#74: oscars gone green

An Inconvenient Truth made quite a splash at the Oscars this year. So did Gore and DiCaprio by proudly proclaiming that the show had gone green. Pardon my cynicism but that sounded like another "I invented the internet" claim. I found some clarity through Charles Krauthammer's usual ranting column.

It appears that the Academy neutralised the "carbon footprint" of the gala by buying carbon credits (aka paying a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce equivalent carbon emissions somewhere on the planet). And that would typically be a coal-fired power-plant somewhere half-way across the globe.

This appears to be a cost efficient solution, since coal-fired plants in China and India have the greatest potential to reduce carbon emissions. The marginal dollars ought to chase the highest marginal gains. Call it outsourcing or economic mumbo-jumbo, if you want.

But in turn, it creates a moral-hazard problem from an incentive mismatch. What dissuades an operator in China and India from starting up another sooty plant, in anticipation of the day another ex-Veep will trade a few more dollars for more carbon credits? The more he pollutes today the more he can earn from his credits tomorrow. And that beats the whole purpose, doesn't it? Any suggestions?

#72: lured by the price

I have always had trouble citing illustrations of the rare upward sloping demand curve. I'll never have the funds it takes to indulge in prestige goods that consumers aspire because of the price tag and nothing else. But now I can name two.

I came across a pair of jeans lebelled "R&R" and sporting an obscene price tag. It was just a pair of jeans, nothing remarkable, and slightly tattered if you ask me. But it was designed by an obscure Victoria Posh Beckham. The tag added "R&R means edgy progressive design with an emphasis on modern silhouettes .... designs for sexy confident men and women who live the lifestyle and really understand the look". Clearly I don't.

College education in US is the other illustration. The NY Times reported that some institutions raised their fee without changes to their curriculum or facilities. And the schools had more applicants knocking at their doors (many more than can be explained by trend factors). Potential students assumed the higher tuition as a signal that "they must be doing something right" and did not want to be left behind. Higher education is getting edgy too!

#71: wonders of our world

The race to anoint 7 "new" wonders of the world is well and truly on. And in true spirit of a global community (that only includes those with the magic internet access), web-votes will decide the winners. The WPost has some striking photographs of the "contestants". Here's your chance to fulfil your civic responsibility.

For all the excitement and enthusiasm this has generated, is this a meaningful contest? It mimics a Miss Universe/American Idol pageant. How do you compare Stonehenge or the rocks on Easter Island to the Sydney Opera House? And why are the Great Pyramids of Giza nominated once again? Being an ancient wonder of the world surely would have been enough for even the Pharaohs.

Let's do away with the number 7. And then call them "architectural wonders" for what they truly are. My personal vote would be for Easter Island, Machu Picchu, the Colosseum, Angkor Wat, the Great Wall, the Parthenon, the Taj Mahal, Petra, and the Hagia Sophia/Blue Mosque. The Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sydney Opera House can wait for their turn.

#70: heading east

Halliburton, the energy giant once headed by a Richard Cheney and the most favoured recipient of US government contracts in the last 6 years, announced that it was moving its headquarters from Texas to Dubai. It's easy to see the fit. From one oil-field to another, from one dry and arid landscape to another – the match is perfect.

Not long ago the US House of Representatives cited national security concerns to block a deal for the Dubai Ports World to manage 6 US ports. But now when the Dubai-based Halliburton wins the next hefty government bid, as it surely will in no time, how will the Capitol react? And that's not even accounting for the loss of tax revenues to the US treasury.

I'm just plain curious.

#69: business as usual

As a political persona-non-grata, I watched from the sidelines the Democrats come to power in last year's Congressional elections. I was made to believe (and I did believe) that such a resounding rebuke of the Republican agenda, policies, and practices would change the way business is done inside the Beltway. I clearly overestimated the power of the ballot and underestimated the inertia of entrenched interests. As WPost reports, the Democrats are doing just as their counterparts did for the last 12 years: pandering to lobbyists to shore up revenues for the next elections. So much for the promise of good governance.

In my profession, this is bribery and a felony. I suppose those who script the rules have legalised it for themselves.

Politics and power everywhere is so brazenly alike. In my favourite TV show and satire, BBC's "Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister", Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Permanent Secretary to the Minister of Administrative Affairs once observed ....

"Ministers come; ministers go. But the government must go on."

With the subtext .... without any change! Business as usual.