Keeping it real

MoveOn from a greed to a green economy?

Obama addresses congress and focuses on a green economy

Full speech here

Looks like MoveOn wants to help out:

MoveOn members voted overwhelmingly that we should hire more organizers, run ads, and launch a huge volunteer campaign to create a clean-energy economy and create millions of green jobs. Now, we need to know we'll have the resources to pull it off. Can you make a monthly contribution to support our massive campaign? We'll bill your credit card today and on the 3rd of every month going forward. You can stop at any time. You can also make a one-time contribution but your monthly gift will make a big difference.

EPA to Issue Carbon Dioxide Rule, Obama Climate Czar Says

That would start the ball rolling...

"The next step is a notice of proposed rulemaking," for new regulations on CO2 emissions, Ms. Browner said one the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting, one of her first public appearances since inauguration.

Ms. Browner declined to say exactly when the EPA would issue the finding or rulemaking, but EPA chief Lisa Jackson has indicated it could be on April 2, the anniversary of Mass Vs. EPA.

Officially recognizing that carbon dioxide is a danger to the public sets would trigger regulation of the greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, refineries, chemical plants, cement firms, vehicles and any other emitting sectors across the economy.

Industry fears it could shut down the economy, not only preventing plants to operate and a drastic retooling of the energy sector but also pushing costs up uncompetitively, while environmentalists say that Administration action is required by law and to pressure lawmakers to act.

But Ms. Browner said the Administration would prefer that Congress would draft legislation rather than co2 to be regulation under the Clean Air Act because lawmakers could develop a bill that could more deftly regulate the greenhouse gas through a cap-and-trade system.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Friday he aimed to pass a climate change bill by the end of the summer, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) head of the panel responsible for drafting a co2 bill, said he wanted a bill approved by Memorial Day.

The Weekly O-ddress

What would the poor say?

Recently NYU held a conference entitled "What Would the Poor Say? Debates in Aid Evaluation". You can find many of the ppts of the talks here at William Easterly's new blog "Aid Watch".

I've only looked at a few of them, but I thought I'd highlight two of them who take fairly (although not entirely) contrasting positions. First is Esther Duflo's talk that focuses on the benefits of experimental design for improving aid interventions. The other is William Duggan's short piece arguing against just using statistical evaluation. He suggest two other methodological techniques: historical political economy and qualitative investigation. What I find interesting about both of these is that ultimately they are both asking the same question: what works? but with a very important difference in terms of what the explanation looks like. In other words, they are both looking to test and generate theory, but theory of very different types.

I think Chris Blattman's notion of Evaluation 2.0* nicely captures the means that these two seemingly contrasting approaches can be combined, namely by defining explanation as the identification of the working causal mechanisms. The answer to what works? is the itetification of the active causal mechanism (ideally the intervention), its structure, what its causal tendency is, and how it interacts with particular aspects of the context. In other words, relevant research question is: what works (or not), how, for whom, and in what contexts? From that we can move to the methodological design that provides the best possible answer given the research opportunities the intervention affords. 

* This notion of a causal mechanism has been around a while in the phil. of social science, but Blattman's example is nice and clear.  This type of theory is applicable at both the macro and micro level.

obama buys canadian cookies

video

Apparently he loves Canada

unfortunately i had to work.

"Off the hook"

The GOP looking to go beyond cutting edge.

Dr. Doom and the Black Swan

They argue that the financial system needs restructuring and they still want to know stock tips.

Classic.

how to be evil

Do we need a new internet?

Depends on your level of fear

Ricard could use a bottle of Despondex

Change your Mind Change your Brain: The Inner Conditions...

Mindfulness Stress Reduction And Healing

http://www.mediafly.com/Podcasts/Episodes/BodyScan_Meditation

Foreign Aid and Bad Government

Help entrepreneurs not governments:

During the Cold War, the U.S. instituted a policy of sending money to governments in poor countries to buy their political loyalty. While studies show that sending aid to foreign governments creates allegiance, it does not lead to economic progress. Instead, it makes governments in poor countries dependent on the U.S. rather than their citizens' taxes.

Pakistan has been one of the key recipients of U.S. aid over the last six decades, but there has been no real progress as a result. Pakistan is riddled with problems that are rooted in the disproportionate power of the state. Aid has only boosted that power.

In contrast, Malaysia saw its economy grow at twice the rate of Pakistan's over the same period of time. Fueled by trade rather than aid, Malaysian economic prosperity is decentralized, and its reliability as an ally much greater.

Tragically, the Cold War aid approach actually preserves suffering in poor countries. Aid empowers bureaucracies, promotes statism, and weakens government incentives to boost tax revenues through growth. Economic assets are often kept in the hands of the state, leading to monopolies, stagnation and extortion. All of this hurts entrepreneurs, who have the potential to create wealth and promote governmental accountability.

...

President Obama now has the opportunity to adopt a new aid approach that will actually help citizens. Such an approach would demonstrate our faith in democracy and serve long-term American interests.

What should this plan look like?

First, America must remove trade barriers on exports from the poorest countries, regardless of trade policies in those countries. With global market access, poor countries would automatically attract private investment, despite their institutional weaknesses. These institutions would become stronger over time as businesses flourish. Private investments capitalizing on access to global markets would necessarily employ low-cost labor, thus creating jobs.

Next, small entrepreneurs can be bolstered with seed money in the range of $25,000. Small entrepreneurs create jobs, products and services that form the bedrock of flourishing democracies. With some tangible changes in its operation, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) within the World Bank Group could promote development through entrepreneurs. The World Bank should stop lending to governments and be absorbed into the reformed IFC.

Third, America could give $1 million to match any grass-roots group capable of raising $1 million to establish a health clinic. These clinics -- one thousand could be built with $1 billion -- could provide crucial services to poor citizens and generate goodwill towards America.

Google Ocean

Google Earth goes underwater