Steven Levitt, Geoengineering, Side-Effects, and DDT

Levitt presented an idiot-proof version of his 'Superfreakonomics' geo-engineering on his blog today.

It's hard not to find his argument compelling, but now it's him who seems to be "willfully misreading" his critics, claiming they're not trying to answer the question: "what's the cheapest way to cool our planet", but rather:

“What is the ‘right’ amount of carbon to emit?” or “Is it moral for this generation to put carbon into the air when future generations will pay the price?” or “What are the responsibilities of humankind to the planet?”

By 'moral', I'm pretty sure the Al Gore's of this world mean, 'what real effects will it have on our environment, health, and lifestyle. But Levitt has twisted the environmentalists' argument into some sort of philosophical argument over whether humanity has the 'right' to leave a footprint on earth at all, an argument that has no bearing on our actual well-being. This puts it at odds with his 'rational', 'economic' way of thinking.

But what if Geoengineering doesn't turn out to be the silver bullet he think it will be? What if it turns out like DDT, that early mosquito incesticide for which a Nobel Prize was won, but then was eventually banned due to its unforeseen harms to the food chain and to real people? DDT was later banned after humanity's brief love affair with it.

If all Levitt wants is research into geoengineering, and it's really as promising as he claims, I don't think a lot of his critics see a problem with that. But as soon as he start to say we can rely on geoengineering in lieu of cutting carbon emission, it starts to seems like he's counting our chickens before they're hatched. How do we know the side-effects of geo-engineering won't turn out to be as bad as those of DDT? Pumping millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atsmosphere in particular, seems like something you'd want to be a bit circumspect about. I understand it's already done periodically by volcanoes, but is it really a sustainable long-term solution or just a quick fix to an underlying problem that will get steadily worse if we don't focus on the underlying cause?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I don't see how Levitt's complacency on geo-engineering justifies ditching carbon emissions regulation. What's nice about emissions regulation is 1) it addresses the problem at the source, and 2) it forces polluters to internalize the costs of their pollution, rather than just spilling whatever fumes into the atmosphere they find convenient, despite their effects on everyone else. Obviously, I understand how their higher costs will raise everyone else's fuel prices, etc..., but that just reflects the fact that we're all responsible for the emissions, not just the 'evil energy companies' that we buy our fuel from.

Steven Levitt Doesn't Like Price Discrimination

Steven Levitt, the author of Freakonomics, writes about how companies use 'going green' as a cover for price discrimination here. As usual, the example is from a brothel to pique your interest (yes, some economist are not afraid to admit they've sunk this low). But mental titillation aside, I have a criticism of the substance of the post.

At first blush, the implication seems to be that price discrimination is a bad thing. But price discrimination is just a way of charging something closer to what the buyer is willing to pay, just like with first class airline seats, or wait-in-line-for-hours-for-cheap-show-tickets.

It's rational to assume that price discrimination will have the side-effect of causing some consumers to try to enter the lower price bracket by changing their behavior; for instance, in this case, biking to the brothel instead of driving. This leads to less carbon emissions. So it’s win-win, right? The brothel makes more money, and less carbon is emitted by the commuter.

Maybe Levitt isn't saying price discrimination is a bad thing per se, rather that 'going green' is just a ruse to make more profits. But even if it is, what of it? If profits happen to align with 'going green', all the better. When it comes down to it, motive doesn't matter as much as effect.

Or possibly, 'going green' can have no effect on the environment whatsoever, for instance, if they gave you a discount for wearing a green hat. There, he might have a point, but he doesn't argue this, nor does his example seem to fit this case.

Firefox and Chrome's Show Password Feature Is A Security Nightmare!

I was recently piddling around the Firefox 3.0+ preferences, when I came across something that practically made my hair stand on end:

1) Open Preferences
2) Click the Security tab
3) Click Saved Passwords...
4) Click Show Passwords
5) When it asks you if you're sure you want to do this, say Yes

Surprise! All the passwords you've ever asked Firefox to remember are displayed in plain text. Basically this means anyone who ever accesses your computer can see the passwords you typically use to log in. This is a ginormous security hole that is completely unnecessary and rarely useful.

Worse, it's a total violation of trust. When I see passwords being displayed as *** as I type, I take this to indicate that the underlying password will be kept hidden and that the authenticating password will be transmitted with encryption, so no one ever knows my password. If that's not the intention, why bother even hiding what I type on the screen? It creates a false sense of security.

One thing I find particularly scary is that this security hole is by design; it seems to have been conceived as an intentional 'feature', not a programming error. I thought there were enough security holes in software without these sorts of intentionally open backdoors.

Maybe you're lucky and you haven't been entrusting firefox with you bank password. But you're probably entrusting it with your email, social networking, and many other passwords. Maybe your bank password is a variation on your email password so as to make it easier to remember. If that's the case, then you're less important passwords could be used to hack your more important ones: They all fall like dominoes.

Even if they don't get your bank password, exposing someone's email password to anyone who sits down at their computer is a pretty egregious violation of privacy. For instance, it might enable your significant other to spy on your emails communications, or an acquaintance to impersonate you. It's one thing to leave your email open accidentally and have someone see your messages. It another thing entirely if that other person can log in at any later time. I wonder how many geeky boyfriends are using this feature to spy on their girlfriends (sorry for the chauvinism, I guess it could go the other way too).

I've read that chrome has the same vulnerability. Shame on google! I will never look at these browsers in the same way again. Time to turn to ie, safari, or opera?

Update: It doesn't even seem to be possible to turn this tool off. There's a master password, but that only asks for a password at firefox startup, not when you try to show the passwords. The only secure solution is to not have firefox remember your passwords at all.