Quick Links
Posted by Zach Wendling on 16 December 2006 | 10 responses
Here are some pieces so interesting I’m at a loss for further commentary:
- Insurers are starting to account for the costs of global climate change.
- The two-dollar bill is making a big comeback.
- Barack Obama is the real deal. Click and listen why.
- Some of your beliefs are heritable: “Genetic differences explained most of differences in attitudes to life and equality (66% and 55% of the variance respectively), but none (0%) of the attitudes to intellect and punishment.”
- A look at “moderate” vs. “radical” Muslims abroad.
10 Responses to “Quick Links”
Wow, thanks so much for the Obama link. This guy is like an oncoming train that is simply unstoppable. “The real deal” is a perfect way to describe him. As things currently stand, it’s almost as if he has the potential to be the JFK of the modern era.
Re: Obama
Given the ringing before hand, it’s clear that Obama or someone from his end was taping this call. Why? The only explanation is that he made this call to tape and publicize it. You can just see the political calculation, and that’s the opposite of what he’s supposed to be about.
Josh said, “The only explanation is that he made this call to tape and publicize it.”
Or maybe he thought he should apologize and decided to tape it for political reasons; yep, he is a politician. That’s a lot different than accusing him of only apologizing so he can get political points out of it. One of the reasons the guy is getting a lot of attention is his frankness, and one of the risks of that is that he’s probably going to have to apologize for things he says in all frankness.
Where do you get the idea that political calculation is the opposite of what he’s supposed to be about? How can one be a politician without engaging in political calculation? Name one politician who does not. This is hardly the case where he’s taking a position on a subject purely to score political points. The guy admitted to drug use when he was younger; political calculation? Perhaps, but that’s a pretty risky one and is indistinguishable from him just being honest and using it to speak with credibility on a subject.
I’ll take the the political calculation of a taped apology over that of ‘we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud’ any day.
I think Dave is on the right track here. The most successful presidents seem to be the ones who can not just be both strategic & calculating on the one hand, and genuine & idealistic on the other, but also can bring these _together_ into some amazingly synthesized politico-jiujitsu. That was Clinton’s brilliance, and much of Reagan’s as well. But neither Carter nor GHW Bush could pull it off (Carter didn’t even try, but committed the political sin of just trying to be up-front & honest with the American people). And Dubya’s strategy seems to be to remain so completely ill- informed that the sincerity of his beliefs in his policies is unsullied by their inconsistency with the actual facts on the ground, and we’re all seeing what an utter recipe for disaster that is.
Am I the only one that doesn’t know anything at all about Barak Obama? I mean sure, most people don’t know much about most of the presidential hopefuls at this point, but I guess it’s safe to say that his anonymity is his blessing and his curse.
But as far as I can tell, he’s been in the Senate for 2 years, other than that he was a Illinois State Senator who also lost a US House race. Truthfully, his resume suggests he’s kind of a political nobody.
Of course, he did give that speech. You know the one, the 2004 keynote address in Boston. That speech that made his career… that one, staged, scripted TV moment entirely built Barak Obama into the great hope of the Democratic party.
If you’re reading, Mr. Obama: Run, Barak, Run! For your own sake, run. You haven’t been around to have much dirt at your feet, you haven’t had the chance to put too many skeletons in your closet. Your political clout will never be higher, because you’ve built it all without having to work at it.
From here on out, Barak Obama can only fail. If he can just keep smiling for the cameras and don’t let the Senate’s Democrat leadership time him to some albatross, he’s probably a shoe-in for the Democratic nod and a stone’s throw from the White House.
I remember recently reading a comment, I think at the American Prospect, about how the party bosses in smoke filled rooms of old who picked presidential candidates have now largely been replaced by the Washington press corpse. I think that’s generally an overstatement, but perhaps not in the case of Obama (and John McCain). He’s only been in the Senate two years and he was practically a shoo-in running against uber-wingnut Alan Keyes. He’s not yet battle-scarred and so I doubt he’d be the guy those party bosses in smoke filled rooms would have picked.
Since this is a link-farming thread, let me note that here, via Crooked Timber, is an excellent & very accessible discussion of some of the Stern report & an evaluation of some of the criticisms of it (which had come up in an earlier post here on ITA):
http://johnquiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sternreviewed06121.pdf
Interesting that nobody’s commented on the WaPo global warming/insurance article. Anyway, it appears that despite the efforts of contrarian scientists financed by the coal and oil industry, State Farm, Traveler’s, Allstate and other big insurers ain’t buying, not with $100 billion on the line. They have acknowledged global warming.
Actually, JohnS, even though the WaPo article strenuously pushes the global warming angle, it does point out on page 5 that the insurance industry looks at things from a purely phenomenological POV.
For instance, everyone knows the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season had the highest number of storms since official record-keeping began in the mid-20th century. Skeptics of anthropogenic global warming point to that as part of a natural cycle of increasing hurricane strength. Add to that the vastly increased value of properties built in hurricane-vulnerable areas over the past several decades, and the insurance industry was facing a huge increase in risk.
From the insurance companies’ POV, it doesn’t matter whether the trend in hurricane number and strength is natural or “man-made.” Not to mention that it never made much sense for people to keep building (and rebuilding) luxury housing in vulnerable areas.
(FWIW, my opinion on anthropogenic global warming has always been that while global warming is very plausible, there are plenty of better reasons to take prudent steps to reduce the burning of biomass and hydrocarbons–and reasons *not* to take drastic measures that will cause certain economic damage to avert a calamity that is far from certain. Doom and gloom has a poor track record.)
Eric
This WaPo article may push the angle that the insurance industry only looks at things from a purely phenomenological POV, but other WaPo articles haven’t been so timid. Like this one from October 5, 2005, called, “A New Worry for Insurers:”
“The devastation and cost of Hurricane Katrina provided a new hook for a faction of the insurance industry that is trying to raise public awareness of global warming and push the topic onto the political agenda.
Some of the industry’s largest companies have sided with environmental groups in recent years to argue that global warming exists and that man-made causes are adding to the severity and cost of natural catastrophes.
Hurricane Katrina swept through the Gulf area, destroying homes and businesses in places including Gulfport, Miss. Insurers are expecting at least $40 billion in damage from the storm, plus an additional $4 billion from Hurricane Rita.
Although no insurer has cited global warming’s increased risks as a reason for raising rates, some are funding their own research on the topic and, in the political realm, are supporting measures to reduce emissions.
American International Group Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, says it recognizes the possibility that climate change might be increasing insurance losses, though it is awaiting more scientific proof of a link. The New York-based company is considering a policy of targeting investments toward companies involved in mitigating greenhouse gases.
“We take the possibility seriously and efforts to address it seriously,” said Chris Winans, an AIG spokesman.
The industry’s interest goes beyond property damage caused by hurricanes. Swiss Reinsurance Co., a giant Zurich-based provider of backup insurance to insurers, says climate change could increase the severity and spread of contagious diseases by extending the ranges of disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes, altering markets for life and health insurance, while new rules on industrial emissions could generate shareholder suits, changing the market for directors’ and officers’ liability coverage.
“You can always find a scientist somewhere who says the opposite of what other scientists are saying,” said Ivo Menzinger, head of sustainability and emerging risks for Swiss Re. “But the majority of scientists acknowledge today that there is global warming, first of all…”
Then the’s this from the article, “New combatant against global warming: insurance industry” from the CSM on October 13, 2006 :
“Insurance companies, who like to stay out of the limelight, are becoming leading business protagonists in the assault on global warming.
• Next week, Travelers, the giant insurance firm, will offer owners of hybrid cars in California a 10 percent discount. It already offers the discount in 41 other states and has cornered a large share of the market.
• This fall, Fireman’s Fund will cut premiums for “green” buildings that save energy and emit fewer greenhouse gases. When it pays off claims, it will direct customers to environmentally friendly products to replace roofs, windows, and water heaters.
• In January, Marsh, the largest insurance broker in the US, will offer a program with Yale University to teach corporate board members about their fiduciary responsibility to manage exposure to climate change.”
There’s also this from the August 23, 2006 article “Many Insurers Thinking Green – They’re Offering New Products, Services Aimed At Reducing Global Warming” in the Hartford Courant — here’s an excerpt:
“Climate change is perhaps the greatest threat the insurance industry has ever faced,” said Ceres President Mindy S. Lubber during a teleconference Tuesday. “And the time has come to assert its leadership again.”
Many insurers have raised rates, imposed new or higher wind deductibles, and shrunk their business in hurricane-exposed areas, and the report says they’re forgoing about $3 billion a year in premiums as a result. In Florida and Louisiana alone, more than 600,000 homeowners’ policies were dropped or not renewed in the past year, the report said.
The increased risk, however, “creates vast opportunities for new products and services” to help consumers and businesses reduce their losses while reducing pollution and its climate effects, Lubber said.”