California eyes thermostats

About a week ago, it came out that California's energy regulators were seeking the power to control thermostats in private buildings. They would install a radio-operated controller that would let them raise or lower temperatures by a couple of degrees during severe power shortages, preventing system overloads and blackouts.

That provoked plenty of outrage about the idea from the usual suspects as well as others. So much so, in fact, that California withdrew the plan on Wednesday.

Me, I understood what regulators were trying to do, and they do have a legitimate interest in managing power consumption during an emergency. Further, it's pretty clear that access to electricity is not a right. The power company can, and does, shut off parts of the grid when necessary, and that's just life.

But it is intrusive. So here's what I would have done.

1. Make participation in the thermostat program voluntary, in return for a small reduction in the customer's monthly electric bill. We have a similar program here in Minnesota, and my air-conditioner is hooked up to it.

2. Anyone that didn't participate in the thermostat program would be bumped to the top of the list of people who would have all of their power shut off in an emergency, if necessary.

Voila! No intrusion, but a strong incentive to shoulder a small pain in order to avoid shouldering a much bigger one.

But that's not really my point in making this post. Because I think the situation illustrates an interesting clash of collective interest and individual rights.

Concerns about Big Brother and bureaucracy aside, the regulators had a compelling "greater good" argument. Turning everyone's thermostat down (or up) a couple of degrees would inflict only minor suffering (if it can be called that) on each individual customer, while reducing demand enough to stave off a power shortage.

Leaving it up to individuals, on the other hand, would prevent that minor discomfort -- right up until the entire system overloaded and people lost power completely, with far more severe effects on comfort and the wallet.

Thus you have the intellectually unsatisfying conclusion that everyone would be better off if they went with the remote thermostat control -- yet such a plan is politically undoable.

There's a name for this -- the tragedy of the commons. It affects all sorts of resources, notably fisheries and the like, and there are myriad demonstrated cases of such individual acts destroying the shared resources that a given group depends upon.

At this point you might be tempted to shake your head and say "people are stupid." But they're not. Especially in this case, because this isn't just an economic calculation.

Oh, there's an economic aspect: For example, adopting the thermostat plan requires confidence in both the government's intentions and its competence. If you don't think the program will work well or fairly, why give up control of your thermostat to it? That's an economic calculation -- feeling that the payoff will not be worth the cost.

Then there's the question of who gets to define what the "greater good" is.

But the biggest issue comes down to rights: who has the right to control my thermostat? And the problem there is that individual rights are not economically rational; indeed, by definition, they are roadblocks in the functioning of the larger society. Police need to get warrants; that's inefficient. The government must prove its case to a unanimous jury; that's inefficient. You can cause as much trouble with a printing press as you want; that's inefficient.

Individual rights, fabulous as they are, come at a certain price in economic or social efficiency.

Note I'm talking about rights, not freedoms. Freedoms are a different beast altogether; they are the absence of regulation and control, and they create economic and social efficiency.

But freedoms, too, have their limits, because they often assume limitless resources, no cheating and rarely account for externalized costs. The tragedy of the commons establishes a sort of upper limit on freedom: Too much freedom can end up destroying the shared resources that a given group depends upon.

The key to addressing "tragedy of the commons" situations such as this one is to align individual behavior with the interest of the group.

This can be done through enforcement -- in the case of a fishery, you might limit the number of fishing boat licenses available, thus limiting the catch to sustainable levels.

But it can also be done less coercively. The proposed solution in California, for example, creates a market incentive to accept the greater-good approach. This leaves all the power in the individual's hands -- they can always opt back out of the program if it doesn't work for them.

My purpose here is to get people to recognize two things:

1. The greater good is not an absolute good. It may be too violative of individual rights, or the definition of "greater good" may not be widely accepted.

2. Individual rights are not an absolute good. They introduce inefficiencies and, taken to extremes, can destroy economies and societies.

Any reasonable social policy must balance the two, maximizing individual rights wherever possible while efficiently serving society as much as possible.

civil liberties, California, politics, midtopia

An easy, if illogical, appeal

There's a big global-warming conference getting underway in Bali, with 10,000 attendees from around the world.

Whatever you think of the conference subject -- or the likely results, if any -- I'm getting tired of one easy-but-ignorant criticism routinely aimed at such conferences. To wit:

Critics say they are contributing to the very problem they aim to solve.

"Nobody denies this is an important event, but huge numbers of people are going, and their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country," said Chris Goodall, author of the book "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life."

It's an interesting datum, made more interesting in that it's coming from someone who clearly thinks global-warming is real and serious. But as far as ethics or policy, such a criticism is mindless.

The implication is that the attendees are hypocrites, because they're preaching global-warming alarm while jetting around the world.

But such a stance is nonsense. If we were to accept the premise, then people concerned about global warming could never hold global discussions because of the emissions involved in putting such meetings together. Apparently, the effort to combat global warming is supposed to be fought by people meeting locally in outdoor venues reached only by bicycle or on foot. Or handled entirely by telephone and e-mail.

Which is utter bilge, of course.

For one thing, the amount of emissions involved are relatively small -- as the story notes, the 12-day conference is expected to produce about as much carbon as the city of Marseilles produces in one day. That one-time bump in emissions isn't even a rounding error in the scheme of things.

For another, few if any of the people involved are advocating a return to caveman days. These aren't zero-emission fanatics, who think that taking a ski vacation in Colorado is an unforgiveable crime against the planet. There's a reason it's called emissions "reduction," not "elimination"; emissions are an unavoidable part of human activity. So expecting delegates to be entirely carbon-neutral in every aspect of their lives is silly.

It's much like a dieter, who is trying to reduce -- but not eliminate -- his caloric intake. Do you call him hypocritical if he stays within his caloric goal but eats a sugar cookie? No. Doing so relies on a crabbed definition of dieting that completely ignores the big picture.

The way to look at emissions reductions is from a cost-benefit angle. If the conference adds 1 percent to this year's emissions, but results in agreements that cut long-term emissions by 5 percent, it clearly is an emission-friendly endeavor.

Naturally, the real picture is more complex than that, because emissions-reduction is a slow, slow process. It's more like this conference, plus the next one and the next one and the next one, will, over a period of years, lay the groundwork for the next Kyoto-like agreement, expected in 2012. But the logic is the same.

One can question whether the effort is worth it, or is likely to produce anything of value. And there are legitimate criticisms of this conference in particular -- why Bali, for instance, instead of a more accessible location? Though that answer is not simple, either, because there are issues not only of emissions but also relative wealth: it's economically more feasible to have wealthy Westerners fly to Bali than to have poor Asian countries send people to Europe, even if the latter is better for the carbon balance sheet. And, of course, there are political reasons to hold meetings of global importance all over the globe in question.

But it's simply silly to expect the effort itself to be carbon-neutral from the get-go.

global warming, politics, midtopia

Good news

It's Friday, so why not ring out the week with a good news roundup?

HABEAS CORPUS
The House is finally producing legislation that would match a Senate provision passed out of committee earlier this month. Both bills face tough floor fights and possible vetos, but it's yet another small step on reasserting the rule of law and putting terrorism back on a criminal footing, where it largely belongs.

PORK REFORM
Even as earmark reform and other ethics measures work their slow and creaky way through Congress, far more sweeping reform is taking place at the state level -- both providing an example for and increasing pressure on Congress to clean up its act. Whether you think pork is a valid government function, a necessary evil or simply evil, you have to agree that transparency in the process is a good thing. Though there's this caveat:

Even with greater transparency, will the humiliation factor work? Amid all House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's unconvincing reasons for keeping the public in the dark, he did make the fair point that even when embarrassing earmarks have been disclosed, Congress rallies around its porksters and approves the money. It's hard to shame people who have no shame.

And that's the next stage of the earmark debate. Forcing national politicians to admit to their bad spending habits is clearly difficult. Forcing them to stop, or pay the price at the polls, is the real test of "earmark reform."

Let's find out.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
The Senate passed an energy bill Thursday that includes a provision raising the average gas mileage requirement to 35 mpg by 2020 -- a significant increase over today's 25 mpg, even if the time frame is a long one. On the other hand, Republicans blocked the "tax hike" (see second item in link) on oil companies, as well as measures requiring electrical utilities to use far more renewable power sources. The latter item won't actually matter much, considering state regulators are already well down that path. But it does make one wonder why Republicans think the status quo is so great.

habeas corpus, earmarks, energy, politics, midtopia

Former administration official pleads guilty

Another official goes down in the Abramoff scandal.

Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice, becoming the ninth person and the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

The former No. 2 official in the Interior Department admitted in federal court that he lied to Senate investigators about his relationship with convicted lobbyist Abramoff, who repeatedly sought Griles' intervention at the agency on behalf of Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.

Griles pleaded guilty to a felony charge for testifying falsely before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005.

Lying to Congress: not a good idea.

As part of the plea deal, Griles probably gets a 10-month sentence and prosecutors dropped allegations that he improperly helped Abramoff or personally benefited from the relationship.

The underlying charge is relatively minor -- he denied he had an unusually close relationship with Abramoff, even though they had been introduced by his girlfriend. As often happens, the cover up is worse than the crime. Nonetheless, he qualifies for the Hall of Shame.

June 26 update: Griles draws 10 months in prison and a $30,000 fine.

Abramoff, Griles, politics, midtopia

Big windfarm planned for Texas

Kudos to Texas for thinking big, as usual.

A proposal to build the biggest offshore wind farm in the nation won approval yesterday from Texas state officials, the latest development in the fast-growing segment of the alternative-energy industry.

Texas General Land Office, which manages state lands and mineral rights, said yesterday that it reached an agreement granting Superior Renewable Energy the rights to 39,900 acres of submerged lands in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the coast of Padre Island and south of Baffin Bay. The big wind turbines, expected to number more than 100, will be erected as few as three and as many as eight miles offshore.

The Houston company, headed by the former executive of a small oil company, said it plans to build 500 megawatts of capacity, enough to power a small city or about 125,000 homes. But the firm's executive vice president and general counsel Michael Hansen said it will probably be about four years before construction begins.

This is serious money: the project will take four to five years to complete, at a cost of $1 billion to $2 billion.

There are the usual environmental concerns: The wind farm is astride a major migratory bird route. That's a legitimate problem, but surely we can develop ways to keep birds away from the blades. Eventually I'd like to see some sort of cost-comparison for wind farms, quantifying the benefits of reduced pollution against the threat to wildlife. On the plus side, the lease agreement contains tough standards for protecting birds, according to consumer watchdog Public Citizen.

Consider this a test case for offshore wind power generation. If it goes well, wind could become a significant source of power over the next decade.

renewable energy, wind farm, energy, texas, politics, midtopia