policy

Obama Speech to the UN: The Data

by Iain Murray on September 22, 2009 · 2 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Regulation

Myron has already pointed out how most of what the President claimed were the threats from global warming are exaggerated.  Here’s the data to back that up.

“…[T]he threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.”  Reality: global mean temperatures increased slightly from 1977 to 2000.  Temperatures have been flat since then.

“Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”  Reality: sea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last ice age 13,000 years ago.  The rate of sea level rise has not increased in recent decades over the nineteenth and twentieth century average.

iain1

iain2

“More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”  Reality: there is no upward global trend in storms or floods.

iain3iain4

“More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”  Reality: there is no upward global trend in major droughts.  Reversals in large-scale cycles have meant that the southward march of the Sahara Desert into the Sahel has been reversed in recent years and the Sahara is now shrinking.

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.”  Reality: some Pacific islanders may want to emigrate to New Zealand or Australia and are claiming that their islands are disappearing as the reason, but shrinkage has been minimal in recent decades because sea level rise has been minimal.

droughts-atollsCharts from SPPI’s Monthly CO2 Reports and from Indur Goklany, “Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events: Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006,” 2007.

NEW VIDEO: Policy Translated

by Richard Morrison on July 27, 2009 · 2 comments

in Economy, Stimulus to Nowhere, Zeitgeist

Often, the policy issues people here in D.C. talk about can cause the eyes of non-wonks everywhere else to glaze over. With that in mind, we’ve created a new video series: Policy Translated.  We take the complicated issues, add some irreverent subtitles, and bingo: instant comprehension.

Information Policy Analyst Ryan Radia introduces the series:

Regulatory Studies Fellow Ryan Young explains the economics of stimulus spending:

Don’t forget to rate, comment and subscribe to the YouTube channel!

What Does Norway’s Net Neutrality Mean for the U.S.?

by Nick Brown on March 2, 2009

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

Hopefully nothing.  But international policy has a way of making waves on our shores; sort of a “Look what they’re doing in Europe, we should do that too” mantra that’s carried in some circles.

The policy that was passed in Norway on the 24th of February is voluntary, but has a large base of support across government, trade associations, and consumer groups within the country.

The policy boils down to 3 main objectives, and those wishing to voluntarily support and conduct business sign onto the document placing themselves accountable to those objectives.

The objectives are (the policy in PDF form can be found in its entirety here):

1) Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection with a predefined capacity and
quality.

2) Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that enables them to
- send and receive content of their choice
- use services and run applications of their choice
- connect hardware and use software of their choice that do not harm the network.

3) Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with
regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver
address.

It should be noted that the language within these objectives is very vague, which is more than likely purposeful so that neutrality proponents can look to take many things into court that they deem in violation of the principles.  Being that the principles defined are voluntary, it is not clear though whether or not a signor could be held accountable and in violation of a law, per se, if they were not adhering to one of these principles.

In the end, it will most likely be the end user that suffers as networks become more densely populated.  ISPs will be unable to manage network traffic appropriately, and time sensitive content like bandwidth eating HD content and VoIP services will be hindered.

Look for neutralitypes to swoon over the passage of these voluntary principles — as is already occuring in Canada — and encourage passage of something similar stateside.  The success of this would most certainly lead to regulated and enforced net neutrality in the future, and is easily another example of Gateway Neutrality.