This is a response to the article posted by Dr. Ryan Maue here titled: CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service. Ryan’s response is in the comments, and here is the key clause:
…The CEI should think about their statement about the “private collection” and ownership of weather data. How did that work for the UK Met-Office + Hadley Center with Phil Jones’ climate data? (climate data is weather data, btw)
By Iain Murray and David Bier
The most difficult task free-market advocates often face is in addressing the duties the government has already assumed. Who will provide education? Who will deliver the mail? Who will coordinate airline flights? The knee-jerk reaction is generally that it is too difficult for the private sector to provide these services. Our recent op-ed [“Do We Really Need a National Weather Service?”], in which we argued that the private sector could provide the services provided by the National Weather Service (NWS), met precisely that reaction.
Each response seemed to conclude that we wanted the NWS’ services to disappear. That is analogous to saying that advocates of privatizing the U.S. Postal Service want to end mail delivery. Or that proponents (like CEI) of Federal Aviation Administration privatization want to end air traffic control. Such a suggestion would indeed be “laughable,” as some critics put it, but we never suggested that.
Therefore, most of the responses simply attacked a straw man. On reflection, we should have been more explicit that we were calling for the privatization of the government’s civilian weather services, not their outright abolition. Our piece was too easy to misinterpret.
Nearly all the responses dismissed the notion that the services of the NWS could be provided privately. Yet Britain’s Meteorological Office is already a self-funding, commercial entity, and the British government is now considering selling it to a private corporation, much as the Canadian government sold its air traffic control (ATC) service to the now award-winning NavCanada.
Private weather services often rely on NWS data. But we repeat that no one (to our knowledge) wants to shut down NWS services. The existence of many private weather agencies demonstrates a significant demand for this information, and the fact that they do more with the data and provide even more accurate forecasts strongly suggests that private entities would improve on the data collection functions the NWS currently provides. There is no intrinsic reason why the infrastructure for this data collection function should be publicly owned. Our critics have advanced none, other than the fact that it is currently publicly owned.
Historically, privatization has led to more investment in a service or industry, not less. For example, the privatization of water utilities in Britain almost doubled investment in that vital service — and increased quality, as well. The UK Laboratory of the Government Chemist has seen a fivefold increase in its number of staff since privatization.
Some responses discussed NOAA, the agency that oversees the NWS, and other government agencies which were not referenced in our piece. To be clear, we do not envision private planes replacing all military reconnaissance flights, as some (including Dr. Maue) suggested, but military data collection is not incompatible with a NWS privatization plan. The private sector owners could – and perhaps should – pay the military for the information.
Some have argued that the private sector could not afford to purchase the assets of the NWS. If that is the case(and we doubt it is), then the NWS can be sold as either one or a number of companies via IPO.
Either way, the sale of the NWS would bring in substantial revenue for the government at a time we are told it needs it most. At the very least, the NWS should begin to operate as a Performance-Based Organization, charging for its services. That will allow private companies to decide whether or not they are receiving value for money. If they are not, we will see more competition, and therefore increased accuracy, in data collection.
Even when the government stands in the way by means of regulation, that is advanced as justification for more government. Accuweather’s Mike Smith argues that, “[C]urrent federal policy (set by the FCC) will not allow private sector companies to run 10cm weather radars. For technical reasons, 10cm are vital in measuring precipitation. We must have a federal entity for that.” Why? The reason for the ban is unclear, but if the NWS already gets an exception to FCC rules, a private competitor could be granted one as well. If there are genuine national security or interference issues, then a rigorous licensing procedure respecting those concerns should suffice.
It may surprise some to learn that privatization is not new to the NWS. Over the years, the Service has divested such programs as direct commercial radio and television broadcasts, newspaper weather page preparation, agricultural forecasts, and the fire weather service. The latter two were privatized as recently as the mid-1990s. In each case, government officials simply decided that government had no real business providing the service. Our suggestion simply follows that logic.
The arguments against privatization focus on the role the government already plays, as if the service would disappear otherwise. This flawed logic is trotted whenever government monopolies are criticized. The National Weather Service is not exceptional. If people demand weather forecasts and advisories, and government gets out of the business, the market will provide.
Iain Murray is Vice President at the Competitive Enterprise Institute with considerable experience in privatization. David Bier is a Research Associate at CEI.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Privatization will not automatically stop biased weather/climate forecasting but it will almost certainly make it more difficult. A lot will depend on who buys these entities but they will be pushed to produce accurate forecasts as measured by independent organisations.
All in all it’s a good idea.
Mr. Murray and Mr. Bier, your arguments are so clear and compelling that they will most likely cause migraines among many of us who are attuned to the climate debate. Could you consider addressing the negatives of having of not privatizing these services. Specifically, I am wondering if you share my view that the quickest way to politicize a service is to give control of it to the federal government, at least in these days of hot cultural conflict.
Iain Murray and David Bier,
I generally support privatization of all current socialized government activities except the police, the armed forces and the legal/justice/court system. Volunteer and Private enterprise is better in a free society for providing all other sevices that the government is currently doing with its bureaucracies.
I therefore endorse your suggestion to privatize the functions of the current National Weather Service.
John
Just make sure it doesn’t get “too big to fail”.
“”National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War. The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, . . . “” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/27/do-really-need-national-weather-service/
I will ask . . . why was the “NWS” NOT a public information source and why as is a NSA under the Dept. of War??? Do you honestly think that there were NOT many “private forecasters” in the employ of many private interests?
Before you answer that consider the insurance industry, the shipping industry, and the other private interests of who “holds the bag” when there is a financial loss????
Think of confidentiality, trade, and proprietary contracting . . . many “employees” are required to sign. Contract law also has had to evolve, as many throughout history ended up making a contract with the proverbial Devil. It had to change, or nothing changed . . .
There is a LONG history of what I call “Conspiracies of Silence” and they are embedded in our “for profit” “capitalistic” society . . . in contract law and many other places . . . that is why the “”National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War.”
and the “”The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, . . .”” since the information and methods “disclosed” thus far belong to all the citizens of this country . . .
and there are many stories that circumspect this issue . . . one roundly spoken of in http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27dark.html
Let’s face it… anything governments touch is or become inefficient and expensive. As Ron Paul said, bureaucracy is the problem.
This “response” article does not disagree with or challenge the majority of assertions I made in my original post here at WUWT.
With the quote from Accuweather’s Mike Smith — and Accuweather’s previous attempts with their Senator Rick Santorum to “privatize” the NWS back in 2005 ( Story Link ), it is now appropriate to question the motivations of CEI in pushing this issue now. Why are you bringing this up now? Who is clamoring for privatization of the NWS?
Accuweather and the Weather Channel would be useless chatterboxes without the underlying foundational data services of the National Weather Service. However, neither entity has the ability nor the expertise to produce their own forecasts from scratch. This means taking the entire global observing network (satellite and in situ observations), performing quality control, running data assimilation, and then using the fastest supercomputers in the world to pound out a 7-16 day forecast in 15-minutes. Next, process the results and then repeat, every 6-hours like clockwork. One cycle cannot be missed otherwise the whole thing goes to pot.
Finally, the CEI should think about their statement about the “private collection” and ownership of data. How did that work for the UK Met-Office + Hadley Center with Phil Jones’ climate data?
CEI does not provide any specific proposal or method for privatizing the NWS — nor has an adequate understanding of the infrastructure from data collection, assimilation, modeling, and processing. Therefore, until further research is presented by CEI, their “thought-piece” article should be dismissed wholesale.
I haven’t thought about this before, but I disagree. Both government and civil forecasters are needed, and they need to work together, or be able to interact, harmoniously; I think the general welfare requires this. The government needs to have an independent, professional proficiency in weather forecasting, as in every other area of basic societal need–I want the military to have their own experts, and I want that expertise available to the public, as much as I want civilian experts, with both governmental and civilian professionals thus open to independent oversight (and no, I have learned you can’t trust the universitities, academic experts, to provide such oversight competently). I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I am sensitive to obvious flaws in our thinking. People who want to take everything out of the hands of government are, in my view, asking for a perpetually childish, immature government. The government has to learn new things as needed, and it has to retain and exercise the knowledge and technology that our civilization has acquired. I guess it boils down, for me, in considering the government an essential part of our civilization, not just as a parasite upon the creative private sector, and it is civilization that I am concerned about.
Ray: When private companies become to big the same thing happens . . . Murphy’s Law and the Peter Principal know NO bounds . . .
Besides Ron Paul’s fatal flaw is that the thinks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are only obligations of the “government” (on fox news Sunday) . . . . not of all citizens who live here . . . he forgets we are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people . . . who all take an oath to the constitution at one time or another . . . . it’s a gigantic error in my book!
Accuweather and the Weather Channel would be useless chatterboxes without the underlying foundational data services of the National Weather Service.
Ryan… Er… Well… You’re one for one there!!!! 🙂
Just Kidding!
So, what would be wrong with writing a law stating that all empirical data is public domain, while the private entity’s forcast models are proprietary? The competition would boil down to who had the best modeling programs and we might actually begin to see truly accurate forecasts. Keeping the models proprietary is the right thing to do, a private company has got to have something to differentiate itself from competitors, but the collected weather/climate data would be public domain.
Eliminating the National Weather Service may be a nice goal for an ideal libertarian world, but in our real world with so many more terrible sources of government spending, intervention, and regulation, the NWS is so far down the list of priorities that I don’t think it’s even worth talking about.
The National Weather Service provides us with raw information. Information is a public good that benefits everyone for very little cost. The US population could double and it wouldn’t cost any more to gather data about hurricanes and tornadoes than it did before – unlike, say, exploding government programs like Medicare, or even FEMA.
If we’re discussing governments and weather we should really be talking about abolishing FEMA. Unlike the National Weather Service, it has a history of not doing its job very well while actually preventing private sources from doing a better job. FEMA suffers from a lack of information about who really needs help and how to get it to them – information that local organizations and churches have, and that’s why they are more effective. There is a huge difference between effectively providing information as a public good (NWS), and ineffectively providing services to specific people (FEMA).
So I don’t care if it’s theoretically possible for the value of the NWS to be duplicated more efficiently by private sources. I think Its value right now is still positive, and we should be focusing on the plethora of government programs with very, very negative values…
National data should be owned and controlled by the nation that it represents. The Nation should have unfettered access to it, not just those with the money and services to get it and work it.
Private enterprise should, and does, provide private interpretations or subsets of the data according to their clients wants and needs. But the Nation needs to be able to get and manipulate the data depending on what the Nation needs, which may not be in the interests of the private company to provide.
We see what happens with taxpayer-paid university research that ends up behind a paywall of a private company publisher. We want that for all the fundamental data of the most important issue of our time?
Rhetorical, of course.
Kevin Schurig: We already have those laws, they are routinely circumvented, ignored, broken, and not enforced . . . . we have copyright laws, intellectual property laws, patent laws . . . not to mention the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . . and then you have people like Dick Cheney who would water board someone in the interest of private “national security” interests . . . he would “rightly” warrentlessly wiretap, torture, and use any nefarious means and if he was still around it would still be happening????
. . . what & who do you think he was justifying the US military or Haliburton and their “private contractors” OR both? I want to know did he personally participate in these actions . . . or did he just give the orders to others to carry out his techniquies . . . and what was the results if someone refused . . . .
You see where these kinds of general examinations of general rules of thumb go . . . . when generally, . . . it all depends. . . .
But, then go try to claim a copyright, patent, or any intellectual property when you have no privacy . . . I answer that for my self with; that is why we have probable cause clauses and evidence clauses . . . .
The government provides disaster relief via declared states of emergency which brings in public funds to help citizens recover from natural disasters. As long as this is the case, the government must have a weather service to alert the general public in order to lessen the relief cost in dealing with these disasters. Imagine if there were only private weather forecasts using a fee based service. Will only those that could afford a warning get one? Would Fox13 in Tampa be able to operate their hurricane info website (http://media.myfoxtampabay.com/myfoxhurricane ) and provide valuable information to all in the area without using NWS information?
I do not like big government but there are certain functions that need to be in the hands of the national government and this is one of them.
Laurie Bowen says:
August 31, 2011 at 10:30 am
Laurie, do you really believe the present US Government truly represents the People?
Look at this video and realize that your are not living under a Constitutional Republic.
Every economic study ever conducted has found that private enterprise is more efficient the Government at everything.
The reason you have some services provdided by the Government is that you can not trust individuals or even individual entities with that kind of power and as such you need acountability.
Granted, we have lost that with public officials generally getting arrested and becoming activists with no ill effects, so in reality not sure why we have NASA not being sold off or yes NWS services as well.
Like a previous poster said, yes just the justice system, courts, military, intelligence services and some layer of regulation. That is all Government SHOULD do because its a waste of money that drags down the economy.
I find it interesting that this topic comes up right when the president has shot a first salvo about how to “fix jobs in this country.”
The best bet would be to sell of these entities to private corporations for a large cash influx when we need it and a reduction of taxes and easing of regulations to help businesses.
Accuweather and the Weather Channel would be useless chatterboxes without the underlying foundational data services of the National Weather Service.
Hey… Isn’t “The Weather Channel” half way there???? 🙂
Ryan Maue has already touched upon the topic of who would take responsibility for the basic data collection functions. Another unmentioned issue with eliminating NWS, and allowing private entities to take over its functions, would be how to keep it from being sued out of existence? Imagine the number of suits generated over each and every missed forecast. It is the same problem one encounters with trying to privatize all roads.
The Weather Channel during “crisis” situations has some great meteorologists on staff that provide top-notch information. However, without a huge storm, colorful test patterns would garner more ratings than the Weather Channel was pulling in. Hence — Storm Stories…
There is a sense in which much of the Weather Service is already privatized. I refer to the thousands of COOP volunteers who over the years have provided the bulk of surface temperature data. For free. I am increasingly impressed with the observers I meet who have done this work for years, sometimes for generations. It is hard to envision how competing private corporations could efficiently sponsor anything comparable. The surface stations project has shown clearly the need to standardize these individual measurement sites, but that is a legitimate coordinating function for government, should they ever get serious about it. Again, competing for-profit companies would not necessarily arrive at common standards. (Consider the histories of VCRs, hi-def recording, computer operating systems….)
Not quite. The Met Office is set up as a trading fund.
A trading fund has to meet at least 50% of its revenue from providing goods and services. Other examples of trading funds are:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
Forensic Science Service
Patent Office
Companies House
etc.
According to wiki the Met Office became part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the 18th July 2011.
Government funding equals taxation. Too much government funding could equal too high, and too much, taxation. The precautionary principle, apparently, should rule the day: Cut taxes to government funding or ruin society to government funded parasites.
Shorter version: Let’s fix something that’s not broken and replace it with an untested something else… for reasons of ideological purity only.
I’d say “no”, there’s enough broken stuff out there that needs fixing. We don’t need to spend our capital on something that might at best give a marginal improvement over the existing product.
You have to pick your battles wisely, and I don’t even see much wisdom in this proposal, just a lot ideologically driven hand waving.
Tom in Florida says:
August 31, 2011 at 11:04 am
=======
+1
Just what I was thinking, but wouldn’t have expressed so clearly.