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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
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.
Monday, December 17, 2007
IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data
The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises...
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, the IPCC and similar groups of pseudo-scientists have a long history of falsification and intellectual dishonesty. Piltdown man and stem cell cloning to name a few.
This does raise the larger question of how our esteemed elected officials plan to reconcile their previous statements. After reading an IPCC report Senator Barbara Boxer boldly proclaimed:
This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all. The effects of global warming will be felt throughout the world. 1
This wouldn't the first time the vapid witch of the west has put her foot in her mouth.
Beyond that, it should concern you that policy makers are making policy based on falsified research. Or even for that matter, policy makers are making policy based on science itself. Assume for a moment that the IPCC wasn't wrong, the sea level is rising dramatically. It doesn't tell us anything about policy. Climatologists don't ask the question of does it matter? Does it matter sea levels are rising? The question is left up to other disciplines of thought. Simply saying that the sea levels will rise or fall does not mean government will better everyone or anyone by intervention.
Morner goes on to say in the article:
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge.
This is why I consider myself a far superior scientist to the kind at IPCC. The methods they use are not scientific. They are not empirical methods. The correction factor they used is because of falling sea levels in areas of Hong Kong. In other words, a falling sea level in Hong Kong doesn't fit in very well with the computer modeling of global sea levels rising. Instead of checking to see if the data in the field is correct, it is automatically discarded. Wholly unscientific.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Privatized Deforestation and Profits
Let’s start from the very beginning. One of the commonly accepted statements that were explicitly made throughout the semester was that privatization of forests would eliminate inefficiency of forest logging. In this post I examine the incentives of forest loggers and question the validity of the accepted class’s theorem.
Assumptions. I hereby assume the model of a non-corporate private sector entity (a non-public firm that is either a sole proprietorship or a partnership) that generates positive profits in the forest logging industry that is not a monopoly market structure. Under a logical presumption that the current owner of the business is not going to live forever, the owner will most likely try to sell the business to a younger individual at some point. I also presume that the current owner will try to maximize the price for which he will sell the property in the course of price negotiations with the buyer.
I emphasize that this is a private company because the mechanism for property appraisal differs between the privately held companies and publicly held companies. Here is how it works.
First, a company is selling goods at some price(s) making total revenue. If we were to subtract the cost of revenue (which is the cost of goods sold, do not confuse with total cost!) from total revenue, we would get the firm’s gross profit. After subtracting operating expenses (which are a sum of fixed and variable costs) from gross profit, we then derive earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT). Now, if it were a privately owned company, its sale value would be determined by multiplying EBIT by a number between 8 and 10 years. That way, it would estimate the forgone future income for the following period between 8 and 10 years.
If the current owner is interested in maximizing the price he can receive from the sell of the property, he will most likely be interested in maximizing EBIT during the last year before the sale occurs. Doing so means maximizing total revenue. Given that a logging industry is not a monopoly implies a single firm’s somewhat limited control over price of homogenous goods (after all, it is wood we are talking about). It also means that the firm will try to maximize its total revenue by increasing the quantity supplied, which means it will cut down even more forest. (I realize you might think that a single year’s increase in logging each time the business gets resold may not mean much but I strongly urge you to consider the power of aggregates given the number of logging business out there as well as the frequency of ownership changes). As you can see, evaluating the value of a privately held logging company based on EBIT may not be the best environmental choice. Instead, a party interested in purchasing the forest for the purposes of logging may suggest a few different approaches for calculating a mutually agreed upon price. Such approach will result in a slower rate of deforestation, lower price that the business would be sold for, and it would even contribute a miniscule part to inflation reduction.
Another way to calculate the value of the business is to calculate the present value of an annuity of the business under consideration (with an embedded assumption of equal payments in the future). Such calculation would presume that the amount of total revenue that the business would most likely generate would remain fixed over a number of years. Quite naturally, it implies that real (inflation-adjusted) annual incomes from that business diminish annually. Even though theoretically possible, it is empirically highly unlikely. Instead, I would advise using the sum of present values of an asset discounted with appropriate interest rate. Such approach eliminates the incentives to drastically increase the logging’ output throughout the year preceding the buyout and as a result leaves more trees for you, me, and the tree huggers. As you can see, it is not the privatization of forests that will be efficient but the mechanism of evaluating logging businesses that will influence efficiency.
Assumptions. I hereby assume the model of a non-corporate private sector entity (a non-public firm that is either a sole proprietorship or a partnership) that generates positive profits in the forest logging industry that is not a monopoly market structure. Under a logical presumption that the current owner of the business is not going to live forever, the owner will most likely try to sell the business to a younger individual at some point. I also presume that the current owner will try to maximize the price for which he will sell the property in the course of price negotiations with the buyer.
I emphasize that this is a private company because the mechanism for property appraisal differs between the privately held companies and publicly held companies. Here is how it works.
First, a company is selling goods at some price(s) making total revenue. If we were to subtract the cost of revenue (which is the cost of goods sold, do not confuse with total cost!) from total revenue, we would get the firm’s gross profit. After subtracting operating expenses (which are a sum of fixed and variable costs) from gross profit, we then derive earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT). Now, if it were a privately owned company, its sale value would be determined by multiplying EBIT by a number between 8 and 10 years. That way, it would estimate the forgone future income for the following period between 8 and 10 years.
If the current owner is interested in maximizing the price he can receive from the sell of the property, he will most likely be interested in maximizing EBIT during the last year before the sale occurs. Doing so means maximizing total revenue. Given that a logging industry is not a monopoly implies a single firm’s somewhat limited control over price of homogenous goods (after all, it is wood we are talking about). It also means that the firm will try to maximize its total revenue by increasing the quantity supplied, which means it will cut down even more forest. (I realize you might think that a single year’s increase in logging each time the business gets resold may not mean much but I strongly urge you to consider the power of aggregates given the number of logging business out there as well as the frequency of ownership changes). As you can see, evaluating the value of a privately held logging company based on EBIT may not be the best environmental choice. Instead, a party interested in purchasing the forest for the purposes of logging may suggest a few different approaches for calculating a mutually agreed upon price. Such approach will result in a slower rate of deforestation, lower price that the business would be sold for, and it would even contribute a miniscule part to inflation reduction.
Another way to calculate the value of the business is to calculate the present value of an annuity of the business under consideration (with an embedded assumption of equal payments in the future). Such calculation would presume that the amount of total revenue that the business would most likely generate would remain fixed over a number of years. Quite naturally, it implies that real (inflation-adjusted) annual incomes from that business diminish annually. Even though theoretically possible, it is empirically highly unlikely. Instead, I would advise using the sum of present values of an asset discounted with appropriate interest rate. Such approach eliminates the incentives to drastically increase the logging’ output throughout the year preceding the buyout and as a result leaves more trees for you, me, and the tree huggers. As you can see, it is not the privatization of forests that will be efficient but the mechanism of evaluating logging businesses that will influence efficiency.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Rainforest not depeleting as fact as we thought. This brings to light new ways to fight it.
In the early 1980's, people feared that without intervention, the rain forest in Brazil would have been completely gone by the turn of the century. Well, the turn of the century came and went, as here it still is. This should, very well the nature of an "emergent future." Factors, including period of debt that Brazil's militant government experienced slow the growth. It is very possible that the "over-logging" of the forest was, itself th cause for this debt and subsequent reduction.
I think a lot of the fears about the rain forest inflate the statics. They act on the assumption the rate current rate will continue until the loggers drive themselves into the ground, as though they are blindly going to go forth with the same amount of logging always dispute cost or benefit.
There is a lot of talk to "act now" in fixing this problem. There are people telling the Brazilian government what to do with their own property, which is inconsistent with liberty. If some people highly value the rain forest and think it is going to go away, despite it's slowing in depletion, they need to pool their resources and buy parts of it. If they value it more than the brazilians value it's using, then they will get the forest. If it would truly cause an externality on other countries for it to be gone, then nations could buy portions of the forest, to keep it around for research.
I think a lot of the fears about the rain forest inflate the statics. They act on the assumption the rate current rate will continue until the loggers drive themselves into the ground, as though they are blindly going to go forth with the same amount of logging always dispute cost or benefit.
There is a lot of talk to "act now" in fixing this problem. There are people telling the Brazilian government what to do with their own property, which is inconsistent with liberty. If some people highly value the rain forest and think it is going to go away, despite it's slowing in depletion, they need to pool their resources and buy parts of it. If they value it more than the brazilians value it's using, then they will get the forest. If it would truly cause an externality on other countries for it to be gone, then nations could buy portions of the forest, to keep it around for research.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Green Evolution
Profit maximization, an ultimate goal of every business, possesses its inalienable theoretical simplicity: an elegant amalgamation of total revenue’s maximization and total cost minimization. What else is there to it? In the absence of externalities, equating marginal revenue to marginal cost determines the optimal quantity of output and achieves the above stated goal- yielding maximum profit. Until relatively recently, the traditional combination of cost minimization and revenue maximization used to be the traditional and, on a large enough scale, the only way of conducting business, but it is not anymore.
At the end of the twentieth century an environmentally friendly business model started gaining popularity. The trend continued and received substantial support carrying the new business model well into the new millennium. What exactly am I talking about? I believe it would be a fair statement to point out the following. The business community observed a shift from traditional profit maximization model to conducting business while taking environment into consideration. After that we made the next step, introducing the entire segment that made environment its focal point and generated profit solely via helping the environment. Today, it seems there are companies that approach business in an even different manner. Instead of supplying a good or a service to satisfy the existing demand or create a supply that would in turn create its own demand, few companies are putting emphasis on environment at the expense of profit maximization. If anything, such conduct seems to be counter intuitive to neo-classical economics. Surprising as it is, such is a new business trend.
Allow me to illustrate. For simplicity purposes, let us consider the paradigm shift within the food industry. For generations, we have all enjoyed the good old pesticides-filled and antibiotics affected foods. Then came “Whole Foods Market,” “Wild Oats,” and “Vitamin Cottage,” making promises to change business and rescue the consumers’ bodies of pesticides, hormones, and poisons. After achieving such goal quite abruptly, it was those companies that pledged to bring yet another change to conducting business. Now the goal of those commercial enterprises was to alter their business models and tailor them to the existing preferences of the general population, which in the 21st century are unquestionably environmentally centered.
Take a closer look at Whole Foods Market. If you see what I see, then among other things you will take note that the company is fueling its trucks with biodiesel at four out of nine company’s distribution centers; it is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits. Also, it is developing green construction methods, building some stores to LEED certification standards, and selecting green building materials. Finally, in addition to recycling glass, plastic, and aluminum the company offers a bag refund in an attempt to promote reusing packaging materials as well as compostable food packaging for prepared foods. For more information on Whole Foods, please visit http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/pressroom/pr_10-23-07.html.
To top this list, may I mention that Whole Foods recently received Green Power Partner of the Year Award from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for second consecutive year. Why? Well, according to their website “In 2007, Whole Foods Market is being recognized for increasing its green power purchasing to include more than 509 million kilowatt-hours of wind-based renewable energy credits. This is enough renewable energy to offset 100 percent of the electricity used in all of its stores, facilities, bake houses, distribution centers, regional offices and global headquarters in the U.S. and Canada. Whole Foods Market is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits.” Well, that doesn’t really fit together with the traditional framework of cost minimization, does it? After all, what kind of cost-minimizing business would double its expenditures on electricity?
Let me guess what you are thinking. If you are a diligent student of Economics, right about now you might be thinking that it is a part of the business model of a natural, organic grocery chain. Appealing to people’s environmental preferences and supplying organically grown foods, that is just good business and creates an even better reputation for the company, right? What’s more, you might be thinking that Whole Foods got lucky to be in a position where it can supplement its traditional revenue sources with a good environmentally friendly reputation. Seriously, how many traditional (non-electricity generating) businesses would buy green credits and most importantly why?
Surprisingly, to name just a few, Kohl’s Department Stores, New York University, Pepsi Americas Inc, The Pepsi Bottling Group, Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC, Starbucks, Johnson & Johnson, Mohawk Fine Papers, PepsiCo, Staples, Sloan Valve Company, City of Bellingham (WA), Wells and Fargo, and of course Whole Foods- all of them have purchased enormous quantities of renewable energy. Together, these companies account for a purchase of more than 3.55 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable (mostly wind powered) energy (see details at http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/awards/winners.htm). I seriously urge you to consider the amount of energy 3.81 billion kilowatt-hours provide. Other participants include Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Google (who actively seek and implement environmentally friendly practices into their business models. For details, go here http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=32715.
As you can see, it not just organically fed tree huggers proclaiming slogans about the virtues of saving the whales. Numerous industries’ large capitalization leaders assume the responsibility for their environmental practices. The above listed names constitute only the top of the pyramid, representing the tip of the sword in the battle for the quality of environment for us all. Their voluntary participation and invaluable contribution demonstrate the unflinching willingness and considerable ability to provide unparalleled leadership among businesses. Make no mistake in your mind: this is a beginning of a trend that will only become stronger. This is no longer a world of governmental coercion to make businesses abide by some arbitrarily set pollution legislature or standard. This is an unprecedented evolution of corporate thought. This is a Green Evolution.
At the end of the twentieth century an environmentally friendly business model started gaining popularity. The trend continued and received substantial support carrying the new business model well into the new millennium. What exactly am I talking about? I believe it would be a fair statement to point out the following. The business community observed a shift from traditional profit maximization model to conducting business while taking environment into consideration. After that we made the next step, introducing the entire segment that made environment its focal point and generated profit solely via helping the environment. Today, it seems there are companies that approach business in an even different manner. Instead of supplying a good or a service to satisfy the existing demand or create a supply that would in turn create its own demand, few companies are putting emphasis on environment at the expense of profit maximization. If anything, such conduct seems to be counter intuitive to neo-classical economics. Surprising as it is, such is a new business trend.
Allow me to illustrate. For simplicity purposes, let us consider the paradigm shift within the food industry. For generations, we have all enjoyed the good old pesticides-filled and antibiotics affected foods. Then came “Whole Foods Market,” “Wild Oats,” and “Vitamin Cottage,” making promises to change business and rescue the consumers’ bodies of pesticides, hormones, and poisons. After achieving such goal quite abruptly, it was those companies that pledged to bring yet another change to conducting business. Now the goal of those commercial enterprises was to alter their business models and tailor them to the existing preferences of the general population, which in the 21st century are unquestionably environmentally centered.
Take a closer look at Whole Foods Market. If you see what I see, then among other things you will take note that the company is fueling its trucks with biodiesel at four out of nine company’s distribution centers; it is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits. Also, it is developing green construction methods, building some stores to LEED certification standards, and selecting green building materials. Finally, in addition to recycling glass, plastic, and aluminum the company offers a bag refund in an attempt to promote reusing packaging materials as well as compostable food packaging for prepared foods. For more information on Whole Foods, please visit http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/pressroom/pr_10-23-07.html.
To top this list, may I mention that Whole Foods recently received Green Power Partner of the Year Award from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for second consecutive year. Why? Well, according to their website “In 2007, Whole Foods Market is being recognized for increasing its green power purchasing to include more than 509 million kilowatt-hours of wind-based renewable energy credits. This is enough renewable energy to offset 100 percent of the electricity used in all of its stores, facilities, bake houses, distribution centers, regional offices and global headquarters in the U.S. and Canada. Whole Foods Market is the only FORTUNE 500 Company to offset 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy credits.” Well, that doesn’t really fit together with the traditional framework of cost minimization, does it? After all, what kind of cost-minimizing business would double its expenditures on electricity?
Let me guess what you are thinking. If you are a diligent student of Economics, right about now you might be thinking that it is a part of the business model of a natural, organic grocery chain. Appealing to people’s environmental preferences and supplying organically grown foods, that is just good business and creates an even better reputation for the company, right? What’s more, you might be thinking that Whole Foods got lucky to be in a position where it can supplement its traditional revenue sources with a good environmentally friendly reputation. Seriously, how many traditional (non-electricity generating) businesses would buy green credits and most importantly why?
Surprisingly, to name just a few, Kohl’s Department Stores, New York University, Pepsi Americas Inc, The Pepsi Bottling Group, Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC, Starbucks, Johnson & Johnson, Mohawk Fine Papers, PepsiCo, Staples, Sloan Valve Company, City of Bellingham (WA), Wells and Fargo, and of course Whole Foods- all of them have purchased enormous quantities of renewable energy. Together, these companies account for a purchase of more than 3.55 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable (mostly wind powered) energy (see details at http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/awards/winners.htm). I seriously urge you to consider the amount of energy 3.81 billion kilowatt-hours provide. Other participants include Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Google (who actively seek and implement environmentally friendly practices into their business models. For details, go here http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=32715.
As you can see, it not just organically fed tree huggers proclaiming slogans about the virtues of saving the whales. Numerous industries’ large capitalization leaders assume the responsibility for their environmental practices. The above listed names constitute only the top of the pyramid, representing the tip of the sword in the battle for the quality of environment for us all. Their voluntary participation and invaluable contribution demonstrate the unflinching willingness and considerable ability to provide unparalleled leadership among businesses. Make no mistake in your mind: this is a beginning of a trend that will only become stronger. This is no longer a world of governmental coercion to make businesses abide by some arbitrarily set pollution legislature or standard. This is an unprecedented evolution of corporate thought. This is a Green Evolution.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Hidden Costs of Recycling
Earlier today, I came across an article written by an economist named Daniel Benjamin. Earlier this semester, we discussed recycling in class, and questioned whether it really helps the environment or not. The article is entitled the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling.” In this article Benjamin defines these eight myths as follows:
· Our Garbage Will Bury Us
· Our Garbage Will Poison Us
· Packaging Is Our Problem
· We Must Achieve Trash Independence
· We Squander Irreplaceable Resources When We Don’t Recycle
· Recycling Always Protects The Environment
· Recycling Saves Resources
· Without Forced Recycling Mandates, There Wouldn’t Be Recycling
I originally come from Bergenfield, New Jersey. In Bergenfield, recycling is mandatory. Everybody there seems to believe the sixth misconception about recycling, which is that recycling always protects the environment. The problem with recycling is that in order to turn the recyclables in to useable goods, resources must be consumed, hence creating pollution. In addition to pollution created from processing recyclables, other negative effects of recycling are shown in the following example:
This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials, trucks that pick up perhaps four to eight pounds of recyclables, rather than forty or more pounds of rubbish. Los Angeles has estimated that because it has curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be—800 versus 400 trucks. (Benjamin)
This example is proof of many unseen negative effects of recycling. For example, the city of Los Angeles now has to pay twice as many garbage men because of the increased size of its fleet. In addition to this it has to spend a larger portion of its tax revenue on fuel and maintenance for these garbage trucks. This either causes increased taxes or budget cuts from other areas of the local economy. There is no doubt in my mind that these same effects are present in virtually every city and town with mandatory recycling. Although recycling sounds good on paper, the unseen costs it carries may actually make it worse than simply throwing things in the trash.
· Our Garbage Will Bury Us
· Our Garbage Will Poison Us
· Packaging Is Our Problem
· We Must Achieve Trash Independence
· We Squander Irreplaceable Resources When We Don’t Recycle
· Recycling Always Protects The Environment
· Recycling Saves Resources
· Without Forced Recycling Mandates, There Wouldn’t Be Recycling
I originally come from Bergenfield, New Jersey. In Bergenfield, recycling is mandatory. Everybody there seems to believe the sixth misconception about recycling, which is that recycling always protects the environment. The problem with recycling is that in order to turn the recyclables in to useable goods, resources must be consumed, hence creating pollution. In addition to pollution created from processing recyclables, other negative effects of recycling are shown in the following example:
This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials, trucks that pick up perhaps four to eight pounds of recyclables, rather than forty or more pounds of rubbish. Los Angeles has estimated that because it has curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be—800 versus 400 trucks. (Benjamin)
This example is proof of many unseen negative effects of recycling. For example, the city of Los Angeles now has to pay twice as many garbage men because of the increased size of its fleet. In addition to this it has to spend a larger portion of its tax revenue on fuel and maintenance for these garbage trucks. This either causes increased taxes or budget cuts from other areas of the local economy. There is no doubt in my mind that these same effects are present in virtually every city and town with mandatory recycling. Although recycling sounds good on paper, the unseen costs it carries may actually make it worse than simply throwing things in the trash.
Green Protectionism
For many people there has become a growing concern about global warming and what we can do to help limit its effects. A new bill (that is fairly well supported by both democrats and republicans in congress) would be a big step toward unified efforts among states domestically. The primary concern regarding the bill is that it would be very wide reaching, and could possibly have some strong positive effects for protectionists.
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America’s quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth…But two powerful groups have remained determinedly skeptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organized labor, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
Those people who are in the manufacturing sector have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before the bill is passed. Some have suggested that imports from the manufacturing sector, and possibly others, would need to be certified as to their carbon content and then be charged a tax according to their content. Some are apprehensive about implementing a tax because it will hurt trade overall. Places like China and India will then have a significant barrier to bypass in order to compete on the international market in trading. Another legitimate concern is that once a tax like that is placed on goods there is almost no going back. It would then enable protectionists to fight their personal battles with government support.
“The people who worry the most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.” The concerns surrounding the legislation and the bill are very real. Depending on if and how the bill goes into effect, and what the ramifications associated with it are, trade in the United States and world wide could be impacted significantly. Is a bill like this one even necessary? Many people would agree that it is not. The market functions well as it is right now, and to throw one more thing into the mix may begin to muddy the waters with trading partners worldwide.
JENNA CLULEY
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America’s quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth…But two powerful groups have remained determinedly skeptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organized labor, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
Those people who are in the manufacturing sector have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before the bill is passed. Some have suggested that imports from the manufacturing sector, and possibly others, would need to be certified as to their carbon content and then be charged a tax according to their content. Some are apprehensive about implementing a tax because it will hurt trade overall. Places like China and India will then have a significant barrier to bypass in order to compete on the international market in trading. Another legitimate concern is that once a tax like that is placed on goods there is almost no going back. It would then enable protectionists to fight their personal battles with government support.
“The people who worry the most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.” The concerns surrounding the legislation and the bill are very real. Depending on if and how the bill goes into effect, and what the ramifications associated with it are, trade in the United States and world wide could be impacted significantly. Is a bill like this one even necessary? Many people would agree that it is not. The market functions well as it is right now, and to throw one more thing into the mix may begin to muddy the waters with trading partners worldwide.
JENNA CLULEY
Friday, November 30, 2007
More money for the U.S to spend!
Link to the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21989183/
There was a report published by the United Nations Development Programme which stated the effects of global warming poorer countries around the world. Of course it stated all the dire consequences that emitting carbon dioxide has and how the poor women and children are going to be the most. This article is a summary of the report and it caught my attention because in the second paragraph it states that the U.S needs to cover $40 billion of the annual $86 billion needed to protect the poor in other countries. This report which I skimmed through says that the two major contributors of carbon dioxide emissions (the U.S and China) are responsible for the money needed to “strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people”.
So if I got this right this report commissioned by the UN wants the U.S government, the U.S citizens to pay for the damages that global warming causes to other countries. This payment is not too far off in the future ether. By 2012 it is estimated that the full $86 billion in “climate proofing” will be needed annually. This money will mostly be spent on flood and drought relief in poor countries around the world. Seems to me to be a little bit of a stupid idea to spend $86 billion every year on clean up rather than spend it on prevention of the “mess maker”. Hopefully after spending $86 billion for possibly a few years the “mess maker” could be contained and no more money need be spent instead of spending that money indefinitely. That is if humans have a significant impact on the “mess maker” global warming.
The 400 page report says a lot of nothing I think. If the UN embraces it though, nothing will still be done. The problem of putting in place some law to make the U.S pay the money is that there is no one to enforce it. The UN had no army or power to make other countries enforce it. The idea that this report has is a waste of time and caused more damage to the environment in the printing of its 400 pages than environmental protecting it would have caused if it was followed.
There was a report published by the United Nations Development Programme which stated the effects of global warming poorer countries around the world. Of course it stated all the dire consequences that emitting carbon dioxide has and how the poor women and children are going to be the most. This article is a summary of the report and it caught my attention because in the second paragraph it states that the U.S needs to cover $40 billion of the annual $86 billion needed to protect the poor in other countries. This report which I skimmed through says that the two major contributors of carbon dioxide emissions (the U.S and China) are responsible for the money needed to “strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people”.
So if I got this right this report commissioned by the UN wants the U.S government, the U.S citizens to pay for the damages that global warming causes to other countries. This payment is not too far off in the future ether. By 2012 it is estimated that the full $86 billion in “climate proofing” will be needed annually. This money will mostly be spent on flood and drought relief in poor countries around the world. Seems to me to be a little bit of a stupid idea to spend $86 billion every year on clean up rather than spend it on prevention of the “mess maker”. Hopefully after spending $86 billion for possibly a few years the “mess maker” could be contained and no more money need be spent instead of spending that money indefinitely. That is if humans have a significant impact on the “mess maker” global warming.
The 400 page report says a lot of nothing I think. If the UN embraces it though, nothing will still be done. The problem of putting in place some law to make the U.S pay the money is that there is no one to enforce it. The UN had no army or power to make other countries enforce it. The idea that this report has is a waste of time and caused more damage to the environment in the printing of its 400 pages than environmental protecting it would have caused if it was followed.
Ethanol Craze Cools as Doubts Multiply
Ethanol Craze Cools as Doubts Multiply
Wall Street Journal
It seems that the use of ethanol as a clean fuel source is under fire due to rising food price, the concern for straining our already dwindling water supply and the type of pollution caused by burning ethanol with gasoline. Ethanol is perceived to be the temporary solution to the United States oil dependence and is the cornerstone President Bush's plan to reduce use of foriegn oil. Currently, proponents of ethanol are pushing to have oil refiners blend more ethanol into gasoline but opponents from various food producers and livestock farmers are grabbing the attention of Congress as well.
Etter of the WSJ states, "the U.S. gives oil refiners an excise-tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend into gasoline. And even though it's the oil industry that gets this subsidy, the industry dislikes being forced to use a nonpetroleum product. The U.S. ethanol industry is further protected by a 54-cent tariff on every gallon of imported ethanol.The ethanol tax credit will bring refiners an estimated $3.5 billion this year"
Using ethanol gives oil refiners incentive to use the product but environementalists and energy experts are questioning the tradeoffs of ethanol use. They are mainly concerned with the use water and fertiliziers it takes to grow corn to produe ethanol.
Etter of the WSJ also states, "back in early 2005, President Bush gave ethanol a boost in his State of the Union speech by calling for "strong funding" of renewable energy. Energy legislation that summer required oil companies to blend a total of 7.5 billion gallons of "renewable" fuels into the nation's fuel supply by 2012. The legislation also effectively extinguished ethanol's chief competitor as a clean-burning additive, methyl tertiary-butyl ether, which had groundwater-pollution issues. The bill anointed ethanol as the default additive and instantly created demand nearly double what was produced that year."
By forcing the use of ethanol, the U.S. has artifically created a demand that they may not have anticipated to create the tough choice between energy security and food security.
Etter writes, "a study coauthored by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen said corn ethanol might exacerbate climate change as the added fertilizer used to grow corn raised emissions of a very potent greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide. The ethanol industry replies to that one with an Energy Department study concluding that use of ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 18% to 28% on a per-gallon basis, provided that coal isn't used to run ethanol plants.
Opponents of ethanol also have hammered on an Agriculture Department projection that by 2010, less than 8% of the U.S. gasoline supply will come from corn-based ethanol -- and 30% of the corn crop will be used to make it. That suggests to some that the tradeoff between food and fuel is unbalanced.
The government of Quebec, which has offered loan guarantees for corn ethanol plants, recently decided not to initiate any new ones. Instead it will turn its attention to so-called cellulosic ethanol, which would be made from switchgrass, wood chips or other plant matter. It concluded that "the environmental costs of corn ethanol are higher than expected," says a spokesman for the province's minister of natural resources."
It seems that there might be a better option to helping the environment through different fuel sources. The U.S. is trying to find that diamond in the rough to help combat the rising prices of oil. Ethanol seems to be the wrong answer for the fight against oil dependence. The U.S. may need to ditch the idea and look elsewhere ... perhaps the car that uses air pressure for an energy source or hydrogen fuel cells.
Wall Street Journal
It seems that the use of ethanol as a clean fuel source is under fire due to rising food price, the concern for straining our already dwindling water supply and the type of pollution caused by burning ethanol with gasoline. Ethanol is perceived to be the temporary solution to the United States oil dependence and is the cornerstone President Bush's plan to reduce use of foriegn oil. Currently, proponents of ethanol are pushing to have oil refiners blend more ethanol into gasoline but opponents from various food producers and livestock farmers are grabbing the attention of Congress as well.
Etter of the WSJ states, "the U.S. gives oil refiners an excise-tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend into gasoline. And even though it's the oil industry that gets this subsidy, the industry dislikes being forced to use a nonpetroleum product. The U.S. ethanol industry is further protected by a 54-cent tariff on every gallon of imported ethanol.The ethanol tax credit will bring refiners an estimated $3.5 billion this year"
Using ethanol gives oil refiners incentive to use the product but environementalists and energy experts are questioning the tradeoffs of ethanol use. They are mainly concerned with the use water and fertiliziers it takes to grow corn to produe ethanol.
Etter of the WSJ also states, "back in early 2005, President Bush gave ethanol a boost in his State of the Union speech by calling for "strong funding" of renewable energy. Energy legislation that summer required oil companies to blend a total of 7.5 billion gallons of "renewable" fuels into the nation's fuel supply by 2012. The legislation also effectively extinguished ethanol's chief competitor as a clean-burning additive, methyl tertiary-butyl ether, which had groundwater-pollution issues. The bill anointed ethanol as the default additive and instantly created demand nearly double what was produced that year."
By forcing the use of ethanol, the U.S. has artifically created a demand that they may not have anticipated to create the tough choice between energy security and food security.
Etter writes, "a study coauthored by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen said corn ethanol might exacerbate climate change as the added fertilizer used to grow corn raised emissions of a very potent greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide. The ethanol industry replies to that one with an Energy Department study concluding that use of ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 18% to 28% on a per-gallon basis, provided that coal isn't used to run ethanol plants.
Opponents of ethanol also have hammered on an Agriculture Department projection that by 2010, less than 8% of the U.S. gasoline supply will come from corn-based ethanol -- and 30% of the corn crop will be used to make it. That suggests to some that the tradeoff between food and fuel is unbalanced.
The government of Quebec, which has offered loan guarantees for corn ethanol plants, recently decided not to initiate any new ones. Instead it will turn its attention to so-called cellulosic ethanol, which would be made from switchgrass, wood chips or other plant matter. It concluded that "the environmental costs of corn ethanol are higher than expected," says a spokesman for the province's minister of natural resources."
It seems that there might be a better option to helping the environment through different fuel sources. The U.S. is trying to find that diamond in the rough to help combat the rising prices of oil. Ethanol seems to be the wrong answer for the fight against oil dependence. The U.S. may need to ditch the idea and look elsewhere ... perhaps the car that uses air pressure for an energy source or hydrogen fuel cells.
Is Acid Rain Killing Off Wood Thrushes?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0813_020813_acidrain.html
A study from the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has named acid rain as the cause of the declining population of Wood Thrushes. This bird breeds in eastern
It seems that economic efficiency is the only realistic way to examine the apparent Wood Thrush dilemma. Our economy would certainly suffer from greater regulation of the Midwestern power plants in an attempt to save the Wood Thrush and other affected species. If action were taken and power plants and other polluting industries were more strictly regulated throughout the Midwest and eastern parts of the county then it seems likely that the costs incurred from lower outputs/less polluting outputs would get passed on to the consumer. If prices were pushed too high we certainly wouldn’t have achieved efficiency. It does seem unlikely that strenuous pollution legislation will be passed when considering the benefit to millions of people provided with power and other goods produced by polluting industries. Could it be that the market has already determined the efficient amount of acid rain causing pollutants? I would tend to think so considering the millions of Midwesterners (and probably Easterners) provided with power at a reasonable price at the cost of some amount of calcium in northeastern soils.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
More Leadership?
After a recent meeting on global climate change Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of the United Nations called for the United States and China to take "a more constructive role." After all they are the worlds biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This meeting took place before the IPCC was to meet in Indonesia. The IPCC report says we need to take action immediately in order to slow global warming. They also say that global climate change could have a catastrophic affect on the world if we don't act now; island nations could be flooded and deserted, African crops could be reduced by 50%. Many articles I have read says that the people most effected by climate change will be in developing nations. Developed nations will be able to adapt because a main portion of their economy depends on services not agriculture like developing nations. The IPCC also look to the U.S. and China for a quick solution. They want them so spend money on new technology so that the whole world can benefit from it. If the U.S and China were to do this it would have to be because they are going to benefit far greater than by not doing it. That is one reason, I believe, they are not taking any action. The Global Climate is a public good we can not exclude one country from it. To me this means the only way we are going to stop global warming we need a government that can enforce everyone not just put pressure. Another aspect I think that should be explored is developing nations. There is more incentive for them to take action since they are going to be the ones most harmed by climate change. Policy makers need to explore this possibility when writing treaties. This point might be a bit controversial but we would not ask them to do much; just something simple like cutting back on deforestation. When it comes to global warming everyone is looking for more leadership, but no one is wanting to take action. We can not leave this problem to be solved in the hands of two countries.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Yeah...I'm concerned about Global Warming!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/science/earth/10geo.html
“We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.” This quote about global warming did not come from a far left leaning democrat, but a moderate Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger. It seems today though that the debate continues on about global warming. This essay will try to shed some light on why the debate on this global crisis continues (my value judgment tells me that the debate should be over) and what can be done on economic level as well as a scientific level to reduce global warming when the debate concludes. So why does the debate continue on about global warming?
The debate continues not because most people reject the idea of global warming but because of two rather minor reasons. The first reason is that as a society we are not sure how to deal with global warming in way that that creates an efficient end result. Although we are not sure, I think that we should at least try something becasue we know that it exists and it is harming the population, I believe this to be fact, but you can take it as my value judgement. The second reason is that sometimes we simply choose not to address the issue, except for when it supplements an argument on another issue. We need to make Global Warming the issue not tip toe around it because it suits us; if we are able to move away from the debate around global warming then we might be able to start addressing the problem.
The most likely economic approach to dealing with global warming is creating a hybrid policy that creates a market, which includes elastic short-term permits along with, a specified number of long-term permits. The permits could be bought and sold or leased without restriction, and each one would allow the holder to emit one ton of carbon per year. Once distributed, the permits could be traded among firms or bought and retired by environmental groups. In addition, each government would be allowed to sell additional short-term permits for a specified fee. The hybrid plan thus combines the key advantages of tax and permit policies. Like a tax, it places an upper limit on the marginal cost of abatement, and the hybrid policy also avoids many of the distributional issues of an emissions tax.
Now moving from an economic approach to solve global warming to a scientific one, one such idea is injecting chemicals into the upper atmosphere to cool the poles, or blocking sunlight by making clouds more reflective or stationing mirrors in space. However, consequences of planetary engineering that cannot be anticipated may be serious and even harm the earth. Hopefully, at the very least the discussion about geo-engineering will finally sound an 'audible alarm' for others.
On one subject, though, there was wide agreement: interest in geo-engineering is no longer merely theoretical. The participants in the conference noted that global emissions of greenhouse gases were already moving above the upper limits predicted by many climate models. As a result, several said, the projected arrival of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean has shifted, in a few years, from 2100 to 2040 to 2013. And survival estimates are changing for the Greenland ice sheet, whose melting would cause a potentially devastating rise in sea levels. Once estimated in terms of millenniums, they are now expressed in estimates of only mere decades. It is time for something to be done, I’d rather we respond to this crisis now using an excise tax on global emissions, than geo-engineering, but at this point I am willing to try anything…
“We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.” This quote about global warming did not come from a far left leaning democrat, but a moderate Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger. It seems today though that the debate continues on about global warming. This essay will try to shed some light on why the debate on this global crisis continues (my value judgment tells me that the debate should be over) and what can be done on economic level as well as a scientific level to reduce global warming when the debate concludes. So why does the debate continue on about global warming?
The debate continues not because most people reject the idea of global warming but because of two rather minor reasons. The first reason is that as a society we are not sure how to deal with global warming in way that that creates an efficient end result. Although we are not sure, I think that we should at least try something becasue we know that it exists and it is harming the population, I believe this to be fact, but you can take it as my value judgement. The second reason is that sometimes we simply choose not to address the issue, except for when it supplements an argument on another issue. We need to make Global Warming the issue not tip toe around it because it suits us; if we are able to move away from the debate around global warming then we might be able to start addressing the problem.
The most likely economic approach to dealing with global warming is creating a hybrid policy that creates a market, which includes elastic short-term permits along with, a specified number of long-term permits. The permits could be bought and sold or leased without restriction, and each one would allow the holder to emit one ton of carbon per year. Once distributed, the permits could be traded among firms or bought and retired by environmental groups. In addition, each government would be allowed to sell additional short-term permits for a specified fee. The hybrid plan thus combines the key advantages of tax and permit policies. Like a tax, it places an upper limit on the marginal cost of abatement, and the hybrid policy also avoids many of the distributional issues of an emissions tax.
Now moving from an economic approach to solve global warming to a scientific one, one such idea is injecting chemicals into the upper atmosphere to cool the poles, or blocking sunlight by making clouds more reflective or stationing mirrors in space. However, consequences of planetary engineering that cannot be anticipated may be serious and even harm the earth. Hopefully, at the very least the discussion about geo-engineering will finally sound an 'audible alarm' for others.
On one subject, though, there was wide agreement: interest in geo-engineering is no longer merely theoretical. The participants in the conference noted that global emissions of greenhouse gases were already moving above the upper limits predicted by many climate models. As a result, several said, the projected arrival of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean has shifted, in a few years, from 2100 to 2040 to 2013. And survival estimates are changing for the Greenland ice sheet, whose melting would cause a potentially devastating rise in sea levels. Once estimated in terms of millenniums, they are now expressed in estimates of only mere decades. It is time for something to be done, I’d rather we respond to this crisis now using an excise tax on global emissions, than geo-engineering, but at this point I am willing to try anything…
Monday, November 26, 2007
Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade
Summary of the Article
Most people agree that reducing carbon emissions will aid in solving to so-called problem of global warming. The only problem is that a tax would be required to incentivize people to reduce the amount of carbon emissions they commit. Capitol Hill would rather set caps on greenhouse-gas emissions (with allowances to trade emission permits) and tighten up regulations, such as fuel-economy standards than develop a tax for carbon emissions. A few problems with cap-and-trade plans, as evidenced by other nations, are that they take a long time to set up and perfect and raise energy prices for consumers, however, not as directly as a tax.
Carbon Taxes and Incentives
A carbon tax would send a signal to the market to reduce carbon use. In addition, the tax would provide an incentive for research and investment into renewable sources. The article suggests that tax revenues could be returned to taxpayers. For example, “every worker would receive a tax rebate of about $560, cutting the tax bill by 18% for those earning $20,000, or by 4% for those earning $90,000.” In addition, carbon taxes will assist in predicting energy prices. There is urgency in solving the climate crisis, such as global warming. Carbon taxes can be implemented quicker than the cap-and-trade system.
Furthers problems of Cap-and-Trade
A cap-and-trade system is an administrative approach used by a central body, such as the government, to control pollution using economic incentives for achieving reductions in the amount of emissions of pollutants, such as carbon. Unlike the transparency of carbon taxes, the cap-and-trade system is harder for business to predict because of constant fluctuations. The costs of cap-and-trade are very high. The costs are for implementation and for the improvement in technology that would cut carbon emissions. These costs will likely be passed onto consumers with less possibility of a tax shift that the carbon tax could offer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, carbon taxes will be more efficient in reducing carbon emissions. They will be more efficient because nobody likes a tax. Therefore, the greater the chance of being taxed, the more incentive there will be to take responsibility in reducing the amount of carbon emissions.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The standout crowd no longer standing out!
Well it seems as though the final frontier may have been reached. According to a recent article found on MSN.com, the long standing climate change apathetic Evangelical Christian demographic is tossing its chips in on the climate change camp. The article details how a sudden shift in evangelical thought surrounding climate change could have a drastic impact on the way this large demographic votes in the coming election.
As a christian myself, I find this rather interesting. For years... strike that... forever, the Christian Church has been rebuking and battling science on everything from birth control to evolution. Now, for some reason, on a topic that a fair portion of the secular audience would say is fallable at best, the Christian demographic seems to be jumping ship and running with science.
Should predictions be correct about the number of evangelical Christians now voting with climate change in mind, there are two very important implications that come as a result of this. First, if the climate change skeptical crowd wants to have any chance at slowing hasty policy making decisions, it better act now! Even those that we would expect to not vote based on climate change policy are beginning to vote that way. There are very few people left still have an unbiased view.
Second, this goes to show the power that the global warming campaign has had. It's a very multifaceted campaign that's now been able to morph itself into a biblical context to grab the attention of perhaps the most key demographic. Furthermore, the momentum that global warming policy would pickup as a result of gaining the large evangelical demographic would be huge.
If indeed it is the case that the sudden shift of thought among christians has really happened, then it would represent a major hurdle crossed for those with incentive interests in passing global warming policy. Personally, I see it as a majore hurdle lost in slowing down this paranoia freight train.
As a christian myself, I find this rather interesting. For years... strike that... forever, the Christian Church has been rebuking and battling science on everything from birth control to evolution. Now, for some reason, on a topic that a fair portion of the secular audience would say is fallable at best, the Christian demographic seems to be jumping ship and running with science.
Should predictions be correct about the number of evangelical Christians now voting with climate change in mind, there are two very important implications that come as a result of this. First, if the climate change skeptical crowd wants to have any chance at slowing hasty policy making decisions, it better act now! Even those that we would expect to not vote based on climate change policy are beginning to vote that way. There are very few people left still have an unbiased view.
Second, this goes to show the power that the global warming campaign has had. It's a very multifaceted campaign that's now been able to morph itself into a biblical context to grab the attention of perhaps the most key demographic. Furthermore, the momentum that global warming policy would pickup as a result of gaining the large evangelical demographic would be huge.
If indeed it is the case that the sudden shift of thought among christians has really happened, then it would represent a major hurdle crossed for those with incentive interests in passing global warming policy. Personally, I see it as a majore hurdle lost in slowing down this paranoia freight train.
Monday, November 19, 2007
china's three gorges dam
China is quickly becoming one of the world’s leading polluters. Recently, Chinese air pollution has been known to travel up to 3,000 miles away and can be found blowing in to American coastal cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3109_worldbal.html).
With a huge percentage of its population moving from rural areas with no electricity or running water into an urban environment for job opportunities, China’s government is struggling to keep up with the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the influx. Coal burning for electricity is the current source of most of China’s energy at present, but the government is making an effort to provide more efficient ways to supply the changing population’s need for energy.
One of the alternatives being implemented is harnessing the massive Yangtze River’s currents by building dams to supply hydroelectric power. These dams will drastically change the environments around the river. Also, these large projects involve relocating an estimate 11 million rural people away from the river because of rising waters upstream.
The Three Gorges Dam is getting criticism from environmentalists and economists alike. The former point out the poor environmental planning that went into the project from the start. The river has seen garbage and silt accumulation behind the dam, fertilizer runoff from the flooded land formerly used for agriculture, and no planned infrastructure to remediate the environmental damage. Economically, the Gorge project is costing China much more than many think it is worth. The Dam’s price includes the dam itself, relocating the shore-dwelling people by offering them subsidies and cash rewards to move to the city, and remediating the unplanned for environmental issues, while ensuring they don’t happen in the future.
China’s Three Gorges Dam is an interesting case study on a developing country struggling to meet its energy needs. The growing pains are lessons for everyone.
Link to Wall Street Journal Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119429475928882924-lMyQjAxMDE3OTE0MTIxOTE0Wj.html
Link to accompanying video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid452319854?bctid=1287035232
With a huge percentage of its population moving from rural areas with no electricity or running water into an urban environment for job opportunities, China’s government is struggling to keep up with the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the influx. Coal burning for electricity is the current source of most of China’s energy at present, but the government is making an effort to provide more efficient ways to supply the changing population’s need for energy.
One of the alternatives being implemented is harnessing the massive Yangtze River’s currents by building dams to supply hydroelectric power. These dams will drastically change the environments around the river. Also, these large projects involve relocating an estimate 11 million rural people away from the river because of rising waters upstream.
The Three Gorges Dam is getting criticism from environmentalists and economists alike. The former point out the poor environmental planning that went into the project from the start. The river has seen garbage and silt accumulation behind the dam, fertilizer runoff from the flooded land formerly used for agriculture, and no planned infrastructure to remediate the environmental damage. Economically, the Gorge project is costing China much more than many think it is worth. The Dam’s price includes the dam itself, relocating the shore-dwelling people by offering them subsidies and cash rewards to move to the city, and remediating the unplanned for environmental issues, while ensuring they don’t happen in the future.
China’s Three Gorges Dam is an interesting case study on a developing country struggling to meet its energy needs. The growing pains are lessons for everyone.
Link to Wall Street Journal Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119429475928882924-lMyQjAxMDE3OTE0MTIxOTE0Wj.html
Link to accompanying video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid452319854?bctid=1287035232
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Inner Economist
If you are looking for a winterim course, then you might be interested in my Econ 398 Inner Economist. Maybe another title for this course would be "Economics For My Life." The course will involve reading two books: (1) Tyler Cowen, Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist, and (2) Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why The Rich Are Rich, The Poor Are Poor -- And Why You Can Never Buy A Decent Used Car! The course will culminate with a set of assignments suggested by The Economic Naturalist. Perhaps a better title for the course would be: "Economics for My Life." You could almost expect to find this stuff in the "self help" section of your favorite bookstore.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Gore the Pure
Environmental support comes at a cost- Gore the Pure
“Nobel laureate Al Gore is unlikely to run (for Presidency) again. His Ideas are catching on, but people still don’t want to pay for them.”
One man who seems to always gain media attention is the former vice president, Al Gore. He is a main proponent of many controversial issues that have an impact on environmental economics. Global warming is one concern for many Americans that is gaining recognition. “The proportion of Americans who say they worry ‘a great deal’ about global warming has risen from 28% to 41% in the past four years. Over the same period, the proportion favoring ‘immediate, drastic action’ to protect the environment has risen from 23% to 38%.” Where these percentages came from is not listed in the article, but it raises the questions regarding why there is a sudden concern about the environment. Clearly changes that are made regarding America’s use of energy and emissions will have an impact on the nation’s economy. For the 2008 election it seems that candidates will have to take some sort of stand on what type of policy they will enforce regarding the environment because it is a hot issue that is not going away any time soon.
… no plausible candidate of either party favours a carbon tax, the most efficient way to tackle emissions… Voters prefer solutions that are either cheap or that they thing will be paid for by someone else. A poll for the New Scientist magazine in June tried to quantify this, with sobering results. Only half of Americans would favour rules to force power companies to emit less if that raised their monthly electricity bill from $85 9the average in 20050 to $155 (an estimate of the hike needed to lower American emissions by 5% by 2020). And only 37% could stomach a tax that raised petrol (gasoline) prices to $4 a gallon.
Given these results from the poll it is hard to imagine that any candidate will garner much support if they support making changes such as the ones given as examples above. “You cannot win the White House by telling Americans that they must pay more to drive, or by telling Midwestern coalminers that their industry must clean up or die.” Although it is not certain whether there is really a significant climate change, or global warming, the issue has consumed a substantial portion of media attention and will be addressed politically and have wide reaching economic effects.
JENNA CLULEY
Source: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=998...
“Nobel laureate Al Gore is unlikely to run (for Presidency) again. His Ideas are catching on, but people still don’t want to pay for them.”
One man who seems to always gain media attention is the former vice president, Al Gore. He is a main proponent of many controversial issues that have an impact on environmental economics. Global warming is one concern for many Americans that is gaining recognition. “The proportion of Americans who say they worry ‘a great deal’ about global warming has risen from 28% to 41% in the past four years. Over the same period, the proportion favoring ‘immediate, drastic action’ to protect the environment has risen from 23% to 38%.” Where these percentages came from is not listed in the article, but it raises the questions regarding why there is a sudden concern about the environment. Clearly changes that are made regarding America’s use of energy and emissions will have an impact on the nation’s economy. For the 2008 election it seems that candidates will have to take some sort of stand on what type of policy they will enforce regarding the environment because it is a hot issue that is not going away any time soon.
… no plausible candidate of either party favours a carbon tax, the most efficient way to tackle emissions… Voters prefer solutions that are either cheap or that they thing will be paid for by someone else. A poll for the New Scientist magazine in June tried to quantify this, with sobering results. Only half of Americans would favour rules to force power companies to emit less if that raised their monthly electricity bill from $85 9the average in 20050 to $155 (an estimate of the hike needed to lower American emissions by 5% by 2020). And only 37% could stomach a tax that raised petrol (gasoline) prices to $4 a gallon.
Given these results from the poll it is hard to imagine that any candidate will garner much support if they support making changes such as the ones given as examples above. “You cannot win the White House by telling Americans that they must pay more to drive, or by telling Midwestern coalminers that their industry must clean up or die.” Although it is not certain whether there is really a significant climate change, or global warming, the issue has consumed a substantial portion of media attention and will be addressed politically and have wide reaching economic effects.
JENNA CLULEY
Source: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=998...
Captain Planet
I hate captain planet.
Well, not him per se, but more what the cartoon represents. Captain Planet is a subversive piece of propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. It teaches innocent children to ignore economic reality. Villains are persons (sometimes less than so) who share two things in common; an unexplained hate for the earth and a desire to make profits. Of course, the real villain is the idea that profits are mutually exclusive from a healthy environment.
Unfortunately for captain planet and his band of multicultural teenagers, people making profits by voluntary transaction is the most “environmentally friendly” social structure. The almost instant rejection of unregulated markets by the common man is simply a sign of how successful captain planet was in polluting minds. This may also be why a former founder of green peace recently wrote a book detailing the organizations hijack by anti-capitalists, not concerned environmentalists. The danger, like many things, comes in the form of common opinion.
Averagely intelligent and poorly educated people are easily manipulated. If one can convince another that exchange (free markets) hurts the environment, it doesn't become a far leap for one to dissuade exchange simply by accusing someone else of not loving the environment. Echoes of “think of the children” and “save the whales” comes to mind in a hauntingly comical fashion. Captain Planet is simply a graphical “think of the children” no less tiresome, but certainly more stylish (red spedos are STILL in)
Alexander Devore
Well, not him per se, but more what the cartoon represents. Captain Planet is a subversive piece of propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. It teaches innocent children to ignore economic reality. Villains are persons (sometimes less than so) who share two things in common; an unexplained hate for the earth and a desire to make profits. Of course, the real villain is the idea that profits are mutually exclusive from a healthy environment.
Unfortunately for captain planet and his band of multicultural teenagers, people making profits by voluntary transaction is the most “environmentally friendly” social structure. The almost instant rejection of unregulated markets by the common man is simply a sign of how successful captain planet was in polluting minds. This may also be why a former founder of green peace recently wrote a book detailing the organizations hijack by anti-capitalists, not concerned environmentalists. The danger, like many things, comes in the form of common opinion.
Averagely intelligent and poorly educated people are easily manipulated. If one can convince another that exchange (free markets) hurts the environment, it doesn't become a far leap for one to dissuade exchange simply by accusing someone else of not loving the environment. Echoes of “think of the children” and “save the whales” comes to mind in a hauntingly comical fashion. Captain Planet is simply a graphical “think of the children” no less tiresome, but certainly more stylish (red spedos are STILL in)
Alexander Devore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
