have to sue its government over an international treaty.  Perhaps that is a nicety of common law as opposed to Roman law; I don't know enough to say.  For another, it is hard to see exactly what this suit achieves for the plaintiffs.  The court ordered the government to pay one franc as a fine, and I don't see any other remedies included, so it is di...

Going back to my youth, I have been concerned that the main sides in the political debate do not talk to each other.  They produce articles and books arguing in favour of their own position, and sometimes arguing against their opponents, but almost never approaching their opponents' arguments with the seriousness that they would want for their own.  It is generally enough to find one person making a bad version of an argument, and refute that; no one feels obligated to refute the best arguments that their opponents have to offer.  The result of this is obvious for all to see, but I find it was nicely anticipated some 600 years ago by Christine de Pisane, who wrote, Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart's content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence. (from The Letter o...

No wonder people don't trust economists. When people tell you that cap-and-trade will lead to job growth , it doesn't fit common sense. Of course, a new government program on this magnitude will certainly create jobs, exactly as claimed: "research and development in new technologies, new factories to produce solar panels and wind turbines, and energy-efficiency retrofits of commercial and residential real estate." But the question is, will it be a net increase in jobs? Because even the authors of this article admit that "some businesses that rely on dirty energy will be hurt." (Why not all of them? Are some of them getting permits for free?) Things get the most confusing when they involve money, because money is a very slippery subject. According to the article cited above, "almost all of the revenue from the permit auction is returned to the American public." Therefore, even though the authors admit that energy prices will rise, they ass...

I know that the big news of the day is yesterday's election. As a conservative, obviously I am happy at how things turned out. As a Virginian, I am excited that Virginia has elected a Republican for a change -- only the third since I began following politics in 1980. As an analyst, however, I have nothing new to add, so I will write about something else: environmentalism as a support system for the depressed. I was excited recently to find a link to the following video, which I had seen back in May, but had been unable to locate a link since then (thanks to Linkiest ): Everyone ought to see this video to see what some environmentalists are like. As their name indicates, " Earth First! " is about "biocentrism," or "spiritual and visceral recognition of the intrinsic, sacred value of every living thing" -- plants on the same level as humans. Actually, as you can see in the video, "Earth First!" also values decidedly non-living things such...