I hope so. So far the RRL has been long on hype, short on participation. Here’s an encouraging update at Space Prizes:

Rocket Racing League primed for blast off - Network World - This is a good time to get people thinking about the RRL, which is planning a big event at EAA AirVenture in a few weeks. From the AirVenture site:

The flight activities at EAA AirVenture will begin on July 29 with a single-ship demonstration to open the afternoon air show. On August 1-2, the first full demonstrations of the Rocket Racing League concept are planned, using large outdoor screens to showcase how competitors will fly a “raceway in the sky” via in-panel and 3-D helmet displays during actual competition. All of the flights will also highlight the innovations in aircraft and engine technology that makes this new competition possible.

…

Along with the public aircraft unveiling and demonstration flights, the Rocket Racing League is scheduled to make several other presentations throughout the week, including an evening program at EAA’s Theater in the Woods on Monday, July 28. During these presentations, the Rocket Racing League will present the “inside story” on the creation and development of this entirely new concept in aerial competition.

Any successful program of action on climate change must support two objectives—stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and maintaining economic growth. Research by the McKinsey Global Institute and McKinsey’s Climate Change Initiative finds that reconciling these two objectives means that “carbon productivity,” the amount of GDP produced per unit of carbon equivalents (CO2e) emitted, must increase dramatically.

To meet commonly discussed abatement paths, carbon productivity must increase from approximately $740 GDP per ton of CO2e today to $7,300 GDP per ton of CO2e by 2050—a tenfold increase. This is comparable in magnitude to the labor productivity increases of the Industrial Revolution. However, the “carbon revolution” must be achieved in one-third of the time that economic transformation took in the Industrial Revolution if we are to maintain current growth levels while keeping CO2e levels below 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv), a level that many experts believe is the maximum that can be allowed without significant risks to the climate.

The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005. Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries.

If we do not increase our carbon productivity, the consequences will be stark, the report suggests. Meeting commonly discussed abatement target would require a per-person carbon budget of 6 kilograms of CO2e per day. If one had to live on such a carbon budget with today’s low levels of carbon productivity, one would be forced to choose between a 40 kilometer car ride, a day of air conditioning, buying two new T-shirts (without driving to the shop), or eating two meals. So without a major boost in carbon productivity, stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions would require a major drop in lifestyle for developed countries and would hinder economic development in low income countries.

This is some of the best current work on policy options.

I’ve referred previously to the Nordhaus research published last year [PDF of summary paper]. Neil Reynolds has a useful concise summary of key points in the July 2 Globe and Mail:

…In a brilliant analysis of carbon strategies - The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, published last year - Dr. Nordhaus observes that the complexity of global warming rules out absolute certainty of any kind, whether academic or ideological. “Whatever goal we set will probably be incorrect.” Given this caution, it is essential to adopt a strategy that can be quickly adapted to changing circumstances and changing technologies, he says.

Dr. Nordhaus notes that a single technological advance in 2050, or in 2100, could render redundant trillions of prematurely invested dollars. This is one of the reasons why the most aggressive climate change strategies - the celebrated Stern Review proposals, the controversial dictums espoused by Al Gore - badly flunk the Nordhaus computer analysis test.

If GM was seeking to seize the world’s attention and upstage Toyota, it had succeeded, spectacularly. But now it had to build the car. …the battery for the Volt doesn’t yet exist, at least not at a mass-market price…

“Just in time invention” — that’s GM’s challenge with the fast-track Volt project. The company has become committed to a new vehicle that could lose money on every sale, lots of money. The gamble is that volume and the learning curve will bring down the cost of the batteries so GM can sell the Volt at Chevrolet prices. I hope it works out — it would make GM a very different company than the loser it is today.

…In late March, at the New York auto show, I checked back in with Andrew Farah, the Volt’s chief engineer, and asked for an update. “Still just as bad as before,” he said. When I mentioned that another executive had said the underbody was a well-proven design that didn’t need much testing, he shot me a look of disbelief. “There’s a big gaping hole down the center of this car where the battery goes.”

All around us, at the Chevrolet stand, a crowd was forming. Volt fans from as far away as Arizona, Colorado, and California had made the pilgrimage to question the team about the car.

“Maybe what we’re going to learn out of this isn’t some technological thing,” Farah said. “Maybe what we’re learning is to be more comfortable with a higher level of risk.” I asked if he did feel comfortable with the risks the program was taking. He thought for a moment. “I realize there’s no other way to do it, so I am comfortable with it.” Was he holding up under the pressure? He thought again. “It’s my job to hold up.”

As the event began, I melted into the crowd. Next to me was a 23-year-old grad student who thought the car was historic; next to him, a 21-year-old network engineer who said he loved the car and would buy one now if he could; next to him, a 59-year-old foreman (and grandfather) who said, “I just want to be a part of this.” None of them were car people or GM people, at least not before the Volt. Glancing at the concept car on the dais, I realized I was looking at the Barack Obama of automobiles—everyone’s hope for change.

At the podium, Bob Lutz was saying, “I think the whole company has now learned the lesson that when you set out and do bold things, you win, and when you’re cautious and let someone else do the bold things, you lose.” The crowd applauded warmly. A voice called out, “You’re absolutely right, Bob!”

Lutz said, “It may be years before we make a dime on this product. Years! And the board said, ‘Don’t even talk about profitability. General Motors needs this car.’”

I didn’t know about Korean battery company Compact Power. If they can manufacture in quantity, the battery technical challenge may have been met — a safe battery that fits in the car. Cost? And the A123 design could be better…

During this visit, I found the technical center brimming with optimism, and the battery lab was no exception. One of two suppliers, a company called Compact Power (a subsidiary of a big South Korean chemical and advanced-materials company, LG Chem), had delivered two copies of its version of the battery, and on the bench they were testing brilliantly. “They may not look beautiful,” Turner said—the battery was a six-foot-long T-shaped object from which wires, clamps, and circuit boards protruded—“but as far as the data goes, they’re the best I’ve worked with.” Heat is a problem with lithium-ion batteries, but this one was staying cool even when run hard—and the cooling system had yet to be attached.

Moreover, improvements were being incorporated as fast as they could be conceived; the battery would be on its second generation in January, its third in June. “It’s incredible,” Turner said. “The design they’ve come up with for thermal changed 10 times before they delivered the first battery.” And all of this was before the arrival of a competing battery that might be as good or even better, designed jointly by the Massachusetts-based company A123 Systems and the German company Continental A.G. “We’re inventing and creating on the critical path,” Turner said. He was using the industry jargon for the countdown to production, when time is money and delays can cost millions. “I’ve got guys trying to release things before they’re actually invented.”

When Rauch returned to the battery project in February, things “the picture looked different”.

…And how was the project going? “I’d had nothing but phenomenal testing experiences last time you were here,” he replied. “This time I’m more humbled.”

· Four energy groups to bid for demonstration project
· E.ON’s Kent coal-fired station may use system

The government has stepped up the pace of change in the battle against global warming by announcing a shortlist of four bidders pre-qualifying for its carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration project and outlining a proposed new legislative framework for “clean coal”.

Among the bidders are E.ON, which wants to use CCS for its controversial Kingsnorth coal-fired station in Kent, and BP, which recently scrapped plans to develop a trial project in Scotland because ministers appeared to be moving too slowly to meet its own internal timetable. Scottish Power and Peel Power are also included.

John Hutton, the industry secretary, said CCS had the potential to capture 90% of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations and its deployment would dovetail with a wider strategy which included renewable and nuclear generation.

Sadly, the U.S. has made no real progress towards proving CCS.

…The latest: importgenius.com, the brainchild of brothers Ryan and David Petersen, with Michael Kanko. They exploit customs reporting obligations and Freedom of Information requests to organize and publish — in real-time — the contents of every shipping container entering the United States.

There’s a neat ticker on the bottom of their page showing a trickle of these data. Watch it for a few minutes: it’s mesmerizing and provides a sometimes beautiful window into the wonders of international trade.

How might these data be useful to firms? Well here’s an example: On May 23, Ryan identified a spike in imports of a new type of device from Apple, leading him to (correctly) predict the arrival of the new iPhone. Apple’s secrecy throughout its supply chain is legendary, but not even Steve Jobs dares lie to U.S. customs.

More from the Freakonomics blog.

Just an excerpt from Tyler Cowen — recommended and resource rich:

7. The bottom line is that when it comes to the key substantive questions about the oil market - why are prices so high — the correct answer is the Lachmannian one: “expectations.” If you push one step further on that, and try to evaluate or “source” those expectations, the correct answer is “we don’t know.” Jim Hamilton hints at some of this — and the imprecision of the “inventories” term — in this insightful post.

In the wake of the floods that have devastated Midwestern America, a recent CNN headline read “Insurance not required, FEMA told flooded town.” Long story short, a number of people blame the government for their failure to insure their homes against floods because the government did not require them to do so. They “said they felt misled about the risks of not having flood insurance,” and thought that the risks were “miscalculated.” As a result, legislation is now being introduced to require that all people living in levee-protected areas have flood insurance.

The problem here is not that FEMA did a bad job or that the levees were improperly built. They were designed to withstand a hundred-year flood, and this one was simply bigger than that. There is no reason to think that the risks were miscalculated; even events with very small probabilities will happen sometimes. No, the problem is much deeper. The problem is that people are relying on the government to make their decisions for them; they live in a levee-protected town, but will only make the decision to buy flood insurance if the government tells them that they absolutely must do so.

This psychology of dependency, in which “the government” is responsible for anything bad that happens, is one of the most insidious results of a big government. If people did not expect the government to have full knowledge of possible disasters, perhaps more than 28 of the families in the flood zone would have taken the responsibility on themselves…

More…

The Greenest Show on Earth

This week the Wall Street Journal published one of the best stories ever about how inconvenient political correctness and green living can be. Both US parties will try to host “green conventions,” with the Democrats going to the extreme.

Some examples:

• Union-labour and American made organic cotton caps, shirts, and fanny packs.
• Bio-degradable balloons.
• A rubbish brigade that will look to see that convention goers put recyclable rubbish in one bin and non-recyclable rubbish in another. After, the brigade will look through each bin to ensure no mistakes were made. “That’s the only way to make sure it’s pure,” Andrea Robinson, a convention organizer says.
• Food will be locally grown to minimize emissions from transportation.

Is this what is in store for the nation if the Democrats have their way? So many people accuse the neo-Cons of using fear to get what they want. How is the green madness movement any different?

We need to recognize a few things. Life expectancy is at an all time high. We live better and wealthier lives with much a higher standard of living than ever. We can communicate with people instantly around the world and travel to every corner of the earth.

Technology and modern living carry trade-offs, but we are better off for it. If patronising only domestic goods made by union-labour with organic materials is the model of the future, the third world can kiss an prospect of future prosperity good-bye, and the first world will slip toward economic mediocrity.

This is a bit of a heads-up from Greg Mankiw — describing the Manhattan liberals’ dream endstate, where bureaucrats like Cahill control your life:

The town I live in (Wellesley, MA) wants to build a new high school, and the State Treasurer Tim Cahill objects to the cost. The state government is providing some funding, as it typically does for school building projects, but the town is willing to fully fund the incremental cost of all the bells and whistles that Mr Cahill objects to.

Why, you might ask, is the cost of these add-ons a state issue at all? Why not let local residents decide what kind of high school to buy? According to the Boston Globe, Mr Cahill explains his position as follows:

One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money.

In essence, Mr Cahill does not want the residents of Wellesley–a group with higher-than-average income–to spend their own money on their children. I suppose it is better for them to buy fancier cars or spend more on dinners out at tony restaurants. But better school facilities? Absolutely not!

Mr Cahill’s one-size-fits-all principle has many implications. For example, why should wealthier parents be allowed to hire tutors for their kids? Or give them private music lessons? Or send them to pricey summer camps? If Mr Cahill thinks that people should not be able to spend their own money to improve the lives of their children, the Wellesley High School is only the first step of a much larger project.

Reporters cited the Obama statement without asking for the logic behind having someone making $100,000 pay on every dime and someone making $250,000 pay on just 41% of income, while someone making $10,000,000 would pay on 98.5% of income. There is no economic principle or theory of tax law that would endorse such a result.

Sen. Obama’s logic is fairly obvious, although it hardly makes him an exemplar of the “new politics.” The $100,000 to $250,000 group is a targeted voter demographic, and he really didn’t want to sock them with a 12.4 percentage point hike in their tax rate. But, as Sen. Obama himself noted in his June 13 announcement, just 3% of workers make more than a quarter-million.

More from Larry Lindsey.

There are two main conclusions: First, when bubbles are not based on bank lending, the mop-up-after strategy still looks pretty good. When it comes to bank-centered bubbles, however, there are many more things that a central bank can and should do. But raising interest rates to burst the bubble is probably not one of them.

Excellent.