More Open Space...

Real estate prices have affected many different aspects of the economy, and they are now impacting the environment in a positive way. In an article from The Wall Street Journal, Jim Carlton points out the impact that the real-estate crunch has had on the environment. It is because of the recent real-estate crisis many people are unable to afford the land that they had previously purchased to build on. This is good news for those conversationalists who would prefer not to see the land ever built on. The land is being snatched up from places in Hawaii all the way to places in Georgia. Although some people may be happy with this change others are concerned about what selling this land will do to the availability of private land in the future. “Not everyone is a fan of these conservation deals. Private property advocates, for example, complain that taking prime land out of circulation near cities pushed development even farther away, as well as driving up land prices.”

The consideration that needs to be taken into account as well is the impact on the economy in the long run. Although the long run has much uncertainty, it is possible that by removing the land from possible development now, people will be loosing out on a substantial amount of potential income that they could have had if they had been able to build commercial buildings on their property. Nothing can really be done to change the situation now, but this issue may come back up at a later time, when some people are looking for places to build and it has all been deemed open space.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028811193679127.html

Doesn't the Governemnt Own the Seals?

What luck for me! We were learning about the government's protected animals and what was on the news yesterday and today? A baby seal was on the California coast caught in a fishing net. Looked pretty easy to solve- go up to the seal, cut the net from it and the the seal and evryone watching would be happy. But wait!!! It seems that the seal is federaly protected and the law states that if the seal is within so many feet (I think it was 50) no one can go neat the seal to help it. So, according to the law, all we can do (and the world watching) is watch that poor seal flip and flop in a fish net.

Are you kidding me?!?! This shows how completly ignorant the ESA really is. To protect the seal, we have to let it suffer? I am completly at a loss for words as to the stupidity that is unreported.

Here is the end to the story. It seems that while the cameras were not rolling, someone BROKE THE LAW and went to the seal and cut off the net. No word yet as to whether or not there will be an arrest. I think it is interesting that NO ONE so far captured the person saving the seal on camera. Shouldn't there be a federal investigation now to catch this heathen for breaking the law? Maybe there is some Olson here with group colusion? I will take a stretch and offer this thought: maybe the governmnet will rethink the ESA?

The myth of global warming?

I have been harping on sustainability this whole semester, but never attacking weather or not the science that supports that view is found-less and unreasonable. An article appeared on the BBC website a few days ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm. This site shows evidence that the earth will at least maintain present and past temperatures over the next decade. What? Until recently we have these models that predict the earth warming and continuing to warm; however, the warmest year on record (since records started being kept only a few hundred years ago) was in 1998. Hang on we are to experience cooler temperatures over the next decade and this last decade has been lower than the high? This makes me skeptical over the idea of global warming. It could be perfectly alright for instead saw that the increased carbon in the atmosphere could lead to higher rates of skin cancer; then one could go out take the test and decide whether the statement was false or not. But with global warming we have no evidence and in fact we have evidence to the contrary to its existence. This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf; the sustainability crowd may have cried wolf to push their agenda, and this action may lead to a back lash against the movement, and possibly allow a more liberal (classic definition) government to emerge.
This doesn’t leave sustainability totally dead, just mostly. Endangered species maybe an area where the sustainability folks may have ground to regroup. There is evidence that some species are dying out (not all, cats, dogs, cows are all doing fine). The evidence suggests that human action is causing the, at least the acceleration, of various species around the world. Sustainability would then need to make the argument that endangered species, no all species, are public goods and therefore the role of the government to provide and limit human population and human consumption levels. Unless I have missed something if global warming doesn’t happen, or happen in near the way as predicted, then I believe a backlash against the enivornmental/global climate/sustainability crowd is likely and this may, indeed, hurt our level of life because certain causes, like clean water, air, and endangered species may be sacrificed to the backlash.

Nuclear Reactors and the Carbon Crisis

According to sustainability the world cannot sustain the current levels of economic activity and development. The ship of mother earth is sinking or will be sinking so enough. This then leads to how to slow the activity and reduce the consumption factor. This then leads people to worry about climate change because, as far as I can tell, it is an indication of our ship sinking. Currently the hype is on about Carbon emissions from vehicles, livestock, and factories. Carbon emission, for now, are being ignored from humans (breathing). Nuclear power seemed to be a way out for countries worried about carbon emissions. The thought was the actual power station to produce nuclear energy doesn’t cause any carbon emissions and is therefore only emission producing to get the fuel. Now a report is out which states that there is a rise in carbon emission from producing nuclear fuel. The cheap and easy fuel is gone (or going) which leaves the fuel in places were a lot of mining and transportation will have to be used. This leads the scientist publishing this work to conclude that the nuclear option isn’t going to lead to as low a carbon foot print as previously thought.
Why worry? Energy production is a large contributor to carbon emissions so its reduction would be paramount to the sustainability supports. Transportation is also critical, especially in developed/wealthy countries were personal vehicles are used more. This then leads me to conclude that vehicles will come under this carbon emission problem as well. Vehicles will have to be more carbon friendly in the future (if the world is going to a sustainability). This then means that the carbon foot print of transportation of nuclear fuel will fall and nuclear fuel mining is the only area where carbon production is not guarantee to fall. However, if another method was used, as opposed to government mandate and regulation, then the nuclear option may in fact be viable, according to sustainability. If we tax carbon emissions this will bring the economic efficient outcome of nuclear power stations and lower carbon foot prints to the desired level with the efficient level of carbon and nuclear power. This leads this economist to suggest that instead of looking at all the faults of a particular alternative tax consumption of energy and tax carbon emission from all carbon producing sources (with the possible exception of breath, unless one believes that the population isn’t sustainable either.)

LEED Restaurant

Public consciousness of environmental issues seems to have increased substantially in recent years. An article from the Associated Press describes one entrepreneur in Minneapolis whose restaurant received LEED certification. Many would then ask, what does LEED stand for and how can a business receive this type of certification?

Leadership in Energy and Environmental design or LEED is related to sustainability of the environment through the way that businesses and restaurants are run. Behind this certification businesses have to change the way they might ordinarily do things. Restaurateur Kim Bartmann took steps to make her restaurant more environmentally friendly from the day they started building to they day she opened the doors for business.

It was designed and built to use about half the gas and electricity and 30 percent of the water of a typical restaurant its size. In addition, major elements of its interior were made from existing materials. Tables came from doors that were discarded from a nearby condo project, and the bar is made of Italian marble salvaged from a local hotel.

Not only did the construction of the restaurant take a sustainability approach, but the way that Bartmann continues to run the business follows the model of sustainability. Bartmann gets much of the food supplied in the restaurant from local vendors who are within a close proximity to the restaurant which seems to be a key element in sustainability. By getting the food locally and close to where it is produced, Bartmann will keep not just costs down, but also the restaurant’s impact on the environment surrounding it.

Could this type of restaurant become the new standard for growth and fro new businesses? It certainly seems possible if it can be supported by a market of eager entrepreneurs. If the bottom line is affected positively by running a business in this manner, then more people will do it.

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RECYCLED_RESTAURANT?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#

Just Another Case Where I’m Right, and Everyone Else is Wrong

We often talk about externality abuse in the various classes Professor Eubanks teaches. But not once have I heard mention of Public Good abuse, something we perhaps need a primer on, because, in my opinion, we’ve stumbled into just such a mistake with endangered species.

In terms of externalities we attempt to frame the debate in two ways. First we provide a very explicit and very stringent definition in order to expel many things right off the bat. If it doesn’t fit the definition it can be dismissed out of hand, and a great many popular “externalities” are not non-market, unintentional interdependences that affect an unthought of third party.

Second, we’ve deemed it necessary to confine externalities to something that has recognizable and actionable physical consequences. In other words car exhaust can be an externality because it causes actual harm to those breathing it by polluting the air and damaging their lungs. By the same token attractive people display no externalities, because while it may give joy to some to see them, and disappoint others (under the logic “I’ll never be that good looking,” or what have you), there is no physical harm or benefits being bestowed. If we didn’t confine externalities in this manner, and allowed things such as feelings to play a part, we would end up handing out subsides and levying corrective taxes every which way you turned, and often times the same thing would be getting subsidized and taxed simultaneously.

Now returning to public goods, the definition requiring them to be both non-rival and non-excludible is appropriately limiting, it’s in the follow up where we’ve failed. Unlike with externalities we seem perfectly okay with undefinable values based on feelings. Endangered species are the perfect example of this. We’ve allowed them as a public good because many have expressed some sort of existence value for them. In other words, the mere knowledge that various species exist has a particular value to some people, and in some cases they’re even willing to pay in order to maintain that value. However, there’s no true market driven method to provide these species because the knowledge of their existence is both non-rival and non-excludible, inviting a free rider problem, and suggesting that, perhaps, government has a role to play. However, in making this assessment we’ve forgotten to attach our feelings filter, because that’s all this value is based on, a particular feeling that various people experience. I ask then, what if there are people experiencing exactly the opposite feeling? Is it so hard to imagine there are those with anti-existence values? I, for one, would actually be happier knowing there are no more snakes on the entire planet. And knowledge such as that is non-rival and non-excludible. Should we tax everyone to provide this “public good” and make myself and others like me happy? Of course not.

The entire idea of taxing in order to provide a public good or limit or expand an externality (depending on whether it’s positive or negative) is based on an efficiency ethic. Taxing everyone to provide endangered species fails to meet the standards of efficiency. Aside from the obvious debate between those with existence values and those with anti-existence values there are clearly those who are existence neutral. If we take from everyone to provide for the feelings of a few, we’ve caused discernible harm in order to make others better off. This is the antithesis of the entire basis for our model.

Now I'm Worried

Uh oh!! I may want to rethink this global warming thing.

New Environmentalism

In response to Michael DeAlessi's article:

"Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve Our Nation's Resources"

I loved this article!

I haven't discussed it yet in my class with the knowlegable and expressive members yet, but I felt it was a perfect example of what a blog should be written on.

Growing up somewhat fearful of private ownership of things like land and open spaces, it's been a journey for me to come around to the level-headed thinking that suggests privatization may actually do MORE for the land than would the socialization of 'public lands' would.

DeAlessi wrote, “On public lands, land-use decisions inevitably wind up in the court of politics, where rhetoric and extremism trump substance and tradeoffs.”

It's like when I was a kid, when a bundle of toys were given to 'us' (my two brothers and me), we invariably fought over who got to play with what and when. When things were specifically designated to one of us (or to another), it was crystal clear amongst us who was allowed to play with what and when, and it gave us a sort of independence in determining what we'd share and with whom. As well, when we played with something that wasn't ours, we knew EXACTLY why we were in trouble or that we were doing something that could be construed as wrong.

When the 'bundles' were given to 'us,' we would feel like we had a right to whatever IT was and when someone else was using it, even though I wasn't, I'd feel like I was being wronged. The thing is, though, that all of 'us' thought the same way!

DeAlessi also writes that in “…the marketplace, where by definition voluntary trade makes everyone involved better off, politics is a zero-sum game, where gains to one group are made at the expense of another.”

What would happen regarding the toy or bundle, is that one person would try to take the toy or bundle and if he would fail, then he would go to mom and dad (government) to settle the dispute. I, being the oldest, rarely got his way because I was always out-whined.

I now see bickering over 'public resources' as whining and it bothers me to have to compete with, interact with, or even hear whining!

I also learned of the Audobon Society and how they fight so hard to preserve the oil reserves in ANWR, yet have access to reserves and DRILL on land that they (members of the group) own!

Suspect, I tell ya!

Hypocracy, I tell ya!

Of course, had there been a clear case of property rights of the toy/bundle, then the answer would be simple... "it's his, you are going to have to ask nicely to play with it, so stop crying!" Then, it would still be up to the person who owned the item.

The tragedy of the commons (Garret Hardin):
“ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.”

I may have wound up a huge whiner, had whining actually been the determining element of dispute-resolution.

Michael DeAlessi also wrote:

“Doing more with less is one of the most important aspects of conservation, and is also one of the prime directives of the profit motive.”

I believe this truly!

“No one questions the impetus for a cleaner, healthier, species-rich environment. How we get there, however, is another question.” (DeAlessi)

Perhaps the way to get there is through privatization of resources. Examples of the Alaska fisheries and Washington oysteries are certainly compelling. Not to mention, attaching a specific value to things that actually are considered harmful, such as trash/refuse, may also be a means to better conservation. DeAlessi gave the axample that in some circumstances, “pay as you throw” programs garnered as much as a 17% reduction in total waste.

Perhaps the way that doesn't lead to a better, cleaner environment is exactly what we're doing, allowing government to act as mom and day over 'bundles' of resources that we all feel like we have a right to and thus whine as a means to determine management over said resources.

It, in some wierd place in our souls, may seem like a good thing to allow public access to everything, but there comes the unavoidable question of what harm are we doing, how do we fix it, and how do we even measure the effects of harm or improvement for that matter?

“In many cases, success has been measured by permits issued or violations cited rather than by specific, targeted improvement in environmental quality.”

Sounds like my parents would have measured their successes by how many spankings or groundings they dished out, or how successful they were at specific conflict resolutions as opposed to whether or not they contributed to the world a good son... or 3 good sons, accountable for their own actions, respectful of others' property and ambitious to work for what they want.

So, my hat off to...

‘New Environmentalism’

What Tools are in Your Water Shed?

Colorado Springs hosts quite the spectrum of potential water problems. On one hand, we can experience great droughts which in turn can result in fire hazards, expensive water access, even illness and death. If people can’t keep cool, their bodies may overheat; if they can’t fight off diseases because of dehydration, or if they don’t have access to clean water, they can take a serious toll on the community in various forms. Water shortages may even lead to economic hardships. On the other hand, because Colorado Springs is at the foot of large mountains, flooding can be just as much of an issue. Homes built on flood-planes may slide down the hill with slope movement, or even be ruined from within because of water movement. Flooding can damage roads which could cause an economic impact, as well as damage property; it may even cause reservoirs for drinking to be contaminated with waters from external sources. In this regard, the water shed is of vital importance; how it’s taken care of, how it’s cleaned, and how it’s utilized are details that must be considered, especially in places like Colorado Springs!

According to the article by the Water Environment Federation (WEF),[1] pollution is a major contributor to the expenses that arise at water treatment plants. Water that runs off of highways, and are polluting waterways, flow into the treatment centers. The expenses of treating the (polluted) water are high, which WEF says could be curbed to some manner through taking care of how the water flows into the treatment center, as opposed to simply treating the water that will flow out of the center. Their idea on protecting the watershed en masse is to delegate the responsibility of water pollution prevention to the public. Individuals are asked, in the article, to contribute.

How You Can HelpWatershed management requires everyone's cooperation. You can help by:
· Educating yourself about water resources and uses in your watershed
· Talking to your elected officials about watershed management
· Making sure your area schools are teaching about watersheds
· Ensuring that hazardous materials are not disposed or dumped on your property
· Removing or replacing any leaking underground storage tanks on your property
· Reaching out to other communities and crossing political boundaries in the interest of watershed management

All of which seem to be fairly basic recommendations to ask of people in the city. But, how will they actually succeed at making these suggestions come into action?

One way that can be successful is through government administration and enforcement of rules that would function to protect watersheds and thus decrease the expenses of water treatment, as well, make impacts on the entirety of a community, city, state, even nation! According to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[2], there are some specific areas of water treatment that are focused on, but still need improvement.

If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in four key elements:
• Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs.
• Addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation.
• Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process.
• Improving the watershed performance measurement system.

EPA adopted the watershed approach to help focus existing, traditional water pollution control programs in a more comprehensive manner and address emerging problems.

Similarly to the WEF, the EPA seems to be advocating watershed focused policy that would address and improve existing programs, as well, consider likely problems that may arise in the future.

Watersheds are what flow into the treatment plants that then flow through our pipes at home and give us drinking/cooking water. Watersheds are also how flooding can be destructive; depending on how water sheds over the surface of land, and how maximized the water table below the surface is, floods may have nowhere to go but into destructive lanes such as our home, or into our treated water reserves, bringing pollution with it! Even though water pollution is of great importance, which we attempt to remedy through water treatment means, how water moves is of greater importance. Water movement, if not worked with in a harmonious way, can cause landslides beneath homes, floods through industrious areas, and deterioration of architectural structures. So, water not only needs to be cleaned for our purposes of consumption, but also managed in a manner that allows us to progress as a community, city, state, nation, even as civilization. And the way to bring together the handling of water for consumption, as well, the issue of water as a force of nature, the solution lies more in understanding and working with the watershed than in trying to control it.

Unlike water conservation, which even if the use of private consumption was fully minimized, the overall impact is relatively small, individual contributions to the issue of watershed management could make for larger marginal social benefits. Contractors could design developments with watershed in mind, cities could zone according to geological and hydrological phenomena, and people on an individual level could be mindful of the waste they disperse through community-policing of such behavior. Government could offer disincentives, such as fines, to people who do harm to watersheds; as well, they could offer incentives, such as tax relief, to companies that successfully develop in accordance to watershed tendencies of a region. Individuals can simply read the two web pages and learn about ways they can positively impact the watershed in their area. The tools of government, as well as the resources for individuals can make those positive impacts.

Though flooding and droughts occur, understanding the tools we possess could lead to fewer and smaller impacts they have on us. In the tools we possess, understanding and protecting watersheds can be the key.
[1] http://www.wef.org/AboutWater/ForThePublic/FactSheets/FactSheetDocuments/HowtoProtectYourWatershed.htm

[2] http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025-Gcopy.pdf

Is it necessary to change?

It is amazing that such small things can make such a large impact on the environment around us. In an article featured on MSNBC.com, entitled Catch Large Fish, Encourage Small Fry, Randolph E. Schmid presents one such instance where little actions can be far reaching. Who knew that by encouraging fisherman to keep the larger fish they might be unnecessarily altering the variance of fish? By keeping the larger fish, fishermen are depleting the supply of stronger and somewhat more aggressive varieties of fish. This topic easily lends itself to the discussion of sustainability.

By taking the stronger fish we might be encouraging the growth in the population of fish that are not as strong and less likely to survive in larger numbers. Although it is fairly likely that each new generation of fish will have its stronger varieties, it is exceedingly less likely if the strong fish are always caught first. Schmid describes the circumstance as this:

“Biro and his colleague, John R. Post, stocked two lakes in western Canada with different types of rainbow trout- one type was known to be aggressive in seeking food and to grow rapidly, while the other grew more slowly and tended to take fewer risks in foraging. They set gillnets in the ponds over five day, moving them each day, and caught 50 percent of the stocked fast growing fish but just 30 percent of the more cautious ones.”

Although to many this does not seem like a big deal, but the fish that are more aggressive are the ones that will thrive and survive, whereas the fish that are not as strong will tend to show a less rapid rate of population growth. Even though it is a small matter it could have a somewhat large impact if the issue of sustainability is not taken into account. One might however ask, if this is such a big deal then why have we been taught to fish in this way for centuries, and never seen a significant impact? Is it really necessary to alter our behavior now?

An Hour in the Dark for Quiet Reflection, And Thousands in the Light for Actual Thought

Walking into work on Saturday I was confronted with several posters for something called “Earth Hour,” an event promoted by the World Wildlife Fund. For those not in the know, “Earth Hour” was supposed to be a worldwide occasion for everyone to show their solidarity in support of the environment, and to raise awareness in others, by shutting off the lights from 8 to 9 pm. The posters claimed that it would not only be private individuals participating, but many businesses, and yes, even government organizations.

Now there’s a couple, more obvious, problems with this. First off any government entity claiming to fall in line with this proposal is mostly blowing smoke, because the 29th fell on a Saturday and most government buildings are closed over the weekend, and even more are done for the day by eight. The library I work at, for example, had posters all over the place for this thing, as I mentioned earlier, but closed at six. It’s a fairly easy commitment to shut off the lights when they would be out anyway.

But more importantly, as we’ve discussed in class many times, the issue of climate change boils down to a theory of over consumption causing future harm. In regards to that, I’m not sure how one hour without lights, once a year, helps. At best it would qualify as a blip on the radar. Especially since nowhere were you advised to cease using other power consuming devices. Indeed a flashlight seemed almost mandatory because participants were encouraged to use the time while the bulbs weren’t burning hot to replace them with “energy efficient fluorescent bulbs,” a task I’d find impossible in the darkness that pervades my domicile at 8, unless I had the aide of some kind of artificial light.

So while the claim was that this event would show everyone a way they could help if united together, at best it qualified as a stunt. And a poor one at that, because the only way “Earth Hour“ could conceivably make an impact is if it came round more then once a year, but several times a day.

Donald Boudreaux may well have had the best comment on the event stating, “Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.”

For years the acronym WWF, previously a wrestling brand, was associated with style over substance and presenting a completely fake product. It seems now that the World Wildlife Fund has inherited the title they can’t help but carry on the tradition and participate in a bit of chicanery themselves.

-Jaeson Madison

What is the difference between ecological economics and environmental economics?

I thought I understood the differences to mean that one group branched off from the other group, but according to Wikipedia, that doesn’t necessarily hold true. Granted, what is Wikipedia and how relevant is it as a source? But I wanted to gain some perspective of what ‘other’ people thought of environmental economics. By ‘other’ people, I mean folks who may have a normative base of sustainability, or who aren’t economically inclined but want to somehow understand how economics and the environment interrelate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

"Environmental Economics" should not be confused with "Ecological Economics." The two fields are related, but are in some ways very different. Most environmental economists have been trained as economists. They apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems, many of which are related to so-called market failures--circumstances wherein the "invisible hand" of economics is unreliable. Most ecological economists have been trained as ecologists, but have expanded the scope of their work to consider the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems and services, and vice-versa. This field takes as its premise that economics is a strict subfield of ecology. Ecological economics is sometimes described as taking a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems and focuses more explicitly on long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale.

Though I normally read Wikipedia with a skeptical eye, I think that their definition helps me to understand the differences between the two approaches of understanding the environment and economics. Perhaps they are bordering one another, separated by a line that splits the two vantage points.

One side would behave as if people are of little importance, and that the environment takes a superior position of priority. Such terms as “intergenerational justice” may be their grounds for moving towards compromise with the side that they deem evil for exhausting natural resources for the selfish intents of human-kind. They might also consider economists to be negligent to the concept of sustainability. Of course, a less radical understanding of this dynamic would be to incorporate an understanding of economics into the study of environmentalism; thus ecological economics.

The other side might move towards common ground by taking a stance of liberty and claiming that it is up to the dynamics of families to teach people about the importance of environmental accountability. They might also argue that if there was private ownership of land, then there might be more incentive to value the land and thus take care of it and the natural resources it provides. In fact, if a business were to own the land and want to make money off of it, it would be in the interest of the company to replenish the resources so as to continue operating in business!

Because economics as well as the environment are dynamic, there are no real ways to accurately evaluate things such as “environmental foot-prints.” Arguably, both approaches will have to deal with situations where inefficient usage of the land, including wastefulness, will occur.
The true purpose behind the importance of understanding the relationship between the two approaches comes down to policy. One side would want to come up with the ‘best’ policy pertaining to environmental issues. The other side would want to prevent government from having too much power and policy over individuals when it comes to environmental usage and availability. Because one side, those who want policy to determine how both economics and the environment are dealt with, has a current relevance, the nature of the debate comes down to why things aren’t working better. The side that advocates individual preferences has an answer, but it is considered theoretical because our government, our system, is currently operating in such a way that is contrary to individual preferences; it is a governmental-control system that attempts to take into consideration things such as the environment and economics, but does little to actually allow markets and dynamics to simply emerge.

Now, I think I have a pretty good idea of the differences of ideologies at work, will there be a viable solution to the way economics and the environment interrelates? Perhaps if we rely on government to come up with a solution, we’ll sacrifice individual liberty. And, perhaps if we leave it up to individuals, we’ll all consume ourselves to death. Perhaps there is a middle ground right on the line that separates environmental economics and ecological economics that will yield the solution.

Religion and sustainability

Sustainability is an interesting issue. I have a friend, a hippy but for wanting for a better term, and she has a “bumper” sticker on her bag reading: “The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.” She then believes that we do have a responsibility to future generations. Her argument comes from her basic belief system. She beliefs that each person is an extension of the gaya and in death we realize the connection. She then uses this as a statement that any damage done to life and the earth is damage upon yourself as a whole. We discussed in class about religion being the driving force for the idea of sustainability and the responsibility for future generations.
But a question still keeps asserting its self; what is harm? Surely natural activities of animals isn’t harm. If a loin kills to eat he is sustaining himself, his offspring and his species. So, using the fruits of the environment isn’t harm. What then is?
Her response was any action which eliminates other species or human life in the long run. She was then worried about global warming, mostly caused by carbon emissions. She also worries about the destruction of the rain forest and related issues. I then asked her another question, what does sustainability mean to you? Her response was interesting. She said the most important issue was to respect nature and use just the bare minimum of resources to survive. She also believed in local made products and natural methods of production.
Also during class with discussed that these methods bring about poverty. But her response was what one would typically expound. It was only lower material consumption, but not wealth in other senses. Her argument was that by our vast material wealth has detracted from human interaction and therefore we are worse off then if we didn’t have as much material wealth. This is an interesting idea with one possible hitch, what about personal preferences and liberty? Her argument was that we would realize only once we eliminate excess material possession.
Her arguments seem to ring in the same tone as our current book: For the Common Good. I think this shows how one then argues for sustainability, through some sense of a higher power. I don’t see another way in which to argue for sustainability and then government interference to achieve sustainability.

Chopping Down More Trees to Build More Houses…The Environmental Way

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran a story on the recent push towards eco friendly homes. But perhaps the most interesting part of the piece, aside from one couple admitting they didn’t expect to recoup on their investment within their lifetime (which begs the question: then when?), was the perceived actors behind this particular fad. No it’s not the environmentalists. It’s the contractors who build and renovate homes.

There’s been a theory in the economic field that essentially says in order to pass most legislation you need both Baptists, i.e. a moral party, and bootleggers, a faction looking to profit, proving the old saying “politics makes strange bedfellows.” However, I think cases such as this demonstrate these odd pairings move far beyond simple legislation.

Changes in the market have caused consumers looking to build or renovate a home to substantially change their cost benefit analysis, and as a result fewer and fewer are actually going through with the deed. Thus contractors have had to get creative in attempts to reweight the analysis and have begun to offer, or rather push, more and more “green” domiciles, which offers the consumer the benefits of not just remodeling, but the warm fuzzy feelings of helping to save mother nature in the process.

The end result? A day I never thought I’d see, environmentalists almost paradoxically thrilled to see continued construction. Bootleggers and Baptists, eat your heart out.

Jaeson Madison

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Here's something interesting:

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.

IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises...

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, the IPCC and similar groups of pseudo-scientists have a long history of falsification and intellectual dishonesty. Piltdown man and stem cell cloning to name a few.

This does raise the larger question of how our esteemed elected officials plan to reconcile their previous statements. After reading an IPCC report Senator Barbara Boxer boldly proclaimed:

This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all. The effects of global warming will be felt throughout the world. 1

This wouldn't the first time the vapid witch of the west has put her foot in her mouth.

Beyond that, it should concern you that policy makers are making policy based on falsified research. Or even for that matter, policy makers are making policy based on science itself. Assume for a moment that the IPCC wasn't wrong, the sea level is rising dramatically. It doesn't tell us anything about policy. Climatologists don't ask the question of does it matter? Does it matter sea levels are rising? The question is left up to other disciplines of thought. Simply saying that the sea levels will rise or fall does not mean government will better everyone or anyone by intervention.

Morner goes on to say in the article:

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge.

This is why I consider myself a far superior scientist to the kind at IPCC. The methods they use are not scientific. They are not empirical methods. The correction factor they used is because of falling sea levels in areas of Hong Kong. In other words, a falling sea level in Hong Kong doesn't fit in very well with the computer modeling of global sea levels rising. Instead of checking to see if the data in the field is correct, it is automatically discarded. Wholly unscientific.

Privatized Deforestation and Profits

Let’s start from the very beginning. One of the commonly accepted statements that were explicitly made throughout the semester was that privatization of forests would eliminate inefficiency of forest logging. In this post I examine the incentives of forest loggers and question the validity of the accepted class’s theorem.

Assumptions. I hereby assume the model of a non-corporate private sector entity (a non-public firm that is either a sole proprietorship or a partnership) that generates positive profits in the forest logging industry that is not a monopoly market structure. Under a logical presumption that the current owner of the business is not going to live forever, the owner will most likely try to sell the business to a younger individual at some point. I also presume that the current owner will try to maximize the price for which he will sell the property in the course of price negotiations with the buyer.

I emphasize that this is a private company because the mechanism for property appraisal differs between the privately held companies and publicly held companies. Here is how it works.

First, a company is selling goods at some price(s) making total revenue. If we were to subtract the cost of revenue (which is the cost of goods sold, do not confuse with total cost!) from total revenue, we would get the firm’s gross profit. After subtracting operating expenses (which are a sum of fixed and variable costs) from gross profit, we then derive earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT). Now, if it were a privately owned company, its sale value would be determined by multiplying EBIT by a number between 8 and 10 years. That way, it would estimate the forgone future income for the following period between 8 and 10 years.

If the current owner is interested in maximizing the price he can receive from the sell of the property, he will most likely be interested in maximizing EBIT during the last year before the sale occurs. Doing so means maximizing total revenue. Given that a logging industry is not a monopoly implies a single firm’s somewhat limited control over price of homogenous goods (after all, it is wood we are talking about). It also means that the firm will try to maximize its total revenue by increasing the quantity supplied, which means it will cut down even more forest. (I realize you might think that a single year’s increase in logging each time the business gets resold may not mean much but I strongly urge you to consider the power of aggregates given the number of logging business out there as well as the frequency of ownership changes). As you can see, evaluating the value of a privately held logging company based on EBIT may not be the best environmental choice. Instead, a party interested in purchasing the forest for the purposes of logging may suggest a few different approaches for calculating a mutually agreed upon price. Such approach will result in a slower rate of deforestation, lower price that the business would be sold for, and it would even contribute a miniscule part to inflation reduction.

Another way to calculate the value of the business is to calculate the present value of an annuity of the business under consideration (with an embedded assumption of equal payments in the future). Such calculation would presume that the amount of total revenue that the business would most likely generate would remain fixed over a number of years. Quite naturally, it implies that real (inflation-adjusted) annual incomes from that business diminish annually. Even though theoretically possible, it is empirically highly unlikely. Instead, I would advise using the sum of present values of an asset discounted with appropriate interest rate. Such approach eliminates the incentives to drastically increase the logging’ output throughout the year preceding the buyout and as a result leaves more trees for you, me, and the tree huggers. As you can see, it is not the privatization of forests that will be efficient but the mechanism of evaluating logging businesses that will influence efficiency.

Rainforest not depeleting as fact as we thought. This brings to light new ways to fight it.

In the early 1980's, people feared that without intervention, the rain forest in Brazil would have been completely gone by the turn of the century. Well, the turn of the century came and went, as here it still is. This should, very well the nature of an "emergent future." Factors, including period of debt that Brazil's militant government experienced slow the growth. It is very possible that the "over-logging" of the forest was, itself th cause for this debt and subsequent reduction.

I think a lot of the fears about the rain forest inflate the statics. They act on the assumption the rate current rate will continue until the loggers drive themselves into the ground, as though they are blindly going to go forth with the same amount of logging always dispute cost or benefit.

There is a lot of talk to "act now" in fixing this problem. There are people telling the Brazilian government what to do with their own property, which is inconsistent with liberty. If some people highly value the rain forest and think it is going to go away, despite it's slowing in depletion, they need to pool their resources and buy parts of it. If they value it more than the brazilians value it's using, then they will get the forest. If it would truly cause an externality on other countries for it to be gone, then nations could buy portions of the forest, to keep it around for research.

Green Evolution

Profit maximization, an ultimate goal of every business, possesses its inalienable theoretical simplicity: an elegant amalgamation of total revenue’s maximization and total cost minimization. What else is there to it? In the absence of externalities, equating marginal revenue to marginal cost determines the optimal quantity of output and achieves the above stated goal- yielding maximum profit. Until relatively recently, the traditional combination of cost minimization and revenue maximization used to be the traditional and, on a large enough scale, the only way of conducting business, but it is not anymore.

At the end of the twentieth century an environmentally friendly business model started gaining popularity. The trend continued and received substantial support carrying the new business model well into the new millennium. What exactly am I talking about? I believe it would be a fair statement to point out the following. The business community observed a shift from traditional profit maximization model to conducting business while taking environment into consideration. After that we made the next step, introducing the entire segment that made environment its focal point and generated profit solely via helping the environment. Today, it seems there are companies that approach business in an even different manner. Instead of supplying a good or a service to satisfy the existing demand or create a supply that would in turn create its own demand, few companies are putting emphasis on environment at the expense of profit maximization. If anything, such conduct seems to be counter intuitive to neo-classical economics. Surprising as it is, such is a new business trend.

Allow me to illustrate. For simplicity purposes, let us consider the paradigm shift within the food industry. For generations, we have all enjoyed the good old pesticides-filled and antibiotics affected foods. Then came “Whole Foods Market,” “Wild Oats,” and “Vitamin Cottage,” making promises to change business and rescue the consumers’ bodies of pesticides, hormones, and poisons. After achieving such goal quite abruptly, it was those companies that pledged to bring yet another change to conducting business. Now the goal of those commercial enterprises was to alter their business models and tailor them to the existing preferences of the general population, which in the 21st century are unquestionably environmentally centered.

Take a closer look at Whole Foods Market. If you see what I see, then among other things you will take note that the company is fueling its trucks with biodiesel at four out of nine company’s distribution centers; it is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits. Also, it is developing green construction methods, building some stores to LEED certification standards, and selecting green building materials. Finally, in addition to recycling glass, plastic, and aluminum the company offers a bag refund in an attempt to promote reusing packaging materials as well as compostable food packaging for prepared foods. For more information on Whole Foods, please visit http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/pressroom/pr_10-23-07.html.

To top this list, may I mention that Whole Foods recently received Green Power Partner of the Year Award from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for second consecutive year. Why? Well, according to their website “In 2007, Whole Foods Market is being recognized for increasing its green power purchasing to include more than 509 million kilowatt-hours of wind-based renewable energy credits. This is enough renewable energy to offset 100 percent of the electricity used in all of its stores, facilities, bake houses, distribution centers, regional offices and global headquarters in the U.S. and Canada. Whole Foods Market is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits.” Well, that doesn’t really fit together with the traditional framework of cost minimization, does it? After all, what kind of cost-minimizing business would double its expenditures on electricity?

Let me guess what you are thinking. If you are a diligent student of Economics, right about now you might be thinking that it is a part of the business model of a natural, organic grocery chain. Appealing to people’s environmental preferences and supplying organically grown foods, that is just good business and creates an even better reputation for the company, right? What’s more, you might be thinking that Whole Foods got lucky to be in a position where it can supplement its traditional revenue sources with a good environmentally friendly reputation. Seriously, how many traditional (non-electricity generating) businesses would buy green credits and most importantly why?

Surprisingly, to name just a few, Kohl’s Department Stores, New York University, Pepsi Americas Inc, The Pepsi Bottling Group, Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC, Starbucks, Johnson & Johnson, Mohawk Fine Papers, PepsiCo, Staples, Sloan Valve Company, City of Bellingham (WA), Wells and Fargo, and of course Whole Foods- all of them have purchased enormous quantities of renewable energy. Together, these companies account for a purchase of more than 3.55 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable (mostly wind powered) energy (see details at http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/awards/winners.htm). I seriously urge you to consider the amount of energy 3.81 billion kilowatt-hours provide. Other participants include Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Google (who actively seek and implement environmentally friendly practices into their business models. For details, go here http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=32715.

As you can see, it not just organically fed tree huggers proclaiming slogans about the virtues of saving the whales. Numerous industries’ large capitalization leaders assume the responsibility for their environmental practices. The above listed names constitute only the top of the pyramid, representing the tip of the sword in the battle for the quality of environment for us all. Their voluntary participation and invaluable contribution demonstrate the unflinching willingness and considerable ability to provide unparalleled leadership among businesses. Make no mistake in your mind: this is a beginning of a trend that will only become stronger. This is no longer a world of governmental coercion to make businesses abide by some arbitrarily set pollution legislature or standard. This is an unprecedented evolution of corporate thought. This is a Green Evolution.

The Hidden Costs of Recycling

Earlier today, I came across an article written by an economist named Daniel Benjamin. Earlier this semester, we discussed recycling in class, and questioned whether it really helps the environment or not. The article is entitled the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling.” In this article Benjamin defines these eight myths as follows:

· Our Garbage Will Bury Us
· Our Garbage Will Poison Us
· Packaging Is Our Problem
· We Must Achieve Trash Independence
· We Squander Irreplaceable Resources When We Don’t Recycle
· Recycling Always Protects The Environment
· Recycling Saves Resources
· Without Forced Recycling Mandates, There Wouldn’t Be Recycling

I originally come from Bergenfield, New Jersey. In Bergenfield, recycling is mandatory. Everybody there seems to believe the sixth misconception about recycling, which is that recycling always protects the environment. The problem with recycling is that in order to turn the recyclables in to useable goods, resources must be consumed, hence creating pollution. In addition to pollution created from processing recyclables, other negative effects of recycling are shown in the following example:

This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials, trucks that pick up perhaps four to eight pounds of recyclables, rather than forty or more pounds of rubbish. Los Angeles has estimated that because it has curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be—800 versus 400 trucks. (Benjamin)

This example is proof of many unseen negative effects of recycling. For example, the city of Los Angeles now has to pay twice as many garbage men because of the increased size of its fleet. In addition to this it has to spend a larger portion of its tax revenue on fuel and maintenance for these garbage trucks. This either causes increased taxes or budget cuts from other areas of the local economy. There is no doubt in my mind that these same effects are present in virtually every city and town with mandatory recycling. Although recycling sounds good on paper, the unseen costs it carries may actually make it worse than simply throwing things in the trash.

Green Protectionism

For many people there has become a growing concern about global warming and what we can do to help limit its effects. A new bill (that is fairly well supported by both democrats and republicans in congress) would be a big step toward unified efforts among states domestically. The primary concern regarding the bill is that it would be very wide reaching, and could possibly have some strong positive effects for protectionists.

While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America’s quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth…But two powerful groups have remained determinedly skeptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organized labor, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.

Those people who are in the manufacturing sector have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before the bill is passed. Some have suggested that imports from the manufacturing sector, and possibly others, would need to be certified as to their carbon content and then be charged a tax according to their content. Some are apprehensive about implementing a tax because it will hurt trade overall. Places like China and India will then have a significant barrier to bypass in order to compete on the international market in trading. Another legitimate concern is that once a tax like that is placed on goods there is almost no going back. It would then enable protectionists to fight their personal battles with government support.

“The people who worry the most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.” The concerns surrounding the legislation and the bill are very real. Depending on if and how the bill goes into effect, and what the ramifications associated with it are, trade in the United States and world wide could be impacted significantly. Is a bill like this one even necessary? Many people would agree that it is not. The market functions well as it is right now, and to throw one more thing into the mix may begin to muddy the waters with trading partners worldwide.


JENNA CLULEY

More money for the U.S to spend!

Link to the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21989183/
There was a report published by the United Nations Development Programme which stated the effects of global warming poorer countries around the world. Of course it stated all the dire consequences that emitting carbon dioxide has and how the poor women and children are going to be the most. This article is a summary of the report and it caught my attention because in the second paragraph it states that the U.S needs to cover $40 billion of the annual $86 billion needed to protect the poor in other countries. This report which I skimmed through says that the two major contributors of carbon dioxide emissions (the U.S and China) are responsible for the money needed to “strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people”.
So if I got this right this report commissioned by the UN wants the U.S government, the U.S citizens to pay for the damages that global warming causes to other countries. This payment is not too far off in the future ether. By 2012 it is estimated that the full $86 billion in “climate proofing” will be needed annually. This money will mostly be spent on flood and drought relief in poor countries around the world. Seems to me to be a little bit of a stupid idea to spend $86 billion every year on clean up rather than spend it on prevention of the “mess maker”. Hopefully after spending $86 billion for possibly a few years the “mess maker” could be contained and no more money need be spent instead of spending that money indefinitely. That is if humans have a significant impact on the “mess maker” global warming.
The 400 page report says a lot of nothing I think. If the UN embraces it though, nothing will still be done. The problem of putting in place some law to make the U.S pay the money is that there is no one to enforce it. The UN had no army or power to make other countries enforce it. The idea that this report has is a waste of time and caused more damage to the environment in the printing of its 400 pages than environmental protecting it would have caused if it was followed.

Ethanol Craze Cools as Doubts Multiply

Ethanol Craze Cools as Doubts Multiply
Wall Street Journal

It seems that the use of ethanol as a clean fuel source is under fire due to rising food price, the concern for straining our already dwindling water supply and the type of pollution caused by burning ethanol with gasoline. Ethanol is perceived to be the temporary solution to the United States oil dependence and is the cornerstone President Bush's plan to reduce use of foriegn oil. Currently, proponents of ethanol are pushing to have oil refiners blend more ethanol into gasoline but opponents from various food producers and livestock farmers are grabbing the attention of Congress as well.

Etter of the WSJ states, "the U.S. gives oil refiners an excise-tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend into gasoline. And even though it's the oil industry that gets this subsidy, the industry dislikes being forced to use a nonpetroleum product. The U.S. ethanol industry is further protected by a 54-cent tariff on every gallon of imported ethanol.The ethanol tax credit will bring refiners an estimated $3.5 billion this year"

Using ethanol gives oil refiners incentive to use the product but environementalists and energy experts are questioning the tradeoffs of ethanol use. They are mainly concerned with the use water and fertiliziers it takes to grow corn to produe ethanol.

Etter of the WSJ also states, "back in early 2005, President Bush gave ethanol a boost in his State of the Union speech by calling for "strong funding" of renewable energy. Energy legislation that summer required oil companies to blend a total of 7.5 billion gallons of "renewable" fuels into the nation's fuel supply by 2012. The legislation also effectively extinguished ethanol's chief competitor as a clean-burning additive, methyl tertiary-butyl ether, which had groundwater-pollution issues. The bill anointed ethanol as the default additive and instantly created demand nearly double what was produced that year."

By forcing the use of ethanol, the U.S. has artifically created a demand that they may not have anticipated to create the tough choice between energy security and food security.

Etter writes, "a study coauthored by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen said corn ethanol might exacerbate climate change as the added fertilizer used to grow corn raised emissions of a very potent greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide. The ethanol industry replies to that one with an Energy Department study concluding that use of ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 18% to 28% on a per-gallon basis, provided that coal isn't used to run ethanol plants.

Opponents of ethanol also have hammered on an Agriculture Department projection that by 2010, less than 8% of the U.S. gasoline supply will come from corn-based ethanol -- and 30% of the corn crop will be used to make it. That suggests to some that the tradeoff between food and fuel is unbalanced.

The government of Quebec, which has offered loan guarantees for corn ethanol plants, recently decided not to initiate any new ones. Instead it will turn its attention to so-called cellulosic ethanol, which would be made from switchgrass, wood chips or other plant matter. It concluded that "the environmental costs of corn ethanol are higher than expected," says a spokesman for the province's minister of natural resources."

It seems that there might be a better option to helping the environment through different fuel sources. The U.S. is trying to find that diamond in the rough to help combat the rising prices of oil. Ethanol seems to be the wrong answer for the fight against oil dependence. The U.S. may need to ditch the idea and look elsewhere ... perhaps the car that uses air pressure for an energy source or hydrogen fuel cells.

Is Acid Rain Killing Off Wood Thrushes?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0813_020813_acidrain.html

A study from the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has named acid rain as the cause of the declining population of Wood Thrushes. This bird breeds in eastern United States and southeastern Canada and migrates to Mexico and Panama for the winter. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), completed as a cooperative effort by both U.S. and Canadian wildlife agencies, claims that the Wood Thrush is just one of many migratory birds whose population has steadily been declining at a rate of about 2 percent per year from 1966 to 2000. Cornell researchers compiled data from the BBS, government studies on acid rain and from Cornell’s own lab study on forest fragmentation to perform a statistical analysis and came to the conclusion that an increase in acid rain might discourage Wood Thrush breeding.

The term acid rain was coined in 1952 by British chemist Robert Smith but acid rain did not become public knowledge until the 80s when the media reported its negative effects on the environment. Soon thereafter young Al Gore produced a documentary called “An Inconvenient Rain” but the film received little recognition. (Kidding) Acid rain results when fossil fuel combustion byproducts, sulfur and nitrogen, join forces with water in the atmosphere. The result of this diabolical duo is known as acid rain. Most of this is allegedly created by Midwestern industry and blown by wind to the east coast. The researchers acknowledge that the Clean Air Act has indeed helped to reduce the amount of acid rain but claim that there are still great amounts falling in the eastern U.S. where some bird populations continue to decline. Most research has focused on acid rain’s effects on habitat loss but this study focuses primarily on its other effects such as calcium depletion in soil. Acid rain causes calcium to leach form the soil which harms the calcium rich food that the Thrush feeds on such snail shells, isopods such as pill bugs, millipedes, and earthworms. Without the necessary calcium a Thrush will produce thin and brittle eggs which might not survive the incubation process. If baby birds do emerge then the Thrush will have a very difficult time locating calcium rich food for her offspring.

It seems that economic efficiency is the only realistic way to examine the apparent Wood Thrush dilemma. Our economy would certainly suffer from greater regulation of the Midwestern power plants in an attempt to save the Wood Thrush and other affected species. If action were taken and power plants and other polluting industries were more strictly regulated throughout the Midwest and eastern parts of the county then it seems likely that the costs incurred from lower outputs/less polluting outputs would get passed on to the consumer. If prices were pushed too high we certainly wouldn’t have achieved efficiency. It does seem unlikely that strenuous pollution legislation will be passed when considering the benefit to millions of people provided with power and other goods produced by polluting industries. Could it be that the market has already determined the efficient amount of acid rain causing pollutants? I would tend to think so considering the millions of Midwesterners (and probably Easterners) provided with power at a reasonable price at the cost of some amount of calcium in northeastern soils.

More Leadership?

After a recent meeting on global climate change Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of the United Nations called for the United States and China to take "a more constructive role." After all they are the worlds biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This meeting took place before the IPCC was to meet in Indonesia. The IPCC report says we need to take action immediately in order to slow global warming. They also say that global climate change could have a catastrophic affect on the world if we don't act now; island nations could be flooded and deserted, African crops could be reduced by 50%. Many articles I have read says that the people most effected by climate change will be in developing nations. Developed nations will be able to adapt because a main portion of their economy depends on services not agriculture like developing nations. The IPCC also look to the U.S. and China for a quick solution. They want them so spend money on new technology so that the whole world can benefit from it. If the U.S and China were to do this it would have to be because they are going to benefit far greater than by not doing it. That is one reason, I believe, they are not taking any action. The Global Climate is a public good we can not exclude one country from it. To me this means the only way we are going to stop global warming we need a government that can enforce everyone not just put pressure. Another aspect I think that should be explored is developing nations. There is more incentive for them to take action since they are going to be the ones most harmed by climate change. Policy makers need to explore this possibility when writing treaties. This point might be a bit controversial but we would not ask them to do much; just something simple like cutting back on deforestation. When it comes to global warming everyone is looking for more leadership, but no one is wanting to take action. We can not leave this problem to be solved in the hands of two countries.

Yeah...I'm concerned about Global Warming!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/science/earth/10geo.html

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.” This quote about global warming did not come from a far left leaning democrat, but a moderate Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger. It seems today though that the debate continues on about global warming. This essay will try to shed some light on why the debate on this global crisis continues (my value judgment tells me that the debate should be over) and what can be done on economic level as well as a scientific level to reduce global warming when the debate concludes. So why does the debate continue on about global warming?

The debate continues not because most people reject the idea of global warming but because of two rather minor reasons. The first reason is that as a society we are not sure how to deal with global warming in way that that creates an efficient end result. Although we are not sure, I think that we should at least try something becasue we know that it exists and it is harming the population, I believe this to be fact, but you can take it as my value judgement. The second reason is that sometimes we simply choose not to address the issue, except for when it supplements an argument on another issue. We need to make Global Warming the issue not tip toe around it because it suits us; if we are able to move away from the debate around global warming then we might be able to start addressing the problem.

The most likely economic approach to dealing with global warming is creating a hybrid policy that creates a market, which includes elastic short-term permits along with, a specified number of long-term permits. The permits could be bought and sold or leased without restriction, and each one would allow the holder to emit one ton of carbon per year. Once distributed, the permits could be traded among firms or bought and retired by environmental groups. In addition, each government would be allowed to sell additional short-term permits for a specified fee. The hybrid plan thus combines the key advantages of tax and permit policies. Like a tax, it places an upper limit on the marginal cost of abatement, and the hybrid policy also avoids many of the distributional issues of an emissions tax.

Now moving from an economic approach to solve global warming to a scientific one, one such idea is injecting chemicals into the upper atmosphere to cool the poles, or blocking sunlight by making clouds more reflective or stationing mirrors in space. However, consequences of planetary engineering that cannot be anticipated may be serious and even harm the earth. Hopefully, at the very least the discussion about geo-engineering will finally sound an 'audible alarm' for others.

On one subject, though, there was wide agreement: interest in geo-engineering is no longer merely theoretical. The participants in the conference noted that global emissions of greenhouse gases were already moving above the upper limits predicted by many climate models. As a result, several said, the projected arrival of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean has shifted, in a few years, from 2100 to 2040 to 2013. And survival estimates are changing for the Greenland ice sheet, whose melting would cause a potentially devastating rise in sea levels. Once estimated in terms of millenniums, they are now expressed in estimates of only mere decades. It is time for something to be done, I’d rather we respond to this crisis now using an excise tax on global emissions, than geo-engineering, but at this point I am willing to try anything…

Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade

Summary of the Article

Most people agree that reducing carbon emissions will aid in solving to so-called problem of global warming. The only problem is that a tax would be required to incentivize people to reduce the amount of carbon emissions they commit. Capitol Hill would rather set caps on greenhouse-gas emissions (with allowances to trade emission permits) and tighten up regulations, such as fuel-economy standards than develop a tax for carbon emissions. A few problems with cap-and-trade plans, as evidenced by other nations, are that they take a long time to set up and perfect and raise energy prices for consumers, however, not as directly as a tax.

Carbon Taxes and Incentives

A carbon tax would send a signal to the market to reduce carbon use. In addition, the tax would provide an incentive for research and investment into renewable sources. The article suggests that tax revenues could be returned to taxpayers. For example, “every worker would receive a tax rebate of about $560, cutting the tax bill by 18% for those earning $20,000, or by 4% for those earning $90,000.” In addition, carbon taxes will assist in predicting energy prices. There is urgency in solving the climate crisis, such as global warming. Carbon taxes can be implemented quicker than the cap-and-trade system.

Furthers problems of Cap-and-Trade

A cap-and-trade system is an administrative approach used by a central body, such as the government, to control pollution using economic incentives for achieving reductions in the amount of emissions of pollutants, such as carbon. Unlike the transparency of carbon taxes, the cap-and-trade system is harder for business to predict because of constant fluctuations. The costs of cap-and-trade are very high. The costs are for implementation and for the improvement in technology that would cut carbon emissions. These costs will likely be passed onto consumers with less possibility of a tax shift that the carbon tax could offer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, carbon taxes will be more efficient in reducing carbon emissions. They will be more efficient because nobody likes a tax. Therefore, the greater the chance of being taxed, the more incentive there will be to take responsibility in reducing the amount of carbon emissions.

www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/glotax/carbon/2007/1026cool.htm

The standout crowd no longer standing out!

Well it seems as though the final frontier may have been reached. According to a recent article found on MSN.com, the long standing climate change apathetic Evangelical Christian demographic is tossing its chips in on the climate change camp. The article details how a sudden shift in evangelical thought surrounding climate change could have a drastic impact on the way this large demographic votes in the coming election.

As a christian myself, I find this rather interesting. For years... strike that... forever, the Christian Church has been rebuking and battling science on everything from birth control to evolution. Now, for some reason, on a topic that a fair portion of the secular audience would say is fallable at best, the Christian demographic seems to be jumping ship and running with science.

Should predictions be correct about the number of evangelical Christians now voting with climate change in mind, there are two very important implications that come as a result of this. First, if the climate change skeptical crowd wants to have any chance at slowing hasty policy making decisions, it better act now! Even those that we would expect to not vote based on climate change policy are beginning to vote that way. There are very few people left still have an unbiased view.

Second, this goes to show the power that the global warming campaign has had. It's a very multifaceted campaign that's now been able to morph itself into a biblical context to grab the attention of perhaps the most key demographic. Furthermore, the momentum that global warming policy would pickup as a result of gaining the large evangelical demographic would be huge.

If indeed it is the case that the sudden shift of thought among christians has really happened, then it would represent a major hurdle crossed for those with incentive interests in passing global warming policy. Personally, I see it as a majore hurdle lost in slowing down this paranoia freight train.

china's three gorges dam

China is quickly becoming one of the world’s leading polluters. Recently, Chinese air pollution has been known to travel up to 3,000 miles away and can be found blowing in to American coastal cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3109_worldbal.html).

With a huge percentage of its population moving from rural areas with no electricity or running water into an urban environment for job opportunities, China’s government is struggling to keep up with the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the influx. Coal burning for electricity is the current source of most of China’s energy at present, but the government is making an effort to provide more efficient ways to supply the changing population’s need for energy.

One of the alternatives being implemented is harnessing the massive Yangtze River’s currents by building dams to supply hydroelectric power. These dams will drastically change the environments around the river. Also, these large projects involve relocating an estimate 11 million rural people away from the river because of rising waters upstream.

The Three Gorges Dam is getting criticism from environmentalists and economists alike. The former point out the poor environmental planning that went into the project from the start. The river has seen garbage and silt accumulation behind the dam, fertilizer runoff from the flooded land formerly used for agriculture, and no planned infrastructure to remediate the environmental damage. Economically, the Gorge project is costing China much more than many think it is worth. The Dam’s price includes the dam itself, relocating the shore-dwelling people by offering them subsidies and cash rewards to move to the city, and remediating the unplanned for environmental issues, while ensuring they don’t happen in the future.

China’s Three Gorges Dam is an interesting case study on a developing country struggling to meet its energy needs. The growing pains are lessons for everyone.

Link to Wall Street Journal Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119429475928882924-lMyQjAxMDE3OTE0MTIxOTE0Wj.html
Link to accompanying video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid452319854?bctid=1287035232

Inner Economist

If you are looking for a winterim course, then you might be interested in my Econ 398 Inner Economist. Maybe another title for this course would be "Economics For My Life." The course will involve reading two books: (1) Tyler Cowen, Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist, and (2) Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why The Rich Are Rich, The Poor Are Poor -- And Why You Can Never Buy A Decent Used Car! The course will culminate with a set of assignments suggested by The Economic Naturalist. Perhaps a better title for the course would be: "Economics for My Life." You could almost expect to find this stuff in the "self help" section of your favorite bookstore.

Gore the Pure

Environmental support comes at a cost- Gore the Pure

“Nobel laureate Al Gore is unlikely to run (for Presidency) again. His Ideas are catching on, but people still don’t want to pay for them.”

One man who seems to always gain media attention is the former vice president, Al Gore. He is a main proponent of many controversial issues that have an impact on environmental economics. Global warming is one concern for many Americans that is gaining recognition. “The proportion of Americans who say they worry ‘a great deal’ about global warming has risen from 28% to 41% in the past four years. Over the same period, the proportion favoring ‘immediate, drastic action’ to protect the environment has risen from 23% to 38%.” Where these percentages came from is not listed in the article, but it raises the questions regarding why there is a sudden concern about the environment. Clearly changes that are made regarding America’s use of energy and emissions will have an impact on the nation’s economy. For the 2008 election it seems that candidates will have to take some sort of stand on what type of policy they will enforce regarding the environment because it is a hot issue that is not going away any time soon.

… no plausible candidate of either party favours a carbon tax, the most efficient way to tackle emissions… Voters prefer solutions that are either cheap or that they thing will be paid for by someone else. A poll for the New Scientist magazine in June tried to quantify this, with sobering results. Only half of Americans would favour rules to force power companies to emit less if that raised their monthly electricity bill from $85 9the average in 20050 to $155 (an estimate of the hike needed to lower American emissions by 5% by 2020). And only 37% could stomach a tax that raised petrol (gasoline) prices to $4 a gallon.

Given these results from the poll it is hard to imagine that any candidate will garner much support if they support making changes such as the ones given as examples above. “You cannot win the White House by telling Americans that they must pay more to drive, or by telling Midwestern coalminers that their industry must clean up or die.” Although it is not certain whether there is really a significant climate change, or global warming, the issue has consumed a substantial portion of media attention and will be addressed politically and have wide reaching economic effects.


JENNA CLULEY
Source: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=998...

Captain Planet

I hate captain planet.

Well, not him per se, but more what the cartoon represents. Captain Planet is a subversive piece of propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. It teaches innocent children to ignore economic reality. Villains are persons (sometimes less than so) who share two things in common; an unexplained hate for the earth and a desire to make profits. Of course, the real villain is the idea that profits are mutually exclusive from a healthy environment.

Unfortunately for captain planet and his band of multicultural teenagers, people making profits by voluntary transaction is the most “environmentally friendly” social structure. The almost instant rejection of unregulated markets by the common man is simply a sign of how successful captain planet was in polluting minds. This may also be why a former founder of green peace recently wrote a book detailing the organizations hijack by anti-capitalists, not concerned environmentalists. The danger, like many things, comes in the form of common opinion.

Averagely intelligent and poorly educated people are easily manipulated. If one can convince another that exchange (free markets) hurts the environment, it doesn't become a far leap for one to dissuade exchange simply by accusing someone else of not loving the environment. Echoes of “think of the children” and “save the whales” comes to mind in a hauntingly comical fashion. Captain Planet is simply a graphical “think of the children” no less tiresome, but certainly more stylish (red spedos are STILL in)

Alexander Devore

Hawaii's Growing Pains

Since becoming a state in 1959, Hawaii has grown substantially. The main area of growth has been in the tourism industry. According to an article posted to “The Economist” online on September 20, 2007, some people believe that the tourism industry in Hawaii is eroding natural resources, the local culture and the infrastructure. The latest addition to the tourism industry connects the busiest island with two smaller and less crowded ones, Kauai and Maui.

Tourists in Hawaii last month witnessed an unusual display of marine life: not sea turtles or a rare monk seal, but a line of surfers and swimmers preventing a ferry from docking at Kauai. The Superferry is the first big passenger boat to link Oahu, Hawaii’s most crowded island, to two less developed ones, Kauai and Maui. Some say such a link is sorely needed. But critics object that the ferry, which can hold more than 800 people, may interfere with whales and other wildlife, and worry about the asses traffic, fishermen and cheap labor it will bring.

Hawaii is currently one of the most expensive states to live in and also to do business in. With high levels of tourism and vacationers, there are also high rental and living costs. By creating a new route for tourism via the new ferry they are creating an increase in building high priced vacation homes for tourism, and possibly making the current cost of living more expensive for people who already live there. New building of homes and businesses will also diminish the amount of open space on the islands. The problem is two fold. There is a creation of new jobs and possibly some new industry, but it comes at the expense of higher prices and less open land. Some people suggest that a better way of encouraging economic growth is by encouraging more agriculture which is often very environment friendly. Others would contend that the best way to protect the land is to ensure that it is developed it in an efficient way. In considering the issue and growth it is important to look at the environmental implications. Too much tourism over time will certainly have negative and positive effects on the state as a whole. What is the best way to deal with the growth that will allow for more growth over time and not have significant negative long term effects?

On September 22, 2007 a group of civic and political leaders are meeting for the “Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Summit” to determine a long-term growth plan. Many people are at odds on the issue, but it is obvious that there is not just one simple solution to the problem.

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBy Subject/cfm?storyid=9833

Jenna Cluley

High cost for Environmentalism

Today in class we discussed the importance of the environment to many in the class. Our discussion seemed to also bring some skepticism to the global warming information presented.

As I have mentioned before, I subscribe to Bruce Yandle's theory of Bootleggers and Baptists. He has written a paper discussing this theory with regards to the environment, in particular the Kyoto Protocol. Thinking about what Yandle mentions about carbon trading and other "trading" occurring because of the treaty got me thinking about how many of my fellow classmates will be willing to pay more for reducing global climate change. Since it will be governments "trading" with one another to satisfy the protocol, and the governments will need to have revenue in order to make some of the arrangements, taxes will need to increase.

So my question for my fellow students is this: How much are you willing to pay to reduce "climate change". And, according to the link I have to Environmental Economics, which states that more than half did not pay anything for the album, how will they feel when they have to pay for my share, should I choose not to pay. What if you don't agree with all of the policy the government, are you still going to pa the tax?

Just a thought.

Pros and Cons of a sharp shift in supply.

In Norway, negotiations have begun on the assigning of drilling rights for oil off of the Norweigian continental shelf.

Environmental groups, however are opposed to this drilling, they would be opposed to any damaging of the environment. They are veheimently opposed to any drilling there whatsoever.

Perhaps these environmentalists prohibitions of new oil production can bring about change moe quickly.

As more and more of the world is the developed and drilled,the amount of untainted land lessens and lessens. Presumably, as this happens, the nvironmentalists will be more and more passionate in their efforts to stop further drilling and development. Put in Economic terms, of the law of demand, as the quantity of natural, untouched land decreases, price (or the lenghths to which enironmentalists would go) for this land increases. If environmentalists increasing efforts hamper and slow the finding of oil, then supply in oil will drop more and more rapidly, raising costs. This will lower the opportunity cost of finding new forms of non-oil energy, potentially quickening the process.

So as tree-huggers increase the implicit cost of oil, production of new fuels may speed.

I say: Hug on, Treehuggers!