Intermittent commentary on the state of the international political economy with a focus on the question of sustainable development.
Gas guzzlers 1 - 0 Common sense
Just when I was getting excited about the prospect of a paradigm shift in the editorial policy of The Economist, I've been brought back down to earth with a bump. Defeating neo-classical economics is one thing, appealing to a US politician's common sense is another. The United States, with less than 5 per cent of the world's population, accounts for 25 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, but this is a political 'non-issue' in the US. In amongst the small print of the New York Times today, there is an optimistic-sounding headline, Senate Defeats Climate Bill, but Proponents See Silver Lining. Just exactly what silver lining the proponents of the Bill are referring to is not immediately obvious to me! Apparently, the 55-to-43 vote against constituted "a surprising amount of support, signaling that the concept of a policy on global warming has gained traction." What?! If successful, this Bill was to require companies to restrict carbon dioxide emissions so that they will be no higher in 2010 than they were in 2000. This is far more modest than the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for a 7 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2010.
Petro-addiction on the wane?
Great article in The Economist this week entitled The end of the oil age (password required). Most surprising was the following comment on the reluctance of the US government to do anything to curb demand for oil: "By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness. Crucially, this need not be, and should not be, a matter of raising taxes in the aggregate. The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes—this, surely, is the way to present them to a sceptical electorate." Eureka! I can't believe I read this in this magazine. Good start to the day, me thinks.
The advantages of a beard
I've grown a beard once or twice, largely for the purpose of making a fashion statement and, to be honest, they've never been particularly successful. I also feel more comfortable clean-shaven. As a result, like many others, from time-to-time, I stand bemused at the razor blade section at my local supermarket trying to remember (a) which particular brand of razor I use, and (b) which type of blade fits my razor. What really pisses me off is that I frequently make the wrong decision and I am now the reluctant owner of several razors with mismatched blades. This happened a week or two ago when, yet again, I had to buy a new razor to go with the 'wrong' blades I'd bought a few days previously. However, what really galled me was that, this time, I was compelled to buy a pen-knife that was 'bundled' with the razor I didn't really want in the first place. How can such a simple consumer purchase be so complicated? Why is such a big deal made of the various features of a razor blade when they all do basically the same job? A recent article, Courtroom razor battle has Gillette, Schick in a lather, gives details of the 'commercial war' between the razor blade companies, and the lengths they will go to protect their market share. The obscene amount of money spent on marketing -- US$100 million, in the case of Schick -- sounds like an awful lot of unwanted pen-knives to me. This is efficient use of society's scarce resources, right?
Born Happy?
Having read Clive Hamilton's Growth Fetish recently, I have become alert to this type of article. In today's Fin Review (password required), Julie Macken reports on The hunt for happiness. She quotes Tim Kasser, associate professor of psychology, who has just authored a book entitled The High Price of Materialism (2003, MIT Press). "There are short-term benefits to success," says Kasser, "but most of the research shows that they are not long-lived, nor do they have much impact on wellbeing or happiness. For example, the research shows that increases in salary do little to improve wellbeing over the long term, except if you're moving from poverty to enough (about $US35,000 annually)."
The article then goes on to suggest that some of us may never be happy. According to Gordon Parker, head of Prince of Wales Hospital's Black Dog Institute in Sydney, "Most research suggests our level of happiness is determined by our personality and that it's quite fixed in that sense ... That means that while a great event will make most of us happy for a while, we always go back to a base line. The exception to that would be the death of a child -- that changes people in a way almost nothing else does."
Parker also believes there are essentially two kinds of personalities: extroverted and neurotic, "Happy people tend to be more extroverted," he says, "They're friendlier and tend to build networks with people, which is also why they can be more successful. But they also know how to relax." Thus, relaxing, staring at the clouds, chatting with the receptionist, smiling at people in the lifts -- this style of living lends itself to happiness. On the other side of the coin, "workaholics can have a great deal of material success, but they experience a loss of happiness because they don't know how to relax between the minutes. They live with far more tension."