Monday, September 29, 2008
Just Theories: Swiss cheese is better than none?
As far as the banking status of our economy where is our starting point? Are we able to find this starting point just like the writers we have spoke of such as Locke and Rothbard? Who cares which politicians knew better and didn't do anything or those that should have predicted this banking status. Barney Frank, rep of house, setting aside some of his personal news in the 90's, said something that I thought was kind of dissapointing when he thought that he and others( not sure who he meant) would work on these regulations next year to banks so that this action wouldn't be repeated. 'Perhaps changing regulations shouldn't be the first priority, but I think these regulations that formed particular incentives for these CEO's and associates, should be analyzed and replaced. I think the government's first priority should be to reduce the risk by subsidies from the government to REDUCE banks burden in exchange for those banks that have advisors enabled to work with thier customers with the concequence of minmal or no funding of the government without cooperation. Now, I know that not all banks have advisors, but they still have employees that have sold patrons the arms loan to. The problem still is whether these advisors would actually take up the challange or have the ability to do so, I am not sure. The problem with government advisors stepping in to replace variable rates to fixed rates may have thier own conflict of interest even in the midst of our economic status.
Monetary Policy: Current Financial Problems
I'm suprised the "bailout plan" didn't go through. It seems like we were headed towards this plan, at least that's what we heard from house leaders. I guess we need not be so easily misled by what we hear in politics.
I'm encouraged to see that there are still some good people in the house. A couple of days ago I had very limited hope in our current acting government. There still needs to be a political revolution to change direction in our country. But I see people who can lead the revolution. Check out this speech by House Representitive Ron Paul before the vote:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/video-congressman-ron-paul-remarks-on-the-bailout-just-prior-to-the-vote/
All the financial problems we have now are not a suprise to people who understand economics. Many people saw them coming for a long time. I just read a speech by Ron Paul that he gave back in July. The title of the speech is "Some Big Events Are About To Occur". What we see happening in our current economy, I believe, are very much related to these events Dr. Paul talks about. You can read the article for yourself at this website.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/170708Paul.htm
(You can read the official version at the site below. However, I haven't been able to access the house website today for obvious reasons.)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr070908h.htm
Here is the crucial excerpt from the speech that ties government action to the current financial problems. He shows the progression of more and more government regulation with respect to monetary supply. This has interventionalism written all over it. The government intervenes to "fix" one problem and keeps intervening to try to correct the problem they created.
"There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.
By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.
It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors. "
Our government system has contributed to world-wide financial problems. So when people start going into the blame game about the greedy corporations, capitalists, CEOs, banks, etc., don't forget about the government that created the incentives for people to act the way that they did to all these problems. The incentives for the lenders were to lend sub prime loans. The incentives for the corporations were set up for corruption.
The bottom line is that the Fed has made the value of the dollar unstable which leads to all of these speculative bubbles. This is the reason we are seeing different markets fail now. We need to demand Economic Freedom which is our right to liberty! Economic Freedom means free markets! The Fed has regulated the monetary supply causing a build up of negative effects that we are now experiencing. The Fed needs to be viewed as a public enemy.
I'm encouraged to see that there are still some good people in the house. A couple of days ago I had very limited hope in our current acting government. There still needs to be a political revolution to change direction in our country. But I see people who can lead the revolution. Check out this speech by House Representitive Ron Paul before the vote:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/video-congressman-ron-paul-remarks-on-the-bailout-just-prior-to-the-vote/
All the financial problems we have now are not a suprise to people who understand economics. Many people saw them coming for a long time. I just read a speech by Ron Paul that he gave back in July. The title of the speech is "Some Big Events Are About To Occur". What we see happening in our current economy, I believe, are very much related to these events Dr. Paul talks about. You can read the article for yourself at this website.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/170708Paul.htm
(You can read the official version at the site below. However, I haven't been able to access the house website today for obvious reasons.)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr070908h.htm
Here is the crucial excerpt from the speech that ties government action to the current financial problems. He shows the progression of more and more government regulation with respect to monetary supply. This has interventionalism written all over it. The government intervenes to "fix" one problem and keeps intervening to try to correct the problem they created.
"There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.
By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.
It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors. "
Our government system has contributed to world-wide financial problems. So when people start going into the blame game about the greedy corporations, capitalists, CEOs, banks, etc., don't forget about the government that created the incentives for people to act the way that they did to all these problems. The incentives for the lenders were to lend sub prime loans. The incentives for the corporations were set up for corruption.
The bottom line is that the Fed has made the value of the dollar unstable which leads to all of these speculative bubbles. This is the reason we are seeing different markets fail now. We need to demand Economic Freedom which is our right to liberty! Economic Freedom means free markets! The Fed has regulated the monetary supply causing a build up of negative effects that we are now experiencing. The Fed needs to be viewed as a public enemy.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Re: Government Should Provide Healthcare
In regard to my previous post, all I am hearing is how government-run healthcare is not the best form of healthcare. I never argued that is was. I simply said that it is our best bet to improve the current situation. I am waiting for someone to argue to me why either 1) we are better off in the current in-between system, or 2) that it would be easier and more practical to switch to a privatized system. Here are my arguments why government healthcare is the most feasible.
Politicians in general do not understand economics. We all scratch our heads as to why politicians just don’t implement sound economic policy that, if modeled, is very clear that it’s the right way to go. Well, politicians are, obviously, elected by the people. The population at large doesn’t understand economics. For the public to be convinced that privatized healthcare is the best, they must have some basic understanding of economic principles. A lot of economic policy, when first glanced at, seems to be backwards and contrary to its ends. We, as economic students, all know that even though it seems strange, free market economics can work. For instance, most people don’t understand that by instituting a minimum wage, the demand for labor decreases, and thus, people are laid off. People don’t get that by instituting a policy that is designed to help people, you are actually hurting them. When economists argue against minimum wage, the people interpret that to mean economists (or politicians) are arguing against giving people more money, or in essence, keeping more money for themselves. The public asks, how can anybody be against giving people more money? Thus, sound economic policy is not implemented.
My point is that even though privatized healthcare is clearly the best option, it is not realistic because people don’t understand it. What they do understand is government. A politician advocating for government healthcare is something people can wrap their heads around. Therefore, it has a chance of gaining a foothold and is much more likely to be put into practice. So even though privatized healthcare is better than government healthcare, they are both better than the current system we have now. And since privatized healthcare is unrealistic because the people will never follow the politicians there (and the politicians will never lead the people there), our best option for improving our current situation is by giving responsibility for providing healthcare over to our government.
Of course, if I could build a country from scratch, from the ground up, I would institute a private system of healthcare. But one almost has to start from the very beginning. Given our current political makeup, it would be virtually impossible to switch to a completely privatized system. It is hard to change a foundation without destroying the house. So what I am waiting for is for someone to argue to me that we could institute privatized healthcare given our current political climate. I am not asking for theory, or what could happen in a utopia. I am asking for someone to face reality and present a sound argument for a feasible switch to private healthcare. Or, argue to me that our current system of somewhere-in-between-private-and-government is better than government-run healthcare, therefore we shouldn’t switch.
Politicians in general do not understand economics. We all scratch our heads as to why politicians just don’t implement sound economic policy that, if modeled, is very clear that it’s the right way to go. Well, politicians are, obviously, elected by the people. The population at large doesn’t understand economics. For the public to be convinced that privatized healthcare is the best, they must have some basic understanding of economic principles. A lot of economic policy, when first glanced at, seems to be backwards and contrary to its ends. We, as economic students, all know that even though it seems strange, free market economics can work. For instance, most people don’t understand that by instituting a minimum wage, the demand for labor decreases, and thus, people are laid off. People don’t get that by instituting a policy that is designed to help people, you are actually hurting them. When economists argue against minimum wage, the people interpret that to mean economists (or politicians) are arguing against giving people more money, or in essence, keeping more money for themselves. The public asks, how can anybody be against giving people more money? Thus, sound economic policy is not implemented.
My point is that even though privatized healthcare is clearly the best option, it is not realistic because people don’t understand it. What they do understand is government. A politician advocating for government healthcare is something people can wrap their heads around. Therefore, it has a chance of gaining a foothold and is much more likely to be put into practice. So even though privatized healthcare is better than government healthcare, they are both better than the current system we have now. And since privatized healthcare is unrealistic because the people will never follow the politicians there (and the politicians will never lead the people there), our best option for improving our current situation is by giving responsibility for providing healthcare over to our government.
Of course, if I could build a country from scratch, from the ground up, I would institute a private system of healthcare. But one almost has to start from the very beginning. Given our current political makeup, it would be virtually impossible to switch to a completely privatized system. It is hard to change a foundation without destroying the house. So what I am waiting for is for someone to argue to me that we could institute privatized healthcare given our current political climate. I am not asking for theory, or what could happen in a utopia. I am asking for someone to face reality and present a sound argument for a feasible switch to private healthcare. Or, argue to me that our current system of somewhere-in-between-private-and-government is better than government-run healthcare, therefore we shouldn’t switch.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Aggression: The opiate of the masses and the cornerstone of libertarianism
Murray N. Rothbard notes that the libertarianism or the libertarian creed, “rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” If no man can aggress against any other, then all violence, all devolution of rights and liberties ceases to exist. This ideal creates a perfect world in which all violence, physical or mental, fades into the socially unacceptable act.
Just because one believes that aggression or violence (for the sake of simplicity and brevity these terms will often be interchangeable in this context) may not be okay, or may not be accepted does not mean that it will not happen. Violence in inherent to all of mankind; it is a tenant of our predisposed position, a law of nature if you will. Abraham Maslow hypothesized that all humankind followed a sort of hierarchy in which basic needs have to be fulfilled before more complex desires can be met. Let us look at man in nature or in the wild to see that his or her physiological needs will be met by the self with an inherent inclination towards aggression. Seeking shelter, the man or woman will destroy a tree or evict an animal from a cave. Then they will need to satisfy their need for food by slaughtering an animal of destroying another plant. Violence is going to be the central tendency for humans.
If “no man or group of man may aggress against the person or property of anyone else” and yet man is inclined towards aggression as a tool then there is an ideological and pragmatic impasse. Thus another solution exists. All people may aggress against any other person and their property. This violent sounding ideology immediately conjures a world in which violence rules and the strong dominate the weak, a world in which the only rule is the rule of violence and aggression. However, just because people may aggress against one another does not mean that they should or they will. Rothbard’s first principle of non-aggression is, in his eyes, the only way to justify the rest of libertarianism and the tenants on which it lies. The aggression principle also allows the other tenants to stand, albeit with a different logical progression.
Because all people are aggressive and may aggress against one another, all people are essentially equal. Thomas Hobbes said that all men were equal because all men had the same susceptibility and fear of painful death. While the brute may be physically superior, the mentally inclined will create a weapon or work in social group to counteract the brute’s aggression with their own. It is that the fear and that equality which has lead humankind to its current state. Aggression is acceptable and people may aggress against other people, but in turn will be aggressed upon. This deterrence has lead humankind to its current state. Libertarianism (in its simplest form) is the idea that the government should be severely restricted in its ability to interfere with the individual’s rights and liberties. A person or group of people may be able to aggress even though they shouldn’t.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Government Should Provide Healthcare
Some things transcend politics.
I am a believer in limited government and I am a believer in a free market. I believe in privatizing education and I even believe in privatizing health care. If I believe in privatizing health care, why did I just say that the government should provide it? The fact is, privatized health care is a dream. We have had well-meaning politicians and economists spouting its benefits for generations. Every election cycle we hear about how candidate X is going to reform health care, either by privatizing it, or turning it over to the government. Instead of either, America's health care system is caught somewhere in between and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
While I truly believe a private health care system would be ideal, I also believe that it is just never going to happen. A government-run health care system is much more realistic, and for that reason alone, I believe we should adopt it. As I mentioned earlier, we are caught in between private and government-run health care. Of the three options- private, government, or in-between,- in-between is by far the worst. Since our best option of privatized health care is not very realistic, it only makes sense to upgrade to the next best option: government-run health care.
As I led off with, some things simply transcend politics. When the dollar is the bottom line in health care instead of, well, health care, nobody wins. We will let a child die from cancer simply because his parents cannot afford to pay. Thankfully, I don't think this situation plays out as often as it otherwise would thanks to generous public support. If the public finds out about a tragic situation like this, they will either put so much pressure on the insurance company so it becomes their best interest to go-ahead with the coverage, or the public raises funds and simply pays for it themselves. But if it were left to our current health care system alone, let us make no bones about it, we would let a child die simply because he cannot pay.
Only government can provide the means to ensure that all citizens are covered, no matter what their ailment, no matter what their financial situation, and no matter their age. It will not matter whether the condition is pre-existing or not. Government can and should provide health care to everybody. Politics and economics aside, it is just the right thing to do.
I am a believer in limited government and I am a believer in a free market. I believe in privatizing education and I even believe in privatizing health care. If I believe in privatizing health care, why did I just say that the government should provide it? The fact is, privatized health care is a dream. We have had well-meaning politicians and economists spouting its benefits for generations. Every election cycle we hear about how candidate X is going to reform health care, either by privatizing it, or turning it over to the government. Instead of either, America's health care system is caught somewhere in between and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
While I truly believe a private health care system would be ideal, I also believe that it is just never going to happen. A government-run health care system is much more realistic, and for that reason alone, I believe we should adopt it. As I mentioned earlier, we are caught in between private and government-run health care. Of the three options- private, government, or in-between,- in-between is by far the worst. Since our best option of privatized health care is not very realistic, it only makes sense to upgrade to the next best option: government-run health care.
As I led off with, some things simply transcend politics. When the dollar is the bottom line in health care instead of, well, health care, nobody wins. We will let a child die from cancer simply because his parents cannot afford to pay. Thankfully, I don't think this situation plays out as often as it otherwise would thanks to generous public support. If the public finds out about a tragic situation like this, they will either put so much pressure on the insurance company so it becomes their best interest to go-ahead with the coverage, or the public raises funds and simply pays for it themselves. But if it were left to our current health care system alone, let us make no bones about it, we would let a child die simply because he cannot pay.
Only government can provide the means to ensure that all citizens are covered, no matter what their ailment, no matter what their financial situation, and no matter their age. It will not matter whether the condition is pre-existing or not. Government can and should provide health care to everybody. Politics and economics aside, it is just the right thing to do.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
More Open Space...
Real estate prices have affected many different aspects of the economy, and they are now impacting the environment in a positive way. In an article from The Wall Street Journal, Jim Carlton points out the impact that the real-estate crunch has had on the environment. It is because of the recent real-estate crisis many people are unable to afford the land that they had previously purchased to build on. This is good news for those conversationalists who would prefer not to see the land ever built on. The land is being snatched up from places in Hawaii all the way to places in Georgia. Although some people may be happy with this change others are concerned about what selling this land will do to the availability of private land in the future. “Not everyone is a fan of these conservation deals. Private property advocates, for example, complain that taking prime land out of circulation near cities pushed development even farther away, as well as driving up land prices.”
The consideration that needs to be taken into account as well is the impact on the economy in the long run. Although the long run has much uncertainty, it is possible that by removing the land from possible development now, people will be loosing out on a substantial amount of potential income that they could have had if they had been able to build commercial buildings on their property. Nothing can really be done to change the situation now, but this issue may come back up at a later time, when some people are looking for places to build and it has all been deemed open space.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028811193679127.html
The consideration that needs to be taken into account as well is the impact on the economy in the long run. Although the long run has much uncertainty, it is possible that by removing the land from possible development now, people will be loosing out on a substantial amount of potential income that they could have had if they had been able to build commercial buildings on their property. Nothing can really be done to change the situation now, but this issue may come back up at a later time, when some people are looking for places to build and it has all been deemed open space.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028811193679127.html
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Doesn't the Governemnt Own the Seals?
What luck for me! We were learning about the government's protected animals and what was on the news yesterday and today? A baby seal was on the California coast caught in a fishing net. Looked pretty easy to solve- go up to the seal, cut the net from it and the the seal and evryone watching would be happy. But wait!!! It seems that the seal is federaly protected and the law states that if the seal is within so many feet (I think it was 50) no one can go neat the seal to help it. So, according to the law, all we can do (and the world watching) is watch that poor seal flip and flop in a fish net.
Are you kidding me?!?! This shows how completly ignorant the ESA really is. To protect the seal, we have to let it suffer? I am completly at a loss for words as to the stupidity that is unreported.
Here is the end to the story. It seems that while the cameras were not rolling, someone BROKE THE LAW and went to the seal and cut off the net. No word yet as to whether or not there will be an arrest. I think it is interesting that NO ONE so far captured the person saving the seal on camera. Shouldn't there be a federal investigation now to catch this heathen for breaking the law? Maybe there is some Olson here with group colusion? I will take a stretch and offer this thought: maybe the governmnet will rethink the ESA?
Are you kidding me?!?! This shows how completly ignorant the ESA really is. To protect the seal, we have to let it suffer? I am completly at a loss for words as to the stupidity that is unreported.
Here is the end to the story. It seems that while the cameras were not rolling, someone BROKE THE LAW and went to the seal and cut off the net. No word yet as to whether or not there will be an arrest. I think it is interesting that NO ONE so far captured the person saving the seal on camera. Shouldn't there be a federal investigation now to catch this heathen for breaking the law? Maybe there is some Olson here with group colusion? I will take a stretch and offer this thought: maybe the governmnet will rethink the ESA?
Monday, May 05, 2008
The myth of global warming?
I have been harping on sustainability this whole semester, but never attacking weather or not the science that supports that view is found-less and unreasonable. An article appeared on the BBC website a few days ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm. This site shows evidence that the earth will at least maintain present and past temperatures over the next decade. What? Until recently we have these models that predict the earth warming and continuing to warm; however, the warmest year on record (since records started being kept only a few hundred years ago) was in 1998. Hang on we are to experience cooler temperatures over the next decade and this last decade has been lower than the high? This makes me skeptical over the idea of global warming. It could be perfectly alright for instead saw that the increased carbon in the atmosphere could lead to higher rates of skin cancer; then one could go out take the test and decide whether the statement was false or not. But with global warming we have no evidence and in fact we have evidence to the contrary to its existence. This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf; the sustainability crowd may have cried wolf to push their agenda, and this action may lead to a back lash against the movement, and possibly allow a more liberal (classic definition) government to emerge.
This doesn’t leave sustainability totally dead, just mostly. Endangered species maybe an area where the sustainability folks may have ground to regroup. There is evidence that some species are dying out (not all, cats, dogs, cows are all doing fine). The evidence suggests that human action is causing the, at least the acceleration, of various species around the world. Sustainability would then need to make the argument that endangered species, no all species, are public goods and therefore the role of the government to provide and limit human population and human consumption levels. Unless I have missed something if global warming doesn’t happen, or happen in near the way as predicted, then I believe a backlash against the enivornmental/global climate/sustainability crowd is likely and this may, indeed, hurt our level of life because certain causes, like clean water, air, and endangered species may be sacrificed to the backlash.
This doesn’t leave sustainability totally dead, just mostly. Endangered species maybe an area where the sustainability folks may have ground to regroup. There is evidence that some species are dying out (not all, cats, dogs, cows are all doing fine). The evidence suggests that human action is causing the, at least the acceleration, of various species around the world. Sustainability would then need to make the argument that endangered species, no all species, are public goods and therefore the role of the government to provide and limit human population and human consumption levels. Unless I have missed something if global warming doesn’t happen, or happen in near the way as predicted, then I believe a backlash against the enivornmental/global climate/sustainability crowd is likely and this may, indeed, hurt our level of life because certain causes, like clean water, air, and endangered species may be sacrificed to the backlash.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Nuclear Reactors and the Carbon Crisis
According to sustainability the world cannot sustain the current levels of economic activity and development. The ship of mother earth is sinking or will be sinking so enough. This then leads to how to slow the activity and reduce the consumption factor. This then leads people to worry about climate change because, as far as I can tell, it is an indication of our ship sinking. Currently the hype is on about Carbon emissions from vehicles, livestock, and factories. Carbon emission, for now, are being ignored from humans (breathing). Nuclear power seemed to be a way out for countries worried about carbon emissions. The thought was the actual power station to produce nuclear energy doesn’t cause any carbon emissions and is therefore only emission producing to get the fuel. Now a report is out which states that there is a rise in carbon emission from producing nuclear fuel. The cheap and easy fuel is gone (or going) which leaves the fuel in places were a lot of mining and transportation will have to be used. This leads the scientist publishing this work to conclude that the nuclear option isn’t going to lead to as low a carbon foot print as previously thought.
Why worry? Energy production is a large contributor to carbon emissions so its reduction would be paramount to the sustainability supports. Transportation is also critical, especially in developed/wealthy countries were personal vehicles are used more. This then leads me to conclude that vehicles will come under this carbon emission problem as well. Vehicles will have to be more carbon friendly in the future (if the world is going to a sustainability). This then means that the carbon foot print of transportation of nuclear fuel will fall and nuclear fuel mining is the only area where carbon production is not guarantee to fall. However, if another method was used, as opposed to government mandate and regulation, then the nuclear option may in fact be viable, according to sustainability. If we tax carbon emissions this will bring the economic efficient outcome of nuclear power stations and lower carbon foot prints to the desired level with the efficient level of carbon and nuclear power. This leads this economist to suggest that instead of looking at all the faults of a particular alternative tax consumption of energy and tax carbon emission from all carbon producing sources (with the possible exception of breath, unless one believes that the population isn’t sustainable either.)
Why worry? Energy production is a large contributor to carbon emissions so its reduction would be paramount to the sustainability supports. Transportation is also critical, especially in developed/wealthy countries were personal vehicles are used more. This then leads me to conclude that vehicles will come under this carbon emission problem as well. Vehicles will have to be more carbon friendly in the future (if the world is going to a sustainability). This then means that the carbon foot print of transportation of nuclear fuel will fall and nuclear fuel mining is the only area where carbon production is not guarantee to fall. However, if another method was used, as opposed to government mandate and regulation, then the nuclear option may in fact be viable, according to sustainability. If we tax carbon emissions this will bring the economic efficient outcome of nuclear power stations and lower carbon foot prints to the desired level with the efficient level of carbon and nuclear power. This leads this economist to suggest that instead of looking at all the faults of a particular alternative tax consumption of energy and tax carbon emission from all carbon producing sources (with the possible exception of breath, unless one believes that the population isn’t sustainable either.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
LEED Restaurant
Public consciousness of environmental issues seems to have increased substantially in recent years. An article from the Associated Press describes one entrepreneur in Minneapolis whose restaurant received LEED certification. Many would then ask, what does LEED stand for and how can a business receive this type of certification?
Leadership in Energy and Environmental design or LEED is related to sustainability of the environment through the way that businesses and restaurants are run. Behind this certification businesses have to change the way they might ordinarily do things. Restaurateur Kim Bartmann took steps to make her restaurant more environmentally friendly from the day they started building to they day she opened the doors for business.
It was designed and built to use about half the gas and electricity and 30 percent of the water of a typical restaurant its size. In addition, major elements of its interior were made from existing materials. Tables came from doors that were discarded from a nearby condo project, and the bar is made of Italian marble salvaged from a local hotel.
Not only did the construction of the restaurant take a sustainability approach, but the way that Bartmann continues to run the business follows the model of sustainability. Bartmann gets much of the food supplied in the restaurant from local vendors who are within a close proximity to the restaurant which seems to be a key element in sustainability. By getting the food locally and close to where it is produced, Bartmann will keep not just costs down, but also the restaurant’s impact on the environment surrounding it.
Could this type of restaurant become the new standard for growth and fro new businesses? It certainly seems possible if it can be supported by a market of eager entrepreneurs. If the bottom line is affected positively by running a business in this manner, then more people will do it.
Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RECYCLED_RESTAURANT?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#
Leadership in Energy and Environmental design or LEED is related to sustainability of the environment through the way that businesses and restaurants are run. Behind this certification businesses have to change the way they might ordinarily do things. Restaurateur Kim Bartmann took steps to make her restaurant more environmentally friendly from the day they started building to they day she opened the doors for business.
It was designed and built to use about half the gas and electricity and 30 percent of the water of a typical restaurant its size. In addition, major elements of its interior were made from existing materials. Tables came from doors that were discarded from a nearby condo project, and the bar is made of Italian marble salvaged from a local hotel.
Not only did the construction of the restaurant take a sustainability approach, but the way that Bartmann continues to run the business follows the model of sustainability. Bartmann gets much of the food supplied in the restaurant from local vendors who are within a close proximity to the restaurant which seems to be a key element in sustainability. By getting the food locally and close to where it is produced, Bartmann will keep not just costs down, but also the restaurant’s impact on the environment surrounding it.
Could this type of restaurant become the new standard for growth and fro new businesses? It certainly seems possible if it can be supported by a market of eager entrepreneurs. If the bottom line is affected positively by running a business in this manner, then more people will do it.
Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RECYCLED_RESTAURANT?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#
Just Another Case Where I’m Right, and Everyone Else is Wrong
We often talk about externality abuse in the various classes Professor Eubanks teaches. But not once have I heard mention of Public Good abuse, something we perhaps need a primer on, because, in my opinion, we’ve stumbled into just such a mistake with endangered species.
In terms of externalities we attempt to frame the debate in two ways. First we provide a very explicit and very stringent definition in order to expel many things right off the bat. If it doesn’t fit the definition it can be dismissed out of hand, and a great many popular “externalities” are not non-market, unintentional interdependences that affect an unthought of third party.
Second, we’ve deemed it necessary to confine externalities to something that has recognizable and actionable physical consequences. In other words car exhaust can be an externality because it causes actual harm to those breathing it by polluting the air and damaging their lungs. By the same token attractive people display no externalities, because while it may give joy to some to see them, and disappoint others (under the logic “I’ll never be that good looking,” or what have you), there is no physical harm or benefits being bestowed. If we didn’t confine externalities in this manner, and allowed things such as feelings to play a part, we would end up handing out subsides and levying corrective taxes every which way you turned, and often times the same thing would be getting subsidized and taxed simultaneously.
Now returning to public goods, the definition requiring them to be both non-rival and non-excludible is appropriately limiting, it’s in the follow up where we’ve failed. Unlike with externalities we seem perfectly okay with undefinable values based on feelings. Endangered species are the perfect example of this. We’ve allowed them as a public good because many have expressed some sort of existence value for them. In other words, the mere knowledge that various species exist has a particular value to some people, and in some cases they’re even willing to pay in order to maintain that value. However, there’s no true market driven method to provide these species because the knowledge of their existence is both non-rival and non-excludible, inviting a free rider problem, and suggesting that, perhaps, government has a role to play. However, in making this assessment we’ve forgotten to attach our feelings filter, because that’s all this value is based on, a particular feeling that various people experience. I ask then, what if there are people experiencing exactly the opposite feeling? Is it so hard to imagine there are those with anti-existence values? I, for one, would actually be happier knowing there are no more snakes on the entire planet. And knowledge such as that is non-rival and non-excludible. Should we tax everyone to provide this “public good” and make myself and others like me happy? Of course not.
The entire idea of taxing in order to provide a public good or limit or expand an externality (depending on whether it’s positive or negative) is based on an efficiency ethic. Taxing everyone to provide endangered species fails to meet the standards of efficiency. Aside from the obvious debate between those with existence values and those with anti-existence values there are clearly those who are existence neutral. If we take from everyone to provide for the feelings of a few, we’ve caused discernible harm in order to make others better off. This is the antithesis of the entire basis for our model.
In terms of externalities we attempt to frame the debate in two ways. First we provide a very explicit and very stringent definition in order to expel many things right off the bat. If it doesn’t fit the definition it can be dismissed out of hand, and a great many popular “externalities” are not non-market, unintentional interdependences that affect an unthought of third party.
Second, we’ve deemed it necessary to confine externalities to something that has recognizable and actionable physical consequences. In other words car exhaust can be an externality because it causes actual harm to those breathing it by polluting the air and damaging their lungs. By the same token attractive people display no externalities, because while it may give joy to some to see them, and disappoint others (under the logic “I’ll never be that good looking,” or what have you), there is no physical harm or benefits being bestowed. If we didn’t confine externalities in this manner, and allowed things such as feelings to play a part, we would end up handing out subsides and levying corrective taxes every which way you turned, and often times the same thing would be getting subsidized and taxed simultaneously.
Now returning to public goods, the definition requiring them to be both non-rival and non-excludible is appropriately limiting, it’s in the follow up where we’ve failed. Unlike with externalities we seem perfectly okay with undefinable values based on feelings. Endangered species are the perfect example of this. We’ve allowed them as a public good because many have expressed some sort of existence value for them. In other words, the mere knowledge that various species exist has a particular value to some people, and in some cases they’re even willing to pay in order to maintain that value. However, there’s no true market driven method to provide these species because the knowledge of their existence is both non-rival and non-excludible, inviting a free rider problem, and suggesting that, perhaps, government has a role to play. However, in making this assessment we’ve forgotten to attach our feelings filter, because that’s all this value is based on, a particular feeling that various people experience. I ask then, what if there are people experiencing exactly the opposite feeling? Is it so hard to imagine there are those with anti-existence values? I, for one, would actually be happier knowing there are no more snakes on the entire planet. And knowledge such as that is non-rival and non-excludible. Should we tax everyone to provide this “public good” and make myself and others like me happy? Of course not.
The entire idea of taxing in order to provide a public good or limit or expand an externality (depending on whether it’s positive or negative) is based on an efficiency ethic. Taxing everyone to provide endangered species fails to meet the standards of efficiency. Aside from the obvious debate between those with existence values and those with anti-existence values there are clearly those who are existence neutral. If we take from everyone to provide for the feelings of a few, we’ve caused discernible harm in order to make others better off. This is the antithesis of the entire basis for our model.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
New Environmentalism
In response to Michael DeAlessi's article:
"Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve Our Nation's Resources"
I loved this article!
I haven't discussed it yet in my class with the knowlegable and expressive members yet, but I felt it was a perfect example of what a blog should be written on.
Growing up somewhat fearful of private ownership of things like land and open spaces, it's been a journey for me to come around to the level-headed thinking that suggests privatization may actually do MORE for the land than would the socialization of 'public lands' would.
DeAlessi wrote, “On public lands, land-use decisions inevitably wind up in the court of politics, where rhetoric and extremism trump substance and tradeoffs.”
It's like when I was a kid, when a bundle of toys were given to 'us' (my two brothers and me), we invariably fought over who got to play with what and when. When things were specifically designated to one of us (or to another), it was crystal clear amongst us who was allowed to play with what and when, and it gave us a sort of independence in determining what we'd share and with whom. As well, when we played with something that wasn't ours, we knew EXACTLY why we were in trouble or that we were doing something that could be construed as wrong.
When the 'bundles' were given to 'us,' we would feel like we had a right to whatever IT was and when someone else was using it, even though I wasn't, I'd feel like I was being wronged. The thing is, though, that all of 'us' thought the same way!
DeAlessi also writes that in “…the marketplace, where by definition voluntary trade makes everyone involved better off, politics is a zero-sum game, where gains to one group are made at the expense of another.”
What would happen regarding the toy or bundle, is that one person would try to take the toy or bundle and if he would fail, then he would go to mom and dad (government) to settle the dispute. I, being the oldest, rarely got his way because I was always out-whined.
I now see bickering over 'public resources' as whining and it bothers me to have to compete with, interact with, or even hear whining!
I also learned of the Audobon Society and how they fight so hard to preserve the oil reserves in ANWR, yet have access to reserves and DRILL on land that they (members of the group) own!
Suspect, I tell ya!
Hypocracy, I tell ya!
Of course, had there been a clear case of property rights of the toy/bundle, then the answer would be simple... "it's his, you are going to have to ask nicely to play with it, so stop crying!" Then, it would still be up to the person who owned the item.
The tragedy of the commons (Garret Hardin):
“ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.”
I may have wound up a huge whiner, had whining actually been the determining element of dispute-resolution.
Michael DeAlessi also wrote:
“Doing more with less is one of the most important aspects of conservation, and is also one of the prime directives of the profit motive.”
I believe this truly!
“No one questions the impetus for a cleaner, healthier, species-rich environment. How we get there, however, is another question.” (DeAlessi)
Perhaps the way to get there is through privatization of resources. Examples of the Alaska fisheries and Washington oysteries are certainly compelling. Not to mention, attaching a specific value to things that actually are considered harmful, such as trash/refuse, may also be a means to better conservation. DeAlessi gave the axample that in some circumstances, “pay as you throw” programs garnered as much as a 17% reduction in total waste.
Perhaps the way that doesn't lead to a better, cleaner environment is exactly what we're doing, allowing government to act as mom and day over 'bundles' of resources that we all feel like we have a right to and thus whine as a means to determine management over said resources.
It, in some wierd place in our souls, may seem like a good thing to allow public access to everything, but there comes the unavoidable question of what harm are we doing, how do we fix it, and how do we even measure the effects of harm or improvement for that matter?
“In many cases, success has been measured by permits issued or violations cited rather than by specific, targeted improvement in environmental quality.”
Sounds like my parents would have measured their successes by how many spankings or groundings they dished out, or how successful they were at specific conflict resolutions as opposed to whether or not they contributed to the world a good son... or 3 good sons, accountable for their own actions, respectful of others' property and ambitious to work for what they want.
So, my hat off to...
‘New Environmentalism’
"Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve Our Nation's Resources"
I loved this article!
I haven't discussed it yet in my class with the knowlegable and expressive members yet, but I felt it was a perfect example of what a blog should be written on.
Growing up somewhat fearful of private ownership of things like land and open spaces, it's been a journey for me to come around to the level-headed thinking that suggests privatization may actually do MORE for the land than would the socialization of 'public lands' would.
DeAlessi wrote, “On public lands, land-use decisions inevitably wind up in the court of politics, where rhetoric and extremism trump substance and tradeoffs.”
It's like when I was a kid, when a bundle of toys were given to 'us' (my two brothers and me), we invariably fought over who got to play with what and when. When things were specifically designated to one of us (or to another), it was crystal clear amongst us who was allowed to play with what and when, and it gave us a sort of independence in determining what we'd share and with whom. As well, when we played with something that wasn't ours, we knew EXACTLY why we were in trouble or that we were doing something that could be construed as wrong.
When the 'bundles' were given to 'us,' we would feel like we had a right to whatever IT was and when someone else was using it, even though I wasn't, I'd feel like I was being wronged. The thing is, though, that all of 'us' thought the same way!
DeAlessi also writes that in “…the marketplace, where by definition voluntary trade makes everyone involved better off, politics is a zero-sum game, where gains to one group are made at the expense of another.”
What would happen regarding the toy or bundle, is that one person would try to take the toy or bundle and if he would fail, then he would go to mom and dad (government) to settle the dispute. I, being the oldest, rarely got his way because I was always out-whined.
I now see bickering over 'public resources' as whining and it bothers me to have to compete with, interact with, or even hear whining!
I also learned of the Audobon Society and how they fight so hard to preserve the oil reserves in ANWR, yet have access to reserves and DRILL on land that they (members of the group) own!
Suspect, I tell ya!
Hypocracy, I tell ya!
Of course, had there been a clear case of property rights of the toy/bundle, then the answer would be simple... "it's his, you are going to have to ask nicely to play with it, so stop crying!" Then, it would still be up to the person who owned the item.
The tragedy of the commons (Garret Hardin):
“ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.”
I may have wound up a huge whiner, had whining actually been the determining element of dispute-resolution.
Michael DeAlessi also wrote:
“Doing more with less is one of the most important aspects of conservation, and is also one of the prime directives of the profit motive.”
I believe this truly!
“No one questions the impetus for a cleaner, healthier, species-rich environment. How we get there, however, is another question.” (DeAlessi)
Perhaps the way to get there is through privatization of resources. Examples of the Alaska fisheries and Washington oysteries are certainly compelling. Not to mention, attaching a specific value to things that actually are considered harmful, such as trash/refuse, may also be a means to better conservation. DeAlessi gave the axample that in some circumstances, “pay as you throw” programs garnered as much as a 17% reduction in total waste.
Perhaps the way that doesn't lead to a better, cleaner environment is exactly what we're doing, allowing government to act as mom and day over 'bundles' of resources that we all feel like we have a right to and thus whine as a means to determine management over said resources.
It, in some wierd place in our souls, may seem like a good thing to allow public access to everything, but there comes the unavoidable question of what harm are we doing, how do we fix it, and how do we even measure the effects of harm or improvement for that matter?
“In many cases, success has been measured by permits issued or violations cited rather than by specific, targeted improvement in environmental quality.”
Sounds like my parents would have measured their successes by how many spankings or groundings they dished out, or how successful they were at specific conflict resolutions as opposed to whether or not they contributed to the world a good son... or 3 good sons, accountable for their own actions, respectful of others' property and ambitious to work for what they want.
So, my hat off to...
‘New Environmentalism’
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
What Tools are in Your Water Shed?
Colorado Springs hosts quite the spectrum of potential water problems. On one hand, we can experience great droughts which in turn can result in fire hazards, expensive water access, even illness and death. If people can’t keep cool, their bodies may overheat; if they can’t fight off diseases because of dehydration, or if they don’t have access to clean water, they can take a serious toll on the community in various forms. Water shortages may even lead to economic hardships. On the other hand, because Colorado Springs is at the foot of large mountains, flooding can be just as much of an issue. Homes built on flood-planes may slide down the hill with slope movement, or even be ruined from within because of water movement. Flooding can damage roads which could cause an economic impact, as well as damage property; it may even cause reservoirs for drinking to be contaminated with waters from external sources. In this regard, the water shed is of vital importance; how it’s taken care of, how it’s cleaned, and how it’s utilized are details that must be considered, especially in places like Colorado Springs!
According to the article by the Water Environment Federation (WEF),[1] pollution is a major contributor to the expenses that arise at water treatment plants. Water that runs off of highways, and are polluting waterways, flow into the treatment centers. The expenses of treating the (polluted) water are high, which WEF says could be curbed to some manner through taking care of how the water flows into the treatment center, as opposed to simply treating the water that will flow out of the center. Their idea on protecting the watershed en masse is to delegate the responsibility of water pollution prevention to the public. Individuals are asked, in the article, to contribute.
How You Can HelpWatershed management requires everyone's cooperation. You can help by:
· Educating yourself about water resources and uses in your watershed
· Talking to your elected officials about watershed management
· Making sure your area schools are teaching about watersheds
· Ensuring that hazardous materials are not disposed or dumped on your property
· Removing or replacing any leaking underground storage tanks on your property
· Reaching out to other communities and crossing political boundaries in the interest of watershed management
All of which seem to be fairly basic recommendations to ask of people in the city. But, how will they actually succeed at making these suggestions come into action?
One way that can be successful is through government administration and enforcement of rules that would function to protect watersheds and thus decrease the expenses of water treatment, as well, make impacts on the entirety of a community, city, state, even nation! According to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[2], there are some specific areas of water treatment that are focused on, but still need improvement.
If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in four key elements:
• Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs.
• Addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation.
• Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process.
• Improving the watershed performance measurement system.
EPA adopted the watershed approach to help focus existing, traditional water pollution control programs in a more comprehensive manner and address emerging problems.
Similarly to the WEF, the EPA seems to be advocating watershed focused policy that would address and improve existing programs, as well, consider likely problems that may arise in the future.
Watersheds are what flow into the treatment plants that then flow through our pipes at home and give us drinking/cooking water. Watersheds are also how flooding can be destructive; depending on how water sheds over the surface of land, and how maximized the water table below the surface is, floods may have nowhere to go but into destructive lanes such as our home, or into our treated water reserves, bringing pollution with it! Even though water pollution is of great importance, which we attempt to remedy through water treatment means, how water moves is of greater importance. Water movement, if not worked with in a harmonious way, can cause landslides beneath homes, floods through industrious areas, and deterioration of architectural structures. So, water not only needs to be cleaned for our purposes of consumption, but also managed in a manner that allows us to progress as a community, city, state, nation, even as civilization. And the way to bring together the handling of water for consumption, as well, the issue of water as a force of nature, the solution lies more in understanding and working with the watershed than in trying to control it.
Unlike water conservation, which even if the use of private consumption was fully minimized, the overall impact is relatively small, individual contributions to the issue of watershed management could make for larger marginal social benefits. Contractors could design developments with watershed in mind, cities could zone according to geological and hydrological phenomena, and people on an individual level could be mindful of the waste they disperse through community-policing of such behavior. Government could offer disincentives, such as fines, to people who do harm to watersheds; as well, they could offer incentives, such as tax relief, to companies that successfully develop in accordance to watershed tendencies of a region. Individuals can simply read the two web pages and learn about ways they can positively impact the watershed in their area. The tools of government, as well as the resources for individuals can make those positive impacts.
Though flooding and droughts occur, understanding the tools we possess could lead to fewer and smaller impacts they have on us. In the tools we possess, understanding and protecting watersheds can be the key.
[1] http://www.wef.org/AboutWater/ForThePublic/FactSheets/FactSheetDocuments/HowtoProtectYourWatershed.htm
[2] http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025-Gcopy.pdf
According to the article by the Water Environment Federation (WEF),[1] pollution is a major contributor to the expenses that arise at water treatment plants. Water that runs off of highways, and are polluting waterways, flow into the treatment centers. The expenses of treating the (polluted) water are high, which WEF says could be curbed to some manner through taking care of how the water flows into the treatment center, as opposed to simply treating the water that will flow out of the center. Their idea on protecting the watershed en masse is to delegate the responsibility of water pollution prevention to the public. Individuals are asked, in the article, to contribute.
How You Can HelpWatershed management requires everyone's cooperation. You can help by:
· Educating yourself about water resources and uses in your watershed
· Talking to your elected officials about watershed management
· Making sure your area schools are teaching about watersheds
· Ensuring that hazardous materials are not disposed or dumped on your property
· Removing or replacing any leaking underground storage tanks on your property
· Reaching out to other communities and crossing political boundaries in the interest of watershed management
All of which seem to be fairly basic recommendations to ask of people in the city. But, how will they actually succeed at making these suggestions come into action?
One way that can be successful is through government administration and enforcement of rules that would function to protect watersheds and thus decrease the expenses of water treatment, as well, make impacts on the entirety of a community, city, state, even nation! According to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[2], there are some specific areas of water treatment that are focused on, but still need improvement.
If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in four key elements:
• Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs.
• Addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation.
• Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process.
• Improving the watershed performance measurement system.
EPA adopted the watershed approach to help focus existing, traditional water pollution control programs in a more comprehensive manner and address emerging problems.
Similarly to the WEF, the EPA seems to be advocating watershed focused policy that would address and improve existing programs, as well, consider likely problems that may arise in the future.
Watersheds are what flow into the treatment plants that then flow through our pipes at home and give us drinking/cooking water. Watersheds are also how flooding can be destructive; depending on how water sheds over the surface of land, and how maximized the water table below the surface is, floods may have nowhere to go but into destructive lanes such as our home, or into our treated water reserves, bringing pollution with it! Even though water pollution is of great importance, which we attempt to remedy through water treatment means, how water moves is of greater importance. Water movement, if not worked with in a harmonious way, can cause landslides beneath homes, floods through industrious areas, and deterioration of architectural structures. So, water not only needs to be cleaned for our purposes of consumption, but also managed in a manner that allows us to progress as a community, city, state, nation, even as civilization. And the way to bring together the handling of water for consumption, as well, the issue of water as a force of nature, the solution lies more in understanding and working with the watershed than in trying to control it.
Unlike water conservation, which even if the use of private consumption was fully minimized, the overall impact is relatively small, individual contributions to the issue of watershed management could make for larger marginal social benefits. Contractors could design developments with watershed in mind, cities could zone according to geological and hydrological phenomena, and people on an individual level could be mindful of the waste they disperse through community-policing of such behavior. Government could offer disincentives, such as fines, to people who do harm to watersheds; as well, they could offer incentives, such as tax relief, to companies that successfully develop in accordance to watershed tendencies of a region. Individuals can simply read the two web pages and learn about ways they can positively impact the watershed in their area. The tools of government, as well as the resources for individuals can make those positive impacts.
Though flooding and droughts occur, understanding the tools we possess could lead to fewer and smaller impacts they have on us. In the tools we possess, understanding and protecting watersheds can be the key.
[1] http://www.wef.org/AboutWater/ForThePublic/FactSheets/FactSheetDocuments/HowtoProtectYourWatershed.htm
[2] http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025-Gcopy.pdf
Monday, March 31, 2008
Is it necessary to change?
It is amazing that such small things can make such a large impact on the environment around us. In an article featured on MSNBC.com, entitled Catch Large Fish, Encourage Small Fry, Randolph E. Schmid presents one such instance where little actions can be far reaching. Who knew that by encouraging fisherman to keep the larger fish they might be unnecessarily altering the variance of fish? By keeping the larger fish, fishermen are depleting the supply of stronger and somewhat more aggressive varieties of fish. This topic easily lends itself to the discussion of sustainability.
By taking the stronger fish we might be encouraging the growth in the population of fish that are not as strong and less likely to survive in larger numbers. Although it is fairly likely that each new generation of fish will have its stronger varieties, it is exceedingly less likely if the strong fish are always caught first. Schmid describes the circumstance as this:
“Biro and his colleague, John R. Post, stocked two lakes in western Canada with different types of rainbow trout- one type was known to be aggressive in seeking food and to grow rapidly, while the other grew more slowly and tended to take fewer risks in foraging. They set gillnets in the ponds over five day, moving them each day, and caught 50 percent of the stocked fast growing fish but just 30 percent of the more cautious ones.”
Although to many this does not seem like a big deal, but the fish that are more aggressive are the ones that will thrive and survive, whereas the fish that are not as strong will tend to show a less rapid rate of population growth. Even though it is a small matter it could have a somewhat large impact if the issue of sustainability is not taken into account. One might however ask, if this is such a big deal then why have we been taught to fish in this way for centuries, and never seen a significant impact? Is it really necessary to alter our behavior now?
By taking the stronger fish we might be encouraging the growth in the population of fish that are not as strong and less likely to survive in larger numbers. Although it is fairly likely that each new generation of fish will have its stronger varieties, it is exceedingly less likely if the strong fish are always caught first. Schmid describes the circumstance as this:
“Biro and his colleague, John R. Post, stocked two lakes in western Canada with different types of rainbow trout- one type was known to be aggressive in seeking food and to grow rapidly, while the other grew more slowly and tended to take fewer risks in foraging. They set gillnets in the ponds over five day, moving them each day, and caught 50 percent of the stocked fast growing fish but just 30 percent of the more cautious ones.”
Although to many this does not seem like a big deal, but the fish that are more aggressive are the ones that will thrive and survive, whereas the fish that are not as strong will tend to show a less rapid rate of population growth. Even though it is a small matter it could have a somewhat large impact if the issue of sustainability is not taken into account. One might however ask, if this is such a big deal then why have we been taught to fish in this way for centuries, and never seen a significant impact? Is it really necessary to alter our behavior now?
An Hour in the Dark for Quiet Reflection, And Thousands in the Light for Actual Thought
Walking into work on Saturday I was confronted with several posters for something called “Earth Hour,” an event promoted by the World Wildlife Fund. For those not in the know, “Earth Hour” was supposed to be a worldwide occasion for everyone to show their solidarity in support of the environment, and to raise awareness in others, by shutting off the lights from 8 to 9 pm. The posters claimed that it would not only be private individuals participating, but many businesses, and yes, even government organizations.
Now there’s a couple, more obvious, problems with this. First off any government entity claiming to fall in line with this proposal is mostly blowing smoke, because the 29th fell on a Saturday and most government buildings are closed over the weekend, and even more are done for the day by eight. The library I work at, for example, had posters all over the place for this thing, as I mentioned earlier, but closed at six. It’s a fairly easy commitment to shut off the lights when they would be out anyway.
But more importantly, as we’ve discussed in class many times, the issue of climate change boils down to a theory of over consumption causing future harm. In regards to that, I’m not sure how one hour without lights, once a year, helps. At best it would qualify as a blip on the radar. Especially since nowhere were you advised to cease using other power consuming devices. Indeed a flashlight seemed almost mandatory because participants were encouraged to use the time while the bulbs weren’t burning hot to replace them with “energy efficient fluorescent bulbs,” a task I’d find impossible in the darkness that pervades my domicile at 8, unless I had the aide of some kind of artificial light.
So while the claim was that this event would show everyone a way they could help if united together, at best it qualified as a stunt. And a poor one at that, because the only way “Earth Hour“ could conceivably make an impact is if it came round more then once a year, but several times a day.
Donald Boudreaux may well have had the best comment on the event stating, “Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.”
For years the acronym WWF, previously a wrestling brand, was associated with style over substance and presenting a completely fake product. It seems now that the World Wildlife Fund has inherited the title they can’t help but carry on the tradition and participate in a bit of chicanery themselves.
-Jaeson Madison
Now there’s a couple, more obvious, problems with this. First off any government entity claiming to fall in line with this proposal is mostly blowing smoke, because the 29th fell on a Saturday and most government buildings are closed over the weekend, and even more are done for the day by eight. The library I work at, for example, had posters all over the place for this thing, as I mentioned earlier, but closed at six. It’s a fairly easy commitment to shut off the lights when they would be out anyway.
But more importantly, as we’ve discussed in class many times, the issue of climate change boils down to a theory of over consumption causing future harm. In regards to that, I’m not sure how one hour without lights, once a year, helps. At best it would qualify as a blip on the radar. Especially since nowhere were you advised to cease using other power consuming devices. Indeed a flashlight seemed almost mandatory because participants were encouraged to use the time while the bulbs weren’t burning hot to replace them with “energy efficient fluorescent bulbs,” a task I’d find impossible in the darkness that pervades my domicile at 8, unless I had the aide of some kind of artificial light.
So while the claim was that this event would show everyone a way they could help if united together, at best it qualified as a stunt. And a poor one at that, because the only way “Earth Hour“ could conceivably make an impact is if it came round more then once a year, but several times a day.
Donald Boudreaux may well have had the best comment on the event stating, “Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.”
For years the acronym WWF, previously a wrestling brand, was associated with style over substance and presenting a completely fake product. It seems now that the World Wildlife Fund has inherited the title they can’t help but carry on the tradition and participate in a bit of chicanery themselves.
-Jaeson Madison
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
What is the difference between ecological economics and environmental economics?
I thought I understood the differences to mean that one group branched off from the other group, but according to Wikipedia, that doesn’t necessarily hold true. Granted, what is Wikipedia and how relevant is it as a source? But I wanted to gain some perspective of what ‘other’ people thought of environmental economics. By ‘other’ people, I mean folks who may have a normative base of sustainability, or who aren’t economically inclined but want to somehow understand how economics and the environment interrelate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
"Environmental Economics" should not be confused with "Ecological Economics." The two fields are related, but are in some ways very different. Most environmental economists have been trained as economists. They apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems, many of which are related to so-called market failures--circumstances wherein the "invisible hand" of economics is unreliable. Most ecological economists have been trained as ecologists, but have expanded the scope of their work to consider the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems and services, and vice-versa. This field takes as its premise that economics is a strict subfield of ecology. Ecological economics is sometimes described as taking a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems and focuses more explicitly on long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale.
Though I normally read Wikipedia with a skeptical eye, I think that their definition helps me to understand the differences between the two approaches of understanding the environment and economics. Perhaps they are bordering one another, separated by a line that splits the two vantage points.
One side would behave as if people are of little importance, and that the environment takes a superior position of priority. Such terms as “intergenerational justice” may be their grounds for moving towards compromise with the side that they deem evil for exhausting natural resources for the selfish intents of human-kind. They might also consider economists to be negligent to the concept of sustainability. Of course, a less radical understanding of this dynamic would be to incorporate an understanding of economics into the study of environmentalism; thus ecological economics.
The other side might move towards common ground by taking a stance of liberty and claiming that it is up to the dynamics of families to teach people about the importance of environmental accountability. They might also argue that if there was private ownership of land, then there might be more incentive to value the land and thus take care of it and the natural resources it provides. In fact, if a business were to own the land and want to make money off of it, it would be in the interest of the company to replenish the resources so as to continue operating in business!
Because economics as well as the environment are dynamic, there are no real ways to accurately evaluate things such as “environmental foot-prints.” Arguably, both approaches will have to deal with situations where inefficient usage of the land, including wastefulness, will occur.
The true purpose behind the importance of understanding the relationship between the two approaches comes down to policy. One side would want to come up with the ‘best’ policy pertaining to environmental issues. The other side would want to prevent government from having too much power and policy over individuals when it comes to environmental usage and availability. Because one side, those who want policy to determine how both economics and the environment are dealt with, has a current relevance, the nature of the debate comes down to why things aren’t working better. The side that advocates individual preferences has an answer, but it is considered theoretical because our government, our system, is currently operating in such a way that is contrary to individual preferences; it is a governmental-control system that attempts to take into consideration things such as the environment and economics, but does little to actually allow markets and dynamics to simply emerge.
Now, I think I have a pretty good idea of the differences of ideologies at work, will there be a viable solution to the way economics and the environment interrelates? Perhaps if we rely on government to come up with a solution, we’ll sacrifice individual liberty. And, perhaps if we leave it up to individuals, we’ll all consume ourselves to death. Perhaps there is a middle ground right on the line that separates environmental economics and ecological economics that will yield the solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
"Environmental Economics" should not be confused with "Ecological Economics." The two fields are related, but are in some ways very different. Most environmental economists have been trained as economists. They apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems, many of which are related to so-called market failures--circumstances wherein the "invisible hand" of economics is unreliable. Most ecological economists have been trained as ecologists, but have expanded the scope of their work to consider the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems and services, and vice-versa. This field takes as its premise that economics is a strict subfield of ecology. Ecological economics is sometimes described as taking a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems and focuses more explicitly on long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale.
Though I normally read Wikipedia with a skeptical eye, I think that their definition helps me to understand the differences between the two approaches of understanding the environment and economics. Perhaps they are bordering one another, separated by a line that splits the two vantage points.
One side would behave as if people are of little importance, and that the environment takes a superior position of priority. Such terms as “intergenerational justice” may be their grounds for moving towards compromise with the side that they deem evil for exhausting natural resources for the selfish intents of human-kind. They might also consider economists to be negligent to the concept of sustainability. Of course, a less radical understanding of this dynamic would be to incorporate an understanding of economics into the study of environmentalism; thus ecological economics.
The other side might move towards common ground by taking a stance of liberty and claiming that it is up to the dynamics of families to teach people about the importance of environmental accountability. They might also argue that if there was private ownership of land, then there might be more incentive to value the land and thus take care of it and the natural resources it provides. In fact, if a business were to own the land and want to make money off of it, it would be in the interest of the company to replenish the resources so as to continue operating in business!
Because economics as well as the environment are dynamic, there are no real ways to accurately evaluate things such as “environmental foot-prints.” Arguably, both approaches will have to deal with situations where inefficient usage of the land, including wastefulness, will occur.
The true purpose behind the importance of understanding the relationship between the two approaches comes down to policy. One side would want to come up with the ‘best’ policy pertaining to environmental issues. The other side would want to prevent government from having too much power and policy over individuals when it comes to environmental usage and availability. Because one side, those who want policy to determine how both economics and the environment are dealt with, has a current relevance, the nature of the debate comes down to why things aren’t working better. The side that advocates individual preferences has an answer, but it is considered theoretical because our government, our system, is currently operating in such a way that is contrary to individual preferences; it is a governmental-control system that attempts to take into consideration things such as the environment and economics, but does little to actually allow markets and dynamics to simply emerge.
Now, I think I have a pretty good idea of the differences of ideologies at work, will there be a viable solution to the way economics and the environment interrelates? Perhaps if we rely on government to come up with a solution, we’ll sacrifice individual liberty. And, perhaps if we leave it up to individuals, we’ll all consume ourselves to death. Perhaps there is a middle ground right on the line that separates environmental economics and ecological economics that will yield the solution.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Religion and sustainability
Sustainability is an interesting issue. I have a friend, a hippy but for wanting for a better term, and she has a “bumper” sticker on her bag reading: “The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.” She then believes that we do have a responsibility to future generations. Her argument comes from her basic belief system. She beliefs that each person is an extension of the gaya and in death we realize the connection. She then uses this as a statement that any damage done to life and the earth is damage upon yourself as a whole. We discussed in class about religion being the driving force for the idea of sustainability and the responsibility for future generations.
But a question still keeps asserting its self; what is harm? Surely natural activities of animals isn’t harm. If a loin kills to eat he is sustaining himself, his offspring and his species. So, using the fruits of the environment isn’t harm. What then is?
Her response was any action which eliminates other species or human life in the long run. She was then worried about global warming, mostly caused by carbon emissions. She also worries about the destruction of the rain forest and related issues. I then asked her another question, what does sustainability mean to you? Her response was interesting. She said the most important issue was to respect nature and use just the bare minimum of resources to survive. She also believed in local made products and natural methods of production.
Also during class with discussed that these methods bring about poverty. But her response was what one would typically expound. It was only lower material consumption, but not wealth in other senses. Her argument was that by our vast material wealth has detracted from human interaction and therefore we are worse off then if we didn’t have as much material wealth. This is an interesting idea with one possible hitch, what about personal preferences and liberty? Her argument was that we would realize only once we eliminate excess material possession.
Her arguments seem to ring in the same tone as our current book: For the Common Good. I think this shows how one then argues for sustainability, through some sense of a higher power. I don’t see another way in which to argue for sustainability and then government interference to achieve sustainability.
But a question still keeps asserting its self; what is harm? Surely natural activities of animals isn’t harm. If a loin kills to eat he is sustaining himself, his offspring and his species. So, using the fruits of the environment isn’t harm. What then is?
Her response was any action which eliminates other species or human life in the long run. She was then worried about global warming, mostly caused by carbon emissions. She also worries about the destruction of the rain forest and related issues. I then asked her another question, what does sustainability mean to you? Her response was interesting. She said the most important issue was to respect nature and use just the bare minimum of resources to survive. She also believed in local made products and natural methods of production.
Also during class with discussed that these methods bring about poverty. But her response was what one would typically expound. It was only lower material consumption, but not wealth in other senses. Her argument was that by our vast material wealth has detracted from human interaction and therefore we are worse off then if we didn’t have as much material wealth. This is an interesting idea with one possible hitch, what about personal preferences and liberty? Her argument was that we would realize only once we eliminate excess material possession.
Her arguments seem to ring in the same tone as our current book: For the Common Good. I think this shows how one then argues for sustainability, through some sense of a higher power. I don’t see another way in which to argue for sustainability and then government interference to achieve sustainability.
Chopping Down More Trees to Build More Houses…The Environmental Way
Today’s Wall Street Journal ran a story on the recent push towards eco friendly homes. But perhaps the most interesting part of the piece, aside from one couple admitting they didn’t expect to recoup on their investment within their lifetime (which begs the question: then when?), was the perceived actors behind this particular fad. No it’s not the environmentalists. It’s the contractors who build and renovate homes.
There’s been a theory in the economic field that essentially says in order to pass most legislation you need both Baptists, i.e. a moral party, and bootleggers, a faction looking to profit, proving the old saying “politics makes strange bedfellows.” However, I think cases such as this demonstrate these odd pairings move far beyond simple legislation.
Changes in the market have caused consumers looking to build or renovate a home to substantially change their cost benefit analysis, and as a result fewer and fewer are actually going through with the deed. Thus contractors have had to get creative in attempts to reweight the analysis and have begun to offer, or rather push, more and more “green” domiciles, which offers the consumer the benefits of not just remodeling, but the warm fuzzy feelings of helping to save mother nature in the process.
The end result? A day I never thought I’d see, environmentalists almost paradoxically thrilled to see continued construction. Bootleggers and Baptists, eat your heart out.
Jaeson Madison
There’s been a theory in the economic field that essentially says in order to pass most legislation you need both Baptists, i.e. a moral party, and bootleggers, a faction looking to profit, proving the old saying “politics makes strange bedfellows.” However, I think cases such as this demonstrate these odd pairings move far beyond simple legislation.
Changes in the market have caused consumers looking to build or renovate a home to substantially change their cost benefit analysis, and as a result fewer and fewer are actually going through with the deed. Thus contractors have had to get creative in attempts to reweight the analysis and have begun to offer, or rather push, more and more “green” domiciles, which offers the consumer the benefits of not just remodeling, but the warm fuzzy feelings of helping to save mother nature in the process.
The end result? A day I never thought I’d see, environmentalists almost paradoxically thrilled to see continued construction. Bootleggers and Baptists, eat your heart out.
Jaeson Madison
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Here's something interesting:
As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.
Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
