Are these people Nimbys or Bananas?

The reason that Lancashire is not going to allow fracking for natural gas:

Here’s the wording of the official rejection – all about the impact on the landscape and the noise:
1) The development would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, arising from the drilling equipment, noise mitigation equipment, storage plant, flare stacks and other associated development. The combined effect would result in an adverse urbanising effect on the open and rural character of the landscape and visual amenity of local residents contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP11 Fylde Local Plan.
2) The development would cause an unacceptable noise impact resulting in a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents which could not be adequately controlled by condition contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP27 Fylde Local Plan.

Wrong decision.

It’s worth recalling a few facts about this fracking thing. Carbon related emissions in the US have been falling even as the economy grows. Because that fracking has led to a massive boost in the supply of natural gas, a fall in its price and thus the displacement of he far more polluting coal. Given that the Bowland Shale is three times the depth of the Marcellus, we would rather expect teh same to happen here.

And we’ve even had reports that it would: the amount of extra gas that Cuadrilla announced as a result of just one well test would lower natural gas prices for all of Western Europe by 4%. That’s just the extra from one well test. We do indeed get DEC saying that fracking will not reduce gas prices: but that’s because they speak with forked tongue. What they mean is that gas prices won’t fall from today’s levels: while their own economic models claim that gas prices will double into that same future. Fracking would, by their own admission, stop that doubling, even if not drop prices from today’s levels. Forked tongue or what?

As to impact upon landscape: come one, puhleeze, this is Lancashire we’re talking about. It’s not exactly sticking an oil rig in Lake Windermere, is it?

At which point all we can really wonder about is whether these people are Nimbys (Not In My Back Yard) or Bananas (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) for it’s clear and obvious that they are bananas.

The impact of interest groups on public policy

Madsen’s lecture, as Senior Visiting Fellow in the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, has now been posted on the ASI site.

The topic deals with the way in which interest groups impact upon public policy in ways that might be to their own advantage, though not necessarily conducive to the general good.  Madsen identifies with the various ways in which they exert influence on legislators.  He goes on to show how policies can be crafted to deal with their influence and turn it to advantage if possible, and circumvent it if necessary.  He gives examples throughout.

The full text of the lecture can be seen here.

Well of course companies dictate corporate tax rates

How else does anyone think this happens? The point being not that the head of the CBI phones George up and dictates what the corporate tax rate would be (not that George would give much mind to the CBI anyway), but that the rate of tax that can be charged depends upon the reaction to it of those the tax is being levied upon. All of which makes the vapours that people are having over this comment somewhat mysterious:

The UK’s tax policy is effectively dictated by companies and not ministers, according to a leading barrister and adviser to the treasury on its recent “Google tax”.

Philip Baker QC said policymakers and tax experts had learned over recent decades that the mobility of companies and jobs meant there was “no question [countries] have to be competitive to survive”. As a consequence, governments had to provide the tax policies that international corporations wanted.

So, why do we not have 100% income tax rates on pay over £7.00 an hour? Because we know that just about everyone would bugger off out of the country making being the politicians running it really no fun at all. why don’t we have VAT at 100% on everything? Because that storm for the ferries would be just the same as most fled such an extortionate tax regime. If, of course, we didn’t all just ignore it and deal in cash.

so, why do we have a reasonably reasonable corporate tax system and rate? Because it’s easy enough for a company to leave the country and go and try to make a profit elsewhere. Therefore their mobility really does tax our ability, dictate to the government, to tax them.

There’s really nothing mysterious about this at all. We all realise that a restaurant where they ceremonially spat on the soup at each and every table would get very little customs (not none as there’s nowt so strange as folk) for we would be dictating our rejection of the practice by staying away.

Why would anyone think that taxation would be different?

Misconceptions about Europe

Madsen has written a think piece listing seven common misconceptions about Europe that are certain to feature in the referendum debate.  They are:

  • The EU is “Europe”

  • If the UK leaves, it will, like Norway, have to follow rules it cannot help shape

  • That the UK has not lost sovereignty, only pooled it with other EU members

  • That the EU membership involves sacrificing some sovereignty in return for substantial economic growth

  • That huge numbers of UK jobs would disappear if the UK left the EU

  • That foreign investment into Britain would cease without EU membership

  • That special interests (such as universities and farmers) could not manage without the EU grants they receive

Madsen concludes:

It is quite possible that Mr Cameron will secure an advantageous deal from his EU colleagues that allows the UK to protect its sovereignty while enjoying a vigorous trading relationship with its partners.  If he does, the British people might well vote to accept that deal.  It will be better for the debate leading up to that vote, however, if the above misconceptions about the Europe and the EU are laid to rest.

You can read the full text of his piece here.

From the Annals Of Really Bad Science Journal

This is simply terrible:

Imposing a minimum unit price for alcohol leads to a dramatic fall in drink-related crime, including murders, sexual assaults and drink-driving, a new study shows.

Crimes perpetrated against people, including violent assaults, fell by 9.17% when the price of alcohol was increased by 10% over nine years in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Motoring offences linked to alcohol, such as killing or injuring someone with a vehicle and refusing to take a breath test, fell even more – by 18.8% – the study found.

An interesting finding but how good is the science?

Method:
A time-series cross-sectional panel study was conducted using mixed model regression analysis to explore associations between minimum alcohol prices, densities of liquor outlets, and crime outcomes across 89 local health areas of British Columbia between 2002 and 2010. Archival data on minimum alcohol prices, per capita alcohol outlet densities, and ecological demographic characteristics were related to measures of crimes against persons, alcohol-related traffic violations, and non–alcohol-related traffic violations. Analyses were adjusted for temporal and regional autocorrelation.

Results:
A 10% increase in provincial minimum alcohol prices was associated with an 18.81% (95% CI: ±17.99%, p < .05) reduction in alcohol-related traffic violations, a 9.17% (95% CI: ±5.95%, p < .01) reduction in crimes against persons, and a 9.39% (95% CI: ±3.80%, p .05). Densities of private liquor stores were not significantly associated with alcohol-involved traffic violations or crimes against persons, though they were with non–alcohol-related traffic violations.

So, they examined minimum alcohol prices and traffic violations in British Columbia. What did they not measure? Changes in traffic violations in Canadian society in general. In, perhaps, areas that did not have the rise in minimum pricing.

For all the ordure that it thrown at economists and their models these days at least this would never be published in an economics journal. Because the first reviewer, heck, even the editor pondering whether to send it out for review, would first ask, well, what was that general change so that we can measure the effects of this specific change against it?

Not that we’re about to do that detailed analysis, we’ll leave that to the excellent Chris Snowdon over at the IEA. But an indication from Canada’s 2010 crime statistics:

In 2010, police reported about 84,400 incidents of impaired driving (Table 4). The number of impaired driving offences reported by police can be influenced by many factors including legislative changes, enforcement practices (e.g. increased use of roadside checks) and changing attitudes on drinking and driving.

The 2010 rate of impaired driving was down 6% from the previous year, representing the first decrease in this offence since 2006 (Chart 14). The rate of impaired driving has been generally declining since peaking in 1981.

No, we don’t know but we’ve got at least a definite impression. Booze related driving incidents have been declining in general for 30 years. To the point that in the final year alone of this paper’s measurements they actually declined nationwide by 6%. And they’re trying to pin an 18% decline over a decade on a minimum price change that only happened in one province?

And they don’t compare the declines in that one province with other provinces?

This might be all sorts of things but it ain’t science, is it?