Archives for January, 2007
Politicizing the politicization of science
Welcome to OpenMarket.org! Please consider Subscribing to our RSS feed, so you don’t miss any of the news and analysis brought to you by CEI’s policy experts.
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists finds “unacceptably large numbers of federal climate scientists [have] personally experienced instances of [political] interference over the past five years.” At a Congressional hearing yesterday, Rep. Issa questioned the statistical validity of the survey, pointing to OMB guidelines that suggest the UCS survey’s response rate was unacceptably low. Roger Pielke Jr doesn’t think this is a problem:
Mr. Issa focused on the statistical power of the survey, which is the wrong way to look at it. The responses were the responses. They are not evidence of a larger population – the responses ARE the population. That being said the UCS supports my own contention that politics and science are inherently intermixed.
I’d agree with him if the UCS had simply presented the absolute numbers of incidents and said this suggests there may be a problem. But they didn’t. They presented it as percentages. That suggests either a) the absolute numbers were small enough to be unimpressive and so had to be disguised (and let’s face it, eg, 75 out of 1600 - 25% of the 297 responses that reported professional objection - doesn’t seem like a widespread problem) or b) they were trying to convey the impression that these large percentages referred to all federal climate scientists. It’s a disingenuous means of presentation.
Milton Friedman, psychic?
By proclamation of several cities and states, Monday was Milton Friedman Day. CEI was one of many free-market groups that joined in this celebration with events celebrating the great economist’s life. But really, especially for the governments concerned, shouldn’t every day be Milton Friedman Day? We should try our best not to interfere or advocate interfering with the free market.
In that spirit, I want to share a passage of Dr. Friedman’s from The Book of Predictions published in 1980. It turns out that Friedman was not just a a sage of free-market economics, but a sage, period. He was four out of five in his prediction of future fellow recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics, and there is still time for him to be five for five.
Reading prediction books from the past is a fun exercise, and this Book of Predictions is no exception. Most of the people quote in this book, written by People’s Almanac compiler David Wallechinsky, were not psychics, but experts in their fields taking educated guesses. Still, most of the predictions range from silly, in retrospect, to flat wrong.
Among the predictions made for the 1980s is a “steady downward trend” in car ownership and skyrocketing oil prices. Oil prices went down a year after the book was published, when Ronald Reagan lifted price controls. Since “peak oil” predictions are again in vogue, I quote some of these statements from the ’80s in my new book Eco-Freaks.
But Dr. Friedman, by contrast, has a batting average of 800 for his 1980 Nobel predictions — and may even hit 1000. He predicted future Nobel choices George Stigler, Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, and Franco Modigliani.
These choices show that while Dr. Freidman may not have been psychic, he was extremely far-sighted. It wasn’t a sure thing in 1980 that Gary Becker would be nominated for his novel human capital theories and applying economics to organizations like the family. Dr. Friedman also saw how Robert Lucas’ work on “rational expectations” of economic actors would transform how we study everything from inflation to stock prices.
Friedman’s fifth choice was Martin Feldstein, who has done seminal work on tax and retirement policy. Feldstein has also been a great advocate for giving workers the ability to save a portion of their Social Securituy payroll taxes. It would be one more great vindication of Friedman if his final prediction were to come true. It would be an even better vindication if we could follow Friedman and Feldstein’s advice and remove the payroll tax’s burden to saving.
Still a lot of pork in Farm Bill proposals
This morning Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns presented the
Administration proposals for the new Farm Bill. Here’s his press
release:
Here’s the link to the proposals.
The energy program is extensive and will be costly – remember, this is a Farm Bill, known for its fat subsidies to large-scale farm operators. For instance, the proposals would start a new program to “provide $100 million in direct support to producers of cellulosic ethanol.” But that’s only one of many boondoggles in the proposals.
The proposal for sugar “reform,” for instance, looks worse than the current program, because it will control even more of the domestic production of sugar.
What’s John Edwards’ carbon footprint?
Looks rather large:
Perhaps he should be called Bigfoot?
True Congressional Confessions
In today’s Politico, Amy Doolittle has a light-hearted story on the tours that Members of Congress occasionally give for constituents around the Capitol. A handful of congressmen are known to be frequent guides, taking over a job generally relegated to the lowest of low-level staffers. Part way through the piece, though, we find a dark confession by Utah Republican Rob Bishop:
I find that if you say something with enough fervor, anyone will believe it, so I do that. Trying to find what the true bits are as opposed to the false bits, it’s kind of part of the fun of it all.
As with Capitol tours, so it is with representative democracy. If our elected leaders always told us the truth about what they were doing, what fun would that be? After all, that’s one of the main reaosns we think tank people are here for.
Trade and globalization get blamed for society’s ills
At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing yesterday, chaired by Representative Charles Rangel, witnesses said that the effects of trade and globalization on American workers and the U.S. economy have to be carefully examined, and policies to deal with worker insecurity need to be addressed.
The panel testifying included law and business professors, economists, and business leaders, who all seemed to give credence to negative views of trade’s effects.
There were strong recommendations to include “social contracts” in trade agreements, with Georgetown Law Professor Daniel Tarullo specifically calling for that:
. . . trade agreements should be occasions for reaffirming the social compact. There is no single formula for doing so. What is sensible and feasible will vary with the nature and scope of the agreement at issue. But, in one form or another, each should include measures specifically addressed to the needs of Americans whose economic prospects and security are threatened by the forces of economic change, including globalization.
Gene Sperling, former President Clinton’s economic advisor, called for stringent labor mandates in trade agreements and monitoring procedures to ensure compliance. He also called for programs for displaced workers to provide security and enhance “human dignity.”
Most Committee members present at the hearings, in their comments and questions, seemed to blame trade and globalization for U.S. society’s ills. That doesn’t bode well for progress toward more open trade through the multilateral system or through bilaterals, where the U.S. has already weighed down trade agreements with stringent labor and environmental provisions for developing countries.
President calls for support of fast-track trade authority
Today President Bush in New York City delivered his second speech on the economy. As expected, in the speech he called for a renewal of Trade Promotion Authority or “fast-track,” which gives the President the ability to negotiate trade agreements and have the Congress vote on them without amendments.
Here’s what the President said in a strong statement supporting open trade:
The only way America can complete Doha and make headway on other trade agreements is to extend Trade Promotion Authority. This authority allows the President to negotiate complicated trade deals for our country, and then send them to Congress for an up or down vote on the whole agreement. Presidents of both parties have considered this authority essential to completing good trade agreements. Our trading partners consider it essential for our success at the negotiating table. The authority is set to expire on July 1st — and I ask Congress to renew it. I know there’s going to be a vigorous debate on trade, and bashing trade can make for good sound bites on the evening news. But walling off America from world trade would be a disaster for our economy. Congress needs to reject protectionism, and to keep this economy open to the tremendous opportunities that the world has to offer.
GOP Strategist Frank Luntz Thinks Enviros Are Mean
Grist magazine just published an interesting Q&A with Frank Luntz, famed GOP pollster and author of the new book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear: “And Now, a Word From Our Detractor”. Luntz explains why enviros are failing, and why he thinks they’re mean.
Taxation Without Representation?
In a Washington Post column, George Will questions the constitutionality of a recent vote in the House of Representatives to give delegates from Washington, D.C. and territories, such as American Samoa, the same right to vote in House committees as Congressmen. He points out the absurdity of giving the delegate from Samoa, which has only 58,000 residents, the same vote in committee (where most important House decisions are made) as the Congressman from Montana, who represents 944,000 people.
Similar arguments can be made against recent proposals to give the District of Columbia a Congressman and two Senators.
The District of Columbia has fewer voters than all 50 states, and fewer people living in it than 49 of the 50 states (and in a few years, based on current population trends, it will have fewer people than all 50 states).
Why should the District, which has less than 0.2 percent of the nation’s population, receive nearly 2 percent of the Senate (that is, 2 senators out of 102?)?
That’s 10 times what it would be entitled to based on population alone. But that would be the effect of giving the District two senators.
It is already unfair that underpopulated states like Wyoming and Vermont receive just as many senators (two senators each) as populous states like California and Texas. But that inequity, unfortunately, can’t be changed, since the Constitution contains a provision that specifically forbids amending the Constitution to reduce a state’s representation in the Senate.
But the District is not a state, so America doesn’t have to put up with that unfair result with respect to the District. Indeed, it doesn’t have to give D.C. any senators at all. (The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a lawsuit claiming that D.C. residents are constitutionally entitled to congressional representation).
A stronger argument could be made that as a matter of fairness, District residents should receive a representative in the House, even if the Constitution does not itself guarantee them any such right.
But even that is arguable. The District has 400,000 fewer people than Montana, which only has one representative in the House. The District’s population, just over 500,000, is far smaller than the population of the typical House district, which is nearly 700,000.
Why should the District also receive one representative, when its population is similar to cities like Las Vegas and El Paso, which don’t even have a representative all to themselves, and have to share their representatives with surrounding suburbs?
That can’t be justified by glib references to taxation without representation.
Free to Choose—Your Plumbing Pipes
California usually leads the nation in the formulation of bad public policy—which policymakers in other states often see as a model. But this week, they actually did something worth emulating. They lifted a state ban on residential use of vinyl plumbing pipes, which are made with chlorinated polyvinyl chloride or CPVC.
Unfortunately, it took the state more than a decade to lift this expensive, nonsensical mandate. The state’s change of heart came after its housing department conducted a study debunking claims that the pipes are dangerous, which were posited by a coalition of environmental activists and plumbers’ unions. In reality, the CPVC pipes are quite safe, energy efficient, and environmentally sound. They also cost much less—about a third of the alternative metal piping.
These pipes are also very easy to install. CPVC installs with glue, rather than having to be soldered with a propane torch. Activists complain that the glue is dangerous—as if working with propane, an open flame, and hot metal is safer! The California housing board found that the risks associated with the adhesives is “less than significant” for workers who are exposed to the fumes on a regular basis. Apparently, plumbers need not fear the glue, but they might fear the ease with which homeowners can install—without having to hire a plumber. Activists and the plumbers’ unions claimed a variety of other ills, which were rejected in the California study.
Unfortunately, it is expected to take the state an entire year before they can change the building code to allow freedom to choose in plumbing. New York, Chicago, and a few other cities also maintain such bans. For once, they should follow California’s lead—but they should move much faster.
First They Came for the Toilets…
The state of California is poised to claim yet another feather for its environmental-pioneer cap with a proposed ban on the sale of incandescent lightbulbs. Under the “How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act” (seriously, that’s what it’s called) it would become a legal offense to sell an incandescent lightbulb.
The argument goes that compact fluorescent bulbs are so extraordinarily superior, there’s no reason not to ban the old fashioned kind. As usual, however, advocates are quiet on why such a transcendently perfect product would need the government compelling people to purchase it. Read Sam’s consumer testimonial here.
So good, competing with it will soon be a crime
This, of course, reminds one of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, which gave this great nation the gift of the low-flush toilet, and banned the sale of its traditional counterparts. Our good friend and CEI alumnus Ben Lieberman has written passionately on this issue over the years.
Let Them Eat Flan
American Public Radio’s Marketplace Morning Report has yet another report today on how U.S. demand for corn to make into ethanol is causing a disruption to the food supply in countries like Mexico.
Corn prices have risen 300% is recent months, putting the squeeze on millions of poor Mexicans who depend on tortillas as a dietary staple. The government has attempted to cap prices, but we know how well price controls on high-demand commodities generally work out. One wonders how many families in the developing world will have to go hungry before the ethanol mandate crown begins to have second thoughts about gouging corn prices.
First they came for the skeptics…
So the IPCC report that’s going to be released on Friday isn’t gloomy enough, eh? It will find less projected temperature rise and less predicted sea level rise than it did in 2001. Good news, no?
Not even close. That simply isn’t good enough for those who want to break the back of the world’s energy system, so they have to attack it. For years, global warming alarmists built up ‘the consensus of scientists’ as the answer to legitimate concerns of climate skeptics. Now that they have seemingly successfully shut skeptical voices out of the debate on global warming, they have embarked on a process of delegitimization of that very consensus. It is too cautious, they argue, too bureaucratic. They, the alarmists, are the only voices of truth in the debate and anyone else is incompetent, a fraud or a denier. The ‘consensus’ scientists who went along with the alarmists will now find themselves the targets of abuse, insinuation and ad hominem attacks.
Welcome to the club.
Did it play in Peoria?
President Bush in Peoria, IL today gave one of two speeches scheduled on the economy (the next will be in NYC tomorrow). He addressed issues such as taxes, trade, technology, energy, health care, education policy. Here’s part of what the President said about the importance of trade:
We’ve pursued trade agreements. The way it works is, you have bilateral trade agreements, in other words, with the United States and, say, Chile. And we have regional trade agreements and world trade agreements. One world trade agreement is called the Doha Round of the WTO — it’s basically attempting to make sure that everybody gets treated the same way, in the same fashion, so that the world markets are open.
Again, I repeat to you, I strongly believe that if we can compete with people on a level playing field, nobody can compete with us. And so the key is to make sure the rules are fair.
I’m always suspicious when politicians mention “fair” trade and “level playing field.” Translate as “fair” to one side (us) and not the other, and “bring the other side down to our level.”
He didn’t mention asking Congress to renew Trade Promotion Authority though. Maybe he’ll do that in NYC tomorrow.
How to Bury the Lede
Are you an aspiring journalist for Reuters? If so, you need to know how to “bury the lede,” which is insider journo-talk for ignoring the real story in favor of the story you want to tell.
Here’s a great example. From the report - “millions to go hungry, waterless” - you’d think that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had found that global warming was intensifying.
Then we have this:
The panel is to release a report on Friday in Paris forecasting global temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a “best estimate” of a 3C (5.4 F) rise.
Wait a minute. What did the last IPCC report say?
The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100.
Uh? You mean, not only has the new IPCC report found less warming, but it finds less warming since pre-industrial times (ie around 1800) to 2100 than the last report said would happen from 1990 to 2100.
Now that’s a story.
UPDATE: The Reuters correspondent confused climate sensitivity with temperature projections. That means that this post is, well, just plain wrong. I should have spotted that. Sorry.
-
About Us
OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We believe that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. -
Search
-
Categories
Agriculture
Bureaucrash
CEI in the City
Culture
Economic Liberty
Energy
Environment
Global Warming
Healthcare Reform
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International
Legal
Mobility
Nanny State
Nano & Biotech
Odds & Ends
Personal Liberty
Politics as Usual
Precaution & Risk
Privacy
Sanctimony
Tech & Telecom
Trade
-
RSS Center
