Surprising no one, Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee was re-elected as Chair of the House Science and Technology Committee for the 111th Congress.  In a press release issued November 20th, Gordon identified the key issues he wanted to address in the next Congress: competitiveness, clean energy and climate change.  As accomplishments of the Committee during the 110th, Gordon cited the America COMPETES Act, a NASA reauthorization bill, and contributions to energy legislation.  If you note that the funding targets of the COMPETES Act have yet to be met by Congress, you get some sense of the Sisyphean nature of science and technology policy in the Congress.  Here’s another fact to emphasize the point:

“In the 110^th Congress, the Committee held 123 hearings and 17 Full Committee markups.  A total of 82 pieces of legislation originating in the Committee were passed by the House, including 27 bills that were signed into law.”

In a committee considered by many as one that cooperates a great deal across the aisle, let there be no doubt that bicameral legislatures are incredibly inefficient.  On the Republican side of the aisle, Ranking Member Ralph Hall of Texas seems likely to remain in that position, but I’ve seen no official announcment.  Subcommittee assignments (including chairs) will not be made until January.

The Times of London reports that Conservative Members of Parliament will receive instruction in science as part of an initiative to improve evidence-based policymaking.  Probably a critical reason behind this happening is that the Conservative Party is advancing the initiative.  New MPs will be required to attend, while returning MPs and members of the peerage (important since many of them are members of the House of Lords) will have the opportunity to attend.  I have no knowledge of similar efforts (either new or ongoing) for Labour MPs or members of the British Civil Service.  The criticisms of Sir David King mentioned in the article suggest it is not happening in the Civil Service.

I don’t imagine either party in America establishing a similar set-up, as there has not been sufficient similar criticism of policymaking in the United States.  Those members – on either side of the aisle – that are considered sympathetic to science and the need for evidence-based policymaking are not in positions of leadership, and barring someone in power pressing on this point, the British Parliament will be leading the way.

Effective November 1st, Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned his position to return to the private sector.  Coupled with the nearly simultaneous departure of National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni, there are now three major science and technology agencies operating with acting directors (National Institute of Standards and Technology Director Willam Jeffrey resigned in September of 2007).  While none of these agencies are likely to grind to a halt without a Senate-confirmed leader at the helm, the lack of continuity between appointments does not speak well to the seriousness an administration gives these agencies.

In a secret ballot in the Dem House caucus, Waxman beat Dingell out of the Energy & Commerce Committee chair 137-122.  The implications for U.S. climate and energy policy of this move cannot be overstated.  The past three days have seen President-Elect Obama strongly affirm his commitment to moving on a cap-and-trade bill, Senator Boxer do the same, and now the House install Henry Waxman to the key House position on climate change.  So Roger can keep digging his obscure news dispatches out on Polish and German reluctance to strengthening the ETS in Phase III, but the policy pressure is clearly moving toward a cap-and-trade bill in the U.S.  

Now the questions are (or will be, as the bills move along): 

1- what caps?

2- how broad and sector-specific?

3- where are the safety valves and loopholes?

4- is the US going to make the same overallocation and windfall-profit-generation mistakes as the EU in ETS Phase I?

5- will the protectionists win on imports from unregulated nations?

6- offset standards and restrictions? 

7- international trading or only North American trading?

The EUObserver has the latest on Poland’s tough negotiating line in European climate policy, and hints that a back-up summit is being considered should the December 11-12 meeting failure to secure an agreement:

(more…)

I wrote recently about the agency review teams involved in the transition.  In addition to those review teams there are also policy working groups.  These are chaired by members of the Transition Advisory Board and, as the name suggests, are more focused on policy initiatives for the incoming administration.  The transition website only lists single members for each policy area, but there are other members of each group.  I can only find information on the Energy and Environment team, courtesy of this web video posted yesterday.  There is not a strict correspondence between the review teams and the working groups, perhaps in recognition that various policy issues are not often single-agency concerns.

Names of note for readers of this blog include the leads for the Energy and Environment; Health; and Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform review teams.  Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, will handle Energy and Environment.  Former Senator Tom Daschle (and apparently the intended nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services) will do the same for the Health group.  Finally, three individuals have responsibility for Technology, Innovation and Government Reform.  They are Blair Levin (former senior staff at the Federal Communications Commission), Sonal Shah (currently involved with Google.org’s global development work), and Julius Genachowski (former senior FCC staff).

If you have concerns about the people involved, or have other suggestions for the transition team, feel free to submit your comments at Change.gov (you can submit general concerns in the American Moment section, or issue-specific concerns through the Agenda section).

Germany has long been a leader in calling for strong action on climate change, but reports of late raise some doubts. A report that Germany and Italy are looking to develop a joint approach to climate policy will raise some eyebrows:

TRIESTE, Italy -(Dow Jones)- Italy and Germany are getting nearer to a common position on climate change, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference Tuesday following a bilateral summit between the two countries.

Italy, Poland and a few other nations in mid-October threatened to veto ambitious European Union goals to fight climate change, saying that the measures were expensive. Italy asked for a new assessment of costs, and for more flexibility in their implementation.

Germany’s public support of Italy’s position means that European Union leaders may find it harder to get the package approved this year, as scheduled.

German Chancellor Merkel Tuesday said the measures mustn’t weigh on industry with more costs, speaking at a live press conference televised by Sky Italia.

Italy and Germany will hold a series of technical meetings to discuss climate change package, she said.
Germany supports Italy’s position, she said.

In an interview with Der Spiegel India takes a hard line on emissions versus development. Guess which one comes first?

(more…)

In a few posts lately I’ve discussed the importance of Poland, and other eastern European countries, to European efforts to secure agreement on a climate policy package. Poland has balked at emissions reductions commitments due to its heavy reliance on domestic coal for electricity production. At the same time, Europe really can’t let its climate policies appear to fail. So the question has been, what will it take to get Poland’s agreement to an EU climate policy package?

The obvious answer is to somehow create a loophole for Poland to be exempt from the requirements of EU climate policies. Such loopholes are the Achilles Heel of cap-and-trade, and doom the EU plans to policy failure. U.S. cap-and-traders should take note.

Today’s FT sheds some light on the nature on the emerging Polish loophole:

(more…)

Nature News reports (hat tip, Scientists and Engineers for America) on a study in PLoS Medicine describing how scientists have self-censored their work in response to a political debate. The specific political debate revolves around the criticism by a Congressman in 2003 that certain studies dealing with human sexuality sponsored by the NIH were not worthy of taxpayers dollars.  This member went so far as to propose an amendment to the NIH appropriations bill that was narrowly defeated.

The study describes survey and interview work involving researchers connected to the studies that were subject to debate.  Two primary outcomes of the work were that some of the researchers are no longer involved in that research, and others have changed language in subsequent grants to avoid so-called ‘red flag’ language.  In short, the debate was both muted and driven out of the open.

(more…)