What Michael Phelps Should Have Said, by Radley Balko
Smoking pot shouldn't be a crime. Or the public's business.
Reason, February 2, 2009
Dear America,
I take it back. I don’t apologize.
Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months a year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture.
I put myself through hell. I make my body do things nature never really intended us to endure. All world-class athletes do. We do it because you love to watch us push ourselves as far as we can possibly go. Some of us get hurt. Sometimes permanently. You’re watching the Super Bowl tonight. You’re watching 300 pound men smash each while running at full speed, in full pads. You know what the average life expectancy of an NFL player is? Fifty-five. That’s about 20 years shorter than your average non-NFL player. Yet you watch. And cheer. And you jump up spill your beer when a linebacker lays out a wide receiver on a crossing route across the middle. The harder he gets hit, the louder and more enthusiastically you scream.
Yet you all get bent out of shape when Ricky Williams, or I, or Josh Howard smoke a little dope to relax. Why? Because the idiots you’ve elected to make your laws have, without a shred of evidence, beat it into your head that smoking marijuana is something akin to drinking antifreeze, and done only by dirty hippies and sex offenders.
You’ll have to pardon my cynicism. But I call bullshit. You don’t give a damn about my health. You just get a voyeuristic thrill from watching an elite athlete fall from grace–all the better if you get to exercise a little moral righteousness in the process. And it’s hypocritical righteousness at that, given that 40 percent of you have tried pot at least once in your lives.
Here’s a crazy thought: If I can smoke a little dope and go on to win 14 Olympic gold medals, maybe pot smokers aren’t doomed to lives of couch surfing and video games, as our moronic government would have us believe. In fact, the list of successful pot smokers includes not just world class athletes like me, Howard, Williams, and others, it includes Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, the last three U.S. presidents, several Supreme Court justices, and luminaries and success stories from all sectors of business and the arts, sciences, and humanities.
So go ahead. Ban me from the next Olympics. Yank my endorsement deals. Stick your collective noses in the air and get all indignant on me. While you’re at it, keep arresting cancer and AIDS patients who dare to smoke the stuff because it deadens their pain, or enables them to eat. Keep sending in goon squads to kick down doors and shoot little old ladies, maim innocent toddlers, handcuff elderly post-polio patients to their beds at gunpoint, and slaughter the family pet.
Tell you what. I’ll make you a deal. I’ll apologize for smoking pot when every politician who ever did drugs and then voted to uphold or strengthen the drug laws marches his ass off to the nearest federal prison to serve out the sentence he wants to impose on everyone else for committing the same crimes he committed. I’ll apologize when the sons, daughters, and nephews of powerful politicians who get caught possessing or dealing drugs in the frat house or prep school get the same treatment as the no-name, probably black kid caught on the corner or the front stoop doing the same thing.
Until then, I for one will have none of it. I smoked pot. I liked it. I’ll probably do it again. I refuse to apologize for it, because by apologizing I help perpetuate this stupid lie, this idea that what someone puts into his own body on his own time is any of the government’s damned business. Or any of yours. I’m not going to bend over and allow myself to be propaganda for this wasteful, ridiculous, immoral war.
Go ahead and tear me down if you like. But let’s see you rationalize in your next lame ONDCP commercial how the greatest motherfucking swimmer the world has ever seen...is also a proud pot smoker.
Yours,
Michael Phelps
Friday, February 6, 2009
Survey of Life Scientists' Views on 'Dual Use' Research and Bioterrorism
Survey Samples Life Scientists' Views on 'Dual Use' Research and Bioterrorism; Some Respondents Already Taking Action to Avert Misuse of Research
National Academies, Feb 05, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Rapid advances in the biological sciences over the last several decades have yielded great benefits such as medical therapies and vaccines. But some of these same scientific advances could also be used for malicious purposes, a threat that has become more salient to the science and policy communities since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
The National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) surveyed a sample of AAAS members in the life sciences to assess their awareness of and attitudes toward such "dual-use" research – studies undertaken for beneficial purposes that could also have harmful applications such as bioterrorism. The survey also explored actions the scientists might support to reduce the risk of misuse of research, as well as steps that scientists may already be taking in response to these concerns. The results of the survey, conducted in 2007, are summarized in a new report from the Research Council, which includes recommendations for next steps.
The survey yielded some of the first empirical data on U.S. life scientists' views about biosecurity and the potential misuse of legitimate scientific research. The survey results offer insights and generate hypotheses that can be tested in future efforts, said the committee that wrote the report. However, a low response rate and uncertainties about whether the sample reflects the broader life sciences community limit the ability to generalize from the responses about the full U.S. life sciences community. Nevertheless, even with this limitation, the survey results are useful and informative, noted the committee.
The results suggest that survey respondents perceive a potential but not overwhelming risk of a bioterror attack in the next five years, a risk they believe is greater outside the U.S. Most respondents do not believe it is likely that dual-use knowledge, tools, or techniques will facilitate a bioterror attack in that time period.
Survey results also indicate that some respondents -- more than the committee had expected -- have been so concerned about dual-use issues that they have already taken action to try to avert misuse of research in the life sciences, even in the absence of guidelines or government restrictions. Some respondents reported that they had broken collaborations, not conducted some research projects, or not communicated research results.
Many of respondents' precautionary actions were taken during design, collaboration, and initial communication stages of research, before reaching the publication stage, the report notes. Of particular interest and concern to the committee, a few respondents offered comments about foreigners as potential security risks, which may be reflected in the reported avoidance of some collaborations.
"The fact that some scientists are changing their research activities may indicate that the life sciences community is responsibly responding to reduce the risk of misuse of science," said committee chair Ronald Atlas, professor of biology and public health at the University of Louisville. "But it is also possible that some scientists are overreacting to the perceived threat, for example by breaking collaborations and excluding foreigners from their laboratories. Our committee feels that it's important to further investigate how research activity is being changed in response to dual-use concerns."
With regard to future actions that the life sciences community would support to reduce the threat of misuse of research, the survey results indicate that life scientists in the U.S. may be more willing to consider mechanisms to reduce risks if they are developed and implemented by the scientific community itself. Most respondents favor their professional societies prescribing a code of conduct to help prevent misuse of life science research, for example, while a minority supported greater federal oversight. Among possible government restrictions, respondents were more supportive of restrictions on access to biological agents and certification of researchers than of any control of scientific knowledge generated from the research.
In addition, respondents showed support for mandatory training by institutions for practicing life scientists regarding dual-use concerns, as well as education materials and lectures for students.
The survey results also highlight the need to better define the scope of research that is of concern, the report notes. Fewer than half the respondents who reported carrying out dual-use research activities felt that their work falls into one of the seven categories of research of concern identified by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which was created in 2004 to advise federal agencies about dual-use research.
Based on the survey results, the committee urged further exploration of ways to provide guidance to the life sciences community about appropriate actions that could protect against misuse of dual-use research. The committee also recommended further research to examine the effectiveness of educational programs on these topics and find ways to enhance them.
In addition, the report recommends surveys and interviews that can reach additional life scientists or begin to probe more deeply into life scientists' attitudes. And surveys of scientists outside the U.S. would increase knowledge and help facilitate international discussions of potential measures to address concerns about dual-use research.
The report was sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the National Academies' Presidents' Circle Communications Initiative.
National Academies, Feb 05, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Rapid advances in the biological sciences over the last several decades have yielded great benefits such as medical therapies and vaccines. But some of these same scientific advances could also be used for malicious purposes, a threat that has become more salient to the science and policy communities since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
The National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) surveyed a sample of AAAS members in the life sciences to assess their awareness of and attitudes toward such "dual-use" research – studies undertaken for beneficial purposes that could also have harmful applications such as bioterrorism. The survey also explored actions the scientists might support to reduce the risk of misuse of research, as well as steps that scientists may already be taking in response to these concerns. The results of the survey, conducted in 2007, are summarized in a new report from the Research Council, which includes recommendations for next steps.
The survey yielded some of the first empirical data on U.S. life scientists' views about biosecurity and the potential misuse of legitimate scientific research. The survey results offer insights and generate hypotheses that can be tested in future efforts, said the committee that wrote the report. However, a low response rate and uncertainties about whether the sample reflects the broader life sciences community limit the ability to generalize from the responses about the full U.S. life sciences community. Nevertheless, even with this limitation, the survey results are useful and informative, noted the committee.
The results suggest that survey respondents perceive a potential but not overwhelming risk of a bioterror attack in the next five years, a risk they believe is greater outside the U.S. Most respondents do not believe it is likely that dual-use knowledge, tools, or techniques will facilitate a bioterror attack in that time period.
Survey results also indicate that some respondents -- more than the committee had expected -- have been so concerned about dual-use issues that they have already taken action to try to avert misuse of research in the life sciences, even in the absence of guidelines or government restrictions. Some respondents reported that they had broken collaborations, not conducted some research projects, or not communicated research results.
Many of respondents' precautionary actions were taken during design, collaboration, and initial communication stages of research, before reaching the publication stage, the report notes. Of particular interest and concern to the committee, a few respondents offered comments about foreigners as potential security risks, which may be reflected in the reported avoidance of some collaborations.
"The fact that some scientists are changing their research activities may indicate that the life sciences community is responsibly responding to reduce the risk of misuse of science," said committee chair Ronald Atlas, professor of biology and public health at the University of Louisville. "But it is also possible that some scientists are overreacting to the perceived threat, for example by breaking collaborations and excluding foreigners from their laboratories. Our committee feels that it's important to further investigate how research activity is being changed in response to dual-use concerns."
With regard to future actions that the life sciences community would support to reduce the threat of misuse of research, the survey results indicate that life scientists in the U.S. may be more willing to consider mechanisms to reduce risks if they are developed and implemented by the scientific community itself. Most respondents favor their professional societies prescribing a code of conduct to help prevent misuse of life science research, for example, while a minority supported greater federal oversight. Among possible government restrictions, respondents were more supportive of restrictions on access to biological agents and certification of researchers than of any control of scientific knowledge generated from the research.
In addition, respondents showed support for mandatory training by institutions for practicing life scientists regarding dual-use concerns, as well as education materials and lectures for students.
The survey results also highlight the need to better define the scope of research that is of concern, the report notes. Fewer than half the respondents who reported carrying out dual-use research activities felt that their work falls into one of the seven categories of research of concern identified by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which was created in 2004 to advise federal agencies about dual-use research.
Based on the survey results, the committee urged further exploration of ways to provide guidance to the life sciences community about appropriate actions that could protect against misuse of dual-use research. The committee also recommended further research to examine the effectiveness of educational programs on these topics and find ways to enhance them.
In addition, the report recommends surveys and interviews that can reach additional life scientists or begin to probe more deeply into life scientists' attitudes. And surveys of scientists outside the U.S. would increase knowledge and help facilitate international discussions of potential measures to address concerns about dual-use research.
The report was sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the National Academies' Presidents' Circle Communications Initiative.
When Is a Lobbyist Not a Lobbyist?
When Is a Lobbyist Not a Lobbyist? By Andrew C. McCarthy
When he’s up for a job in the Obama administration.
NRO, February 06, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
In Chicago, Barack Obama’s M.O. was to talk the talk of a reformer and walk the walk of an old-school machine politician. When he got called on it, he did what machine politicians do: He waxed eloquent about his commitment to transparency even as he stonewalled, obfuscated, and lied.
That is how convicted fraudster Tony Rezko was transformed, before our very eyes, from a guy Obama barely knew to a contributor who may have helped Obama’s political campaigns, then to a bundler who’d actually raised more than $250,000 (some five times the amount claimed in Obama’s initial admission), to a developer who won contracts with Obama’s assistance, to a fixer who helped Obama buy a pricey home the future president couldn’t afford on his own—an ethical lapse Obama finally had to acknowledge was “boneheaded.”
Obama began his administration promising the toughest ethical standards ever imposed by any White House—and, on his first day, issued an executive order restricting the familiar practice of filling government jobs with lobbyists that have private interests in how policy is shaped. The president’s directive is self-consciously reflective of candidate Obama’s scathing condemnation of traditional Washington-style insider-dealing.
Obama would have us believe the order closes the “revolving door” between government and lobbying, whereby the politically connected achieve progressively more influential and lucrative positions by moving frequently between the public and private sectors. In fact, that door remains wide open. Transparency being the order of the day, President Obama’s order is transparently designed to make voters believe he’s going to put the brakes on the gravy train. And to do so he’s dispatching his two top lawyers: tasking the White House counsel and the attorney general with the interpretation and enforcement of the new, stringent guidelines. If you’re keeping score at home, those would be Gregory Craig and Eric Holder, each of whom has been deeply enmeshed in unsavory influence-peddling.
As National Review’s Byron York has reported, Craig has an extensive history of representing leftist regimes hostile to the United States, which led him to lobby the Justice Department on behalf of one Pedro Miguel González, an alleged terrorist. Since 1992, González has been evading an indictment for murdering a U.S. army sergeant in Panama City. When pressed about his client during the campaign, Craig—a lawyerly lawyer if ever there was—explained that he hadn’t really “undertaken to represent” González in legal “proceedings.” You wouldn’t even really call it lobbying. Instead, Craig explained, he had merely sought “to open up a path of communications” between the fugitive and the Justice Department.
Which is to say, the principal interpreter and enforcer of Obama’s celebrated lobbying rules does not believe that a lawyer’s arranging negotiations between an international fugitive and the federal government constitutes “representing” that fugitive or acting as his agent. Just call him a Good Samaritan. The Obama administration’s response to questions about González has been that familiar rallying cry of openness and transparency: “No comment.”
No discussion of lobbying on behalf of international fugitives should get very far without turning to the case of Eric Holder. Beginning in 1999, when he was deputy attorney general, Holder allowed himself to be lobbied on behalf of Marc Rich (at that time, one of the FBI’s most wanted fugitives) by an influential Democratic lawyer, Jack Quinn. Until 1997, Quinn had been the Clinton White House counsel, i.e., Clinton’s Greg Craig. He then left for private practice and, by late 1999, had started his own lobbying firm.
Lobbying Holder put Quinn in violation of President Clinton’s own good-government executive order. Like Obama’s order, Clinton’s was announced with great fanfare on the first day of his presidency. It was duly lauded by the press—especially for the five-year lobbying ban it purported to impose on former administration officials. But in Quinn’s view, that ban didn’t apply to him because—try to follow this—he was not so much lobbying an administration official as he was representing a client in a “judicial proceeding.” This was transparently specious: The Justice Department is not a court and a pardon is not a judicial proceeding—to the contrary, a pardon is an executive exercise designed to undo judicial proceedings. But the hocus-pocus reasoning was good enough for Quinn, and that meant it was plenty good enough for Holder, who helped get Rich his pardon.
So Obama’s guidelines will be interpreted and enforced by these two guys. This should prove fruitful for the many lawyers who inevitably drift from the new administration back into more lucrative endeavors: If they’d prefer their legal representation to be low-balled as something less than lobbying, they can go to the White House counsel; if they’d rather dress up their lobbying as legal representation, the attorney general is their man.
Not every lobbyist is a lawyer—though some non-lawyers, such as Tom Daschle, manage to get themselves paid more than a million dollars a year by top law firms. For what? Certainly not for lobbying. At the well-connected firm of Alston and Bird, known in Washington parlance as a “lobbying firm” because it represents lots of lobbyists, Daschle was retained as a “special policy adviser.”
But if you are paid by the legal agents of lobbyists to instruct lobbyists in lobbying, aren’t you, in fact, a lobbyist? Especially considering the fact that the top asset you bring to the table is your Rolodex? Obama thinks not, since Daschle never legally registered as a lobbyist.
“If you’re not registered to lobby, you can’t be a lobbyist.” Thus decreed Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, a man who is starting to make Scott McClellan sound like Elmer Gantry (a fictional character who, unlike most Obama administration figures, only seems to have worked in the Clinton administration). Gibbs’s kindly diagnosis of Daschle brings us to the fine print of the executive order. To “lobby,” the president says, “shall mean to act or have acted as a registered lobbyist.” Presto: no registration, no lobbyist; no lobbyist, no problem—unless you don’t pay your taxes on the millions you’ve earned not lobbying.
But now that we’ve narrowed it down to registered lobbyists, does that mean that we’ve discovered one category of Washington insiders that is, in fact, banned by the ethical standards Gibbs describes as the “strongest that any administration in the history of our country has had”? Not exactly. The order provides that these very stringent rules can be ignored whenever the scrupulous interpreting authorities decide it is in the public interest. Don’t be alarmed: The administration says waivers will only be approved for extraordinarily qualified officials.
Have you ever heard of an administration that did not portray its appointees as extraordinarily qualified? Already we have the extraordinarily qualified William J. Lynn III, the nominee for deputy defense secretary, who got a waiver despite being, up until recently, a lobbyist for the military contractor Raytheon. William Corr will serve as the No. 2 official at the Department of Health and Human Services regardless of the last year he spent as a lobbyist. And then there’s Mark Patterson. He’s now chief of staff to Timothy Geithner, this ethics-obsessed administration’s tax-cheating Treasury secretary, even though Patterson used to be a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs—the outfit that could have patented the revolving door even before scoring $10 billion in TARP money.
Obama says he’s come to Washington to bring change. So far, he’s changing it into Chicago.
National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).
When he’s up for a job in the Obama administration.
NRO, February 06, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
In Chicago, Barack Obama’s M.O. was to talk the talk of a reformer and walk the walk of an old-school machine politician. When he got called on it, he did what machine politicians do: He waxed eloquent about his commitment to transparency even as he stonewalled, obfuscated, and lied.
That is how convicted fraudster Tony Rezko was transformed, before our very eyes, from a guy Obama barely knew to a contributor who may have helped Obama’s political campaigns, then to a bundler who’d actually raised more than $250,000 (some five times the amount claimed in Obama’s initial admission), to a developer who won contracts with Obama’s assistance, to a fixer who helped Obama buy a pricey home the future president couldn’t afford on his own—an ethical lapse Obama finally had to acknowledge was “boneheaded.”
Obama began his administration promising the toughest ethical standards ever imposed by any White House—and, on his first day, issued an executive order restricting the familiar practice of filling government jobs with lobbyists that have private interests in how policy is shaped. The president’s directive is self-consciously reflective of candidate Obama’s scathing condemnation of traditional Washington-style insider-dealing.
Obama would have us believe the order closes the “revolving door” between government and lobbying, whereby the politically connected achieve progressively more influential and lucrative positions by moving frequently between the public and private sectors. In fact, that door remains wide open. Transparency being the order of the day, President Obama’s order is transparently designed to make voters believe he’s going to put the brakes on the gravy train. And to do so he’s dispatching his two top lawyers: tasking the White House counsel and the attorney general with the interpretation and enforcement of the new, stringent guidelines. If you’re keeping score at home, those would be Gregory Craig and Eric Holder, each of whom has been deeply enmeshed in unsavory influence-peddling.
As National Review’s Byron York has reported, Craig has an extensive history of representing leftist regimes hostile to the United States, which led him to lobby the Justice Department on behalf of one Pedro Miguel González, an alleged terrorist. Since 1992, González has been evading an indictment for murdering a U.S. army sergeant in Panama City. When pressed about his client during the campaign, Craig—a lawyerly lawyer if ever there was—explained that he hadn’t really “undertaken to represent” González in legal “proceedings.” You wouldn’t even really call it lobbying. Instead, Craig explained, he had merely sought “to open up a path of communications” between the fugitive and the Justice Department.
Which is to say, the principal interpreter and enforcer of Obama’s celebrated lobbying rules does not believe that a lawyer’s arranging negotiations between an international fugitive and the federal government constitutes “representing” that fugitive or acting as his agent. Just call him a Good Samaritan. The Obama administration’s response to questions about González has been that familiar rallying cry of openness and transparency: “No comment.”
No discussion of lobbying on behalf of international fugitives should get very far without turning to the case of Eric Holder. Beginning in 1999, when he was deputy attorney general, Holder allowed himself to be lobbied on behalf of Marc Rich (at that time, one of the FBI’s most wanted fugitives) by an influential Democratic lawyer, Jack Quinn. Until 1997, Quinn had been the Clinton White House counsel, i.e., Clinton’s Greg Craig. He then left for private practice and, by late 1999, had started his own lobbying firm.
Lobbying Holder put Quinn in violation of President Clinton’s own good-government executive order. Like Obama’s order, Clinton’s was announced with great fanfare on the first day of his presidency. It was duly lauded by the press—especially for the five-year lobbying ban it purported to impose on former administration officials. But in Quinn’s view, that ban didn’t apply to him because—try to follow this—he was not so much lobbying an administration official as he was representing a client in a “judicial proceeding.” This was transparently specious: The Justice Department is not a court and a pardon is not a judicial proceeding—to the contrary, a pardon is an executive exercise designed to undo judicial proceedings. But the hocus-pocus reasoning was good enough for Quinn, and that meant it was plenty good enough for Holder, who helped get Rich his pardon.
So Obama’s guidelines will be interpreted and enforced by these two guys. This should prove fruitful for the many lawyers who inevitably drift from the new administration back into more lucrative endeavors: If they’d prefer their legal representation to be low-balled as something less than lobbying, they can go to the White House counsel; if they’d rather dress up their lobbying as legal representation, the attorney general is their man.
Not every lobbyist is a lawyer—though some non-lawyers, such as Tom Daschle, manage to get themselves paid more than a million dollars a year by top law firms. For what? Certainly not for lobbying. At the well-connected firm of Alston and Bird, known in Washington parlance as a “lobbying firm” because it represents lots of lobbyists, Daschle was retained as a “special policy adviser.”
But if you are paid by the legal agents of lobbyists to instruct lobbyists in lobbying, aren’t you, in fact, a lobbyist? Especially considering the fact that the top asset you bring to the table is your Rolodex? Obama thinks not, since Daschle never legally registered as a lobbyist.
“If you’re not registered to lobby, you can’t be a lobbyist.” Thus decreed Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, a man who is starting to make Scott McClellan sound like Elmer Gantry (a fictional character who, unlike most Obama administration figures, only seems to have worked in the Clinton administration). Gibbs’s kindly diagnosis of Daschle brings us to the fine print of the executive order. To “lobby,” the president says, “shall mean to act or have acted as a registered lobbyist.” Presto: no registration, no lobbyist; no lobbyist, no problem—unless you don’t pay your taxes on the millions you’ve earned not lobbying.
But now that we’ve narrowed it down to registered lobbyists, does that mean that we’ve discovered one category of Washington insiders that is, in fact, banned by the ethical standards Gibbs describes as the “strongest that any administration in the history of our country has had”? Not exactly. The order provides that these very stringent rules can be ignored whenever the scrupulous interpreting authorities decide it is in the public interest. Don’t be alarmed: The administration says waivers will only be approved for extraordinarily qualified officials.
Have you ever heard of an administration that did not portray its appointees as extraordinarily qualified? Already we have the extraordinarily qualified William J. Lynn III, the nominee for deputy defense secretary, who got a waiver despite being, up until recently, a lobbyist for the military contractor Raytheon. William Corr will serve as the No. 2 official at the Department of Health and Human Services regardless of the last year he spent as a lobbyist. And then there’s Mark Patterson. He’s now chief of staff to Timothy Geithner, this ethics-obsessed administration’s tax-cheating Treasury secretary, even though Patterson used to be a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs—the outfit that could have patented the revolving door even before scoring $10 billion in TARP money.
Obama says he’s come to Washington to bring change. So far, he’s changing it into Chicago.
National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).
Andrew Napolitano's Imaginary Constitution
Andrew Napolitano's Imaginary Constitution, by Matthew J. Franck
Bench Memos/NRO, Friday, February 06, 2009
Today's Wall Street Journal features an exchange on whether the government should cap executive compensation in companies receiving federal assistance. Harvard law professor Lucian Bebchuk is for 'em—he thinks, indeed, that they should be more stringent than the administration proposes—and former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano is agin 'em. Napolitano would have the better argument if he would stick to what's really wrong with compensation caps—that they're economically counterproductive, politically unwise, and morally objectionable as a species of envy-driven vindictiveness.
But Napolitano can't leave well enough alone. He adds the argument that compensation caps are unconstitutional. Why? "[B]ecause freedom of contract is protected by the Constitution." Oh, really? Where? For about 40 years, from the 1890s to the 1930s, the Court protected (inconsistently, to be sure) something it called "freedom of contract," but it was based on an illegitimate reading of the due process clauses that was cut from the same "substantive due process" cloth that gave us the protection of slavery in the Dred Scott case and of abortion in Roe v. Wade. You don't have to be a fan of the New Deal to recognize how right the Supreme Court got this one when it gave up on this line of reasoning in 1937, with Chief Justice Hughes saying, "What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract."
Napolitano doesn't even attempt to defend his remark about "freedom of contract," but instead moves immediately to saying that compensation caps "also constitute a taking" prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. It has been a hardy perennial in the imaginary constitutional garden of the libertarians to say that all manner of taxes and regulations are "takings" without "just compensation" ever since Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago published his book Takings in the 1980s. But this reading of the Constitution is as insupportable as "freedom of contract" under "substantive" due process, and invites rampant judicial activism—only substituting conservative activism for the liberal variety. All sorts of government regulations of the economy favor some behaviors over others, impinge on people's earning power, and thus in some extremely remote sense "take" resources people would otherwise acquire or keep. The Epstein-Napolitano version of the Constitution would sweep like a scythe through good regulations and bad ones, blatant ones and subtler ones, and without any basis in the original understanding of the document.
The idea of executive compensation caps is a very bad one on all sorts of policy grounds. It is also unjust. But injustice and unconstitutionality are not the same thing, try as Napolitano may to equate them.
Bench Memos/NRO, Friday, February 06, 2009
Today's Wall Street Journal features an exchange on whether the government should cap executive compensation in companies receiving federal assistance. Harvard law professor Lucian Bebchuk is for 'em—he thinks, indeed, that they should be more stringent than the administration proposes—and former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano is agin 'em. Napolitano would have the better argument if he would stick to what's really wrong with compensation caps—that they're economically counterproductive, politically unwise, and morally objectionable as a species of envy-driven vindictiveness.
But Napolitano can't leave well enough alone. He adds the argument that compensation caps are unconstitutional. Why? "[B]ecause freedom of contract is protected by the Constitution." Oh, really? Where? For about 40 years, from the 1890s to the 1930s, the Court protected (inconsistently, to be sure) something it called "freedom of contract," but it was based on an illegitimate reading of the due process clauses that was cut from the same "substantive due process" cloth that gave us the protection of slavery in the Dred Scott case and of abortion in Roe v. Wade. You don't have to be a fan of the New Deal to recognize how right the Supreme Court got this one when it gave up on this line of reasoning in 1937, with Chief Justice Hughes saying, "What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract."
Napolitano doesn't even attempt to defend his remark about "freedom of contract," but instead moves immediately to saying that compensation caps "also constitute a taking" prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. It has been a hardy perennial in the imaginary constitutional garden of the libertarians to say that all manner of taxes and regulations are "takings" without "just compensation" ever since Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago published his book Takings in the 1980s. But this reading of the Constitution is as insupportable as "freedom of contract" under "substantive" due process, and invites rampant judicial activism—only substituting conservative activism for the liberal variety. All sorts of government regulations of the economy favor some behaviors over others, impinge on people's earning power, and thus in some extremely remote sense "take" resources people would otherwise acquire or keep. The Epstein-Napolitano version of the Constitution would sweep like a scythe through good regulations and bad ones, blatant ones and subtler ones, and without any basis in the original understanding of the document.
The idea of executive compensation caps is a very bad one on all sorts of policy grounds. It is also unjust. But injustice and unconstitutionality are not the same thing, try as Napolitano may to equate them.
The Fierce Urgency of Pork
The Fierce Urgency of Pork. By Charles Krauthammer
WaPo, Friday, February 6, 2009; A17
"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.
The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.
He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.
At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.
And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.
It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.
Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.
The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
WaPo, Friday, February 6, 2009; A17
"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.
The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.
He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.
At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.
And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.
It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.
Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.
The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
Smart Grid: It makes no sense to throw $4.5 billion at electric power infrastructure
What's So Smart About Investing in the Smart Grid? By Ronald Bailey
It makes no sense to throw $4.5 billion at electric power infrastructure
Reason, February 3, 2009
Smart grid technology is all the rage. General Electric just paid $2.4 million for a Superbowl ad featuring an animated scarecrow singing "If I Only Had a Brain" to promote its smart grid initiatives. IBM, meanwhile, is running full page "Smarter power for a smarter planet" ads in major newspapers like the New York Times. These corporations are in perfect sync with the new administration in Washington.
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama promised to retrofit America by "updating the way we get our electricity, by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation." To that end, the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorizes the Department of Energy to spend $4.5 billion dollars to stimulate the deployment of smart grid technologies.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) describes the current national power grid as the "largest interconnected machine on earth." The U.S. electric power infrastructure is worth over $1 trillion. It consists of more than 9,200 electric generating units with more than 1 million megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines and 5.5 million miles of distribution lines. Utility companies have only the most rudimentary ability to monitor this vast grid. More often than not, utility companies only learn about a local power outage when customers call to complain.
Creating a smart grid means computerizing the current electric grid using advanced wireless two-way information and communications equipment, deploying an array of sensors to monitor activity, and developing the software to control and track in real time all aspects of electricity generation, transmission, and consumption. The smart grid would also more easily integrate supplies from decentralized renewable energy suppliers and enable consumers to better manage their energy consumption.
Modernization would certainly help the current transmission network, which is so overburdened that blackouts are now bigger, lengthier, and more common. The EIA estimates that outages currently cost the economy as much as $150 billion per year. Even as demand for electricity has grown, transmission capacity has been lagging. In addition, Americans are projected to use about 30 percent more electricity by 2030. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the think tank of the utility industry, estimates that smart grid technologies could potentially lower projected annual energy consumption in 2030 by 1.2 to 4.3 percent. This would mean that fewer power plants and transmission lines would need to be built in the future.
For many proponents, however, the chief reason to create a smart grid is that it promotes energy conservation. For example, the smart grid concept envisions smart meters in homes or businesses allowing consumers to fine tune their energy consumption, such as setting dishwashers or washing machines to turn on at night when electric power is relatively cheap and more plentiful. And consumers could also grant utility companies permission to send signals that lower the temperatures on residential hot water heaters or reduce air conditioning when the grid is threatened with an overload on hot summer days. Some pilot projects report that consumers using this technology have cut their energy bills by an average of 10 percent.
But why is there such a push to conserve energy, especially electricity? After all, the U.S. has plenty of coal, natural gas, and uranium to generate power and, if promoters of renewable fuels are right, there'll be plenty of those, too. The answer, of course, centers on concerns about man-made global warming. About 50 percent of our electricity is produced using coal and 20 percent more is generated by burning natural gas, both of which emit carbon dioxide that contributes to raising the earth's average temperature.
If the goal is reducing carbon dioxide emissions rather than achieving energy efficiency for its own sake, then the simplest and most effective policy would be to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. Pricing carbon would push generators and consumers to switch to low and no-carbon fuels while encouraging innovators to develop such fuels. Proponents of the smart grid often liken it to the Internet. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. No central computer distribution company created the Internet by installing a desktop in every home, after all. So why should we jigger electricity rate regimes in order to push utility companies to install smart meters or appliances? As higher carbon prices cause electric bills to increase, consumers themselves will start installing smart meters and appliances while seeking out relatively cheaper low-carbon power.
Here's another question: Why haven't utility companies and electric generation companies already started invested in a smart grid? One word: incentives. The chief problem is that power companies make more money when they sell more electricity to consumers. Building a smart grid means utilities would pay for infrastructure that could reduce the amount of electricity they sell. In other words, given the current regulatory system, utilities would be spending money so that they would make even less money. Obviously, this incentive scheme won't work.
The leading proposal to change the incentive structure is called decoupling. Instead of earning money by selling more electricity, a utility's profits are decoupled from the amount of electricity it sells. Regulators guarantee that a utility's fixed costs, including a profit margin, can be recovered no matter how much energy it sells through a rate adjustment formula. So if a utility sells less than was forecasted, the rates to consumers are adjusted to make up the difference. Generally speaking, such adjustments have amounted to an additional 2 to 3 percent on consumers' bills.
The House stimulus bill contains provisions that require states to consider decoupling as a condition for applying for $3.4 billion in energy efficiency grants. Some free marketers dislike decoupling because consumers could perversely see their energy use go down while their bills remain the same or even go up. Some progressives also reject decoupling on the grounds that it provides windfall profits to utilities.
While decoupling removes the incentive for utilities to sell more power, it doesn't provide much impetus for utilities to boost energy efficiency. One proposed fix for this problem is shared savings. If a utility invests in some type of energy efficiency—say the installation of smart meters or better insulation in houses—the utility shares the energy savings with the consumers. How? Consumers get lower utility bills because they use less energy and regulators award the utility with higher rates to pay back its investment in energy efficiency. For example, California utilities get rate hikes that amount to between 9 and 12 percent of the energy efficiency savings. But again, why rig electricity markets so that utility companies end up in charge of insulating houses, paying for energy efficient appliances, and installing energy management systems? Instead, utilities need to create an open information exchange network that both consumers and power generators can tap into.
In 2004, the Electric Power Research Institute calculated that it would cost $165 billion over the next 20 years—about $8 billion per year—to build out the smart grid. And one of the first challenges is mobilizing sufficient investment. But that problem won't be solved by throwing $4.5 billion at the electric grid as a sop to the environmental lobby—even if it does stimulate the bottom lines of favored corporations.
Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
It makes no sense to throw $4.5 billion at electric power infrastructure
Reason, February 3, 2009
Smart grid technology is all the rage. General Electric just paid $2.4 million for a Superbowl ad featuring an animated scarecrow singing "If I Only Had a Brain" to promote its smart grid initiatives. IBM, meanwhile, is running full page "Smarter power for a smarter planet" ads in major newspapers like the New York Times. These corporations are in perfect sync with the new administration in Washington.
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama promised to retrofit America by "updating the way we get our electricity, by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation." To that end, the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorizes the Department of Energy to spend $4.5 billion dollars to stimulate the deployment of smart grid technologies.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) describes the current national power grid as the "largest interconnected machine on earth." The U.S. electric power infrastructure is worth over $1 trillion. It consists of more than 9,200 electric generating units with more than 1 million megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines and 5.5 million miles of distribution lines. Utility companies have only the most rudimentary ability to monitor this vast grid. More often than not, utility companies only learn about a local power outage when customers call to complain.
Creating a smart grid means computerizing the current electric grid using advanced wireless two-way information and communications equipment, deploying an array of sensors to monitor activity, and developing the software to control and track in real time all aspects of electricity generation, transmission, and consumption. The smart grid would also more easily integrate supplies from decentralized renewable energy suppliers and enable consumers to better manage their energy consumption.
Modernization would certainly help the current transmission network, which is so overburdened that blackouts are now bigger, lengthier, and more common. The EIA estimates that outages currently cost the economy as much as $150 billion per year. Even as demand for electricity has grown, transmission capacity has been lagging. In addition, Americans are projected to use about 30 percent more electricity by 2030. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the think tank of the utility industry, estimates that smart grid technologies could potentially lower projected annual energy consumption in 2030 by 1.2 to 4.3 percent. This would mean that fewer power plants and transmission lines would need to be built in the future.
For many proponents, however, the chief reason to create a smart grid is that it promotes energy conservation. For example, the smart grid concept envisions smart meters in homes or businesses allowing consumers to fine tune their energy consumption, such as setting dishwashers or washing machines to turn on at night when electric power is relatively cheap and more plentiful. And consumers could also grant utility companies permission to send signals that lower the temperatures on residential hot water heaters or reduce air conditioning when the grid is threatened with an overload on hot summer days. Some pilot projects report that consumers using this technology have cut their energy bills by an average of 10 percent.
But why is there such a push to conserve energy, especially electricity? After all, the U.S. has plenty of coal, natural gas, and uranium to generate power and, if promoters of renewable fuels are right, there'll be plenty of those, too. The answer, of course, centers on concerns about man-made global warming. About 50 percent of our electricity is produced using coal and 20 percent more is generated by burning natural gas, both of which emit carbon dioxide that contributes to raising the earth's average temperature.
If the goal is reducing carbon dioxide emissions rather than achieving energy efficiency for its own sake, then the simplest and most effective policy would be to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. Pricing carbon would push generators and consumers to switch to low and no-carbon fuels while encouraging innovators to develop such fuels. Proponents of the smart grid often liken it to the Internet. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. No central computer distribution company created the Internet by installing a desktop in every home, after all. So why should we jigger electricity rate regimes in order to push utility companies to install smart meters or appliances? As higher carbon prices cause electric bills to increase, consumers themselves will start installing smart meters and appliances while seeking out relatively cheaper low-carbon power.
Here's another question: Why haven't utility companies and electric generation companies already started invested in a smart grid? One word: incentives. The chief problem is that power companies make more money when they sell more electricity to consumers. Building a smart grid means utilities would pay for infrastructure that could reduce the amount of electricity they sell. In other words, given the current regulatory system, utilities would be spending money so that they would make even less money. Obviously, this incentive scheme won't work.
The leading proposal to change the incentive structure is called decoupling. Instead of earning money by selling more electricity, a utility's profits are decoupled from the amount of electricity it sells. Regulators guarantee that a utility's fixed costs, including a profit margin, can be recovered no matter how much energy it sells through a rate adjustment formula. So if a utility sells less than was forecasted, the rates to consumers are adjusted to make up the difference. Generally speaking, such adjustments have amounted to an additional 2 to 3 percent on consumers' bills.
The House stimulus bill contains provisions that require states to consider decoupling as a condition for applying for $3.4 billion in energy efficiency grants. Some free marketers dislike decoupling because consumers could perversely see their energy use go down while their bills remain the same or even go up. Some progressives also reject decoupling on the grounds that it provides windfall profits to utilities.
While decoupling removes the incentive for utilities to sell more power, it doesn't provide much impetus for utilities to boost energy efficiency. One proposed fix for this problem is shared savings. If a utility invests in some type of energy efficiency—say the installation of smart meters or better insulation in houses—the utility shares the energy savings with the consumers. How? Consumers get lower utility bills because they use less energy and regulators award the utility with higher rates to pay back its investment in energy efficiency. For example, California utilities get rate hikes that amount to between 9 and 12 percent of the energy efficiency savings. But again, why rig electricity markets so that utility companies end up in charge of insulating houses, paying for energy efficient appliances, and installing energy management systems? Instead, utilities need to create an open information exchange network that both consumers and power generators can tap into.
In 2004, the Electric Power Research Institute calculated that it would cost $165 billion over the next 20 years—about $8 billion per year—to build out the smart grid. And one of the first challenges is mobilizing sufficient investment. But that problem won't be solved by throwing $4.5 billion at the electric grid as a sop to the environmental lobby—even if it does stimulate the bottom lines of favored corporations.
Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
A Better Way to Generate and Use Comparative-Effectiveness Research
A Better Way to Generate and Use Comparative-Effectiveness Research, by Michael F. Cannon
Cato, Feb 06, 2009
President Barack Obama, former U.S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, and others propose a new government agency that would evaluate the relative effectiveness of medical treatments. The need for "comparative-effectiveness research" is great. Evidence suggests Americans spend $700 billion annually on medical care that provides no value. Yet patients, providers, and purchasers typically lack the necessary information to distinguish between high- and low-value services.
Advocates of such an agency argue that comparative- effectiveness information has characteristics of a "public good," therefore markets will not generate the efficiency-maximizing quantity. While that is correct, economic theory does not conclude that government should provide comparative- effectiveness research, nor that government provision would increase social welfare.
Conservatives warn that a federal comparative- effectiveness agency would lead to government rationing of medical care—indeed, that's the whole idea. If history is any guide, the more likely outcome is that the agency would be completely ineffective: political pressure from the industry will prevent the agency from conducting useful research and prevent purchasers from using such research to eliminate low-value care.
The current lack of comparative-effectiveness research is due more to government failure than to market failure. Federal tax and entitlement policies reduce consumer demand for such research. Those policies, as well as state licensing of health insurance and medical professionals, inhibit the types of health plans best equipped to generate comparative-effectiveness information.
A better way to generate comparative-effectiveness information would be for Congress to eliminate government activities that suppress private production. Congress should let workers and Medicare enrollees control the money that purchases their health insurance. Further, Congress should require states to recognize other states' licenses for medical professionals and insurance products. That laissez-faire approach would both increase comparative-effectiveness research and increase the likelihood that patients and providers would use it.
Cato, Feb 06, 2009
President Barack Obama, former U.S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, and others propose a new government agency that would evaluate the relative effectiveness of medical treatments. The need for "comparative-effectiveness research" is great. Evidence suggests Americans spend $700 billion annually on medical care that provides no value. Yet patients, providers, and purchasers typically lack the necessary information to distinguish between high- and low-value services.
Advocates of such an agency argue that comparative- effectiveness information has characteristics of a "public good," therefore markets will not generate the efficiency-maximizing quantity. While that is correct, economic theory does not conclude that government should provide comparative- effectiveness research, nor that government provision would increase social welfare.
Conservatives warn that a federal comparative- effectiveness agency would lead to government rationing of medical care—indeed, that's the whole idea. If history is any guide, the more likely outcome is that the agency would be completely ineffective: political pressure from the industry will prevent the agency from conducting useful research and prevent purchasers from using such research to eliminate low-value care.
The current lack of comparative-effectiveness research is due more to government failure than to market failure. Federal tax and entitlement policies reduce consumer demand for such research. Those policies, as well as state licensing of health insurance and medical professionals, inhibit the types of health plans best equipped to generate comparative-effectiveness information.
A better way to generate comparative-effectiveness information would be for Congress to eliminate government activities that suppress private production. Congress should let workers and Medicare enrollees control the money that purchases their health insurance. Further, Congress should require states to recognize other states' licenses for medical professionals and insurance products. That laissez-faire approach would both increase comparative-effectiveness research and increase the likelihood that patients and providers would use it.
Cutting Emissions While Increasing Them
Cutting Emissions While Increasing Them. By Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prometheus, February 6th, 2009
Here is a remarkable display of incoherence. According to a report commissioned by Greenpeace and discussed by The Christian Science Monitor, the economic stimulus package now under debate by the U.S. Congress will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What does the report mean by “reduce”? It means that some future emissions that might have occurred will be avoided. Emissions will therefore increase, just not as much as under some other scenario. The difference between that other scenario and the scenario implied by the stimulus package represents a “reduction” in emissions. Yes, you are reading that right.
The great thing about this approach to emissions reductions is that it is an infinite resource. For instance, I just decided not to buy a Hummer and reduced my future emissions by an enormous amount. You can do the same, and if we all pitch in, maybe it will solve the problem. Or as the head of resaerch for Greenpeace observes:
The fact of the matter is that the goal of the stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. Absent a reduction in the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP, emissions will go up in the real world, regardless of silly accounting tricks. Of course, silly accounting tricks on emissions are to be expected by those seeking to present BAU as progress, but I’m really surprised that it is Greenpeace that is engaging in such shenanigans.
Prometheus, February 6th, 2009
Here is a remarkable display of incoherence. According to a report commissioned by Greenpeace and discussed by The Christian Science Monitor, the economic stimulus package now under debate by the U.S. Congress will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What does the report mean by “reduce”? It means that some future emissions that might have occurred will be avoided. Emissions will therefore increase, just not as much as under some other scenario. The difference between that other scenario and the scenario implied by the stimulus package represents a “reduction” in emissions. Yes, you are reading that right.
The great thing about this approach to emissions reductions is that it is an infinite resource. For instance, I just decided not to buy a Hummer and reduced my future emissions by an enormous amount. You can do the same, and if we all pitch in, maybe it will solve the problem. Or as the head of resaerch for Greenpeace observes:
The fact that the federal government could spend so much money and actually help
slow global warming means we’ve really turned the page as a country,” said Kert
Davies, Greenpeace’s Research Director, in a press release.. “This is a real
sign that we’re starting to move beyond the era of fossil fuels.”
The fact of the matter is that the goal of the stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. Absent a reduction in the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP, emissions will go up in the real world, regardless of silly accounting tricks. Of course, silly accounting tricks on emissions are to be expected by those seeking to present BAU as progress, but I’m really surprised that it is Greenpeace that is engaging in such shenanigans.
Napolitano on executive pay caps: They Violate Good Sense and the Constitution
. . . They Violate Good Sense and the Constitution. By Andrew P Napolitano
The government cannot condition benefits on the nonassertion of rights.
WSJ, Feb 06, 2009
The executive compensation caps that President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner summarily announced this week violate both the Constitution and Economics 101.
I have argued on this page that the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the banks is itself inherently and profoundly unconstitutional for several reasons. It promotes only short-term private benefit, rather than the general welfare as the Constitution commands of all federal spending. It evades the constitutional requirement of equal protection by saving some businesses and letting others that are similarly situated simply expire. And it delegates to the secretary of the Treasury the power to spend taxpayer dollars as he sees fit, in violation of the express constitutional grant of the nondelegable spending power to the Congress.
Now the federal government wants to interfere with private employment contracts already entered into -- and regulate those not yet signed -- in order to satisfy the perceived populist instincts of the electorate. To do so, it demands salary caps as a condition to the receipt of public assistance.
Salary caps are unconstitutional because they violate the well-grounded doctrine against unconstitutional conditions. Simply stated, the government may not condition the acceptance of a governmental benefit on the non-assertion of a constitutional liberty. The government cannot say to individual welfare recipients that they may not criticize the Congress or their welfare checks will be cut off, because the right to criticize the government is a constitutionally protected liberty. It similarly may not condition corporate welfare on the prohibition of contracts with employees above an arbitrary salary amount, because freedom of contract is protected by the Constitution as well.
The salary caps also constitute a taking. High ranking executives are corporate assets with experience and knowledge unique to their employers' businesses. By arbitrarily reducing their salaries to serve the government's political needs, deflating their worth to their employers, incentivizing them to work less, or chasing them away, the government has stripped these individuals of their personal value and of their value to employers without just compensation. Such a taking is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
Moreover, government-mandated salary caps will impede economic progress. We can presume that the senior executives of the banks that have received TARP funds who are paid more than $500,000 annually are worth at least that much to their employers. Otherwise the employers would be violating their fiduciary duties to their shareholders by paying those salaries. These employers are banks which the government has "rewarded for failure," to use the president's phrase, by investing money from taxpayers who would not voluntarily invest their own money there.
So, not only are these banks in distress, not only do they seek federal dollars in order to stay afloat, but under these salary caps they cannot go out and get the best talent to run them. The government that is trying to save them, the government that has forced taxpayer dollars into them, has denied them the freedom of contract necessary to assure their salvation. Why would underpaid executives stay with a bailed out bank when their true worth will be compensated elsewhere?
The government can't run a business. Just look at the Post Office, which loses $6 billion a year and has salary caps. Is this what's coming to the banks? If the government can evade the Constitution and violate the basic laws of economics what will it do to free enterprise next?
Mr. Napolitano, who was on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).
The government cannot condition benefits on the nonassertion of rights.
WSJ, Feb 06, 2009
The executive compensation caps that President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner summarily announced this week violate both the Constitution and Economics 101.
I have argued on this page that the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the banks is itself inherently and profoundly unconstitutional for several reasons. It promotes only short-term private benefit, rather than the general welfare as the Constitution commands of all federal spending. It evades the constitutional requirement of equal protection by saving some businesses and letting others that are similarly situated simply expire. And it delegates to the secretary of the Treasury the power to spend taxpayer dollars as he sees fit, in violation of the express constitutional grant of the nondelegable spending power to the Congress.
Now the federal government wants to interfere with private employment contracts already entered into -- and regulate those not yet signed -- in order to satisfy the perceived populist instincts of the electorate. To do so, it demands salary caps as a condition to the receipt of public assistance.
Salary caps are unconstitutional because they violate the well-grounded doctrine against unconstitutional conditions. Simply stated, the government may not condition the acceptance of a governmental benefit on the non-assertion of a constitutional liberty. The government cannot say to individual welfare recipients that they may not criticize the Congress or their welfare checks will be cut off, because the right to criticize the government is a constitutionally protected liberty. It similarly may not condition corporate welfare on the prohibition of contracts with employees above an arbitrary salary amount, because freedom of contract is protected by the Constitution as well.
The salary caps also constitute a taking. High ranking executives are corporate assets with experience and knowledge unique to their employers' businesses. By arbitrarily reducing their salaries to serve the government's political needs, deflating their worth to their employers, incentivizing them to work less, or chasing them away, the government has stripped these individuals of their personal value and of their value to employers without just compensation. Such a taking is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
Moreover, government-mandated salary caps will impede economic progress. We can presume that the senior executives of the banks that have received TARP funds who are paid more than $500,000 annually are worth at least that much to their employers. Otherwise the employers would be violating their fiduciary duties to their shareholders by paying those salaries. These employers are banks which the government has "rewarded for failure," to use the president's phrase, by investing money from taxpayers who would not voluntarily invest their own money there.
So, not only are these banks in distress, not only do they seek federal dollars in order to stay afloat, but under these salary caps they cannot go out and get the best talent to run them. The government that is trying to save them, the government that has forced taxpayer dollars into them, has denied them the freedom of contract necessary to assure their salvation. Why would underpaid executives stay with a bailed out bank when their true worth will be compensated elsewhere?
The government can't run a business. Just look at the Post Office, which loses $6 billion a year and has salary caps. Is this what's coming to the banks? If the government can evade the Constitution and violate the basic laws of economics what will it do to free enterprise next?
Mr. Napolitano, who was on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).
Attempt to establish non-market prices: The Athenian Grain Merchants, 386 B.C.
Cold Case Files: The Athenian Grain Merchants, 386 B.C. By Wayne R. Dunham
Cato Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2008). Feb 2009
Food price increases have always been politically sensitive. Price spikes like those that have occurred recently create the demand for action on the part of government to alleviate the problem. Yet, government intervention can often do more harm than good. This article examines one such example of a counterproductive response that occurred in 388 B.C. in Athens, Greece. In response to a negative supply shock to the grain market, regulators encouraged grain importers to form a buyers' cartel (monopsony), hoping that it would reduce retail prices by first lowering wholesale grain prices. In reality, the decrease in wholesale prices resulted in a decrease in the willingness of producers in other regions to supply grain to Athens, and retail grain prices increased substantially. Grain importers soon found themselves on trial for their lives in what is probably the earliest recorded antitrust trial. This article uses the information presented at that trial and other contemporary sources to evaluate the grain merchants. actions. More generally, it analyses the impact of a buyer's cartel or monopsony on prices and consumption.
Cato Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2008). Feb 2009
Food price increases have always been politically sensitive. Price spikes like those that have occurred recently create the demand for action on the part of government to alleviate the problem. Yet, government intervention can often do more harm than good. This article examines one such example of a counterproductive response that occurred in 388 B.C. in Athens, Greece. In response to a negative supply shock to the grain market, regulators encouraged grain importers to form a buyers' cartel (monopsony), hoping that it would reduce retail prices by first lowering wholesale grain prices. In reality, the decrease in wholesale prices resulted in a decrease in the willingness of producers in other regions to supply grain to Athens, and retail grain prices increased substantially. Grain importers soon found themselves on trial for their lives in what is probably the earliest recorded antitrust trial. This article uses the information presented at that trial and other contemporary sources to evaluate the grain merchants. actions. More generally, it analyses the impact of a buyer's cartel or monopsony on prices and consumption.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Windfall Profits Tax Would Harm the US Economy, Cost Jobs, and Increase Our Reliance on Imported Oil
New Study Finds That a Windfall Profits Tax Would Harm the US Economy, Cost Jobs, and Increase Our Reliance on Imported Oil
IER, February 4, 2009
A study conducted by CRA International[i] and released February 3rd by the American Petroleum Institute (API) finds that instituting a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry would cost the U.S. a net loss in jobs of between 370 to 490 thousand by 2030; reduce U.S. gross domestic product between 0.5 to 0.9 percent, or $140 to 240 billion; and increase crude oil imports by 13 to 18 percent (1.2 to 1.5 million barrels per day). The increase in oil imports results from a decline in domestic crude oil production of 21 to 26 percent, or 1.5 to 1.9 million barrels per day, between 2010 and 2030.
The study results are similar to past US experience. Congress enacted a windfall profits tax on domestic oil producers in 1980 expecting to generate tax revenues. The Congressional Research Service[ii] found that, instead, domestic crude oil production was reduced by 1.2 to 8.0 percent and foreign oil imports were increased by 3 to 13 percent.
While there is no specific windfall profits tax proposal currently being considered by Congress, such a tax was part of President Obama’s campaign platform. When crude oil prices dropped last fall, President Obama’s aides changed course and indicated that with oil prices below $80 a barrel would not be considered for a windfall profits tax. However, whether a windfall profits tax or some other similar tax or combination of taxes is instituted on the oil and gas industry, the impact on US jobs, the economy, and foreign imports of oil and natural gas would be similar.
Other study results are:
References
[i]“Energy and Economic Impacts of a Proposed Windfall Profits Tax on Producers of Oil and Refined Products in the United States “, CRA International, February 2009, http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/CRA_WPT_Study_1_30_2009.pdf
[ii] Lazzari, Salvatore, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy”, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, March 9, 2006
---------
You can request the CRS report to us. Contact Jorge Mata
IER, February 4, 2009
A study conducted by CRA International[i] and released February 3rd by the American Petroleum Institute (API) finds that instituting a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry would cost the U.S. a net loss in jobs of between 370 to 490 thousand by 2030; reduce U.S. gross domestic product between 0.5 to 0.9 percent, or $140 to 240 billion; and increase crude oil imports by 13 to 18 percent (1.2 to 1.5 million barrels per day). The increase in oil imports results from a decline in domestic crude oil production of 21 to 26 percent, or 1.5 to 1.9 million barrels per day, between 2010 and 2030.
The study results are similar to past US experience. Congress enacted a windfall profits tax on domestic oil producers in 1980 expecting to generate tax revenues. The Congressional Research Service[ii] found that, instead, domestic crude oil production was reduced by 1.2 to 8.0 percent and foreign oil imports were increased by 3 to 13 percent.
While there is no specific windfall profits tax proposal currently being considered by Congress, such a tax was part of President Obama’s campaign platform. When crude oil prices dropped last fall, President Obama’s aides changed course and indicated that with oil prices below $80 a barrel would not be considered for a windfall profits tax. However, whether a windfall profits tax or some other similar tax or combination of taxes is instituted on the oil and gas industry, the impact on US jobs, the economy, and foreign imports of oil and natural gas would be similar.
Other study results are:
- A decline in natural gas production of 9 to 13 percent, 1.6 to 2.4 trillion cubic feet, between 2020 and 2030. More natural gas imports would result, increasing 14-55 percent, or 0.5 to 1.2 trillion cubic feet, during this period.
- A reduction in refinery output of 2 to 4 percent, or 410 to 660 thousand barrels per day, during the 2010 to 2030 period. The reduction in domestic refinery output could partially be offset by increasing foreign imports of petroleum products by 15 to 21 percent, or 230 to 430 million barrels per day, during the 2010 to 2030 period.
- A reduction in household consumption between $20 to 42 billion by 2030.
- A decline in domestic investment by the oil and gas industry between 20 and 25 percent by 2030.
References
[i]“Energy and Economic Impacts of a Proposed Windfall Profits Tax on Producers of Oil and Refined Products in the United States “, CRA International, February 2009, http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/CRA_WPT_Study_1_30_2009.pdf
[ii] Lazzari, Salvatore, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy”, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, March 9, 2006
---------
You can request the CRS report to us. Contact Jorge Mata
Ex-Pentagon official warns of Japan's decline - ‘‘Few in Japan share my concern’’
Ex-Pentagon official warns of Japan's decline
Japan Today, Friday February 06, 2009, 08:43 AM JST
WASHINGTON — A former senior Defense Department official warned Thursday that Japan must take action to arrest the decline in its regional and international standing. ‘‘The erosion of Japan’s international, regional position has begun,’’ said Richard Lawless, deputy undersecretary of defense for Asia and Pacific security affairs. ‘‘If this marginalization process of Japan is not addressed openly and proactively, the relative decline will accelerate,’’ he said, adding that ‘‘Few in Japan share my concern.’’
Lawless said in a speech that Japan’s decline is partly attributable to the ongoing global financial crisis, which has forced many leading Japanese companies to expect to fall into the red. As well, he pointed out inaction on the part of Japanese policymakers in relation to a plethora of challenges, as exemplified by the recent response to piracy off the coast of Somalia.
It took China ‘‘about 10 seconds’’ to decide to participate in an antipiracy mission there, but Japan spent a tremendous amount of time before deciding this week to send two destroyers on a similar mission, Lawless said.
‘‘It’s not bad, but sad,’’ he said.
A former CIA official, Lawless played a major role in talks with Japan and South Korea over the realignment of U.S. forces and military bases in the two U.S. allies in Asia. He was also active in promoting military exchanges between the United States and China.
He expressed hope a new Japanese government to be launched after the next general election, which must be held by September, will ‘‘get serious’’ about Japan’s decline and take steps to counter it.
‘‘That new government, I think, must take a long, hard look at Japan and the region and the world, and make its own decisions about what it’s going to do,’’ he said.
‘‘If Japan wants to be where it needs to be, it needs to act like it’s in the game,’’ Lawless said. ‘‘It’s not a spectator.’’
Japan Today, Friday February 06, 2009, 08:43 AM JST
WASHINGTON — A former senior Defense Department official warned Thursday that Japan must take action to arrest the decline in its regional and international standing. ‘‘The erosion of Japan’s international, regional position has begun,’’ said Richard Lawless, deputy undersecretary of defense for Asia and Pacific security affairs. ‘‘If this marginalization process of Japan is not addressed openly and proactively, the relative decline will accelerate,’’ he said, adding that ‘‘Few in Japan share my concern.’’
Lawless said in a speech that Japan’s decline is partly attributable to the ongoing global financial crisis, which has forced many leading Japanese companies to expect to fall into the red. As well, he pointed out inaction on the part of Japanese policymakers in relation to a plethora of challenges, as exemplified by the recent response to piracy off the coast of Somalia.
It took China ‘‘about 10 seconds’’ to decide to participate in an antipiracy mission there, but Japan spent a tremendous amount of time before deciding this week to send two destroyers on a similar mission, Lawless said.
‘‘It’s not bad, but sad,’’ he said.
A former CIA official, Lawless played a major role in talks with Japan and South Korea over the realignment of U.S. forces and military bases in the two U.S. allies in Asia. He was also active in promoting military exchanges between the United States and China.
He expressed hope a new Japanese government to be launched after the next general election, which must be held by September, will ‘‘get serious’’ about Japan’s decline and take steps to counter it.
‘‘That new government, I think, must take a long, hard look at Japan and the region and the world, and make its own decisions about what it’s going to do,’’ he said.
‘‘If Japan wants to be where it needs to be, it needs to act like it’s in the game,’’ Lawless said. ‘‘It’s not a spectator.’’
Remarks of President Barack Obama National Prayer Breakfast
"This is my hope. This is my prayer."
Washington Hilton, Washington DC, Thursday, February 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
"The particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us," President Obama said this morning to a crowd of several thousand people gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in the nation's capital. "Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring ustogether to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times."
A dozen foreign leaders attended, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who delivered the keynote address.
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) read from Scripture, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) delivered a prayer for national leaders, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) delivered a prayer for world leaders, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) delivered the closing prayer. Casting Crowns, a Christian rock group, performed at the event.
The National Prayer Breakfast, currently co-chaired by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Heath Shuler (D-NC), is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year. The event has taken place since 1953 and every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the breakfast.
The President is set to sign an executive order regarding the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which we'll have more on later today.
Read the President's remarks here.
Washington Hilton, Washington DC, Thursday, February 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
"The particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us," President Obama said this morning to a crowd of several thousand people gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in the nation's capital. "Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring ustogether to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times."
A dozen foreign leaders attended, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who delivered the keynote address.
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) read from Scripture, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) delivered a prayer for national leaders, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) delivered a prayer for world leaders, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) delivered the closing prayer. Casting Crowns, a Christian rock group, performed at the event.
The National Prayer Breakfast, currently co-chaired by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Heath Shuler (D-NC), is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year. The event has taken place since 1953 and every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the breakfast.
The President is set to sign an executive order regarding the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which we'll have more on later today.
Read the President's remarks here.
Fuel Cell Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
SECA Fuel Cell Program Moves Two Key Projects Into Next Phase
Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
Energy Dept, February 5, 2009
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected two projects for continuation within the Department's Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program research portfolio. The projects—led by FuelCell Energy, in partnership with VersaPower Systems, and Siemens Energy—have successfully demonstrated solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) designed for aggregation and use in coal-fueled central power generation. Further development of these low-cost, near-zero emission fuel cell systems will substantially contribute to solving the Nation's energy security, climate, and water challenges.
The selections were based upon an assessment of demonstrated progress in developing high-performance, low-cost SOFC technology. FuelCell Energy is testing two ~10 kilowatt SOFC stacks incorporating planar cells; each has surpassed 4,700 hours of operation to date. Similarly, Siemens is testing a ~10 kilowatt SOFC stack incorporating its new higher power Delta cells, with 2,500 hours of operation to date. With the continuation, these projects will pursue cell materials and design development to further improve performance, reduce cost, and integrate the cells into larger stacks for evaluation and incorporation into larger demonstrations beginning in 2012.
From an environmental perspective, fuel cells are one of the most attractive technologies for generating electricity. SOFCs operate by separating oxygen from air and transferring it across a solid electrolyte membrane, where it reacts with a fuel—such as synthesis gas derived from coal, biofuels, or natural gas—to produce steam and carbon dioxide (CO2). Condensing the steam results in a pure stream of CO2 gas, which can be readily captured for storage or other use in a central location. This feature, coupled with very high efficiencies and the fact that fuel cells operate more efficiently at lower temperatures than combustion-based technologies, results in near-zero emissions. In addition, eliminating the need for steam bottoming cycles, and the ability to keep fuel and air streams separate, significantly reduce water withdrawal.
To realize the intrinsic advantages of SOFCs requires achievement of SECA's cost reduction goals. Projects in the SECA portfolio are conducting research and technology development to lower costs and improve reliability, ultimately culminating in the demonstration of fuel cell technologies that can support power generation systems as large as several hundred megawatts capacity. Key program goals, as defined by the Office of Fossil Energy and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, include:
Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
Energy Dept, February 5, 2009
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected two projects for continuation within the Department's Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program research portfolio. The projects—led by FuelCell Energy, in partnership with VersaPower Systems, and Siemens Energy—have successfully demonstrated solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) designed for aggregation and use in coal-fueled central power generation. Further development of these low-cost, near-zero emission fuel cell systems will substantially contribute to solving the Nation's energy security, climate, and water challenges.
The selections were based upon an assessment of demonstrated progress in developing high-performance, low-cost SOFC technology. FuelCell Energy is testing two ~10 kilowatt SOFC stacks incorporating planar cells; each has surpassed 4,700 hours of operation to date. Similarly, Siemens is testing a ~10 kilowatt SOFC stack incorporating its new higher power Delta cells, with 2,500 hours of operation to date. With the continuation, these projects will pursue cell materials and design development to further improve performance, reduce cost, and integrate the cells into larger stacks for evaluation and incorporation into larger demonstrations beginning in 2012.
From an environmental perspective, fuel cells are one of the most attractive technologies for generating electricity. SOFCs operate by separating oxygen from air and transferring it across a solid electrolyte membrane, where it reacts with a fuel—such as synthesis gas derived from coal, biofuels, or natural gas—to produce steam and carbon dioxide (CO2). Condensing the steam results in a pure stream of CO2 gas, which can be readily captured for storage or other use in a central location. This feature, coupled with very high efficiencies and the fact that fuel cells operate more efficiently at lower temperatures than combustion-based technologies, results in near-zero emissions. In addition, eliminating the need for steam bottoming cycles, and the ability to keep fuel and air streams separate, significantly reduce water withdrawal.
To realize the intrinsic advantages of SOFCs requires achievement of SECA's cost reduction goals. Projects in the SECA portfolio are conducting research and technology development to lower costs and improve reliability, ultimately culminating in the demonstration of fuel cell technologies that can support power generation systems as large as several hundred megawatts capacity. Key program goals, as defined by the Office of Fossil Energy and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, include:
- Cost of $175 per kilowatt (2007 dollars) for a minimum 40,000 hour fuel cell stack.
- Cost of $700 per kilowatt (2007 dollars) for an integrated fuel cell power block.
- Maintaining high power density in the large cells necessary for economic manufacturing.
- 2012—Multiple 1‑megawatt systems to demonstrate 5-year life by 2017.
- 2015—Multiple 5‑megawatt systems to demonstrate system integration with heat recovery turbines, power electronics, and other system level features by 2017.
- 2020—Full scale 250–500 megawatt integrated gasification fuel cell plant as part of DOE’s Near-Zero Emissions Coal-Based Electricity Demonstration Program.
Industry Views: Green Jobs That Nobody Wants
1 Green Jobs That Nobody Wants, by Robert Murphy
IER, February 4, 2009
On February 3, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), in conjunction with union leaders and environmental groups, released their “Good Jobs First” report. Although advocates of a “green recovery” point to estimates that 456,000 green-collar jobs would be created by the stimulus package, the new Stabenow/Inslee report reveals the dirty little secret that many of these new jobs would offer low pay and poor working conditions. For example, the Good Jobs First report discusses a recycling firm in Los Angeles-which is just the type of operation that will “green” stimulus money-where workers make $8.25 an hour and receive no health insurance.
Of course, the Good Jobs First report doesn’t state the obvious conclusion: government efforts to “help” workers and “stimulate” the economy will only make things worse. Faced with the unintended consequences of their original scheme, the proponents of a green recovery want to double down and shovel more tax dollars at the problem and hope something sticks.
Although critics have pointed out the plan’s flaws since its inception, it is at least encouraging that the unions-the alleged beneficiaries of green-collar stimulus money-are beginning to realize that the deal isn’t as rosy as they have been led to believe. No matter how much politicians might like to claim otherwise, they can’t repeal the laws of economics.
“Demand curves slope downward,” economists say, meaning that people buy more of something only when its price is lower. This law applies to consumers who walk the aisles in grocery stores, but it also applies to businesses that make solar panels. To get the biggest bang of jobs “created” for the stimulus buck, those jobs have to be low-wage. The higher the pay and other perks the unions demand, the fewer jobs that employers will be able to afford-even with government subsidies.
This underscores a basic flaw in the whole notion of a green recovery. Of the millions of unemployed Americans today, not many of them have the specific background and skills necessary for the good-paying jobs that are available in the so-called green sectors of the economy. So even if the government provides the handouts, the only way to get these people into green jobs quickly is if they fill positions requiring no extensive training.
The popular pro-green recovery studies, which purport that there are plenty of American workers with the right skills to fill the new, high-wage positions, suffer from a basic flaw in their methodology. As IER pointed out in its critique of such studies, they count up the number of skilled workers in the work force as a whole, rather than counting up the qualified workers in the current pool of unemployed workers. The only way, then, that these alleged hundreds of thousands of high-paying, “green” jobs could be filled-relying on government subsidies, of course-is to siphon most of their workers away from other industries. No net jobs would be created, because the new green slot would be offset by the existing jobs vacated by the skilled worker.
Confusion between gross and net job creation is typical of the green jobs. For example, the 456,000 figure touted by the Center for American Progress does not take into account the jobs that would be destroyed by the government’s methods of paying for the necessary subsidies. The CAP estimate simply assumes that all 456,000 workers filling these new green slots would have come from the ranks of the unemployed and that the higher taxes and Uncle Sam’s increased borrowing will have no job-destroying impact on the rest of the American economy.
It is refreshing to see that even the unions are catching on. But rather than ask for a bigger handout, they should stop looking to the government to help workers. Only when the government stops trying to pick industrial winners and losers can true economic recovery begin. Only when the government stops changing the rules and throwing around hundreds of billions in borrowed money will the unemployed get good jobs in the private sector.
2 Good Jobs and Green Jobs: Which Road to Take? By Jason Lefkowitz
Change to Win, February 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
A few days ago, I wrote about how green jobs are not automatically good jobs:
Today, in conjunction with Good Jobs First and the Sierra Club, we’re rolling out a new report that demonstrates in detail just how true that is.
“High Road or Low Road? Job Quality in the New Green Economy” (PDF) looks at a range of existing green jobs in sectors across the economy, including manufacturing, construction, and waste management, and finds that while policy choices have made some of these green jobs good jobs, the connection is by no means automatic:
Given the economic and environmental challenges facing America and the world, the need for a green economy becomes clearer every day. In the push to get there, though, we must make sure that the workers whose labor powers that green economy aren’t left behind by it while its benefits flow to a few plutocrats at the top. If we do not, we risk repeating the mistakes that led us into the current economic crisis in the first place.
IER, February 4, 2009
On February 3, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), in conjunction with union leaders and environmental groups, released their “Good Jobs First” report. Although advocates of a “green recovery” point to estimates that 456,000 green-collar jobs would be created by the stimulus package, the new Stabenow/Inslee report reveals the dirty little secret that many of these new jobs would offer low pay and poor working conditions. For example, the Good Jobs First report discusses a recycling firm in Los Angeles-which is just the type of operation that will “green” stimulus money-where workers make $8.25 an hour and receive no health insurance.
Of course, the Good Jobs First report doesn’t state the obvious conclusion: government efforts to “help” workers and “stimulate” the economy will only make things worse. Faced with the unintended consequences of their original scheme, the proponents of a green recovery want to double down and shovel more tax dollars at the problem and hope something sticks.
Although critics have pointed out the plan’s flaws since its inception, it is at least encouraging that the unions-the alleged beneficiaries of green-collar stimulus money-are beginning to realize that the deal isn’t as rosy as they have been led to believe. No matter how much politicians might like to claim otherwise, they can’t repeal the laws of economics.
“Demand curves slope downward,” economists say, meaning that people buy more of something only when its price is lower. This law applies to consumers who walk the aisles in grocery stores, but it also applies to businesses that make solar panels. To get the biggest bang of jobs “created” for the stimulus buck, those jobs have to be low-wage. The higher the pay and other perks the unions demand, the fewer jobs that employers will be able to afford-even with government subsidies.
This underscores a basic flaw in the whole notion of a green recovery. Of the millions of unemployed Americans today, not many of them have the specific background and skills necessary for the good-paying jobs that are available in the so-called green sectors of the economy. So even if the government provides the handouts, the only way to get these people into green jobs quickly is if they fill positions requiring no extensive training.
The popular pro-green recovery studies, which purport that there are plenty of American workers with the right skills to fill the new, high-wage positions, suffer from a basic flaw in their methodology. As IER pointed out in its critique of such studies, they count up the number of skilled workers in the work force as a whole, rather than counting up the qualified workers in the current pool of unemployed workers. The only way, then, that these alleged hundreds of thousands of high-paying, “green” jobs could be filled-relying on government subsidies, of course-is to siphon most of their workers away from other industries. No net jobs would be created, because the new green slot would be offset by the existing jobs vacated by the skilled worker.
Confusion between gross and net job creation is typical of the green jobs. For example, the 456,000 figure touted by the Center for American Progress does not take into account the jobs that would be destroyed by the government’s methods of paying for the necessary subsidies. The CAP estimate simply assumes that all 456,000 workers filling these new green slots would have come from the ranks of the unemployed and that the higher taxes and Uncle Sam’s increased borrowing will have no job-destroying impact on the rest of the American economy.
It is refreshing to see that even the unions are catching on. But rather than ask for a bigger handout, they should stop looking to the government to help workers. Only when the government stops trying to pick industrial winners and losers can true economic recovery begin. Only when the government stops changing the rules and throwing around hundreds of billions in borrowed money will the unemployed get good jobs in the private sector.
2 Good Jobs and Green Jobs: Which Road to Take? By Jason Lefkowitz
Change to Win, February 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
A few days ago, I wrote about how green jobs are not automatically good jobs:
The old thinking was that it was impossible to grow the economy and clean
the environment at the same time. The green jobs movement has done important
work in freeing the world from the tyranny of that particular dead idea; thanks
to their efforts, there’s a lot of people thinking hard about how to apply the
stimulus in ways that grow green jobs.
But green jobs are not, in and of themselves, good jobs. They can be
good jobs - jobs that provide workers with decent wages, economic security and a
shot at the American Dream - but they can just as easily go the other way. It
all depends on the choices we make.
Today, in conjunction with Good Jobs First and the Sierra Club, we’re rolling out a new report that demonstrates in detail just how true that is.
“High Road or Low Road? Job Quality in the New Green Economy” (PDF) looks at a range of existing green jobs in sectors across the economy, including manufacturing, construction, and waste management, and finds that while policy choices have made some of these green jobs good jobs, the connection is by no means automatic:
- Low pay is not uncommon in the workplaces we profile: the lowest wage we found was $8.25 an hour at a recycling processing plant, but we also discovered jobs in manufacturing facilities serving the renewable energy sector paying as little as $11 an hour.
- Wage rates at many wind and solar manufacturing facilities are below the national average for workers employed in the manufacture of durable goods. In some locations, average pay rates fall short of income levels needed to support a single adult with one child.
- Some U.S. wind and solar manufacturers have already begun to offshore production of components destined for U.S. markets to low-wage havens such as China and Mexico. Examples of offshoring include the manufacture of blades for wind turbines, defying the common assumption that such blades are too large to ship overseas.
- Very few workers at wind and solar manufacturing workplaces identified in the course of our research are covered by collective bargaining agreements. In at least two instances, this appears to be a direct result of aggressive anti-union campaigns run by employers with the help of union-busting consultants. On the construction side, we found that a leading contractor engaged in energy efficiency work has a similarly hostile approach to unions.
- We could not find specific wages for nonunion construction workers employed in green building, but publicly available data on overall construction wages suggest that they are far lower than those of the union members profiled in the report. Analysis provided by the Economic Policy Institute indicates that among nonunion laborers, carpenters, painters, and roofers, a majority make less than $12.50 an hour and a third make less than the federal poverty wage for a family of four ($10.19 an hour).
Given the economic and environmental challenges facing America and the world, the need for a green economy becomes clearer every day. In the push to get there, though, we must make sure that the workers whose labor powers that green economy aren’t left behind by it while its benefits flow to a few plutocrats at the top. If we do not, we risk repeating the mistakes that led us into the current economic crisis in the first place.
Air Force fails new nuclear reviews
Air Force fails new nuclear reviews. By Bill Gertz
Washington Times, Feb 05, 2009
Air Force nuclear units have failed two inspections in the past three months, providing fresh evidence that the military service that jarred the world in 2007 by mistakenly transporting live nuclear weapons across the United States continues to suffer lapses in its management of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Jennifer Thibault, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Space Command, said the failed "surety" inspections at Wyoming and Montana bases in November and December involved "administrative and paperwork issues." In all, three Air Force nuclear-missile units and two strategic-bomber units failed such inspections in 2008.
Despite the problems, the Air Force said it is making progress addressing issues with the security and handling of nuclear-tipped missiles that came to light after two embarrassing episodes in 2006 and 2007 prompted a widespread review and management changes.
"While we missed the mark in certain areas during the last three inspections of our ICBM wings, overall, we've seen that our airmen are highly capable of operating, maintaining and securing our nuclear forces," Miss Thibault told The Washington Times.
James Schlesinger, the former defense secretary who headed a recent task force on nuclear-weapons management, said Tuesday the continuing problems affect U.S. credibility worldwide - both in deterring attacks and assuring allies of protection - but he said he thinks the Air Force is committed to fixing the problems.
"Whatever the size of the nuclear force is, it has to be run with zero defects," Mr. Schlesinger said in an interview. "We've got to get back to that if we want to have any credibility in the international scene."
The most recent surety-inspection failure took place at the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming from Dec. 2 to Dec. 17. The base is in charge of 150 Minuteman III missiles that are on alert 24 hours a day.
Air Force officials said the 90th was given failing grades by inspectors from the Space Command and the Defense Technology Security Administration for not properly documenting tests on missiles, which require strict monitoring.
The Wyoming base was at the center of one of the two prior nuclear mishaps that cast embarrassment on the Air Force. Nuclear-missile units at F.E. Warren mistakenly transported four Minuteman III forward sections containing sensitive components to Taiwan on two occasions, in October and November 2006. The components were recovered, but the mistake exposed larger security shortfalls.
A subsequent security breakdown allowed live nuclear weapons to be flown improperly from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in August 2007.
The incidents prompted Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to form an eight-member Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management that produced two reports critical of the Air Force's handling of nuclear missiles. On-site inspections were made stricter and have divulged additional problems, officials confirm.
The two other nuclear-surety-inspection failures took place last year at the 341st Missile Wing at Malstrom Air Force Base, Montana, from Oct. 26 to Nov. 10, and at the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., from Jan. 22 to Jan. 30, 2008. Both wings also handle 150 nuclear-tipped Minuteman IIIs deployed in underground silos.
Miss Thibault declined to provide details of the inspection failures because of the sensitivity of the information.
Surety inspections are held every 18 months and measure whether troops are prepared to fire missiles during a two-week testing period.
"Nuclear Surety Inspections (NSI) are extremely detailed and demand the absolute highest standards of compliance and accountability [to pass]," Miss Thibault said.
The Air Force defines nuclear-surety inspections as reviews of all nuclear-weapons-related material, people and procedures that "contribute to the security, safety, and reliability of nuclear weapons and to the assurance that there will be no nuclear-weapon accidents, incidents, unauthorized weapon detonations, or degradation in performance at the target."
Last year, the tests were made more rigorous, Miss Thibault said, following the critical report by the task force on nuclear weapons.
"These inspections are tools that our commanders use to determine the readiness of their units to perform the mission to the standard we demand - perfection," she said. "We're seeing progress in ICBM nuclear surety."
As for the test failures, "unsatisfactory inspection results, in the sense of identifying discrepancies, are part of the fix and should not be interpreted as suggesting that the ultimate security or safety of the American people or our allies has been put at risk," Miss Thibault said.
The Defense Department task force report issued in October warned that the Air Force was not doing its job of securing and maintaining nuclear-missile forces. The report identified a "serious erosion of senior-level attention, focus, expertise, mission readiness, resources, and discipline in the nuclear weapons mission."
The Air Force responded by initiating 100 steps to improve nuclear-weapons problems.
Data from the report show that the Air Force failed on five of its 22 surety inspections in 2008. It was the fourth time since 1992 that at least five failing grades were issued, the report stated.
According to the report and the Air Force, the five inspections failures during 2008 included the three at the missile wings and two at strategic nuclear bomber wings.
By contrast, in 2006 and 2007, there were a total of 18 surety inspections, and all received passing grades.
"Over the past 10 years, inspection pass rates point to anomalies that indicate a systemic problem in the inspection regime," the report said. "Something is clearly wrong."
A second task force report, made public Jan. 9, stated that rigorous nuclear surety inspections are "critical to maintaining a credible U.S. deterrent."
"However, the task force believes a significant shortfall exists in the DoD nuclear surety inspection process," the report said.
Mr. Schlesinger, who headed the task force, stated in the October report that the Air Force in recent years focused too much on conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. "Both inattention and conscious budget decisions have led to the atrophy of the Air Force´s nuclear mission," he stated. "But the balance must be restored. Though reduced in scope, the nuclear mission remains essential."
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is still needed despite the demise of the Cold War for deterring nuclear threats to the United States and its allies, he said. The weapons must be maintained as a credible deterrent against nuclear powers such as China and Russia that are in the process of building up their nuclear forces, Mr. Schlesinger said.
The January task force report stated that one of the problems for the Air Force's nuclear weapons mission is that troops do not clearly understand the deterrence mission of the expensive and extremely powerful strategic weapons.
Unlike the Air Force, which has numerous problems with its nuclear mission, the Navy has sustained its commitment to nuclear forces but still is "fraying at the edges," the report said.
The task force "did not find in the Navy the kind of deterioration in morale that characterized Air Force nuclear units," the report said.
"The attitude in the Air Force was: 'We know that the president and secretary of defense don´t give a damn about what we do,' " the report stated.
By contrast, a Navy ballistic missile submarine crew told task force investigators that while senior Navy leaders are disinterested in the strategic nuclear deterrence forces, the ballistic missile submariners remain highly motivated.
"The attitude in the Navy was: 'We know that the president and secretary of defense don´t care - but we do,' " the report stated.
However, the final report also contained the conclusion that the problem of "the lack of interest in and attention to the nuclear mission and nuclear deterrence ... go well beyond the Air Force."
"This lack of interest and attention have been widespread throughout DoD and contributed to the decline of attention in the Air Force," the final report stated.
The report called for creating the position of assistant secretary of defense for nuclear deterrence, which would elevate nuclear issues that have been separated and downgraded as the result of a Pentagon reorganization during the Bush administration.
Washington Times, Feb 05, 2009
Air Force nuclear units have failed two inspections in the past three months, providing fresh evidence that the military service that jarred the world in 2007 by mistakenly transporting live nuclear weapons across the United States continues to suffer lapses in its management of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Jennifer Thibault, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Space Command, said the failed "surety" inspections at Wyoming and Montana bases in November and December involved "administrative and paperwork issues." In all, three Air Force nuclear-missile units and two strategic-bomber units failed such inspections in 2008.
Despite the problems, the Air Force said it is making progress addressing issues with the security and handling of nuclear-tipped missiles that came to light after two embarrassing episodes in 2006 and 2007 prompted a widespread review and management changes.
"While we missed the mark in certain areas during the last three inspections of our ICBM wings, overall, we've seen that our airmen are highly capable of operating, maintaining and securing our nuclear forces," Miss Thibault told The Washington Times.
James Schlesinger, the former defense secretary who headed a recent task force on nuclear-weapons management, said Tuesday the continuing problems affect U.S. credibility worldwide - both in deterring attacks and assuring allies of protection - but he said he thinks the Air Force is committed to fixing the problems.
"Whatever the size of the nuclear force is, it has to be run with zero defects," Mr. Schlesinger said in an interview. "We've got to get back to that if we want to have any credibility in the international scene."
The most recent surety-inspection failure took place at the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming from Dec. 2 to Dec. 17. The base is in charge of 150 Minuteman III missiles that are on alert 24 hours a day.
Air Force officials said the 90th was given failing grades by inspectors from the Space Command and the Defense Technology Security Administration for not properly documenting tests on missiles, which require strict monitoring.
The Wyoming base was at the center of one of the two prior nuclear mishaps that cast embarrassment on the Air Force. Nuclear-missile units at F.E. Warren mistakenly transported four Minuteman III forward sections containing sensitive components to Taiwan on two occasions, in October and November 2006. The components were recovered, but the mistake exposed larger security shortfalls.
A subsequent security breakdown allowed live nuclear weapons to be flown improperly from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in August 2007.
The incidents prompted Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to form an eight-member Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management that produced two reports critical of the Air Force's handling of nuclear missiles. On-site inspections were made stricter and have divulged additional problems, officials confirm.
The two other nuclear-surety-inspection failures took place last year at the 341st Missile Wing at Malstrom Air Force Base, Montana, from Oct. 26 to Nov. 10, and at the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., from Jan. 22 to Jan. 30, 2008. Both wings also handle 150 nuclear-tipped Minuteman IIIs deployed in underground silos.
Miss Thibault declined to provide details of the inspection failures because of the sensitivity of the information.
Surety inspections are held every 18 months and measure whether troops are prepared to fire missiles during a two-week testing period.
"Nuclear Surety Inspections (NSI) are extremely detailed and demand the absolute highest standards of compliance and accountability [to pass]," Miss Thibault said.
The Air Force defines nuclear-surety inspections as reviews of all nuclear-weapons-related material, people and procedures that "contribute to the security, safety, and reliability of nuclear weapons and to the assurance that there will be no nuclear-weapon accidents, incidents, unauthorized weapon detonations, or degradation in performance at the target."
Last year, the tests were made more rigorous, Miss Thibault said, following the critical report by the task force on nuclear weapons.
"These inspections are tools that our commanders use to determine the readiness of their units to perform the mission to the standard we demand - perfection," she said. "We're seeing progress in ICBM nuclear surety."
As for the test failures, "unsatisfactory inspection results, in the sense of identifying discrepancies, are part of the fix and should not be interpreted as suggesting that the ultimate security or safety of the American people or our allies has been put at risk," Miss Thibault said.
The Defense Department task force report issued in October warned that the Air Force was not doing its job of securing and maintaining nuclear-missile forces. The report identified a "serious erosion of senior-level attention, focus, expertise, mission readiness, resources, and discipline in the nuclear weapons mission."
The Air Force responded by initiating 100 steps to improve nuclear-weapons problems.
Data from the report show that the Air Force failed on five of its 22 surety inspections in 2008. It was the fourth time since 1992 that at least five failing grades were issued, the report stated.
According to the report and the Air Force, the five inspections failures during 2008 included the three at the missile wings and two at strategic nuclear bomber wings.
By contrast, in 2006 and 2007, there were a total of 18 surety inspections, and all received passing grades.
"Over the past 10 years, inspection pass rates point to anomalies that indicate a systemic problem in the inspection regime," the report said. "Something is clearly wrong."
A second task force report, made public Jan. 9, stated that rigorous nuclear surety inspections are "critical to maintaining a credible U.S. deterrent."
"However, the task force believes a significant shortfall exists in the DoD nuclear surety inspection process," the report said.
Mr. Schlesinger, who headed the task force, stated in the October report that the Air Force in recent years focused too much on conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. "Both inattention and conscious budget decisions have led to the atrophy of the Air Force´s nuclear mission," he stated. "But the balance must be restored. Though reduced in scope, the nuclear mission remains essential."
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is still needed despite the demise of the Cold War for deterring nuclear threats to the United States and its allies, he said. The weapons must be maintained as a credible deterrent against nuclear powers such as China and Russia that are in the process of building up their nuclear forces, Mr. Schlesinger said.
The January task force report stated that one of the problems for the Air Force's nuclear weapons mission is that troops do not clearly understand the deterrence mission of the expensive and extremely powerful strategic weapons.
Unlike the Air Force, which has numerous problems with its nuclear mission, the Navy has sustained its commitment to nuclear forces but still is "fraying at the edges," the report said.
The task force "did not find in the Navy the kind of deterioration in morale that characterized Air Force nuclear units," the report said.
"The attitude in the Air Force was: 'We know that the president and secretary of defense don´t give a damn about what we do,' " the report stated.
By contrast, a Navy ballistic missile submarine crew told task force investigators that while senior Navy leaders are disinterested in the strategic nuclear deterrence forces, the ballistic missile submariners remain highly motivated.
"The attitude in the Navy was: 'We know that the president and secretary of defense don´t care - but we do,' " the report stated.
However, the final report also contained the conclusion that the problem of "the lack of interest in and attention to the nuclear mission and nuclear deterrence ... go well beyond the Air Force."
"This lack of interest and attention have been widespread throughout DoD and contributed to the decline of attention in the Air Force," the final report stated.
The report called for creating the position of assistant secretary of defense for nuclear deterrence, which would elevate nuclear issues that have been separated and downgraded as the result of a Pentagon reorganization during the Bush administration.
Extremism and Social Learning
Extremism and Social Learning. By Edward L. Glaeser & Cass R. Sunstein
The Journal of Legal Analysis, Vol 1, No 1 (2009)
Abstract
When members of deliberating groups speak with one another, their predeliberation tendencies often become exacerbated as their views become more extreme. The resulting phenomenon—group polarization—has been observed in many settings, and it bears on the actions of juries, administrative tribunals, corporate boards, and other institutions. Polarization can result from rational Bayesian updating by group members, but in many contexts, this rational interpretation of polarization seems implausible. We argue that people are better seen as Credulous Bayesians, who insufficiently adjust for idiosyncratic features of particular environments and put excessive weight on the statements of others in situations of (1) common sources of information; (2) highly unrepresentative group membership; (3) statements that are made to obtain approval; and (4) statements that are designed to manipulate. Credulous Bayesianism can produce extremism and significant blunders—the folly of crowds. We discuss the implications of Credulous Bayesianism for law and politics, including media policy and cognitive diversity on administrative agencies and courts.
Introduction (excerpts):
Many people have celebrated the potential value of deliberation, including its uses in democracy (Habermas 1998), and it is tempting to think that group decision-making will both produce wiser decisions and average out individual extremism. In many settings and countries, however, researchers have found that group deliberation leads people to take more extreme positions (Brown 1986). The increased extremism, often called group polarization, is usually accompanied by greater confidence and significantly decreased internal diversity, even when individual opinions are given anonymously (Schkade, Sunstein & Kahneman 2000; Brown 1986, 207). These facts, which are summarized in Section 2 of this article, appear to cast doubt on the wisdom, and certainly the moderation, of crowds. If deliberation leads liberals to become more liberal, and conservatives to become more conservative, the effects of deliberation are unlikely to be desirable in both cases. Deliberation might account for the folly, not the wisdom, of crowds.
Group polarization has evident implications for many issues in law and politics. It suggests, for example, that like-minded jurors, judges, and administrative officials will move to extremes. If group members on a corporate board or in a political campaign are inclined to engage in risk-taking behavior, group deliberation will produce increased enthusiasm for taking risks. But the mechanisms behind group polarization remain inadequately understood, and it is difficult to make predictions or to offer prescriptions without identifying those mechanisms.
In Section 3 of this article, we show that group polarization is predicted by a highly rational process of Bayesian inference. If individuals have independent information, which is shared in the deliberative process, then Bayesian learning predicts that ex post opinions will be both more homogeneous within the group and more extreme than individual opinions. Bayesian inference suggests that individuals with access only to their own private information will recognize their ignorance and hew towards the center. The information of the crowd provides new data, which should lead people to be more confident and more extreme in their views. Because group members are listening to one another, it is no puzzle that their post-deliberation opinions are more extreme than their pre-deliberation opinions. The phenomenon of group polarization, on its own, does not imply that crowds are anything but wise; if individual deliberators tend to believe that the earth is round rather than flat, nothing is amiss if deliberation leads them to be firmer and more confident in that belief.
The Journal of Legal Analysis, Vol 1, No 1 (2009)
Abstract
When members of deliberating groups speak with one another, their predeliberation tendencies often become exacerbated as their views become more extreme. The resulting phenomenon—group polarization—has been observed in many settings, and it bears on the actions of juries, administrative tribunals, corporate boards, and other institutions. Polarization can result from rational Bayesian updating by group members, but in many contexts, this rational interpretation of polarization seems implausible. We argue that people are better seen as Credulous Bayesians, who insufficiently adjust for idiosyncratic features of particular environments and put excessive weight on the statements of others in situations of (1) common sources of information; (2) highly unrepresentative group membership; (3) statements that are made to obtain approval; and (4) statements that are designed to manipulate. Credulous Bayesianism can produce extremism and significant blunders—the folly of crowds. We discuss the implications of Credulous Bayesianism for law and politics, including media policy and cognitive diversity on administrative agencies and courts.
Introduction (excerpts):
Many people have celebrated the potential value of deliberation, including its uses in democracy (Habermas 1998), and it is tempting to think that group decision-making will both produce wiser decisions and average out individual extremism. In many settings and countries, however, researchers have found that group deliberation leads people to take more extreme positions (Brown 1986). The increased extremism, often called group polarization, is usually accompanied by greater confidence and significantly decreased internal diversity, even when individual opinions are given anonymously (Schkade, Sunstein & Kahneman 2000; Brown 1986, 207). These facts, which are summarized in Section 2 of this article, appear to cast doubt on the wisdom, and certainly the moderation, of crowds. If deliberation leads liberals to become more liberal, and conservatives to become more conservative, the effects of deliberation are unlikely to be desirable in both cases. Deliberation might account for the folly, not the wisdom, of crowds.
Group polarization has evident implications for many issues in law and politics. It suggests, for example, that like-minded jurors, judges, and administrative officials will move to extremes. If group members on a corporate board or in a political campaign are inclined to engage in risk-taking behavior, group deliberation will produce increased enthusiasm for taking risks. But the mechanisms behind group polarization remain inadequately understood, and it is difficult to make predictions or to offer prescriptions without identifying those mechanisms.
In Section 3 of this article, we show that group polarization is predicted by a highly rational process of Bayesian inference. If individuals have independent information, which is shared in the deliberative process, then Bayesian learning predicts that ex post opinions will be both more homogeneous within the group and more extreme than individual opinions. Bayesian inference suggests that individuals with access only to their own private information will recognize their ignorance and hew towards the center. The information of the crowd provides new data, which should lead people to be more confident and more extreme in their views. Because group members are listening to one another, it is no puzzle that their post-deliberation opinions are more extreme than their pre-deliberation opinions. The phenomenon of group polarization, on its own, does not imply that crowds are anything but wise; if individual deliberators tend to believe that the earth is round rather than flat, nothing is amiss if deliberation leads them to be firmer and more confident in that belief.
WaPo: The Senate Balks
The Senate Balks. Washington Post Editorial
Why President Obama should heed calls for a more focused stimulus package
WaPo: Thursday, February 5, 2009; page A16
Today in The Post, President Obama challenges critics of the $900 billion stimulus plan that was taking shape on Capitol Hill yesterday, accusing them of peddling "the same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis" and warning that, without immediate action, "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." A thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship. Still, as a matter of policy, Mr. Obama is justified in signaling that the plan should not be tilted in favor of tax cuts -- and that the GOP should not waste valuable time trying to achieve this.
However, ideology is not the only reason that senators -- from both parties -- are balking at the president's plan. As it emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of objectives. Mr. Obama praised the package yesterday as "not merely a prescription for short-term spending" but a "strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education." This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this "long-term" spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a "jolt," as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process, which involves hearings, debate and -- crucially -- competition with other programs.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is one of the moderate Republicans whose support the president must win if he is to garner the 60 Senate votes needed to pass a stimulus package. She and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska are working on a plan that would carry a lower nominal price tag than the current bill -- perhaps $200 billion lower -- but which would focus on aid to states, "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, food stamp increases and other items calculated to boost business and consumer spending quickly. On the revenue side, she would keep Mr. Obama's priorities, including a $500-per-worker tax rebate.
To his credit, Mr. Obama continues to seek bipartisan input, and he met individually with Ms. Collins for a half hour yesterday afternoon. We hope he gives her ideas serious consideration.
Why President Obama should heed calls for a more focused stimulus package
WaPo: Thursday, February 5, 2009; page A16
Today in The Post, President Obama challenges critics of the $900 billion stimulus plan that was taking shape on Capitol Hill yesterday, accusing them of peddling "the same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis" and warning that, without immediate action, "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." A thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship. Still, as a matter of policy, Mr. Obama is justified in signaling that the plan should not be tilted in favor of tax cuts -- and that the GOP should not waste valuable time trying to achieve this.
However, ideology is not the only reason that senators -- from both parties -- are balking at the president's plan. As it emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of objectives. Mr. Obama praised the package yesterday as "not merely a prescription for short-term spending" but a "strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education." This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this "long-term" spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a "jolt," as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process, which involves hearings, debate and -- crucially -- competition with other programs.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is one of the moderate Republicans whose support the president must win if he is to garner the 60 Senate votes needed to pass a stimulus package. She and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska are working on a plan that would carry a lower nominal price tag than the current bill -- perhaps $200 billion lower -- but which would focus on aid to states, "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, food stamp increases and other items calculated to boost business and consumer spending quickly. On the revenue side, she would keep Mr. Obama's priorities, including a $500-per-worker tax rebate.
To his credit, Mr. Obama continues to seek bipartisan input, and he met individually with Ms. Collins for a half hour yesterday afternoon. We hope he gives her ideas serious consideration.
WaPo: Zimbabwe's False Hope
Zimbabwe's False Hope. Washington Post Editorial
South Africa demands that the West aid a 'unity' government under Robert Mugabe. How to answer?
WaPo, Thursday, February 5, 2009; Page A16
SOUTH AFRICA has won a round in its relentless campaign to preserve Robert Mugabe's hold over a dying Zimbabwe. With the help of its allies in the Southern Africa Development Community, South Africa succeeded last week in coercing opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai -- the winner of last year's presidential election -- into accepting a subordinate role in a "unity" government led by the 84-year-old strongman. The deal, which Mr. Tsvangirai bravely resisted for months, will leave Mr. Mugabe in charge of the country's last functioning institutions -- army and police forces that have been waging a campaign of murder, rape and torture against the opposition and human rights activists.
Mr. Tsvangirai relented because he believed that the frightful humanitarian emergency in Zimbabwe left him with little choice. The United Nations estimates that 7 million of the 9 million people remaining in the country need food aid this month. A cholera epidemic has so far infected more than 62,000 and killed 3,100. Schools, hospitals and most businesses have closed, the national currency has been discarded and unemployment is over 90 percent.
The opposition will be placed in charge of the finance, health and education ministries, which it hopes will allow it to solicit and distribute aid to prevent mass death from starvation and disease. As South Africa and its client more cynically calculate, Mr. Tsvangirai's appointment will compel the United States, Britain and other Western governments to lift sanctions and renew economic support, thus preventing what would otherwise be the inevitable collapse of Mr. Mugabe's regime.
The misery of Zimbabwe is indeed compelling -- but the Obama administration and other Western governments should reject South Africa's demands. It long ago became clear that Zimbabwe cannot recover as long as Mr. Mugabe remains in power. South Africa and other neighbors who insist on supporting the criminal regime are free to supply aid. But Western governments must maintain their sanctions -- especially those aimed at individual members of the Mugabe regime and the companies they control.
A State Department statement this week said the administration would consider new assistance and the lifting of sanctions "when we have seen evidence of true power sharing as well as inclusive and effective governance." What should that include? Mr. Tsvangirai himself is demanding the freeing of more than 30 opposition activists from prison. Legislation must be passed giving the opposition a measure of control over security forces, and replacing the central bank president -- a Mugabe crony -- with a technocrat. Restrictions on the press must be lifted and foreign journalists admitted. Perhaps most important, the government must agree on a plan for a new presidential election, with guarantees for fairness and full international monitoring.
If these steps were taken, Western aid to Zimbabwe might serve some purpose. But they won't be. "Zimbabwe is mine" is Mr. Mugabe's only principle. The first step in any rescue must be prying the country from his grip.
South Africa demands that the West aid a 'unity' government under Robert Mugabe. How to answer?
WaPo, Thursday, February 5, 2009; Page A16
SOUTH AFRICA has won a round in its relentless campaign to preserve Robert Mugabe's hold over a dying Zimbabwe. With the help of its allies in the Southern Africa Development Community, South Africa succeeded last week in coercing opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai -- the winner of last year's presidential election -- into accepting a subordinate role in a "unity" government led by the 84-year-old strongman. The deal, which Mr. Tsvangirai bravely resisted for months, will leave Mr. Mugabe in charge of the country's last functioning institutions -- army and police forces that have been waging a campaign of murder, rape and torture against the opposition and human rights activists.
Mr. Tsvangirai relented because he believed that the frightful humanitarian emergency in Zimbabwe left him with little choice. The United Nations estimates that 7 million of the 9 million people remaining in the country need food aid this month. A cholera epidemic has so far infected more than 62,000 and killed 3,100. Schools, hospitals and most businesses have closed, the national currency has been discarded and unemployment is over 90 percent.
The opposition will be placed in charge of the finance, health and education ministries, which it hopes will allow it to solicit and distribute aid to prevent mass death from starvation and disease. As South Africa and its client more cynically calculate, Mr. Tsvangirai's appointment will compel the United States, Britain and other Western governments to lift sanctions and renew economic support, thus preventing what would otherwise be the inevitable collapse of Mr. Mugabe's regime.
The misery of Zimbabwe is indeed compelling -- but the Obama administration and other Western governments should reject South Africa's demands. It long ago became clear that Zimbabwe cannot recover as long as Mr. Mugabe remains in power. South Africa and other neighbors who insist on supporting the criminal regime are free to supply aid. But Western governments must maintain their sanctions -- especially those aimed at individual members of the Mugabe regime and the companies they control.
A State Department statement this week said the administration would consider new assistance and the lifting of sanctions "when we have seen evidence of true power sharing as well as inclusive and effective governance." What should that include? Mr. Tsvangirai himself is demanding the freeing of more than 30 opposition activists from prison. Legislation must be passed giving the opposition a measure of control over security forces, and replacing the central bank president -- a Mugabe crony -- with a technocrat. Restrictions on the press must be lifted and foreign journalists admitted. Perhaps most important, the government must agree on a plan for a new presidential election, with guarantees for fairness and full international monitoring.
If these steps were taken, Western aid to Zimbabwe might serve some purpose. But they won't be. "Zimbabwe is mine" is Mr. Mugabe's only principle. The first step in any rescue must be prying the country from his grip.
Criticism of Windpower’s "Homes Served" Claims
Beware Windpower’s "Homes Served" Claims, by Glenn Schleede
Master Resource, February 4, 2009
People who use the phrase “homes served” to describe the potential output from one or more wind turbines either do not understand the facts about wind turbines, believe false claims put forth by the wind industry, or are trying to mislead their reader or listener.
False statements about “homes served” by wind developers and their lobbyists are bad enough, but it is discouraging to hear politicians, reporters, and others adopt and regurgitate them.
The concept of “homes served”The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
Claims about “homes served” by a proposed “wind farm” or other generating unit are usually based on a three-step calculation:
Start with an assumption (i.e., a guess) about the amount of electricity that would be produced annually by a “wind farm” or other generating unit, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).[ii]
Employ an estimate (in kWh) of the amount of electricity used annually by an average residential customer in the area or state where their “wind farm” is located. [iii]
Divide the assumed annual production of electricity by the estimated annual average residential electricity use.
“Homes Served” can be useful when talking about reliable generating unitsAlthough misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
“Homes served” is NOT a valid concept when referring to wind turbines and “wind farms”Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
1. NO homes are really served by wind.No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
2. Electricity from wind turbines is inherently intermittent, volatile, and unreliable.Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
3. Electricity from “wind farms” is seldom available when most needed by home users.Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Not all the electricity produced by a wind turbine actually reaches customers or serves a useful purpose. Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
6. Claims of “homes served” by wind energy are additionally misleading because of the high true cost of electricity from wind turbines.Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims of “homes served” should always be challenged Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
What valid claim could wind industry officials make?As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
Other false and misleading claims about wind energyAs shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
It is low or competitive in cost. In fact, its cost is high when all true costs are counted.
It is environmentally benign. In fact, it has significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and property value impacts.
It avoids significant emissions that would otherwise be produced. In fact, it avoids few.
It provides big job and economic benefits. In fact, there are few such benefits.
It reduces U.S. dependence on imported oil. In fact, it does not.
It reduces the need for building reliable generating units in areas experiencing growth in peak electricity demand or needing to replace old generating units. The opposite is true.
Such claims as these have been made often during the past decade and more by the wind industry and other wind advocates. Only during the past 3–4 years have these claims begun to be demonstrated as false and misleading. The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the media but, unfortunately, have yet to be understood by most political leaders and regulators.
Full text w/references here http://masterresource.org/?p=677
Master Resource, February 4, 2009
People who use the phrase “homes served” to describe the potential output from one or more wind turbines either do not understand the facts about wind turbines, believe false claims put forth by the wind industry, or are trying to mislead their reader or listener.
False statements about “homes served” by wind developers and their lobbyists are bad enough, but it is discouraging to hear politicians, reporters, and others adopt and regurgitate them.
The concept of “homes served”The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
Claims about “homes served” by a proposed “wind farm” or other generating unit are usually based on a three-step calculation:
Start with an assumption (i.e., a guess) about the amount of electricity that would be produced annually by a “wind farm” or other generating unit, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).[ii]
Employ an estimate (in kWh) of the amount of electricity used annually by an average residential customer in the area or state where their “wind farm” is located. [iii]
Divide the assumed annual production of electricity by the estimated annual average residential electricity use.
“Homes Served” can be useful when talking about reliable generating unitsAlthough misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
“Homes served” is NOT a valid concept when referring to wind turbines and “wind farms”Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
1. NO homes are really served by wind.No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
2. Electricity from wind turbines is inherently intermittent, volatile, and unreliable.Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
3. Electricity from “wind farms” is seldom available when most needed by home users.Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Not all the electricity produced by a wind turbine actually reaches customers or serves a useful purpose. Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
6. Claims of “homes served” by wind energy are additionally misleading because of the high true cost of electricity from wind turbines.Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims of “homes served” should always be challenged Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
What valid claim could wind industry officials make?As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
Other false and misleading claims about wind energyAs shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
It is low or competitive in cost. In fact, its cost is high when all true costs are counted.
It is environmentally benign. In fact, it has significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and property value impacts.
It avoids significant emissions that would otherwise be produced. In fact, it avoids few.
It provides big job and economic benefits. In fact, there are few such benefits.
It reduces U.S. dependence on imported oil. In fact, it does not.
It reduces the need for building reliable generating units in areas experiencing growth in peak electricity demand or needing to replace old generating units. The opposite is true.
Such claims as these have been made often during the past decade and more by the wind industry and other wind advocates. Only during the past 3–4 years have these claims begun to be demonstrated as false and misleading. The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the media but, unfortunately, have yet to be understood by most political leaders and regulators.
Full text w/references here http://masterresource.org/?p=677
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Relationships with the Drug Industry: Build Trust Based on Good Science
Relationships with the Drug Industry: Build Trust Based on Good Science. By Scott Gottlieb, M.D.
AEI, Wednesday, February 4, 2009
How do the current tensions in the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, physicians, and patients affect individual health? Dr. Scott Gottlieb explores the possible causes for the breakdown in communication between these groups and charts a strategy to improve the productivity of their interactions and leverage these relationships in order to advance public health.
Medical treatments are becoming increasingly more individual, with respect to both disease and patient. They are also becoming more complex, and precise diagnoses and close monitoring are needed to optimise their use. In this environment, consumers and doctors need to work more closely with product developers. Yet increasing regulation of the drug industry is restricting its ability to disseminate the results of its clinical studies. This risks shrinking the opportunities patients have to improve their health. In the face of regulatory steps to restrain their scientific speech, drug makers need to take new steps in their relationship with doctors and patients and establish transparent guidelines for those interactions. They should also focus more squarely on matters of advancing science, monitoring for safety, and improving health education.
Science not marketing
A large part of the industry’s current problems stems from the way its relationship with academic physicians and medical institutions has evolved over the past few decades. Formerly, the industry depended on academic doctors to conduct basic and clinical research. Now more of that work is done in house.[1] As a consequence, the relationships forged with the academic medical community are often based on marketing related activities. This feeds the regrettable perception that drug makers ally themselves with medical thought leaders to advance marketing goals, not science, and that information they generate cannot be trusted.
Relationships should be predicated on genuine scientific work. This doesn’t mean that drug makers should stop engaging leading physicians to help companies generate and share information about new advances, but that they need to engage with doctors who had a role in discovering those advances rather than those with no or little link to the underlying science. The latter creates the unfortunate appearance that opinions are being rented; the former is unassailable, as a scientist is the most appropriate champion for his work.
Overcoming mistrust
As patients are taking an increasingly active role in treatment decisions drug companies need to take new steps to improve health literacy and patient education while they continue to invest in better ways to monitor the performance and safety of their products. Unfortunately, the existing mistrust means that policy makers continue to create restrictions that impede the ability of drug companies to speak to patients. This creates information asymmetry and denies patients the opportunity to receive truthful, non-misleading information about new products, thus hurting health outcomes.[2] [3] It also leads to a regulatory edifice that makes it harder for drug companies to monitor the performance of their drugs by talking directly with patients and makes it harder for them to provide targeted information to patients on proper use of prescription drugs. The bottom line remains that the drug firms remain one of the few actors in this marketplace with the financing and incentives to share and collect information. Under proper regulation, public health imperatives should compel us to make better use of these resources on behalf of patients.
Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is a resident fellow at AEI.
Notes
1. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1539-44.
2. Sentell TL, Halpin HA. Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:862-6.
3. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, Wang F, Osmond D, Daher C, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA 2002;288:475-82.
Full text w/links in the references here
AEI, Wednesday, February 4, 2009
How do the current tensions in the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, physicians, and patients affect individual health? Dr. Scott Gottlieb explores the possible causes for the breakdown in communication between these groups and charts a strategy to improve the productivity of their interactions and leverage these relationships in order to advance public health.
Medical treatments are becoming increasingly more individual, with respect to both disease and patient. They are also becoming more complex, and precise diagnoses and close monitoring are needed to optimise their use. In this environment, consumers and doctors need to work more closely with product developers. Yet increasing regulation of the drug industry is restricting its ability to disseminate the results of its clinical studies. This risks shrinking the opportunities patients have to improve their health. In the face of regulatory steps to restrain their scientific speech, drug makers need to take new steps in their relationship with doctors and patients and establish transparent guidelines for those interactions. They should also focus more squarely on matters of advancing science, monitoring for safety, and improving health education.
Science not marketing
A large part of the industry’s current problems stems from the way its relationship with academic physicians and medical institutions has evolved over the past few decades. Formerly, the industry depended on academic doctors to conduct basic and clinical research. Now more of that work is done in house.[1] As a consequence, the relationships forged with the academic medical community are often based on marketing related activities. This feeds the regrettable perception that drug makers ally themselves with medical thought leaders to advance marketing goals, not science, and that information they generate cannot be trusted.
Relationships should be predicated on genuine scientific work. This doesn’t mean that drug makers should stop engaging leading physicians to help companies generate and share information about new advances, but that they need to engage with doctors who had a role in discovering those advances rather than those with no or little link to the underlying science. The latter creates the unfortunate appearance that opinions are being rented; the former is unassailable, as a scientist is the most appropriate champion for his work.
Overcoming mistrust
As patients are taking an increasingly active role in treatment decisions drug companies need to take new steps to improve health literacy and patient education while they continue to invest in better ways to monitor the performance and safety of their products. Unfortunately, the existing mistrust means that policy makers continue to create restrictions that impede the ability of drug companies to speak to patients. This creates information asymmetry and denies patients the opportunity to receive truthful, non-misleading information about new products, thus hurting health outcomes.[2] [3] It also leads to a regulatory edifice that makes it harder for drug companies to monitor the performance of their drugs by talking directly with patients and makes it harder for them to provide targeted information to patients on proper use of prescription drugs. The bottom line remains that the drug firms remain one of the few actors in this marketplace with the financing and incentives to share and collect information. Under proper regulation, public health imperatives should compel us to make better use of these resources on behalf of patients.
Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is a resident fellow at AEI.
Notes
1. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1539-44.
2. Sentell TL, Halpin HA. Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:862-6.
3. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, Wang F, Osmond D, Daher C, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA 2002;288:475-82.
Full text w/links in the references here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
