Category Archives: political economy

Contradictory and Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out, with Valero, California’s major refinery operator, at the center of the contradiction and foolishness.

A refining company proceeding with its plans to idle its gasoline refinery in California announced Tuesday it will help out California consumers by importing gasoline, which will help shore up the state’s dwindling supply.

The refining company is Valero, and it’s being forced to close its refinery by California’s hostile regulatory environment for oil and natural gas production and for gasoline and ICE engine-powered vehicles in particular. The contradiction is Valero’s decision to close its gasoline-producing refinery as no longer economically viable while deciding to import gasoline from outside the State.

The foolishness is Valero’s decision to import gasoline into the State after closing its refinery in the State.

As Tim Stewart, US Oil and Gas Association President, put it as quoted by Just the News,

Governor Newson trumpeting his leadership is like the captain of a sinking ship taking credit for handing out life jackets after he’s crashed the ferry on the rocks. It was the lack of leadership on energy policy that got California to this point….

It’s not entirely Newsom’s fault, though; he had help from his Progressive-Democrat-run State legislature, which passed the laws he signed, and from his regulators, who wrote the implementing regulations.

Much more than that, though, the fault lies with California’s citizens. If those folks really were concerned about their gasoline availability and pricing and their ICE vehicles, they’d stop electing representatives and governors who are overtly hostile to gasoline and local production of gasoline supplies and to ICE vehicles.

An Executive Order Worthy of the Name

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) issued an Executive Order—actually, it’s a MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES—that follows up on his EO 14199 (Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations) which he issued last February.

The current order puts into effect many of the withdrawal recommendations which SecState Marco Rubio reported out to him. The length of the list is an…impressive…list of Woke and otherwise Leftist froo-froo.

It’s good riddance, and we’ll save quite few of our tax dollars.

Non-United Nations Organizations:

(i)       24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;

(ii)      Colombo Plan Council;

(iii)     Commission for Environmental Cooperation;

(iv)      Education Cannot Wait;

(v)       European Centre of Excellence for Countering

(vi)      Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;

(vii)     Freedom Online Coalition;

(viii)    Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;

(ix)      Global Counterterrorism Forum;

(x)       Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;

(xi)      Global Forum on Migration and Development;

(xii)     Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;

(xiii)    Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;

(xiv)     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

(xv)      Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;

(xvi)     International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;

(xvii)    International Cotton Advisory Committee;

(xviii)   International Development Law Organization;

(xix)     International Energy Forum;

(xx)      International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;

(xxi)     International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;

(xxii)    International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;

(xxiii)   International Lead and Zinc Study Group;

(xxiv)    International Renewable Energy Agency;

(xxv)     International Solar Alliance;

(xxvi)    International Tropical Timber Organization;

(xxvii)   International Union for Conservation of Nature;

(xxviii)  Pan American Institute of Geography and History;

(xxix)    Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;

(xxx)     Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;

(xxxi)    Regional Cooperation Council;

(xxxii)   Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;

(xxxiii)  Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;

(xxxiv)   Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and

(xxxv)    Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

United Nations (UN) Organizations:

(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;

(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;

(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;

(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;

(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;

(vi) International Law Commission;

(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;

(viii) International Trade Centre;

(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;

(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;

(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;

(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;

(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;

(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;

(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;

(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;

(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;

(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;

(xix) UN Democracy Fund;

(xx) UN Energy;

(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;

(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;

(xxv) UN Oceans;

(xxvi) UN Population Fund;

(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;

(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;

(xxix) UN System Staff College;

(xxx) UN Water; and

(xxxi) UN University.

 H/t Grim’s Hall

Nuclear Power and Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Both Republican politicians support, and Progressive-Democrat politicians profess support, for nuclear power as a major source of energy for our economy. Progressive-Democrats, though, seems superficial. Here, for instance is Congressman Frank Pallone (D, NJ):

I’ve been supportive of [nuclear], and we’ve been supportive of it as Democrats mostly on a bipartisan basis, but all that is linked to safety. If anything happens that gives the impression or actually makes it so that people’s lives are at risk, or we have some kind of incident, that’s going to be the end of it. I’ll speak for myself but I won’t be able to support it anymore.

Safety matters in nuclear power, just as it does in handling electricity, natural gas, gasoline—and driving down the street and grilling on the patio. There have been three major incidents involving nuclear power. They were Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

The Three Mile Island incident involved a partial meltdown stemming from a stuck valve resulting in loss of coolant to the reactor and operators failing to recognize the fact of the loss of coolant soon enough. Despite those failures, the reactor’s overall design prevented further damage, and radiation release was minimal—generally equivalent to the amount a patient receives during a chest X-ray—and there were no fatalities.

The Chernobyl incident resulted in several immediate casualties and a number of follow-on casualties, and it was the result of serious operator error and poor design. The incident occurred during a test of power-out shutdown procedures that was carried out despite an existing serious power drop during ongoing operations. The design failure was demonstrated by the attempt to shut down the reactor during those conditions resulting in a large power surge that the system could not handle.

The Fukushima incident was driven by a well-offshore earthquake followed by a tsunami, and it had a reactor meltdown, which would seem an especially dangerous and lethal failure. However, the reactor was designed and built to handle all of that but the tsunami, which flooding caused loss of power, leading to the meltdown. By design, the meltdown was contained. Radiation release was extremely limited, and the fatalities ensuing consisted of hospitalized patients and nursing home resident elderly who died while being evacuated due to failures of the evacuation process. No fatalities from the reactor failure occurred.

Nuclear power is safe, when the designs are sound and, especially, when construction and subsequent operation are carried out carefully and in accordance with specifications. When those factors are met, nuclear power compares very favorably with the fatality rates from driving an automobile or truck, from flying commercial, and from riding the train. They compare favorably with the fatality rate inflicted on birds by windmills, and with the loss of habitat from building solar farms.

Pallone surely knows this, which makes his “support” very much a superficial position.

It’s time the naysayers—and not only some Progressive-Democrat pretenders—to get out of the way. Nuclear power is much greener than wind or solar, and it is much steadier and more reliable at generating electricity.

Maybe this will Prod

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe it’ll prod us both. The People’s Republic of China has cut off export of rare earths and the magnets made from them to Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent commentary about Japan’s strengthening resolve to assist the Republic of China in the event of a PRC invasion.

China has begun choking off exports of rare earths and rare-earth magnets to Japan, a potential blow to Japanese companies that use them to produce components for global chip makers, car companies and defense firms.

It really is getting time, and urgently so, for Japan to pull all of its supply chains out of the PRC. Doing so would eliminate nearly all of the PRC’s economic leverage over Japan short of going to war over the sea lines of communication on which Japan depends.

The PRC’s move also should be a serious prod for us to get off the dime and move all of our supply chains out of the PRC. It’s time we proofed ourselves against PRC economic pressure, along with Japan. Nearly half of our economy’s imports flow through portions of those same SLOCs to our west coast.

A Quick Thought on Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

The lede sets the table for my thought, even while mixing similes or metaphors or somethings.

The highest tariffs in almost a century haven’t caused the massive surge in inflation many economists feared. But that shouldn’t have come as a surprise, according to two new studies.

Begin with the understanding that today’s economy, both domestic and as we interact and intertwine with other nations’ economies, is far more complex than it was during the 19th and early 20th century heydays of tariffs.

Within that understanding, we don’t know the lags, if any, between tariff implementation and domestic price increases. That’s true whether the tariffs are implemented in specific economic areas or across the domestic board. Nor do we understand the mechanisms by which tariffs on foreign goods and services have their effect on domestic goods and services or on our economy in general. Nor do we understand the pathways by which those mechanisms might work their effects.

Each of these must be determined empirically, and that takes time. Presently, we’re in a nation-wide experiment that will provide the data that will let us understand each of these unknowns.

For how long must this experiment run before we can say reasonably definitively that tariffs are not having more than a minor effect on prices? That’s also unknown, but I suspect an outer bound on that is a couple of years.

Disruptive in the near term the Trump tariffs—or at least his rhetoric about them—might seem to be, it’s much to soon to assess their disruptiveness or lack in the intermediate and longer terms.