Archive for January, 2009

Now Revkin is a Denier

January 26th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Maybe Joe Romm’s employers over at the Center for American Progress have a vision for how his tantrums and fits serve their interests on advancing climate policy. I certainly can’t see how his antics do anything more than paint the CAP as a hotbed for intolerance and ignorance. In Joe’s latest rant he calls the NYTs Andy Revkin a climate denier, or I think he does, as Joe speaks a language unto himself. Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

(more…)

Unpublished Letter to the NYT on Energy Efficiency

January 26th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Last week I identified a major error in how the NYT assessed US energy efficiency as compared to other nations. The NYT asserted that 70% of countries are more efficient that the US, and the actual number is about 30%. I submitted a letter that was not published, though they did publish 7 letters on their efficiency op-ed. Here is my unpublished letter:

Dear Editor:

The Editorial of 19 January 2008 (“Energy Inefficient”) commits a major mistake by asserting that about 70% (75 of 109) countries are more efficient than the United States. In addition to confusing the concept of “carbon dioxide of the economy” with “energy efficency,” the editorial’s statement obviously relies on international measures of economic product based on market exchange rates. Experts typically use a different measure, called purchasing power parity, to conduct such international comparisons. When the analysis is done based on this measure, the United States is more efficent than about 70% of all countries. This may help to explain the editorial’s bizarre implication that the United States might emulate Mexico or Thailand in its energy policies. The United States can indeed vastly improve its efficiency, and examples to emulate include Japan and Germany. however, starting with a fundamental misconception of the challenge is unlikely to set the stage for effective policy.

Sincerely,

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO

Some UK Researchers Required to Demonstrate Research Impact

January 25th, 2009

Posted by: admin

The Scientist reports on a recent decision by Research Councils UK that grant applicants must submit an impact summary, describing the broader impacts of their research.  While this bears a strong resemblance to the National Science Foundation’s broader impact criteria in their grant requirements, I cannot find the specific text of the UK summary to make the direct comparison.  As a result, if there is an economic angle to the impact summary, I can see the criticism raised in The Scientist piece about the difficulty of predicting economic impacts of research.  However, I think any measure encouraging researchers to think of what happens (or could happen) with their work should be encouraged.

More on Antarctica and “Consistent With”

January 24th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Eric Steig, lead author of the recent study showing warming in Antarctica, has taken issue in the comments of the original thread with my assertion that one of his co-authors, Drew Shindell, said that the models are “consistent with” the data, writing:

By the way, I cannot help but point out that Roger was obviously poised to make this point of apparent contradiction. Yet he actually failed in this case to find a good example to fit his preconceptions. The quote from Drew Shindell doesn’t actually refer to the models, and whether they are consistent with the data, at all.

So that there is absolutely no ambiguity, here is yet another quote from Shindell, explaining the significance of their findings in a way that leaves no room for parsing:

They’re really consistent with the general warming that we get from greenhouse gases. So we now see that warming is taking place on all seven of the Earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases.

You can read more on the “consistent with” chronicles and why they matter in this op-ed I wrote past year.

PLoS Looking for New Metrics

January 24th, 2009

Posted by: admin

The Scientist (registration required) reports about a decision of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) to release other measures for some of its articles over the next several months.  For journals, the metric for the quality of the publication is a citation index, which notes the ‘impact factor’ of the publication and its articles.  What PLoS intends to do is put up several different measures for its articles – including “usage data, page views, citations from Scopus and CrossRef, social networlking links, press coverage, comments, and user ratings for each of PLoS ONE’s thousands of articles.”  From there it will be up to the users to see what metrics are used, and to what effect.  As PLoS is not currently listed in the major science-oriented citation index, this is a necessary measure to help demonstrate the value of its research, independent of the benefits of open access.

U.S. R and D Spending Predicted to Decrease in 2009

January 23rd, 2009

Posted by: admin

Perhaps a surprise to nobody, Battelle has released a report (H/T Science|Business and Nature’s The Great Beyond) predicting that U.S. R&D spending will decrease in 2009, by an inflation-adjusted 1.6 percent.  Keep in mind that this report considers R&D funding from all sources, not just government.  Global R&D funding is expected to be flat (adjusted for inflation) in 2009.  R&D spending is expected to grow in Asia, as well as in sectors related to renewable energy.  As science policy often focuses on government spending to the exclusion of other sources, this report provides a good overview of other R&D spending and associated issues.

Cap and Trade is Really a Tax

January 22nd, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has not yet settled on either her plan for cap and trade legislation or the purpose of such legislation. In the San Francisco Chronicle she says:

The speaker disappointed environmentalists when she said earlier this month that she may not bring climate change legislation to the House floor this year because it may lack the votes needed for passage. “I’m not sure this year, because I don’t know if we’ll be ready,” she told Capitol Hill reporters. “We won’t go before we’re ready.”

But in the interview Wednesday, she shifted her stance, saying she plans to move the bill this year. She said she hopes to hold a vote before December, when climate negotiators gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to work on a successor to the treaty many countries adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.

“I believe we have to because we see that as a source of revenue,” she said, noting that proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases. “Cap-and-trade is there for a reason. You cap and you trade so you can pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables.”

If the point of the policy is indeed to raise revenue for investing in innovation, then we can do a much better job than by creating a bloated cap and trade program by simply establishing a low carbon tax, as Chris Green and I argued recently (PDF). Politically, Pelosi’s continuing fickleness on cap and trade does not foreshadow a successful legislative effort.

UK Parliament Examining Research Knowledge Transfer

January 22nd, 2009

Posted by: admin

From The Scientist we have a report of testimony before Parliament about how well UK research councils are transferring the knowledge generated through research to business *and* broader communities.  Yes, this is from 2006.  However, I found the report noteworthy in that it did not limit considerations of knowledge transfer to just business.  In other words, the examination is a bit broader than the traditional treatment of this topic in the United States.  We’re typically focused on commercialization in the U.S., which is why the phrase knowledge transfer is rarely heard here – our term of art is technology transfer.  In an age where broader impact criteria are more common, and funded research programs are more tightly coupled to public policy goals (see the NSF’s Science of Science Policy program), questions of how well knowledge of all kinds is transferred deserves additional attention.  But I will not hold my breath in anticipation of these questions being asked.

Science and Technology Action in the First Days

January 21st, 2009

Posted by: admin

As of this evening, the only confirmed appointee in science and technology policy positions is Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy.  Dr. Bement, the National Science Foundation Director, carries over from the preceding administration, as he has a term appointment until 2010.

The following holes need to be filled, many involving a confirmation hearing.

OSTP: Dr. Holdren needs to be confirmed, and no hearing is currently scheduled with the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.  Action on a new Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the senior staff of OSTP must wait until confirmation is completed.

NOAA: Similar situation with Dr. Lubchenko (edited – I had mistakenly typed Holdren).  No confirmation, nor is a confirmation hearing scheduled.

NIST: No director named.

CDC: No director named.

NIH: No director named.

(more…)

The Global Economic Slump and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

January 21st, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

A few weeks ago I discussed the relationship of global economic activity and carbon dioxide emissions. At the time a wrote, “while it is uncertain what exact effect the global economic slowdown will have on emissions, a good bet is that emissions will increase at a rate proportionately less.” An observation by Jeffery Currie in the January 21 FT helps to explain why this is likely to be the case:

Even with current weakness in demand, capacity utilisation for global oil production is still 94.4 per cent. To put this into context, the utilisation rate for the US manufacturing sector is 70.2 per cent. Energy, arguably the most important industry in the global economy, runs near capacity even during a global recession.