Liberal v. conservative - illustrated by fire

I was hoping Fox News would have a nice piece about the triumph of conservative ideology. "Firefighters uphold policy against freeloaders!"

What a crappy policy to have fire protection as an optional fee. This family got screwed by ideology, not just a fire.

A "seventh generation" look at bailouts

Tom Friedman has very cogent thoughts on bailouts and the economic stimulus these days.  On the proposed car company bailout:

You want my tax dollars? Then I want to see the precise production plans and timetables for the hybridization of all your cars and trucks within 36 months...because nothing would both improve mileage and emissions more — and also stimulate a whole new 21st-century, job-creating industry: batteries.

For energy policy, hit the supply and demand sides:

It makes no sense to spend money on green infrastructure — or a bailout of Detroit aimed at stimulating production of more fuel-efficient cars — if it is not combined with a tax on carbon that would actually change consumer buying behavior.

Many people will tell Mr. Obama that taxing carbon or gasoline now is a “nonstarter.” Wrong. It is the only starter. It is the game-changer. If you want to know where postponing it has gotten us, visit Detroit. No carbon tax or increased gasoline tax meant that every time the price of gasoline went down to $1 or $2 a gallon, consumers went back to buying gas guzzlers.  [emphasis mine]

Exactly.  If we're intending to shift to renewble energy and reduced carbon emissions permanently, there's no time to do so like the present.

Recycling and bottled water

This is a great essay on the challenge of reconciling the environment with convenience, how policies have been created to discourage Americans from simply tossing (or littering) their 215 billion beverage containers per year.  Some highlights:

• Should states provide an incentive to recycle, often via a "bottle bill" that provides a cash return for recycling?
• If so, should the deposit be indexed to inflation?
• How do we balance convenience and cleanliness?
• What happens when scavengers simply empty curbside bins of recyclables?

 Get more on bottled water, from its environmental impacts to price mark ups, here.

Food price spikes: not so crazy if we kept some in the bank

I read this weekly farm policy column and it occasionally translates into the vernacular. This week's post notes the political unrest in many parts of the world as higher prices for food staples - corn, rice, and wheat - are creating significantly problems for developing countries. Part of the problem? The U.S. government nixed its policy of grain storage in 1996 as part of the ill-fated "Freedom to Farm" Act. Thus, a couple droughts or short seasons is all it takes to make people go hungry.

Dumb.

Climate change policy: cap and trade flopped in Europe

The U.S. is getting much closer to regulating carbon emissions to combat global warming, but the most likely policy is a carbon cap and trade system. Problem is, Europe tried such a system starting three years ago and this interview discusses how that program has flopped.

This is why a cap-and-rebate may be a much better option.

Tip of the hat to Triple Pundit for the story.

The Best Way to Reduce Abortion? Legalize It.

An interesting story from the Minnesota Monitor looks at the data on abortions from the developed and developing world and finds that countries with more open and legal abortions have fewer of them.

$1 billion for nutrition isn't buying much

No one tuned into regular news has missed the rising obesity epidemic in the United States, so it's no surprise the federal government has ponied up over $1 billion to help encourage kids to eat healthy. Sadly, this initiative hasn't shown much effect:

an Associated Press review of scientific studies examining 57 [nutrition] programs found mostly failure...

Last year a major federal pilot program offering free fruits and vegetables to school children showed fifth graders became less willing to eat them than they had been at the start...

In studies where children tell researchers they are eating better or exercising more, there is usually no change in blood pressure, body size or cholesterol measures; they want to eat better, they might even think they are, but they're not.

What's the problem? A clear misunderstanding of the right pressure points. Point one - parents.

Experts agree that although most funding targets schools, parents have the greatest influence, even a biological influence, over what their children will eat.

Point two - Advertising

Children ages 8 to 12 see an average of 21 television ads each day for candy, snacks, cereal and fast food - more than 7,600 a year, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. Not one of the 8,854 ads reviewed promoted fruits or vegetables.

There was one ad for healthy foods for every 50 for other foods.

Ironically, one of the major failures of the programs might be that increased pressure from other federal legislation - No Child Left Behind - pressures schools to drop physical education and recess for more class time. And yet,

School programs that increase physical activity are also more likely to have an impact than nutrition education.

Summary: the government's program is ineffective, even more so because of advertising for junk food.

Great.

A more sensible drug policy

A tip of the hat to GMoney for the reference. This video is a nice tongue-in-cheek look at the "drug war" and the role of politics in overcoming research and common sense in drug policy.



The video is distributed by the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization focused on numerous non-incarceration strategies for fighting drug abuse and distribution.

On marijuana, they support legalization for prescription medicinal purposes and the decriminalization of "consumption-related offenses." In other words, make marijuana legal for cancer patients and only charge those who distribute the drug illegally. They have an extensive page on myths and facts about marijuana, and while they certainly have their biases, it seems fairly honest.

I find the issue of impaired cognitive ability interesting:

The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Their conclusion is that marijuana is fairly harmless to cognitive ability. However, since youth in particular have a lot of learning to do (in school and outside of it), I'd say that using marijuana at any time is probably harmful to their cognitive development. To be fair, I have no studies to cite today.

The DPA has a page devoted to a drug-by-drug analysis of American drug policy. Their overview notes that the DPA would like drug policy to reflect the relative harm of a drug. In their view, a low harm drug such as marijuana should be regulated (and criminalized) much less than ecstasy or heroin.

At any rate, it's clear that a policy more reflective of science and common sense could do better than the politically-driven one we enjoy today and the DPA video is a clever way to point that out.

Public education: choosing to fail

The eons-long debate over the quality of public education rarely uncovers a lot of new ground, but sometimes things are a little different that you expect. In an analysis of the lofty goal of No Child Left Behind - that all American students will be 100% proficient by 2014 - NY Times Magazine contributor Paul Tough notes that we're choosing to fail.

Several good studies have uncovered the facts:
1) Students from low-income families start school behind and fall further behind as they are socially promoted.

2) These shortfalls have more to do with parental style than income!
Amazing, but true. Middle class parents talk to their kids frequently, building their vocabularies. They give their children enriching activities and they encourage their kids to challenge authority. And these kids, armed with a sense of entitlement, do better in school and in life (and often treat teachers poorly, as well).

3) A proven way to improve the chances for poor kids - courtesy of KIPP schools - is to help them catch up:
a) by giving them 60% more time in school.
b) by giving them highly qualified teachers.
c) and by teaching them the work ethic and commitment to education that their parents may not have.

Part (c) is particularly interesting in light of research that shows that a child's scores on a psychological self-discipline test are twice as likely to help predict their GPA than their IQ. Motivation matters.

If we know what works, from motivation to more intense schooling, then the author is right. We aren't failing by accident or because failure of certain students is inevitable. We have the model and we know the cost.

We're failing these kids by choice.

Hair net saves transit system several thousand

Conventional wisdom suggests that government tends to react to problems with specialty solutions, all too often re-inventing the wheel. Well, not in Boston. An innovative technician for the T (the metro area transit system) discovered that a 5-cent hairnet and some duct tape worked better than any previous solution for keeping snow and ice out of T-engine intakes. In fact, the use of the hair net has now become standard policy.

Let's fight fire with gasoline!

Oops! Members of Congress are belatedly realizing that when gas prices get high, citizens no longer ignore the massive tax breaks for companies making record profits.

In the typical scurry for scapegoats when faced with a tough policy decision, both Democrats and Republicans are looking to revoke massive tax cuts given to the oil and gas industry in the most recent energy bill.

So what? We'll get some of that cash back to pay down the debt or shoot some Iraqis.

Or, instead of saving the cash, let's just spend it. It's an election year, so we'll give every American a $100 gas rebate from the federal government.

Whoa! As exciting as $100 is, let's look at the original point of energy policy - a secure, stable supply of fuel for the American economy. How do these policies measure up:
1. Tax breaks for oil companies making record profits: D-. True, greater supply would help reduce prices, but a number of scientists and geologists argue that increasing supply any further isn't even possible.
2. Taking back the tax breaks for tax cuts: F. When supplies are tight enough to drive prices this high, giving people more gas money doesn't send the right message.

Instead, Congress needs to develop an energy policy that addresses the root issue: oil supplies may have peaked and we have to shift to policies that shrink demand. For example, increasing CAFE standards to raise fuel economy, creating tax breaks for fuel efficient cars (but NOT hybrid SUVs), or a bigger gas tax.

Don't test the meat - it's safe

Mad cow disease took the world by storm in the 1990s as English herds were found to carry a form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The fear spread quickly, causing many countries to ban beef imports from counties where even a single cow tested positive.

The United States avoided much of the challenge, one could argue, because the USDA refuses to test more than 1% of the herd.
Despite the emotion around mad cow, the USDA asserts that its policy of testing 1% of the American herd is sufficient because the American herd is safe (one could argue that from a statistical standpoint, 1% might suffice). Supporting the USDA's position are the facts that we've banned the use of slaughtered cattle as animal feed and only 3 cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in U.S.-raised cattle.

Since the USDA is confident of our beef safety, how might we expect them to react when one American beef company displays interest in testing every head of cattle it slaughters (at its own expense)?

Dismay, of course. If we test more cows, we might find more disease. And 58 countries banned US beef after the first mad cow case was discovered here in 2003. In fact, the USDA is so afraid that regular and thorough testing might expose previously hidden mad cow disease that they plan to prohibit Creekstone Farms from implementing full testing.

The irony is almost overwhelming, since Creekstone is pursuing full testing in order to instill confidence in its foreign customers that US beef is safe. Statistically, testing every head of cattle is silly, but Creekstone Farms has hopes to sell beef to more than just the statisticians.