"Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science"

From December 16th's L.A. Times.

Very good read and worth your time.

The authors remind us that using science to make political decisions is just as dangerous as using politics to make decisions in which science is needed.  Some selections:

"The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate."

"That myth has allowed politicians to shirk their responsibility to be clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy. Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Their choices will influence the distribution of benefits and costs, and will have varying and uncertain prospects for success. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices."

"The choices are extraordinarily difficult; the costs of action, and inaction, are potentially momentous. No one can know what the "right" decisions will be, but the e-mail controversy reminds us that imperfect people, not pure science, must decide that question. This is a job for democratic politics, informed by, but not shackled to, a pluralistic, insightful and imperfect scientific enterprise."

A Bicycling Follow-Up

I would be remiss if I did not follow up today's earlier post with this report preliminarily indicating a decline in Portland's bike use.  This article from Willamette Week hints that Portland's focus support of bike commuting may not produce all roses and sunshine and that the investment in bicycle infrastructure is at the expense of basic maintenance of other transportation infrastructure.  Once again, these are preliminary results, but it could signal a step back for bike commuting if the country's top bike city is sliding.

Cities for Cycling

"Why, indeed, would people endure stifling traffic just to hop on another form of transportation that goes nowhere? How is this not similar to walking around outside without a coat while complaining of the chill? What are people thinking? Children can’t get to school on their own, while childhood obesity skyrockets. Yet the evident solution to bicyclists, as simple as putting on the sweater, is simply to ride to school. Yet few do."

"Why can’t people cycle in the numbers common in many European cities? Blumenauer and Byrne know why: bicycle infrastructure. We don’t have enough of it, at least outside Blumenauer’s hometown of Portland, Oregon. Its residents drive 30% less than in Houston, the Congressman said. They spend $2,500 less per year on transportation than the national average, and keep that money in the local economy instead of sending it overseas in oil payments. According to Blumenauer, Portland’s bicycle share has increased 400% for less than the cost of one mile of freeway."

These selections are from a piece by David Alpert, "Cities and Cycling: Ignoring a Simple Alternative," that appeared on Next American City's website.  Updating the United State's transportation profile has been a focus of the Obama administration.  Or at least it had been before . . . well, you know.  But for all the focus on rail, bus rapid transit, and other forms of mass movement, I think two alternatives do not get their fair share of recognition - walking and bicycling.  As Alpert points out and I certainly recognize, walking and biking do require some investment in infrastructure to make them viable, comfortable, and convenient transportation options.  But as his Portland statistics make clear, they are certainly less expensive than mass transit options (including roads), and in these economic times, that factor should certainly not be ignored.

Alpert's thoughts also address a larger problem that is not easy to address.  Many of the large cities in the United States that developed later in time - i.e., large cities beyond the east coast - are designed to accomodate auto-driven life.  This is not a characteristic of many of the European cities held up as bicycling models simply because, due to their age, these cities are planned and laid out for pedestrians and other non-motorized movement.  So while investment in bicycle infrastructure or pedestrian-friendly design could provide options to some cities, the reality is that some American cities just are not suited to bike and foot commuting.  Even in those cities, though, I do believe we will continue to see more compact, self-sufficient neighborhoods and developments that give residents the choice to be car-free at times.

A few noteworthy links to round out the discussion:

- Congressional Bike Caucus: see if your local House and Senate representatives are members.

- "Cities for Cycling is a project of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to catalog, promote and implement the world's best bicycle transportation practices in  American municipalities."

- Bonus link: If you like adventure stories, this one is for you.  Hear the trials, tribulations, successes and failures of one determined bus-bike commuter in the U.S.  (The bike story picks up about half way through the podcast.)

 

More on Denver's Living Streets Initiative

A few weeks ago, I blogged critically about the perspective of a Denver Post opinion writer regarding Denver's Living Streets initiative.  Now the co-chair of Living Streets has responded as well.  His brief letter to the editor raises some of the same objections to Carroll's column that I did. 

A Thought About Climategate

As the "ClimateGate" situation continues to unfold, there is one reason in particular why this whole hot mess troubles and disappoints me.  As I described to a friend earlier this week, not only has ClimateGate brought into question some knowledge or theory that some of us believed to be truth, it has also cast doubt on the very reasons why we believe what we believe.  As Ilya Somin writes on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, I think we often forget how much "truth" relies on social validation.  The fact that ClimateGate involves scientific knowledge makes the social validation proposition that much more troubling.  I - and I think there are others who agreed with me on this point - believe science to be one of the few terrestrial sources of truth, or something close to it.  I believe this because, while science certainly relies on theory, it strives to validate theory through data.  And, unlike words, numbers are not subject to interpretation.  Five is five - upside down or inside out.  The fickle and fleeting nature of words' meaning is famously illustrated by statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."  Thus, when circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of numbers, I start to notice little beads of sweat on my brow.

 

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel, New Bat Name

Change is good. 

In that vein, I have decided to re-title my effort here.  I think the new title reflects my feelings about where (I think) I sit ideologically at this time and what (I think) I am trying to express here.  I believe the revolution of our time will come (and must come) not from the right or the left but from the center.  It will be a revolution fueled by ideal and conviction but driven by pragmatism and practicality.  It values progress and realizes that, while ideology is necessary, it must yield to the common good.

Maybe that in itself is idealistic, but we have to start somewhere.

STOP PROMOTING ANIMAL CRUELTY

Oh. My. God.

To my dogs: Look, I know our house gets chilly sometimes.  But you have fur and supposedly some animal instincts that facilitate self-preservation.  Supposedly. 

Let's Talk About E.D.

Have you talked to you city councilperson or state legislator about E.D.?

No, not that E.D., although we will bring up Viagra maker Pfizer.

Rather, I am referring to eminent domain, the state's power to seize private property for public use.  The concept looks, sounds, and feels very Big Brotherish.  It seems to fit better in a medieval monarchy or a World War era dictatorship.  But eminent domain is very much a part of sovereign power in the United States.  Its foundation is in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be "deprived of . . . property, without due process of law" and that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."  So while this language seems to generally prohibit government taking of private property (a "taking"), it actually works to permit takings, so long as the property owner receives due process and just compensation in the action.

Why the out-of-the-blue eminent domain discussion?  E.D. has been on my mind because of three scenarios.

1.) Post-Kelo Irony: The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London set the stage for the firestorm of E.D. debate in the last five years.  While some legal scholars believe that Kelo is a logical extension of the Court's prior eminent domain precedent, this particular case sparked public outcry in the name of private property rights.  And maybe the circumstances warranted that.  Briefly, the case arose out of New London's plans to redevelop its sliding Fort Turnbull neighborhood.  Plans for the revitalization of the neighborhood - including a waterfront hotel, restaurants, shopping, and marinas- were anchored to some degree by a new research and development facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.  When some existing property owners balked at selling to the development authority (a public entity), the city exercised its eminent domain powers to acquire the properties.

What distinguished the New London acquisitions from more typical E.D. cases is the purpose - economic redevelopment rather than more traditional public buildings, roads, etc.  The real rub of the case is that the eminent domain powers were used to essentially transfer property from one private owner to another.  That fact, no doubt, further fueled the ire of the landowners who stood to lose their homes to the government plan.  The property owners challenged the city's authority to take their property for economic development.  The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, in a close 5-4 decision, the Court held that economic redevelopment was a valid "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But that ruling should not be considered as wide-sweeping as my statement makes it appear.  The justices, particularly swing-voter Justice Kennedy, relied on the fact that New London had formulated a "carefully considered" plan for its redevelopment of Fort Turnbull and that the prospective economic benefits would not be minimal.  Thus, while there would certainly be some incidental private benefit to the new developers, such as Pfizer, the public benefit of Fort Turnbull's revitalization justified the economic development takings.

Nearly five years later, the story lives on thanks to Pfizer's September announcement that it will close its New London facility in the wake of its merger with Wyeth.  What happened to New London's "carefully considered" plan that apparently won the day in 2005?  Very few of the other pieces of the plan have fallen into place in the last half decade, so Pfizer's announcement is, in effect, a grand slap in the face.  The news, no doubt, validates, at least in the minds of the Kelo plaintiffs, their resistance of New London's acquisition for the project.  It will almost certainly further galvanize property rights advocates who fight the use of eminent domain in the name of property owners.  

What interests me is whether Pfizer's departure and the seeming failure of New London's plan will change judicial scrutiny in eminent domain cases.  Only time will tell.  I should note that, in the wake of Kelo, 43 states enacted legislation designed to restrict eminent domain powers.  Regardless, leading scholars and practitioners believed that, generally speaking, a comprehensive plan backed by data and studies would allow a government entity to justify use of eminent domain powers, so long as it fit within permissible statutory schemes.  My question is whether the failure of New London's redevelopment plan will heighten the scrutiny with which such plans are reviewed.  Will governments seeking to effect an economic development taking be required, at least to some degree, to guarantee or predict success? Further consider the tough economic market, particularly for real estate, and governments could find a tough row to hoe for redevelopment and urban renewal projects.

(A corollary issue is whether we even want judges making such decisions.  Their role is to decide legal issues, not to make judgments about data, research, and projections that government officials spend months, years, and careers ruminating and scrutinizing.  I am going to sidestep my soapbox here, but this is certainly worth some thought.)


A final note before I leave Kelo.  A sequel recently went to the Supreme Court for appeal.  The Goldstein case arose from similar circumstances, this time in Brooklyn.  The Atlantic Yards project will house a new arena for the New Jersey Nets, office buildings, high-rise apartments, and a hotel.  Homeowners challenged the city's authority to acquire their property via eminent domain and transfer ownership to the project's developer, Bruce Ratner, also owner of the Nets.  The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.  Technically, that decision has no precedential value, but it does indicate that the Court is not ready to reopen the economic development takings issue.  Given that three new justices have come to the Court since Kelo (C.J. Roberts, along with Justices Alito and Sotomayor), it will be interesting to see the result if another eminent domain case does find its way to the Court in the near future. 


2.) RTD's use of eminent domain for FasTracks light rail expansion: The Regional Transportation District, the governmental entity that operates the Denver-metro area transit system, has been in the news as well.  RTD is empowered to use eminent domain to acquire property necessary for the operation of the local buses and light rail.  The district has garnered negative headlines in the last two years because of its exercise of that power as part of the FasTracks project, which aims to expand light rail service to more of the metro area.  Some homes and several local businesses have been impacted as RTD has sought to acquire property necessary for the new rail lines and related infrastructure.


Opponents cried foul on the moves, claiming that they were economic development takings, rather than actually necessary for transit infrastructure.  And those claims were not entirely inaccurate.  Transit-oriented development (TOD) is an element that RTD and other transit proponents hope to incorporate into the rail expansion.  TOD aims to incorporate commercial and residential elements into the communities surrounding transit.  Ideally, instead of a gigantic park-and-ride lot, a transit stop features some nearby living options and necessary commercial services.  At the least, perhaps there is a coffee shop or small grocer on the ground level of a parking deck.  Regardless of the form, obviously RTD will not be operating the Starbucks that goes in next to fair booth.


Capitalizing on the anti-E.D. sentiment that has been growing since Kelo, state lawmakers attempted to pass a bill that restricted RTD's eminent domain authority to stations, parking, and maintenance facilities.  The bill ultimately died in committee, but it - and the rest of the property rights resistance RTD is facing - illustrates that governments will endure strict public scrutiny, even if they ultimately face no legal scrutiny.  Use of the eminent domain power must be judicious, strategic, carefully executed and cleverly publicized in order to avoid a property rights maelstrom.

3.) Eminent domain of wind rights: Finally, the following case from Minnesota came to my attention.  There, a government-owned public utility is seeking to use eminent domain to acquire the "wind rights" necessary to establish a wind farm.  The utility owns the property on which the farm will sit.   But state law requires any wind farm owner to obtain the wind rights of adjacent property in order to ensure free flow of wind into the farm turbines.  As the second linked article indicates, some private wind farm owners have succeeded despite this regulatory twist.  The current case is intriguing because the use of eminent domain to acquire such rights is unusual.  It is also interesting because the state, through its utility, is seeking to promote renewable energy sources.  As one commentator suggests, maybe there are better ways to advocate for alternative energy.  Regardless of its shrewdness, he also notes that, even under a narrow interpretation, the acquisition of these wind rights is probably a constitutionally permissible taking.  I will be interested to see how this scenario is ultimately resolved.


I suppose my fascination with eminent domain is that it directly pits sovereign authority against private property rights, a concept whose role cannot be underestimated in this country's founding, settlement, and expansion.  While affirming private property rights and a person's right to due process and just compensation, the doctrine also recognizes that private property rights are far from absolute.  And rightly so, I think.  What good is government authority if it must yield to private interests?  As I said before, I do believe sovereign powers like eminent domain require careful consideration and judicious exercise.  I am certainly not advocating for abuse of power.  But I am advocating for a government's right to make assessments of and decisions about what best promotes the health of its community - socially, economically, philosophically, environmentally.  While controversial and often tough to swallow, tools like eminent domain are necessary to make those decisions reality.