From the Washington Post:
White House officials for more than a year have blocked a rule aimed at protecting endangered North Atlantic right whales by challenging the findings of government scientists, according to documents obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The documents, which were mailed to the environmental group by an unidentified National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official, illuminate a struggle that has raged between the White House and NOAA for more than a year. In February 2007, NOAA issued a final rule aimed at slowing ships traversing some East Coast waters to 10 knots or less during parts of the year to protect the right whales, but the White House has blocked the rule from taking effect.
North Atlantic right whales, whose surviving population numbers fewer than 400, are one of the most endangered species on Earth, and scientists have warned that the loss of just one more pregnant female could doom the species. Some shipping companies have opposed the NOAA proposal, saying slowing their vessels will cost the industry money.
…
In one document, the Council of Economic Advisers questioned “the reliability of analysis in the published literature on which NOAA is basing its position.” The council conducted its own analysis and concluded that “the relationship between [vessel] speed and [whale] injury . . . may not be as strong of a relationship as is suggested in published papers.”
The juxtaposition of economics and whales is quite intriguing. In my own experience, the two haven’t come up in the same conversation since Art Laffer argued eloquently for the need to save the whales (now over twenty years ago).
Of course, I would also be intrigued to see the other memos, e.g.:
A separate document reveals that Cheney’s staff argued “that we have no evidence (i.e., hard data) that lowering the speeds of ‘large ships’ will actually make a difference.” NOAA again fired back, writing that there was “no basis to overturn our previous conclusion that imposing a speed limit on large vessels would be beneficial to whales.”
This document [pdf] is I believe the originally cited NOAA study.
Late addition, 8pm Pacific: Some of the various documents discussed in the article are here.
Wright whales?
Quite a hodge podge of statistics that may actually better prove Cheney’s position:
What is left out of these statements are the words “world wide.” Lowering ships speeds within the coastal waters of the US, MAY lower the mortality rate a fraction of the less then one right whale killed world wide per year.
The report even admits that it is difficult to police/enforce any speed regulation. A huge cost for such limited benefit. Anyone care to do a ROI?
I can’t help but think that this was a joke posting, Menzie, but, I may be projecting on this one.
CoRev:
You are being extremely misleading by selectively quoting from the report. From page 5:
“Of 53 ship strikes to right whales world-wide, 28 (53%) occurred in the waters off the United
States.”
26 of those strkes were off the east coast. The proposed regulations would directly affect the current source of half of right whale ship strikes, which is a substantially larger effect than you appeared to be suggesting.
Pitt, accuses me of cherry piking, then does an even better job of it!. The period covered in most of the reports is twenty years. So my selection of cogency is not as significant as his/hers?
Bottom line: Few right whales are killed per year “WORLD WIDE” by ship collisions. From the literature it is either 14/11 of 16/20. You folks can do the math.
I live in the country, and to me this smacks of advise to reduce deer kills. Maybe we should stop going into town during deer mating season or early summer when most deer are killed by vehicles. Makes perfectly good sense, unless you live or work in the environment.
CoRev: No, it’s not a joke posting. Nor did I make a judgment on whether the NOAA scientists or the scientific experts on the VP’s staff were right. I just expressed my curiosity at seeing how scientific discourse and cost-benefit analysis were being conducted in the Executive Branch. After seeing the use of information in the Energy Dept. analysis of aluminum tubes in the Iraq-WMD debate, it would be natural I think to be curious. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having the White House make scientific policy determinations is like having your gall bladder removed by a car salesman. It’s very unlikely that the right criteria will be applied in decision making.
Menzie, since you are serious, then do a quick and dirty ROI.
Here’s an alternative solution. Capture a couple dozen right whales and breed them. Adding one per year to the biosphere will offset any potential loss due to being struck by a ship, or lightning or any other random act of nature.
CoRev: I am impressed by your knowledge of the efficacy of in-captivity mating programs for right whales. I freely admit to not having the scientific knowledge to assess the likely effectiveness of the alternative you suggest (teaching in a university provides one with the wisdom to know what one does and does not know, vis a vis for instance those with PhD’s in biology); but then I’m not certain what are the costs imposed by the proposed rule. That’s why I’m curious about seeing the memos. I am particularly interested in the scientific opinion of the VP’s staff. At best, I will be enlightened. At worst, I will be amused.
Menzie, your uncommon interest in whales mating is beginning to worry me! Been a long cold winter?
I think I’ll go do some more research on AGW. A less sex filled subject, perhaps, but still way more meaningful subject for an economics discussion.
Last time I checked, Vice President Cheney was elected by the will of the people. The bureaucrats at the NOAA were not yet they are demanding that the elected representative bow to their opinion.
Seems like a legitimate difference of position where the VP trumps NOAA.
CoRev said:
“Bottom line: Few right whales are killed per year “WORLD WIDE” by ship collisions. From the literature it is either 14/11 of 16/20. You folks can do the math.”
Do you know why there are “few” right whales killed per year?
Answer: Because there exists only “few” right whales on Earth!
In other words, there can never be a year (within our time-span) when many (compared say to your local population of deer) can be killed, because “many” right whales don’t exists!
In a shrinking population, as the population gets smaller each individual becomes more valuable.
Thus, this whale situation is nothing like CoRev’s local deer issues.
To Joseph Somsel – are you suggesting that an Executive agency should not fulfill its obligation under laws (passed by Congress, signed by Presidents) simply because a single elected official thinks otherwise?
CoRev: You brought up the “capture and breed” option, not I.
Oh, yes. I know all about this memo from an extremely reliable source.
The stuff the CEA did on this was absolutely shameless. It’s sad that this once fine institution has been relegated to Dick Cheney’s back pocket.
On the face of it, NOAA is overstepping their purpose legal mandate. What next, NOAA sets speed limits on American highways?
This is a stalking horse for the “polar bears are endangered species” power grab to be used to control GHG emissions.
Can even Congress pass a law setting vessel speed limits on the open sea?
We can argue all we want about if it is worthwhile for the economy, the shipping business, the integrity of NOAA, whale DNA, social consciousness or in the eyes of God to kill whales with speeding ships – but face it if Dick Cheney gets a chance he will kill the animal. If he had been born earlier – he would have been a buffalo hunter. I only wish his mommy had let him be a soldier.
By the way no one with any brains thinks that he was duly elected.
“teaching in a university provides one with the wisdom to know what one does and does not know, vis a vis for instance those with PhD’s in biology”
Menzie, I was pleased to see that someone in the economics profession brought this up. One of the saddest points in my graduate education was listening to a bunch of economic theorists in my department explain how there wasn’t sufficient evidence of global warming and then to hear one of them say the following: Even if there is a problem of global warming, some places will better off and some worse off and we can solve any inequities with transfers from the former to the latter.
I wish I were confident that most of the professors in economics at top universities — and economic practitioners in government — have the wisdom to follow the Confucian maxim you referenced.
Stomsel:
NOAA is part of Commerce. As such, yes, they should have a say in what speeds ships may travel in the EEZ.
And, as another poster mentioned: The whole point is that there are very few right whales left and ship strikes are the leading killer and that there is evidence that strikes are underreported. The endangered species act mandates that Right Whales be protected from extinction. NOAA is saying that to give the whales a better chance at survival, reducing ship speed to avoid strikes is a good idea, as there is evidence that loss of one pregnant female may lead to the species’ demise.
Finally, it would be very interesting to see the CEA’s scientific evidence as to why it’s not a good idea. I’m sure they have world-class biologists and biostatisticians on staff.
Joseph Somsel:
Uhh, you seem a little clueless here. NOAA was legally forced to do something about this under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Government agencies tend to (and this case is no exception) put implementation of environmental rules off as long as possible, usually until they are sued by an environmental group for not enforcing the law. Bureaucrats don’t ‘overstep’ for the fun of it.
Anyway, here’s what happened: The data included many observations where big ships were going very fast (over 30 knots, in most cases), hit a whale, but could not verify the fate of the whale. You see, when tankers are going that fast and hit a whale they don’t always stop and search the sea for whatever might remain. The scientists threw out these data points since they had no verifiable outcome. But the CEA put those data points back into the analysis and assumed the whales lived. Note, however, that *every* whale outcome that was verified for boats traveling above 12 knots or so did in fact a death. If you know a little about statistics and leverage you can see how adding a few data points where whales supposedly lived after a 30+ knot strike would have a big effect on the results.
Anon (9:37AM): Thanks, I didn’t realize I was channeling Confucious. The exact quote: “To know that one knows what one knows, and to know that one doesn’t know what one doesn’t know, there lies true wisdom.”
anon (11:30 AM): As a former CEA senior staff economist, I have the highest respect for the agency. There are always econometricians on staff; hence, I would not out of hand dismiss their analysis. But it would be of interest to see how the statistical analysis was conducted. Reasonable people can disagree.
Not having spent time on the VP’s staff, I cannot speak to the level of statistical analysis conducted within that group.
Anon, you exaggerated the ship kill issue by claiming “…and ship strikes are the leading killer…” When the Report clearly said:
That means nearly 2/3s are from other causes than ship hits. Remember that is a world-wide result. No, NOAA does not set speed limits world-wide!
BTW, how many ships do you know of that travel at 30+ knots? Even for most war ships that is near max speed, and their least efficient. And, yes they do care about efficiency in their travels.
Menzie,
Any reasonably good statistician or econometrician would agree that the CEA was selling junk in this case (see anon 1:29pm). The judgement wasn’t statisical so much as it was basic common sense and knowledge of circumstances involved with data collection. But the CEA staff were surely smart enough to know how a few high-leverage points magically added to the analysis could change the results. That isn’t scientific judgement; it’s scientific manipulation.
And the call came from Dick Cheney to Ed Lazear to his staff. It’s not hard to believe they they came up with the result they were told to come up with.
Yes, the CEA has great historical reputation. That reputation has declined consdierably during this administration.
Given where some of us sit we must remain anonymous. Clear documentation will surely come out eventually.
Very few commercial ships travel at over 30 knots – maybe a few ocean liners. Most travel at 12 with some at 17 knots.
Ultimately, NOAA has one opinion and Cheney’s staff has another. I was clearly pointing out that, as an elected official, Cheney has political legitimacy that civil servants at NOAA lack. Restraining power grabs by bureaucrats are one reason we elect the president and vice president.
As to the detailed merits of each side, I’ll leave to my elected representative in our Republic to decide.
This is not a liberal-conservative issue or even an economic issue. It is a central planning and control versus economic freedom issue. There will always be the old maids who will want to meddle in everyone’s business and tell everyone what to do. In this case it is a bunch of scientists.
Most scientific evidence can be used to support any number of contradictory positions so in essence this is a political issue clothed in psuedo-science.
corev,
You conveniently omit the opening sentence of that paragraph: “Ship collisions are responsible for more right whale deaths than any other single human impact.” That’s *human* impact. Sure whales die of other causes. Still, ship strikes are the leading cause. The report also states that well over half of the deaths occur on the US east coast and Nova Scotia. Yes, South Africa does come in a distant second. Meaning that US policy has a very large influence.
Anon, I give. When an issue is clouded by guilt for being human and humankind’s ill use of the environment then there is no cure but to remove humans from the equation. You go ahead first. Please remove your influence from the environment. I think in this case I will be the casual observer, because the successful end result does need to be reported.
corev:
A little aggressive, aren’t you?
In any case, my point is that our government has a mandate to protect endangered species from negative human impact – whether some citizens agree with the regulation or not – and the Bush administration is shirking its responsibility.
I think you are missing a Key word in the legislation and implementing Regs: REASONABLE. That does not mean at all costs.
/sarcasm on/ BTW, in Solomesq terms, which part of the right whale fraction saved (if any) by the speed limit do you wish? When we finish with ship speed limits are we going to attack all pathogens, and then predators? It appears to me that attacking the latter two would have higher payoffs./sarcasm off/
So, after repeatedly being caught at misusing quotes from the study by taking them out of context, CoRev concludes that the problem is that human guilt is clouding the issue. Methinks CoRev is clouding the issue.
Same theme from DickF. “Most scientific evidence can be used to support any number of contradictory positions (sic, at least for honest folks), then (here comes the non-sequitor) so in essence this is a political issue clothed in psuedo-science.”
Taken on its face, Dick is claiming that any effort to use evidence arrived at through application of science is politics parading as psuedo-science. So, if the back 40 is more acidic than the front 80, and we learned this through use of soil testing methods developed by scientists, then choosing different fertilizers for the two fields is politics parading as psuedo-science. Balderdash.
What we have here is a bunch of knee-jerk refusal to consider evidence that doesn’t suit the anti-regulatory agenda. Worse, in CoRev’s case, we have an effort to obfuscate evidence in the very report under discussion. You guys need to come up with a more credible method of disagreement, or just admit you don’t care about evidence when it contradicts you views.
That white paper is a mess. One excerpt:
Ship collisions are responsible for more right whale deaths than any other single human impact.
Between 1991-2002, 14 right whale deaths have been attributed to ship strike (Waring et al.,
2001). Of 45 right whale deaths recorded between 1970 and 1999, sixteen (35.5%) resulted from
injuries caused by collision with a ship.
In other words, there were 14 RW deaths attributed to ship strike in the 12 year period from 1991-2002, but 16 in the 30 year period that includes most of the 1991-2002 period. Does that make any sense?
The permanent bureaucracies are at war with the Bush administration, and when an anonymous staffer at NOAA doesn’t get his way, instead of stamping his feet, he leaks to the WaPo. The predictable headline follows. I say TS. I’m gonna miss Dick Cheney.
KH, first, read the report. If my quotes are out of context, show me. I quoted two back to back sentences that are early on. Shouldn’t take you too long to find them. If you can find numbers right whale deaths that are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than those I quoted, then find them.
Here’s an alternative approach that might be less costly and also yield some interesting and useful findings: Using sound to save whales from extinction http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17076191/page/2/
Berger:
“In other words, there were 14 RW deaths attributed to ship strike in the 12 year period from 1991-2002, but 16 in the 30 year period that includes most of the 1991-2002 period. Does that make any sense?”
Yes, it does make sense. Reporting was not mandated prior to 1994. As the report says, strikes are most likely underreported.
kharris has it right. This has nothing to do with poor science and everything to do with the desire to ignore contradictory evidence.
anon, take it to the WaPo. Complaining about the admin makes no sense. Your a good bureaucrat, just wait them out. Or is the science so bad that it won’t stand the scrutiny of the next administration?
Anon-
Show me where in the report it says that reporting was not mandated prior to 1994. It doesn’t make sense that there were 14 deaths in a 12 year period and 2 additional in 18 other years. Data is inconsistent, report is a patchwork of tendentious reasoning.
berger:
NOAA Technical Memo 168 (Waring 2001) discusses reporting. I agree that use of early data should be treated carefully, as it seems to be incomplete. The ’91-’02 are more valid.
corev:
If someone with views different than yours is in the Whitehouse come January will you just set aside your convictions and wait for someone else? C’mon.
This is the problem with political discourse currently. Too much argument about whether there should be argument – from both sides of the aisle.
I’m bored of this thread now.