Inside the Ivory Tower
Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, Michael J. Tierney; Foreign Policy; March/April 2009, p. 84

This interesting article summarizes some of the data from the Ivory Tower Index.

If the Obama administration took as its blueprint the poll of views of international relations scholars on issues ranging from the economy to Iran, the results would be at once expected and surprising. It’s a largely liberal internationalist agenda, one that names the most important foreign-policy priorities facing the United States as: global climate change (37 percent), the war in Iraq (35 percent), global reliance on oil (34 percent), armed conflict in the Middle East (32 percent), and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (27 percent). A large majority of the experts favor increases in foreign aid (85 percent), free trade agreements (70 percent), and increased spending on the global aids epidemic (59 percent). Although these scholars oppose using military force against Iran even as it allegedly pursues a nuclear weapons program, a clear majority favors humanitarian intervention in Sudan if conducted under the aegis of an international institution such as nato or the United Nations. (It’s worth noting that had the survey been sent in December, after the global economic collapse, financial issues likely would have secured a higher spot.)

President Obama clearly shares the experts’ concerns. On global warming, he has appointed a climate czar; on oil, he favors strengthening fuel-economy standards; and on the Iraq war, he is sticking to his plan to withdraw U.S. troops. Having one of their “own” in the White House—a law professor with a liberal, like-minded agenda on the policymaking table—may already have scholars feeling more included.

Well, that’s reassuring. What would these Ivory Tower professors of international relations to if given a billion dollars?

Although 85 percent of academics report that the U.S. foreign-aid budget should expand overall, scholars also agree about where not to spend the money—the military. Sixty-four percent of experts say that U.S. spending on defense should decline. Instead, when security and economic issues are taken off the table and scholars are given a three-way choice among foreign aid, global aids spending, and climate change, the majority of these academics would spend any windfall on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

And where are these elite schools, you ask?

With four of the top master’s programs located within or just outside the U.S. capital, the hot spot to pursue the policy track remains inside the Washington Beltway. Those more interested in purely academic pursuits will want to tread the coastlines; the northeast corridor is home to five of the top 10 Ph.D. programs, and California has three of its own in the top 10.

The Northeast, of course. Saltwater schools are tops.

aids · barack obama · china · climate change · foreign policy · greenhouse gas emissions · international relations · iraq · ivory tower · oil · russia · united states · wmd

There has been much talk recently about the “problem” of high gas prices. It’s becoming difficult to keep up with all the proposed solutions. US President George W. Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently suggested we life a federal moratorium that prevents coastal drilling. Mr. Bush has also stepped up his fight to begin poking holes in a pristine Arctic wildlife preserve. Those ideas may go far to win the vote of the stupid class, but they will not do anything to reduce prices at the pump.

Yes, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. But that’s not the worst effect of our addiction to the sweet black stuff. Worse than geopolitical instability and a flailing economy is the devestating impact combusting fossil fuels is having on our environment. Domesticating our oil supply will do nothing to decrease the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

(more…)

alternative · domestic policy · energy · foreign policy · fuel · gas · gas prices · independence

I read a brief article today in Foreign Policy Magazine (January/February 2008) that echoes what I’ve been thinking and talking about for a long time.  Politicians need to stop insisting that we have a right to cheap gasoline and instead push for higher gas prices.  High gas prices would not only stimulate public and private technology investment, it would have a transforming effect on our failing education system similar to the effects of the Manhatten Project in the ’40s and the Space Race in the ’60s.

By Kenneth Rogoff

The world believes that the only thing Americans care about is cheap oil. Prove them wrong.

Future historians will almost certainly regard the failure of the United States to lead in global environmental policy as an even greater mistake than the invasion of Iraq. The first thing the next American president should do upon taking office is to insist that the U.S. Congress pass a huge increase in gas taxes. To be more precise, the United States should implement steep carbon taxes that hit coal, heating oil, and natural gas. The tax should be enough to raise the price of gasoline by at least $2 a gallon. But unlike Europe’s consumer-oriented gasoline tax, it should hit everyone in the economy, including manufacturers.

No other specific policy action will be half as effective in changing America’s engagement with the world. No other presidential directive would so clearly disown the United States’ record of lamentable and self-centered head-in-the-sand energy policies. There is no way the United States can hope to persuade China and India to adopt more environmentally friendly growth strategies without first acknowledging its own responsibility—and then doing something about it. At the same time, a carbon tax might finally convince the rest of the world that the United States does not aim to invade countries to preserve cheap oil.

Such a tax would raise massive revenues that will help reduce current and prospective U.S. deficits. The revenues would help ease the pressure that excessive American borrowing is putting on international capital markets, pressure that is now contributing to a dangerous collapse of the dollar. Of course, some of the new tax revenue should be earmarked for scaling back other taxes and for providing subsidies to low-income citizens to offset the burden of the carbon tax. It also demonstrates the right way to provide the private sector with incentives to conserve fuel and develop alternative energy sources. It is far better than the complex and inequitable carbon trading schemes that Europeans are trying to implement.

Yes, oil-exporting countries will protest that a U.S. carbon tax is aimed squarely at them, and indeed, they will see a drop in demand for their product. Venezuela and Russia will have to figure out how to get by with lower oil revenues. But many poor developing countries will see huge cuts in their oil import bills as world petroleum prices fall. The effective transfer of wealth would be far larger than anything that private or public philanthropy could provide.

There is no doubt that there are many other symbolic gestures a new president can make, but a carbon tax would cut to the heart of what’s wrong with America’s place in the world today—politically, economically, and socially. Let’s not kid ourselves: Taxing gas and other carbon emissions will be wildly unpopular among American voters, at least at first. Many will say it is a political nonstarter. But that is precisely why children everywhere will be so grateful that a courageous American president will have finally put the United States back on its proper fiscal—and moral—track.

energy · environment · foreign policy · gas · oil · tax