Wednesday, April 05, 2006
A call to ation for clean air
Air pollution is taking its effect on those both healthy and sensitive people. Even with low levels of pollution there is still an adverse effect on people. With air being the most vital resource to all living species we need to find a better way to keep it cleaner. In the Atlatnta region the smog problem has reached one of the worst in the country. The last time that this region has passed the federal air quality standard was in 2004. This past year in 2005 the city had 17 red smog days. Over half of the population in Georgia is breathing unhealthy air. Georgia's childrenwith asthma recive 28 million dollars in health care a year and on some days are not allowed to be outside for an extended period of time due to the pollution. Everytime we turn on a light or start our car we are using energy which produces pollution. One way that we can try and reduce these problems is to try and drive less and keep lights turned off in rooms that are not being used. This may only help with some of the problems but we also need to use our technilogical advancements to reduce the big contributers to the pollution like smokestacks. Although air pollution is a big issue i do not think that the problem is by itself causing heart disease, asthma, and lung problems. These problems may be enhanced by the effects of air pollution but do they really cause the problem itself? We are approaching a dangerous abundance of the number of polluting gases which in turn is increasing global warming. These issues need to be resolved or we will see a decrese in life expectency.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Curbside Recycling
I recently read a commentary that most recycling programs are a waste. Among the points noted were: no shortage of landfill space (another thousand years of garbage would only fill an area 35 miles square by 100 yards deep), double energy consumption and pollution (just preparing the recyclables can use as much energy and create as much waste as using virgin material), and cost (most recycling programs lose money).
All that having been said, the fact that something can be recycled doesn't mean it should be. Forget the esoteric arguments about externalities, finite resources, and so on--in the end recycling will (or won't) work because it is (or isn't) cheaper than throwing stuff away. This varies with the material being recycled. As a general proposition, any manufactured product that is (a) heavy or expensive in relation to its bulk, (b) homogeneous, and (c) easily separable from the waste stream by consumers can be recycled economically. Metals, notably steel and aluminum, are the obvious examples; both have high recycling rates. Surprisingly, so does newsprint. The poor candidates, at the moment, are plastics and mixed paper (including magazines). Plastics are too light and heterogeneous, while mixed paper contains too many contaminants. In the end we may conclude that this junk is best consigned to landfills. But given the advance of technology, who knows? We're in the midst of a great national experiment, and we'd be foolish at this stage to prejudge the results.
All that having been said, the fact that something can be recycled doesn't mean it should be. Forget the esoteric arguments about externalities, finite resources, and so on--in the end recycling will (or won't) work because it is (or isn't) cheaper than throwing stuff away. This varies with the material being recycled. As a general proposition, any manufactured product that is (a) heavy or expensive in relation to its bulk, (b) homogeneous, and (c) easily separable from the waste stream by consumers can be recycled economically. Metals, notably steel and aluminum, are the obvious examples; both have high recycling rates. Surprisingly, so does newsprint. The poor candidates, at the moment, are plastics and mixed paper (including magazines). Plastics are too light and heterogeneous, while mixed paper contains too many contaminants. In the end we may conclude that this junk is best consigned to landfills. But given the advance of technology, who knows? We're in the midst of a great national experiment, and we'd be foolish at this stage to prejudge the results.
Why cellulosic ethanol is better than corn ethanol
In recent debates with energy policies, fuel has become and increasing problem for policy makers. The decisions to switch from gasoline to alternative fuels has lead officials to asses different alternatives, one being the use of ethnol. In the last decade the use of corn ethnol as an clean burning fuel has been thought of as the optimal source in creating environmental efficientcy by providing cleaner burning fuel. However, a new form of ethanol has come to emerge as the sole provider of cleaner burning fuel. Is this alternative a better solution?
In assessing whether or not biofuel saves more energy in the complete process of creating energy we must first take a look at the cultivation of the vvarious crops taht can be used to produce fuel. Fuel that uses the more traditional approtach by way of corn may yeild only marginal renewalbe envergy retruns, while ehtanol obtained from cellulose (a technology that uses fibours materials such as wood chips, or farm residues) has a clear advantage. The biggest reason cellulosic ehtano has a better energy balance than corn is that the whole plant can be used within the fuel proces. The fermentable compoonenet( is sperarated from the nonfermentable component(lignin) which yields a high energy value.
On the flip side, large scale ehtonol production rasies other envronmental concerns, the biggest being air quality. The low blends predominantly used today have higher evaporatiotvie emissions than regular gasoline in warmer climates which contributes to ozone problems. A solution to this problem could be to use ethanol in high blends.
Today ethanol is only used as a fuel additive to help it burn cleaner. The question now is how quickly can we make the transition to using ethanol as an alternative fuel as aopposed to jsut an additive?
In assessing whether or not biofuel saves more energy in the complete process of creating energy we must first take a look at the cultivation of the vvarious crops taht can be used to produce fuel. Fuel that uses the more traditional approtach by way of corn may yeild only marginal renewalbe envergy retruns, while ehtanol obtained from cellulose (a technology that uses fibours materials such as wood chips, or farm residues) has a clear advantage. The biggest reason cellulosic ehtano has a better energy balance than corn is that the whole plant can be used within the fuel proces. The fermentable compoonenet( is sperarated from the nonfermentable component(lignin) which yields a high energy value.
On the flip side, large scale ehtonol production rasies other envronmental concerns, the biggest being air quality. The low blends predominantly used today have higher evaporatiotvie emissions than regular gasoline in warmer climates which contributes to ozone problems. A solution to this problem could be to use ethanol in high blends.
Today ethanol is only used as a fuel additive to help it burn cleaner. The question now is how quickly can we make the transition to using ethanol as an alternative fuel as aopposed to jsut an additive?
Tax Incentives for Hybrids: Deductions and Credits
We are running out of oil, our main form of energy now. There are promising technologies and alternatives coming tomorrow.
There are numerous tax incentives and rebate programs for using less energy. The most immediate one is for those of us who purchased hybrid vehicles in 2005 (and earlier); depending on the vehicle, you can take a deduction of up to $2,000 off your income, even if you don’t itemize deductions. Depending on your tax bracket, this could reduce your tax bill by about 1/3 of this amount (around $660) this year.
Procrastinators rejoice, in 2006 the energy bill includes a tax credit for hybrids up to $3,600. A credit is subtracted from your total tax, not from your gross income, so it’s an actual dollar savings.
These incentives are interesting in several ways. The obvious is that we consumers have additional motivation to move towards energy efficient vehicles. But this works for the manufacturers too; any additional cost associated with making more efficient engines is offset, making them more attractive to buyers. And this is a pretty significant amount of money, after the credit the total cost will be reduced from $23,000 to around $20,000, or about 13% savings. People have been waiting to take delivery and the long wait for hybrids which has abated recently, is growing again.
Another interesting aspect is that the credit is indexed to the fuel economy of comparable non-hybrid vehicles. So let’s say you own a
Friday, March 31, 2006
End users paying environmental costs?? up front .
End users paying for end of life costs up front on products.. it seems inefficient in some ways but here is an example of it working .
Companies getting involved and not having government force their hand? How could this be?????
Non-profits taking a path to deal with waste.
Creating an organization to provide disposal service.
(http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/corporate/index.html )-about recycler
Then industry paying for and using the service with out any direct government intervention??
Weird….? Improbable.????
We just can’t get along without government guidance can we??
No its common sense.. if environmentalists want companies to reduce out put they can work out a deal . Demanding legislation is not always an efficient way to go about affecting change its like the person down river paying the polluter for each unit of pollution reduced. It gets to an optimal level..with no outside intervention….
Large companies like black and Decker etc.
( http://www.bdk.com/environment/faq.htm )
can afford to participate and are proud to do so they feel it will influence customer choice.
Small company’s who can’t swing it don’t pay in but the non-profit will still take their batteries because the bigger companies have footed the bill so there is a balance.
If government had stepped in and forced all producers into a command and control situation there would be small companies put out of market , government agencys to support to maintain and all the associated costs with government waste..
The current situation has come about with minimal government legislation and this is optimal I think… take a look
Links to related data :
http://www.bdk.com/environment/faq.htm link to policy
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/ link to battery recycler…
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/corporate/index.html about recycler
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/docs/batteryalert.pdf EPA action
Companies getting involved and not having government force their hand? How could this be?????
Non-profits taking a path to deal with waste.
Creating an organization to provide disposal service.
(http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/corporate/index.html )-about recycler
Then industry paying for and using the service with out any direct government intervention??
Weird….? Improbable.????
We just can’t get along without government guidance can we??
No its common sense.. if environmentalists want companies to reduce out put they can work out a deal . Demanding legislation is not always an efficient way to go about affecting change its like the person down river paying the polluter for each unit of pollution reduced. It gets to an optimal level..with no outside intervention….
Large companies like black and Decker etc.
( http://www.bdk.com/environment/faq.htm )
can afford to participate and are proud to do so they feel it will influence customer choice.
Small company’s who can’t swing it don’t pay in but the non-profit will still take their batteries because the bigger companies have footed the bill so there is a balance.
If government had stepped in and forced all producers into a command and control situation there would be small companies put out of market , government agencys to support to maintain and all the associated costs with government waste..
The current situation has come about with minimal government legislation and this is optimal I think… take a look
Links to related data :
http://www.bdk.com/environment/faq.htm link to policy
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/ link to battery recycler…
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/corporate/index.html about recycler
http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/docs/batteryalert.pdf EPA action
Traditional American Indian Economic Policy
The title of this blog is of an essay I recently read by Ronald L. Trosper; while we aren't covering sustainability this semester, I still thought this might serve as a contrast and/or comparison to the value judgements that we are currently emphasizing.
The essay sets forth the assumption of the basic pan-Indian 'traditional' Indian viewpoint of respect. Trosper outlines four basic components of the definition of respect as being community and the economic aspect of reciprocity in exchange (human-to-human and human-to-nonhuman), which "provides a way to derive ethical statements about what policies should be selected, with a focus on today"; connectedness, which "furnishes a way to generate descriptions or models of the world in order to describe the consequences of policies"; seventh generation, which creates the time dimension and has direct implications for time valuation; and humility, which is "a statement about humanity's ability to understand the connections".
Trosper gives the following list of implications that this definition of respect has for development activities (and it should be noted that it is not implied that this is appropriate for non-Indian and non-reservation communities):
1. High grading is not allowed.
2. Consumption has an upper bound.
3. Ecosystem health should be maintained.
4. Nuclear and other hazardous waste should be avoided.
5. Although modern market niches such as gambling and reduced-tax sales can be used, savings from profits should be very high.
6. A community's population levels should remain within the carrying capacity of a community's resources.
It seems to me that understanding the ideology of this essay depends on the definitions of two terms: development and property rights. According to Trosper, 'development' in the modern sense of the word is not something that tribal communities aspire to, mainly because there is an emphasis on future consumption that requires much less consumption (but not necessarily production) today. If one equates development with increased levels of consumption of goods, then non-development would be preferable to the societies that emphasize future consumption. Conversely, these high savings rates and ability to supply the demands of the seventh generation would be seen more favorably by sustained-development proponents.
Property rights for these communities also holds a different meaning. Shunning private property, to them, does not mean rejecting the notion of property rights. Instead, the institution of usufruct tenure for individuals, combined with the institutions of generosity and tribal or band territorial division, is the preferred method of landholding. With usufruct tenure for individuals, use of the bounty of the land is granted, but the community maintains the right to cut off usage if the land and natural resources are being abused. The land in whole is passed on to the next generation. This is similar to the 'grazing' scenario in Yandle's book, but the difference here is that by consensus, the community may limit an abuser's right to use the land - and this may give rise to common law. While Trosper gives the example of the Navajo tribe as one that has suffered from a tragedy of the commons, he attributes this to the fact that the tribe has a world outlook of "ever increasing, never decreasing", or a rejection of scarcity, whereas most other tribes accept the idea of scarcity and thus have an incentive to marshal resources conservatively.
While reading this essay, I continued to wonder about the implications for a more dynamic society, one that incorporated and benefitted from technological advances. Toward the end, Trosper acknowledges that his future essays would consider how the four components of respect figure into technological change for reservation economies.
If anyone would like copies of this essay, I would be happy to oblige.
The essay sets forth the assumption of the basic pan-Indian 'traditional' Indian viewpoint of respect. Trosper outlines four basic components of the definition of respect as being community and the economic aspect of reciprocity in exchange (human-to-human and human-to-nonhuman), which "provides a way to derive ethical statements about what policies should be selected, with a focus on today"; connectedness, which "furnishes a way to generate descriptions or models of the world in order to describe the consequences of policies"; seventh generation, which creates the time dimension and has direct implications for time valuation; and humility, which is "a statement about humanity's ability to understand the connections".
Trosper gives the following list of implications that this definition of respect has for development activities (and it should be noted that it is not implied that this is appropriate for non-Indian and non-reservation communities):
1. High grading is not allowed.
2. Consumption has an upper bound.
3. Ecosystem health should be maintained.
4. Nuclear and other hazardous waste should be avoided.
5. Although modern market niches such as gambling and reduced-tax sales can be used, savings from profits should be very high.
6. A community's population levels should remain within the carrying capacity of a community's resources.
It seems to me that understanding the ideology of this essay depends on the definitions of two terms: development and property rights. According to Trosper, 'development' in the modern sense of the word is not something that tribal communities aspire to, mainly because there is an emphasis on future consumption that requires much less consumption (but not necessarily production) today. If one equates development with increased levels of consumption of goods, then non-development would be preferable to the societies that emphasize future consumption. Conversely, these high savings rates and ability to supply the demands of the seventh generation would be seen more favorably by sustained-development proponents.
Property rights for these communities also holds a different meaning. Shunning private property, to them, does not mean rejecting the notion of property rights. Instead, the institution of usufruct tenure for individuals, combined with the institutions of generosity and tribal or band territorial division, is the preferred method of landholding. With usufruct tenure for individuals, use of the bounty of the land is granted, but the community maintains the right to cut off usage if the land and natural resources are being abused. The land in whole is passed on to the next generation. This is similar to the 'grazing' scenario in Yandle's book, but the difference here is that by consensus, the community may limit an abuser's right to use the land - and this may give rise to common law. While Trosper gives the example of the Navajo tribe as one that has suffered from a tragedy of the commons, he attributes this to the fact that the tribe has a world outlook of "ever increasing, never decreasing", or a rejection of scarcity, whereas most other tribes accept the idea of scarcity and thus have an incentive to marshal resources conservatively.
While reading this essay, I continued to wonder about the implications for a more dynamic society, one that incorporated and benefitted from technological advances. Toward the end, Trosper acknowledges that his future essays would consider how the four components of respect figure into technological change for reservation economies.
If anyone would like copies of this essay, I would be happy to oblige.
Optimal allocation of cigarette smoke is 0?
I happen to disagree with the latest lawmaking happening in our states capitol building. I find it hard to believe that despite all of the education of our state legislators, not one of them had enough conviction to sway the rest of the vote in opposition of the latest smoking ban.
This latest law would suggest that the optimal allocation of second hand smoke is zero based on the understanding that the law prohibits smoking in all but a handful of locations. Coase would suggest otherwise, and I happen to agree with the model at hand. Governments role in the understanding of lawmaking has no right to completely abolish a smokers right to smoke. Make it more costly, tax it more, subsidize those who don't smoke, but DO NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL!!
I happen to be a cigar smoker, not the everyday nic-fit cigarette smoker, so my rights to smoke at a cigar bar have been preserved, but it would seem that the rights of the smokers have been violated by governments attempt to control what they percieve as a bad.
It just seems frustrating to me that in all of the hooplah about this measure, not one politician was effective in portraying that this is not the role government.
This latest law would suggest that the optimal allocation of second hand smoke is zero based on the understanding that the law prohibits smoking in all but a handful of locations. Coase would suggest otherwise, and I happen to agree with the model at hand. Governments role in the understanding of lawmaking has no right to completely abolish a smokers right to smoke. Make it more costly, tax it more, subsidize those who don't smoke, but DO NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL!!
I happen to be a cigar smoker, not the everyday nic-fit cigarette smoker, so my rights to smoke at a cigar bar have been preserved, but it would seem that the rights of the smokers have been violated by governments attempt to control what they percieve as a bad.
It just seems frustrating to me that in all of the hooplah about this measure, not one politician was effective in portraying that this is not the role government.
Water toxicity along the Mississippi
The Clean Water Act requires all water sanitation departments to meet minimum standards of water toxicity. This entails that all sanitation stations must make sure that a certain amount of chemicals and waste products are removed from water be it to be safe for swimming or drinking. The water sanitations systems, however, are not required to cleanse drinking water of harmful pesticides.
As water flows down the Mississippi river it accumulates more and more chemicals used in farming. None of these chemicals are tested for or required by law to come out of the water supply. The delta of the Mississippi, in New Orleans is highly toxic. It is filled with all the waste products of farming and none of the water is cleaned before it comes out of faucets in peoples homes.
As a result of this over site in legislation, water sanitation is at its lowest when it enters the Gulf of Mexico. While it is still considered drinkable, the water is full of chemicals that would otherwise be considered unsafe for human consumption. The city of New Orleans has one of the highest rates of intestinal cancers in the country.
This effects the economy of the area in that it effects the people of the area. Health insurance rates are considerably higher in this area due to the increased risk of cancers and worker productivity is cut down by illness. It is little wonder that businesses and people have been leaving this city since the late 1990's.
As water flows down the Mississippi river it accumulates more and more chemicals used in farming. None of these chemicals are tested for or required by law to come out of the water supply. The delta of the Mississippi, in New Orleans is highly toxic. It is filled with all the waste products of farming and none of the water is cleaned before it comes out of faucets in peoples homes.
As a result of this over site in legislation, water sanitation is at its lowest when it enters the Gulf of Mexico. While it is still considered drinkable, the water is full of chemicals that would otherwise be considered unsafe for human consumption. The city of New Orleans has one of the highest rates of intestinal cancers in the country.
This effects the economy of the area in that it effects the people of the area. Health insurance rates are considerably higher in this area due to the increased risk of cancers and worker productivity is cut down by illness. It is little wonder that businesses and people have been leaving this city since the late 1990's.
Global Warming and Energy Efficiency
Recently a report was released ranking world utility corporations based upon their ability to control, oversight, manage, disclose, and account for global warming and greenhouse emissions. San Diego based utility company Sempra was ranked second to last in the report, and BP was ranked as the first. Sempra believes the rankings from the commission were subjective.
The commission believed that because Sempra did not have an executive board to manage or address the environmental and economic issues of global warning, they did not attain the goal of being environmentally conscientious. Sempra responded with examples of their most recent improvements to the environment such as: the purchase of renewable energy sources that would assist in bringing more power to California and other homes; building state of the art natural gas fired plants; and building a liquified natural gas receiving terminal. Sempra believes these examples resemble those used to rank other such companies regarding global warming and greenhouse effects. The commission may be taking too narrow of a view of the costs some companies are taking to be environmentally friendly. Rather, by taking a more global view of the changes and improvements that are being accomplished and the effects on the earth, more companies may be seen in a different light.
The economic cost of maintaining and developing new energy resources is becoming increasingly larger. Most experts believe that the global warming and greenhouse effects will continue to worsen over time. Thus causing an economic disaster due to companies attempting to control and improve the environmental problems that may never get better. Additionally, most states are requiring the utility companies to use renewable energy sources to a certain percentage (as the article states, California has a 20% requirement by 2010). Companies are running out of time to find the renewable energy sources. It takes a number of years to locate an energy source, run tests, and determine that the sources would be cost efficient and effective. Do we have enough time, or because of the environmental damage already done, will it matter?
The commission believed that because Sempra did not have an executive board to manage or address the environmental and economic issues of global warning, they did not attain the goal of being environmentally conscientious. Sempra responded with examples of their most recent improvements to the environment such as: the purchase of renewable energy sources that would assist in bringing more power to California and other homes; building state of the art natural gas fired plants; and building a liquified natural gas receiving terminal. Sempra believes these examples resemble those used to rank other such companies regarding global warming and greenhouse effects. The commission may be taking too narrow of a view of the costs some companies are taking to be environmentally friendly. Rather, by taking a more global view of the changes and improvements that are being accomplished and the effects on the earth, more companies may be seen in a different light.
The economic cost of maintaining and developing new energy resources is becoming increasingly larger. Most experts believe that the global warming and greenhouse effects will continue to worsen over time. Thus causing an economic disaster due to companies attempting to control and improve the environmental problems that may never get better. Additionally, most states are requiring the utility companies to use renewable energy sources to a certain percentage (as the article states, California has a 20% requirement by 2010). Companies are running out of time to find the renewable energy sources. It takes a number of years to locate an energy source, run tests, and determine that the sources would be cost efficient and effective. Do we have enough time, or because of the environmental damage already done, will it matter?
San Joaquin Valley Battles Air Pollution
For several years now it has been known that California has struggled constantly to try and meet the air quality standards set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is estimated that currently the air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley area, which encompasses San Joaquin, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Stanislaus, Tulare, and part of Kern county, is costing residents $1,000 each in health care annually. When you combine this cost along with the price of providing subsidies to the owners and operators of heavy-duty motor vehicles, locomotives, marine vessels, and stationary agricultural pumps, the costs of what it’s going to take to clean up the air pollution becomes a little more apparent. This, the monetary amount, is no little amount. If one were then to add the affects of the daily health problems the community deals with from this air pollution the number would be even higher.
Subsidies to heavy-duty machine operators in the community are being provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). They provide the community with the opportunity to make a contract with them stating that if they are willing to upgrade their equipment so that they pollute less, with the new or upgraded equipment, that they will receive a subsidy for their part in helping clean up the air. Many concerns from that of the expected population growth to the fact that individuals or businesses that were looking to upgrade anyhow may get a break from the government presents some very serious issues. One then might ask, are the subsidies the most effective way to meet the lower level of air pollution in the area? What’s going to happen to health care costs as the population grows? Is there another way to better address the pollution problem in the area? Are the standards set forth for the area even reasonable? At what price are the citizens willing to pay in order to breath cleaner air?
The answers to these questions will not come easily. As can be expected, all other things held constant, if the population increases, one can be assured that the amount of air pollution will rise, therefore increasing the costs of health related issues with dirty air. This author would not suggest that economically subsides would be the best route to reach the desired level of pollution. What might be a bit more effective would be a tax on the fuel that these vehicles use. However, with the understanding that political pressure often overpowers what might be right for the area economically, it is a little easier to see why the government may have chosen this route. As to whether or not the standards are reasonable is still an ongoing debate. Without further investigation on the topic it’s hard to say. What this author knows for sure is that the San Joaquin Valley faces some serious problems with air pollution and it will be interesting to see if the policies they are currently using to battle pollution will continue to be used in the future.
Subsidies to heavy-duty machine operators in the community are being provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). They provide the community with the opportunity to make a contract with them stating that if they are willing to upgrade their equipment so that they pollute less, with the new or upgraded equipment, that they will receive a subsidy for their part in helping clean up the air. Many concerns from that of the expected population growth to the fact that individuals or businesses that were looking to upgrade anyhow may get a break from the government presents some very serious issues. One then might ask, are the subsidies the most effective way to meet the lower level of air pollution in the area? What’s going to happen to health care costs as the population grows? Is there another way to better address the pollution problem in the area? Are the standards set forth for the area even reasonable? At what price are the citizens willing to pay in order to breath cleaner air?
The answers to these questions will not come easily. As can be expected, all other things held constant, if the population increases, one can be assured that the amount of air pollution will rise, therefore increasing the costs of health related issues with dirty air. This author would not suggest that economically subsides would be the best route to reach the desired level of pollution. What might be a bit more effective would be a tax on the fuel that these vehicles use. However, with the understanding that political pressure often overpowers what might be right for the area economically, it is a little easier to see why the government may have chosen this route. As to whether or not the standards are reasonable is still an ongoing debate. Without further investigation on the topic it’s hard to say. What this author knows for sure is that the San Joaquin Valley faces some serious problems with air pollution and it will be interesting to see if the policies they are currently using to battle pollution will continue to be used in the future.
The "Fix": Alternative Energy Resources
In his State of the Union address, President Bush expressed the United States’ dependency on oil as an “addiction,” a brave assessment that the administration and advocates for alternative energy sources hope will stimulate change. An enduring need for oil has put the United States in risky relations with oil-rich countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and Iraq and the threat of embargo has become an influential weapon of choice. Economic sanctions are refuted by these nations by threatening to cut off oil exports to selected importers. Ukrainians have already seen these effects, after facing mid-winter natural gas supply shortages imposed by Russians wanting a four-fold increase in price.
There are other reasons for alternative fuels as well. Poorer countries, such as Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo could experience dramatic decreases in GDP if the price of oil continues to increase. Ethiopia, a country overcome by AIDS would see almost all of $134 million aid erased by a $10 increase for a barrel of oil.
It’s no surprise to anyone that petrol-based fuels account for pollution. Tremendous environmental impacts have power plants, vehicles, and tanker spills, among others, to blame. Global warming has been widely speculated upon, and most people can agree that temperatures are getting warmer as population and consumption increase. Carbon dioxide, a prominent greenhouse gas released when burning fuels, is an inefficient and unclean bio-hazard whose harm can be reduced with the development of cleaner fuels such as ethanol or E-85.
Along with conducting business with these countries comes the worry that Americans who consume gas bought from countries in the Middle East are putting money into the hands of dangerous regimes and terrorist groups. Wealth gained from transaction of oil is attributed to only a few, and often, at the hands of citizens with little voice for the use of their countries natural resources. Dictators and regime-leaders rake in the reward for exporting oil, while the countrymen and women suffer from drought, famine, and disease without aid.
Of course, another of the leading reasons for finding alternate fuel sources is the diminishing supply of our non-renewable resources. Explosive economic and population growth in countries such as China, India, and Brazil is accounting for unprecedented competition for oil and natural gas. In 2005, Americans paid 17 percent more for energy than in the previous year, accounting for 40 percent of the rise in the consumer price index. The International Energy Agency is calling for $17 trillion in investment. But even if investment is made and more reserves are found, diminishing supply is inevitable. Competition for the last of the world’s reserves will greatly increase hostility and perhaps stall trade between countries with most to lose-and gain.
With so much dependency on the Middle East and other oil-rich hotspots, the United States and much of the rest of the world is coming face to face with economic and natural disaster. And because the United States relies so heavily on energy on a day to day basis, it is time for us to take the lead on alternative energy resources. The U.S. has the opportunity to take the lead on a global problem whose solutions could drastically change the livelihood of many, reduce greenhouse gases and the threat of global warming, and prevent a world war economic disaster on the premise of diminishing oil reserves.
There are other reasons for alternative fuels as well. Poorer countries, such as Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo could experience dramatic decreases in GDP if the price of oil continues to increase. Ethiopia, a country overcome by AIDS would see almost all of $134 million aid erased by a $10 increase for a barrel of oil.
It’s no surprise to anyone that petrol-based fuels account for pollution. Tremendous environmental impacts have power plants, vehicles, and tanker spills, among others, to blame. Global warming has been widely speculated upon, and most people can agree that temperatures are getting warmer as population and consumption increase. Carbon dioxide, a prominent greenhouse gas released when burning fuels, is an inefficient and unclean bio-hazard whose harm can be reduced with the development of cleaner fuels such as ethanol or E-85.
Along with conducting business with these countries comes the worry that Americans who consume gas bought from countries in the Middle East are putting money into the hands of dangerous regimes and terrorist groups. Wealth gained from transaction of oil is attributed to only a few, and often, at the hands of citizens with little voice for the use of their countries natural resources. Dictators and regime-leaders rake in the reward for exporting oil, while the countrymen and women suffer from drought, famine, and disease without aid.
Of course, another of the leading reasons for finding alternate fuel sources is the diminishing supply of our non-renewable resources. Explosive economic and population growth in countries such as China, India, and Brazil is accounting for unprecedented competition for oil and natural gas. In 2005, Americans paid 17 percent more for energy than in the previous year, accounting for 40 percent of the rise in the consumer price index. The International Energy Agency is calling for $17 trillion in investment. But even if investment is made and more reserves are found, diminishing supply is inevitable. Competition for the last of the world’s reserves will greatly increase hostility and perhaps stall trade between countries with most to lose-and gain.
With so much dependency on the Middle East and other oil-rich hotspots, the United States and much of the rest of the world is coming face to face with economic and natural disaster. And because the United States relies so heavily on energy on a day to day basis, it is time for us to take the lead on alternative energy resources. The U.S. has the opportunity to take the lead on a global problem whose solutions could drastically change the livelihood of many, reduce greenhouse gases and the threat of global warming, and prevent a world war economic disaster on the premise of diminishing oil reserves.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Rational choice
The separation of economic efficiency and liberty is both perplexing and multifarious. Can values be accurately measured in economic terms? Are the measurements meaningful to the environment? One theory might have an answer. Rational choice theory is defined as, “a way of looking at deliberations between a number of potential courses of action, in which ‘rationality’ of one form or another is used either to decide which course of action would be the best to take, or to predict which course of action actually will be taken. Such a perspective finds itself in models for both human and behavior of non-human but nonetheless potentially rational entities, such as corporations or nation-states.”
What is considered to be rational?
The technical meaning in economics is about preferences: preferences are defined to be rational if they are complete and transitive. That is, that the decision-maker is able to compare all of the alternatives, and that these comparisons are consistent.
• If uncertainty is involved, then the independence axiom is often assumed in addition to rational preferences.
• If decision-making over time is involved, time consistency is generally assumed as well.
• Rationality can also mean that the decision-maker always chooses the most preferred option, as in the Utility Maximization problem.
Rational choice theory may help economists to better understand how an individual thinks regarding tastes and preferences. However, as we all know, not all are considered to be rational thinkers. Among the many policies, perhaps the amalgamation of liberty and economic efficiency may be the “solution matrimony” to a sustainable environmental policy.
What is considered to be rational?
The technical meaning in economics is about preferences: preferences are defined to be rational if they are complete and transitive. That is, that the decision-maker is able to compare all of the alternatives, and that these comparisons are consistent.
• If uncertainty is involved, then the independence axiom is often assumed in addition to rational preferences.
• If decision-making over time is involved, time consistency is generally assumed as well.
• Rationality can also mean that the decision-maker always chooses the most preferred option, as in the Utility Maximization problem.
Rational choice theory may help economists to better understand how an individual thinks regarding tastes and preferences. However, as we all know, not all are considered to be rational thinkers. Among the many policies, perhaps the amalgamation of liberty and economic efficiency may be the “solution matrimony” to a sustainable environmental policy.
Wind Power
Last year the U.S. led the world in wind production. While it did so with tax credits for wind generation, it did not require the use of the Kyoto Treaty. The rest of the world that signed the treaty has been upset at us for not signing it, yet here we are advancing non-"greenhouse gas" emitting generators faster than the rest of the world. This doesn't mean we are going to meet the Kyoto provisions (even most nations who signed on won't meet them), but it does show that all we need is a subsidy for cleaner generators to be produced more.
The U.S. has subsidized wind production for a while now, and is giving tax credits for wind generation for the next three years. The subsidies come beause wind produces virtually no air pollution, unlike the more common coal power plants. The subsidies give wind power an extra boost in sales. Already wind was becoming more comparable to coal in terms of price per kWh. Also, wind has been boosted by natural market forces, such as drought in Colorado, allowing power companies to rent or lease land for wind generation from farmers at cheaper prices. Other market forces exist as well. Most important of these are local communities' willingness to pay more for wind generation to avoid the pollution of coal.
That doesn't mean wind is beating coal in competition though. Given the vast abundance of coal in the U.S., keeping transportation costs for coal down, power companies are working to make coal much more efficient, at least according to the article. This will mean a reduction in emmissions of all kinds from the most polluting source.
Apparently, treaties and regulations aren't needed to reduce pollution. People naturally want to reduce pollution as their incomes rise. They are willing to pay more for clean air. The market, in this case made up of local communities, can thus result in lower pollution. While the Kyoto Treaty is much more market friendly than any CAC (command and control) alternative, time will tell if it was ever needed, or if it might even hinder clean electric development due to it's ability to hinder economic grow.
The U.S. has subsidized wind production for a while now, and is giving tax credits for wind generation for the next three years. The subsidies come beause wind produces virtually no air pollution, unlike the more common coal power plants. The subsidies give wind power an extra boost in sales. Already wind was becoming more comparable to coal in terms of price per kWh. Also, wind has been boosted by natural market forces, such as drought in Colorado, allowing power companies to rent or lease land for wind generation from farmers at cheaper prices. Other market forces exist as well. Most important of these are local communities' willingness to pay more for wind generation to avoid the pollution of coal.
That doesn't mean wind is beating coal in competition though. Given the vast abundance of coal in the U.S., keeping transportation costs for coal down, power companies are working to make coal much more efficient, at least according to the article. This will mean a reduction in emmissions of all kinds from the most polluting source.
Apparently, treaties and regulations aren't needed to reduce pollution. People naturally want to reduce pollution as their incomes rise. They are willing to pay more for clean air. The market, in this case made up of local communities, can thus result in lower pollution. While the Kyoto Treaty is much more market friendly than any CAC (command and control) alternative, time will tell if it was ever needed, or if it might even hinder clean electric development due to it's ability to hinder economic grow.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
alternative fuel ideas
“Operationally, ‘bio-diesel’ performs very similar to low sulfur diesel in terms of power, torque, and fuel economy without major modification of engines or infrastructure.”
While ethanol requires different engines, as well as hydrogen, soy diesel can be used with existing engines and fuel injection equipment, but with considerably less pollution emissions. It’s easily biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. “Unlike other gases that emit methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide, which tend to be classified as greenhouse gases and can be hazardous to your health”. (That part hasn’t been entirely proven yet)
Like mentioned above biodiesel can be used with existing car/truck parts. Also it can be easily be distributed using current infrastructure. So while it would be easy to change over, biodiesel tends to be more expensive. However it can be easily made at home too. It’s a fuel that be made simply and easily with little expense to consumers. This differential may diminish due to economies of scale, the rising cost of petroleum, and government subsidization favoring the use of biodiesel.
I think that if the government wanted to find a more efficient and easy way to try to limit the environmental impact of gasoline, that this would be a simplify way for right now. It may not be something that will work forever, but for right now it may be something that can be a potential idea. I like that not much would have to be changed in order to make it fully implemented. Plus the ingredients are something that have excess “inventory”, so we wouldn’t totally be off the basis for requiring more production. I’m not entirely sure how you would find the efficient amount of emissions and how the efficient amount of biodiesel should be found.
K
While ethanol requires different engines, as well as hydrogen, soy diesel can be used with existing engines and fuel injection equipment, but with considerably less pollution emissions. It’s easily biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. “Unlike other gases that emit methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide, which tend to be classified as greenhouse gases and can be hazardous to your health”. (That part hasn’t been entirely proven yet)
Like mentioned above biodiesel can be used with existing car/truck parts. Also it can be easily be distributed using current infrastructure. So while it would be easy to change over, biodiesel tends to be more expensive. However it can be easily made at home too. It’s a fuel that be made simply and easily with little expense to consumers. This differential may diminish due to economies of scale, the rising cost of petroleum, and government subsidization favoring the use of biodiesel.
I think that if the government wanted to find a more efficient and easy way to try to limit the environmental impact of gasoline, that this would be a simplify way for right now. It may not be something that will work forever, but for right now it may be something that can be a potential idea. I like that not much would have to be changed in order to make it fully implemented. Plus the ingredients are something that have excess “inventory”, so we wouldn’t totally be off the basis for requiring more production. I’m not entirely sure how you would find the efficient amount of emissions and how the efficient amount of biodiesel should be found.
K
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
2005 Temperatures Reach All-Time High
Apparently, 2005 has registered as one of the hottest worldwide temperature averages to date (it is tied with 1998's numbers). Furthurmore, since humans began using modern temperature measuring devices (approx. 1880), the Northern Hemisphere has never been this hot. What makes this information even more vital is the fact that 1998's numbers were pushed due to uncommonly strong El Nino conditions, a phenomenon resulting in the warming of Pacific waters. 2005 did not experience a significant El Nino. 19 of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980. From this data alone, it would be extremely irrational to write off global warming as false or even as a low threat. This is something our Economic Framework for a National Energy Policy must embrace. The most disturbing news I recieved from this article is summed up in the following quote:
Dr. Marcia Baker writes, "Because most global warming emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, the energy choices we make today greatly influence the climate our children and grandchildren inherit. We have the technology to increase energy efficiency, significantly reduce these emissions from our energy and land use, and secure a high quality of life for future generations. We must act now to avoid dangerous consequences."
According to this excerpt, we don't have alot of time to lose; as every year of lackadaisical prevention effort passes, along comes tens to hundreds of years of living with this pollution.
Dr. Marcia Baker writes, "Because most global warming emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, the energy choices we make today greatly influence the climate our children and grandchildren inherit. We have the technology to increase energy efficiency, significantly reduce these emissions from our energy and land use, and secure a high quality of life for future generations. We must act now to avoid dangerous consequences."
According to this excerpt, we don't have alot of time to lose; as every year of lackadaisical prevention effort passes, along comes tens to hundreds of years of living with this pollution.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
NAS & Climate Change
After our Spring Break we will spend some time on the topic of global warming. One of the things I will tell you about is a NAS report published in 2001. One member of the NAS panel writing the report,Richard Lindzen, writes:
Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."You should probably be interested in the entire piece.
As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.
Sustainability
"In 'Economism or Planetism,' John B. Cobb (Herman Daly's coauthor in For the Common Good, Beacon Press, 1989) suggests that it is time to reassess our current 'non-ideology ideology' of consumerism. Cobb argues that we ought to address both consumption and production as part of a broader whole that interrelates the human economy with the larger natural economy functioning in the biosphere. One aim is to encourage values in addition to, and sometimes in conflict with, consumerism--especially those associated with human community and a sense of belonging to the larger world. Cobb does not deny the efficiency of the market, but champions its role (where appropriate) as a means toward achievement of socially/politically/biologically determined ends. But neither does Cobb believe that markets, and market mechanisms, are a panacea for all our problems. Whether you see his prescriptive remedies to be common sense or nonsense, Cobb's ideas are worth reading and discussing every bit as much now as when first presented in 1991."We are not discussing the normative framework of sustainability until next semester, but if you would like a bit of a preview you might be interested in Cobb's paper.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Reducing Mercury Emissions
Reducing Mercury Emissions
Mercury for some time has been a dangerous pollutant that has been environmentally hurting the human population through the uncontrollable contamination of lakes and other bodies of fresh water that hold fish. The most porlific source of mercury polliton in the United States is smoke from coal-fired power plants which accounts for about 40% that eventually enter the food chain. The problem lies in finding an efficient level at which the power plants can produce at without further harming the general population The current Clear skies bill sets emission targets for mercury of 34 tons by 2010 and 15 tons by 2018 with and earyly credit program and safety valve which allows generators to exceed those limits if the cost goes above a certain level. There are two problems with this, one is that pareto dis-improvements exist where the polluting firms can polute above target limits thus increasing there profits and produciton while further hindering the general population. Secondly, with an early incentives program polluting firms can reach the optimal tonnage, recieve credit, and then still be allowed to pllute. What can we do to achieve an efficient ammount of pollution? Under the carper bill and the administration bill cap and trade programs would be enacted. Under the cap and trade programs a pollution max tonnage is set, and under these ramifications firms abiding by the rules are giving the ability to trade allowances to either pollute more or recieve some extra allowance. This is favorable because like in the Coase propostion it offers cost savings that can give profits to firms, lower electiricty prices to consumers and help achieve environmental quality at teh same cost . The problem i find with implementing either the Carper bill or the Administration bill is the role of government observing and keeping track of the amount of pollution that the firms are acutally producing. How will we know whether or not a firm is producing at the efficient amount. As we have seen with the SO2 allowance trading program, emission reductions for mercury would surley decline almost everywhere, but the decline may be greater at one locatoin than at another, leaving some plants to pollute more where there are fewer reducitons. A plan that could be implemented would be a pollution tax where the cost of pollution would be equal for all polluters and with a set quanity of pollution any firm exceeding the quanity would be fined.
Mercury for some time has been a dangerous pollutant that has been environmentally hurting the human population through the uncontrollable contamination of lakes and other bodies of fresh water that hold fish. The most porlific source of mercury polliton in the United States is smoke from coal-fired power plants which accounts for about 40% that eventually enter the food chain. The problem lies in finding an efficient level at which the power plants can produce at without further harming the general population The current Clear skies bill sets emission targets for mercury of 34 tons by 2010 and 15 tons by 2018 with and earyly credit program and safety valve which allows generators to exceed those limits if the cost goes above a certain level. There are two problems with this, one is that pareto dis-improvements exist where the polluting firms can polute above target limits thus increasing there profits and produciton while further hindering the general population. Secondly, with an early incentives program polluting firms can reach the optimal tonnage, recieve credit, and then still be allowed to pllute. What can we do to achieve an efficient ammount of pollution? Under the carper bill and the administration bill cap and trade programs would be enacted. Under the cap and trade programs a pollution max tonnage is set, and under these ramifications firms abiding by the rules are giving the ability to trade allowances to either pollute more or recieve some extra allowance. This is favorable because like in the Coase propostion it offers cost savings that can give profits to firms, lower electiricty prices to consumers and help achieve environmental quality at teh same cost . The problem i find with implementing either the Carper bill or the Administration bill is the role of government observing and keeping track of the amount of pollution that the firms are acutally producing. How will we know whether or not a firm is producing at the efficient amount. As we have seen with the SO2 allowance trading program, emission reductions for mercury would surley decline almost everywhere, but the decline may be greater at one locatoin than at another, leaving some plants to pollute more where there are fewer reducitons. A plan that could be implemented would be a pollution tax where the cost of pollution would be equal for all polluters and with a set quanity of pollution any firm exceeding the quanity would be fined.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
What is Environmentalism?
Tim Haab:
"As an environmental economist I've been accused of being an environmentalist (by economists) and anti-environmental (by environmentalists)."He asks "what does environmentalism mean?" I too want to know. Please offer definitions of environmentalism.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Global warming in 2005
Global warming is becoming a bigger issue, as temperatures for 2005 reached an all time high. Out of the last 25 years, 19 of the hottest 20 years have occured which is showing a constant rise in temperatures and global warming. This record heat in 2005 is due to the longtem warming by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. The major factors to this rise in heat trapping gases is burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Some other indications that we are experiencing warming of the atmosphere and oceans, and the increased melting of ice and snow. In a recent report on "U.S. emissions found that 2004 marked the highest annual total of heat-trapping gases released since record keeping began in 1990. The amount of snow cover has been declining over the past three decades. From the last half centry the ocean water temperatures have been warmed by 0.067 degrees Farenheit. Also over the past few decades the oceans have absorbed 14.5 Btu (British thermal units) , the continents 0.9 Btu and the atmosphere 0.7 Btu. The melting of snow and ice plus the warming of the oceans over the past couple decades has resulted in the rise of the sea level. The global warming effect is due to a variety of factors which includes humand-produced heat-trapping emissions and natural causes. We have the technological advances to increase energy efficiency, reduce the emissions from our energy and land use, and secure quality of life for future generations. If we dont cure this problem now it will continue to haunt us and those in future generations. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Global Warming
Tim Haab:
"Why won't the public accept climate regulation?
Allow me to start with the premise that climate change is real and at least partially caused by people. If that is the case, why then won't the public accept climate change regulation. That's an easy one...because it benefits everyone but makes me worse off. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are a classic public goods problem. The costs accrue to me but the benefits accrue to everyone."
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
How clean should the Ohio River be?
In the past thirty years or so tremendous efforts have been made to try and clean up the Ohio River. The Clean Water Act of 1972 was established to set forth regulations regarding the water quality of surface waters in the United States. Essentially, this affects the amount of bacteria legally allowed to be discharged into the Ohio River by residential and commercial citizens. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, an eight-state agency, has been established to improve the water quality of the Ohio River specifically. A recent proposal has been made to seek the allowance of higher levels of bacteria into the Ohio River following periods of heavy rain. This would mean an amendment to the Clean Water Act. It is said that these higher levels of bacteria are caused by the overflow of public and private sewer systems upstream. Supposedly the sewer systems do not have the ability to handle the amount of sewage imposed on it during the periods of heavy rain.
So now one must ask what should be done about this problem? Some have stated that the Act should remain at the standard that it is currently at as to not allow any further deterioration of the quality of the river water. However, ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission), has suggested that the Act should be amended because not many people are using the river water directly following periods of heavy rain anyway. They state that pollution standards are routinely being violated anyway and so that this amendment will bring the area closer to what is deemed to be realistically achievable.
If the standard were to remain the same then the question becomes how much will residential and commercial citizens have to pay in order to meet the standard. Put a different way one could ask... what are citizens willing to give up in order to keep the standards the same and would it be efficient. Proposals for an estimated $2.4 billion has already been delegated to improving the sewer systems in the Hamilton County portion of Ohio and Northern Kentucky over the next 20 to 25 years. Even though these systems will not help the here and now, it is believed by this author that imposing the same pollution standards after periods of heavy rain on the citizens would not encourage more clean up activity in the present, but instead discourage it. Consumers of the water from the Ohio River would probably be much better off if they would allow the money saved by not paying fines for excess pollution during periods of heavy rain, that is said to be unavoidable due to problems with the sewage systems, to be used in a positive way such as working towards figuring out how to better deal with the levels of bacteria present in the water systems today. So, this author would say to amend the Clean Water Act to allow extra bacteria to be introduced into the water system after periods of heavy rain unless it can be proved to be so harmful to the environment that it is just not acceptable.
So now one must ask what should be done about this problem? Some have stated that the Act should remain at the standard that it is currently at as to not allow any further deterioration of the quality of the river water. However, ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission), has suggested that the Act should be amended because not many people are using the river water directly following periods of heavy rain anyway. They state that pollution standards are routinely being violated anyway and so that this amendment will bring the area closer to what is deemed to be realistically achievable.
If the standard were to remain the same then the question becomes how much will residential and commercial citizens have to pay in order to meet the standard. Put a different way one could ask... what are citizens willing to give up in order to keep the standards the same and would it be efficient. Proposals for an estimated $2.4 billion has already been delegated to improving the sewer systems in the Hamilton County portion of Ohio and Northern Kentucky over the next 20 to 25 years. Even though these systems will not help the here and now, it is believed by this author that imposing the same pollution standards after periods of heavy rain on the citizens would not encourage more clean up activity in the present, but instead discourage it. Consumers of the water from the Ohio River would probably be much better off if they would allow the money saved by not paying fines for excess pollution during periods of heavy rain, that is said to be unavoidable due to problems with the sewage systems, to be used in a positive way such as working towards figuring out how to better deal with the levels of bacteria present in the water systems today. So, this author would say to amend the Clean Water Act to allow extra bacteria to be introduced into the water system after periods of heavy rain unless it can be proved to be so harmful to the environment that it is just not acceptable.
Clean Coal
Xcel Energy has announced that it is making plans to convert to "clean coal." This will pose a serious issue for Colorado. This "clean coal" does not generally use anthracite in its conversion. Anthracite, which is the type of coal produced in Colorado and Wyoming, is an energy-poor, moisture-high substance. Clean coal is coal chemically washed of minerals and impurities, sometimes gasified, burned and the resulting flue gases treated with steam and reburned so as to make the carbon dioxide in the flue gas economically recoverable. The carbon dioxide can then be captured and stored instead of being released into the atmosphere. It makes a lousy energy source because when it's "cooked," there is not enough combustible material extracted into the gas to make anthracite efficient. This, however, will be of great benefit to the East Coast.
Ultimately, if this plan goes through Colorado will take a severe hit in coal consumption. As of last year, our own coal produced over 83% of electricity generated in Colorado: 91% of our coal was used for electricity. The number of coal miners is almost 3900. I don't have an exact dollar amount for coal, but mineral production was just over 5.56 billion, which is about 2.5% of the Gross State Product.
Some of the incentives for clean coal that have been provided through the Energy Act of 2005 include:
1. Authorization of loan guarantees for "innovative technologies" that avoid greenhouse gases, which includes clean coal.
2. Initiative to increase coal as an energy source while also reducing air pollution, through authorizing $200 million annually for clean coal initiatives, repealing the current 160-acre cap on coal leases, allowing the advanced payment of royalties from coal mines and requiring an assessment of coal resources on federal lands that are not national parks.
3. $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities.
Ultimately, if this plan goes through Colorado will take a severe hit in coal consumption. As of last year, our own coal produced over 83% of electricity generated in Colorado: 91% of our coal was used for electricity. The number of coal miners is almost 3900. I don't have an exact dollar amount for coal, but mineral production was just over 5.56 billion, which is about 2.5% of the Gross State Product.
Some of the incentives for clean coal that have been provided through the Energy Act of 2005 include:
1. Authorization of loan guarantees for "innovative technologies" that avoid greenhouse gases, which includes clean coal.
2. Initiative to increase coal as an energy source while also reducing air pollution, through authorizing $200 million annually for clean coal initiatives, repealing the current 160-acre cap on coal leases, allowing the advanced payment of royalties from coal mines and requiring an assessment of coal resources on federal lands that are not national parks.
3. $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities.
Pushing Solar Power, Wrong Time?
While President Bush is on his way to confronting the country’s addiction to oil: He’s being one upped by Republican governors promoting solar power. In his State of the Union address, Bush said he would increase the federal government’s research budget for solar power to $150 million, but the money will come out of other renewable energy projects. Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has pledged a million solar rooftops in
Conservative politicians determined to embrace renewable energy may sound like an environmentalist’s dream world, but there’s a catch. Government money calls at the worst time in the solar industry’s economic cycle. In the last two years, the price of polysilicon, the basic material for most panels that turn photons from the sun into electricity, has more than tripled because of overseas demand. Polysilicon is made from silica, a mineral that’s cheap but that must be refined and processed. If the new subsidies were delayed by a couple of years, there would be time for new polysilicon factories to come online, and the government and solar eager homeowners would save a big chunk of money.
Another reason to wait out the polysilicon price bubble is that the high prices are doing wonders for alternative solar power technologies that use less polysilicon, or none at all. Several recent scientific advances have brought other materials to the efficiency levels of polysilicon. Firms that are closet to market, have some production that has already started, in the thin-film photovoltaic cell. Instead of polysilicon, and it can be made on flexible rolls, which means it’s cheaper to produce than a polysilicon cell. If these technologies fulfill their laboratory promise, they’ll offer higher efficiency for less money.
It’s too bad that the timing of
In the meantime, if politicians want to spend wisely to promote power, they can invest in "big solar" solar power plants that wou8ld cover hundreds of square miles of desert, producing energy on a massive scale with mirrors that concentrate the heat of the sunlight to produce electricity. This technology has recently been able to produce electricity at a cost that’s almost with the same as fossil fuels (about 6 cents per kilowatt hour). The only raw materials needed for big solar plants are steel and aluminum, neither of which is priced high at the moment. Several southwestern utilities are already building such plants. The utilities would add more if state governments were to help fund them.
So what do you do if you’re a sunny state homeowner with an urge to go solar and you’re being offered an intoxicating subsidy? In the short-term, the most cost effective choice is probably a solar water heater. Though decidedly low tech, these systems are eligible for most state subsidy programs and promise to immediately shave 15 percent off most homeowners’ energy bills. In a couple of years, when the price of polysilicon comes down and alternative technologies come to market, you can spring for a set of solar panels for your roof.
Externality cost borne by whom?
Recently there has been much controversy over the subject of sewage spills into the Springs' main watershed, Fountain Creek. The creek which runs north/south through the entire city, along I-25, has been affected by Colorado Springs Utilities accidental leakages of raw sewage into the creek. The utilities company has been fined and urged to address the issue as soon as possible and been mandated in some instances to take immediate action fixing the problem areas. However, a recent development in the issue has taken an interesting turn.
In order to deal with the water pollution in the creek, the utilities company has proposed that a giant inflatable dam be utilized in order to effectively stop the sewage. This investment for the city will cost the utility users an average of 25 cents a month on the wastewater bill. My question is in regard to the inefficient internalization of the pollution externality. When a company takes the full responsibility for the pollution, they would normally take care of the cost. How is it that the cost associated with this preventative action is passed straight to the consumer? Would it not just be easier to tax the users directly rather than the transfer of payments from the builder to the utility company and then to the users? It may be my naivity as a Jr. Economist, but it would seem that the cost associated with the pollution should be taken care of by those primarily responsible for it, not those who simply utilize the services.
In order to deal with the water pollution in the creek, the utilities company has proposed that a giant inflatable dam be utilized in order to effectively stop the sewage. This investment for the city will cost the utility users an average of 25 cents a month on the wastewater bill. My question is in regard to the inefficient internalization of the pollution externality. When a company takes the full responsibility for the pollution, they would normally take care of the cost. How is it that the cost associated with this preventative action is passed straight to the consumer? Would it not just be easier to tax the users directly rather than the transfer of payments from the builder to the utility company and then to the users? It may be my naivity as a Jr. Economist, but it would seem that the cost associated with the pollution should be taken care of by those primarily responsible for it, not those who simply utilize the services.
Why does it seem that Environmental Concerns are New?
Problems of environmental quality are not something new; in fact, history is filled with bleak examples of environmental degradation, from deforestation by ancient peoples to mountains of horse manure in urban areas in the days before automobiles. But today's world is different. For one thing, many people in economically developed countries, having reached high levels of material well being, are beginning to ask questions: What good is great material wealth if it comes at the cost of large-scale disruptions of the ecosystem by which we are nourished? More fundamental, perhaps, is the fact that with contemporary economic, demographic, and technological developments around the world, the associated environmental repercussions are becoming much more widespread and lethal. What once were localized environmental impacts, easily rectified, have now become widespread effects that may very well turn out to be irreversible. Indeed some of our most worrisome concerns today are about global environmental impacts. It is no wonder, then, that the quality of the natural environment has become a major focus of public concern. As we would expect, people have responded in many ways. Environmental interest groups and advocates have become vocal at every political level, especially in those countries with open political systems. Politicians have taken environmental issues into their agendas; some have sought to become environmental statespersons. Environmental law has burgeoned, becoming a specialty in many law schools. Thousands of environmental agencies have appeared in the public sector, from local conservation commissions to environmental agencies at the United Nations.
At the scientific level Environmental economics focuses on all the different facets of the connection between environmental quality and the economic behavior of individuals and groups of people. There is the fundamental question of how the economic system shapes economic incentives in ways that lead to environmental degradation, as well as improvement. There are major problems in measuring the benefits and costs of environmental quality changes, especially intangible ones. There is a set of complicated macroeconomic questions; for example, the connection between economic growth and environmental impacts and the feedback effects of environmental laws on growth. And there are the critical issues of designing environmental policies that are both effective and equitablenmental problems have become a focus for chemists, biologists, engineers, and many others.
Proposed Legislation Casts Net On Overfishing
The purging of our ocean water fish stocks is at an all time high. Coastal fisheries on the Gulf of Mexico, New England, Alaska, and the Northwest have all suffered from the absence of private property rights to fish stocks, a deficiency that offers little incentive for conservative fishing. An increase in technology and number of fleets, teamed with an everlasting demand for cod, tuna, marlin and other commercially favored fish puts the percent of over fished stocks at 25 percent, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization.
The United States policy concerning over fishing has included measures such as shortened seasons, limits per vessel per trip, and minimum size limits; however these precautions have all had adverse consequences. A two day season forces fishermen to buy bigger, faster boats, challenge dangerous weather, and degrade the efficiency by which fish are processed. A minimum size limit for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in the waste of millions of pounds of snapper caused when fishermen toss back fish too small.
Now the Bush administration is hoping new legislation will provide the changes needed to produce a more effective fishing market. The legislation involves assigning transferable catch quotas (or individual transferable quotas as Tietenberg refers to in chapter 13) to fishermen, an approach that will hopefully net a free market that accomplishes what restrictions, shortened seasons, and size limits could not.
The introduction of transferable quotas will limit each fisherman to a percentage of the total allowable catch set each season by fishery managers. A desire for increased or decreased limits can be met by buying or selling quotas from others in the industry.
Other countries already in the business of exchangeable fishing quotas have reported encouraging benefits; higher fishing incomes, reduced fleet excesses, higher product quality, safer fishing, and reduced over fishing are all advantages offered by the free market transfer.
The system surely offers more friendly competition than does a two day season that forces fishermen into dangerous waters. With the use of transferable quotas, fishermen can invest more time into practicing more efficient techniques. Extended seasons, fresher fish, and less waste are all benefits for producer and consumer alike.
The little guy need not worry. Transferable fishing quotas impose limits on how much quota individuals or companies can hold, so big corporations won’t buy out smaller ones. Another perk of the system is that regulators can control the total allowable catch, if a need to raise or lower the total arises.
In order to accept the efficiency of ITQs, there must be an understanding that they correct the market failures associated with inefficient methods of regulation. As noted before, other forms of regulation have resulted in dangerous competition caused by incentives for faster boats, over fishing, and challenging treacherous weather. However, ITQs avoid these downfalls by encouraging each holder to catch their share, meet an efficient amount allocated for their fishery, and transfer quotas within the industry to achieve the optimal level.
We have studied the use of transferable discharge permits as a good policy for regulating pollution. ITQs are a similar method in achieving an optimal allocation of resources, and the legislation supporting them should be backed in order to improve upon the fishing community and the problem of over fishing.
The United States policy concerning over fishing has included measures such as shortened seasons, limits per vessel per trip, and minimum size limits; however these precautions have all had adverse consequences. A two day season forces fishermen to buy bigger, faster boats, challenge dangerous weather, and degrade the efficiency by which fish are processed. A minimum size limit for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in the waste of millions of pounds of snapper caused when fishermen toss back fish too small.
Now the Bush administration is hoping new legislation will provide the changes needed to produce a more effective fishing market. The legislation involves assigning transferable catch quotas (or individual transferable quotas as Tietenberg refers to in chapter 13) to fishermen, an approach that will hopefully net a free market that accomplishes what restrictions, shortened seasons, and size limits could not.
The introduction of transferable quotas will limit each fisherman to a percentage of the total allowable catch set each season by fishery managers. A desire for increased or decreased limits can be met by buying or selling quotas from others in the industry.
Other countries already in the business of exchangeable fishing quotas have reported encouraging benefits; higher fishing incomes, reduced fleet excesses, higher product quality, safer fishing, and reduced over fishing are all advantages offered by the free market transfer.
The system surely offers more friendly competition than does a two day season that forces fishermen into dangerous waters. With the use of transferable quotas, fishermen can invest more time into practicing more efficient techniques. Extended seasons, fresher fish, and less waste are all benefits for producer and consumer alike.
The little guy need not worry. Transferable fishing quotas impose limits on how much quota individuals or companies can hold, so big corporations won’t buy out smaller ones. Another perk of the system is that regulators can control the total allowable catch, if a need to raise or lower the total arises.
In order to accept the efficiency of ITQs, there must be an understanding that they correct the market failures associated with inefficient methods of regulation. As noted before, other forms of regulation have resulted in dangerous competition caused by incentives for faster boats, over fishing, and challenging treacherous weather. However, ITQs avoid these downfalls by encouraging each holder to catch their share, meet an efficient amount allocated for their fishery, and transfer quotas within the industry to achieve the optimal level.
We have studied the use of transferable discharge permits as a good policy for regulating pollution. ITQs are a similar method in achieving an optimal allocation of resources, and the legislation supporting them should be backed in order to improve upon the fishing community and the problem of over fishing.
Monday, February 27, 2006
EPA Agreements Limit Fines
"In a first step toward setting firm guidelines on the monitoring of emissions from factory-style farms, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached agreement with 20 farms to collect air samples. In return, noncompliant operations will pay EPA a one-time fine ranging from $200 to $100,000. Ultimately, 2,681 Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)- representing some 6,700 farms in 42 states will sign similar deals."
-Engineering News-Record (Feb. 13th, 2006)
The article is a look into a first step into controlling air pollution in a previously unmonitored industry. The policy is looking at air pollution as a negative externality. The EPA is charging a “one-time” fee for violators. This could pose a long-term environmental problem due to the fact that violators only would have to pay the fee one time, yet be allowed to continue to pollute at their previous quantity. A Coase Theorem policy might have better long-term results considering the negative externality. As it stands, all firms are operating at zero liability for their actions. The Coase Theorem would push firms into having more liability. It will be interesting to see how this problem will evolve.
-Engineering News-Record (Feb. 13th, 2006)
The article is a look into a first step into controlling air pollution in a previously unmonitored industry. The policy is looking at air pollution as a negative externality. The EPA is charging a “one-time” fee for violators. This could pose a long-term environmental problem due to the fact that violators only would have to pay the fee one time, yet be allowed to continue to pollute at their previous quantity. A Coase Theorem policy might have better long-term results considering the negative externality. As it stands, all firms are operating at zero liability for their actions. The Coase Theorem would push firms into having more liability. It will be interesting to see how this problem will evolve.
Open Access Oceans
J.S. at Environmental Economics:
This is an interesting commentary that may seem more relevant to the 2nd course (Econ 430). But, perhaps, the discussion of policies concerning open the access ocean has some relevance to the policy issues concerning global warming. What are some of the ideas you think might cross over to global warming policy issues?
"The economist in me will continue to advocate for better management policies and incentive schemes to protect the ocean, because this is the sensible thing to do. But another part of me realizes that sometimes freedom means the conscious choice not to engage in certain acts, or indulge certain desires. This part of me will continue to use moral persuasion and reason to advocate that everyone give up eating fish and seafood from commercial sources (or even completely).
At the end of the day, regulation and public policy can only go so far (and should only go so far in free societies), leaving it up to us to take the final, perhaps most difficult, steps to protect the environment and the non-human world. Ultimately, only our individual choices, guided by our consciences, will lead us to a more expansive moral sphere where the non-human world is treated with greater respect and empathy. And the sooner we take a hard look and examine the chain of events behind the products we buy, the sooner we can end some of the most egregious forms of environmental destruction. There is no better place to start than with that fish fillet sitting in the grocery store case."
This is an interesting commentary that may seem more relevant to the 2nd course (Econ 430). But, perhaps, the discussion of policies concerning open the access ocean has some relevance to the policy issues concerning global warming. What are some of the ideas you think might cross over to global warming policy issues?
Saturday, February 25, 2006
It's Getting Warmer
Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Schelling offers commentary in the WSJ ($) on the uncertainties that are relevant to global warming:
"But the uncertainties are daunting: The best the IPCC can do is give us a range of possible warmings for any given increase in carbon dioxide concentration. And the upper bound of that range has been, for two decades, three times the lower bound -- an enormous range of uncertainty. On top of that are the uncertainties of what the change in temperature will do to climates around the world. And on top of that are the uncertainties of what those climate changes may do to the worlds we live in, and what people will be able to do to adapt successfully to what change is allowed to occur.
I'd buy insurance. I'd do it prudently, and without great alarm. Yet"
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Useful Doodoo?
Across America, a common consensus seems to have been reached by Americans that recycling is a good thing. In most cases however, recycling turns out to be more costly than if we simply used up more of the resource. This is often true whether we look at recycling from an economic point of view or the point of view of environmental conservation. Paper recycling, for example, often causes more pollution than paper production because of de-inking, and it often costs more as well. In looking at recycling from an economic perspective, we want to know if the marginal social cost is less than the marginal social benefit. We know this if private companies can turn greater profits by recycling than without recycling, as long as no market failure occurs.
However, the government often gets involved in the process, subsidizing, advertising, mandating, or even fully providing the recycling of various products. such government interference should take place only if market failure exists. Such failure esists if a) a monopoly exists, (b) an externality (unintintional, nonmarket interaction) exists, or (c) the good that is traded is a public good, meaning it is rival in consumption and non-excludable.
First of all, no one has a monopoly on recycling. Secondly, if an externality exists, such as air pollution the recycling of a product should be subsidized or taxed, depending on whether the externality is positive or negative respectively (negative in the case of pollution). The implications of this could mean that the recycling of certain products, such as paper mentioned above, should be taxed, not encouraged! If sustainability produces an additional benefit to society not taken into account by consumers, this market failure would be dealt with here too. Finally, recycling does not provide a public good because recycled products are rival and excludable in consumption.
Having analysed when government involvement is acceptable or even necessary in recycling, I want to look at a case that seems to be an efficient amount of recycling. The link to FoxNews leads to a story about the recycling company in San Fransisco implementing a program to recycle pet feces from parks. The feces with be recycled for its methane, which can be sold as natural gas. This recycling company is a private entity (100% employee owned and operated according to its website), so government beauracratic involvement doesn't seem to be the cause here (though it says the city "asked" them to look into this, so they may be subsidizing this). Instead, it seems that a private entity has weighed the costs and benefits and determined that the benefits outweigh the costs, though the article mentions that in most cases, methane production from pet feces isn't very attractive economically, according to some experts. Here however, it seems the private company has a history of financial success in recycling. As long as the city government is not involved, at least not where it shouldn't be from an efficient perspective, then such recycling is efficient in San Fransisco. This also means there is an efficient amount of dog doodoo in parks. Who knew?
Also, if you want more information on recycling from an economic perspective, this link is a good read - http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Recycling.html
However, the government often gets involved in the process, subsidizing, advertising, mandating, or even fully providing the recycling of various products. such government interference should take place only if market failure exists. Such failure esists if a) a monopoly exists, (b) an externality (unintintional, nonmarket interaction) exists, or (c) the good that is traded is a public good, meaning it is rival in consumption and non-excludable.
First of all, no one has a monopoly on recycling. Secondly, if an externality exists, such as air pollution the recycling of a product should be subsidized or taxed, depending on whether the externality is positive or negative respectively (negative in the case of pollution). The implications of this could mean that the recycling of certain products, such as paper mentioned above, should be taxed, not encouraged! If sustainability produces an additional benefit to society not taken into account by consumers, this market failure would be dealt with here too. Finally, recycling does not provide a public good because recycled products are rival and excludable in consumption.
Having analysed when government involvement is acceptable or even necessary in recycling, I want to look at a case that seems to be an efficient amount of recycling. The link to FoxNews leads to a story about the recycling company in San Fransisco implementing a program to recycle pet feces from parks. The feces with be recycled for its methane, which can be sold as natural gas. This recycling company is a private entity (100% employee owned and operated according to its website), so government beauracratic involvement doesn't seem to be the cause here (though it says the city "asked" them to look into this, so they may be subsidizing this). Instead, it seems that a private entity has weighed the costs and benefits and determined that the benefits outweigh the costs, though the article mentions that in most cases, methane production from pet feces isn't very attractive economically, according to some experts. Here however, it seems the private company has a history of financial success in recycling. As long as the city government is not involved, at least not where it shouldn't be from an efficient perspective, then such recycling is efficient in San Fransisco. This also means there is an efficient amount of dog doodoo in parks. Who knew?
Also, if you want more information on recycling from an economic perspective, this link is a good read - http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Recycling.html
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Bush Urges Funding for Alternative Energy
In the Washington Post there is a news article describing the President's speech yesterday:
First, there is a reference to increasing the miles per gallon goals of the CAFE. Many people discussing energy and environmental policy place great emphasis on CAFE. How do you see CAFE from an economic point of view? Is the CAFE policy consistent with market failure? Is the CAFE policy consistent with well targeted policy to correct market failure?
Second, notice the reference to policy approaches that involve subsidies in some form. Take a look at some of the specific activities the President is talking about subsidizing. Do you think it is likely there are positive externality market failures that would be corrected by subsidizing such activities?
Third, note also that the President seems to motivate his discussion of the proposed policies as a concern for the relationship between "dependence on oil" and the country's national security. Is this concern consistent with a market failure? Is national security a public good perhaps? Even if the activities that are suggested for receiving subsidies do not directly seem to involve positive externalities, would this attention to national security concerns still provide a market failure justification for such policies?
"Democrats and some Republicans criticize the Bush energy plan as failing to sufficiently address a leading cause of U.S. dependence on imported oil: the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Under pressure from struggling U.S. automakers, which are losing ground to foreign competitors and shedding jobs at plants throughout this region, Bush has not proposed large increases in the gasoline mileage that U.S. automakers are required to achieve, known as corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Bush has supported slight increases for some light trucks and SUVs but stopped short of across-the-board changes advocated by many lawmakers and environmentalists that could significantly reduce oil consumption.There are some issues suggested here that I think we should consider for the term project.
[ . . . . ]
As Bush spoke, crude oil prices rose as a result of rebel attacks in Nigeria that reduced output by Africa's largest producer, underscoring the volatility of the oil market. "Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments or fundamental differences with the United States," Bush said.
What government can control is the incentives it offers -- through tax breaks and direct investment -- to companies to produce new energy sources and energy-efficient products and to consumers who use them. The president's new budget calls for increased funding for research into new forms of ethanol production, hydrogen and hybrid technologies that reduce fuel consumption of automobiles by using electrical battery power to supplement gasoline. Bush said the nation is on the cusp of technological breakthroughs that will "startle the American people."
This is one area where there is broad bipartisan agreement in Washington, though regional concerns often complicate discussions over how much to spend on various new technologies. Midwestern lawmakers, for instance, often push for large tax breaks for ethanol produced from the corn grown in the region at the expense of investment in hydrogen or solar power. Bush said lawmakers should come together to boost energy incentives this year."
First, there is a reference to increasing the miles per gallon goals of the CAFE. Many people discussing energy and environmental policy place great emphasis on CAFE. How do you see CAFE from an economic point of view? Is the CAFE policy consistent with market failure? Is the CAFE policy consistent with well targeted policy to correct market failure?
Second, notice the reference to policy approaches that involve subsidies in some form. Take a look at some of the specific activities the President is talking about subsidizing. Do you think it is likely there are positive externality market failures that would be corrected by subsidizing such activities?
Third, note also that the President seems to motivate his discussion of the proposed policies as a concern for the relationship between "dependence on oil" and the country's national security. Is this concern consistent with a market failure? Is national security a public good perhaps? Even if the activities that are suggested for receiving subsidies do not directly seem to involve positive externalities, would this attention to national security concerns still provide a market failure justification for such policies?
Friday, February 17, 2006
generating plant and time induced media bias
The media blurb V.S. Reality,
In response to in class discussion about coal plant and mine.
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=03-P13-00009#feature8
Our knowledge was based entirely on a short blurb in an NPR broadcast the other day. Then I decided do a little research, I had a suspicion that there was more to the story! I decided to flesh out the idea a little, a little work goes a long way in less than an hour I found that there was more to the story and in a couple hours I found an audio clip of the same topic with more content. I found that the shut down had a very large number of variables. There was more to the story. It seems that the benefit and the cost was spread over many parties and the outcomes are going to be tightly intertwined with politics. The people who gained and the people who lost were in many more areas than I thought. I believe that we are going to have a hard time sorting a national energy policy if we don’t take all the factors we can into our model. The audio clip link here is a good 5 minute listen and worth it as it seems to flesh out the topic well I found a ton of text but this seems to cover more than any one article I have found. And you will remember our professor asking where the additional power-generating burden went which plant picked up the slack? That info I haven’t found. So keep an eye out.
http://westernskies.krcc.org/m3u/1-24-2006/WS_1242006_C.m3u
I also found some other clips I think this is the one (I don’t have broad band at home so I cant check) that was our original source of knowledge for the event. You will see how darn narrow the focus and how biased it is. One thing I have grown to count on is the blurb factor. All our easily consumed news is so condensed there is only time for one position on a subject. They cant make a short segment flow properly if they try and show more facets of an issue. The media is in capable of holding our attention for very long so we are treated to really short very one-sided stories. Because to avoid boredom they dumb down and rapid-fire news at us so we are entertained enough to keep listening. I wish there was a back-story or a link for every blurb that lead to a complete story with more information on each side. I see it occasionally.
http://www.livingonearth.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00043&segmentID=5
But for our national policy it seems that if we go into too fine of detail we will loose sight of the bigger macro picture. But as we step back it would be wise to keep the complicated interconnectedness of the economy and the environment in mind as we make a national policy.
Hope this helps in the paper
In response to in class discussion about coal plant and mine.
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=03-P13-00009#feature8
Our knowledge was based entirely on a short blurb in an NPR broadcast the other day. Then I decided do a little research, I had a suspicion that there was more to the story! I decided to flesh out the idea a little, a little work goes a long way in less than an hour I found that there was more to the story and in a couple hours I found an audio clip of the same topic with more content. I found that the shut down had a very large number of variables. There was more to the story. It seems that the benefit and the cost was spread over many parties and the outcomes are going to be tightly intertwined with politics. The people who gained and the people who lost were in many more areas than I thought. I believe that we are going to have a hard time sorting a national energy policy if we don’t take all the factors we can into our model. The audio clip link here is a good 5 minute listen and worth it as it seems to flesh out the topic well I found a ton of text but this seems to cover more than any one article I have found. And you will remember our professor asking where the additional power-generating burden went which plant picked up the slack? That info I haven’t found. So keep an eye out.
http://westernskies.krcc.org/m3u/1-24-2006/WS_1242006_C.m3u
I also found some other clips I think this is the one (I don’t have broad band at home so I cant check) that was our original source of knowledge for the event. You will see how darn narrow the focus and how biased it is. One thing I have grown to count on is the blurb factor. All our easily consumed news is so condensed there is only time for one position on a subject. They cant make a short segment flow properly if they try and show more facets of an issue. The media is in capable of holding our attention for very long so we are treated to really short very one-sided stories. Because to avoid boredom they dumb down and rapid-fire news at us so we are entertained enough to keep listening. I wish there was a back-story or a link for every blurb that lead to a complete story with more information on each side. I see it occasionally.
http://www.livingonearth.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00043&segmentID=5
But for our national policy it seems that if we go into too fine of detail we will loose sight of the bigger macro picture. But as we step back it would be wise to keep the complicated interconnectedness of the economy and the environment in mind as we make a national policy.
Hope this helps in the paper
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Global Warming may cause the Next Iceage
While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration many groups and organizations are trying to get the point across. In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world. Economicly speaking this would reek havoc on the entire world bringing such a dominant world to its knees. So how could the Bush party completely ignore a problem as big as this you ask? That is question that many US citizens have asked themselves in hope to firgure out what the Bush party has been thinking for the last 6 years.
Global Warming may cause the Next Iceage
While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration many groups and organizations are trying to get the point across. In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world. Economicly speaking this would reek havoc on the entire world bringing such a dominant world to its knees. So how could the Bush party completely ignore a problem as big as this you ask? That is question that many US citizens have asked themselves in hope to firgure out what the Bush party has been thinking for the last 6 years.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Clear Skies... "Caps" on emissions
“The Clear Skies Initiative will cut air pollution 70 percent, using a proven, market-based approach that will save American consumers millions of dollars.”
“Build upon the 1990 Clean Air Act’s acid rain program, America’s most successful clean air law in the last decade, and encourage the use of new pollution control technologies.”
Consumers save because it’s an “encouragement program”. It’s another way of trying to get people to create new innovations to better reduce pollution. Since the creation of the Clean Air Act our pollution has declined by 29% (which is based off of 6 pollutants), yet our economy has grown by 160%. While it has been slightly successful since its creation, it can’t keep pace with our economy. The more rapidly we grow the more pollution we create. The new Initiative is just that, a “push” on the economy to pollute less, OR to create new technology that will help create things with less pollution emission.
First the program need to have the EPA establish new targets based off in-depth research that must first be conducted. Second it wants to reduce the emissions on 3 key pollutants (SO2,NOx, and Mercury). They believe this can be done by adopting a comprehensive, integrated, multi-pollutant approach. Step three is to set national, federally enforced emission limits for each pollutant. They believe that this will in turn create the incentive to create technology that will lower emissions and therefore save money. Step four is all about putting caps on the use of current energy resources, allowing for a long term planning for effective and efficient energy sources.
The Clear Skies Initiative is a more “marker-based” program that rewards innovation and ensuring results. They believe that by setting “caps” on the allowed amount of emissions companies will be more inclined (more like forced) to create technology to allow them to stay under the cap, but produce more at the same time. They also have a trading system that will be set up. This system is set for each company, but they are free to trade "allowances" in the market, as long as the stay with in the required limit. Again this is another way of baiting them to find better ways to run their equipment and therefore benefiting from selling/trading off their unneeded allowances. It says that “This flexibility lets businesses figure out the cheapest way to reduce emissions while government sticks to setting the overall emission cap at a level that guarantees that industry meets ambitious air quality goals.”
Overall I happen to agree with the ideas they are proposing, as long as the “cap” is a reasonable amount. Also I would want proof that they pollutant they are studying as the ones we need to worry about. Are they looking at it as a whole? Can the market itself generate an efficient level of pollution? How would u know when dealing with firms as a whole? Maybe specific firms need different “caps” or allowance levels. How will you know what level will work right with other firms? The ideas themselves are workable, but only if we find the efficient level for each firm. We would need to know the marginal cost curve and marginal damage curve for EVERY firm. That would require a long period of time and TONS of research. And even then I might have to adjust it to get to the right level. Especially if you think about the so called “cheapest method of control” for each firm, they vary. It would require very detailed information from each industry, but also among the plants IN the industry. The authorities assigning the limits don’t have enough info to know what would be best. The plant managers/workers are less inclined to share the info they do have because they would then have to be forced to live up to a different standard.
Lets say that we have all the information we need to set these limits. We implement the caps and allowances for each industry and we see change in a few fields. We see new technology and designs. We then decide to change the caps/allowances. Doing that alone makes planning for the future more difficult. Not all firms and industries are capable of reaching our new cap because the new designs do not work for everyone. Then we have industries moving in different directions. We may have big gaps in terms of technology and emissions. Then we have a bigger problem. Those industries behind are polluting more than the industries that have improved technology. We now have to worry about putting too much pressure on the industries and possibly destroying it. We are treading on very unsure ground.
I think its one of the best ideas we have come up with to better controlling the amount of emissions and the pollutants in the air. However I do see some major flaws in the implantation of it. Again it would require a good deal of research. Which they do not talk about how that will be paid for. I know that the initiative is only based on 3 pollutants, which is another downfall to it. Why only 3? Yes I know this is only a “start” and they are said to be the most harmful ones, but I think we could try to broaden the amount. I’m pretty sure that there are more than 3 harmful pollutants. I suppose that in the LR the technology will allow companies to produce more, as well as more efficiently. But what happens when we do reach our efficient level? Will we become stagnant? What if the EPA push it further and go past the efficient amount of pollution? We all know the government can tend to be “over achievers” and do what is not always in the best interest of the economy.
Seems like the are moving in the right direction though.
“Build upon the 1990 Clean Air Act’s acid rain program, America’s most successful clean air law in the last decade, and encourage the use of new pollution control technologies.”
Consumers save because it’s an “encouragement program”. It’s another way of trying to get people to create new innovations to better reduce pollution. Since the creation of the Clean Air Act our pollution has declined by 29% (which is based off of 6 pollutants), yet our economy has grown by 160%. While it has been slightly successful since its creation, it can’t keep pace with our economy. The more rapidly we grow the more pollution we create. The new Initiative is just that, a “push” on the economy to pollute less, OR to create new technology that will help create things with less pollution emission.
First the program need to have the EPA establish new targets based off in-depth research that must first be conducted. Second it wants to reduce the emissions on 3 key pollutants (SO2,NOx, and Mercury). They believe this can be done by adopting a comprehensive, integrated, multi-pollutant approach. Step three is to set national, federally enforced emission limits for each pollutant. They believe that this will in turn create the incentive to create technology that will lower emissions and therefore save money. Step four is all about putting caps on the use of current energy resources, allowing for a long term planning for effective and efficient energy sources.
The Clear Skies Initiative is a more “marker-based” program that rewards innovation and ensuring results. They believe that by setting “caps” on the allowed amount of emissions companies will be more inclined (more like forced) to create technology to allow them to stay under the cap, but produce more at the same time. They also have a trading system that will be set up. This system is set for each company, but they are free to trade "allowances" in the market, as long as the stay with in the required limit. Again this is another way of baiting them to find better ways to run their equipment and therefore benefiting from selling/trading off their unneeded allowances. It says that “This flexibility lets businesses figure out the cheapest way to reduce emissions while government sticks to setting the overall emission cap at a level that guarantees that industry meets ambitious air quality goals.”
Overall I happen to agree with the ideas they are proposing, as long as the “cap” is a reasonable amount. Also I would want proof that they pollutant they are studying as the ones we need to worry about. Are they looking at it as a whole? Can the market itself generate an efficient level of pollution? How would u know when dealing with firms as a whole? Maybe specific firms need different “caps” or allowance levels. How will you know what level will work right with other firms? The ideas themselves are workable, but only if we find the efficient level for each firm. We would need to know the marginal cost curve and marginal damage curve for EVERY firm. That would require a long period of time and TONS of research. And even then I might have to adjust it to get to the right level. Especially if you think about the so called “cheapest method of control” for each firm, they vary. It would require very detailed information from each industry, but also among the plants IN the industry. The authorities assigning the limits don’t have enough info to know what would be best. The plant managers/workers are less inclined to share the info they do have because they would then have to be forced to live up to a different standard.
Lets say that we have all the information we need to set these limits. We implement the caps and allowances for each industry and we see change in a few fields. We see new technology and designs. We then decide to change the caps/allowances. Doing that alone makes planning for the future more difficult. Not all firms and industries are capable of reaching our new cap because the new designs do not work for everyone. Then we have industries moving in different directions. We may have big gaps in terms of technology and emissions. Then we have a bigger problem. Those industries behind are polluting more than the industries that have improved technology. We now have to worry about putting too much pressure on the industries and possibly destroying it. We are treading on very unsure ground.
I think its one of the best ideas we have come up with to better controlling the amount of emissions and the pollutants in the air. However I do see some major flaws in the implantation of it. Again it would require a good deal of research. Which they do not talk about how that will be paid for. I know that the initiative is only based on 3 pollutants, which is another downfall to it. Why only 3? Yes I know this is only a “start” and they are said to be the most harmful ones, but I think we could try to broaden the amount. I’m pretty sure that there are more than 3 harmful pollutants. I suppose that in the LR the technology will allow companies to produce more, as well as more efficiently. But what happens when we do reach our efficient level? Will we become stagnant? What if the EPA push it further and go past the efficient amount of pollution? We all know the government can tend to be “over achievers” and do what is not always in the best interest of the economy.
Seems like the are moving in the right direction though.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Biofuels: Alternative Fuel Sources
The comments from the President's State of the Union address last month concerning our need to be less reliable on foreign oil prompted a number of online articles regarding alternative fuel sources:
NY Times article "Corn Power Put to The Test" describes how researchers in Iowa are looking for an efficient process of producing ethanol. Their challenge is not to rely natural gas used in the production of ethanol, but to create enough natural gas to turn the corn into ethanol at a lower cost by using cow manure. The production of a form of natural gas inside the cows intestines (and duplicated in the factory) helps to create a higher ethanol content at a lower production cost.
Another article on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review entitled "Biological Ways of Producing Ethanol". discusses the use of a variety of alternative fuel sources and reducing the cost of developing ethanol. Their challenge is to determine the most efficient source with which to develop ethanol; corn, switchgrass, or hybrid poplars. Researchers are using a two step process; first the enzymes breaking down the corn/switchgrass, then the bacteria ferment and excrete the ethanol. The effects of bacteria that break down the corn or switchgrass into excretions of ethanol can be distilled and used as a biofuel. The researchers want to combine both steps into one to reduce production costs, however they cannot regulate the temperatures for both the enzymes and microbes simultaneously. Enzymes work best at 55 degrees, and the microbes work best at 35 degrees.
The third article discusses switchgrass as the most efficient energy producing ethanol: "Oklahoma Researchers Test Switchgrass for Biofuel Production". They are trying to prove that switchgrass is the least cost and most efficient alternative fuel source to produce. They found that the net energy produced from corn is about 21%, whereas the net energy from producing switchgrass is about 344% (1998 figures). With such an enormous difference in energy, they are now trying to determine the most efficient method of creating the ethanol by using enzymes (similar to the research in the previous article). The process of developing the ethanol by breaking up the plants components, then using the enzymes to break the switchgrass into glucose and pentose molecules. The solution then is fermented and distilled into ethanol.
There are a number of economical drawbacks to developing the ethanol from any alternative source, one being the cost of producing the ethanol at this point in time. For the most part, the marginal social costs (MSC) greatly outweigh the marginal social benefits (MSB) of creating and using biofuels instead of gas. The first law of thermodynamics -matter energy is neither created nor destroyed- plays an important part on the research currently being conducted. The matter energy for corn and switchgrass is being transferred into the ethanol form, but the switchgrass is retaining more of its energy matter than corn. This transfer of energy seems to make switchgrass somewhat more efficient. However, economic inefficiency becomes more of a problem when discussing the production costs with regards to: the capital and labor needed to grow the corn and other such products; farmers disagreeing to long term contracts to produce switchgrass instead of other less managed products; the cost of maintaining the factory; and the management of the farm and the equipment. Researchers do not know at this time what species of switchgrass to harvest or what part of the corn is the most productive for ethanol.
I think that we have a long way to go before any of this research or production can become reliable as alternative fuel sources. Fortunately, the more that we consider radical ideas such as these we will be in a better position to lessen our use of foreign oil.
NY Times article "Corn Power Put to The Test" describes how researchers in Iowa are looking for an efficient process of producing ethanol. Their challenge is not to rely natural gas used in the production of ethanol, but to create enough natural gas to turn the corn into ethanol at a lower cost by using cow manure. The production of a form of natural gas inside the cows intestines (and duplicated in the factory) helps to create a higher ethanol content at a lower production cost.
Another article on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review entitled "Biological Ways of Producing Ethanol". discusses the use of a variety of alternative fuel sources and reducing the cost of developing ethanol. Their challenge is to determine the most efficient source with which to develop ethanol; corn, switchgrass, or hybrid poplars. Researchers are using a two step process; first the enzymes breaking down the corn/switchgrass, then the bacteria ferment and excrete the ethanol. The effects of bacteria that break down the corn or switchgrass into excretions of ethanol can be distilled and used as a biofuel. The researchers want to combine both steps into one to reduce production costs, however they cannot regulate the temperatures for both the enzymes and microbes simultaneously. Enzymes work best at 55 degrees, and the microbes work best at 35 degrees.
The third article discusses switchgrass as the most efficient energy producing ethanol: "Oklahoma Researchers Test Switchgrass for Biofuel Production". They are trying to prove that switchgrass is the least cost and most efficient alternative fuel source to produce. They found that the net energy produced from corn is about 21%, whereas the net energy from producing switchgrass is about 344% (1998 figures). With such an enormous difference in energy, they are now trying to determine the most efficient method of creating the ethanol by using enzymes (similar to the research in the previous article). The process of developing the ethanol by breaking up the plants components, then using the enzymes to break the switchgrass into glucose and pentose molecules. The solution then is fermented and distilled into ethanol.
There are a number of economical drawbacks to developing the ethanol from any alternative source, one being the cost of producing the ethanol at this point in time. For the most part, the marginal social costs (MSC) greatly outweigh the marginal social benefits (MSB) of creating and using biofuels instead of gas. The first law of thermodynamics -matter energy is neither created nor destroyed- plays an important part on the research currently being conducted. The matter energy for corn and switchgrass is being transferred into the ethanol form, but the switchgrass is retaining more of its energy matter than corn. This transfer of energy seems to make switchgrass somewhat more efficient. However, economic inefficiency becomes more of a problem when discussing the production costs with regards to: the capital and labor needed to grow the corn and other such products; farmers disagreeing to long term contracts to produce switchgrass instead of other less managed products; the cost of maintaining the factory; and the management of the farm and the equipment. Researchers do not know at this time what species of switchgrass to harvest or what part of the corn is the most productive for ethanol.
I think that we have a long way to go before any of this research or production can become reliable as alternative fuel sources. Fortunately, the more that we consider radical ideas such as these we will be in a better position to lessen our use of foreign oil.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Exporting Pollution?
Alex Tabarrok:
"One reason pollution hasn't been exported may be that the dirtier (older) industries have more political power and have resisted tarrif reductions. The authors find, however, that even if one eliminated all tarrifs on manufactured goods pollution would still not be exported.
It's not that this wouldn't be a good idea, it's just that it so happens that poor countries don't have a comparative advantage in producing the goods that require a lot of pollution. Of course, if we tax pollution in the United States at higher levels it will make more sense to export it - an interesting dilemma."
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Expected costs of a nuclear meltdown
Perhaps one of the topics to consider for our Energy/Environmental Policy project is whether or not there should be greater reliance on nuclear power plants. John Whitehead writes on an important issue with respect to the evaluation of nuclear power generation:
"Risk perception researchers have found that when dealing with low probability, high loss risks (like nuclear accidents), people don't handle expected values very well [E(loss) = p x Loss; where p is the probability of the event happening]. People tend to overestimate the probability of the bad event and focus on the high loss."
[ . . . . ]
"A simple estimate of the annual risk of a nuclear meltdown (which is worse than a nuclear accident [think Homer Simpson]) is the ratio of the number of accidents divided by the product of the number of nuclear plants and the number of years of operation. There have been two nuclear accidents in the history of the world: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (Wikipedia says that there have been five other potential meltdowns). The denominator of the ratio is about 12,000 (obtained from an "ignorance is bliss" naive Google search, better estimates are welcome). Therefore, one estimate of the probability of a nuclear accident is 0.000167 or a 1 in 6000 annual chance.To put this in perspective, suppose there was a 1 in 6000 chance that the U.S. loses 1% of its annual GDP (1% of $12 trillion is $120 billion). The expected loss, given a 0.000167 probability is about $3.33 million (Dan Kolb's annual salary).
Let's hope that when we're considering the risk tradeoffs that we appropriately weight the losses by the probabilities. The expected loss of a nuclear plant near Raleigh is not a Chernobyl, as if it were a sure thing, but something much, much lower."
Global Warming Science & Policy
Dr. Roy Spencer:
Note that Dr. Spencer refers to the policy issues involved with global warming as being contentious. There is an old adage in politics that goes something like this: In politics rhetoric is reality. Consider what happens when science becomes part of the politics of a public policy issue. Rhetoric can become reality, and then it seems pretty hard to sort out the rhetoric from an objective evaluation of "just the facts." How can you judge what "science knows" about something like global warming when knowledge seems to be presented through the prism of politics?
"I have some familiarity with these restrictions on government employees, as they were a major reason I resigned from NASA over four years ago. But back then, the shoe was on the other foot. NASA knew I was not supportive of the popular gloom-and-doom theory of global warming, and before any congressional testimony of mine on the subject, I was 'reminded' that I could speak on the science, but not on policy matters. Well, it turns out that expert witnesses on this contentious subject are almost always asked by a senator or congressman, 'What would you do about policy if you were me?' When the question came, I dutifully dodged it.Dr. Spencer's commentary speaks to the interplay between science and politics. What I would like for you to consider is that science alone cannot make public policy choices. Value judgments are required. I have been very explicit about the value judgments used by economics to choose between alternative public policies. Consider also, that in our system of political economy, there is a group of people who get to make public policy choices, and they are the people elected to Congress and to be President.
I am not sure, but disobeying my superiors would probably have been grounds for dismissal, if they wanted to press the point. In Jim Hansen's case, even if this was theoretically possible, I suspect the political fallout would be enormous, as he as done more than any scientist in the world to impress upon the public's consciousness the potential dangers of global warming.
Hansen is a smart, productive public servant that is on a crusade for what he believes in. I understand why he believes as he does -- but I still disagree with his conclusions, both scientific and policy wise.
For example, Hansen has been able to devise a scientific scenario whereby all warming in recent decades can be attributed to mankind. I believe, however, he has ignored possible natural mechanisms, for instance a change in cloudiness during the same period of time."
Note that Dr. Spencer refers to the policy issues involved with global warming as being contentious. There is an old adage in politics that goes something like this: In politics rhetoric is reality. Consider what happens when science becomes part of the politics of a public policy issue. Rhetoric can become reality, and then it seems pretty hard to sort out the rhetoric from an objective evaluation of "just the facts." How can you judge what "science knows" about something like global warming when knowledge seems to be presented through the prism of politics?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
China's Environment in Trouble?
This is an interesting article regarding China's economic growth and its possible negative effects to its environment, AEI - Short Publications. It seems that China's first hurdle with its enormous economic growth is how to deal with the public and international media reaction to environmental problems. The article begins with several stories of protests by the Chinese people, and the known cover-ups by the Chinese government relating to chemical spills, dangerous power plants, chemical and pharmaceutical plants in bad urban and residential areas.
However, the article goes on to show that China has become a "real-world test case" (AEI.org et. al., December 2005) for a theory known as the environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). EKC refers to the relationship between the economic growth and the decreasing quality of the societies environment. Under the EKC theory, it is believed that the growth of the economy causes a deterioration of the environment. This deterioration continues until the societies median income increases, and can then support improvements to the environment.
If this theory is correct for China, there are examples of improvements: China "has the largest fleet of natural gas buses in the world"; they are currently more aggressive than the U.S. in adopting ambient air quality goals; and the amount of discharge of industrial petroleum-related pollutants have reduced by 50% over the past 10 years.
However, the article goes on to show that China has become a "real-world test case" (AEI.org et. al., December 2005) for a theory known as the environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). EKC refers to the relationship between the economic growth and the decreasing quality of the societies environment. Under the EKC theory, it is believed that the growth of the economy causes a deterioration of the environment. This deterioration continues until the societies median income increases, and can then support improvements to the environment.
If this theory is correct for China, there are examples of improvements: China "has the largest fleet of natural gas buses in the world"; they are currently more aggressive than the U.S. in adopting ambient air quality goals; and the amount of discharge of industrial petroleum-related pollutants have reduced by 50% over the past 10 years.
Bush Energy Vision
Yahoo! News:
"In Bush's vision, drivers will stop at hydrogen stations and fill their fuel-cell cars with the pollution-free fuel. Or they would power their engines with ethanol made from trash or corn. More Americans would run their lights at home on solar power.How consistent do you think the President's vision is with the economic vision? Are there aspects of the President's vision that are likely to be associated with market failures?
Bush has been talking about these ideas since his first year in office. Proposals aimed at spreading the use of ethanol, hydrogen and renewable fuels all were part of the energy bill that he signed into law in August, but that hasn't eased Americans' worries about high fuel prices.
Americans were hit with the biggest jump in energy prices in 15 years in 2005, and worries about the cost of gas and heating oil have damped spirits about the economy despite other recent encouraging signs.
Add in the unrest in the Middle East, and energy becomes a major problem for the president to address Tuesday night.
'I agree with Americans who understand being hooked on foreign oil as an economic problem and a national security problem,' Bush said in a recent interview with CBS.
Eight in 10 Americans surveyed earlier this month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said gasoline prices were a big problem."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
I want clean air!
The above link is to a site that is a bit on the “far left” side of the coin, but does have a lot of useful info on air pollution. Again, not necessarily from an economist point of view, but water pollution may be more closely correlated to clean air than previously thought. The decline of plankton, a large O2 producer, in the ocean due to increasing temperature has effected global coastal air conditions.
-Tyler
-Tyler
U.S. 2006 Environmental Performance Index
Tyler Klocke points us, in the post just below, to a new environmental performance index. I took a quick look at the material on the website Tyler links to. I found the U.S. was ranked 28th worldwide. I looked through some of the country specific information, and I noted a few things of interest. I was going to ask what the information means and what it doesn't mean? Apparently, some reports have suggested the information means the U.S. has been underperforming. Of course, such an inference should make quite a splash on politics. My personal intuition would be that I would be skeptical that the U.S. is underperforming. John Whitehead did a quick regression analysis with the data used in constructing the index. Here is the inference he draws:
"The U.S. ranks 28th in the world in achieving certain environmental goals according to the Environmental Performance Index produced by Yale and Columbia. Yesterday Mark Thoma linked to a NYTimes article which could be interpreted as implying that the U.S. should be doing better.
The analysis conducted in the reports puts the U.S. under the line. In other words, the U.S. is doing worse than expected given its income level. I wondered if this were true. Using a slightly more complicated analysis it appears that the U.S. is doing about as well as it should be doing."
[ . . . . ]
"This model tells us that EPI increases with GDP but at a decreasing rate. In other words, the EPI is subject to diminishing returns. An country can improve its environmental performance with increasing gains in per capita GDP but these gains are smaller and smaller as GDP per capita increases.
One way of thinking about this model is as a production function. The input is income and the output is EPI. Plug in a country's GDP and region and the model will tell you how that country should be doing. Countries that have a positive difference between their EPI and the predicted EPI are doing better than expected. Countries that have a negative difference are doing worse than expected.
The U.S. ranks 28th in the world in EPI. The U.S. ranks 29th in the world. The U.S. EPI is 78.5 and the predicted EPI is 78.4514. The multiple regression model predicts the U.S. performance almost perfectly. The U.S. is achieving environmental goals about as well as expected given its GDP per capita. "
Monday, January 23, 2006
EPI and ESI
"Both the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and the Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index contribute to data-driven environmental decisionmaking. However, there are important differences in the perspectives the ESI and EPI bring to environmental policymakers. The EPI does not seek to replace the ESI; instead, the two indices supplement each other."
- Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index
Just food for thought on some policy questions
-Tyler
- Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index
Just food for thought on some policy questions
-Tyler
Thursday, January 19, 2006
How Federal Subsidies Encourage Wasteful Local Transit Systems
Randall O'Toole has a policy analysis of public transit. Here is the executive summary:
"The nation's mass transit system is a classic example of how special interests prevail over the needs and interests of voters and taxpayers. Total inflation-adjusted subsidies to transit—buses and trains—have more than doubled since 1990, yet total ridership has increased by less than 10 percent. Train ridership has dropped dramatically while automobile use has skyrocketed.Can it possibly make any economic sense that "more than three of every four dollars spent on transit come from taxpayers, not transit riders"?
Prior to 1964, when Congress began subsidizing transit, the industry was mostly private. Since then, the industry has been almost entirely taken over by state and local governments. Today more than three of every four dollars spent on transit come from taxpayers, not transit riders.
The effectiveness of local transit systems is undermined by federal subsidies, which encourage the construction of highly visible and expensive services such as light-rail trains to suburban areas despite the chronically low number of riders on those routes. Federal subsidies to transit advocacy groups and misguided environmental and labor regulations also encourage a large investment of taxpayer money in wasteful transit systems.
The ideal solution would be to devolve transit and other transportation funding entirely to state and local governments. Short of that, Congress should reform the federal transportation funding system to minimize the adverse incentives it creates."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
