Grey Swan

There has been a lot of debate about global warming this past year as temperatures have failed to rise. Of course climate is a complex topic and there are many factors that contribute to how warm or coool a particular year will be. Everything from sunspots to ocean currents have an important impact on global temperatures. In the long term, however, scientists claim that we humans are placing strong positive pressure on temperature through emissions of green house gases. This may be, but as far as I remember there are actually two types of ‘manmade’ emissions that effect climate. They are:

1) Greenhouses gases – Contribute to higher temperatures and can last in the air for hundreds of years

2) Particulate emissions – Emissions that reflect sunlight and reduce temperature. Generally emitted by dirty fuel sources such as coal.

Given that there are these two key manmande emissions the important factors on there impact are.

The key insight I have gleamed from a lifetime of reading the news is that particles last in the atmosphere for only up to ~30 years, while greenhouse gases will remain much longer (depends on how fast they are scrubbed by forests, etc). If we were to assume that both gases were output at the same rate and had the same impact on temperatures, than for the first 30 years manmade gases would have no impact on temperatures, but thereafter greenhouses gases would have a great impact than reflective particles, and temperatures would rise.

But all things are not equal. Two key insights appear to be

1) In general, more advanced economies have cleaner emissions that output a higher ratio of greenhouse gases to particulate matter (though lower amounts of both, per unit energy).

2) Given a constant proportion of greenhouse gases to particulate emissions, the net impact of emissions will be to have a negative impact on temperatures in the short run, and a positive impact on the long run.

Insight 1 implies that the higher the proportion of emissions from the developing nations the relatively higher amount of reflective particles in the air to greenhouses gases. Insight 2 Implies that the faster the rate that emissions increase the cooler the earth gets. The slower the rate, the warmer the earth gets.

The key implication is that, given the rapid rise of China and its massive and dirty emissions, global warming from human emissions should slow dramatically. It also implies that the more rapidly we switch to clean energy sources, the higher temperatures will be in the short and medium term.

I love America. I like western culture. I don’t ever want to be oppressed by people from another country. A long time ago I would have thought these thoughts and then moved on to playing a game or read a book. But unfortunately, now I am worried enough to shut down the Xbox360 and blog. Why? The future of the US, perhaps western civilization is in doubt. Each day our countries relative strength wanes while China (our biggest long term threat) grows. Within 10 years its economy will be larger than ours. In 50, with a per capita gdp in line with ours, its will be three times our size. Most people hear this and proceed to think at least the US won’t be bullying other countries anymore. I hear this and cry. I realize, unlike others who are too constrained by ideology to see what is blatantly clear, that other countries won’t be like us. They won’t be the glbes policemen trying to keep everyone safe from theirselves. No, They will try to conquer the world.

Before you call me crazy, let me remind you of what EVERY other country with power has done:

Islam
Russia – Communism, attempted to conquer the world by force and ideology. Succeeded in creating and empire known as the ‘Soviet Union’
Germany – Perhaps the cruelest country ever. Tried to create an empire known as the Third Reich
Japan – Empire of the Rising Sun
Britain – “The Sun Never Sets…”
France – Napolean, etc.
Spain – Conquistadors
Hapsburg Empire – …
Ottoman Empire
Moors
Mongels
Rome
Egypt
Etc.

The point is that every nation that has ever gained an upper hand has sallied forth to conquer except for one, us, the US. If we wanted to, we probably could have created an empire. But we didn’t. And now our strength is our weakness. We have forgotten what it is like to NOT be the strongest and are not sufficiently worried about our future. Fortunately 3 simple policy changes can dramatically alter the long-term outlook of our Nation. Unlike Britain, we do not need to fall into obscurity. We have one of the largest landmasses in the world, and perhaps the largest habitable land. We have the 3rd largest population. We have the highest Per Capita of any large country. So what can we do?

1 – Change our immigration policies. Immigrants may increase our population, but if we continue to let in 3rd world people we will become a 3rd world country. We should limit immigration to only the best and brightest from around the world. Australia has this policy, and so should we. Moreover, we need to limit the quantity of people wishing to become Americans. If Europeans are not the majority of people, the country will no longer be a European country.

2 – Make Americans American again. The rise of the hyphenated American means that people are identifying less and less as Americans, and more by their country of origin. It is fine if people are from different ethnic groups as long as they adopt American culture. There should be no black culture, no white culture, no Asian culture — there should be an American culture. We do not need to eliminate peoples heritage, but everyone in America should have a western mindset and ultimately be loyal to our country. To do this will take a great cultural shift away from multiculturalism.

3 – Increase the Total Fertility Rate. One of the great strengths of our nation is not just that there are already 300MM people here, and that many of them are well educated, but that our country is so big. America has one of the lowest population densities of any developed country. We have plenty of room for more people – If our population density were as high as China’s (which is lower than much of Europe) we too would have 1.3B people. That may be to crowded, but in truth population brings power. A TFR of ~2.5 would ensure slow and steady growth with a reasonable youthful population.To accomplish an increase fertility rate we would simply need to give a PERCENTAGE tax break for each child a couple has. This would encourage both the rich and poor to produce children, and would reduce dysgenic effects of a straight up subsidy.

We can do it.