I found Rahul Tongla’s piece at Brookings on the unfairness of pushing poor countries to reduce their carbon emissions aggravating for a number of reasons. Here’s the kernel of the piece:

The poor need more energy, and much of it will be clean energy which is already viable. It’s the last fraction of energy that is hard to keep fossil-free. It can be done – at a cost. That cost should disproportionally be borne by the rich, first as they go full zero and pay the early adopter premium, and second, through financial support for developing nations. The premium is important, not just to cover the cost of developing batteries, but also for green hydrogen to avoid industrial emissions.

Such support should be part of promised aid or concessional finance and certainly not more traditional debt. At COP15 in 2009, there was a pledge to provide $100 billion of annual climate support for the poor by 2020, but the form such support would take was never specified. Sadly, the pledged funds haven’t yet fully materialized, and the date has since been pushed back to 2023.

Many developing countries are asking for funds due to climate-related “loss and damage.” How much materializes remains to be seen. Regardless of what form it takes, all climate finance support should be flexible, allowing recipients to not just mitigate their emissions, but also pay towards adaptation and resilience.

I found it aggravating for a number of reasons. Let’s assume that carbon emissions are a risk (I do). Per capita carbon emissions are a red herring—they’re simply irrelevant. It’s the total amount of carbon emitted that drives climate change not the per capita carbon emissions.

All that is necessary to render anything the United States might do in reducing carbon emissions meaningless is for China and India to continue to increase their own carbon emissions. And that doesn’t even take Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, etc. into account. Consequently, if the strategy for dealing with whatever impact carbon emissions have on the climate is solely by limiting what we emit, it’s doomed to failure. It’s not the right strategy. Either the poorer countries must reduce their carbon emissions or a different strategy should be pursued.

That’s why I think the smart strategy is, yes, reduce our carbon emissions as is practicable by using wind, solar, and nuclear as appropriate but concurrently pursue carbon capture and sequestration. Don’t put all of our climate eggs in the renewables basket.

A second reason I found the article frustrating was this remark:

First, if all carbon is equal, then we cannot ignore historically accumulated carbon.

If we’re going to consider historic carbon emissions, shouldn’t we also take the historic failure to remove carbon from the atmosphere represented by deforestation into account? Poor countries are among the heavyweight champions in deforestation, China and India in particular.

Finally, every time I hear pleas for assistance from richer countries to help poorer countries reduce their carbon emissions it reminds me of a remark about foreign aid: foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. Let’s be pragmatic about it. Such assistance will inevitably result in payments to enable the highest-emitting individuals in poor countries to emit even more carbon while in all likelihood doing nothing to reduce their countries’ carbon emissions. No such plan should be undertaken without considerable oversight and I suspect the oversight itself will be intolerable.

The Cook Political Report has updated their analysis of the midterm elections. As of this writing they say there are 188 House seats that are safe, likely, or leaning Democratic, 212 seats that are safe, likely, or leaning Republican, and 35 seats that are toss-ups. If the toss-ups split evenly between the two parties that would mean 230 seats for the Republicans, 205 seats for the Democrats. If the toss-ups split 2:1 for Republicans, that would mean 245 Republican seats, 224 Democratic.

They haven’t updated their Senate analysis yet. I expect that Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball will update their House projections soon.

I continue to be skeptical of Nate Silver’s characterization of the election in percentage terms on the grounds that I think it’s a false analogy with probabilistic models of pulling pebbles from an urn. Consequently, an 18% likelihood of something has no meaning in the real world.

The United States Senate has produced a report suggesting that in all likelihood SARS-CoV-2 was unleashed on the world bu an accidental lab leak in Wuhan:

That should raise the temperature.

Their arguments are that

• Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak Differs from Previous Natural Zoonotic Spillovers
• Missing Evidence of a Natural Zoonotic Spillover
• Problems with the Natural Zoonotic Hypothesis

namely

• The intermediate host species for SARS-CoV-2, if one exists, remains unidentified
• Unlike SARS, the genomes of early COVID-19 cases from the first months of the pandemic do not
  show genetic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having circulated in another animal species other than
  humans
• SARS-CoV-2’s high binding affinity for human ACE2 receptors suggests that it is possible for it
  to directly infect humans without needing a period of adaptation in an intermediate host
• Based on the available evidence, Wuhan is the only location where SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into
  humans
• The low genetic diversity of the earliest SARS-CoV-2 samples suggests that the COVID-19
  pandemic is most likely the result of a single successful spillover of SARS-CoV-2

My own view is that we will never know for certain without greater cooperation from the Chinese government than has been the case to date and unless something changes that is unlikely to be forthcoming.

One way of changing things would be to allow civil cases against the Chinese government to proceed based on this report.

At Russia Matters in an interview by Fyodor Lyukanov scholar Graham Allison says it’s time for Russia, Ukraine, and the United States to seek an “off-ramp” in the war in Ukraine:

FL: The situation today is not good at all. Would you recommend that the sides–I mean, first and foremost, Russia and the United States—escalate in order to deescalate afterwards?

GA: If it were up to me, if I were the adviser to the adults in both Moscow and Washington, I would say we’ve escalated far enough to see how bad things could become if we end up in a world where nuclear weapons are used. I think the fact that over seven decades now states have concluded that nuclear weapons are not usable as part of ordinary international relations between great nuclear powers is a significant factor in the fact that we have had seven decades without great-power war—something that’s historically very anomalous. So, I believe that where we are now, both for Putin’s Russia and for the Biden-led U.S. and the Western alliance, it’s time to search for an off-ramp for all the parties. And I know there’s some energy going into that by the governments and I wish there would be more. I think we’ve escalated far enough to settle at this point.

For the life of me, I can’t see what such an “off-ramp” might be at this point. The mere suggestion of leaving any smidgeon of Ukrainian territory in Russian hands is castigated as appeasement on the one hand and leaving Russia without the port of Sevastopol is very clearly not negotiable for the Russians. What “off-ramp”?

The phrase “silent majority”, referring to those who do not make their views known other than through the imperfect prism of the their ballots, represents a concept that has been used by both parties but is most closely associated with the Republicans. The phrase goes back a lot farther than that, a couple of millennia in fact, as a euphemism for the dead. That’s similar to what G. K. Chesterton referred to as “the democracy of the dead” which is to say tradition.

In a piece at The Hill Douglas MacKinnon wonders if we are not about to see the “silent majority”, in a somewhat different usage determine the outcome of the midterm elections:

For decades, we have all heard of the “silent majority” in American politics. Today, for incredibly practical reasons, it may have morphed into the “secret majority.”

And why wouldn’t it? Back when the “silent majority” was coined as a term, whatever political opinion you might choose to express — generally more Republican, conservative and common sense from that demographic — you were not going to be fired from a job; you wouldn’t have your business picketed and shut down; you were not going to have anarchists and protesters march into your neighborhood; your children wouldn’t be targeted because of your views; you were not going to get viciously harassed on social media; you were not going to have your grade in college altered or be expelled from an institution of higher learning; you were not going to have your life turned upside down for simply having a different political or faith-based opinion in that version of the United States of America. We were indeed a nation conceived to ensure “liberty and justice for all.”

The America of 2022 is not the America of the past. The cancel-culture crowd has flipped that script.

Suddenly, the “secret majority” has come to the realization that, if they hope to live in peace and provide for themselves and their families, they must constantly remind themselves that they no longer have the liberty to speak their minds and the scales of justice have been hijacked by far-left politicians, district attorneys and advocates who push for open borders, the defunding of the police, identity politics and the rights of violent criminals over the victims.

Many from the “secret majority” believe that this woke, anti-liberty and anti-free speech movement has taken over the power centers of big business, Big Tech, the media, universities, hospitals, science centers, and the most influential unions in the country — in other words, institutions that either employ them or exert power over their quality of life decisions.

Knowing that, why would they ever speak out or voice a differing opinion? The fact is, many do not. They have shut down.

I don’t think his interpretation is 100% correct. I think that polling is broken because few enough people are willing to answer the pollsters’ questions honestly that they’re inherently biased. Those who respond are those willing to give the pollsters the answers they think the pollsters want, whether it’s because they align with their own, because they’re willing to lie, or because they’re mischievous.

However, we’ll know pretty soon—in just over a week. If the Republicans gain narrow majorities in the House and Senate, which is what I expect, I think we can reasonably speculate that if there is a “secret majority”, they’re still secret.

For all of the laments and warnings that democracy is on the ropes in the United States, there are relatively few declarations of what the speakers and writers mean when they say “democracy”. Here’s what I mean. For me it has several components.

One of those components is summed up in the Latin phrase Vox populi lex suprema—the will (literally “voice”) of the people is the supreme law. It is related but not identical to something written by the Roman orator and statesman Cicero: Salus populi lex suprema (the welfare or good of the people is the supreme law).

The second component is the protection of certain rights: the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to own property, and others. A government of delimited powers is implicit in this component. The people are limited in what they can expect from the government by the law.

The final component is a system of enforced laws under a common law framework. In a common law framework the written law (“black letter law”) and precedent both play a role. Unless narrowly construed a civil code system in which the law always applies to every situation but it is the judge’s role to determine how is a formula for tyranny.

I think that altogether too much weight is being placed on the mechanics of voting these days. Saddam Hussein would be delighted. Voting alone is not enough to ensure democracy. There’s more to it than that. The candidates for whom you may vote, the legitimate casting of votes, and what happens after the voting takes place are all important as well.

It is in that last step that I think our system falls short. At the federal level the party leadership has entirely too much power. Representatives should feel bound by what their constituents want rather than what their party leaders demand. When the main role of elected representatives is to ratify the decisions of party leaders, I think that calling it a “democracy” is a stretch.

There are ways that could be remedied. We are in dire need of civil service reform. At the national level the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader have entirely too much power. Any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose legislation which is brought to the floor for a vote and any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose amendments to legislation. Neither the House nor the Senate will reform on its own.

IMO a number of the thorniest issues would be resolved quite easily under a more democratic (in my terms) system. Most Americans think that a) the state has an interest in the life of the unborn; b) up to a certain point there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal; and c) it is completely legitimate for state to ban late term abortions. Neither political party takes that position. The Democratic position is that the state has no interest in the life of the unborn; the Republican position is that states should ban abortion.

Similarly, with immigration most Americans think that our borders should be significantly more controlled than they are at present but that immigration in considerable numbers should remain possible. Neither political party takes that position.

You might be interested in this report at the Center for American Progress, “Taking Migration Seriously: Real Solutions to Complex Challenges at the Border”. Here’s a snippet:

The Biden-Harris administration has proved committed to managing regional migration by tackling its root causes. Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a comprehensive regional framework to address the root causes of migration, manage migration in the region, and strengthen the asylum system at the border. A few months later, in July 2021, the administration followed up on this order with a collaborative migration management strategy that focused on improving regional collaboration. The administration has also released a blueprint to address the root causes of irregular migration, with strategies to tackle insecurity, corruption, and violence in an effort to promote human rights in Central America.

Despite these efforts we presently have an unprecedented number of people crossing our southern border without permission, certainly at least 3 million last year considering both “encounters” and “getaways”. There’s an old observation that the way you know you have enough light in a reading room is if you can read there. By that standard the Biden Administration self-evidently isn’t doing enough.

A good place to start in looking for guidance would be the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the guiding legislation. Very few of those crossing the border are refugees by the standards defined in the law. Making an analogy with Cuba is fatuous because a) the circumstances today are different than they were 60 years ago and b) there was specific legislation addressing their status. If you want people from Venezuela, for example, to be automatically defined as refugees, the appropriate legislation should be enacted.

IMO the preponderance of the evidence suggests that most of those crossing our southern border are in fact economic migrants and, sadly, the evidence is quite clear that there is no great demand for people without a high school-level ability to speak, read, or write English. Increasing that population further injures those already in the bottom tier of the economy.

As I write this I’m watching Fredric March’s performance as Jekyll and Hyde in the 1931 film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He won an Academy Award for his performance.

One thing leaps out at me about it. Hyde is not the way Stevenson described him. Stevenson had a single theme that recurs throughout his works: evil is more attractive than good. That’s why Jekyll, a very good man, is drawn to transform himself into Hyde again and again.

Who is the most interesting, attractive character in Treasure Island? It’s not Squire Trelawny or Dr. Livesey, the “good” characters. Obviously, Long John Silver. Similarly with Alan Breck in Kidnapped and James in The Master of Ballantrae. They’re not good people but they’re more interesting and attractive.

Hyde is not described as physically deformed but more subtly as having a sort of moral deformity. Maybe some day there will be a film adaptation which capture that aspect of the novel. Spencer Tracy’s Jekyll/Hyde comes closest. Too bad it’s such a lousy picture.

This is not a news blog. It’s an analysis blog but I thought the attack on Paul Pelosi worth remarking on.

I deplore all violence, particularly political violence, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that’s ultimately what the attack was. Beyond that IMO all sides are rushing to judgment and we should wait before deciding much about the incident other than to wish Mr. Pelosi a speedy recovery.

Most of what’s being said beyond the bare fact of the attack is speculation. I’ll offer one of my own: cannabis psychosis. I believe it’s an increasingly serious problem and we’ll see more of it. It ain’t your grandpa’s weed anymore.

The perpetrator was clearly a nut, whatever his politics, motive, or circumstances.