Force For Good Communications

My 'excess' children will help make the world better and, yes, cleaner

Is it down right un-ecological to have more than one or two children?

That's what researchers at Oregon State University claim.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

As the father of four children, I take exception to that notion, just as I object to earlier views that having "excess" children is wasteful.of resources, a drag on society, etc. Each of my four sons is smart, self-confident, respectful and considerate of others. I have complete confidence that each of them will be a net positive in any measure imaginable -- doing more good than evil, creating more value than they consume and, yes, helping make the planet greener over the course of their lives.

Our children aren't like so many Canada goslings, growing up to poop all over our parks.

As William McGurn wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The truth is more brains will likely mean cleaner energy technologies."

- Jon Harmon

'Cash for Clunkers' rhetoric frames the issue, pro and con

The so-called "cash for clunkers" program has been a great success, or a terrible waste of taxpayer money, depending on your point of view.

Hundreds of thousands of new car sales in the past two weeks came with an old clunky trade-in to qualify for the Federal program designed to jump-start auto sales while removing inefficient and and relatively dirty cars off American highways.

Rare is the opportunity for a government-funded "three-for." The program, to varying degrees, helps 1) an important sector of the economy including automakers, suppliers and dealers, 2) provide the fastest improvement in air quality by permanently retiring some of the oldest, dirtiest vehicles that even when new produced far more emissions than today's vehicles, and in many cases have deteriorated into smog-belching offenders as they have aged; 3) help address energy national security as well as global warming concerns (does that make it a "four-for?") by replacing relatively fuel-inefficient older vehicles with much more efficient 2009 and 2010 models.

If the Senate, as expected, approves another $2 billion in funding, the program will live on for several more weeks and triple the benefits originally envisioned in the $1 billion clunker bill. 

So what's not to like about the program? Environmentalists would have liked to have seen stricter requirements to reward purchases only of the most fuel efficient cars. Fiscal conservatives abhor the government interfering with the market and call it an expensive hand-out for the benefit of a single sector.

Both sides have been effective in framing the debate as they see it.

George Pipas, Ford's chief sales analyst, was particularly on target with his soundbites. (Disclosure, George worked for me toward the end of my tenure with Ford, and he remains a friend.) 

"I would challenge anyone to show me a one-week program that has had as much benefit to the consumer, as much benefit to the economy, and as much benefit to the environment as this prgram,' Pipas told the USA Today. In numerous interviews on the subject, Pipas stressed that the most popular cars being purchased under the program were Ford's most fuel-efficient cars, the Focus and Fusion, and its most efficient SUV, the Escape.

"Why not $4,500 for refrigerators or other businesses around my state?" countered Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Added Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): "The federal government should not be running the used car business. This is a horrible policy idea."

As an observant reader, you can tell from the rhetoric I've chosen to frame the issue on this post, and the relative weight I've given the two sides, that I am firmly in the pro-cash-for-clunkers camp. Seems like a much better use of money than we usally get for our tax dollars.

- Jon Harmon

Communication musings on a frigid January Chicago evening

Savvy environmentalists know: Call it "global climate change " when the winter winds blow bitter cold. You can go back to the more familiar "global warming" come summer.

Right now, no one is going to get worked up over "warming." Doesn't sound so bad these days, does it?

For the first time I can ever remember, the temperature never broke zero today. And it never came close. When I left my suburban Chicago house this morning, my car said it was -11 F. Later, I was out in the bright sun at the peak "heat of the day" at 2:30 p.m. The temperature had soared to -7. 

With such incredible cold and crazy amounts of snow this winter for much of the country, the "global warming" label is not nearly sinister enough to motivate massive and expensive counter-measures.

Sure enough, when Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) today announced that his House committee would press for quick action on the issue, he made sure to call it "global climate change."

"Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence," said Waxman (AP)

*   *   *

Don't you think President-elect Obama's very public longings for his Blackberry is one of the great unpaid product endorsements ever?

Today the story took another turn as security experts questioned whether the encryption features in RIM's Blackberry pass National Security Agency guidelines.

One other notable beneficiary of extraordinary Obama attention is the heretofore obscure breed of dog with the comical name of Labradoodle, said to be one the short list to be brought to the White House as the Obama girls' new pet. Brace yourselves for countless more "first dog" stories in the coming weeks and years.

*   *   *

The heroic effort of a U.S. Airways pilot to set the jet down safely today in the Hudson River following twin-engine failure puts a spotlight on all manner of airline safety stories, not the least of which is: What can we do to discourage flocks of suicidal birds from hanging around runways?

- Jon Harmon