OpenOffice 3.0 in 2008

Contrary to rumor, OpenOffice 3.0 will not be a rewrite and is scheduled for September 2008, with 2.3 and 2.4 releases coming out of the kitchen between now and then.

First D conference next month at Amazon!

D programming language conference.

One step for green software.

Now if Kitchen Linker could just get out of the kitchen...

Be frugal to be green V

Last post in this series Kitchen Linker highlighted one extreme version of being frugal to be green, known as freeganism.

Another (of several) way of being frugal to be green is to turn an economist's eye on the problem. Sometimes the results are counterintuitive, e.g., when recycling uses more resources than it saves.

In this kitchen we want to be actually green, as opposed to just going through the motions. To be sure we are meeting this goal, an analytic component is necessary.

What Kitchen Linker really wants is to take the best of freegan philosophy and economic analysis -- and mash them together into something yummy!

AntiPigou

Iran, Low on Gasoline, to Be Supplied by Venezuela:

Iran, a major oil exporter, imports 40 percent of its gasoline because of high consumption and limited refining capacity. While gasoline costs about $2 a gallon on world markets, the government sells it for 34 cents, a subsidy that costs it about $5 billion a year.

And Kitchen Linker thought NoPigou was bad...

Apology to David Friedman

Kitchen Linker is honored to have David Friedman commenting here, even if the comment is a justified accusation of making a base assertion. Kitchen Linker has now actually read The Coal Question and Climate Change cited by David Friedman rather than taking a quick glance and throwing it into the frying pan.

A strong case is made that most long term global warming scenarios assume much more hydrocarbons will be burned than are available to burn. Unless we trigger a major change now, the long term (year 2100+) impact on the climate from humans releasing carbon into the atmosphere will be relatively small and transient, because we'll run out of oil and coal.

However, Kitchen Linker does not really believe people are concerned about the year 2100 and beyond, at least not very much (and they shouldn't be--if we survive, people then will have incredible wealth and tools to face down the pedestrian challenges of today). People are concerned about the possibility (admittedly small) of near term catastrophic climate change and/or collapse in oil production.

Frankly, any policy implemented now is going to only slightly tweak the probability of either near term disaster scenario. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing, in particular because people want something done, and that something could be very, very bad, such as anti-technology terrorism and/or resource wars.

Let's ward those off with policy that is good and addresses climate change and energy depletion. In a comment on his own blog post, David Friedman has sage advice:

The conclusions I want to reach lead me to conclude that the future is sufficiently uncertain so that it is almost always a mistake to bear large costs now in or to avoid problems in the distant future. For more on that, see the webbed draft of my current writing project, Future Imperfect.

Yes, but a green tax shift does not involve bearing large costs. To the contrary, it costs less than equivalent taxes on production.

Readings from the Pigoufather

He recommends The Tax Free Lunch by Charles Krauthammer.

He also recommends A Green Employment Tax Swap: Using A Carbon Tax To Finance Payroll Tax Relief by Gilbert Metcalf.

Both recommend swapping the payroll tax for a carbon tax, same as Al Gore. Kitchen Linker could not agree more.

He is of course Greg Mankiw. Podfather, Pigoufather, get it? Ha ha.

No bailout for Wall Street!

Gretchen Morgenson interviewed by Bill Moyers:

BILL MOYERS: But I mean, look what they've been doing. Their past experience is no indication that they will respond to what you're saying.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Only if they're held accountable.

BILL MOYERS: By?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: And if they have to pay the bill that comes a cropper. Let's not make it a bail out where the taxpayer bails out Wall Street, please.

BILL MOYERS: Then Wall Street would be the winner and--

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Then Wall Street would say, "Fine. I'll go do that again. I'll go throw money at a problem and let it blow up, and I don't mind."

BILL MOYERS: Does this contribute to what you and I both know are-- is growing inequality in the country? The gap between the rich and the poor? The greatest gap since 1929? Is this contributing to that gap?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: To the degree that Wall Street made an awful, awful lot of money on these securities, yes, it contributes to that gap. To people who work on Wall Street, you saw the enormous bonuses, the enormous payouts to the CEOs of these firms. Absolutely. The mortgage mania contributed to that. The little guy doesn't have the benefit of all the powerful friends in Washington and the powerful friends on Wall Street. The little guy is just trying to be able to retire comfortably and not have to scrimp and worry about money. And he and she have a right to that. And if we're in an ownership society that's ballyhooed around, that should be a benefit. That should be who wins. But unfortunately, the little guy is the guy that's usually the bag holder.

Kitchen Linker may post this ARM reset schedule chart on the kitchen wall, noting that any housing bubble is in part a kitchen bubble, and any housing bust is in part a kitchen blowout.

Both links via Ben's Housing Bubble Blog.

The Price of Gasoline SHOULD Go Up

Tom Evslin (on the kitchen blogroll) has a must read post on why The Price of Gasoline SHOULD Go Up:

Suppose we were to raise the tax on gasoline and diesel used as motor fuels by $.50/gallon every six months for the next three years. We could immediately end the $.50/gallon subsidy to ethanol producers without discouraging production. We could remove the stupid restrictions on importing ethanol made from sugar since there’s be plenty of demand for both foreign and domestic ethanol. We could stop the tariffs which protect the sugar growers as they find a market – as corn has already done – as a fuel source.

Even more expensive biofuels would become economical without subsidy. The government could stop playing the pork barrel game of trying to decide which alternative fuels to subsidize how much and let the most efficient producers replace gasoline.

Putting aside the politics, there are still two enormous problems with this proposal:

1. The tax is extremely regressive – the working poor pay much more of their income in gas tax than the rich.
2. The government will withdraw huge sums from the economy and legislators’ll invent vote-buying programs to spend it.

Both problems could be solved, however, by reducing or eliminating social security taxes – also regressive – at lower income levels, maybe after keeping a little of the surplus to make sure that social security and Medicare are actually funded for when the baby boomers retire.

Absolutely, though Kitchen Linker will argue that a gas tax is not regressive on a global and long term scale.

Peak Oil vs. Global Warming

David Friedman points out an apparent contradiction in the arguments of those who believe both peak oil and global warming are problems:

A recent post on FuturePundit cites some interesting calculations by CalTech professor Dave Rutledge. Using the estimation approach on which current, widespread concerns about running out of petroleum are based, he finds that the IPCC global warming calculations overestimate future hydrocarbon burning by a factor of at least three or four--because the hydrocarbons are not there to be burned.

Nice try, but Kitchen Linker illustrated how both could be problems in Dangerous conflation of global warming and peak oil:

Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund, quote from WaPo:

"The Earth is warming at an alarming rate, we are running out of fossil fuels, and it is long past time for us to take action to correct these problems," Clinton said.

I applaud these efforts, but ain't the symmetry ... ironic, dreamlike, unlikely, ??? Actually there is no symmetry and the above is a gross oversimplification -- we're nowhere near to running out of coal or low quality oil sources (tar sands and shale), each of which is worse for the environment and global warming in particular than high grade crude that we are slowly running out of. So yes, efforts like Clinton's and Branson's are desperately needed, but they undersell the case!

David Friedman, in this kitchen doing nothing (still) is a false choice.

Greening Linux

Kitchen Linker noticed on LWN.net that Linux Foundation says:

Power Management: Throughout the Summit, Linux developers, including the Linux Desktop Architects, met to discuss the increasing need for efficient power management in Linux. As a result of these meetings, Linux Foundation is organizing a “Green Linux” initiative to improve power management functionality in Linux. Making Linux “green” is becoming ever more important in all aspects of Linux adoption: mobile, desktop and server. The Linux Foundation will work with its workgroups, identify key projects and coordinate resources among its members to improve this functionality in the Linux platform. Power management developers will meet next week in Ottawa to continue work in this area.

That smells good in the kitchen.