I’m in Washington DC for the summer, and I have to wear a suit to work, which, with the humidity, feels more or less like a stillsuit from Dune. (Emergency on the internet: I’m pretty sure that is a wiki entirely devoted to Dune.) I keep wondering, why is our nation’s capital so god damn humid?
Well, the unsatisfying answer seems to be that the humidity is mostly just due to the closeness of several water sources (the Chesapeake, the Atlantic, the Potomac and Anacostia rivers), and the flatness of the general area. But the more exciting answer that we hear all the time is that Washington was built on a swamp. How deliciously counter-intuitive that our shining capital city would be sited on festering ground. How cynically metaphorical that our seat of government would be the literal home of snakes and lizards.
Alas, it isn’t true, if you believe the esteemed Bob Arnebeck, which I have no reason to do other than that this explanation sounds really really authoritative.
Swamp or no swamp, the place is disgusting, a fact that has been noted by countless internet commentators. Here’s my favorite, of recent vintage. And here’s my second favorite. And, for old time’s sake, here’s Two Live Jews with their 1990 classic off of As Kosher as They Wanna Be, “Oy, It’s so Humid.”
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dan,
Great post -- I'm extremely glad to hear a serious voice supporting the recent legislation but I can't help but fail to see how much the legislation will actually help. My very rudimentary understanding of carbon containment boils down to this: we eliminate carbon emissions by using less carbon. The best single way to reduce carbon is to increase the cost of carbon for the average user. The US ran a little experiment with gas prices last summer/fall and the result of oil at $150/barrel was a spectacular drop in vehicle highway miles driven and improvements to a host of other markers of energy use. It seemed like a very clear indication that if carbon costs more citizens will use less. There are limitations -- carbon from vehicles and consumers is just a piece of the pie, not a reflection of industrial/utility power but ultimately higher energy prices should end up impacting consumer demand as well.
That is where I get concerned about the upcoming climate bill. The CBO's analysis pegs that cost to consumers of the bill at a trivial amount ($28/yr http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10327), even out to dates as far as 2020. It seems to me that if the bill doesn't increase energy costs it won't meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. What I have never understood is why congress or the administration doesn't simply tax carbon directly. As a compromise, reduce other tax rates to make it revenue neutral (or not, if the US needs more income). It seems like everybody would agree that taxing something you want less of (carbon use) and reducing taxes on something you want more of (work, e.g. a payroll tax) would be a good thing for society. It even seems like something that a republican would agree with and the public might understand - you get more take home pay but pay more at the pump. Why has this been such a non-starter in favor of a complex regulatory regime that has invited bribes and rent seeking as such programs are want to do?
Its obvious I'm missing something about the politics of energy or the rationale behind the new legislation, but I don't see how this bill is going to help if its not increasing the cost of carbon to the average household... If you believe that the moment for major initiatives is limited to infrequent crisis points then agreeing to a plan that appears ineffective under the rationale of pragmatism and baby-steps might be sacrificing a long-term good for a short term gain. Right now I'm not convinced this bills helps but I am convinced that its passage would eliminate the possibility of more meaningful legislation later. Where am I going wrong?
In brief: how does this bill help if it doesn't meaningfully increase the cost of carbon consumption for the individual? Why has a tax on carbon in exchange for a reduction of taxes on payroll or the equivalent get any play on the hill? Is this a situation where accepting the suboptimal in the name of compromise is actually harmful to the big picture and we should wait for the right legislation?
Thanks!
Post a Comment