Tech Policy

Tsunami Relief Efforts in India and Elsewhere

The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami blog is a comprehensive blog offering detailed information and updates on the Asian disaster. It is notable because it's efforts are not focussed on just one nation. It's sister blog, Tsunamihelpneeded is the place to go if you need help or want to help out.

I am personally involved in a small way with Association for India's Development (AID), which swung in to action earlier on Sunday with volunteers on the ground in South India working with other local NGOs. AID has regular updates on its work on http://survivors.aidindia.org/ where you can contribute to AID's efforts. AID will remain active in the mid-term as well as long-term relief efforts. AID is an all volunteer effort and ranks among the top development agencies rated by Charity Navigator. The best way to contribute now is through monetary donations either through AID (alternatively here) or other NGOs listed in the Tsunamihelp blog.

UPDATE: Finally, in the spirit of TechPolicy, I must point towards GreenCarCongress, which is noting that even WITHOUT counting the damages from the Asian Tsunami disaster, 2004 was the year with the highest ever costs from natural disasters.

Update on Climate Change Search Statistics

More on Climate Change Search Statistics. October and November searches show that not much has changed except the searches for Climate Change have gone up in the past year. Global warming went sharply up from 97,505 in October to 128,817 searches in November. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.

Will New Coal Build Kill Any Kyoto Gains?

Today's Christian Science Monitor has a summary of the potential future coal build in the US, China, and India (New coal plants bury 'Kyoto').  The article makes the case for investing in carbon capture and storage technologies but does not paint a pretty picture if you are concerned about rising carbon dioxide levels.

Becker and Posner on Climate Change

The topic of discussion at the Becker-Posner blog for the week is Climate Change. Posner and Becker both agree that there is a problem and some action needs to be taken. While Posner supports the U.S. joining the Kyoto protocol, Becker does not think that it would be a good idea. Usual reasons such as design of Kyoto protocol, non-participation of developing countries apply. Posner argues in favor of stiff taxes on CO2 coupled with  public subsidies for R&D. Becker, the economist of the duo suggests that an international tradable permits scheme would pull in developing countries and lower the costs of reducing CO2 emissions and would be in effect similar to CO2 taxes.

Commenting on the Becker-Posner posts, Arnold Kling writes on the EconLog:

One of the reasons that the climate models show that the required reduction in emissions is so large is that the coefficient on emissions is so small. That is, the response of temperature change to emissions is relatively small, so that in order to reduce global temperatures, we have to make dramatic cutbacks in emissions--and then pray that the models are indeed correct.

What Arnold does not understand is that the climate change is a stocks problem and not a flows problem. The effects of CO2 on climate are dependent on the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and not on emissions of CO2. So long as we continue to emit CO2, whether at a small or a large rate, the atmospheric concentrations would keep rising. Thus, there is no substitute for drastic reductions in emissions if one wants to address climate change seriously.

What skews up the discussion of climate change issues is that the long time lines involved make it very difficult to estimate the worth of undertaking a technology or policy action. At even a very small discount rate, the net present value of future benefits amounts to close to nothing when the time period involved is of the order of a hundred years.

Another problem is that many a times, people try to link the issue of climate change with possibility that petroleum may be scarce in the future. Economists have a ready answer that other technologies will come in to substitute of petroleum when the prices rise. Now, while there are some indications that petroleum may get more expensive in the coming decades, we are by no means running out of it.

The issue should really be framed differently instead of belaboring  over the relative merits or demerits of incentive based or regulation based approaches. What is our vision of our energy system for the future? If we can indeed visualize a clean energy future and find it technically feasible, then how do we get there at the lowest cost and least disruptions?  There are many opportunities underlying these fundamental questions, and we must learn to exploit these possibilities before it is too late.

Rumsfeld (Doesn't) Rule

Bloomberg news reports that

More than half of the more than 1,200 U.S. troops killed and more than 9,000 wounded in Iraq have come from insurgent attacks on the vehicles with homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

On December 8th at a town hall meeting for soldiers in Kuwait, US Army Spc. Thomas Wilson asked Sec. Rumsfeld why. I include the full transcript of the Q &A between Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld, but I'd suggest listening to it.

Q:  Yes, Mr. Secretary.  Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years.  A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon.  Our vehicles are not armored.  We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat.  We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

Ans: SEC. RUMSFELD:  I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored.  They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed.  I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done.  And it’s essentially a matter of physics.  It isn’t a matter of money.  It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire.  It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have.  They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.  Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip.  It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon.  And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up.  And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops.  And that is what the Army has been working on.

Pop Quiz. Which vehicle would you want to be driving through downtown Fallujah?

or

Uh, yea. I thought so.

I was shocked when I heard Rumsfelds Q&A on the radio. If you commit your troops to battle, especially in a pre-emptive war, you owe it to them to provide good protection. There will always be tradeoffs, you can't give every soldier the latest, greatest, most expensive, set of gear. But giving them a HumVee armoured with canvas is irresponsible.

There are two ways to produce armoured Humvees,

One method is to add armor kits to unprotected Humvees. The other way is to build them from scratch at the factory. The latter are known in Pentagon-ese as up-armored Humvees; they offer more protection than the retrofitted variety but take longer to produce.

A new up-armored Humvee costs about $150,000. At the start of the war, the army needed about 20,000 armored Humvees, of which it had very few. That would have cost $3,000,000,000 to procure.

As of today, CNN reports

Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of the 3rd Army said 22,000 of 30,000 vehicles in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Central Command bases have additional armor. Of those vehicles, 6,000 are factory retrofitted Humvees -- 2,100 short of the military's goal. About another 10,000 Humvees have been outfitted with add-on kits.

Lets look at some of Sec. Rumsfeld's statements:

1. "And it’s essentially a matter of physics.  It isn’t a matter of money.  It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire.  It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it."

Is he saying the greatest economic and military power in the world hasn't been able to slap some armour on some trucks since they started planning this war in January 2001? Horseshit.

The US ramped up aircraft production from 2,100 in 1939 to 85,900 in 1943. They could do this, from a much smaller industrial base then today, because the political willpower was there. Don't tell me that we couldn't produce  20,000 properly armoured vehicles for our troops.

2. "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up."

Technically true, but why the hell say that to a room full of soldiers driving your crappy humvees?

While technically true, who cares! they sure do a lot better then canvas. Up armored vehicles can:

stop armor-piercing 7.62-millimeter rounds, provide protection from the blast of a 155- millimeter shell exploding overhead and could withstand a 12- pound mine detonation under the front axle.

3. "It isn’t a matter of money."

Again, crap. First, the Bush Admin's original budget for 2005 had $0 for armour kits, and funding for 818 up-armoured vehicles. This funding has been sorted out, but shows the level of importance they put on providing armoured vehicles.

Second, don't tell me that if the US government put out an attractive enough bid for armoured Humvees, that someone, somewhere wouldn't make them. It ain't rocket science.

Third, look at the evidence. Since this town hall meeting, Armour Holding Inc has agreed to boost production of armored Humvee's by over 20%.

Rumsfeld's Rules

This is both funny and instructive. Atrios points to an old piece written by Rumsfeld for the Opinion Journal called Rumsfeld's Rules: Advice on Government, Business, and Life. 

Ending the Energy Stalemate

I was eagerly awaiting the release of the final report of the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP). (Press Coverage). I am somewhat disappointed because my first impression of the report is that its recommendations have been watered down so that a consensus could be achieved on the commission. Of course, the Commission, which was co-chaired by savvy Harvard professor John Holdren attempts to preempt this type of criticism by saying:

Taken together, the Commission’s recommendations aim to achieve a gradual but nevertheless decisive shift in the nation’s energy policy. Their near-term impacts, by design, will be modest, and some will undoubtedly find them grossly inadequate to the challenges at hand. Others will criticize the same recommendations for going too far, precisely because they initiate a process of long-term change with consequences that no one can fully predict. These refrains are familiar. They characterize the stalemate in
views that has too long resulted either in outright gridlock or in a piecemeal, special interest-driven approach to energy policy. These outcomes are no longer acceptable. It is time for the stalemate to end.

In the case of automobiles, one specific recommendation of the commission is to provide manufacturers incentives (a gentler word for subsidy) to convert plants to produce more fuel efficient vehicles such as Hybrids or adavnaced diesels. This is a suggestion that came out of Energy Future Coalition.

The commission's view on the fuel economy standards is as follows:

The Commission believes that three factors are largely responsible for the current CAFE stalemate: (1) uncertainty over the future costs of fuel-saving technologies; (2) fear that more stringent standards will lead to smaller, lighter vehicles and increased traffic fatalities; and (3) concerns that higher fuel-economy standards will put the U.S. auto industry and auto workers at a competitive disadvantage.

I should note that for the costs of various technologies projected ready for deployment in the next decade are increasingly well understood although some differences remain until these technologies are put in to production.
NCEP argues that CAFE standards should be raised, but it has no specific recommendations. It also says that trading of permits between different categories of vehicles as well as between different manufacturers should be permitted. It is well understood that under the current market conditions a trading scheme would result in a modest but positive cash flow from domestic to foreign manufacturers.

I will not go into details of other sections of the commission's proposals.  It should suffice to say that they have covered all the bases. Advocating the emission trading of CO2 is a noteworthy recommendation. NCEP's focus on renewable technologies is not as strong as I would have imagined.

The commission says that various subsidies proposed by it could be covered by sale of Carbon Dioxide emissions permits. The 36 billion dollar investment, however, is needed in the next ten year period, and the projected revenue will only be generated in the decade after that.

The commission says that it will spend the coming year advocating its position at various forums. Some of these suggestions will no doubt make in to the next round of debate over the energy bill. What is needed in the policy debate, however, is a comprehensive approach such as that of NCEP.  At a time when U.S. badly needs a sensible energy policy, this report is no doubt a welcome step.

Blogs of note

Here are some blogs that have come under my radar recently:

• Brad Setser's Weblog: Excellent commentary on Fiscal policy, trade deficits and exchange rates.
• Becker-Posner blog: Federal circuit court judge and Nobel prize winner in economics blogging together. Hosted by none other than Larry Lessig.
• Left2Right: Several left leaning academicians hoping to go beyond the usual political discourse.
• RealClimate: Josh Marshall pointed to this science only, no policy or economics, blog on climate science.

I am now a regular at Brad Setser's blog. I might check Becker-Posner blog often. The last two once are more for reference.

Lenovo to acquire IBM PC business

When I first heard the murmur that IBM was planning to sell it's PC business, I became interested because I am a proud Thinkpad owner. Today, It was confirmed that  Lenovo will acquire IBM PC business in a $1.75bn deal. In some sense, it is an end of an era and the begining of a new one. Is this an indication that more Chinese companies will be coming to the center stage of global economy?

Automakers Sue California Air Resources Board

What else are trade associations are meant for? The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has sued CARB over the AB 1493 legislation. This was expected ever since the rule was adopted by CARB in September. The legal reason most likely given in the suit will be preemption of federal authority by CARB in regulating CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, which is a de facto fuel economy ruling. (Not quite, but close enough). CARB is not a new comer to this game. They have been planning their response for about two years, and now it is time to go to the mattresses.