Why, when he opens his mouth, of course! This can be easily illustrated in the base of Berkley academic, Severin Borenstein in the latest issue of Technology Review. Speaking on the viabiliyty of solar power in regards to the market:

Will the stimulus bill facilitate that much-needed transition to more efficient technologies? Severin Borenstein, for one, is doubtful. Borenstein, the director of the University of California Energy Institute, says the problem with the stimulus funding is that when it comes to existing technologies, the DOE will need to pick which projects to support. "The worry is that the government will invest in the wrong technologies," he says; picking technology winners is something that "historically it has not been very good at."A far more effective way to promote the growth of renewable energy, he believes, is to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme (see "Carbon Trading on the Cheap," p. 72). Either approach would provide market-based incentives for deploying renewables and would represent a more efficient and "technology-­neutral" government policy. At the same time, he says it is important for the government to fund research into new renewable technologies.

From an economist’s perspective, Borenstein says, government subsidies are justified to address "market failures": cases in which the market doesn’t allocate enough resources to the pursuit of socially desirable goals, such as reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The government incentives then support efforts that are financially risky but are likely to provide a common benefit. In such a context, he says, the argument for public spending on research into new solar technologies is strong–but the case for subsidizing the current commercial technologies, particularly photovoltaics, is "really weak." Existing photovoltaics are expensive even compared with other renewables such as wind and solar thermal, he says, and they won’t necessarily lead to cheaper technologies, either. "You’re obviously going to get [solar] panels put in, but is that going to generate something that will have a lasting benefit? Will it help you build a solar industry? I think the answer is probably not."

Borenstein says direct government subsidies to support existing photovoltaics could in fact impede the development of more efficient technologies. "There is no question that there is what economists call ‘option value’ lost when you invest in the current technology," he says. "If the technology is about to get a lot better, and is about to get a lot better for reasons that don’t have to do with building out the current technology but because the science is going to improve, that’s an argument for waiting. You’re crowding out future investment by investing now. The money would be better spent five years from now on the new technology."

I hate to tell him this but “socially desirable goals” are like assholes; everybody has one. How does he rate solar power in relation to education? Or clean water? Or recycling? Or the preservation of whales? The answer is much simpler than he thinks. The market will rate all of these things and more seamlessly. But he does admit that present photovoltaic technology is not to a point where it would make sense to install solar panels just yet. Why the sudden onset of common sense? Could it be because he would like taxpayer largess to be spent on academics like himself?

Severin Borenstein, director of the U.C. Energy Institute, argues that state and federal subsidies for solar panel installations should instead go to increasing research and development budgets.

Flickr just made this announcement: Library of Congress debuts iconic Great Depression photos.

The Library of Congress has created a remarkable set, FSA/OWI Favorites, which includes the “Migrant Mother,” by Dorothea Lange, the original film negative of which is housed at the Library of Congress. The Library preserves Lange’s original, and makes the digitized photo freely available. “Migrant Mother” is part of a landmark photo documentary project based in the U.S. Resettlement Administration, the Farm Security Administration (FSA), and later the Office of War Information (OWI). The most active years were 1935-1943, and the collection was transferred to the Library of Congress in 1944.

So you photobugs out there have a golden opportunity since we’re about to go into an even worse depression. Maybe 60 years down the road, the LoC will feature you and your photos!

Sounds like lax security at the so-called “Capitalist Tool” left the liquor cabinet open as “eminent British historian and author” Paul Johnson was walking by (he is shown below receiving the Medal of Freedom from Dubya if that’s any hint as to where his allegiance lies). He then penned this Obama Has to Be World Sheriff pining for the good old chest-beating days when the likes of Winston Churchill would act unilaterally against any boogeyman that may appear. Too many howlers in this one to dissect. But here are some hightlights.

Since 1945 America has voluntarily accepted leadership of the democratic West and therefore, ultimately, the responsibility for preserving peace in the world.

The questions we now face as Barack Obama is subjected to his first practical tests as world security leader are: Can the U.S. continue in this role? Has it the power, the self-confidence and the will to do so? And if America declines to continue as world sheriff, will anyone else take on the duty?

Britain is the only European state that can be relied upon to fight aggression, and then only in conjunction with American leadership.

In the 1980s one of Britain’s territories, the Falkland Islands, was occupied by a second-class power, Argentina. Britain fought a solitary campaign successfully to expel the aggressor. But that effort was notable for three things: an exceptionally resolute leader at the helm, cast in the Churchill mold, Margaret Thatcher; the willingness of President Ronald Reagan to give Britain’s forces a significant measure of covert logistical support; and the characteristic unwillingness of the Continental Europeans to give Britain any help.

Russia has consistently refused to take any measures other than in direct support of its own security. This is true whether the threat comes from international terrorism or from rogue would-be nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran. Indeed, Russia is more likely to give moral and even physical support to a lawless aggressor state than to join in a collective effort of restraint. In this respect it is still primarily motivated by the ideological and emotional impulses of the Cold War.

China is an unknown quantity as a potential peacekeeper–and is most unlikely to prove an altruistic one. So far the auguries are not encouraging. The instinct of China’s leadership is to oppose any strong moves by the U.S., even when the risk to peace is real. In a world left defenseless by the retreat of American leadership, it is hard to see China acting, except in strict defense of its own national interests.

India has neither the physical power nor the geopolitical instinct to operate outside its sphere of direct influence.

And it keeps getting better!

Though hit hard by the world recession, the U.S. still has the means to keep its armed forces strong and active all over the world. There’s no evidence that sustaining its global military effort has weakened its economy–quite the contrary. It’s worth remembering that it was only the onset of WWII in September 1939 that really ended the Great Depression in the U.S. and allowed Wall Street to regain its pre-October 1929 levels.

Way to go, Steve! Who needs a subscription to the New York Times when I can get it right here at Forbes?

Just saw a little piece of irony from the BBC today regarding pirates.

Somalia has been without an effective government since 1991, fuelling the lawlessness which has allowed the pirates to thrive.

Uh, yeah. I suppose a few armed crew members wouldn’t have made a difference and be much more cost-effective … leaving the ship safer for more pirates like this!