Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 30, 2009 at 13:51

jffree - I'm not sure how many "new" gov't. jobs will be created, but in my experience, same employees just put up a new name/title plate when "new" jobs are created. Sometimes the numbers grow by a few, but for the most part it's still the same warm body behind the same desk with a new title.

best - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 30, 2009 at 17:39

Maybe so, Sesport, but you can't deny that we are flinging money that we don't have at problems that don't have an easy solution. Making government bigger and giving it more and more power over the smallest issues (light bulbs) in our lives is not going to fix the big problems. That's meddling micro management.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 30, 2009 at 17:43

And, I apologize CMK, if you feel like your discussion got hijacked. I made a simple comment about the press conference that somehow took on a life of its own.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 30, 2009 at 18:41

jffree - You don't have to explain to me about micro-managing. I just wanted to share what I know about the "adding jobs" part. I'm not sure which problems you're talking about, other than the light bulbs, in reference to flinging money.

As I said, I don't think (but I could be wrong) that gov't will get "bigger" per se, based on my experience it will be "shifting" some folks around, giving them new job titles, etc.

The money flinging ... I agree on some instances, like the bail outs (okay, I know, it would have caused the collapse of the country's economics), but that's how I feel. In my world, when someone doesn't do their job, causes financial loss, takes more of the money for themselves, it's not rewarded, it comes to a screeching halt. For the military & education I wish they'd do as much as they've done for auto industries & AIG/banks/mortgage companies.

I guess we did hijack. Sorry, CMK, and I'll stop now.

best - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 30, 2009 at 19:48

See, you did know what I was talking about re: flinging money.
Nitey nite.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 30, 2009 at 18:44

Check - Any idea where that report may be? GAO, perhaps?

thanks ::0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 2, 2009 at 4:20

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 2, 2009 at 4:24

Who here was crying about Polar bears, who was foolish enough to buy that garbage?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 2, 2009 at 8:06

1 degree in 100 years, let me ask you a simple question, if the climate would stay in some "perfect" equilibrium if not for man, would you please care to explain the numerous ice ages? Why does your chart start at 1880 when the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. You can't see the forest for the trees, laughable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RAZORBACK on July 2, 2009 at 7:20

Global warming a politically convenient crisis used by the political left to justify their own addenda as so elegantly stated:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience Friday “never waste a good crisis,” and highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy-intensive way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on July 2, 2009 at 7:53

Carlin Economics


This is the home page for Alan Carlin, featuring his applications of environmental economics, transportation economics, and economic development to address public policy issues. The publications are listed in reverse chronological order.


Education
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Employment
Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present

Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1963-71.

Publications
Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, unpublished report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency but not representing the Agency's views, final version dated March 16, 2009. Designed to be printed double-sided. File size is 4MB.

Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All, Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2, Spring, 2008, pp. 685-757. Abstract

Risky Gamble, Environmental Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, September/October, 2007, pp. 42-7. Abstract

Global Climate Change Control: Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, No. 6, June, 2007, pp. 1401-97. Abstract

Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control, Sustainable Development Law and Policy , Vol. 7, No. 2, Winter, 2007, pp. 56-58. Abstract

The New Challenge to Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Sound Is the Opponents' Empirical Case? Regulation, Fall 2005, pp. 18-23.


Measures of Mortality Risks (with W. Kip Viscusi and John K. Hakes), 1997 Abstract Full Text: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 14, No. 3, May/June, 1997, pp. 213-33. Earlier report to EPA.

Cost Savings from the Use of Market Incentives for Pollution Control (with Robert C. Anderson, Albert M. McGartland, and Jennifer B. Weinberger), 1997, in Richard F. Kosobud and Jennifer M. Zimmerman (editors), Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Policy: Regulatory Innovations to the Fore, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1997, pp. 15-46.

EPA Comments on Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October, 1994. Abstract:

Environmentally Responsible Energy Pricing (with W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, and Mark Dreyfus), 1994. Abstract Full text: Energy Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, April, pp. 23-42. An earlier version of the report is available here. The full report on which both are based can be found here.

The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution, Report No. 230-R-92-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1992. Abstract

Environmental Investments: The Cost of Cleaning Up (with Paul F. Scodari and Don H. Garner), 1991. Full text: Environment, Vol. 34, No. 2, March, pp. 12-45.

Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, A Summary (with the assistance of the Environmental Law Institute), 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-084, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December. Abstract

Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, Report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States, 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-083, November. Republished with previous entry by Island Press, Washington, D.C. and Covelo, CA, 1991. Abstract

“Introduction,” in Thomas D. Crocker (editor), in Economic Perspectives on Acid Rain Control, Butterworth, Stoneham, MA, 1984.

Benefits of Pollution Control, March 1974. Full text: Philip L. White and Diane Roberts (editors), Environmental Quality and Food Supply, Futura Publishing Company, Mt. Kisco, New York, pp. 39-47.

The Grand Canyon Controversy; or, How Reclamation Justifies the Unjustifiable, 1973. Full text: in Alain C. Enthoven and A. Myrick Freeman (editors), Pollution, Resources, and the Environment, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 263-270. Absract and order info.

Environmental Problems: Their Causes, Cures and Evoluton Using Southern California Smog as an Example (with George Kocher), Report R-640-CC/RC,The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, May, 1971. Abstract and order info.

Water Resources Development in an Environmentally-Conscious Era, 1971. Full text: Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 4, April, 1971, pp. 221-223. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (editors), Selected Legal and Economic Aspects of Environmental Protection, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 53-56.

Marginal Cost Pricing of Airport Runway Capacity (with R. E. Park), 1970. Full text: American Economic Review, Vol. LX, No. 3, June, ppl. 310-9. Reprinted in Peter Forsyth, Kenneth Button, and Peter Nijkamp (editors), Air Transport Classics in Transport Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, 2002, pp. 491-5000. Abstract and order info.

A Model of Long Delays at Busy Airports (with R. E. Park), 1970, Journal of Transport Economcis and Policy, Vol. IV, No. 1, January, pp. 37-62. Abstract and order info.

The Efficient Use of Airport Runway Capacity in a Time of Scarcity (with R. E. Park), 1969, Report R‑5807‑PA, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, August. Abstract and order info.

Alternative Development Strategies for Air Transportation in the New York Region, 1970‑1980 (with H. S. Campbell, S. L. Katten, T. F. Kirkwood, D. M. Landi, R. E. Park, L. Rounnau, and A. J. Rolfe), 1969, Report RM‑5815‑PA, The RAND Corporation, August.

An Economic Re-Evaluation of the Proposed Los Angeles Rapid Transit System (with Martin Wohl), 1968, Paper P-3918, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Abstract and order info

The Economics of Transport Development, 1968, in United Nations Development Programme, Fund of the United Nations for the Development of West Irian, A Design for Develop­ment in West Irian, United Nations, New York, pp. 162‑170.

The Grand Canyon Controversy: Lessons for Federal Cost-Benefit Practices, 1968,. Full text: Land Economics, Volume XLIV, No. 2, May, pp. 219‑227. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (eds.), Water Resource Management, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 459‑468. Earlier version printed in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Central Arizona Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, May 2‑5, 1967, pp. 507‑514. Also in House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, March 13‑17, 1967, pp. 611‑618. Abstract and order info.

Vehicle Safety: Why the Market Did Not Encourage It and How It Might Be Made To Do So, 1968, Report RM‑5634‑DOT, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, April. Abstract.



Indian Transportation: A Sectoral Approach to Developmental Constraints, 1967, The Journal of Development Studies, July, pp. 414‑439. Abstract and order info.



Project versus Program Aid: From the Donor's Viewpoint, 1967, The Economic Journal, March, pp. 48‑58. Reprinted in Stephen Spiegelglas and Charles J. Welsh (ed.), Economic Develop­ment: Challenge and Promise, Prentice‑Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970, pp. 350‑359. Also in Gustav Ranis (ed.), The United States and the Developing Economies, Revised Edition, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 158‑171. Abstract and order info.



The Grand Canyon Controversy--1967: Further Economic Comparisons of Nuclear Alternatives” (with William E. Hoehn), Senate Hearings, op. cit., pp. 489‑497 and House Hearings, pp. 619‑625. Abstract and order info.



Is the Marble Canyon Project Economically Justified? (with William E. Hoehn) 1967, printed in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lower Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, Part II, May 9‑18, pp. 1497‑1512. Abstract and order info.

Mr. Udall's ‘Analysis’: An Unrepentant Rejoinder (with William E. Hoehn), 1966, ibid., pp. 1521‑1535. Abstract

Review of "Aspects of Economic Development and Policy" by B. K. Madon, American Economic Review, September, pp. 900-902.

A Possible U.S. Policy towards Indian Transportation: An Illustration of Improved Sectoral Policies, 1965, Report RM‑4379‑AID, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, June. Abstract and order info.



An Evaluation of U.S. Government Aid to India, June 1964 (partial text through Chapter 2). Abstract.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on July 4, 2009 at 5:29

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic.

The Professional Penalty for offering a Contrary View to Elites like Al Gore is a Smear Campaign.



Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

For the complete article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html

After his 38-year career with the EPA, wonder when he will be "Run Off"?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page