The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) handicaps energy developers and subjects them to a stifling bureaucratic process that is preventing them from building the energy infrastructure America needs to get and stay ahead of its geopolitical rivals.
🧵
NEPA means review.
If you want to build something, the environmental impact has to be assessed. You need an environmental impact statement, and it can take a long time to deal with those.
So long, in fact, that many projects just shut down.
These projects are not one-offs either.
In fact, most solar and pipeline projects get hit by environmental impact statements, and large portions of them are canceled after putting up with the delays.
Often when we talk about the government impeding progress, we talk about invisible graveyards.
For example, in the 1980s, it was alleged that the FDA created an invisible graveyard of gay men who couldn't get sufficient medical treatment for HIV as a result of agency decisions.
With NEPA, it's harder to see what the regulations cause us to miss out on because the graves aren't usually so literal.
But we have something very close: wildfires.
I'm sure some of you will remember when the sky over San Francisco turned an eerie red.
Destructive wildfires are unfortunately common in the U.S., but they don't have to be
Sadly, when the Forest Service applies to treat more forest to prevent wildfires, they have to undergo NEPA review, delaying their ability to do their jobs.
Result? Flammable, overgrown woods.
The irony of the "National Environmental Policy Act" is that it is killing the environment.
Entrepreneurs and the government alike want to do things to make the U.S. a greener, safer, and less polluted place, but NEPA has made that process arduous and often impossible.
Like the Jones Act, NEPA must be fixed.
All of this comes from @AidanRMackenzie's new piece on NEPA and the need for reform.
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progress🧵
The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.
Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war.
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.
The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died.
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.
If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized.
You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.
Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels!
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.
Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play argued that France's early fertility decline was driven by its inheritance reforms, where estates had to be split up equally to all of the kids, including the girls.
There's likely something to this!🧵
For reference, the French Revolution ushered in a number of egalitarian laws.
A major example of these had to do with inheritance, and in particular with partibility.
In some areas of France, there was partible inheritance, and in others, it was impartible.
Partible inheritance refers to inheritance spread among all of a person's heirs, sometimes including girls, sometimes not.
Impartible inheritance on the other hands refers to the situation where the head of an estate can nominate a particular heir to get all or a select portion.
In terms of their employment, religion, and sex, people who joined the Nazi party started off incredibly distinct from the people in their communities.
It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans.
Early on, a lot of this dissimilarity is due to hysteresis.
Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.
It took huge growth to break that.
And you can see the decline of fervor based on the decline of Nazi imagery in people's portraits.
And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism.
I simulated 100,000 people to show how often people are "thrice-exceptional": Smart, stable, and exceptionally hard-working.
I've highlighted these people in red in this chart:
If you reorient the chart to a bird's eye view, it looks like this:
In short, there are not many people who are thrice-exceptional, in the sense of being at least +2 standard deviations in conscientiousness, emotional stability (i.e., inverse neuroticism), and intelligence.
To replicate this, use 42 as the seed and assume linearity and normality
The decline of trust is something worth caring about, and reversing it is something worth doing.
We should not have to live constantly wondering if we're being lied to or scammed. Trust should be possible again.
I don't know how we go about regaining trust and promoting trustworthiness in society.
It feels like there's an immense level of toleration of untrustworthy behavior from everyone: scams are openly funded; academics congratulate their fraudster peers; all content is now slop.
What China's doing—corruption crackdowns and arresting fraudsters—seems laudable, and I think the U.S. and other Western nations should follow suit.
Fraud leads to so many lives being lost and so much progress being halted or delayed.