The Walk of Shame: Corruption and Government, Don't Look So Suprised

Apparently the tax law is so complex that even the guy in change of writing it doesn't understand his own obligations under that law. Or maybe he just forgot to report tens of thousands of dollars in income over two decades. Somehow, I think that if I made a similar mistake there would be gruff men in dark suits knocking on my door.

Speaking of money owed to the government. Days after the Interior Department received an award for high standards of integrity the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a detailed report describing inappropriate conduct among the minerals management services who collect royalties from oil companies. The sordid dealings include contract fixing, inappropriate sexual relationships between regulators and oil company execs, and regulators being on the payroll of oil companies as consultants. The missing money comes in where the MMS has failed to pursue thousands of dollars in royalties owed to the government by the oil companies while they have been racking in record profits and growing fat off of huge tax subsidies. Subsidies which also don't seem to be doing anything to keep gas prices low. At least the "MMS Chicks" had a good time.

Pelosi seems to think this will effect the nature of the debates regarding increased offshore oil drilling. By which she doesn't mean that this information revealing that the Bush administration could have done something about the rising cost of oil will be used to take increased drilling off the table. (Drilling that wont do anything to reduce the cost of oil since it will take decades for there to be any production and that production will be so small as to not make any impact at the pump.) No, this will just result in some language being added to the bill regarding integrity. This new information won't change anything because it has already been decided to go ahead with drilling. In fact congress has decided to go ahead with a worse plan than that suggested by Paris Hilton.

Compassionate Conservatism Gets Compassionate All Over the Environment

So apparently the big news today is that Cheney is an asshole and has been "secretly" trying to suppress testimony regarding global warming. The LA Times has decided to be clever and link this to when Cheney crafted U.S. energy policy in secret, working directly with energy industry lobbyists. They may be reacting to the fact that that story got no mileage seven years ago. It appears that the only reason anyone is paying attention to this latest move by the friendly and lovable members of the Bush administration who only want the best for the American people, is because someone in the Democratic party finally grew some stones and is standing up to this shit.

People on the right fringe give Al Gore tons of crap about "An Inconvenient Truth" but he never even brings up this shit. Its understandable why a respectable person would refrain from pointing the finger at the people who are trying to suppress the truth in order to gain a financial benefit. Usually when one decrys the influence of the big bad oil companies they immediately get labeled as a kook or a conspiracy nut. In some cases this kind of arm waving behavior may be paranoia but when the manipulation of public sentiment is actually happening why can't it be pointed out in a legitimate discussion? Why is the standard response to pointing out information manipulation the logical fallacy resort to ridicule? And why is that the end of the public discussion of the manipulation?

A Question of Origin

Among the many questions surrounding China's economic development and the associated environmental problems, there is rarely any question of responsibility. As the Chinese Communist Party maintains a firm control over all policy measures, it's easy to point the finger and say that they bear all responsibility. However, a couple of recent articles, one from the New York Times and the other from the Wall Street Journal, might lead one to slightly more nuanced conclusions.

The article from the New York Times, describes how Germany, suddenly left without coal to power its industrial juggernaut, sold off the pieces of industry to parties in China. German politicians were able to point at a blue sky and the profit off of the sales and benefit politically, while the factories were set up in China to keep producing the black soot that nearly destroyed the Black Forest.

The article from the Wall Street Journal illustrates Canada's role in the Three Gorges Dam project. In a similar vein, then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien leveraged deals to provide turbines to the project to keep his native province of Quebec from seceding from the confederation.

These stories, if nothing else, should provide anecdotal evidence that policy makers need to consider the ethical implications of international trade. These facilities are still polluting at the same rate, if not more, than they were for their previous owners, and yet they were sold anyway, instead of cleaner alternatives. Are ethical obligations limited to boundaries and citizenship?

If nothing else, these cases provide further evidence that one can make money through immoral business practices. Moral hazard theorists be damned!

In other environmental news from the Middle Kingdom, Beijing recorded its 256th "blue sky day" of the year. Pollution is squarely on the agenda for the next five years, with a new Politburo getting settled into office. Also making news is a website (English, 中文） from the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs detailing air pollution.