Steven Chu

Motley Crue has been through a lot over the years.  They've survived their bass player's heroin addiction.  They survived their lead singer's drunken vehicular manslaughter.  They survived their gutair player's battle with ankylosing spondylitis.  They even survived Pamela's false domestic abuse accusations.  The one thing Motley Crue might not survive is President Obama's environmental policies.

For those of you unaware: the typical Crue show includes lots of flashy pyrotechnics.  To say that Crue shows have a heavy carbon footprint is the understatement of the century.  How would cap and trade impact them?

Microeconomics 101 Suggests two possibilities:

1) Crue shows become more expensive.  Under a cap and trade regime - between the pyrotechnics, the giant Marshall stacks, and the private plane travel between gigs - the Crue would be over any CAP that government busybodies might assign them.  That will, of course, force them to TRADE for the right to emit more carbon.  In order to trade for the carbon, they'll have to PAY MONEY. 

How will they make up for the money they have to pay?  They'll RAISE PRICES on tickets and merch.  By definition, higher prices mean fewer people will pay to see them.  In a worst-case scenario, the Crue could decide that touring is prohibitively expensive and stay home and bang strippers instead.

2) Crue shows are less cool.  Instead of paying for the "right" to emit carbon, they might cut back on pyrotechnics and Marshall stacks.  By definition, this is an INFERIOR product.  Marginal Crue fans (unlike me) might decide that Crue shows aren't worth it anymore and they might spend their scarce entertaiment dollars elsewhere.

Ultimately, no matter what happens, the Crue will be fine.  They've already made their money and they can probably afford to live out the rest of their days even if they never earn another cent.  The people who this will really hurt will be the massive support staff you need to pull off a tour of any magnitude.

While you may not care about the Crue per se, this vignette epitomizes perfectly the fundamental assault on personal freedom that is cap and trade.  The Crue's decision about what sort of live performace (if any) to put on will not be based on the economics of what the fans want (hint: BIG explosions) against the budget constraint of the band.  Instead, the Crue's decision will be based on what some busybody at the EPA thinks is best for all of us.  That's not America; that's France.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

President-elect Obama will appoint a reputable scientist and Nobel-winning physicist, Steven Chu, as the new Secretary of Energy.  Those of us hoping for more nuclear energy in the US portfolio - it supplies 80% of France's electricity, so at least some on the Left have managed to come to terms with it - may have some reason for optimism.  At least, we might if Obama listens to his scientists.

NEI Nuclear Notes (Nuclear Energy Institute blog) gives a bit of background on Steven Chu. Noting that Obama has said more nuclear energy will require safe, long-term disposal methods (granted, Obama is giving himself the very epitome of a movable goalpost), NEI says Chu has been quite rational on the topic...

So what about nuclear energy and used fuel? Has Chu addressed these topics at length? In fact, he has, for example in this 2005 interview with UC Berkeley's Bonnie Azab Powell:

Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. [...] 

And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.

Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good - what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.

NEI Nuclear Notes also pointed out that "Steven Chu is a signatory on the DOE Labs' report "A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy," released this past August."  Daily Kos diarist David Walters has the relevant text of this report, which includes the following...

The Directors of the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories strongly believe that nuclear energy must play a significant and growing role in our nation’s — and the world’s — energy portfolio.

It will be interesting to see whether President Obama will follow pursue the nuclear energy route that his Energy Secretary has said should be a bigger part of the US energy portfolio.  Or if he will go for the agri-pork heavy path recommended by his Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

In light of the evolving cost/benefit issues surrounding energy and particularly nuclear energy, it's really been remarkable that the nuclear energy industry has not invested much more heavily in developing grassroots support for the issue.  With the Right desperately in search of energizing issues, there is tremendous opportunity to drive the nuclear issue, even organize around it, particularly online.