Talks from the Hoover Institution

Hoover Book Club: Who Governs? Emergency Powers in the Time of COVID | Morris Fiorina | Hoover Institution

Join the Hoover Book Club for engaging discussions with leading authors on the hottest policy issues of the day. Hoover scholars explore the latest books that delve into some of the most vexing policy issues facing the United States and the world. Find out what makes these authors tick and how they think we should approach our most difficult challenges. 

In our latest installment, watch a discussion between Bill Whalen, the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Distinguished Policy Fellow in Journalism and Morris P. Fiorina, a senior fellow and author of the recently released Hoover Institution Press book Who Governs? Emergency Powers in the Time of COVID on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:00 am PT/ 1:00pm ET.

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 7: Keynote Session: “How Can Markets Capture the Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide as Well as the Costs?” | Hoover Institution

Guest Speaker: Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley gave a presentation that challenged the conventional wisdom of carbon emissions, arguing that CO₂ may provide more benefits than costs to the environment.

Ridley outlined several benefits, principally the global greening of land and the oceans. When there is more CO₂ in the atmosphere, vegetation can rely less on scarce water supplies. More CO₂ would also result in higher yields and longer growing seasons, meaning that more land can be used for nature reserves. He maintained that more CO₂ also translates into warmer winters and, in turn, fewer people dying from cold temperatures.

___________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 6: Reality and Rhetoric in Environmental Discourse | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Niall Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Steven Koonin, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Chair: Ronald Bailey, science correspondent, Reason Magazine.

Steven Koonin argued that many advocates of sweeping mandates for climate change frequently peddle misinformation, promote extreme scenarios as the consequence of global temperature rises, and smear critics of their arguments as “deniers” and with other detractions. Koonin then presented several examples from his research that provide context for environmental trends that are usually omitted from the prevailing literature on the subject.

Niall Ferguson examined the rhetoric of proponents of drastic action against climate change, many of whom assert that, if the policies they favor aren’t adopted, the world will experience a catastrophe involving extraordinarily high temperatures, precipitation, and sea levels.

__________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 5: Adding Economics to Energy Engineering | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Mark P. Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute; and David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy, University of California–San Diego.

Chair: Neil Chatterjee, senior advisor, Hogan Lovells, and former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Mark Mills argued that ambitious goals to achieve zero carbon emissions in the coming decades are delusional. He said that over the past 20 years, after $5 trillion spent worldwide, there hasn’t been any significant movement toward transitions to renewables. Today, global energy derived from wood exceeds that of solar and wind power combined (which make up just 3 percent of all fuels).  Moreover, a rapid transition to these other renewable sources, including batteries, would require a level of mineral extraction never seen in history.

In his first of four points, David Victor described the fragmented policy action in countering various pollutants. In replacing carbon, some alternative energies are farther along than others. Meanwhile, some industries face bigger challenges from other pollutants, such as aviation through the emission of contrail clouds from jet engines. These and other segments of the economy have different features that will determine if a market-driven or a mandate-based approach is more effective at mitigating environmental damage.

Niall Ferguson examined the rhetoric of proponents of drastic action against climate change, many of whom believe that if the policies they favor aren’t adopted, the world will experience a catastrophe involving extraordinarily high temperatures, precipitation, and sea levels.

_______________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 4: Markets for Mitigation and Conservation | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Christopher Costello, distinguished professor of resource economics, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California—Santa Barbara; and Barton “Buzz” Thompson, Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law, Stanford University Law School.

Chair: Dominic Parker, Ilene and Morton Harris Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution.

During his remarks, Christopher Costello articulated the advantages of markets over regulatory approaches to conservation and mitigation of harms inflicted on the environment. As an example, he described that the coastal waters of Santa Barbara are home not only to one of the most biodiverse maritime habitats in America but also to some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. These circumstances have resulted in large container vessels causing harm to maritime wildlife while traveling to and from the Port of Los Angeles.

Buzz Thompson provided another example of the feasibility of markets for environmental protection. Delivery of water from the Colorado River was weakening the flow of its stream and, in turn, endangering its fish population. He explained that limiting water to farmers would have been a daunting challenge. Understanding this reality, authorities instead paid farmers for access to their water rights so that they could strengthen the flow of the river.

___________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 3: Adapting to Climate Change | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences, University of Southern California; and Maria Waldinger, Deputy Director of the Ifo Center for Labor and Demographic Economics.

Chair: Terry Anderson, John and Jean DeNault Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Maria Waldinger provided a historical analysis of how societies have adapted to climate conditions. The oldest adaptation strategy was migration, she explained, which was more easily achieved when societies were nomadic and there were no political boundaries. More modern societies have adopted various processes to ensure their survival. She explained that crop failures were an omnipresent feature of European societies between the 14th and 19th centuries, a period of regional cooling that has been referred to as the “little ice age.”

Matthew Khan outlined to the audience how markets can provide optimal incentives for adaption to climate change and reduce its economic effects. If enough people are facing a challenge, markets are the mechanisms that can empower entrepreneurs to produce and deliver innovations, Kahn maintained.

______________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 2: Corporate Responsibility, ESG Investing, and Climate Disclosures | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Sanjai Bhagat, professor of finance at the University of Colorado–Boulder; and John H. Cochrane, Rose-Marie and Jack Anderson Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Chair: John Taylor, George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics, Hoover Institution.

Sanjai Bhagat explained that ESG investing principles and new standards of corporate social responsibility are not based on the fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. They are primarily centered, he said, on maintaining the well-being of societal stakeholders, including customers, employers, suppliers, and communities, as well as particular objectives such as environmental justice.

John Cochrane asserted that the Security and Exchange Commission’s plan to enforce ESG investment practices isn’t based on “saving the planet” but on bending corporations to serve a particular political agenda. Echoing Bhagat, Cochrane said the ESG mandates would not maximize shareholder value. It would instead deny capital to companies, lower their asset prices, and curb returns to investors. ESG mandates would also pervert markets, destroy competition, and encourage some companies to rent-seek from the government.

____________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Session 1: Thinking Clearly about Markets and Mandates | Hoover Institution

Presenters: Terry Anderson, John and Jean De Nault Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Dominic Parker, Ilene and Morton Harris Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Terry Anderson began the conference sessions by providing definitions for mandates and markets in their environmental contexts. Mandates (or rules) means that politics and administrations assign environmental objectives and use fixed command-and-control mechanisms to achieve them. On the other hand, markets are based on processes whereby resource owners respond to changing values. 

Dominic Parker examined the trade-offs of both market-driven and mandate approaches to environmental policies. He explained that there are cases in which mandates have proved effective, but that their policy outcomes should be analyzed with a nuanced perspective.

______________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Markets vs. Mandates: Introduction by Condoleezza Rice | Hoover Institution

Hoover director Condoleezza Rice introduced the conference by recalling the institution’s long history of researching environmental policy issues.

Rice explained how the imitable George P. Shultz was a pioneer in advancing environmental solutions. In partnership with Tom Stephenson, former chair of the Hoover Board of Overseers, the late secretary of state formed a task force dedicated to identifying pragmatic policies aimed at strengthening America’s energy security while providing environmental protection.

___________________________

Click the following link for more information
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

Book Club: How Policies Make Interest Groups: Governments, Unions, and American Education | Hoover Institution

February 14, 2023
Hoover Institution | Stanford University

Join the Hoover Book Club for engaging discussions with leading authors on the hottest policy issues of the day. Hoover scholars explore the latest books that delve into some of the most vexing policy issues facing the United States and the world. Find out what makes these authors tick and how they think we should approach our most difficult challenges. 

In our latest installment, watch a discussion between Senior Fellow Terry Moe and Hoover Fellow Michael Hartney, author of How Policies Make Interest Groups: Governments, Unions, and American Education on Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:00 am PT / 1:00pm ET.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 
Michael Hartney is a Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and an assistant professor of political science at Boston College. Hartney’s scholarly expertise is in American politics and public policy with a focus on state and local governments, interest groups, and K–12 education politics and policy. His work has been published in top academic journals such as the American Political Science Review and the American Journal of Political Science and received press coverage in the Economist, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Hartney has also written for popular outlets including City Journal, Education Next, National Review, and the Washington Post. 

ABOUT THE BOOK 
A critical, revelatory examination of teachers unions' rise and influence in American politics. As most American labor organizations struggle for survival and relevance in the twenty-first century, teachers unions appear to be an exception. Despite being all but nonexistent until the 1960s, these unions are maintaining members, assets—and political influence. As the COVID-19 epidemic has illustrated, today’s teachers unions are something greater than mere labor organizations: they are primary influencers of American education policy. How Policies Make Interest Groups examines the rise of these unions to their current place of influence in American politics. Michael Hartney details how state and local governments adopted a new system of labor relations that subsidized—and in turn, strengthened—the power of teachers unions as interest groups in American politics. In doing so, governments created a force in American politics: an entrenched, subsidized machine for membership recruitment, political fundraising, and electoral mobilization efforts that have informed elections and policymaking ever since. Backed by original quantitative research from across the American educational landscape, Hartney shows how American education policymaking and labor relations have combined to create some of the very voter blocs to which it currently answers. How Policies Make Interest Groups is trenchant, essential reading for anyone seeking to understand why some voices in American politics mean more than others.