The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin' in the Wind

I remember reading about the San Francisco ban on plastic grocery bags last year and thinking that it sounded draconian. From the look of it, though, an Irish tax on grocery bags accomplishes the same policy objectives while still avoiding a burdensome state mandate. Now if only we could incorporate the same principles into our policies on water use and carbon emissions...

Yes We Can

Thanks to Emily Upstill for sending me this inspiring music video, yet another paean to Obama from the entertainment industry.

Also worth reading: An op-ed in today's WSJ that proclaims the fall of the "angry left" and the ascent of the "politics of hope and unity."

The Story of Stuff

This is a 20 minute video that was passed along to me presenting a thought-provoking, if oversimplified, look at our materials economy. Worth taking the time to view, and I'd be interested in others' reactions.

I think a critical eye will find myriad problems with the arguments, but the facts are illuminating and the presentation is cute.

The Spider

Interesting new information on Mercury. Very cool.

Wal-Mart Saves the World (Really)

I was recently directed to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article from 10 days ago reporting that 7500 Atalant...ans? (Atlantians? Atlantites?) showed up at a new Wal-Mart to apply for a maximum 400 jobs.

"The big turnout speaks volumes about the state of the local economy," said Bruce Kaufman, a Georgia State University economics professor. While the unemployment rate in the area remains relatively low, Kaufman said the large number of job-seekers suggests that many people are either under-employed or had stopped looking for work.

I would be interested to see statistics on what percentage of Wal-Mart employees were jobless prior to their foray into blue-vestedness compared to the number that simply switched jobs, but, much more importantly, this gives me an excuse to restate my conviction that Wal-Mart is poised to be the biggest contributor to social progress in the United States in the near future.

Unpopular though it may be, Wal-Mart has a unique opportunity to serve as the impetus towards more "green" and "socially conscientious" business.

Because Wal-Mart, like all firms, is forever seeking to maximize profit, it will inevitably attempt to construct more stores in densely populated areas near the coasts. And because consumers tend to lean farther left than those in the Bible Belt and South, Wal-Mart may find it necessary to foster a progressive (or more progressive) image in order to court that consumer base.

It's already happening. Just skim through Wal-Mart's "Sustainability" directory (available here) and you'll find information on Wal-Mart programs aimed at rewnable resources, "waste reduction," and more "earth-friendly products." Compare the direction of Wal-Mart's social leanings with the graphic to the right: 15 years ago there were almost no store locations on the West Coast and in the Northeast, and, as far as I know, not a whole lot of talk about "sustainabilty" efforts.

Wal-Mart sustains low prices by using volume to leverage purchasing costs. Wal-Mart is able to tell suppliers to drop their prices or find another vendor through which to move 15 million units - not too difficult of a choice. So why wouldn't Wal-Mart also be able to encourage its suppliers to be more eco-friendly (think Ben & Jerry's using cows that aren't given hormones or Eggland's Best using free-range chickens)?

Not only will Wal-Mart shift, but they'll require every one of their suppliers to do so as well.

So if you're looking for the organization with greatest motive and ability to push American industry towards a greener heyday, delete your MoveOn.org emails, tell the local Greenpeace street-walker that, no, you do not have two minutes for the environment, and go hit up your local Wal-Mart for some $4 uppers.

Hat-tip to Jessa Haugebak for the original article.

Half the Battle

Based on Stone's method for selecting a 2008 Presidential candidate - eliminating candidates as they cross some kind of “categorical threshold,” - I submit that the primary political tactic ought to be noncommittal. Make the speeches, talk about change (but still make references to the Great America), and then hold your tongue before independents and moderates find something about your campaign they dislike.

People are more turned off by their turn-offs than turned on by their turn-ons.

I'm announcing my campaign for 2008 Presidency. I have absolutely no opinions and zero commitments. Don't agree with them? Well, I bet you don't disagree.

New York Times Endorsements

Worth taking a look at the Times' endorsement of McCain for the Republican nomination, if only to read the editorial board call Guiliani names.

Here.

Response to Bill Gates

Here is an interesting critique of Bill Gate's recent call for increased "market based social change" at the World Economic Forum.

The authors make at least two mistakes; the first in underestimating the positive feelings consumers associate with being attached to firms that are perceived as being "socially conscientious," the second (and more important) in creating a false dichotomy between successful firms that pursue profit maximization and those that are engaged in "money-losing projects."

The authors focus a great deal on firms that donate a substantial portion of their revenues to charity.

Of course, some businesses have found that embracing "social" goals can boost profits: the list includes Ben & Jerry's, Celestial Seasonings, Patagonia, Stonyfield Farm, and Whole Foods. Cypress Semiconductor, run by the free-market capitalist T.J. Rodgers, has won trophies for the most food donated per employee in Silicon Valley for over a decade. Rodgers calls it "a big employee moral builder, a way to attract new employees, good PR for the company, and a significant benefit to the community--all of which makes Cypress a better place to work and invest."

True. But in using these firms as examples the authors have mischaracterized "market based social change" as market based philanthropy, which are not the same thing. The above are illustrative of the latter, which the authors are correct to be suspicious of (they remind us that both Milton Friedman and Adam Smith wrote specifically on dubious "trading for the public good").

But socially aware business is not philanthropy. It is being selective about the industry (or market) in which to maximize profits. If the authors are really interested in taking on the efficacy of "market based social change," they would do well to focus less on Ben & Jerry's and more on Grameen Bank or one of the myriad businesses that have been so successful at aligning profit maximization and enfranchisement.

Creative Destruction

Saw this piece of art ("Pater Noster" by Sean Landers) at the Denver Art Museum a few weeks back (for more pictures of the painting, check out a photo album here). The basic premise is that the artist started writing brief "diary entries" in a way that formed a series of patterns on an immense piece of canvas. He started the work when he found out that his father had terminal cancer, and it ends shortly before his wife is to have their first child.

The result is a fairly stunning amalgamation of sardonic commentary ("I have to confess that I'm fucking great. Sorry if that rubbs [sic] the wrong way."), navel-gazing ("Tennis on Tuesday, the start of my new health routine."), and a heart-breaking kind of matter-of-factness ("I hung this canvas a year and a half ago. Since then, I got rich, my dad died, and Michelle is pregnant.").

I'm not sure why this particular artwork struck me as so fascinating. Much of what is written is the kind of banal reiteration of daily routine that is everywhere regurgitated at the end of the day. Then again, maybe it's the artist's lack of pretense that is so compelling, focusing as he does on the root - not the symptoms - of pain.

Another Fatal Conceit

Nice to see the world still has some sense...

I do find it interesting that the leader of an ideological movement that was founded on the theory that all of human history has been determined by material needs and conflicts (as opposed to a conflict of ideas or religions) is being undermined by a vast, poor populace that is waiting to grant Chavez sweeping socialist powers until he satisfies their, well, material needs.

Note to future socialist leaders: ensure that your populace has jobs before you try to swing it left. They'll tire of your ideology when they figure out they can't eat it. Ask Maslow.

The End of Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

From Time - apparently two separate research teams have managed to doctor adult cheek cells to simulate embryonic stem cells:

...scientists have surged ahead of ethicists and politicians in finding ever more clever ways to generate stem cells. But where other breakthroughs relied on using cells from living embryos — tiny bits of inchoate life, fraught with ethical issues — the work by Yamanaka and Thomson sidesteps that abyss by nursing adult cells into a state in which their cellular destiny is yet to be fulfilled. No embryos, no eggs, no hand-wringing over where the cells come from and whether it is ethical to make them in the first place.

The researchers admit that cheek cells are not yet able to provide the same benefits as embryonic stem cells, so the ethical and legislative debates may continue. At the very least, this seems to kill any hope the Left may have had (think California's Proposition 71 from a few years back) of acquiring public funds to continue human embryonic stem cell research...