Category: Random Musing

We come to our senses. Canada goes nuts.

via Climate Science Watch

“Documents obtained through freedom of information law show how Canada’s Harper government is controlling federal scientists’ ability to communicate with journalists on scientific issues. The requirement for ministerial-level pre-approval for media contacts applies broadly, not only to politically contentious issues like climate change and oil sands. “It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria, quoted in the Montreal Gazette. The public has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning. On this issue, the Ottawa Citizen suggests the Harper government is engaged in “a creeping and worrisome authoritarianism.”

Oh lord, we unmuzzle our federal scientists here in the US, and the Canadians (the Canadians!?!) go the other way.  Well, if nothing else this demonstrates that science is always political – though not always this obviously.  People forget/don’t realize that governments determine how pots of research money are to be spent, which tends to shape what research gets done.  This decision is political.  So the administration in charge of those research dollars can have a huge impact on science and knowledge . . . without resorting to such crude measures as muzzling their scientists.
I think Rick’s response is on point: this is research being paid for with taxpayer dollars – therefore the taxpayer has a right to hear what the scientists found out with those dollars, even if the government in charge thinks those findings are inconvenient politically.  Any time a government starts to muzzle science that is paid for with taxpayer dollars, the citizenry needs to push back . . .

Posted on by Ed 0

If you are reading this, you are not in the top 1%

Slate has an amazing series on economic inequality in America – The United States of Inequality.  Beyond the interesting and clear examination of economic stratification in the United States over time, the reporting has a few visuals that are absolutely stunning demonstrations of the importance of economic policy on income equality/inequality.  Some may call it social engineering or wealth redistribution.  It most certainly is the latter, and could be the former – if one assumes that poor people in fact like seeing rich people’s incomes grow faster than their own, and would not want to change that circumstance.  And please, please don’t throw trickle down arguments at me – they have been empirically refuted repeatedly since the 70s.  How long does a failed theory get in the face of empirics, anyway?
An example of what I am talking about is this graphic (found here):

I first saw a version of this in a talk by Dick Peet – though I believe he was operating with the top 1% (see below).  My household actually fits into the decile in this figure, according to how they have defined it.  We arrived relatively recently.  As happy as I am to be here, I am not sure that I need any more tax cuts.  Even with three kids, massive daycare bills, etc.  At some point, we just have to pay for stuff like roads, schools and fire departments, and giving me a tax cut is not going to really stimulate the economy – I’m going to save the money for my kid’s college funds.
This figure is stunning (found here)

The top 1% of earners in America earned roughly 8% of all income in the US around when I was born.  Today, they earn 18%.  Where, exactly, is the justification for further tax cuts for this section of the population – their share of total income grew dramatically under Clinton, which is where the tax rate will return to if the Bush cuts expire . . . so how exactly can anyone argue that a return to slightly higher taxes (still very low by historical standards) for the top 1% will hurt even the top 1%, let alone the whole economy?
Why am I writing about this on a blog about development and the environment?  One of the big indicators of development is the GINI coefficient, which measures the distribution of incomes in an economy.  We tend to worry about countries with high or rising GINI coefficients, as it suggests that economic opportunity and development are not reaching a wide portion of the population.  This is even more acute in my current job, where we are tasked with worrying about the situations of the most poor and vulnerable.  Yet here we are in the US, with a clearly rising GINI coefficient. Sustainablemiddleclass.com has an interesting graphic on this:

We are headed in the wrong direction here, even as we chide countries on the same path.  Robs us of our standing to make this argument elsewhere, no?

Posted on by Ed 6

I swear, it's for the hygiene . . .

The BBC reports on the relocation of the Roque Santeiro market from the waterfront of Luanda (Angola) to a site 12 miles outside the city.  Interesting here is the government’s use of the standard script for the bulldozing of the informal market:

“The authorities say the market had to be closed down because it was cramped and unhygienic, a den of organised crime and prostitution.”

I say standard script because it is employed so often to justify otherwise problematic government actions – for example, Mugabe used more or less this same script to justify bulldozing Harare shantytowns full of people who voted against him in 2005:

“Zimbabwe says the policy – known as Operation Murambatsvina [Drive Out Rubbish] – is intended to crack down on black-market trading and other criminal activity in the slum areas.” (via BBC)

The informal economy is a tremendously important source of income and resources for those living in the developing world.  However, the script is also technically true – most of this economy functions outside of formal taxation, regulation, etc., and is therefore criminal.  This makes life pretty precarious for those living in the informal economy – most of the time they are allowed to operate as they wish, but when it is politically or economically expedient, they are relabeled criminals and can lose everything.  This is not to say that there are no criminals, prostitutes or other problematic people/activities to be found in the informal economy – indeed, a former student of mine, Denise Dunovant, found that much of Accra’s street vending appears to be loosely organized by organized crime networks that decide who can sell what and where.  But that is not the point – everyone knows this sort of thing is going on all the time.  So, whenever you hear a government refer to the informal economy as “organized crime” or otherwise criminal, ask yourself why they are finally choosing to enforce the law at that moment, in that place.  In the case of the Roque Santiero Market, the BBC is right – the real estate was just too valuable to leave alone any longer.

Posted on by Ed 4

A personal note on overconsumption . . .


My family and I are in the midst of a move from Columbia, SC to Washington, DC.  There is nothing like moving to make you realize how much completely unnecessary crap you own.  I’m almost to the point of calling in napalm rounds on my own position to solve the problem.
I constantly remind my students that I am not any better than them – I too consume things that degrade the environment, and when I am participating in a global environmental assessment my travel often generates more carbon then two or three of them generate in their everyday lives.  Nobody’s perfect . . . and this damn move is reminding me that I am far from it.

Posted on by Ed 0

This has nothing to do with development or the environment . . .

but has anyone else noticed that the show Leverage is nothing more than an A-Team for the new millennium?  For the love of god, the Nathan Ford character (played by Timothy Hutton) is so clearly Hannible that the writers actually had him mutter “I love it when a plan comes together” in an episode.
Well, kudos to the writers for their (subtle) honesty . . .
And I thought development had a problem with recycling old ideas that didn’t work very well the first time.

Posted on by Ed 1