ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Top US Import Partners

I noted this morning that imports are less important to the American economy than people generally realize. Other developed countries tend to be much smaller and more specialized and so trade on both the imports and exports side is much more important to them. Americans mostly trade with other Americans. But when we do import, who do we import from?

Here’s the Census’ figures on what’s happened so far in 2010:

That there’s a lot of China should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the news. Indeed, I’d say following the news probably leads to a mistake overestimation of how important China is to the US economy. I’d say China accounts for much more than 20 percent of total trade-related media coverage, even though the PRC is just 18.5 percent of our imports and less than 17 percent of our total trade. By contrast Canada is systematically under-covered in the American media. This is especially true when you consider that Canada-based business establishments are much more likely to be directly competing with US-based ones.

Yglesias

The International

John Quiggin’s rudimentary thoughts on the problematics of cosmopolitan social democracy are well worth reading. In addition to his notions on a programmatic level, it’s worth noting a simple operational problem facing progressive democrats in the modern world—the lack of cross-border institutions in which politicians can collaborate. The historic organization for these purposes, the Socialist International, for historical reasons doesn’t include the main progressive center-left party in India, or the United States of America, or Japan, or Brazil.

Meanwhile in the traditional continental European stronghold of formal social democracy it’s now almost invariably the case that progressive majority coalitions are formed only through partnerships with green parties who, likewise, aren’t part of the SI.

I would hardly want to argue that this institutional failing is the main problem facing progressives in forging a workable cosmopolitan egalitarian vision but it (a) doesn’t help and (b) reflects some of the other underlying issues. And while obscure international organizations never solve anything, as such, there really is an urgent need for developed country progressives to get better at working across borders and taking seriously the point of view of progressives in poor countries.

Climate Progress

Climate researcher: “It is my assessment that we have had the strongest melting since they started measuring the temperature in Greenland in 1873.”

Glaciologist: “Sea level projections will need to be revised upward.”

The headline quote is over a month old, but, according to Google, it hasn’t been reprinted anywhere beyond the story on the official website of Denmark.  That article opened:

New calculations show that the amount of melted inland ice in Greenland is 25-50% higher in 2010 than normally.

The big Arctic story this month has been NOAA’s 2010 Arctic Report Card, which found that, thanks to human-caused global warming, “Arctic of old is gone, experts warn,” as MNSBC put it.   One NOAA scientist explained the importance of the Arctic as the canary in the coal mine: “Whatever is going to happen in the rest of the world happens first, and to the greatest extent, in the Arctic.”

But the rapid Arctic warming is important to our climate in its own right.  It can directly alter our weather.  It threatens to release vast quantities of carbon locked away in the previously frozen tundra (see Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting:  NSF issues world a wake-up call: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming”).

The rapid warming also threatens to accelerate sea level rise.  The Report Card’s section on Greenland, written by an international team of experts, concludes:

Read more

Climate Progress

Colorado Climate Scientists Tell Ken Buck: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Hoax’

Ken BuckColorado’s climate scientists — among the world’s leaders in the field — have sharply dismissed the assertions made by the state’s Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate that global warming is a “hoax.” Colorado is a hub of American climate science, home to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory. On Thursday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Colorado State University would house the North Central Climate Science Center, leading a consortium of the University of Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Wyoming, Montana State University, University of Montana, Kansas State University and Iowa State University. Nevertheless, Ken Buck, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Colorado, is a radical denier of the science of global warming, campaigning with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) this week:

Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.

Colorado’s climatologists have responded to Buck, en force. In a press conference hastily arranged by the League of Conservation Voters on Friday, Colorado State University climatologist Scott Denning, blasted the anti-science position of Buck, Inhofe, and the like:

There’s really no question at all that CO2 molecules emit heat. It seems like the onus is on them to explain how you can add heat to the surface without warming it up. The basic science of the effect of human-produced CO2 on climate change is 150 years old. It was first measured in 1863. The first estimates of the effect were published in 1896. It piles up and the more stuff you put up there, the more heat you’re going to get.

In an exclusive e-mail interview with the Wonk Room, Denning’s colleague Dennis Ojima, chair of Colorado State’s Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory and a senior scholar with the Heinz Center, explained that “there is no hoax”:

Quite simply, there is no hoax in studying climate change. It is an important research concern, the same as studying cancer or the economic growth. There is no controversy about the role human actions have made to alter the climate system through the emissions of greenhouse gases over the past 150 years. The fundamental physics associated with the impact of this change in atmospheric concentrations of these gases is not disputed. The manner in which these gases react in the atmosphere is one of the fundamental properties of the climate system. The science at the fundamental level related to greenhouse gases and climate are as solid and as important as the finding that germs are responsible for illnesses and that there are specific strategies to reduce germs in the environment we live in.

“Climate science is not at all a hoax,” climatologist Caspar M. Ammann, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told the Wonk Room. In fact, when Ammann heard comments by Buck several months ago on Colorado Public Radio questioning the science of climate change, Dr. Ammann contacted the Buck campaign, offering to explain “why we are sure most of the warming in the last thirty to forty years is human made.”

Dr. Ammann received no response from Ken Buck.

In the interview Ammann emphasized how severe the changes to the global climate will be if greenhouse pollution is not curtailed:

The magnitude of temperature change will be comparable to interglacial periods, when New York City and the Upper Midwest were covered with an ice sheet, about 5-6 C degrees of temperature change. If we keep going with our emissions, we could get that temperature change in a hundred years. We expect 4 C and it could be more by the end of the century, about five times as much warming as we’ve already experienced. The magnitude, even on a geologic perspective, is a substantial change, far larger than anything human civilization has ever seen.

“It’s very likely it’s disruptive to anything we’re doing and take for granted at the moment,” Ammann cautioned.

And yet, it seems that because the response to this civilizational threat requires some form of governmental regulation, Buck’s ideology does not permit him to accept that the problem even exists.

Update

Yet another Colorado climatologist has weighed in. Dr. Christian Shorey, geology and geologic engineering faculty at the Colorado School of Mines and author of an excellent series of environmental podcasts, tells the Wonk Room:

Though it is impossible for a scientist to speak of natural phenomena in terms of absolute certainty, I would have to say that the present state of our knowledge leaves little possibility that human induced greenhouse gas accumulation in our atmosphere is not causing an increase in average global surface temperatures.

“Proper policy will have to take a long term view of the problem, and as such our politicians will need to have a proper respect for the results of well researched science,” Dr. Shorey concluded.

Politics

2010 Rove Dismisses 2004 Rove’s Deep Concerns About Secret Money In Elections

Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation today, former Bush advisor Karl Rove defended “flooding our politics with money from people who don’t want people to know they’ve contributed,” as host Bob Schieffer put it, saying his Crossroads GPS group and other conservative organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money on this year’s elections without disclosing their donors. The network of special interest groups led by Rove is expecting to raise $250 million to influence this years’ elections, almost all of it from millionaires and billionaires.

But as ThinkProgress reported last week, Rove sang a different tune in 2004 when he said, “I’m against all the 527 ads and activities,” referring to a tax designation of some outside political groups, including his own American Crossroads. “I don’t think they’re fair. I don’t think it’s appropriate. They’re misusing the law. They all ought to stop,” he said at the time. Today, Schieffer confronted Rove with the video ThinkProgress highlighted, asking him, “so why is it that if they were so bad back then that they’re so wholesome now?” Watch it:

Rove responded by saying “I wish we had a different system,” but that his group and the others were merely a response to the “liberal groups” which “have been using undisclosed money for years and years and years and years,” he said, pointing to unions. But as Schieffer and others have noted, unions’ memberships and agendas are well known and public, while the agenda and motives of Rove’s wealthy donors are unclear and hidden. Moreover, Rove ignored the fact that President Obama took a strong stance against secretive outside groups supporting his 2008 campaign, marginalizing Democrat-aligned groups.

But when Scheiffer asked Rove — who at that point had stated that we need “a different system” at least three times — whether he would commit to working towards a stronger campaign finance regime, Rove dodged, declining to commit to anything or say what a “new system” might entail:

SCHEIFFER: If you feel so strongly about it would you pledge this morning that you’ll work to have new campaign laws where we make all of these contributions transparent and we’ll know who is giving them?

ROVE: I’m for a new system, Bob. I’m focused on 2010. Right now I’m focused on trying to level the playing field. When you have an organization that spends $87 million. It’s announced it’s spending $87 million. We’re the big player but we don’t like to boast about it. That’s the amount of disclosure. We’ve tolerated this for decades. The system may need something else.

Rove did pledge, however, that his groups will act as a conduit for billionaires to secretly funnel money into American politics for years to come, saying his Crossroads groups will “serve as a permanent counterweight to the activities of the labor unions and these liberal groups.”

Climate Progress

Vast stretches of oil still contaminate the Gulf

Six months ago, BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing eleven men and beginning an ecological catastrophe that flooded the Gulf of Mexico with approximately five million barrels of oil over the ensuing months. The effort to assess the damage continues, as does the tortuous claims process for the thousands of affected residents.

Following news headlines that the oil had “largely disappeared” by August, nearly all of the Gulf waters closed to fishing have been reopened, and the Coast Guard has declared “very little recoverable oil” remains. However, as Brad Johnson explains the disaster is not over:

Read more

Media

The New Elite

I think Charles Murray’s latest Washington Post op-ed decrying the rise of a new elite is one of those classic instances of “provocative” journalism that manages to meld the banal and the false in a superficially appealing way.

For example, what is one to make of this?

Talk to [the New Elite] about sports, and you may get an animated discussion of yoga, pilates, skiing or mountain biking, but they are unlikely to know who Jimmie Johnson is (the really famous Jimmie Johnson, not the former Dallas Cowboys coach), and the acronym MMA means nothing to them.

Of course this paragraph doesn’t make sense to publish unless you assume that a large proportion of Washington Post readers know that “MMA” stands for “mixed martial arts.” And the non-NASCAR Jimmie Johnson isn’t just some former coach, he’s familiar to 100 percent of NFL fans thanks to his ubiquity on Fox’s Sunday broadcasts. And pro football is hardly a pursuit of the narrow elite—it’s the most popular sport in America and one of the relatively few endeavors that, in this era of media fragmentation, united people (or men at a minimum) across race and class lines.

For the record, a map of pilates instructors in Branson, Missouri.

Politics

Rubio Suggests Undocumented Should Leave U.S. And ‘Try To Enter’ Under Fixed Immigration System

This morning, Florida senatorial candidates debated on CNN’s State of the Union. When the state’s Republican candidate, Marco Rubio, was specifically asked about what he thinks should be done about the 11-12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country, he initially dodged the answer. When pressed, Rubio explained that he supports fixing the legal immigration system so that undocumented immigrants can go back to their home countries and reenter the country legally:

RUBIO: First, I don’t believe we can grant amnesty because I think it’s unfair to people who have entered legally.

MODERATOR: You would send them out of the country?

RUBIO: Well, it’s not that simple. I’ve never advocated that we round people up. I don’t know anyone who’s seriously talking about that. What I said needs to have happen is a legal immigration system that functions. [...]

MODERATOR: You’re still going to have the difficulty of 12 million people here, they don’t have papers. What other than amnesty — call it anything you want — just call it a plan.

RUBIO: You have to have a legal immigration system that works. [...]

MODERATOR: Your plan is that you’re going close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system and then do what?

RUBIO: And then you’ll have a legal immigration system that works and you’ll have people in this country without documents that will be able to return — will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland and try to enter through a system that now functions.

Watch it:

Rubio often reminds his audience that he is a son of immigrants. So it’s surprising that his answer doesn’t take into account what will happen to the millions of U.S.-born children of immigrants who would have to drop their lives in the U.S. and return to their home countries for an unspecified amount of time. He also doesn’t consider the vacant jobs and homes that would be left behind. And though Rubio doesn’t support “rounding people up,” he doesn’t explain how the U.S. government would convince millions of undocumented immigrants to abandon their homes and families and return to their impoverished homeland for an undetermined number of years.

Curiously, Rubio provided a much more tepid answer when he was asked a similar question on the DREAM Act during a debate for Spanish-speaking voters which aired on Univision a few weeks ago. “I want to work on something that allows us in a limited way to accommodate those who are in this country in that predicament through no fault of their own, but have a lot to contribute to our country,” Rubio told Univision’s audience.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated that Florida is home to 720,000 undocumented immigrants as of 2009.

Economy

Toomey: ‘It’s Not Clear’ That Extending Bush’s Tax Cuts Would Increase The Deficit

Some Republican Senate candidates have suggested that extending the Bush tax cuts — which are scheduled to expire at the end of the year — will actually be good for the country’s bottom line, as the economic growth that results will more than offset the trillions of dollars in lost revenue. “By extending tax cuts you pay down the deficit, you grow the economy by giving people more money,” said Colorado Republican Ken Buck.

Today, on Fox News Sunday, Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey joined this club, telling Fox’s Chris Wallace that “it’s not clear” that extending the Bush tax cuts — while also lowering the corporate tax rate — would increase the deficit:

WALLACE: If you extend all the Bush tax cuts, if you were to cut, not eliminate, but cut the corporate tax rate — although that would produce some economic growth and therefore some increased revenues — there no question that would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. The question becomes, what are you going to cut? What are you going to cut in spending, what are you going to cut in entitlements, and I’d ask you to be specific sir.

TOOMEY: Sure. But first of all, it’s not clear that that would add trillions to the deficit, because I really believe that if we expand the base of the economy, which we could do by selectively lowering some taxes, you have a broader base on which to apply the tax.

Watch it:

As American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was formerly the Congressional Budget Office director and an adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, said, “there is no serious research evidence to suggest” that tax cuts pay for themselves. Extending the Bush tax cuts costs more than $3 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts just for the wealthiest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion over that period.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush-era tax cuts are one of the largest drivers of the country’s long-term structural deficit. And, contrary to Toomey’s assertion, simply lowering taxes doesn’t broaden the tax base (which is accomplished by removing subsidies, loopholes, and giveaways in the tax code).

Toomey was also wrong to suggest that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue: in 2000, the government collected 10 percent of GDP in personal income taxes, a percentage that has never been collected since the Bush tax cuts. Plus, the historical record of the Bush tax cuts suggests that they won’t create the sort of economic growth that Toomey is counting on. In fact, following the Bush tax cuts, the country “registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period”:

Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.

On a final note, Toomey never did identify anything he would cut from the budget to offset the cost of his budget-busting tax cuts.

Yglesias

Iran’s Strategy of Making Do

In a lot of ways the most newsworthy stuff in the latest WikiLeaks document dump is this Iran material discussed by Robert Farley that doesn’t particularly serve a specific political agenda. During the period when the Bush administration was making a lot of noise about Iranian activities in Iraq, a number of us regarded the speakers as not particularly credible. Julian Assange has now provided us with extensive documentation that such claims were, at a minimum, broadly and sincerely believed by the military personnel on the ground and not just a communications strategy.

Bottom line, as Farley says:

…to be clear, while I’d be reluctant to suggest that Iran had a moral or legal right to intervene in Iraq, I consider it utterly unsurprising that Iran did so; attempting to manage the political situation in a neighboring country, while simultaneously weakening a potential enemy, is something that countries do. Indignation about Iranian intervention is absurd.

Which brings us to Dexter Filkins’ article about how while the United States is attempting to achieve influence in Afghanistan through a military campaign that entails spending hundreds of billions of dollars, the Iranian government is just delivering millions in cash to Hamid Karzai’s chief of staff. That seems smart! And it seems noteworthy to me that the much tighter objective resource constraints faced by the Iranian national security apparatus seems to have inspired more creating thinking about high-productivity outlays.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up