Amidst scandal, plots and anxiety, the British Labour Party begins its annual conference this week in Brighton. It will be its last as the governing party, unless some major upset occurs between now and the general election, expected in May. Things are so serious that a tribute evening for Gordon Brown, to be held during the conference, has just three hundred people attending in a venue booked to seat eight hundred.
The scandal concerns the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland. Using a law she herself developed, she was fined £5,000 ($8,740) for hiring someone not entitled to work in Britain as her cleaner. Despite this offence, she continues in office. The tradition is that the Attorney General should be “beyond reproach”. Gordon Brown, Britain’s beleaguered Prime Minister, is standing by his Dominican born Minister, elevated to the peerage in 1997. This scandal, which many have already dismissed as minor, comes at the same time as another Minister, Baroness Vedera, steps down as Business Minister to pursue a non-paid role as advisor to the G20.
The plotters are led by “the usual suspects” – former Ministers under Tony Blair and those in the party concerned about the potentially devastating loss in the coming election and the likely loss of their own seats in parliament. The focus of the revolt is on seeking to retain power or, second best, secure credible opposition party status at the next election. They fear a massive defeat at the hands of David Cameron’s Conservative Party, which is some thirteen points ahead in polling – enough for a landslide win. These same polls show that some seventy one percent of voters are unhappy with Gordon Brown’s performance as Prime Minister.
The plotters have three problems. The first is that Gordon Brown has demonstrated that he is unwilling, no matter what the carrion calls are, to leave office unless its due to terminal illness. Second, the plotters cannot find a champion willing to take on the task of David slaying Goliath. The plot has no credible leadership. The third problem is that, even if Brown went, there is no time for a new leader of the Labour Party to turn around this dying political tug boat which, in the minds of the British public, is a tired and worn-out boat in need of a long period in dry dock.
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair, rightly observes that there is a need for caution when looking at opinion polls. In 1970 the Labour Party went into the election with a sixteen point lead and lost to the Conservatives. In the 1992 election, Neil Kinnock as Labour Leader was clearly winning until he began to behave as if the election was over – the public rapidly turned on Labour and the Conservative’s won. So much can happen between now and May.
But it all now depends on Gordon Brown. John Prescott described him this week-end as a “global giant” who pulled the world back from recession. Others are seeking to position him as a global statesman – a fitting man to lead Britain. They contrast his global statesmanship with the youth and inexperience of David Cameron and posit that Britain needs a steady and proven captain to the steer the ship of state through troubled times. The reality is that Britain is in trouble. It has massive deficits and public sector debt, it has a growing set of issues of education and schools which Labour has failed to tackle in its twelve years in power and there is a social malaise and sense of political alienation which permeates all regions of the country. Britain needs change – it is almost tangible in any conversation about politics.
Gordon Brown, despite his public commitments, will not change. He is what he is and cannot change. He has been at the heart of the Labour party for twenty years and at its head since the early 1990’s. He thinks what people want is action. In an interview at the end of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last week, he said "I think what people are saying is that until they can see the results of all the action we have taken in getting the economy back to recovery, they have suspended judgment. I accept that I have got to show people that the action that we have taken is bringing results and will bring greater results in the months to come." He thinks results will “speak for themselves”.
The Conservative Party is leading the charge for a new era of austerity – demanding cuts in this fiscal year so as to lower the expected budget deficit of £175 billion ($305 billion). They claim that the fiscal stimulus, coupled with the increase in the supply of money in the system, will lead to massive debts which will burden the British economy for years to come. They also claim that public spending and the role of the State under labour are becoming out of control and that less, not more, government is what the people want. Their double digit lead in the opinion polls, consistent since the beginning of 2009, suggests that they may well have captured the mood of the British people. Brown’s counter is that the Conservative proposes massive cuts to public programs which will ride roughshod over peoples’ needs and expectations – Labour’s traditional response to austerity measures.
It will be an ideological election as well as an election about Gordon Brown. Unless David Cameron makes a major blunder, Brown will lose and the Labour Party will wonder why it did not act to forestall both the defeat itself and the scale of the defeat. While its true that “a week is a long time in politics”, the eight months between now and May is even longer and a lot can happen. But it will take a miracle to save Labour now.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cooling on Climate Change
The UN are pulling out the “big guns” in an attempt to create a climate of urgency about climate change, so that the meeting of over one hundred world leaders in Copenhagen some seventy five days from now can produce an agreement to replace to failed Kyoto accord.
Nature, however, is not co-operating. Average global temperature is rising at 1.40C per century, not the 3.90C indicated by the IPPC models. We are in the seventh year of global cooling. Sea levels, despite messages to the contrary, are rising at normal rates – eight inches per century – much less than the IPPC models suggested. There has been no significant rise in sea levels over the last four years. Arctic sea ice, currently in its summer state, is more extensive in 2009 than it was in 2007 and 2008. Antarctic sea ice is at record high. Global sea ice shows relative stability over the last thirty years. While CO2 levels are rising, the rate of growth has slowed considerably – the IPPC suggested that CO2 levels would grow at around 468 ppm per century, when in fact the observed growth in CO2 is 204 ppm per century – less than half of the IPPC model suggestion.
Hurricane activity, which does not appear to be connected to CO2 emissions, is at the lowest level since satellite monitoring and observation began in 1979. In the Northern Hemisphere, hurricane activity is currently one of the quietest in a decade. Reefs off the Keppel Islands on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have shown rapid recovery of coral dominance, despite repeated coral bleaching events that many ascribe to CO2-induced global warming. All in all, nature does not seep to be co-operating with Ban Ki Moon and the climate change negotiators.
Neither is China. Despite high expectations that they would enter into a global agreement which involves a commitment to curb green house gas emission by an agreed targeted amount, China indicated that they see this issue as a national one, requiring balance between China’s need to continue rapid development and manage its environmental conditions. It will not be told what to do by the international community. Neither will India.
The United States is ambivalent. While President Obama clearly sees climate change as a clear and present danger, legislatures are deeply divided about the appropriate response. The House of Representatives has approved a bill that provides for a cap and trade for carbon credits, the free allocation of a large number of carbon credits to polluting companies and regulation of vehicle emissions. The Senate, however, is delaying consideration of the issue and is not likely to pass any legislation before Copenhagen.
The current US proposals will not have any substantial impact on either carbon emissions in the US or on global temperature. They will, however, have an impact on the economy – higher energy prices, changes in transportation systems and in consumer behaviour. They may also help to stimulate the creation of green jobs, at the expense of jobs in other sectors. What will certainly happen is that the emerging financial services (carbon trading, carbon offsets) and climate research will expand and grow. The carbon trading industry is currently worth $100 billion worldwide and research on climate change is a $7 billion industry worldwide.
Most committed are the member states of the European Union. Collectively they have determined emissions targeted, new transportation standards and have been operating a cap and trade system for a number of years. They are also now considering the scale of technology transfer and financial aid to developing countries. They have also enacted, through EU regulation, constraints on consumer behaviour – making it illegal to sell certain kinds of light bulbs, creating incentives for smart energy purchases and smart grid technologies.
It will be a long meeting in Copenhagen and it looks unlikely that the meeting will be able to conclude the kind of comprehensive agreement Ban Ki Moon is seeking – the fractures between the parties and the challenges of securing agreed targets are likely to be significant. The G8 summit showed that this was the case with just eight nations – there will be over one hundred in Copenhagen.
Some climate change scientists are becoming concerned that the momentum for Copenhagen is already fading and that the possibility of agreement is looking more unlikely than it was at the beginning of the year. They are beginning to use science to argue the polemics of the case rather than just draw attention to the science – the lines between scientific inquiry and political action are becoming blurred.
It will be an interesting time between now and December, with the voices of concern already becoming shrill. What is needed are some calm, reflective and realistic minds focused on what is possible and the consequences of the possible actions for both the environment and the economy. They may well be in short supply and will almost certainly find themselves castigated for not being committed to environmentally sound change or as “deniers” – but we need such objective analysts to provide support the general public in their attempts to assess the work of their governments.
Nature, however, is not co-operating. Average global temperature is rising at 1.40C per century, not the 3.90C indicated by the IPPC models. We are in the seventh year of global cooling. Sea levels, despite messages to the contrary, are rising at normal rates – eight inches per century – much less than the IPPC models suggested. There has been no significant rise in sea levels over the last four years. Arctic sea ice, currently in its summer state, is more extensive in 2009 than it was in 2007 and 2008. Antarctic sea ice is at record high. Global sea ice shows relative stability over the last thirty years. While CO2 levels are rising, the rate of growth has slowed considerably – the IPPC suggested that CO2 levels would grow at around 468 ppm per century, when in fact the observed growth in CO2 is 204 ppm per century – less than half of the IPPC model suggestion.
Hurricane activity, which does not appear to be connected to CO2 emissions, is at the lowest level since satellite monitoring and observation began in 1979. In the Northern Hemisphere, hurricane activity is currently one of the quietest in a decade. Reefs off the Keppel Islands on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have shown rapid recovery of coral dominance, despite repeated coral bleaching events that many ascribe to CO2-induced global warming. All in all, nature does not seep to be co-operating with Ban Ki Moon and the climate change negotiators.
Neither is China. Despite high expectations that they would enter into a global agreement which involves a commitment to curb green house gas emission by an agreed targeted amount, China indicated that they see this issue as a national one, requiring balance between China’s need to continue rapid development and manage its environmental conditions. It will not be told what to do by the international community. Neither will India.
The United States is ambivalent. While President Obama clearly sees climate change as a clear and present danger, legislatures are deeply divided about the appropriate response. The House of Representatives has approved a bill that provides for a cap and trade for carbon credits, the free allocation of a large number of carbon credits to polluting companies and regulation of vehicle emissions. The Senate, however, is delaying consideration of the issue and is not likely to pass any legislation before Copenhagen.
The current US proposals will not have any substantial impact on either carbon emissions in the US or on global temperature. They will, however, have an impact on the economy – higher energy prices, changes in transportation systems and in consumer behaviour. They may also help to stimulate the creation of green jobs, at the expense of jobs in other sectors. What will certainly happen is that the emerging financial services (carbon trading, carbon offsets) and climate research will expand and grow. The carbon trading industry is currently worth $100 billion worldwide and research on climate change is a $7 billion industry worldwide.
Most committed are the member states of the European Union. Collectively they have determined emissions targeted, new transportation standards and have been operating a cap and trade system for a number of years. They are also now considering the scale of technology transfer and financial aid to developing countries. They have also enacted, through EU regulation, constraints on consumer behaviour – making it illegal to sell certain kinds of light bulbs, creating incentives for smart energy purchases and smart grid technologies.
It will be a long meeting in Copenhagen and it looks unlikely that the meeting will be able to conclude the kind of comprehensive agreement Ban Ki Moon is seeking – the fractures between the parties and the challenges of securing agreed targets are likely to be significant. The G8 summit showed that this was the case with just eight nations – there will be over one hundred in Copenhagen.
Some climate change scientists are becoming concerned that the momentum for Copenhagen is already fading and that the possibility of agreement is looking more unlikely than it was at the beginning of the year. They are beginning to use science to argue the polemics of the case rather than just draw attention to the science – the lines between scientific inquiry and political action are becoming blurred.
It will be an interesting time between now and December, with the voices of concern already becoming shrill. What is needed are some calm, reflective and realistic minds focused on what is possible and the consequences of the possible actions for both the environment and the economy. They may well be in short supply and will almost certainly find themselves castigated for not being committed to environmentally sound change or as “deniers” – but we need such objective analysts to provide support the general public in their attempts to assess the work of their governments.
Obama, The Turtle and the Hare
The next three months will define the Obama Presidency. Right now, the potential for failure is high.
First the economy. Obama rushed into office with a massive stimulus package which was intended to lessen the impact on the recession on workers and communities. A lot of these funds are yet to be spent, but the recession is already “officially over” and the economy is beginning it long journey back to its new start point. However, unemployment remains high and the recovery looks increasingly jobless at this point. Unless unemployment declines, Obama’s stimulus package will not have succeeded on one critical litmus test.
The next economic test for Obama will relate to the handling of regulatory reform and the potential dangers of bank indebtedness. Obama is sensitive to the nuances here and is using rhetoric and his powerful communication skills to steer the financial services culture away from its “greed and feed on the weak” modus operandi to one of careful and cautious capitalism. In short, Obama has to find a pathway between encouraging risk taking (the core of capitalism) while at the same time moderating the rewards capitalist secure from taking these risks. He needs to do so in a culture that is still dominated by Milton Friedman rather than Milton Keynes.
Not an easy task. Underlying this is the fact that many of the needed regulations are in place, just poorly executed. The Bernie Madoff scandal and others like it show this to be true, as does the continuing struggle to track down where all the TARP money went.
Bank indebtedness – the bad debt sitting on the books of banks and financial services organizations which has to be managed if banks are to meet their corporate and legal obligations – pose a significant threat to the stability of the US financial system over time. Obama, working with Bernanke and others, needs to find the path to reduce the risk of these debts unduly slowing the recovery and affecting confidence without resorting to the socialist solution some European governments have pursued.
His final economic challenge is the rapidly growing scale of US budget deficits and debt. The Republicans are right to be concerned that his legislative agenda is likely to significantly increase public sector borrowing, raising interest rates and taxes while leading to cuts in government programs and services. Obama needs a convincing strategy to leave office after two terms with a manageable level of debt. Right now, this plan does not appear to exist.
His two other flagship activities –climate change and health care – are in serious trouble. The Democratic leadership in the Senate signaled recently that they are to postpone serious consideration of the climate change legislative until 2010 or, more likely, 2011. Meantime, legislators are looking to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do its work for them and use its existing powers to regulate CO2 emissions. There is growing speculation that climate change legislation will not pass the Senate in Obama’s fist term.
Health care reform, as is obvious to all, is showing the extent to which congressional governance is dysfunctional. Obama trusted congress to work out a reform package that would meet the need to extend health care coverage, reduce the burden of health care costs on families and companies, while improving the quality of life for Americans. What we have seen over the last four months is the lack of alignment even within the Democratic party on the nature of such reforms. Obama needs a convincing victory in this field – not just a rhetorical one – for his Presidency not to be damaged by the process and the paucity of reform. The loss of the automatic majority in the Senate following the death of Ted Kennedy puts the final outcome of the health care reform process in doubt.
Obama faces another challenge: overexposure. There is no doubt that, in comparison to several other US Presidents (Carter, both Bush’s, Nixon), Obama is a powerful orator and excellent communicator. But every day? Each time he appears in an interview, on Letterman or Conan or on the White House lawn he uses up some glitter. All Presidents have a certain amount of glitter to use and over use exhausts the supply quickly. He needs to learn the power of silence and patience if he is to be effective.
Obama has several opportunities to deliver on the promise of “change” he offered during his campaign for the Presidency, but boldness and brashness often do not lead to sustained change over time. When he says good night to his daughters on Pennsylvania Avenue one night, he might usefully pick up the story book of the turtle and the hare and remind himself that the turtle won. Its time for Obama to learn to be a better turtle.
First the economy. Obama rushed into office with a massive stimulus package which was intended to lessen the impact on the recession on workers and communities. A lot of these funds are yet to be spent, but the recession is already “officially over” and the economy is beginning it long journey back to its new start point. However, unemployment remains high and the recovery looks increasingly jobless at this point. Unless unemployment declines, Obama’s stimulus package will not have succeeded on one critical litmus test.
The next economic test for Obama will relate to the handling of regulatory reform and the potential dangers of bank indebtedness. Obama is sensitive to the nuances here and is using rhetoric and his powerful communication skills to steer the financial services culture away from its “greed and feed on the weak” modus operandi to one of careful and cautious capitalism. In short, Obama has to find a pathway between encouraging risk taking (the core of capitalism) while at the same time moderating the rewards capitalist secure from taking these risks. He needs to do so in a culture that is still dominated by Milton Friedman rather than Milton Keynes.
Not an easy task. Underlying this is the fact that many of the needed regulations are in place, just poorly executed. The Bernie Madoff scandal and others like it show this to be true, as does the continuing struggle to track down where all the TARP money went.
Bank indebtedness – the bad debt sitting on the books of banks and financial services organizations which has to be managed if banks are to meet their corporate and legal obligations – pose a significant threat to the stability of the US financial system over time. Obama, working with Bernanke and others, needs to find the path to reduce the risk of these debts unduly slowing the recovery and affecting confidence without resorting to the socialist solution some European governments have pursued.
His final economic challenge is the rapidly growing scale of US budget deficits and debt. The Republicans are right to be concerned that his legislative agenda is likely to significantly increase public sector borrowing, raising interest rates and taxes while leading to cuts in government programs and services. Obama needs a convincing strategy to leave office after two terms with a manageable level of debt. Right now, this plan does not appear to exist.
His two other flagship activities –climate change and health care – are in serious trouble. The Democratic leadership in the Senate signaled recently that they are to postpone serious consideration of the climate change legislative until 2010 or, more likely, 2011. Meantime, legislators are looking to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do its work for them and use its existing powers to regulate CO2 emissions. There is growing speculation that climate change legislation will not pass the Senate in Obama’s fist term.
Health care reform, as is obvious to all, is showing the extent to which congressional governance is dysfunctional. Obama trusted congress to work out a reform package that would meet the need to extend health care coverage, reduce the burden of health care costs on families and companies, while improving the quality of life for Americans. What we have seen over the last four months is the lack of alignment even within the Democratic party on the nature of such reforms. Obama needs a convincing victory in this field – not just a rhetorical one – for his Presidency not to be damaged by the process and the paucity of reform. The loss of the automatic majority in the Senate following the death of Ted Kennedy puts the final outcome of the health care reform process in doubt.
Obama faces another challenge: overexposure. There is no doubt that, in comparison to several other US Presidents (Carter, both Bush’s, Nixon), Obama is a powerful orator and excellent communicator. But every day? Each time he appears in an interview, on Letterman or Conan or on the White House lawn he uses up some glitter. All Presidents have a certain amount of glitter to use and over use exhausts the supply quickly. He needs to learn the power of silence and patience if he is to be effective.
Obama has several opportunities to deliver on the promise of “change” he offered during his campaign for the Presidency, but boldness and brashness often do not lead to sustained change over time. When he says good night to his daughters on Pennsylvania Avenue one night, he might usefully pick up the story book of the turtle and the hare and remind himself that the turtle won. Its time for Obama to learn to be a better turtle.
The UN and Climate Change Negotiations
The political conviction that man is causing global warming and that concerted political action on a global scale can “halt” such warming continues to shape an agenda for the post-recession economy. The world’s airlines have committed to reducing their carbon emission by fifty percent by 2050 and car manufacturers are pushing electric cars and working on alternative energy sources for transport systems. The race to be green is on.
At the UN this week, world leaders will all proclaim that the science is settled and that the actions called for “by the science” demand a rethink of key aspects of the economy. In particular, there will be pressure to either pursue carbon taxes directly, as President Sarkozy is seeking to do in France, or to pursue carbon caps and a mechanism for trading carbon emission certificates, as the EU has done for some time and President Obama would like to do, though congress has postponed a decision on cap and trade till 2010 “at the earliest”. China and India are indicating a willingness to take some modest action, but they need major investment support in the billions to do so.
Expect a lot of rhetoric and also expect the UN to push for new monitoring and governance roles for itself – the UN sees the challenge of climate change as an opportunity to expand its scope of operations and enhance its role in the day to day affairs of nations and people around the world.
What is at stake in this conversation is the fabric and structure of the economy. Current drivers of economic growth – transportation systems, consumer spending, energy systems – all need to change to reflect a commitment to lowering emissions. From how we heat and light our houses, how we use transport, what food we buy and where we can buy it are all likely to change. Day to day living will become more expensive and poverty in the developed world will increase, as energy and food prices rise. Only fundamental changes in behaviour, led by changes in the cost of regular and routine activities, will lower emissions in a radical way.
Estimates of the likely impact of policies such as cap and trade suggest that the impact of major changes in the lifestyles of citizens of the developed world will have only a modest (if any) impact on carbon emissions and even less impact on climate, which is also impacted by the actions of winds, the sun and the oceans. What is more, the cost of achieving a less than 0.11 degree change in average global temperature will exceed $300 billion annually in North America alone. While many citizens are concerned about climate change, the personal economic impacts are beginning to create a climate of doubt and uncertainty about the actions which governments want to take. Many citizens are yet to be convinced that the actions government plan make sense.
The negotiations leading up to Copenhagen in December, when over one hundred nations will start the work of negotiations for a post Kyoto agreement, are already very fraught. Under Kyoto, greenhouse gas reductions are subject to an international system that regulates the calculation of emissions, the purchase of carbon credits and contribution of sectors such as forestry. The US is pushing instead for each country to set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its own target. The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work, though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law". Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with.
Meantime, the carbon trading and offset market is already a $100 billion a year business and growing. Climate change research has secured funding of some $7 billion each year over the last decade – a big business. Money is a major driver of the climate change alarmist movement. The skeptics, on the other hand, don’t have much money (despite claims that they are funded by Exxon, who have given less than $25million over the last decade) but they do have observational data on their side. The world is cooling, CO2 emissions are falling (mainly due the recession) and the ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic is expanding. The UN meetings and the Copenhagen meeting in December will take place against a backdrop of scientific measurements which suggests that the alarmist climate models are, at best, overly pessimistic and at worst just plain wrong. We live in interesting times.
Perhaps we should all heed Prince Charles’ advice and give up using our cars and private jets. Maybe we should all start buying carbon offsets, despite the fact that some of the leading providers of this service have recently been found to be supporting projects which do little, if anything, to offset carbon. Perhaps we should simply ignore the rhetoric of politicians about reducing emissions and instead start to plan for adapting to climate change. Whatever we do, we should not depend on our politicians to do the “right thing”, whatever “right” is.
At the UN this week, world leaders will all proclaim that the science is settled and that the actions called for “by the science” demand a rethink of key aspects of the economy. In particular, there will be pressure to either pursue carbon taxes directly, as President Sarkozy is seeking to do in France, or to pursue carbon caps and a mechanism for trading carbon emission certificates, as the EU has done for some time and President Obama would like to do, though congress has postponed a decision on cap and trade till 2010 “at the earliest”. China and India are indicating a willingness to take some modest action, but they need major investment support in the billions to do so.
Expect a lot of rhetoric and also expect the UN to push for new monitoring and governance roles for itself – the UN sees the challenge of climate change as an opportunity to expand its scope of operations and enhance its role in the day to day affairs of nations and people around the world.
What is at stake in this conversation is the fabric and structure of the economy. Current drivers of economic growth – transportation systems, consumer spending, energy systems – all need to change to reflect a commitment to lowering emissions. From how we heat and light our houses, how we use transport, what food we buy and where we can buy it are all likely to change. Day to day living will become more expensive and poverty in the developed world will increase, as energy and food prices rise. Only fundamental changes in behaviour, led by changes in the cost of regular and routine activities, will lower emissions in a radical way.
Estimates of the likely impact of policies such as cap and trade suggest that the impact of major changes in the lifestyles of citizens of the developed world will have only a modest (if any) impact on carbon emissions and even less impact on climate, which is also impacted by the actions of winds, the sun and the oceans. What is more, the cost of achieving a less than 0.11 degree change in average global temperature will exceed $300 billion annually in North America alone. While many citizens are concerned about climate change, the personal economic impacts are beginning to create a climate of doubt and uncertainty about the actions which governments want to take. Many citizens are yet to be convinced that the actions government plan make sense.
The negotiations leading up to Copenhagen in December, when over one hundred nations will start the work of negotiations for a post Kyoto agreement, are already very fraught. Under Kyoto, greenhouse gas reductions are subject to an international system that regulates the calculation of emissions, the purchase of carbon credits and contribution of sectors such as forestry. The US is pushing instead for each country to set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its own target. The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work, though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law". Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with.
Meantime, the carbon trading and offset market is already a $100 billion a year business and growing. Climate change research has secured funding of some $7 billion each year over the last decade – a big business. Money is a major driver of the climate change alarmist movement. The skeptics, on the other hand, don’t have much money (despite claims that they are funded by Exxon, who have given less than $25million over the last decade) but they do have observational data on their side. The world is cooling, CO2 emissions are falling (mainly due the recession) and the ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic is expanding. The UN meetings and the Copenhagen meeting in December will take place against a backdrop of scientific measurements which suggests that the alarmist climate models are, at best, overly pessimistic and at worst just plain wrong. We live in interesting times.
Perhaps we should all heed Prince Charles’ advice and give up using our cars and private jets. Maybe we should all start buying carbon offsets, despite the fact that some of the leading providers of this service have recently been found to be supporting projects which do little, if anything, to offset carbon. Perhaps we should simply ignore the rhetoric of politicians about reducing emissions and instead start to plan for adapting to climate change. Whatever we do, we should not depend on our politicians to do the “right thing”, whatever “right” is.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Looking for a Fat French Person? Dream On
The search for an obese French man or woman began in Paris, travelled to Nice, Monaco, Menton and then various locations in Provence, focused largely on the Luberon. While occasionally distracted by other things, such as menu translations (“try our big balls” referring to ice cream or “our special hand made paste” referring to pasta) and signs in hotels (“it is compulsory to be dressed well in the dining room” and “extra charges for manifestations”), we were relentless in our search during our three week journey.
We thought it was all over on the first day in Nice when we saw a large girthed man with man-boobs bigger than any of the topless women on the same beach. Turned out to be a Texan trying to get to grips with the etiquette of the private beach, he ended up kissing everyone on each facial cheek. Another sighting of a large person, this time female, in Beaulieu turned out to be a Welsh woman from Llangollen desperately looking for faggots and peas. She had to make do with caillette’s and petit pois –the French version of the same thing.
One reason it is so difficult to find an obese French person is that there are so many ways in which they burn up calories. Just watch them speak – they get upper body exercise through the use of the hands and their body language overall uses 30 calories a sentence. Then there is the weight loss during driving and the even greater weight loss while seeking, finding and then securing (against determined opposition) a parking space. I myself lost over five pounds just from these activities, most in Monaco and Apt.
Other activities also eat up calories: daily shopping for bread (50 calories), arguing and then choosing an appropriate wine (30 calories), trying to find other ways of insulting the English and Germans (70 calories) and finally playing boules (between 100 and 500 calories, depending on the intensity of the game, the age of the players and the gullibility of their opponents – the more gullible, the less calories used).
Systematic observation of the French during the last three weeks also tells me that the French actually lose weight while eating. Take dinner, which starts late and ends close to the next day, is an elaborate affair usually involving up to seven courses. The arguments about the quality of the food, the right wine parings, the best combination of food on the fork, the argument about what’s in the sauce, the choice of cheeses, the decision about which desert best compliments the meal and finally what alcoholic digestive best finishes the meal all burn up so much calories that those consumed during the meal are outweighed by those used up in the process of consumption.
We passed and observed thousands of French people – almost none were fat and absolutely none were obese. The largest people we saw and talked to were Americans and British. Spend enough time in France and lose weight!
We thought it was all over on the first day in Nice when we saw a large girthed man with man-boobs bigger than any of the topless women on the same beach. Turned out to be a Texan trying to get to grips with the etiquette of the private beach, he ended up kissing everyone on each facial cheek. Another sighting of a large person, this time female, in Beaulieu turned out to be a Welsh woman from Llangollen desperately looking for faggots and peas. She had to make do with caillette’s and petit pois –the French version of the same thing.
One reason it is so difficult to find an obese French person is that there are so many ways in which they burn up calories. Just watch them speak – they get upper body exercise through the use of the hands and their body language overall uses 30 calories a sentence. Then there is the weight loss during driving and the even greater weight loss while seeking, finding and then securing (against determined opposition) a parking space. I myself lost over five pounds just from these activities, most in Monaco and Apt.
Other activities also eat up calories: daily shopping for bread (50 calories), arguing and then choosing an appropriate wine (30 calories), trying to find other ways of insulting the English and Germans (70 calories) and finally playing boules (between 100 and 500 calories, depending on the intensity of the game, the age of the players and the gullibility of their opponents – the more gullible, the less calories used).
Systematic observation of the French during the last three weeks also tells me that the French actually lose weight while eating. Take dinner, which starts late and ends close to the next day, is an elaborate affair usually involving up to seven courses. The arguments about the quality of the food, the right wine parings, the best combination of food on the fork, the argument about what’s in the sauce, the choice of cheeses, the decision about which desert best compliments the meal and finally what alcoholic digestive best finishes the meal all burn up so much calories that those consumed during the meal are outweighed by those used up in the process of consumption.
We passed and observed thousands of French people – almost none were fat and absolutely none were obese. The largest people we saw and talked to were Americans and British. Spend enough time in France and lose weight!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Where Is The Premier of Alberta When We Need Him?
Where is the Premier of Alberta? Why is he absent from our consciousness and allowing our anxieties and worst fears to fester? Why is he not communicating powerfully and effectively with the people of Alberta?
The Province is facing a deficit in this fiscal year of $7 billion and is planning to make cuts to public expenditure in the next budget of $4billion, including cuts to education, health and social services. The Province is planning, largely through inaction, significant increases in electricity costs due to its support for the unproven carbon sequestration program with an already firm commitment of $2 billion we cannot afford and an ask for another $1billion a year which is definitely beyond the scope of this Government. Health care cuts are coming and people are getting anxious.
The key problem is not the recession, though this is clearly not helping. The key problem is a fundamental change in the way in which the natural gas price is behaving and this is dramatically affecting government revenues. This problem is structural – it will challenge the base economic model of the Government – and will not go away. The dynamics of the natural gas market have changed in a way that will reduce revenues for the Government for some time to come.
The Premier has mused about the dangers of the US Climate Change Bill, which contains a clause that would permit the US Government to impose tarrifs at the border on commodities entering the US which were produced with a higher footprint than other similar goods coming from US sources and he is right to do so. But his comments weren’t backed up by a briefing document showing the impact such a scheme could have on oil, gas, coal, lumber and other industries and on the Alberta economy. Too vague and too mute.
The Premier did make a rare public statement to make clear that “while he was Premier” there would be no new taxes and no tax hikes. An unwise commitment, especially in the light of the ongoing economic challenges the Province faces. Albertans enjoy their low tax regime, but would prefer to pay more taxes to sustain many health, education and social services than to cut them as severely as now seems planned. Now the only way in which tax hikes can occur is if the Premier resigns and a new Premier takes his place. Some saw the Premiers tax statement as a veiled resignation offer to the party.
The last two months, at least amongst the bloggers and journalists in Alberta, there have been rumours of a coming cabinet shuffle, triggered in part by the resignation of the Deputy Premier, Ron Stevens, and by a growing concern about the strength of the finance and treasury team now challenged, according to some, beyond their competence. The furor that surrounded Bill 44 was also taken as a sign that things need shaking up and the Premier needs to show that he is in charge and stop the next action equivalent to a Bill 44 mistake. Firing one MLA showed some metal, but then the sword was put back in its sheath and the Premier appeared to go back to sleep.
One would expect a Premier, who is no intellectual slouch and a very down to earth kind of guy, to be on camera helping Albertans understand what is happening in and to their Province, how he sees the future and laying out his options for change. Creating the right context and climate for action is one of the things required to make change work. Instead he is absent, leaving the talking to others, not all of whom know what the message is or should be.
It is time for a clear statement of the challenges we face as a Province – we need an interim financial statement, a context statement and a set of options. We need these to come from the Premier and we need these statements now. As confidence in the Premier erodes – he is already concerned about the November Red Deer leadership review and he should now be more concerned, as anxiety grows and confidence in the ability of this Government to act also declines.
Maneuvers are going on behind the scenes on budget, on change and on other challenges Alberta faces – quiet meetings are being held and briefings given. Put the public is left out of the conversation, which is not smart.
Its time to meet the people. To be transparent. To share the challenges. To make clear that the future isn’t what it used to be. Alberta needs a Premier it can see, hear and talk to.
The Province is facing a deficit in this fiscal year of $7 billion and is planning to make cuts to public expenditure in the next budget of $4billion, including cuts to education, health and social services. The Province is planning, largely through inaction, significant increases in electricity costs due to its support for the unproven carbon sequestration program with an already firm commitment of $2 billion we cannot afford and an ask for another $1billion a year which is definitely beyond the scope of this Government. Health care cuts are coming and people are getting anxious.
The key problem is not the recession, though this is clearly not helping. The key problem is a fundamental change in the way in which the natural gas price is behaving and this is dramatically affecting government revenues. This problem is structural – it will challenge the base economic model of the Government – and will not go away. The dynamics of the natural gas market have changed in a way that will reduce revenues for the Government for some time to come.
The Premier has mused about the dangers of the US Climate Change Bill, which contains a clause that would permit the US Government to impose tarrifs at the border on commodities entering the US which were produced with a higher footprint than other similar goods coming from US sources and he is right to do so. But his comments weren’t backed up by a briefing document showing the impact such a scheme could have on oil, gas, coal, lumber and other industries and on the Alberta economy. Too vague and too mute.
The Premier did make a rare public statement to make clear that “while he was Premier” there would be no new taxes and no tax hikes. An unwise commitment, especially in the light of the ongoing economic challenges the Province faces. Albertans enjoy their low tax regime, but would prefer to pay more taxes to sustain many health, education and social services than to cut them as severely as now seems planned. Now the only way in which tax hikes can occur is if the Premier resigns and a new Premier takes his place. Some saw the Premiers tax statement as a veiled resignation offer to the party.
The last two months, at least amongst the bloggers and journalists in Alberta, there have been rumours of a coming cabinet shuffle, triggered in part by the resignation of the Deputy Premier, Ron Stevens, and by a growing concern about the strength of the finance and treasury team now challenged, according to some, beyond their competence. The furor that surrounded Bill 44 was also taken as a sign that things need shaking up and the Premier needs to show that he is in charge and stop the next action equivalent to a Bill 44 mistake. Firing one MLA showed some metal, but then the sword was put back in its sheath and the Premier appeared to go back to sleep.
One would expect a Premier, who is no intellectual slouch and a very down to earth kind of guy, to be on camera helping Albertans understand what is happening in and to their Province, how he sees the future and laying out his options for change. Creating the right context and climate for action is one of the things required to make change work. Instead he is absent, leaving the talking to others, not all of whom know what the message is or should be.
It is time for a clear statement of the challenges we face as a Province – we need an interim financial statement, a context statement and a set of options. We need these to come from the Premier and we need these statements now. As confidence in the Premier erodes – he is already concerned about the November Red Deer leadership review and he should now be more concerned, as anxiety grows and confidence in the ability of this Government to act also declines.
Maneuvers are going on behind the scenes on budget, on change and on other challenges Alberta faces – quiet meetings are being held and briefings given. Put the public is left out of the conversation, which is not smart.
Its time to meet the people. To be transparent. To share the challenges. To make clear that the future isn’t what it used to be. Alberta needs a Premier it can see, hear and talk to.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Health Care Challenge for Canada?
Canadians watch the health care debate in the US with mixed emotions. The Americans, who spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world, clearly have many challenges. Some forty six million are not covered by health insurance, seniors pay for prescriptions after the first $2,500 and life expectancy is amongst the lowest in the developed world. Clearly, a lot needs to be changed.
The trouble is debating change in a health system is always very emotional, as we can see from coverage of the town hall meetings taking place across the United States. We each have stories of good and poor experience of health, of family members who struggled through the system and of things going terribly wrong. Serious discussion about change becomes clouded in emotional conversations about pain, disease and problems.
Many Canadians appear satisfied with the basics of Canada’s health care system, despite the rising costs of securing universal health care coverage and the growing waiting list for a range of basic procedures. Yet an OECD study, just published, uses poll data to show that sixty per cent of Canadians are seeking fundamental change in the way Canada’s publicly funded health care system operates. More people in Canada seek such change than in Britain, the US, Germany or Australia. A further twelve per cent think that our health care system needs to be completely rebuilt. Put simply: most Canadians don’t think the current health care system is sustainable.
There are several issues. The first is that the costs of the system are growing faster than Provincial governments can afford. When health care reaches half of all Provincial spending, as it will within the next decade in British Columbia and Alberta, what cuts to other government services will be made to permit this cost to be covered?
The second challenge is our over-reliance on professional health care workers to help us manage such things as diet, exercise and minor health issues – cuts, bruises, and colds. Self-reliance and personal responsibility has been ceded to an ever growing list of professional workers seeking to manage more aspects of our daily life.
The third major problem is the growing cost of technology for health. Expensive equipment can now produce powerful images and deep understanding of physical conditions and doctors and patients rely on expensive technology to make decisions. Technology changes and improves frequently at great cost to us all.
Linked to the growing costs of technology is the growth of sustaining the prescription drug culture – “there’s a pill for that”. A diabetic with hypertension will spend close to $5,000 a year on prescription drugs, only seventy per cent of which is recoverable through most insurance policies. It is this that drives up the costs of insurance.
Finally, the accountants are taking over. While some of them used to health care workers – doctors and nurses – their preoccupations are now costs. Whether it is staff costs or the cost of procedures, cost not outcomes are driving key decisions in the health system.
Whenever discussions of health care occur in Canada, the passions engendered are similar to those seen in town hall meetings in Wyoming or Chicago. Emotion replaces rational conversation about options.
One option is for Canada to retain a single payer, but to permit private companies to offer health care and health insurance from which the single payer can purchase services. The private providers would focus on high volume, profitable activities – hip and knee replacements, treatments for diabetics and obesity, rehabilitation services, chiropractic - and sell their services to local health authorities. Competitive private insurers would provide coverage which “filled the gaps” of the provincial system, including drug and dental coverage.
A second option is to require every citizen to hold a health insurance policy for which they pay their provider (the provincial government or a private insurer), with rates depending on life-style. Smokers pay more. People who are obese pay more. These policies may cover more than the “approved list of services” under the Canada Health Act, depending on the premium paid. Connecting health to cost for the end-user would be a major change.
Whatever happens, Canada needs to have a serious discussion about health care. Most Canadians think we need a significant change. They are right.
The trouble is debating change in a health system is always very emotional, as we can see from coverage of the town hall meetings taking place across the United States. We each have stories of good and poor experience of health, of family members who struggled through the system and of things going terribly wrong. Serious discussion about change becomes clouded in emotional conversations about pain, disease and problems.
Many Canadians appear satisfied with the basics of Canada’s health care system, despite the rising costs of securing universal health care coverage and the growing waiting list for a range of basic procedures. Yet an OECD study, just published, uses poll data to show that sixty per cent of Canadians are seeking fundamental change in the way Canada’s publicly funded health care system operates. More people in Canada seek such change than in Britain, the US, Germany or Australia. A further twelve per cent think that our health care system needs to be completely rebuilt. Put simply: most Canadians don’t think the current health care system is sustainable.
There are several issues. The first is that the costs of the system are growing faster than Provincial governments can afford. When health care reaches half of all Provincial spending, as it will within the next decade in British Columbia and Alberta, what cuts to other government services will be made to permit this cost to be covered?
The second challenge is our over-reliance on professional health care workers to help us manage such things as diet, exercise and minor health issues – cuts, bruises, and colds. Self-reliance and personal responsibility has been ceded to an ever growing list of professional workers seeking to manage more aspects of our daily life.
The third major problem is the growing cost of technology for health. Expensive equipment can now produce powerful images and deep understanding of physical conditions and doctors and patients rely on expensive technology to make decisions. Technology changes and improves frequently at great cost to us all.
Linked to the growing costs of technology is the growth of sustaining the prescription drug culture – “there’s a pill for that”. A diabetic with hypertension will spend close to $5,000 a year on prescription drugs, only seventy per cent of which is recoverable through most insurance policies. It is this that drives up the costs of insurance.
Finally, the accountants are taking over. While some of them used to health care workers – doctors and nurses – their preoccupations are now costs. Whether it is staff costs or the cost of procedures, cost not outcomes are driving key decisions in the health system.
Whenever discussions of health care occur in Canada, the passions engendered are similar to those seen in town hall meetings in Wyoming or Chicago. Emotion replaces rational conversation about options.
One option is for Canada to retain a single payer, but to permit private companies to offer health care and health insurance from which the single payer can purchase services. The private providers would focus on high volume, profitable activities – hip and knee replacements, treatments for diabetics and obesity, rehabilitation services, chiropractic - and sell their services to local health authorities. Competitive private insurers would provide coverage which “filled the gaps” of the provincial system, including drug and dental coverage.
A second option is to require every citizen to hold a health insurance policy for which they pay their provider (the provincial government or a private insurer), with rates depending on life-style. Smokers pay more. People who are obese pay more. These policies may cover more than the “approved list of services” under the Canada Health Act, depending on the premium paid. Connecting health to cost for the end-user would be a major change.
Whatever happens, Canada needs to have a serious discussion about health care. Most Canadians think we need a significant change. They are right.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Four Months to Save The Planet, Or...?
The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, has said that there is less than four months to save the planet. Referring to the December negotiations in Copenhagen when the world community will seek to create global governance so as to manage climate change and develop agreements to replace Kyoto, he said that the situation is both urgent and dire. A failure to act will lead to the loss of several Pacific islands, over twenty eight million climate change refugees and further challenges to the developed and developing world.
Senator Kerry, Chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoes these kinds of concerns in his urging of his fellow senators to act on the climate change bill now before it. Citing pandemics, drought, an increase in natural disasters, famine, the rise in sea level and a fall in water supplies in the Middle East and Asia, he claimed that all of these had their root cause in climate change.
These statements, and others like them, are the prelude to the multilateral talks in Copenhagen. These talks already look likely to fail, with India and China not playing ball with the US and Europe on specific cuts in emissions or on a technology transfer fund to move technology quickly and at low cost from the developed world to the developing world. Australia, seen at one point as a deal maker, cannot secure its own legislation and Canada remains skeptical about the rhetoric. The US, with a climate change alarmist as President, is still struggling to pass modest legislation on emissions and is focusing instead on the economic mechanism of cap and trade – something unlikely to have any significant impact on emissions. We can expect more rhetoric, both from politicians and stealth campaigners masquerading as scientists in the next three and half months as the prospect for a significant agreement in Copenhagen receed and the likelihood of the environmental lobby being disappointed again.
They were deeply disappointed by the G8 summit held in July. Expecting a significant commitment to 2020 emissions targets and an agreement to a post-Kyoto framework, all that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth secured was a statement that the G8 leaders agreed, in principle, that the climate should not be allowed to heat up more than 2 degrees above its current levels. No suggestion as to how temperature increases may be constrained and no commitments, other than those already made, to any new mechanisms for the management of climate change strategy.
Meanwhile, evidence is accumulating that the $78 billion spent by the US government on climate change research and mitigation technologies may not be a wise investment. Recent data shows that the IPCC projection of CO2 concentrations reaching 836 ppmv by 2100 are exaggerated and are unlikely to rise much beyond 570 by 2100; seal level is not rising at anything like the levels the IPCC projected and are in fact stable around the Maldives, Tuvalu and other Pacific islands; sea ice in the Antarctic is expanding and the sea ice in the Arctic is within normal ranges at this point in the sea ice cycle; the polar bear population is stable and large and, as a final straw, the earth continues to cool. Actual data do not follow the alarmist levels anticipated by the computer models on which the IPCC makes most of its scenario statements.
Given the economic slow-down and other factors, the G8 target of no more than a 2 degree rise in temperature is within our reach – current projections are for the global mean temperature to rise by app. 2.5 degrees by 2100, with no warming taking place for a decade and a half since 1995, this may be a pessimistic estimate. The oceans are not warming, hurricane activity is the lowest since satellite monitoring began and wind caused catastrophes in North America show no upward or downward trend since the 1950’s.
Since real data suggests that there is an exaggerated sense of alarm, fuelled by those receiving much of the $78 billion in climate change cash from the US Government and a further €100 billion from the European Union (Exxon Mobil has spent less than $2.25 million a year on climate change science, despite the claim that it is fuelling skepticism), it is likely that a failure in Copenhagen will be of little consequence, except politically. Reputations have been built on fear, but when the emperor is shown to have no clothes, fear has a habit of going away. There will be some kind of statement in Copenhagen, but it will not be the one envisaged two years ago when work on this global summit began.
Senator Kerry, Chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoes these kinds of concerns in his urging of his fellow senators to act on the climate change bill now before it. Citing pandemics, drought, an increase in natural disasters, famine, the rise in sea level and a fall in water supplies in the Middle East and Asia, he claimed that all of these had their root cause in climate change.
These statements, and others like them, are the prelude to the multilateral talks in Copenhagen. These talks already look likely to fail, with India and China not playing ball with the US and Europe on specific cuts in emissions or on a technology transfer fund to move technology quickly and at low cost from the developed world to the developing world. Australia, seen at one point as a deal maker, cannot secure its own legislation and Canada remains skeptical about the rhetoric. The US, with a climate change alarmist as President, is still struggling to pass modest legislation on emissions and is focusing instead on the economic mechanism of cap and trade – something unlikely to have any significant impact on emissions. We can expect more rhetoric, both from politicians and stealth campaigners masquerading as scientists in the next three and half months as the prospect for a significant agreement in Copenhagen receed and the likelihood of the environmental lobby being disappointed again.
They were deeply disappointed by the G8 summit held in July. Expecting a significant commitment to 2020 emissions targets and an agreement to a post-Kyoto framework, all that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth secured was a statement that the G8 leaders agreed, in principle, that the climate should not be allowed to heat up more than 2 degrees above its current levels. No suggestion as to how temperature increases may be constrained and no commitments, other than those already made, to any new mechanisms for the management of climate change strategy.
Meanwhile, evidence is accumulating that the $78 billion spent by the US government on climate change research and mitigation technologies may not be a wise investment. Recent data shows that the IPCC projection of CO2 concentrations reaching 836 ppmv by 2100 are exaggerated and are unlikely to rise much beyond 570 by 2100; seal level is not rising at anything like the levels the IPCC projected and are in fact stable around the Maldives, Tuvalu and other Pacific islands; sea ice in the Antarctic is expanding and the sea ice in the Arctic is within normal ranges at this point in the sea ice cycle; the polar bear population is stable and large and, as a final straw, the earth continues to cool. Actual data do not follow the alarmist levels anticipated by the computer models on which the IPCC makes most of its scenario statements.
Given the economic slow-down and other factors, the G8 target of no more than a 2 degree rise in temperature is within our reach – current projections are for the global mean temperature to rise by app. 2.5 degrees by 2100, with no warming taking place for a decade and a half since 1995, this may be a pessimistic estimate. The oceans are not warming, hurricane activity is the lowest since satellite monitoring began and wind caused catastrophes in North America show no upward or downward trend since the 1950’s.
Since real data suggests that there is an exaggerated sense of alarm, fuelled by those receiving much of the $78 billion in climate change cash from the US Government and a further €100 billion from the European Union (Exxon Mobil has spent less than $2.25 million a year on climate change science, despite the claim that it is fuelling skepticism), it is likely that a failure in Copenhagen will be of little consequence, except politically. Reputations have been built on fear, but when the emperor is shown to have no clothes, fear has a habit of going away. There will be some kind of statement in Copenhagen, but it will not be the one envisaged two years ago when work on this global summit began.
Misinformation and Public Policy
Much is being made of misinformation and organized disinformation in the health care debate in the US. The Sarah Palin “death panel” that will determine who lives and who dies, the government “take over” of health care as the new socialism and the threat to seniors from $500 billion cut to Medicare are all examples of misinformation.
Yet those of us who take a rational, measured approach to climate change are used to this. One side – in this case the climate change alarmists like Al Gore, James Hansen and the IPCC – use carefully selected “evidence”, exaggerate it, ignore actual data and then proclaim truth.
One example of this is the claim that many locations in the world will be under water due to rising sea levels, caused by melting ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. Sea levels will rise, according to the IPCC models and other projections, covering islands like Tuvalu (“the first casualty” according to most accounts) and the Maldives.
But the actual measurement of sea levels at all of the normal locations mentioned by the alarmists show no significant sea rise since 1992. In fact, the sea level is virtually constant. In the Maldives, a reconstruction of sea level data for the past 2,600 years show that, at various times, the sea level has been some 20cm higher than it is at the present time and that, since it fell in 1970, there has been no significant rise in sea levels in the Maldives.
Another location for Gore-like catastrophe is Nederlands – lowland Holland. In the past century the sea level in Nederlands has risen 20cm but there is no evidence of an accelerated rise in sea level since the mid 20th century and sea defenses continue to be constructed – something which the Dutch are very good at.
Sea levels rises are not a threat. Polar bears are thriving. The earth is cooling. When is actual evidence going to be used and policy is based, not on misinformation, but on established facts and a commitment to climate adaptation?
Yet those of us who take a rational, measured approach to climate change are used to this. One side – in this case the climate change alarmists like Al Gore, James Hansen and the IPCC – use carefully selected “evidence”, exaggerate it, ignore actual data and then proclaim truth.
One example of this is the claim that many locations in the world will be under water due to rising sea levels, caused by melting ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. Sea levels will rise, according to the IPCC models and other projections, covering islands like Tuvalu (“the first casualty” according to most accounts) and the Maldives.
But the actual measurement of sea levels at all of the normal locations mentioned by the alarmists show no significant sea rise since 1992. In fact, the sea level is virtually constant. In the Maldives, a reconstruction of sea level data for the past 2,600 years show that, at various times, the sea level has been some 20cm higher than it is at the present time and that, since it fell in 1970, there has been no significant rise in sea levels in the Maldives.
Another location for Gore-like catastrophe is Nederlands – lowland Holland. In the past century the sea level in Nederlands has risen 20cm but there is no evidence of an accelerated rise in sea level since the mid 20th century and sea defenses continue to be constructed – something which the Dutch are very good at.
Sea levels rises are not a threat. Polar bears are thriving. The earth is cooling. When is actual evidence going to be used and policy is based, not on misinformation, but on established facts and a commitment to climate adaptation?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Reforming Health Care in the US - Lessons in How Not to Manage Change
Sarah Palin is promoting the strange idea that the Obama health care reform includes a provision for Government agents to visit the elderly and determine when and how they should die. The so called “death panel” does not exist, has never existed nor could it ever pass a vote in any legislature in North America. Yet some seemingly smart people are convinced it is in the Bill now before congress.
One reason there is so much passion and anxiety about health care reform is that we can all imagine ourselves needing care, especially those of us who have needed care in an emergency. When someone threatens to change what we think we have as a right or service, we naturally get concerned. When the changes are not well understood, all that happens is that anxiety increases, passions are inflamed and rumours replace information as the basis of public concerns.
We see this is spades in the debates now raging across the US. In addition to the death panel rumour, there are also concerns that the bill will lead to the US Government being the single payer in health care – what some call socialized medicine, which is also not true. If the bill that passes congress continues to include a public insurance option – the Government offering a plan which individuals can opt into – it is also unlikely to significantly impact the private health care insurance business, which has profits last year of $30 billion.
The bill before congress contains the intention to limit the type of medical procedures that the government would fund in a government program and through Medicare and Medicaid (both government runs programs, along with the Veteran health programs). Opponents of the plan don't want the government to fund any procedures. So, how is restricting the procedures funded through a government plan rationing? Anyone who wants to is entirely free to buy as much health care as they want outside of the government-subsidized plan. However, many of the supporters of the Bill have signaled a willingness to drop the public insurance option.
Another compromise that the White House has already agreed to is a back-room deal with the pharmaceutical companies to limit the extent of cost cutting for drugs – one of the fastest growing costs of health care – to no more than $80 billion. Also included is an agreement to ban the import of lower costs drugs from Canada. These arrangements limit the extent to which reforms will reduce health care costs over time.
There is a claim, this time by the proponents of the Bill, that doing nothing is not an option, since the costs of health care are running “out of control”. The projected $1 trillion cost over the next decade is equal to about 0.5 percent of US GDP, less than half of the cost of Iraq-Afghanistan wars at their peak. The $250 billion ten-year shortfall that Congress is struggling to fill is a bit more than 0.1 percent of GDP - a rounding error in the total budget approved by the US congress.
The focus, at least during the Presidential campaign, was on ensuring that the 46 million Americans who do not currently have access to health care insurance would do so as a result of the changes Obama and the congress propose. The bill now before congress would help some people have access, but would not reach all of these disenfranchised health seekers – at best it may help an additional 10 million. Obama claims that an additional 36 million may benefit, but few support the math behind this claim.
When we watch the town-hall meetings, we can see the passion and the concerns. We can also see the division between the right and left, the informed and the ignorant and the hysterical and the calm. Anyone wanting to secure real change in health care will need to do a much better job of explaining, without seeking to score political points, what it is they wish to change, why they wish to change and what the implications of that change will be on different groups in the community. Until this happens – and it is not happening yet in the US – decisions will be made on the basis of rumour, innuendo and guesswork. A responsible media would help to improve the quality of debate.
In Canada, we will also need to look at changes in health care over the coming decade. We should watch with interest what happens when reforms are attempted and how vested interests seek to manage and control the debate. It makes for entertaining news, but is also disturbing.
One reason there is so much passion and anxiety about health care reform is that we can all imagine ourselves needing care, especially those of us who have needed care in an emergency. When someone threatens to change what we think we have as a right or service, we naturally get concerned. When the changes are not well understood, all that happens is that anxiety increases, passions are inflamed and rumours replace information as the basis of public concerns.
We see this is spades in the debates now raging across the US. In addition to the death panel rumour, there are also concerns that the bill will lead to the US Government being the single payer in health care – what some call socialized medicine, which is also not true. If the bill that passes congress continues to include a public insurance option – the Government offering a plan which individuals can opt into – it is also unlikely to significantly impact the private health care insurance business, which has profits last year of $30 billion.
The bill before congress contains the intention to limit the type of medical procedures that the government would fund in a government program and through Medicare and Medicaid (both government runs programs, along with the Veteran health programs). Opponents of the plan don't want the government to fund any procedures. So, how is restricting the procedures funded through a government plan rationing? Anyone who wants to is entirely free to buy as much health care as they want outside of the government-subsidized plan. However, many of the supporters of the Bill have signaled a willingness to drop the public insurance option.
Another compromise that the White House has already agreed to is a back-room deal with the pharmaceutical companies to limit the extent of cost cutting for drugs – one of the fastest growing costs of health care – to no more than $80 billion. Also included is an agreement to ban the import of lower costs drugs from Canada. These arrangements limit the extent to which reforms will reduce health care costs over time.
There is a claim, this time by the proponents of the Bill, that doing nothing is not an option, since the costs of health care are running “out of control”. The projected $1 trillion cost over the next decade is equal to about 0.5 percent of US GDP, less than half of the cost of Iraq-Afghanistan wars at their peak. The $250 billion ten-year shortfall that Congress is struggling to fill is a bit more than 0.1 percent of GDP - a rounding error in the total budget approved by the US congress.
The focus, at least during the Presidential campaign, was on ensuring that the 46 million Americans who do not currently have access to health care insurance would do so as a result of the changes Obama and the congress propose. The bill now before congress would help some people have access, but would not reach all of these disenfranchised health seekers – at best it may help an additional 10 million. Obama claims that an additional 36 million may benefit, but few support the math behind this claim.
When we watch the town-hall meetings, we can see the passion and the concerns. We can also see the division between the right and left, the informed and the ignorant and the hysterical and the calm. Anyone wanting to secure real change in health care will need to do a much better job of explaining, without seeking to score political points, what it is they wish to change, why they wish to change and what the implications of that change will be on different groups in the community. Until this happens – and it is not happening yet in the US – decisions will be made on the basis of rumour, innuendo and guesswork. A responsible media would help to improve the quality of debate.
In Canada, we will also need to look at changes in health care over the coming decade. We should watch with interest what happens when reforms are attempted and how vested interests seek to manage and control the debate. It makes for entertaining news, but is also disturbing.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Peak Oil ? - Nonsense
Several reports circulated in the last two weeks about “peak oil” – oil production in established fields now declining, not just because of OPEC constraints on production, but also because the quantity of oil available from these sources has passed peak production and will decline steadily. Some predicted that there was less than a decade of oil left.
Nonsense. According to most established analysts, there are some forty years of conventional oil supplies available from proven reserves, New fields are now coming on stream, including the new Kuharis field in Saudi Arabia, which contains about half the oil that has been pumped from the North Sea. New discoveries of conventional oil occur all the time, the most recent of which is in Uganda which, according to one observer, is almost as large as the Saudi oil fields. Then there is the oil sands – Alberta has the equivalent of 175 billion barrels of oil tied up in tar and there are other oil sands and oil shale operations globally.
From a fuel point of view, there is also a need to look at coal and gas. With new technologies liberating natural gas from shale, gas production has grown exponentially – up 48% in the US alone last year. Coal is also abundant.
So talk of peak oil is nonsense and some have recently argued that we will be entering a period of significantly lower energy costs until, that is, the climate change levies are applied.
Nonsense. According to most established analysts, there are some forty years of conventional oil supplies available from proven reserves, New fields are now coming on stream, including the new Kuharis field in Saudi Arabia, which contains about half the oil that has been pumped from the North Sea. New discoveries of conventional oil occur all the time, the most recent of which is in Uganda which, according to one observer, is almost as large as the Saudi oil fields. Then there is the oil sands – Alberta has the equivalent of 175 billion barrels of oil tied up in tar and there are other oil sands and oil shale operations globally.
From a fuel point of view, there is also a need to look at coal and gas. With new technologies liberating natural gas from shale, gas production has grown exponentially – up 48% in the US alone last year. Coal is also abundant.
So talk of peak oil is nonsense and some have recently argued that we will be entering a period of significantly lower energy costs until, that is, the climate change levies are applied.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Economic Recovery Will Be Slow
There are some limited signs that some key aspects of our current economic challenges are beginning to shift. Car sales, especially in Western Canada, are again growing but are not back to the boom levels of 2008. Shipbuilding is stimulated by a major purchase from the Government of Canada. Houses are selling and mortgages are being offered. Some areas of retail – especially fast food and cinema going – are also recovering. Oil prices are settling at around $65 a barrel, though are subject to fluctuation. But, as the Canadian Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty observed, this is not a recovery, these are just “green shoots”. Economic bears can trample green shoots.
There are signs of the bears trampling around the Canadian economy. Manufacturing, especially in Ontario, continues to be troubling. Protectionism, which world leaders condemned at the April G20 summit, continues to grow and is impacting steel and lumber. Some industries face permanent structural change – the forest industries, car manufacture, technology and financial services. There are new regulatory and tax issues facing business – significant new restrictions and controls on banks and financial services, carbon taxation and environmental regulations, new reporting requirements, such as carbon footprint labeling or life-time tracking of animals in the food chain.
It is also likely that other actions of government, required to respond to their growing indebtedness, will have an impact on the economy. Cuts to government services and tax increases, labour disputes over contracts and a significant attempt to raise new funds in the bond markets will all take their toll on the economy. One key outcome of government action is likely to be inflation. The more bonds being sold to pay for the debts and deficits incurred in the attempt to “stimulate” the economies of the world, the more bond buyers will be able to demand better rates of return. As bond rates increase so do base rates and inflation follows. Interest rates for mortgages and borrowing will then rise. As this cycle continues, inflation occurs. Inflation will show or, worse, stall the recovery.
Another possible development is what is known as a jobless recovery. Companies have laid off workers to survive the recession. As the economy recovers and firms begin to see profits return, they realize that they can operate without having to incur the same labour costs they incurred during the 2007-8 boom. The unemployed remain jobless while companies grow. This is especially the case in some service sectors and in manufacturing. As some sectors consolidate – companies merge or acquire their rivals in an effort to grow their way out of difficulties – fewer jobs are required as duplication and inefficiencies are removed from the market.
Banks are cautious and need to continue to be cautious. They have some toxic assets on their books and need to restore their margins and manage their loan portfolios carefully. They should not be lending to people or businesses who have less than a strong opportunity to meet the conditions of their loans. This is a good thing, despite the pressure from governments to increase lending. Responsible lending is the hallmark of sound banking.
It will take time for the economy to rebalance itself, though it is already recovering faster than many predicted in the early months of 2009. What is clear is that recovery does not mean going back to the way it was before the recession. We are seeing is a major correction of the economy and the industries and firms within it. When the next shoe drops – paying for all of the government actions to stimulate the economy – there will be further adjustments. We are likely to see a period of austerity before we see the return of the good times. This is why savings are growing and why the recovery will be slower than many hope for.
There are signs of the bears trampling around the Canadian economy. Manufacturing, especially in Ontario, continues to be troubling. Protectionism, which world leaders condemned at the April G20 summit, continues to grow and is impacting steel and lumber. Some industries face permanent structural change – the forest industries, car manufacture, technology and financial services. There are new regulatory and tax issues facing business – significant new restrictions and controls on banks and financial services, carbon taxation and environmental regulations, new reporting requirements, such as carbon footprint labeling or life-time tracking of animals in the food chain.
It is also likely that other actions of government, required to respond to their growing indebtedness, will have an impact on the economy. Cuts to government services and tax increases, labour disputes over contracts and a significant attempt to raise new funds in the bond markets will all take their toll on the economy. One key outcome of government action is likely to be inflation. The more bonds being sold to pay for the debts and deficits incurred in the attempt to “stimulate” the economies of the world, the more bond buyers will be able to demand better rates of return. As bond rates increase so do base rates and inflation follows. Interest rates for mortgages and borrowing will then rise. As this cycle continues, inflation occurs. Inflation will show or, worse, stall the recovery.
Another possible development is what is known as a jobless recovery. Companies have laid off workers to survive the recession. As the economy recovers and firms begin to see profits return, they realize that they can operate without having to incur the same labour costs they incurred during the 2007-8 boom. The unemployed remain jobless while companies grow. This is especially the case in some service sectors and in manufacturing. As some sectors consolidate – companies merge or acquire their rivals in an effort to grow their way out of difficulties – fewer jobs are required as duplication and inefficiencies are removed from the market.
Banks are cautious and need to continue to be cautious. They have some toxic assets on their books and need to restore their margins and manage their loan portfolios carefully. They should not be lending to people or businesses who have less than a strong opportunity to meet the conditions of their loans. This is a good thing, despite the pressure from governments to increase lending. Responsible lending is the hallmark of sound banking.
It will take time for the economy to rebalance itself, though it is already recovering faster than many predicted in the early months of 2009. What is clear is that recovery does not mean going back to the way it was before the recession. We are seeing is a major correction of the economy and the industries and firms within it. When the next shoe drops – paying for all of the government actions to stimulate the economy – there will be further adjustments. We are likely to see a period of austerity before we see the return of the good times. This is why savings are growing and why the recovery will be slower than many hope for.
Monday, July 27, 2009
What's Next for Labour ?
In late September, Gordon Brown will face the Labour Party in Conference in Brighton, England. The following week David Cameron will face the Conservative Party in Conference in Manchester. Both will be interesting events.
Gordon Brown has survived several attempted very British attempts to oust him as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party. He survived through a variety of means, including threats, bribery through the offering of positions and promises. The key promise he has made several times in his career is that he will be changed and chastened by “recent events”. The most recent event was the loss of a parliamentary seat in a by-election in Norwich. Formerly a safe Labour Seat with a 7,000 voter majority, it is now a Conservative seat with a 5,000 voter majority – a significant loss. Brown has again vowed to change. No one expects him to do anything different. He is a lost cause.
David Cameron, who was careful not to gloat over the Norwich victory, has won a lot of support for his commitment to increase taxes and reduce public expenditure by cutting programs. The strategy is simple: tell the truth about debt, deficit and excess in government and then offer to be the guide to a more responsible and austere future. He has already identified several ways to reduce the size of government – reducing the number of quasi-governmental organizations (Labour created over 1,000 of these since coming to office), reducing duplication and inefficiency and then cutting programs that do not enhance the quality of life or are not valued by their “customers”. There is a strong appetite for “responsible, lean government” and Cameron has become the champion of this message.
Labour continues to believe that the next election will be fought over a simple ideological battle. Labour will position itself as a caring government that will continue to invest in public services, while they brand the Conservative as a mean bunch of business men who are in in politics to line the pockets of their business friends. The Conservatives will label Labour as not working and is profligate in public spending. They will point to a slow recovery from recession, 20% unemployment for people aged 18-24 and the largest debt load since the end of the second world war and point to the facts. Provided no serious gaffes occur, the Conservative Party will form the next government.
In July, the Conservatives are some fifteen points ahead of Labour in the latest survey of voting intentions – a lead that would give them a 72 seat majority. Some polls have the Tory lead much stronger. The election will be held sometime between this coming October and May 2010. The Norwich by-election suggested that voters would show their distaste for politics by either not showing – less than 50% of voters participated in the election – or by voting strategically, including voting for “other parties”. In the most recent polls, Labour may have to fight for second place with the Liberal Democrats, who are just five points behind Labour.
A lot can happen in ten months – Harold Wilson, a former British Prime Minister, observed that “a week is a long time in politics”. There are likely to be events which will permit Gordon Brown to show his skills in making difficult decisions under pressure – as he showed on a number of occasions early in his Premiership. There will also be dangerous moments for David Cameron – a slip of the tongue, dissent within his party, a wrong-footed policy can all quickly create what has come to be known as “reverse momentum” or “slippage”. But the die is cast. It’s a
Conservative victory that is now theirs to loose.
One development could help Labour. If the European Union finally manages to secure its constitution – known as the Lisbon Treaty – after forcing the Irish to vote again and Tony Blair becomes the first President of the EU, then he would have a pulpit to support the ailing “New” Labour Party which he re-launched with Gordon Brown and Peter (now Lord) Mandelson in 1994. Blair is an eloquent, charismatic leader and could do much to revive the fortunes of the governing party in Britain. He would need to take care not to be seen to interfere, but there are ways in which this could be done.
But this is a long-shot. Brown is done and his party recognize that their days of power are numbered. A number of senior figures have already indicated that they will not be running in the next election and many others are looking at the back-benches as a place of respite from the tribulations of governance. Some are considering when to begin their run at the leadership, vacant already in all but name. Most of all, Labour politicians are settling their financial affairs and considering life after politics. Gordon Brown is probably polishing his resume. If he isn’t, he should be.
Gordon Brown has survived several attempted very British attempts to oust him as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party. He survived through a variety of means, including threats, bribery through the offering of positions and promises. The key promise he has made several times in his career is that he will be changed and chastened by “recent events”. The most recent event was the loss of a parliamentary seat in a by-election in Norwich. Formerly a safe Labour Seat with a 7,000 voter majority, it is now a Conservative seat with a 5,000 voter majority – a significant loss. Brown has again vowed to change. No one expects him to do anything different. He is a lost cause.
David Cameron, who was careful not to gloat over the Norwich victory, has won a lot of support for his commitment to increase taxes and reduce public expenditure by cutting programs. The strategy is simple: tell the truth about debt, deficit and excess in government and then offer to be the guide to a more responsible and austere future. He has already identified several ways to reduce the size of government – reducing the number of quasi-governmental organizations (Labour created over 1,000 of these since coming to office), reducing duplication and inefficiency and then cutting programs that do not enhance the quality of life or are not valued by their “customers”. There is a strong appetite for “responsible, lean government” and Cameron has become the champion of this message.
Labour continues to believe that the next election will be fought over a simple ideological battle. Labour will position itself as a caring government that will continue to invest in public services, while they brand the Conservative as a mean bunch of business men who are in in politics to line the pockets of their business friends. The Conservatives will label Labour as not working and is profligate in public spending. They will point to a slow recovery from recession, 20% unemployment for people aged 18-24 and the largest debt load since the end of the second world war and point to the facts. Provided no serious gaffes occur, the Conservative Party will form the next government.
In July, the Conservatives are some fifteen points ahead of Labour in the latest survey of voting intentions – a lead that would give them a 72 seat majority. Some polls have the Tory lead much stronger. The election will be held sometime between this coming October and May 2010. The Norwich by-election suggested that voters would show their distaste for politics by either not showing – less than 50% of voters participated in the election – or by voting strategically, including voting for “other parties”. In the most recent polls, Labour may have to fight for second place with the Liberal Democrats, who are just five points behind Labour.
A lot can happen in ten months – Harold Wilson, a former British Prime Minister, observed that “a week is a long time in politics”. There are likely to be events which will permit Gordon Brown to show his skills in making difficult decisions under pressure – as he showed on a number of occasions early in his Premiership. There will also be dangerous moments for David Cameron – a slip of the tongue, dissent within his party, a wrong-footed policy can all quickly create what has come to be known as “reverse momentum” or “slippage”. But the die is cast. It’s a
Conservative victory that is now theirs to loose.
One development could help Labour. If the European Union finally manages to secure its constitution – known as the Lisbon Treaty – after forcing the Irish to vote again and Tony Blair becomes the first President of the EU, then he would have a pulpit to support the ailing “New” Labour Party which he re-launched with Gordon Brown and Peter (now Lord) Mandelson in 1994. Blair is an eloquent, charismatic leader and could do much to revive the fortunes of the governing party in Britain. He would need to take care not to be seen to interfere, but there are ways in which this could be done.
But this is a long-shot. Brown is done and his party recognize that their days of power are numbered. A number of senior figures have already indicated that they will not be running in the next election and many others are looking at the back-benches as a place of respite from the tribulations of governance. Some are considering when to begin their run at the leadership, vacant already in all but name. Most of all, Labour politicians are settling their financial affairs and considering life after politics. Gordon Brown is probably polishing his resume. If he isn’t, he should be.
The Truth About the IPCC
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is seen by some as an independent, scientific body which provides objective analysis of the climate and offers predictions about the future – predictions which then inform government policies around the world. This perception, carefully fostered over many years, is false.
The IPCC is a political agency, directed by politically supported bureaucrats who selectively use science to promote a political agenda.
Let us outline how the IPCC works. First, a small select group of bureaucrats define the agenda for the work of the panel. The focus for this work has always been on the human causes of climate change – they have never been in the business of systematically reviewing all of the causes of climate variation. Second, having defined the agenda – in 1990, there were three lines of inquiry determined by the panel. For each agenda, a team of scientists are asked to coordinate a review of the available evidence. Each “chapter” is directed by a lead author, supported by a small group of five or six lead members. Some 2,500 people are involved in this work. While some are experts in their field, others are not. For example, in the 1996 report on health and climate, one lead author was an expert in the impact of motorcycle helmets on accidents rates. Some are environmental activists with no science background and others are scientists whose interest are narrowly defined and in line with the views of the lead author.
So, scientists review evidence and the lead authors shape this evidence into so-called scientific chapters. It is commonly said that 2,500 scientists wrote the last IPCC report. In fact, there wee 1,190 who contributed and not all of them were scientists – many were political appointments, environmental activists or individuals with a vested interest in the outcomes. The actual texts we read were written by 35 scientists and not all of those whose work they summarized agree with the summaries.
The document most people see and read – especially government officials and Ministers – is known as the Summary for Policy Makers. This document is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats, aided by lead authors. The draft of this document is submitted to UN member governments who can insist that changes be made. Scientists who write the bulk of the final report do not see these drafts and have no avenue to correct errors that creep in during this governmental review process. And errors and misrepresentations do occur. For example, the 2007 Summary for Policy Makers contains errors of substance, for example in the way it represents the threat of malaria resulting from climate change. There is also poor and shoddy work in several reports, including the discredited “hockey stick diagram”.
Many assume that the Summary for Policy Makers is a summary of the consensus view of the scientists who have chosen to associate themselves with the IPCC. It is not.
Indeed, several IPCC authors have resigned as a result of the Summary misrepresenting their views and the views of others. The Summary for Policy Makers is the consensus view of Governments who have a variety of socio-economic and political agendas.
It is also assumed that the IPCC makes predictions. It does not. What they do offer is a set of scenarios based on climate computer models which, as the IPCC themselves admit, are limited in their ability to model climate. These scenarios provide speculative views of the future, based on certain key assumptions. These assumptions do not include any weighting for human adaptability, any significant role of sunspots, the earth’s orbit and tilt and several other factors which are known to impact climate. They also give undue emphasis to certain phenomenon – CO2 emissions, for example – over others. The climate models are a work in progress. They are also flawed.
In Plimer, in his book Heaven and Earth, also cites examples of data being fabricated to support global warming alarmism by IPCC authors (see especially pages 481-483). In one cases, legal measures to secure access to the data had to be used so that the claims made by the IPCC authors could be subject to peer review. In this peer review, where the data was subject to scrutiny, the evidence showed that urbanization has a significant impact on temperature data – something the IPCC said was not the case. Integrity and normal scientific processes are not the norm in many IPCC supported studies.
A great many peer reviewed scientific studies contradict the IPCC’s view of climate, climate change and its consequences and these are summarized in the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The existence of these studies, and the different implications they give rise to for governments, speaks to the selective use of scientific work by the IPCC.
The view that the IPCC represents the consensus of science is not an established fact. The view that the IPCC is an independent science-driven body providing “neutral” evaluative assessments is a naïve view of the work of this United Nations governmental body. The view that this organization offers a thoroughgoing review of the current state of the science of climate change is contradicted by many different sources. The view that the IPCC uses process which are imbued with integrity and the best practices of science is laughable. We should see the IPCC for what it is – a politically motivated and supported UN organization.
The IPCC is a political agency, directed by politically supported bureaucrats who selectively use science to promote a political agenda.
Let us outline how the IPCC works. First, a small select group of bureaucrats define the agenda for the work of the panel. The focus for this work has always been on the human causes of climate change – they have never been in the business of systematically reviewing all of the causes of climate variation. Second, having defined the agenda – in 1990, there were three lines of inquiry determined by the panel. For each agenda, a team of scientists are asked to coordinate a review of the available evidence. Each “chapter” is directed by a lead author, supported by a small group of five or six lead members. Some 2,500 people are involved in this work. While some are experts in their field, others are not. For example, in the 1996 report on health and climate, one lead author was an expert in the impact of motorcycle helmets on accidents rates. Some are environmental activists with no science background and others are scientists whose interest are narrowly defined and in line with the views of the lead author.
So, scientists review evidence and the lead authors shape this evidence into so-called scientific chapters. It is commonly said that 2,500 scientists wrote the last IPCC report. In fact, there wee 1,190 who contributed and not all of them were scientists – many were political appointments, environmental activists or individuals with a vested interest in the outcomes. The actual texts we read were written by 35 scientists and not all of those whose work they summarized agree with the summaries.
The document most people see and read – especially government officials and Ministers – is known as the Summary for Policy Makers. This document is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats, aided by lead authors. The draft of this document is submitted to UN member governments who can insist that changes be made. Scientists who write the bulk of the final report do not see these drafts and have no avenue to correct errors that creep in during this governmental review process. And errors and misrepresentations do occur. For example, the 2007 Summary for Policy Makers contains errors of substance, for example in the way it represents the threat of malaria resulting from climate change. There is also poor and shoddy work in several reports, including the discredited “hockey stick diagram”.
Many assume that the Summary for Policy Makers is a summary of the consensus view of the scientists who have chosen to associate themselves with the IPCC. It is not.
Indeed, several IPCC authors have resigned as a result of the Summary misrepresenting their views and the views of others. The Summary for Policy Makers is the consensus view of Governments who have a variety of socio-economic and political agendas.
It is also assumed that the IPCC makes predictions. It does not. What they do offer is a set of scenarios based on climate computer models which, as the IPCC themselves admit, are limited in their ability to model climate. These scenarios provide speculative views of the future, based on certain key assumptions. These assumptions do not include any weighting for human adaptability, any significant role of sunspots, the earth’s orbit and tilt and several other factors which are known to impact climate. They also give undue emphasis to certain phenomenon – CO2 emissions, for example – over others. The climate models are a work in progress. They are also flawed.
In Plimer, in his book Heaven and Earth, also cites examples of data being fabricated to support global warming alarmism by IPCC authors (see especially pages 481-483). In one cases, legal measures to secure access to the data had to be used so that the claims made by the IPCC authors could be subject to peer review. In this peer review, where the data was subject to scrutiny, the evidence showed that urbanization has a significant impact on temperature data – something the IPCC said was not the case. Integrity and normal scientific processes are not the norm in many IPCC supported studies.
A great many peer reviewed scientific studies contradict the IPCC’s view of climate, climate change and its consequences and these are summarized in the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The existence of these studies, and the different implications they give rise to for governments, speaks to the selective use of scientific work by the IPCC.
The view that the IPCC represents the consensus of science is not an established fact. The view that the IPCC is an independent science-driven body providing “neutral” evaluative assessments is a naïve view of the work of this United Nations governmental body. The view that this organization offers a thoroughgoing review of the current state of the science of climate change is contradicted by many different sources. The view that the IPCC uses process which are imbued with integrity and the best practices of science is laughable. We should see the IPCC for what it is – a politically motivated and supported UN organization.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Post Carbon Economy
The Centre for Climate Change Strategy, which is advising the Obama administration, recommends the following policies:
* Carbon taxes
* Dramatically increase state gas taxes
* Vehicle taxes based on gas mileage
* Subsidize inefficient "renewable" energy sources
* Electricity fees to subsidize energy "efficiency"
* Green energy requirements (Renewable Portfolio Standards)
* Require "Smart Growth" city planning
* Mandate "green" principles in states' K-12 curriculum
* Mandatory percentage of gas taxes to inefficient mass transit
* Surcharges based on vehicle fuel efficiency
This is not a list of choices, they see that all of these need to implemented at the same time. Nor all of these are in the CLimate Change Bill now at the Senate - but several are. Who says this will not lead to a major change in the way the US operates?
* Carbon taxes
* Dramatically increase state gas taxes
* Vehicle taxes based on gas mileage
* Subsidize inefficient "renewable" energy sources
* Electricity fees to subsidize energy "efficiency"
* Green energy requirements (Renewable Portfolio Standards)
* Require "Smart Growth" city planning
* Mandate "green" principles in states' K-12 curriculum
* Mandatory percentage of gas taxes to inefficient mass transit
* Surcharges based on vehicle fuel efficiency
This is not a list of choices, they see that all of these need to implemented at the same time. Nor all of these are in the CLimate Change Bill now at the Senate - but several are. Who says this will not lead to a major change in the way the US operates?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Rushing To Tell a Story
Barrack Obama is in a rush. By the end of July and before Congress recesses for August, he wants two pieces of legislation: his Health Care Reform Bill and the Climate Change Bill. Both look problematic.
Obama’s position is simple. If he rushes through these two Bills, he will have room to use the regulatory processes of Government to determine what they actually mean. If he accedes to the growing demands from his own party to delay on both Bills, the legislators will read them and realize that they are full of holes and very problematic. He will loose momentum and the Bills will likely be delayed indefinitely. His strategy: poorly written legislation is better than no legislation at all.
Both bills involve both new taxes and major regulatory changes for industry, families and communities. The Climate Change Bill will significantly increase the costs of transportation, energy and food and will raise, over a decade, some $600 billion in new tax revenue. The Health Care Bill is likely to cost $1 trillion and be funded through new taxes on a large swath of the American people, especially those earning $300,000 or more. He is willing to sacrifice a campaign pledge on taxation to get the health care reform he thinks he needs.
The Bills are poorly written and have not been read by most of the members of Congress. The Climate Change Bill is 1,400 pages long and contains major challenges for industry, State and Municipal governments and for the ordinary tax payer. It contains, in addition to a cap and trade provision, a job offset provision worth around $34 billion to cover the retraining costs of energy workers laid off as a result of the Bill. When Sarah Palin drew attention to this in her opinion piece in the Washington Post, the White House initially denied that this provision was in the Bill. They later corrected themselves. The White House hasn’t read the Bill either.
The Health Care Bill, now before the House and yet to reach the Senate, is complex. The Office of Management and Budget is pressing for an urgent decision in the House, despite the hesitation of many democratic representatives and the opposition of republicans. The Democratic National Committee has been running advertising campaigns targeting democratic representatives wanting more time to get better legislation.
Obama will get something. He still is popular, though his popularity is dropping – down to 57% from 64% in just two months. He still can use the power of the office of President to cajole, bribe and force votes in a democratic congress.
But its bad politics and bad legislation. The Climate Change Bill, according to leading climatologists, will have little or no impact on the climate. The Bill is opposed by all leading climate change campaigners, including James Hansen – widely regarded as the doyen of climatology. The Health Care Bill, while extending health care benefits to more Americans, will be excessively expensive. Douglas Elmendorf, chief of the Congressional Budget Office, said this of the leading Democratic health care proposals in the House and Senate: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
We can offer a translation: The Health Care Bill, as it stands, do not meet the president's promise to reduce the long-term drain of health care spending on the federal budget. The need for the proposals to reduce the long-term operating costs of health care was a pre-condition of the legislation set out by Barrack Obama. He has compromised.
What will happen, when this legislation passes through Congress as amended by both Houses, is that they will contain so many compromises, pork barrel deals and watering down of risk that neither will fulfill their initial intention.
Obama, like Brown and Mandelson in Britain and Sarkozy in France, are practicing the new politics. Politicians and the chattering class have abandoned the idea that there is an independent reality “out there” which can be independently verified and assessed. The new political epistemology moves us from truths that can be proven and verified or falsified to narratives that can be constructed. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (according to C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (health care, emission reporting, global warming, economic recovery) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. On both climate change and health care, Obama wants to construct a narrative which, however divorced from the facts, will enable him to claim that he achieved more in a year in the reform of the United States than many of his predecessors did in two terms. This will assure his election for a second term, especially against an unfocused and disorganized opposition.
Rushed legislation is rarely good legislation and tends to be subject to legal challenges and significant delays in making it work. We should not welcome poor legislation, especially that which will change key industries dramatically with consequences yet to be fully understood.
Obama’s position is simple. If he rushes through these two Bills, he will have room to use the regulatory processes of Government to determine what they actually mean. If he accedes to the growing demands from his own party to delay on both Bills, the legislators will read them and realize that they are full of holes and very problematic. He will loose momentum and the Bills will likely be delayed indefinitely. His strategy: poorly written legislation is better than no legislation at all.
Both bills involve both new taxes and major regulatory changes for industry, families and communities. The Climate Change Bill will significantly increase the costs of transportation, energy and food and will raise, over a decade, some $600 billion in new tax revenue. The Health Care Bill is likely to cost $1 trillion and be funded through new taxes on a large swath of the American people, especially those earning $300,000 or more. He is willing to sacrifice a campaign pledge on taxation to get the health care reform he thinks he needs.
The Bills are poorly written and have not been read by most of the members of Congress. The Climate Change Bill is 1,400 pages long and contains major challenges for industry, State and Municipal governments and for the ordinary tax payer. It contains, in addition to a cap and trade provision, a job offset provision worth around $34 billion to cover the retraining costs of energy workers laid off as a result of the Bill. When Sarah Palin drew attention to this in her opinion piece in the Washington Post, the White House initially denied that this provision was in the Bill. They later corrected themselves. The White House hasn’t read the Bill either.
The Health Care Bill, now before the House and yet to reach the Senate, is complex. The Office of Management and Budget is pressing for an urgent decision in the House, despite the hesitation of many democratic representatives and the opposition of republicans. The Democratic National Committee has been running advertising campaigns targeting democratic representatives wanting more time to get better legislation.
Obama will get something. He still is popular, though his popularity is dropping – down to 57% from 64% in just two months. He still can use the power of the office of President to cajole, bribe and force votes in a democratic congress.
But its bad politics and bad legislation. The Climate Change Bill, according to leading climatologists, will have little or no impact on the climate. The Bill is opposed by all leading climate change campaigners, including James Hansen – widely regarded as the doyen of climatology. The Health Care Bill, while extending health care benefits to more Americans, will be excessively expensive. Douglas Elmendorf, chief of the Congressional Budget Office, said this of the leading Democratic health care proposals in the House and Senate: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
We can offer a translation: The Health Care Bill, as it stands, do not meet the president's promise to reduce the long-term drain of health care spending on the federal budget. The need for the proposals to reduce the long-term operating costs of health care was a pre-condition of the legislation set out by Barrack Obama. He has compromised.
What will happen, when this legislation passes through Congress as amended by both Houses, is that they will contain so many compromises, pork barrel deals and watering down of risk that neither will fulfill their initial intention.
Obama, like Brown and Mandelson in Britain and Sarkozy in France, are practicing the new politics. Politicians and the chattering class have abandoned the idea that there is an independent reality “out there” which can be independently verified and assessed. The new political epistemology moves us from truths that can be proven and verified or falsified to narratives that can be constructed. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (according to C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (health care, emission reporting, global warming, economic recovery) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. On both climate change and health care, Obama wants to construct a narrative which, however divorced from the facts, will enable him to claim that he achieved more in a year in the reform of the United States than many of his predecessors did in two terms. This will assure his election for a second term, especially against an unfocused and disorganized opposition.
Rushed legislation is rarely good legislation and tends to be subject to legal challenges and significant delays in making it work. We should not welcome poor legislation, especially that which will change key industries dramatically with consequences yet to be fully understood.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Global Governance
The political reality is simple. Canada in general and Alberta in particular will be hit hard by the US Climate Change legislation, should this pass the US Senate. There are two reasons for this. First, Canada has already said it will fall in line with the broad provisions of the US Bill, especially as they relate to the cap and trade regime. Second, the US Bill will permit the US to charge tariffs at the border for goods arriving in the US from jurisdictions which do not meet the same standards as their own for carbon mitigation. We can read this last provision as a border tax on Alberta’s oil sands products as well as other products, such as lumber.
The US Climate Change bill and its cap and trade scheme will make food, energy and transportation more expensive. Some estimates suggest that the additional costs will be considerable – up to $2500 per year per household. In addition, renewable energy implications of already made Canadian decisions will add to these costs – energy poverty in Canada is set to increase.
Whether or not the US Climate Change bill passes congress is secondary. The political issue here is whether or not we wish our economic strategy to be largely determined by another country or by means of multilateral agreements.
Al Gore, in speeches this last week in both London and Australia, has emphasized that the political response needed to combat the perceived threat of climate change requires a form of global governance. Stephen Harper, speaking after the G8 summit, also said that there would need to be “some kind of global governance”. Plans are already made within the UN for global governance initiatives, including global carbon taxes and taxes of air and road transpiration that would be standardized around the world.
More significantly, multinational blocks of countries – the EU for one – are beginning to operate as single governments representing a number of states. EU law, for example, on a variety of issues supersedes national law. The World Trade Organization rules, binding on members, are also a form of global governance. What we are likely to see is that such forms of global governance will have ceded to them substantial powers to react to climate change policy frameworks agreed by national leaders.
One reason for going global is that national electorates are becoming increasingly skeptical about global warming and the policies being pursued in its name. In Europe, for example, the number of electors now supportive of global warming mitigation policies has fallen from 30% to 18% in just twelve months. A second is that there is growing evidence, based on measurements and emerging science, that the climate change models on which a great many of the climate change fears are based are flawed. A third is that national governments cannot manage the competing vested interests involved in policy formulation and find it easier to cede authority to multinational agencies, organizations and governments.
Canada needs to define its own agenda and determine its own laws and taxes. It needs to do so in the context of its own economic interests, acting with full awareness of the actions of other nations. Canada needs a clear view of the potential economic value of environmental remediation of the land, water and air resulting from oil sands extraction – there are substantial economic benefits to be had from leading the world in the effective management of the combined effect of oil sands mining. Canada also needs to be clear about its policy and strategy for the arctic – a battle ground for global governance.
The next two to five years will be a testing time for national governments as they come to terms with the post-Kyoto period. There are strong voices favouring global governance. We need to be careful to manage these voices and mute them.
The US Climate Change bill and its cap and trade scheme will make food, energy and transportation more expensive. Some estimates suggest that the additional costs will be considerable – up to $2500 per year per household. In addition, renewable energy implications of already made Canadian decisions will add to these costs – energy poverty in Canada is set to increase.
Whether or not the US Climate Change bill passes congress is secondary. The political issue here is whether or not we wish our economic strategy to be largely determined by another country or by means of multilateral agreements.
Al Gore, in speeches this last week in both London and Australia, has emphasized that the political response needed to combat the perceived threat of climate change requires a form of global governance. Stephen Harper, speaking after the G8 summit, also said that there would need to be “some kind of global governance”. Plans are already made within the UN for global governance initiatives, including global carbon taxes and taxes of air and road transpiration that would be standardized around the world.
More significantly, multinational blocks of countries – the EU for one – are beginning to operate as single governments representing a number of states. EU law, for example, on a variety of issues supersedes national law. The World Trade Organization rules, binding on members, are also a form of global governance. What we are likely to see is that such forms of global governance will have ceded to them substantial powers to react to climate change policy frameworks agreed by national leaders.
One reason for going global is that national electorates are becoming increasingly skeptical about global warming and the policies being pursued in its name. In Europe, for example, the number of electors now supportive of global warming mitigation policies has fallen from 30% to 18% in just twelve months. A second is that there is growing evidence, based on measurements and emerging science, that the climate change models on which a great many of the climate change fears are based are flawed. A third is that national governments cannot manage the competing vested interests involved in policy formulation and find it easier to cede authority to multinational agencies, organizations and governments.
Canada needs to define its own agenda and determine its own laws and taxes. It needs to do so in the context of its own economic interests, acting with full awareness of the actions of other nations. Canada needs a clear view of the potential economic value of environmental remediation of the land, water and air resulting from oil sands extraction – there are substantial economic benefits to be had from leading the world in the effective management of the combined effect of oil sands mining. Canada also needs to be clear about its policy and strategy for the arctic – a battle ground for global governance.
The next two to five years will be a testing time for national governments as they come to terms with the post-Kyoto period. There are strong voices favouring global governance. We need to be careful to manage these voices and mute them.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Alberta Health Services Are Sick - Do we Know Why?
It is clear that Alberta health care is not at all well. But can we accurately diagnose this illness and do we have the right measures for a treatment?
The symptoms are clear. Wait times are not reducing quickly. The costs of health care continue to exceed funds allocated. Whatever the Minister calls it, there is a freeze on hiring to positions subject to a personal review by Stephen Duckett, the President and CEO of Alberta Health Services. Programs are being cut back or closed and some staff are being called and asked to resign. Morale is low and other jurisdictions have pounced in the hope of luring Alberta health care personnel away from the Province. Rumour has replaced effective communication as the primary source of information within Alberta’s health system. There is a great deal of upward delegation.
These are symptoms and they suggest part of the diagnosis, but our health care system illness is in fact quite complex. First, many people have given up their personal responsibility for their own health. They look to doctors in particular to treat things which could easily be treated by themselves or prevented by taking better care. A recent Health Quality Council report makes clear that many take themselves or their children to emergency for things that hitherto have been treated either by the patient themselves or by a GP or nurse practitioner at a much lower cost.
Second, we have focused our health care system on a model of illness as opposed to prevention. The most dramatic impact on health and well being over the last two centuries come from better quality water, seat belt legislation, clean air legislation and anti-smoking measures. We are generally failing on other aspects of social health – obesity, sexually transmitted disease, fitness. We focus few health care resources on these aspects of well being.
Third, we have elevated one profession – nursing – to such a position that nurses are now responsible for many aspects of health practice, especially in relation to management. While we should welcome professional development, it is clear that the system has allowed the Peter Principle to apply to the nursing profession. Many do not have the management skills for the positions they hold and more lack the communication skills needed to effectively manage people. Nurses are also well paid given the outcomes their actions produce. There is a need for more effective management and a complete review of nursing as a practice and its place in our health care system in general and management in particular.
Finally, we have applied structural and tactical solutions to what are in fact performance issues. Experience elsewhere suggests that spending more is not the route to improvements in the performance of the healthcare system. In fact, in Britain it was noted that as more was spent on health care productivity and performance went down. Money is not the problem, focus and performance are.
The issue is not public versus private, costs versus wait times, but how can we secure value for money from the substantial investments we have made and continue to make in our health care system.
One would think, then, that appointment a health care economist to the most senior management position in Alberta’s Health Care system would make sense. After all, one aspect of economics is the adjustment of activities so as to produce more effective allocation and use of resources so as to improve productivity and performance. But the key skill set is not economics, but change management and communication.
Stephen Duckett arrived in Alberta in March. He came from the position as CEO of the Centre for Healthcare Improvement for Queensland Health in Brisbane, Australia. He was Secretary of the Australian Health Department from 1994 - 1996 and has held leadership positions in the Victorian Health Department, at La Trobe University and as Chair of the Boards governing The Alfred and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. He was also a member of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission in Australia. He is now paid a base salary of $575,000 with a bonus of up to 25 per cent for performance, based on "objective and quantifiable results," according to Alberta Health.
He has written a lot, mostly focused on linking expenditure to performance. He is clearly a successful academic and health economist. Some of the changes he initiated in Queensland are showing signs of paying off – wait times are down, though not in all categories and a limited number of cost efficiencies have been achieved. But researchers in Queensland suggest it is too early to measure the impact of the reforms Duckett and his colleagues initiated.
His change management skills appear limited. Communication, seen now to be poor within Alberta Health and between Alberta Health and the public: it is clearly not one of his strong points. His ability to engage and involve colleagues in managerial positions and to focus their efforts is already seen to be weak, though it is early days. He appears to have a large ego, which can be valuable if turnaround is the task as opposed to continuous improvement or moderate change. He does not appear to delegate well – he is now personally reviewing all capital expenditure over $150,000 and each job vacancy as they arise. He has done little to build trust and understanding amongst health care advocacy groups. The research community has been offended by remarks he has made which, they claim, are ill informed. He does not appear to welcome criticism, as is evident from the announcement of a code of conduct which stifles criticism from the professionals within the health system.
We should, of course, give Stephen Duckett the benefit of the doubt. He has only been in post for three months. But one never gets a second chance to make a good first impression. So far, he is not doing well. He is not helped by a Minister who shows signs of intolerance and appears to be opposed to transparency.
The next session of the legislature, which will be preoccupied by deficits, debts and the decision of the Premier not to increase taxes of any kind, will also start to find itself facing more and more health care issues. They will begin in the guise of budget issues, but smart politicians should refocus the debate on performance, quality and value for money. They should demand a high degree of transparency, strong and effective communication and a high degree of performance accountability for Stephen Duckett. Albertan’s will be watching.
The symptoms are clear. Wait times are not reducing quickly. The costs of health care continue to exceed funds allocated. Whatever the Minister calls it, there is a freeze on hiring to positions subject to a personal review by Stephen Duckett, the President and CEO of Alberta Health Services. Programs are being cut back or closed and some staff are being called and asked to resign. Morale is low and other jurisdictions have pounced in the hope of luring Alberta health care personnel away from the Province. Rumour has replaced effective communication as the primary source of information within Alberta’s health system. There is a great deal of upward delegation.
These are symptoms and they suggest part of the diagnosis, but our health care system illness is in fact quite complex. First, many people have given up their personal responsibility for their own health. They look to doctors in particular to treat things which could easily be treated by themselves or prevented by taking better care. A recent Health Quality Council report makes clear that many take themselves or their children to emergency for things that hitherto have been treated either by the patient themselves or by a GP or nurse practitioner at a much lower cost.
Second, we have focused our health care system on a model of illness as opposed to prevention. The most dramatic impact on health and well being over the last two centuries come from better quality water, seat belt legislation, clean air legislation and anti-smoking measures. We are generally failing on other aspects of social health – obesity, sexually transmitted disease, fitness. We focus few health care resources on these aspects of well being.
Third, we have elevated one profession – nursing – to such a position that nurses are now responsible for many aspects of health practice, especially in relation to management. While we should welcome professional development, it is clear that the system has allowed the Peter Principle to apply to the nursing profession. Many do not have the management skills for the positions they hold and more lack the communication skills needed to effectively manage people. Nurses are also well paid given the outcomes their actions produce. There is a need for more effective management and a complete review of nursing as a practice and its place in our health care system in general and management in particular.
Finally, we have applied structural and tactical solutions to what are in fact performance issues. Experience elsewhere suggests that spending more is not the route to improvements in the performance of the healthcare system. In fact, in Britain it was noted that as more was spent on health care productivity and performance went down. Money is not the problem, focus and performance are.
The issue is not public versus private, costs versus wait times, but how can we secure value for money from the substantial investments we have made and continue to make in our health care system.
One would think, then, that appointment a health care economist to the most senior management position in Alberta’s Health Care system would make sense. After all, one aspect of economics is the adjustment of activities so as to produce more effective allocation and use of resources so as to improve productivity and performance. But the key skill set is not economics, but change management and communication.
Stephen Duckett arrived in Alberta in March. He came from the position as CEO of the Centre for Healthcare Improvement for Queensland Health in Brisbane, Australia. He was Secretary of the Australian Health Department from 1994 - 1996 and has held leadership positions in the Victorian Health Department, at La Trobe University and as Chair of the Boards governing The Alfred and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. He was also a member of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission in Australia. He is now paid a base salary of $575,000 with a bonus of up to 25 per cent for performance, based on "objective and quantifiable results," according to Alberta Health.
He has written a lot, mostly focused on linking expenditure to performance. He is clearly a successful academic and health economist. Some of the changes he initiated in Queensland are showing signs of paying off – wait times are down, though not in all categories and a limited number of cost efficiencies have been achieved. But researchers in Queensland suggest it is too early to measure the impact of the reforms Duckett and his colleagues initiated.
His change management skills appear limited. Communication, seen now to be poor within Alberta Health and between Alberta Health and the public: it is clearly not one of his strong points. His ability to engage and involve colleagues in managerial positions and to focus their efforts is already seen to be weak, though it is early days. He appears to have a large ego, which can be valuable if turnaround is the task as opposed to continuous improvement or moderate change. He does not appear to delegate well – he is now personally reviewing all capital expenditure over $150,000 and each job vacancy as they arise. He has done little to build trust and understanding amongst health care advocacy groups. The research community has been offended by remarks he has made which, they claim, are ill informed. He does not appear to welcome criticism, as is evident from the announcement of a code of conduct which stifles criticism from the professionals within the health system.
We should, of course, give Stephen Duckett the benefit of the doubt. He has only been in post for three months. But one never gets a second chance to make a good first impression. So far, he is not doing well. He is not helped by a Minister who shows signs of intolerance and appears to be opposed to transparency.
The next session of the legislature, which will be preoccupied by deficits, debts and the decision of the Premier not to increase taxes of any kind, will also start to find itself facing more and more health care issues. They will begin in the guise of budget issues, but smart politicians should refocus the debate on performance, quality and value for money. They should demand a high degree of transparency, strong and effective communication and a high degree of performance accountability for Stephen Duckett. Albertan’s will be watching.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
No More Warming!
At the G8 summit in Italy world leaders, in an act which is reminiscent of the efforts of Canute, agreed to limit the rise of average global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius. This is the “limit” the climate system can warm before communities experience catastrophic effects, according to some scientists.
The implications of this agreement are that emissions of CO2 will need to be reduced by 80% from 1990 levels. This they did not agree on. Some countries, such as Britain, France and Italy are using the 1990 start date while others, such as Canada and the US, are using 2005 or 2006. The G8 communiqué fudges this by acknowledging that baselines may vary but "efforts must be comparable". What is noticeable is that targets were not set for any time period before 2050.
A cut of 80% in CO2 emissions on a 1990 baseline by 2050 not possible with existing technologies, infrastructure and current political actions. The US Cap and Trade scheme, on which Obama pins many hopes, coupled with the push to renewable energy will have little, if any, impact on either emissions or energy use. Many of the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Accord have increased their emissions rather than reduced them. Canada, for example, has increases emissions by 26%.
Efforts by Britain’s Gordon Brown to create a G8 technology fund of $100 billion to support climate change initiatives met with no positive response. Efforts to secure agreement with the developing countries attending the G8 – India and China amongst them – failed. The developing nations want firm guarantees of subsidies from the rich nations' club to help them meet the cost of converting their industries to low-carbon technology. They also want the G8 members to be more specific about their interim targets for reducing emissions by 2020. India said of the G8 communiqué “words are cheap”.
The G8 agreement is largely window dressing. The absence of a 2020 target Рthe G8 leaders were being pressed to agree to a 40% reduction by 2020 on 1990 baseline Рand the absence of agreed global mechanisms for taxing carbon, border tariffs, technology development and technology transfer are all signs that the communiqu̩ is meant to simply indicate that the G8 has heard the concern but intends to continue doing what they are each doing now. 2050 is too far in the future to shape political action now.
The good news is that the average global temperature is falling – it has fallen 0.75 degree Farenheit since Al Gore released his film An Inconvenient Truth. Maybe the G8 leaders hope that the thirty years of global cooling that some scientists are predicting will do their work for them.
The implications of this agreement are that emissions of CO2 will need to be reduced by 80% from 1990 levels. This they did not agree on. Some countries, such as Britain, France and Italy are using the 1990 start date while others, such as Canada and the US, are using 2005 or 2006. The G8 communiqué fudges this by acknowledging that baselines may vary but "efforts must be comparable". What is noticeable is that targets were not set for any time period before 2050.
A cut of 80% in CO2 emissions on a 1990 baseline by 2050 not possible with existing technologies, infrastructure and current political actions. The US Cap and Trade scheme, on which Obama pins many hopes, coupled with the push to renewable energy will have little, if any, impact on either emissions or energy use. Many of the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Accord have increased their emissions rather than reduced them. Canada, for example, has increases emissions by 26%.
Efforts by Britain’s Gordon Brown to create a G8 technology fund of $100 billion to support climate change initiatives met with no positive response. Efforts to secure agreement with the developing countries attending the G8 – India and China amongst them – failed. The developing nations want firm guarantees of subsidies from the rich nations' club to help them meet the cost of converting their industries to low-carbon technology. They also want the G8 members to be more specific about their interim targets for reducing emissions by 2020. India said of the G8 communiqué “words are cheap”.
The G8 agreement is largely window dressing. The absence of a 2020 target Рthe G8 leaders were being pressed to agree to a 40% reduction by 2020 on 1990 baseline Рand the absence of agreed global mechanisms for taxing carbon, border tariffs, technology development and technology transfer are all signs that the communiqu̩ is meant to simply indicate that the G8 has heard the concern but intends to continue doing what they are each doing now. 2050 is too far in the future to shape political action now.
The good news is that the average global temperature is falling – it has fallen 0.75 degree Farenheit since Al Gore released his film An Inconvenient Truth. Maybe the G8 leaders hope that the thirty years of global cooling that some scientists are predicting will do their work for them.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Cooling on Climate Change Policies
Just as the earth continues to cool – global average temperatures have fallen 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit since Al Gore released the film An Inconvenient Truth and forty six US states just recorded the coldest June since records began – the world’s G8 leaders are seeking a basic agreement on climate change.
They are challenged in doing so. First, it is very clear that the Kyoto Accord, due to expire in 2012, is doing little to significantly reduce emissions. While many countries, especially in Europe, have taken measures to increase renewable energy supplies and tax carbon emissions, actual emissions have continued to rise. The recession has had more impact on carbon emissions that policies which seek to reduce them.
Second, there appears to be an en passé between the developed world and the developing world. India and China have been blocking any attempt to impose, through multilateral agreements, specific targets for emissions reductions which apply to them. Their argument, best articulated by India, is that “it is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity." They are seeking a period of development which will permit them to raise the base-line of economic well being for their citizens, compensation for their emissions which they correctly suggest are incurred because the developed world has outsourced their emissions to the developed world and a fund for technology development. This seems to be a position which the developed countries cannot accept.
Third, there are challenges as to whether seeking to fundamentally change the nature of economic activities through carbon taxes and higher energy prices or whether investing in emerging technologies – electric cars, fusion energy, carbon capture and storage, renewable energy – are more likely to produce the outcomes the climate change campaigners are seeking. Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, has strongly indicated that a focus on technology and innovation is more likely to produce results than a focus on economic measures to penalize established economic behaviour. The report he sponsored through The Climate Change Group, Technology for a Low Carbon Future, focuses on this strategy and details the opportunities. His key point: it is almost impossible to change the behaviour of communities after over a hundred years of reliance on carbon. Only real alternative technologies which reduce emissions without people needing to change their behaviour are likely to succeed.
Finally, the politicians are realizing that the evidence base for their decisions are not as strong as many thought they were. Climate change models, on which many of the most depressing predictions about the future are based, are now understood to be very flawed. Observed data – measurements from satellites, actual temperature measures from earth stations, systematic measurements of sea levels and climate – are all indicating that the science is more complex than many of the campaigners, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest. A recent, but suppressed, risk assessment from within the Environmental Protection Agency in the US makes clear that any attempt by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions face legal challenges on the basis of the poor quality of the science on which such regulations may be based.
In December the world’s governments meet in Copenhagen to find agreements which will replace the Kyoto Accord. The G8 summit, now taking place in Italy, was intended to secure a base agreement on which the Copenhagen Accord could be based. This is now looking like a fragile agreement, for the reasons outlined here. While the G8 will release some kind of communiqué – they always do – it will be more about rhetoric than action. The key issue that appears insurmountable at this time is the gap between the developed and developing countries in terms of absolute targets for emissions reductions. Without this, any agreement is simply an agreement to be concerned. With this, some real impacts on emissions may occur. Whatever the agreement, the earth appears to set to continue to cool for another thirty years.
They are challenged in doing so. First, it is very clear that the Kyoto Accord, due to expire in 2012, is doing little to significantly reduce emissions. While many countries, especially in Europe, have taken measures to increase renewable energy supplies and tax carbon emissions, actual emissions have continued to rise. The recession has had more impact on carbon emissions that policies which seek to reduce them.
Second, there appears to be an en passé between the developed world and the developing world. India and China have been blocking any attempt to impose, through multilateral agreements, specific targets for emissions reductions which apply to them. Their argument, best articulated by India, is that “it is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity." They are seeking a period of development which will permit them to raise the base-line of economic well being for their citizens, compensation for their emissions which they correctly suggest are incurred because the developed world has outsourced their emissions to the developed world and a fund for technology development. This seems to be a position which the developed countries cannot accept.
Third, there are challenges as to whether seeking to fundamentally change the nature of economic activities through carbon taxes and higher energy prices or whether investing in emerging technologies – electric cars, fusion energy, carbon capture and storage, renewable energy – are more likely to produce the outcomes the climate change campaigners are seeking. Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, has strongly indicated that a focus on technology and innovation is more likely to produce results than a focus on economic measures to penalize established economic behaviour. The report he sponsored through The Climate Change Group, Technology for a Low Carbon Future, focuses on this strategy and details the opportunities. His key point: it is almost impossible to change the behaviour of communities after over a hundred years of reliance on carbon. Only real alternative technologies which reduce emissions without people needing to change their behaviour are likely to succeed.
Finally, the politicians are realizing that the evidence base for their decisions are not as strong as many thought they were. Climate change models, on which many of the most depressing predictions about the future are based, are now understood to be very flawed. Observed data – measurements from satellites, actual temperature measures from earth stations, systematic measurements of sea levels and climate – are all indicating that the science is more complex than many of the campaigners, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest. A recent, but suppressed, risk assessment from within the Environmental Protection Agency in the US makes clear that any attempt by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions face legal challenges on the basis of the poor quality of the science on which such regulations may be based.
In December the world’s governments meet in Copenhagen to find agreements which will replace the Kyoto Accord. The G8 summit, now taking place in Italy, was intended to secure a base agreement on which the Copenhagen Accord could be based. This is now looking like a fragile agreement, for the reasons outlined here. While the G8 will release some kind of communiqué – they always do – it will be more about rhetoric than action. The key issue that appears insurmountable at this time is the gap between the developed and developing countries in terms of absolute targets for emissions reductions. Without this, any agreement is simply an agreement to be concerned. With this, some real impacts on emissions may occur. Whatever the agreement, the earth appears to set to continue to cool for another thirty years.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The G8 in Italy: Reduce, Recycle and Reuse
When the G8 met in London in April, it was amidst a great deal of hoop-la and media attention. The G8 are meeting again this week in Italy and you will be hard pressed to notice. While some leaders may want to distance themselves from the sexpoloits of Silvio Berlusconi or the image troubled and failing British Prime Minister, you would think they would be biting at the bit to speak to the media and champion their lead-setting role for the world. Indeed, they are indeed meeting in L'Aquila and have a substantive agenda. While the place they are meeting continues to experience tremors (it is the location of the major earthquake Italy experienced earlier this year), there will be few earth shattering announcements coming from these embattled leaders.
At the top of this agenda is Gordon Brown’s insistence that the G8 hold the line on each member country spending their way out of the recession. This is the mantra of the socialist and left leaning members of the G8, including both Brown and Obama. They now add that there is also a need to develop a new regulatory framework for financial institutions – one which encourages lending and increasing the flow of cash into the economy. The evidence is clear: unemployment continues to rise, trade continues to stagnate, protectionism is growing and many firms have been helped out of the recession by being taken into public ownership. While some see green shoots, other sees these as green weeds. Continuing the path of stimulus and resisting the voices of many that suggest that now is the time for fiscal responsibility to correct deficit and debt based funding will be Brown’s desired outcome.
Obama comes with this same agenda, but one which contradicts growth – the climate change agenda. The US House of Representatives has passed an omnibus climate change bill and the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it must regulate and control carbon emissions. All this despite the growing evidence that the earths temperature is cooling and that there are growing doubts about the robustness of the climate change claims of the “warmists”. Obama, Brown and Berlusconi are each seeking to use the G8 as a platform for shaping the December negotiations in Copenhagen for a treaty to replace The Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.
The climate change agenda has four components. The first is a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions from key sectors of the economy for each of the G8 countries. The second is to boost investment in new technologies for alternative energy and transportation. The third is to work with developing countries to offer transition funds to help them grow economically while at the same time committing to reduce their carbon emissions. Finally, there is an attempt to reach an agreement that would permit “border adjustments” (read border tariffs) on goods entering a country which come from a region which does not support appropriate climate change mitigation measures. This is a complex set of issues, made more complex by the fact that the G8 are also meeting with the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) during their time in Italy – they are not all aligned on all aspects of these issues. Expect words, but no action.
The third big issue, symbolic of the lack of value to be attached to the work of the G8, is a focus on development for the poorer countries of Africa. At the Gleneagles summit with Blair in the Chair, major commitments were made to provide intelligent help to Africa. Few of these commitments, other than those relating to debt relief, have been acted upon. They will renew past commitments, make new ones and then go away and file the documents while doing little about them.
What is there to say? The G8 meets, it engages various groups in conversations, it issues communiques and then each leader goes away and gets back to the real work of politics. The G8 is a side-show. This is made clear by the absence of media focus and public interest in the meeting occurring this week and by the fact that the agenda repeats the agenda of past meetings. Reuse and recycle are the current practices of the G8 as far as their agenda is concerned. Adding “reduce” – by not meeting at all – may be the missing item for this organization.
At the top of this agenda is Gordon Brown’s insistence that the G8 hold the line on each member country spending their way out of the recession. This is the mantra of the socialist and left leaning members of the G8, including both Brown and Obama. They now add that there is also a need to develop a new regulatory framework for financial institutions – one which encourages lending and increasing the flow of cash into the economy. The evidence is clear: unemployment continues to rise, trade continues to stagnate, protectionism is growing and many firms have been helped out of the recession by being taken into public ownership. While some see green shoots, other sees these as green weeds. Continuing the path of stimulus and resisting the voices of many that suggest that now is the time for fiscal responsibility to correct deficit and debt based funding will be Brown’s desired outcome.
Obama comes with this same agenda, but one which contradicts growth – the climate change agenda. The US House of Representatives has passed an omnibus climate change bill and the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it must regulate and control carbon emissions. All this despite the growing evidence that the earths temperature is cooling and that there are growing doubts about the robustness of the climate change claims of the “warmists”. Obama, Brown and Berlusconi are each seeking to use the G8 as a platform for shaping the December negotiations in Copenhagen for a treaty to replace The Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.
The climate change agenda has four components. The first is a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions from key sectors of the economy for each of the G8 countries. The second is to boost investment in new technologies for alternative energy and transportation. The third is to work with developing countries to offer transition funds to help them grow economically while at the same time committing to reduce their carbon emissions. Finally, there is an attempt to reach an agreement that would permit “border adjustments” (read border tariffs) on goods entering a country which come from a region which does not support appropriate climate change mitigation measures. This is a complex set of issues, made more complex by the fact that the G8 are also meeting with the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) during their time in Italy – they are not all aligned on all aspects of these issues. Expect words, but no action.
The third big issue, symbolic of the lack of value to be attached to the work of the G8, is a focus on development for the poorer countries of Africa. At the Gleneagles summit with Blair in the Chair, major commitments were made to provide intelligent help to Africa. Few of these commitments, other than those relating to debt relief, have been acted upon. They will renew past commitments, make new ones and then go away and file the documents while doing little about them.
What is there to say? The G8 meets, it engages various groups in conversations, it issues communiques and then each leader goes away and gets back to the real work of politics. The G8 is a side-show. This is made clear by the absence of media focus and public interest in the meeting occurring this week and by the fact that the agenda repeats the agenda of past meetings. Reuse and recycle are the current practices of the G8 as far as their agenda is concerned. Adding “reduce” – by not meeting at all – may be the missing item for this organization.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
What Palin Needs to Do Now
When Tony Benn left the British House of Commons in 2001 after fifty years as a law maker, he said that “he was leaving parliament to devote himself to politics”. Saraha Palin, who seems to some to immature with age, said basically the same thing on Friday. She resigned as Governor of Alaska and made it clear that she was going to devote her energies to politics.
The media don’t understand this. Palin made clear that she would be freer to campaign for values and policies she supports if she was not tied to the Governorship. She also made clear what these policies and values were - less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and “much-needed” fiscal restraint. She wants to work the national stage and fill the leadership void within the GOP. It’s a bid for the role of the authoritative voice of the party. She will then, it seems, determine whether a run at the Presidency in 2012 is viable.
What is upsetting her, apart from the way the media are attacking the family and the partisan use of ethics to hinder her political agenda, is the lack of a clear, focused and coherent voice of opposition to Obama. Ironically, her key problem is that she is not focused, clear or coherent, as her resignation speech demonstrated. The hockey mum thinks and speaks like someone with attention deficit disorder.
Tony Benn used his exit from parliament to launch a career as a political raconteur and journalist. Renting theatres across Britain, he sat in a chair smoking a pipe and drinking tea, offered a monologue on political issues and then responded for an hour or so to questions. These sessions were sold out across Britain and he moved from being someone demonized as a radical “raving lefty” to being a sane voice of reason, especially on such issues as Iraq, education and the economy. Palin thinks she can do the same kind of thing.
She has three problems. The first is that she doesn’t really have much to say. She has never worked through an in depth political analysis of America and its future and developed a clear and well articulated strategic position on the key issues. What she has are chants and mantras. What she needs is a thoroughgoing analytic and reasoned strategic view of the policies the republicans would now pursue if in office.
The second is that, despite the adulation of many, she is a poor communicator. Just look at her media interviews and listen to her speeches. They are short, unfocused, and not thought through. True, she has emotional appeal and sex appeal, but she does not have “mind appeal”. Obama, in contrast, has real power as a communicator and is clearly seen as a thinking politician – a phrase no one could seriously apply to Palin.
The third is that she does not have a plan. Her resignation seemed to as much of a surprise to her as it was to those around her. Being impulsive does not make for sound leadership. If she did have a plan, no one appears to know what it is. She needs to surround herself with quality planners and strategic thinkers who can move her from being a hockey mum to being a leader. It will take time.
There appears to be another issue: money. Palin does have a Political Action Committee (PAC) which is fund raising for her, but she is not a wealthy person and does have some legal issues to deal with. Later this month her PAC has to report on their fiscal performance. According to some media accounts, money flooded into the account following her announcement on Friday. We will see. What is key is that she invests some of these funds in refining her thinking, her speaking and her strategy. If she simply takes to the streets with her current message, she will blow her up her chances.
There are others vying for the role Palin appears to want to play. Mitt Romney being one and also the most likely to succeed. He has money, he is articulate, he has national experience and he did a credible job as Governor of Massachusetts. He also has the support of the party elite. He could take on Obama now without coaching and investment in finding out about how the world really works. He is the natural successor to McCain. Another is Mike Huckabee, also a seasoned campaigner. Palin will have a lot to do to maneuver around these party heavy weights.
The period between now and year end will be critical for Palin. If she is really serious, she will take some time to reflect and develop a strategic and analytic set of policies and hone her communication and presentation skills. A smarter, better read and more articulate Palin will be essential if her national leadership ambitions are to be taken seriously. As she sits in Wassilla and reflects, she should start reading and thinking deeply about issues and opportunities. She should also keep quiet.
(This is my 500th Post on this Blog Site)
The media don’t understand this. Palin made clear that she would be freer to campaign for values and policies she supports if she was not tied to the Governorship. She also made clear what these policies and values were - less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and “much-needed” fiscal restraint. She wants to work the national stage and fill the leadership void within the GOP. It’s a bid for the role of the authoritative voice of the party. She will then, it seems, determine whether a run at the Presidency in 2012 is viable.
What is upsetting her, apart from the way the media are attacking the family and the partisan use of ethics to hinder her political agenda, is the lack of a clear, focused and coherent voice of opposition to Obama. Ironically, her key problem is that she is not focused, clear or coherent, as her resignation speech demonstrated. The hockey mum thinks and speaks like someone with attention deficit disorder.
Tony Benn used his exit from parliament to launch a career as a political raconteur and journalist. Renting theatres across Britain, he sat in a chair smoking a pipe and drinking tea, offered a monologue on political issues and then responded for an hour or so to questions. These sessions were sold out across Britain and he moved from being someone demonized as a radical “raving lefty” to being a sane voice of reason, especially on such issues as Iraq, education and the economy. Palin thinks she can do the same kind of thing.
She has three problems. The first is that she doesn’t really have much to say. She has never worked through an in depth political analysis of America and its future and developed a clear and well articulated strategic position on the key issues. What she has are chants and mantras. What she needs is a thoroughgoing analytic and reasoned strategic view of the policies the republicans would now pursue if in office.
The second is that, despite the adulation of many, she is a poor communicator. Just look at her media interviews and listen to her speeches. They are short, unfocused, and not thought through. True, she has emotional appeal and sex appeal, but she does not have “mind appeal”. Obama, in contrast, has real power as a communicator and is clearly seen as a thinking politician – a phrase no one could seriously apply to Palin.
The third is that she does not have a plan. Her resignation seemed to as much of a surprise to her as it was to those around her. Being impulsive does not make for sound leadership. If she did have a plan, no one appears to know what it is. She needs to surround herself with quality planners and strategic thinkers who can move her from being a hockey mum to being a leader. It will take time.
There appears to be another issue: money. Palin does have a Political Action Committee (PAC) which is fund raising for her, but she is not a wealthy person and does have some legal issues to deal with. Later this month her PAC has to report on their fiscal performance. According to some media accounts, money flooded into the account following her announcement on Friday. We will see. What is key is that she invests some of these funds in refining her thinking, her speaking and her strategy. If she simply takes to the streets with her current message, she will blow her up her chances.
There are others vying for the role Palin appears to want to play. Mitt Romney being one and also the most likely to succeed. He has money, he is articulate, he has national experience and he did a credible job as Governor of Massachusetts. He also has the support of the party elite. He could take on Obama now without coaching and investment in finding out about how the world really works. He is the natural successor to McCain. Another is Mike Huckabee, also a seasoned campaigner. Palin will have a lot to do to maneuver around these party heavy weights.
The period between now and year end will be critical for Palin. If she is really serious, she will take some time to reflect and develop a strategic and analytic set of policies and hone her communication and presentation skills. A smarter, better read and more articulate Palin will be essential if her national leadership ambitions are to be taken seriously. As she sits in Wassilla and reflects, she should start reading and thinking deeply about issues and opportunities. She should also keep quiet.
(This is my 500th Post on this Blog Site)
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Reinventing Government in Alberta
Even though Alberta has been buffered from much of the recession, our Provincial Government has been exposed for what it is: bankrupt of ideas and out of cash.
Before we rush to judgment, it is worth noting that we are both not alone and not as bad as many other similar North American governments facing real economic challenges. California is bankrupt – in debt at $26 billion and handing out IOU’s to cover for cash it doesn’t have. Several other US States are struggling. The 2009 debt for the year that ended in June for all states was $111 billion and is projected to rise to $180 billion by 2011. To cover challenging finances, Pennsylvania is looking at a 16% tax hike. Arizona, Illinois, Ohio and North Carolina are also in deep trouble. The US Federal Government has such a substantial deficit and debt that many are beginning to worry about whether it will be possible to fund the debt through bonds and other measures. Times are tough.
But Alberta has oil and gas and has had good times. We used to have a strong Heritage Savings fund for a “rainy day”, now denuded due to low rates of return and a failure to continue to put funds into this account when they were available. The Government built up a $6 billion infrastructure fund to cover the costs of growth. But we still face challenging times. According to various sources, we are looking at a $2 billion deficit in health care spending and an additional $2 - $3 billion across all other areas of government.
There are two responses to this situation. The first is try to pretend that we can continue to have the kind of government services we always have had and that we can fund these activities through debt until the good times return. The second is to decide once and for all that it is time to rethink the place of government in society and our daily life. The current Alberta governments response is very much in the first camp, as was evident when the Minister of health suggested that a $1 billion budget cut would have no impact at all on services and other Ministers are busily suggesting that tax increases will not occur in the near future.
The second response – reinventing government is what is needed. There are five things that the Government now needs to focus on to make this happen.
The first is to lay out the next twenty five to fifty years of expenditure on a no change basis, pegging oil prices at current prices and gas drilling at current prices and show Albertans what would happen. For example, if revenues remain roughly on a par with the current projections but health care continues to increase at 13% annually, at what stage does Alberta become unable to pay for health care?
Second, we need to rethink how we manage and fund health, schools (K-12) and care for the elderly. These three items are large expenditures, with the care for the elderly a growing issue for all developed societies. No one is ever happy talking about changes to these three services, but change is inevitable. It is time to engage in a serious discussion about user pay for these services – health care premiums, a higher level of educational taxes and a means tested provision for elder care.
Third, we need to determine if we need all of the other services that government provides. Less is more in the new economy of community. For example, do we really need government to pay for carbon capture and storage – a $2 billion investment in an unproven technology?
Fourth, for those services which we determine we do need, how best do we manage these and pay for them? What level of taxation is required to cover the cost of service? For example, do we really need to fund post secondary education at the level of government support now available? Could tuition be raised, programs reduced, management consolidated? Do we really need so many institutions – why not adopt a Federal University model and reduce the administrative costs? Unpopular, maybe, but necessary absolutely.
Finally, how are we intending to reduce our current dependency on oil and gas revenues to pay for services? Our current health care costs, for example, exceed the income the government receives from personal and corporate taxes. If it were not for oil and gas, we would be in deep economic trouble. But at some point, we will not have these revenues to pay for our government, So what are we doing to diversify the economy, create new sources of revenue and new opportunities for Alberta to thrive and grow?
It is time to take a cold, hard, honest and evidence based look at the future and make some choices, based on a vision for Alberta and an understanding that government will be increasingly smaller and less intrusive than it is now. It will be tough, but necessary. It will take courage, leadership and imagination. It will take foresight and the involvement of the people of Alberta in decisions about their future. Is there anyone who can make this happen? I don’t think so.
Before we rush to judgment, it is worth noting that we are both not alone and not as bad as many other similar North American governments facing real economic challenges. California is bankrupt – in debt at $26 billion and handing out IOU’s to cover for cash it doesn’t have. Several other US States are struggling. The 2009 debt for the year that ended in June for all states was $111 billion and is projected to rise to $180 billion by 2011. To cover challenging finances, Pennsylvania is looking at a 16% tax hike. Arizona, Illinois, Ohio and North Carolina are also in deep trouble. The US Federal Government has such a substantial deficit and debt that many are beginning to worry about whether it will be possible to fund the debt through bonds and other measures. Times are tough.
But Alberta has oil and gas and has had good times. We used to have a strong Heritage Savings fund for a “rainy day”, now denuded due to low rates of return and a failure to continue to put funds into this account when they were available. The Government built up a $6 billion infrastructure fund to cover the costs of growth. But we still face challenging times. According to various sources, we are looking at a $2 billion deficit in health care spending and an additional $2 - $3 billion across all other areas of government.
There are two responses to this situation. The first is try to pretend that we can continue to have the kind of government services we always have had and that we can fund these activities through debt until the good times return. The second is to decide once and for all that it is time to rethink the place of government in society and our daily life. The current Alberta governments response is very much in the first camp, as was evident when the Minister of health suggested that a $1 billion budget cut would have no impact at all on services and other Ministers are busily suggesting that tax increases will not occur in the near future.
The second response – reinventing government is what is needed. There are five things that the Government now needs to focus on to make this happen.
The first is to lay out the next twenty five to fifty years of expenditure on a no change basis, pegging oil prices at current prices and gas drilling at current prices and show Albertans what would happen. For example, if revenues remain roughly on a par with the current projections but health care continues to increase at 13% annually, at what stage does Alberta become unable to pay for health care?
Second, we need to rethink how we manage and fund health, schools (K-12) and care for the elderly. These three items are large expenditures, with the care for the elderly a growing issue for all developed societies. No one is ever happy talking about changes to these three services, but change is inevitable. It is time to engage in a serious discussion about user pay for these services – health care premiums, a higher level of educational taxes and a means tested provision for elder care.
Third, we need to determine if we need all of the other services that government provides. Less is more in the new economy of community. For example, do we really need government to pay for carbon capture and storage – a $2 billion investment in an unproven technology?
Fourth, for those services which we determine we do need, how best do we manage these and pay for them? What level of taxation is required to cover the cost of service? For example, do we really need to fund post secondary education at the level of government support now available? Could tuition be raised, programs reduced, management consolidated? Do we really need so many institutions – why not adopt a Federal University model and reduce the administrative costs? Unpopular, maybe, but necessary absolutely.
Finally, how are we intending to reduce our current dependency on oil and gas revenues to pay for services? Our current health care costs, for example, exceed the income the government receives from personal and corporate taxes. If it were not for oil and gas, we would be in deep economic trouble. But at some point, we will not have these revenues to pay for our government, So what are we doing to diversify the economy, create new sources of revenue and new opportunities for Alberta to thrive and grow?
It is time to take a cold, hard, honest and evidence based look at the future and make some choices, based on a vision for Alberta and an understanding that government will be increasingly smaller and less intrusive than it is now. It will be tough, but necessary. It will take courage, leadership and imagination. It will take foresight and the involvement of the people of Alberta in decisions about their future. Is there anyone who can make this happen? I don’t think so.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years'
Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 letter to Congress by a team of atmospheric scientists.
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS
Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS
Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)