Image: Matt Collins
The breakdown of the Washington policy process has four manifestations. First is a chronic inability to focus beyond the next election. “Shovel-ready” projects squeeze out attention to vital longer-term strategies that may require a decade or more. Second, most key decisions are made in congressional backrooms through negotiations with lobbyists, who simultaneously fund the congressional campaigns. Third, technical expertise is largely ignored or bypassed, while expert communities such as climate scientists are falsely and recklessly derided by the Wall Street Journal as a conspiratorial interest group chasing federal grants. Fourth, there is little way for the public to track and comment on complex policy proposals working their way through Congress or federal agencies.
These failings take a special toll on the challenges of sustainable development because there is no quick fix, for example, for the challenge of large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of getting long-term strategies for adopting low-carbon energy sources, upgrading the power grid, encouraging electric transportation and so on, we are getting cash for clunkers, subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and other ineffective and highly costly nonsolutions delivered by large-scale lobbying.
Some free-market economists say sustainable development should be left to the marketplace, but the marketplace now offers no incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Even putting a levy on carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or carbon-emission permits, will not be sufficient. The development and deployment of major technologies potentially crucial to more sustainable energy—such as nuclear power, wind and solar power, biomass conversion and transport infrastructure—are matters of systems design requiring a mix of public and private decision making.
Herein lies the policy challenge today. When we let the private sector enter into public decision making, we end up with relentless lobbying, money-driven politics, suppression of new technologies by incumbent interests and sometimes miserable choices devoid of serious scientific content. How can business and government work together without policies falling prey to special interests?
First, the administration should initiate a more open, transparent and systematic public-private policy process in each major area of sustainable development. Highest priorities would include renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. A high-level roundtable would be established in each area, perhaps under the National Academy of Sciences, with representatives of private business, nongovernmental organizations, government officials, scientists and engineers. The proceedings would be open to the public, Web-based, and available for submissions and testimony by interested parties. Each roundtable would prepare a report within six to 12 months containing a technical overview and policy options, prepared for both the president and Congress. Second, the administration would prepare draft legislation, on which the experts on the roundtables and the general public would be invited to comment through Web-based submissions. Third, the congressional processes, too, would become Web-supported. Hearings and testimony would be open to the public, and Web sites would encourage comments and additional evidence.
These measures would infuse the policy process with vastly more accountability and technical expertise and would help keep the lobbying in check. They would open the policy process to the public to ensure ample and vigorous discussion. They would force the administration and Congress into a systematic review of the technical knowledge in each field as a basis for policy making, rather than letting misguided policies such as corn-to-ethanol biofuels reap billions in subsidies without public scrutiny.
Currently lobbyists are still allowed to contribute massively to congressional campaigns and to political action committees. The largest lobbying sectors—including finance, health care and transport—have spent billions to promote policies that favor narrow interests over broader public interests. A major step toward reform would be to prohibit campaign contributions by individuals employed by registered lobbying firms. The right of individuals to make campaign contributions would not be infringed, but they would have to make a choice between their lobbying activities and their personal financial contributions to the political process.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThese are great ideas to help improve our legislative effectiveness. However, please remember that no lobbyist in the history of the United States has ever voted on a matter before Congress. It is the unethical and self-serving legislators who accept the lobbyist money and largess that are the problem. As long as these people will put their own financial welfare and their re-election ahead of the interest of their constituents, then we will continue to have an ineffective legislature. Therefore, I would add one recommendation to your list: voters should NOT re-elect any legislator who accepts money or other items of value from a lobbyist (or better yet they should be impeached). These are the same rules many companies live by - and they should be good enough for Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Jeffery looks like the Supreme Cpurt shot down your argument. I can't beleive the decision they made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics is such great sport, even when the participants are accredited scientists. Such great spin on the impeccable record of the expert climate science community. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is no less a self interest group than the AMA or the Teamsters. Unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to avoid corruption when engaging politicians – apparently the political contributions of science have not been keeping pace with the competition. A quite reasonable protest, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a comparative perspective across the pond: 80% of legislation in the UK actually gets through Parliament more or less as intended (with amendments), 80% (please correct if I'm wrong) of Congressional legislation fails(?) - do we need more separation of powers over here? probably yes - we'll have some of yours and that would balance it all nicely; fraternally A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho decided that climate scientists are falsely and recklessly derided by the Wall Street Journal. The same person that says carbon capture and sequestration should be one of our high priorities. Carbon sequestration is pretty much guaranteed to never be an economical solution at the volumes necessary to make a difference. I agree that our legislative process could be improved but the authors agenda seems to be guided by the narrow perspective of his pet causes. True solutions will be less one sided.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh my god, Jeff, did you really just advocate opening up the policy process to internet commenters? Do you even read the threads here on SciAm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sounds like the rather old cry "I want a government that listens to the people so they will stop doing your projects and do mine instead."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreater transparency is good, but it won't fix things. The fundamental problem is the almost ubiquitous idea that government SHOULD promote our pet projects. How about the idea that government should just govern? Leave the rest to the private sector. Most of the innovations that have improved our lives weren't funded by the federal government. Big Government as a massive money-collecting-and-spending or job-creation enterprise wasn't what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Big Government was the problem for which checks and balances were invented. Big Government is the kind of government we have today thanks to progressives. How many of us are happy with it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many practical solutions for limiting the size and power of the federal government. Reform the tax system to just a simple flat sales tax with exemptions only for necessities like groceries. Balance the budget, close agencies and bureaucracies, cut the workforce of 2 million civil federal employees by half. Require a 2/3 majority to change tax law or allow deficit spending. Make it hard for Congress to make it hard on us. They should account to us for every dime of the gift of blood, sweat and tears represented in the taxes we give them.
Limiting the political power of doling out favors and tax breaks in exchange for votes diminishes the power of lobbyists.
The marketplace--which represents the will of consumers--should determine "sustainable development" not government. Solar panels are more efficient due to market demands. Cars are more fuel efficient because of limited oil supplies and rising prices, not government CAF� standards. Forests are replanted because it's good business for timber companies. The marketplace has no incentive to reduce carbon emissions because there is no compelling reason to do so. The correlation between increasing CO2 and global warming is very weak.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal did not falsely or recklessly deride climate scientists. The main issue highlighted by the WSJ is that the science behind the "scientific consensus" of man-made global warming is very weak. The side issue is the motivation of the alarmist climate scientists who believe the science is complete and that it unequivocally supports their view of human-caused global warming, despite considerable and compelling evidence to the contrary. After the East Anglia scandal and the IPCC travesties, the public is growing skeptical of the motives of prominent scientists. The WSJ has opined on possible motivations, including seeking federal research funding.
In the debate about what constitutes good government there is an alternative to democracy. For thousands of years China has had rule by a, theoretically, impartial bureaucracy where entry and promotion are based on ability measured by performance in examinations. Based on the last two centuries democracy seemed to come out on top. Taking both a longer and a shorter view, the result is not as clear. Bureaucracies can become corrupt and ineffective, but the same can happen to democracies. Tom Holland's "Rubicon" describes how the Roman Republic came to an end; the parallels with the USA today are quite striking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I were King, I would let people vote on which projects to support. For example, at the end of the IRS tax form let taxpayers set aside, say, 10% of their payable tax as descretionary funds. On an additional form have a list of government programs or projects and require the Taxpayer to divi-up or distribute the 10% amongest the projects and programs listed that they want to support (or not as the case may be). It would be a clear vote, an indication to government about what the taxpayers support and would require that the lobbiests lobby the public, the real funders, rather than just their (the public's) representatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisforlornehope - Actually, despite its title, I interpreted this article to be concerned with improving the influence of Science in government, not an evaluation of the current form of government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt can be successfully argued that our current form of government IS a bureaucracy. Like all prior bureaucracies, however, they are less impartial than self-serving. It is impartial to the interests of all others that cannot serve their interests. The tiny minority of democratically elected and appointed representatives, of course, primarily serve their own elitist interests, having little long term influence other than to affect random changes.
A good example is Heath Reform. Regardless of what might be agreed to by elected officials, it will be implemented over time by bureaucratic officials in conjunction with the health industry, with not much regard for elected officials or the public.
At least that’s one perspective…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for very interesting analysis Jeff.
I think, we here in Europe have same kind of problems with renewables.
Germany and Denmark have 20 years supported renewables like photovoltaics and windmills.
Costs are high and CO2 emissions have not diminished.
See recent economic analysis:
www.rwi-essen.de
Rheinisch-Westf�lisches Institut f�r Wirtschaft s forschung
Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:
The German experience
Final report October 2009
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Everyone is stressing excessive use of fossil fuels as causing a green house affect on climate. However, that is the least of our problems. Sucking our petroleum reserves dry, even our oil shale, will have disastrous consequences in the future on our economy (USA) and our security, especially military security. We should use foreign fuel as much as possible. If we lose our freedom to the likes of Hitler or Stalin it will not make any difference what the temperature outside is. This world will not be worth living in anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide is undoubtedly increasing climate warmth somewhat. However I suspect that at least as great an affect on warmth is the baring of soil by increase in annual crop acreage, roads, buildings, grazing, and desertification currently. You may see an article that briefly discusses this and gives some solutions in more detail in http://charles_w.tripod.com/climate.html .