Tech Policy

Trouble with task force? Disband it!

The Washington Post has an article about the recent EPA mercury decision. The article gets into some of the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing that lead to the decision. I guess dissolving the task force is one way of handling a disagreement.

tc

Freedom of Movement?

If you haven't seen it, today's New York Times has an article entitled This Car Can Talk. What It Says May Cause Concern that discusses privacy issues and the automobile.

The article talks about information collected by OnStar and EZPass, I would add speed cameras to the list. Do we have an expectation of privacy when we drive in our car? Challenges to speed camera laws have not stood up because by displaying our license plate in public we do not have an expectation of privacy when we break the law. I wonder if we have an expectation of privacy of movement. Technology allows companies or law enforcement to track our movements - is that legal? In the article OnStar stresses that they only respond to court orders for information, is that a good system?

I think we need to develop rules for data that indicates movement. There should be restrictions on the type of information that is stored and the length of time it is stored.

-tc

Brad DeLong's Weblog

I recomend reading Brad DeLong's excllent weblog. DeLong worked for the National Economic Council under Clinton, and teaches economics now at Berkely. Great synthesis and analysis of the economy from an insider.

Clear writing abounds.

adam

Peer Pressure for Solving Environment Problems

Many environmental problems relate back to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons observation. I've felt for a long time that community pressure is one of the best ways for solving environmental problems. For a hokey analogy, your much less likely to litter if someone from your aerobics class is watching.

I think we need to put the very real, very strong force of peer pressure on people to solve today's pressing environmental problems. I have two ideas that I've thought about for a while, but would like to get a discussion on other areas where peer pressure can be brought to bear.

- The first project would be to install a green button on gas pumps that when pressed, adds $.05 per gallon. The money goes to groups who offset the bads of driving, e.g. forest management projects, clean energy projects, and asthma programs for kids. An illuminable icon is placed on top of each pump, and is lit up green when a motorist presses the button. It stays brown if they don't. A good marketing campaign would be launched to clearly show a. how driving is bad for the environment, b. how these external costs are not paid for, c. how their small contribution will make a difference.

The desire to be seen as green will get a lot of people to contribute. This would generate revenue for worthwhile offset projects and generate awareness that driving causes environmental damage. First steps to implenting this project would be a. develop a prototype of the technology, b. find a gas station partner, c. do a demo at one station, d. roll out the system. Email me if you'd like to work on this one.

- The second project is to offer people electricity generated from renewable energy -- much like Green Mountain Power does today. The difference I propose is to get customers to display a sign on their lawn or a sticker on their mailbox. The sticker will tell everyone else on the block that this house really cares and is buying green power. Once one third of the neigbourhood has the sticker, that block will hit a tipping point, and the rest will feel pressure to buy green energy as well.

Lets get some more ideas flowing on how peer pressure can effect environmental change.
Adam

Lesson for Democrats

This article from the Christian Science Monitor speculates on the effect of capture of Saddam on the November election. However, this is what made me think:

Last week Dean said that despite Hussein's capture, his "views on Iraq have not changed one bit" and that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." For these comments Dean was immediately criticized by his Democratic opponents who said his position shows his naiveté in foreign policy.

Actually it may show more political shrewdness.

The fact is, if the 2004 presidential election turns on positive events in Iraq, it's going to be next to impossible for the Democrats to win. Simply saying, "I supported the president" won't do much good if the other candidate on the ballot is the president himself. Why vote for a follower when the other choice is the leader? Dean may really oppose Iraq on principle, but there is little doubt that this political calculation has not eluded him.

Dean has said this before: you can not beat GWB by trying to be like him. I wish the democrats had learned something from the California recall. Why would the electorate elect somebody who they think is a pseudo-republican when they can have a real republican. If you want to eat meat, why order portobello when steak is on the menu?

Is it OK to say that Climate Change is a problem but to disagree about the size of the problem?

Gregg Easterbrook's Easterblogg post from Friday raises some interesting points about the climate change discussion. Much of what he says goes back to conversations we had last year after seeing Bjorn Lomborg (the The Skeptical Environmentalist) debate Carl Pope of the Sierra Club at the Kennedy School.

I do not want to rehash the Lomborg debate, I would rather focus on the ideas that Easterbrook includes at the end of his post. As evidence grows that climate change is a real problem, there seems to be a danger of driving potential supporters away with extremism.

Extremism may have seemed like a necessary tool to draw attention to the far off, uncertain problems associate with climate change, but now it seems like a major liability. We need to foster debate about the impacts of climate change. The economic impacts, the cultural impacts, the environmental impacts. What kind of risk are we willing to take? What is the real uncertainty?

Will extremism poison the debate?

To say it more generally, is it inevitable that when we are faced with a far off, uncertain problem that it comes down to politics? Is it inevitable that it becomes a shouting match?

-tc

Just Chatter?

The NTSB announced yesterday that they are accepting comments on proposed changes to CAFE standards. The press release includes a goal of "modernizing existing regulatory definitions, developed in the 1970s, that distinguish passenger cars from light trucks to reflect today’s modern and significantly different vehicle fleet."

It sounds like the NTSB has decided that it is time to consider regulating the fuel efficiency of SUVs and Hummers. Is this a long overdue step or political chatter? Do you think the recent Chinese decision to increase fuel efficiency has anything to do with this?

You can read the Federal Register notice and submit your comments to the government here.

-tc

Significance of Exchange Rates

Last week's Economist has a very clear piece and backgrounder on exchange rates -- a topic several of us had a very frustrating conversation about because of lack of knowledge. The Economist article concludes that a managed drop in the dollar vs. the euro will help revive the global economy. The dollar has fell 31% v. the euro since July 2001 and may have further to go.

To most people exchange rates simply determine how much cash they have to spend when on holiday abroad. But the dollar's exchange rate against the euro is surely the world's single most important price, with potentially much bigger economic consequences than the prices of oil and computer chips, for example. The strength of the dollar affects trade balances, capital flows, growth rates, profits, share prices, inflation rates, interest rates and even the relative size of economies. The euro area's GDP was only 60% the size of America's in 2001. If current exchange rates are sustained, it swells to around 80%. If the economies of Britain, Sweden and Denmark are added to the euro area, the European Union now has a slightly larger economy than that of the United States.

They go on to point out the paradox that the US economy is booming (3.5% annual growth in 2003) in relation to the Euro area (0.3%) but the Euro is still rising in value. What’s driving the exchange rate correction is the still growing current account deficit in the US, and that foreign investors are pulling out of US securities. Also the Bush administration ended the long standing "strong dollar policy" in September 2003.

Exchange rates are basically a market for currencies driven by the normal forces of supply and demand. There are a fixed number of Euros, Dollars, Yen, etc issued at any given time (although goverments can and do print extra money to buy other currencies and impact their currencies value). As the demand increases or decreases for any single currency, it drives the clearing price for that currency. Everything from

-consumer spending, say Tom Curry buying an expensive bottle of French wine -- which would increase the demand for euros because eventually that wine has to be paid for in euros,
-to the Thai government buying US treasury bonds, increasing the demand for dollars and lowering demand for the Baht,
-to a day trader in South Africa buying shares of Mitsubishi, increasing demand for the Yen, and selling the Rand

I think one mistake is that people take pride in having a "strong" currency. It's simply a reflection of market conditions, and shouldn't be thought of as inherently good or bad.

Welcome

Welcome to the TechPolicy weblog. This weblog is a forum for some grad students in MIT's Technology and Policy program to share their views on today's pressing technology related issues.

Experts on energy, IT, telecom, automotive, defense, environment will post news and analysis of current issues. This is meant to be an forum of open discusion and will evolve as we learn what works and what doesn't.