Romney is not for favoring particular technologies (well, unless it's nuclear, that is)

A quick glance at the "Energy" tab on Romney's website led me to notice this logical inconsistency.

"History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends."

So he doesn't want to play favorites.  There are plenty of economists who share this basic philosophy: let the market determine the winners.  (In general I agree with this philosophy, but only if the market prices externalities appropriately.)

His site also says:

Monday What's on the Web: Extraordinary Observations

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
----------------------------
Extraordinary Observations is a blog maintained by one of my fellow DC area bloggers named Rob Pitingolo.  He moved to Arlington, Virginia from Cleveland in mid-2010 after graduating from John Carroll University with a degree in Economics. He writes about issues of urbanism, economics, transportation and politics at his blog.  He also occasionally contributes to Greater Greater Washington.

I like his posts because they tend to be short and pithy and make an interesting ("extraordinary" might be a stretch, but--hey--a little hyperbole never hurt anyone) observation.  It's like a little piece of think candy in your day.  Some recent posts include:

• Let's make transit less complicated
• On gourmet burgers
• The automobile equilibrium
• Do dive bars require dive economies?

Check it out.  You're sure to find a post or two you like.

Day Seven: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless."

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of economics.  In general, when economics has trouble placing a value on something, it just assigns it a value of zero.  Nothing skews the results more than that.  In this case, biodiversity is valued at essentially zero in economic analyses, but its actual value is incalculably large.  Talk about a discrepancy!  E.O. Wilson's book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth may not be the best book on this topic, but it comes from one of the greatest minds to ever think about biodiversity. . .or nature in general, for that matter.


[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]