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?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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 – the G8 leaders were being pressed to agree to a 40% reduction by 2020 on 1990 baseline – and the absence of agreed global mechanisms for taxing carbon, border tariffs, technology development and technology transfer are all signs that the communiqué 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 – the G8 leaders were being pressed to agree to a 40% reduction by 2020 on 1990 baseline – and the absence of agreed global mechanisms for taxing carbon, border tariffs, technology development and technology transfer are all signs that the communiqué 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
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bleak Britain
Britain’s economic challenge is almost as severe as the challenge of its leadership. Economic decline in Britain is now the worst in fifty years, with GDP shrinking by 2.4% in the first quarter of 2009. Figures released today by the UK Treasury paint a bleak picture of the economy, with all sectors showing a decline and no evidence of the “green shoots” of growth, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown continually refers to. The decline is steep and creates a real set of challenges for the government. It’s the worst economic performance since 1958.
The OECD annual economic analysis of the country, also published this week, suggests that government spending needs to be curtailed so as to bring it back into the zone of reason. It said that Britain's deficit would climb to 90% of economic output – significantly higher than the 80% level the Treasury projected in its April Budget. In order to keep the UK economy in good health, it added, the Government should target "more ambitious" budget cut-backs once the recession is over.
Gordon Brown’s response to the OECD and others demanding austerity planning for the post-recession economy is a firm “no” followed by “maybe”. On Monday he announced a set of proposals for the remaining year of his term before he has to hold a general election. It shows he is committed to recycling – almost everything he announced has been announced before, in most cases just three months ago. The plan involves new commitments to social housing, new commitments to personal tutors for school students falling behind, preventive health checks, docking benefits, Lords reform. Nothing new. But cuts are already being made to the speed of growth of many government budgets and, after the election, the Labour Party indicates that it will make annual reductions in spending. Brown’s mantra is that “you cannot cut your way out a recession”. So he spends more than the country can afford.
David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes clear that there is both a need to rethink government and to reduce spending. Interestingly, polls released this week show that the British people are confident that Cameron would be a better manager of the economy and would deliver on his promise to reduce spending. No one appears to be listening any more to Gordon Brown. The challenge Cameron has is that the more explicit he is about what he would cut and how he intends to reinvent government, the more Brown and the Labour Party are able to promote the politics of fear.
Britain is in the pre-election season and the two party leaders are laying down the lines of attack. Brown will promote his record and fear, Cameron will document Brown’s record and counter the fear with an agenda of “real change”. The timing of the election, which has to be before early June 2010, will be just as the recession shows signs of ending, but before the end of the recession occurs. Unless something remarkable happens, the Labour Party will likely lose as the electorate is tired after twelve years of the same promises.
Some progress has been made in key social issues over the last twelve years, especially in terms of primary education and some aspects of health care, but Britain is in trouble. From transport to housing, from secondary schools to elder care, from policing to social services, problems abound. What the electorate appear to be looking for, according to in depth polling, is inspiration coupled with a sense of capability.
Brown no longer inspires and there are strong questions about his capabilities, especially following several botched attempts to respond to the MP expense scandal and the total failure to meet targets he himself set with respect to the climate change agenda. He is seen to dither, wobble and pander.
Cameron is a much more effective communicator, but is not inspirational. Many see him as a Blair like figure – effective with words, but duplicitous. He is untested with respect to competence and capability, though he has secured the benefit of the doubt from a portion of the electorate. He will find, when the election is called, that he has challenges convincing people that his deeds will match his words.
Cameron also has another problem. His front bench team have a habit of offering comments that run contrary to those made by the leader. Discipline is lacking, yet will be crucial. Every slip will be punced on and used as part of the “you can’t trust the Tories” fear tactic Labour will pursue.
It will be a nasty election – bitter arguments, partial truths masquerading as evidence and reality, new lows of debate. The victim will be the economy and the sense of the integrity of politics – already shaken to the core by expense scandals and the new concerns over the second jobs many MP’s have. It is a bleak time. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Environmental Protection Agency Supresses Risk Analysis
A review of the scientific evidence supporting the claims concerning anthropomorphic global warming has been undertaken by two senior policy members of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, both concerned that the agency faces negligence charges for the willful refusal to look critically at the science. Despite their review, completed as part of the risk assessment for the agency, their work has been suppressed.
Here are their key conclusions:
Their conclusions are twofold. The first is that there are no compelling reasons for the EPA to “rush” to regulate CO2 emissions. The second is that if the EPA does regulate emissions, as they now plan to do, the resultant legal challenges will open up the science and create risk for the organization which has insufficiently reviewed the science and has too readily accepted the IPCC AR4 report as “gospel” – even though it is already three years out of date. As specialists in risk assessment, they urge caution.
Here are their key conclusions:
- The earth has been cooling since 1997-8, with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation going negative in September 2007 and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation in January 2009. This despite continued CO2 emissions.
- Atlantic hurricane behaviour is not seen, according to the current consensus view of hurricane specialists, to be linked to CO2 emissions but rather to patterns of hurricane behaviour seen over long periods of time and independent of increases in CO2 emissions – cyclones will be little different from the patterns seen in the past.
- The idea that the ice in Greenland will rapidly shed its ice has now been largely dismissed by scientists who study this particular ice shield.
- The recession, which has significantly reduced a range of economic activities and subsequently led to a reduction in the rate of growth of CO2 emissions, has not been factored into the analysis of climate change.
- A study which compares the proposal emanating from climate change models and actual data which focuses on the IPCC claim of a strongly positive feedback role for water vapour in the atmosphere is not supported by the actual data, which actually shows that the feedback role of water vapour is negative.
- The IPCC, according to several studies (but one meta-analysis in particular), uses faulty and incomplete solar data which in turn leads the IPCC to underestimate the impact of solar variability on global temperatures. The new research suggests that solar variability could account for more than 65% of the increases in the earth’s temperature prior to the current cooling period.
Their conclusions are twofold. The first is that there are no compelling reasons for the EPA to “rush” to regulate CO2 emissions. The second is that if the EPA does regulate emissions, as they now plan to do, the resultant legal challenges will open up the science and create risk for the organization which has insufficiently reviewed the science and has too readily accepted the IPCC AR4 report as “gospel” – even though it is already three years out of date. As specialists in risk assessment, they urge caution.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Palin for President?
The sad and sordid business of the Governor of South Carolina and his Argentinean mistress has done wonders for Sarah Palin’s complexion. She’s smiling and many republicans are miserable. Governor Mark Sanford, who resigned as Chair of the Republican Governors, was a real contender for the republican presidential nomination for 2012. Now he is out, leaving Palin in a stronger position.
As the conservative commentator David Frum observes, the republican party has a long history of turning to the person who finished second in the republican primaries during the previous season. They did so for McCain, Dole and GHW Bush and could well do so again for Mitt Romney. But Romney never achieved the profile, followership and sense of passion that Palin had when she ran as McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. He’s smarter, but not as popular.
Palin is not exactly the great communicator in terms of comprehension, eloquence and clarity. But she speaks with passion and humour, seems to connect with a section of the working class and the republican party and speaks with a clear conservative voice. She is not well read or entrepreneurial in the same league as Romney, but she is a populist.
Palin also knows too little about too many things to win at this point – she has nothing to say about the financial regulatory regime needed to ensure that the financial meltdown does not repeat itself, she has no real foreign policy understanding and he views about many issues are just naïve. But the primaries are two years away and the election itself closer to three. There is time for her to develop a stanace of these issues and to learn her lines.
Palin against Obama would be a real test of liberal socialist thinking and right wing conservatism – a test that will change political rhetoric in American for some time. It will be fiery, abrasive and divisive.
Palin will have a lot to go after. By the time of the election, US debt will be close to fourteen trillion dollars and it will be clear that the Obama administration will not have a firm enough plan to tackle it. The government will be intruding in more and more aspects of people’s lives as a result of a raft of liberal legislation Obama, Pelosi and the democratic party have in mind. Climate change legislation will be having a negative impact on the economy as well as a significant impact on the energy bills of families. There will be no solution to the Middle East crisis and the US will still be in Afghanistan and involved in Iraq. While some changes to health care will have been made, they will fall short of the expectations Obama has allowed to build for this reform. Rather than “yes we can”, the republican’s will be chanting “was that it?”.
On the other side, Obama will have Palin the fumbler, Palin the public service reducer and Palin the wild-card on foreign policy. He will beat here on communication, but she will challenge him on his connection to real people and the real issues he cares about.
It will all come down to the two political machines and the extent to which they can leverage their candidates strength to get the vote out. Many democrats may think there is no real contest and may think the voting is all over before the voting starts – they would be mistaken. The machines have to work like a charm to get the vote committed and out.
What should worry Americans is both this choice and the question “who is behind Palin?”. If she does become the candidate – and we are two years away from knowing – she will need a strong running mate and an exceptionally smart backroom team. It will be this backroom team the US elects if she wins the Presidential election.
The worst thing the Obama team can do is wish Palin as the candidate and then take a victory for granted. She may be a loose cannon and nowhere near as strong an orator as Obama, but she has passion and build fierce loyalty. Many voters may well be disillusioned with Obama by 2012 – she will look so completely different from him that it may give a real option for voting.
All Palin needs now is for Romney to admit that he has a conservative conscience and a liberal sex life and she’d be home and dry as the nominee.
As the conservative commentator David Frum observes, the republican party has a long history of turning to the person who finished second in the republican primaries during the previous season. They did so for McCain, Dole and GHW Bush and could well do so again for Mitt Romney. But Romney never achieved the profile, followership and sense of passion that Palin had when she ran as McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. He’s smarter, but not as popular.
Palin is not exactly the great communicator in terms of comprehension, eloquence and clarity. But she speaks with passion and humour, seems to connect with a section of the working class and the republican party and speaks with a clear conservative voice. She is not well read or entrepreneurial in the same league as Romney, but she is a populist.
Palin also knows too little about too many things to win at this point – she has nothing to say about the financial regulatory regime needed to ensure that the financial meltdown does not repeat itself, she has no real foreign policy understanding and he views about many issues are just naïve. But the primaries are two years away and the election itself closer to three. There is time for her to develop a stanace of these issues and to learn her lines.
Palin against Obama would be a real test of liberal socialist thinking and right wing conservatism – a test that will change political rhetoric in American for some time. It will be fiery, abrasive and divisive.
Palin will have a lot to go after. By the time of the election, US debt will be close to fourteen trillion dollars and it will be clear that the Obama administration will not have a firm enough plan to tackle it. The government will be intruding in more and more aspects of people’s lives as a result of a raft of liberal legislation Obama, Pelosi and the democratic party have in mind. Climate change legislation will be having a negative impact on the economy as well as a significant impact on the energy bills of families. There will be no solution to the Middle East crisis and the US will still be in Afghanistan and involved in Iraq. While some changes to health care will have been made, they will fall short of the expectations Obama has allowed to build for this reform. Rather than “yes we can”, the republican’s will be chanting “was that it?”.
On the other side, Obama will have Palin the fumbler, Palin the public service reducer and Palin the wild-card on foreign policy. He will beat here on communication, but she will challenge him on his connection to real people and the real issues he cares about.
It will all come down to the two political machines and the extent to which they can leverage their candidates strength to get the vote out. Many democrats may think there is no real contest and may think the voting is all over before the voting starts – they would be mistaken. The machines have to work like a charm to get the vote committed and out.
What should worry Americans is both this choice and the question “who is behind Palin?”. If she does become the candidate – and we are two years away from knowing – she will need a strong running mate and an exceptionally smart backroom team. It will be this backroom team the US elects if she wins the Presidential election.
The worst thing the Obama team can do is wish Palin as the candidate and then take a victory for granted. She may be a loose cannon and nowhere near as strong an orator as Obama, but she has passion and build fierce loyalty. Many voters may well be disillusioned with Obama by 2012 – she will look so completely different from him that it may give a real option for voting.
All Palin needs now is for Romney to admit that he has a conservative conscience and a liberal sex life and she’d be home and dry as the nominee.
Getting Down to the Wire for Cap and Trade in the US
The US Climate Change bill, known as the Clean Energy and Security Act, will be voted on this week in Congress. It still looks doubtful that the democrats can secure the 218 votes necessary votes to pass the Bill, with some estimates that there are just 190 votes currently favouring the legislation. The legislation would require a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, mandate electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, provide $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. Another key provision, termed "cap-and-trade," would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.
Republicans are concerned that cap and trade will be a regressive taxation that will negatively impact the economic recovery, lead to higher energy costs and increase the number experiencing energy poverty. Warren Buffet, who now advises President Obama on economic matters, agrees.
It also contains a set of measures which should be of significant concern to Canada in general and Alberta in particular. Buried within the Bill are provisions for a levy on goods imported into the US which come from a country which is not seeking to limit CO2 emissions, as judged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The idea behind this is simple: once the US regulates greenhouse gases produced by US companies, those companies won't be struggling to compete with foreign companies that have no such restrictions imposed on them.
The target of this provision within the legislation is China and India and it can be seen as part of the US bargaining position for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held in December. China is already suggesting that this is an opening protectionist move which will trigger a trade war. It is also in breech, in China’s view, of the World Trade Organizations regulations.
Canada could be affected if our CO2 emissions regulations, which focus on intensity targets rather than absolute emissions, are deemed by the US to be inadequate when compared to their own measures. The target here would be oil from Alberta’s oil sands – so-called “dirty oil”.
As the US debates this Bill, there are interesting developments in Australia. They are, according to one report, proceeding at a Koala’s pace. The Australian Senate looks likely to reject its own version of cap and trade. This follows the Prime Minister Rudd’s announcement that, even if the cap and trade scheme passes the Senate, its introduction will be delayed by a year. On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a solid vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. Many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form.
A key factor in the Australian context is the widespread public skepticism about the science of climate change. A new book, written by the experienced climatologist Ian Plimer, is having a major impact. Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science has caused several former cap and trade supporters to shift their views and has lead some leading journalist to recant their hitherto strong support of carbon sequestration and cap and trade. The book simply points to the absence of convincing scientific data, based on observations and measurements, that manmade CO2 is a primary contributing factor to climate change. It also offers a compelling critique of computer climate simulations – the basis of most of the global warming “science” that now informs policy. The book is in its fifth printing after just a month of publication. It is pushing others to “come out of the closet” and make their voice heard, which in turn is influencing the politicians faced with a crucial vote.
The developments in the US and Australia are all preludes to the Copenhagen conference to be held in December. Aimed at developing a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto accord, governments are positioning and maneuvering. It is not a pretty sight. What is becoming clear is that the campaigners seeking strong, tough measures to “save the planet” are losing ground to economic realists and to those who simply do not accept the simplistic “manmade” view of climate change.
The US vote this week, if it fails, will derail the Copenhagen talks. If it passes, it will make clear that the climate change agenda is as much about economic protectionism as about the climate. Either way, it will make agreement in Copenhagen more difficult to achieve – something evident from the several meetings that have taken place already in preparation for the December meetings. We are in for a stormy political summer.
Republicans are concerned that cap and trade will be a regressive taxation that will negatively impact the economic recovery, lead to higher energy costs and increase the number experiencing energy poverty. Warren Buffet, who now advises President Obama on economic matters, agrees.
It also contains a set of measures which should be of significant concern to Canada in general and Alberta in particular. Buried within the Bill are provisions for a levy on goods imported into the US which come from a country which is not seeking to limit CO2 emissions, as judged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The idea behind this is simple: once the US regulates greenhouse gases produced by US companies, those companies won't be struggling to compete with foreign companies that have no such restrictions imposed on them.
The target of this provision within the legislation is China and India and it can be seen as part of the US bargaining position for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held in December. China is already suggesting that this is an opening protectionist move which will trigger a trade war. It is also in breech, in China’s view, of the World Trade Organizations regulations.
Canada could be affected if our CO2 emissions regulations, which focus on intensity targets rather than absolute emissions, are deemed by the US to be inadequate when compared to their own measures. The target here would be oil from Alberta’s oil sands – so-called “dirty oil”.
As the US debates this Bill, there are interesting developments in Australia. They are, according to one report, proceeding at a Koala’s pace. The Australian Senate looks likely to reject its own version of cap and trade. This follows the Prime Minister Rudd’s announcement that, even if the cap and trade scheme passes the Senate, its introduction will be delayed by a year. On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a solid vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. Many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form.
A key factor in the Australian context is the widespread public skepticism about the science of climate change. A new book, written by the experienced climatologist Ian Plimer, is having a major impact. Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science has caused several former cap and trade supporters to shift their views and has lead some leading journalist to recant their hitherto strong support of carbon sequestration and cap and trade. The book simply points to the absence of convincing scientific data, based on observations and measurements, that manmade CO2 is a primary contributing factor to climate change. It also offers a compelling critique of computer climate simulations – the basis of most of the global warming “science” that now informs policy. The book is in its fifth printing after just a month of publication. It is pushing others to “come out of the closet” and make their voice heard, which in turn is influencing the politicians faced with a crucial vote.
The developments in the US and Australia are all preludes to the Copenhagen conference to be held in December. Aimed at developing a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto accord, governments are positioning and maneuvering. It is not a pretty sight. What is becoming clear is that the campaigners seeking strong, tough measures to “save the planet” are losing ground to economic realists and to those who simply do not accept the simplistic “manmade” view of climate change.
The US vote this week, if it fails, will derail the Copenhagen talks. If it passes, it will make clear that the climate change agenda is as much about economic protectionism as about the climate. Either way, it will make agreement in Copenhagen more difficult to achieve – something evident from the several meetings that have taken place already in preparation for the December meetings. We are in for a stormy political summer.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
All Day Kindergarten Not Necessarily a Good Thing...
Dalton McGuinty, Ontario's Premier, is so convinced that early childhood education and “sure start” is critical to the fight against illiteracy, poverty and a failing economy, that he has pledged substantial amounts of money to the expansion of kindergarten to every four- and five-year-old in the province. Ultimately, the idea is to create a “seamless” merger of child care and early childhood education, with elementary schools acting as year-round hubs for children from birth to age 12.
On the face of it, this may appear sound. After all, there would appear to be compelling evidence that children can be taught basic reading and writing and math skills early and that their lifelong social and intellectual development is shaped by learning that occurs before the age of five.
But the so-called compelling evidence is in fact more complex. Early childhood education appears to be of marginal value, in educational and social development terms, to middle and upper class children. Their home environment, parental support and level of education and the presence of books and nutrition in the home all aid their effective intellectual and social development, even when both parents work.
Where early intervention is most needed is amongst the poor, especially aboriginal children whose parents are unable to support their social and intellectual development in the same way as their middle class counterparts and where nutrition and health are also problematic. Basic and standardized interventions, like all day kindergarten, have little sustaining value. What appears to be needed are customized interventions over a considerable period of time on a per family basis. While such interventions may include all day kindergarten, this in itself is not likely to produce the results which McGuinty and his advisors anticipate.
The evidence of Head Start in the US, which is only a partial comparison to what McGuinty is proposing, is that the benefits of early childhood educational interventions dissipate over time – the effects don’t last long. SureStart, a scheme being adopted in the UK, begins a randomized control trial this month in Derbyshire and it will be interesting to review a longitudinal study of these children over the next fifteen years. But right now, the evidence appears thin that this kind of intervention can make a significant difference to a generation of children.
At the same time, McGuinty is committed to a substantial poverty elimination strategy, to hiring 8,000 nurses to new positions and spending a significant stimulus fund to boost the Ontario economy and provide support to a failing manufacturing sector. Ontario – a “have not Province” receiving transfer payments from the Federal government – is big on ideas. Now they have to find the cash to pay for this, which means both higher taxes and cuts in other services.
So the all day kindergarten becomes a question of trade off’s. Is this more important than, say, the 8,000 nurses or the continued investment in university research? Will it produce such strong social benefits – lower crime rates, higher levels of literacy, more employable individuals in 2030 than in 2010? – to justify the costs? These economic and social benefit assumptions have not been made available for review, but it doubtful that they will show a compelling case for action. Also not available is a full and detailed life-time costing of the all day kindergarten scheme in its entirety, nor is there a risk assessment of the impact of such a scheme on other services, such as health and social services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)