Manufacturing is on the decline all around this globe. While it is advantageous for the environment to have humans manufacturing less stuff, it is wealth that brings environmental protection to urban areas. If a person is poor no coaxing will get them to put the environment before themselves. First comes wealth, then health, and manufacturing will need to be restored to create wealth and health.
During Hillary Clinton's first voyage out of the US as secretary general she visited China and started a movement with the Chinese to protect our environment. The USA and China are the largest polluters in the world, just our two countries making small changes is more powerful than any action from the rest of the world.
Governments of the world are waking up to environmental degradation and are now moving to regulate mercury on a global level. Mercury is one of the worst pollutants we emit in large amounts and is one of the main pollutants emitted by coal fired power plants. A move to regulate mercury on a global level is a move to regulate coal fired power plants, most of which are in China and the USA. With this movement in regulating mercury and the USA's EPA move to regulate CO2 via coal fired power plants they will hopefully only be a memory in 70 years.
Democrats in Congress are planning to present a climate change bill to Obama by the end of the summer.
In imagining the new economy of "green power" many forget the infrastructure that will need to accompany "green projects." To be sustainable and cost effective we need to act very carefully, the doctrine of "any action is good action" is dangerous at this point.
One of the greatest humanitarian efforts and economic efforts is underway in India. A company has created the 2,500 USdollar car. This will bring wealth and opportunity to millions and will bring millions of tons of pollutants to the environment. At 50mpg this little car does little damage for the amount of benefit it will bring the people of India. Wealth before health i say, let them build themselves up then let them sustainably develop. If the industrialized world wanted to address the issues of environmental degradation and poverty at the same time they would help industrialized countries develop sustainably. We talk about it in UN conferences but we do little of it.
The internet is cool, google is cool, but there is much more to come:
This is an article about the future of the internet.
And this is a video about the future of the internet.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
2/15/09: The bailout bill is covered in green. Is it enough? No, but it is something, $60 billion of something.
The stimulus package being passed currently carries $60 billion for the development of a green economy. This large pulse of money was made possible by a financial crisis and an environmental crisis. Disturbance yields progression.
Bio-fuels have been a large controversy because they either divert farm land from food production to fuel production or they convert land from wilderness. Cellulosic ethanol is the new thing. It is amazing because it uses the inedible parts of plants to create fuel. This article discusses the rise of this fuel, but it views it as a process that does replace food crops instead of portraying cellulosic ethanol as a way to make fuel out of plant waste. This article however does discuss this aspect of cellulosic ethanol.
This article from The Guardian is a letter from Jim Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, explaining that coal fired power plants need to be shut down and no more should be built. He also defends the theory of Global Climate Change, but this article is important because it gets to one of the biggest roots of our problems: the existence of coal fired power plants.
Two satellites have been put into Earth's orbit to record green house gas concentrations in our atmosphere. To know the solution we need to know the problem. These two satellites will greatly aid us in intelligently deciding what to do about global warming.
As sarcastic as the Economist can be, this article shows what happens when an environmental movement is fractured and has activists that are unwise. Why are extremist environmentalists unwise? Because they demand perfect outcomes for the environment and by not negotiating they lose out on doing any good at all. Environmentalism should never forget the needs of humans, we are our environment.
Populist American support for prosecuting Bush II is on the rise.
Also, Halliburton is being prosecuted for their illegal actions. Read about it.
Bio-fuels have been a large controversy because they either divert farm land from food production to fuel production or they convert land from wilderness. Cellulosic ethanol is the new thing. It is amazing because it uses the inedible parts of plants to create fuel. This article discusses the rise of this fuel, but it views it as a process that does replace food crops instead of portraying cellulosic ethanol as a way to make fuel out of plant waste. This article however does discuss this aspect of cellulosic ethanol.
This article from The Guardian is a letter from Jim Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, explaining that coal fired power plants need to be shut down and no more should be built. He also defends the theory of Global Climate Change, but this article is important because it gets to one of the biggest roots of our problems: the existence of coal fired power plants.
Two satellites have been put into Earth's orbit to record green house gas concentrations in our atmosphere. To know the solution we need to know the problem. These two satellites will greatly aid us in intelligently deciding what to do about global warming.
As sarcastic as the Economist can be, this article shows what happens when an environmental movement is fractured and has activists that are unwise. Why are extremist environmentalists unwise? Because they demand perfect outcomes for the environment and by not negotiating they lose out on doing any good at all. Environmentalism should never forget the needs of humans, we are our environment.
Populist American support for prosecuting Bush II is on the rise.
Also, Halliburton is being prosecuted for their illegal actions. Read about it.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
2/8/09: Few seem to really know what "being green" means but atleast it gets people interested in Change.
This is a great article from the Wall Street Journal on changes you make to your home for cheap that both save energy and give you real monetary savings in a couple of months to a couple of years.
"Buy American" has been a popular war cry in America in the past couple of decades as a response to Globalization. Globalization has been occurring since humans had enough free time to create excess goods. With modern economics we have brought great wealth to a growing part of the population. During hard economic times increased protectionism (i.e. "buy american")is called "beggar thy neighbor" and it is directly connected to a spiraling economic situation. We are so interconnected in this modern age that global economic stability is local economic stability. This article is "the economist" begging for the USA not repeat the same mistake she made during the Great Depression.
This is a breakdown, department by department of the federal government, of the mess that Obama has inherited. We must understand the depth of our problems. Our problems are so deep because no one has wanted to look at the ugly truth for many decades, both Dem. and Rep. Bush was a blessing because he disturbed our slumber and now we want CHANGE. But, we must know the problem before we can make intelligent change. Obama may want to help but he still needs skeptical eyes, and we still need to keep up with the problems as Bush inspired us to do.
On the subject of change, this article is a great comment on opulence in American and how we don't resent the rich enough to bring them down, but we resent them nonetheless. I include this article because of its comment on our reluctance as a general public to become activists, we are really just voters in a Democrat-Republic. Also, if you want to talk about true environmentalism it starts with living more efficient lives of less conspicuous consumption creating excessive excess.
Iraq voted in its first election without the military support of the USA. Only 50% of the population voted, but there was no violence and %50 is better than the USA has mustered in the past several decades. This is two short articles about the election: Article 1......Article 2.
One if the proposed technological cures for the excessive amounts of CO2 currently being pumped into our atmosphere is called carbon sequestration. The idea is to take CO2 from the atmosphere and somehow get it to stay underground. Some ideas involve just pumping it underground in gas form and hope that it wont leak out, other ideas though involve transforming CO2 from gas to rock form. This article highlights one effort Iceland that is being undertaken. As a side note: As the USA has elected its first non-white president, Iceland has elected the worlds first publicly lesbian Prime Minister. I am glad that our leaders are starting to look like the public that they represent.
Wind power is one of the technologies that is supposed to usher us into a future of sustainability. It will be hard to do, especially with low oil and coal prices and a global recession, but: the USA is throwing up wind turbines....as well as Europe.
"Buy American" has been a popular war cry in America in the past couple of decades as a response to Globalization. Globalization has been occurring since humans had enough free time to create excess goods. With modern economics we have brought great wealth to a growing part of the population. During hard economic times increased protectionism (i.e. "buy american")is called "beggar thy neighbor" and it is directly connected to a spiraling economic situation. We are so interconnected in this modern age that global economic stability is local economic stability. This article is "the economist" begging for the USA not repeat the same mistake she made during the Great Depression.
This is a breakdown, department by department of the federal government, of the mess that Obama has inherited. We must understand the depth of our problems. Our problems are so deep because no one has wanted to look at the ugly truth for many decades, both Dem. and Rep. Bush was a blessing because he disturbed our slumber and now we want CHANGE. But, we must know the problem before we can make intelligent change. Obama may want to help but he still needs skeptical eyes, and we still need to keep up with the problems as Bush inspired us to do.
On the subject of change, this article is a great comment on opulence in American and how we don't resent the rich enough to bring them down, but we resent them nonetheless. I include this article because of its comment on our reluctance as a general public to become activists, we are really just voters in a Democrat-Republic. Also, if you want to talk about true environmentalism it starts with living more efficient lives of less conspicuous consumption creating excessive excess.
Iraq voted in its first election without the military support of the USA. Only 50% of the population voted, but there was no violence and %50 is better than the USA has mustered in the past several decades. This is two short articles about the election: Article 1......Article 2.
One if the proposed technological cures for the excessive amounts of CO2 currently being pumped into our atmosphere is called carbon sequestration. The idea is to take CO2 from the atmosphere and somehow get it to stay underground. Some ideas involve just pumping it underground in gas form and hope that it wont leak out, other ideas though involve transforming CO2 from gas to rock form. This article highlights one effort Iceland that is being undertaken. As a side note: As the USA has elected its first non-white president, Iceland has elected the worlds first publicly lesbian Prime Minister. I am glad that our leaders are starting to look like the public that they represent.
Wind power is one of the technologies that is supposed to usher us into a future of sustainability. It will be hard to do, especially with low oil and coal prices and a global recession, but: the USA is throwing up wind turbines....as well as Europe.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
2/1/09: CATO critique
The CATO institute is a Libertarian Economic thinktank and they are brilliant and misled people. i wrote a critique of one of their papers on Climate Change. You can read the article and read my critique. The article from CATO is a very good analysis, but misleading at times.
Here is the article
And here is my critique:
Liberty is defined by freedom from constraint. Libertarians then want non-constraint and a free market with minimal government intervention. For this to function for the benefit of most people price needs to reflect cost. But, there have always been actors in markets creating negative externalities, and it takes constraint to internalize those externalities. I want liberty from bad actors skewing markets, and that takes government intervention. I write this critique to show how Libertarianism can be unrealistic in its quest for liberty.
In the article by CATO titled “What to do about Global Warming” the author, Indur Goklany, delivers an articulate argument for not immediately and rapidly decreasing carbon emissions. The author points out that if we compute the costs, according to his calculations and assumptions, it would be less costly to just continue on our course of carbon emissions and to just pay for the damage (considering the timeline of now until 2085). While I agree with considering the costs and benefits of a policy, some parts of the author’s analysis are shallow and incomplete.
First, there is no discussion of existence value. While existence value is difficult to quantify, the idea behind it is sound: people derive utility from knowing that the environment is of a certain quality. In the scenario of letting Global Warming (GW) continue as it has there is no valuing of the human anguish from letting the natural environment suffer just because “we can pay for it.” Furthermore, the author assumes that natural and physical capitals are interchangeable and misses this distinction by not accounting for non-extractive direct use or passive use value (existence value, option value and quasi-option value).
Second, the author does not include in his analysis the cost of unlikely, yet possible catastrophic events. The scary part about GW is not the chance of catastrophic occurrences but the number of potential catastrophic occurrences. If the mid-Atlantic current slowed, if large amounts of methane were suddenly released from the ocean floor or if a sudden collapse in the web of life occurred then the damage would be larger then we could fathom.
Third, the author admits that his conclusions should only be applied to the timeline of 2085. So, if we let concentrations build up and pay for the damages then we have only addressed problems that will occur by 2085. The author’s proposal could be the most cost effective as applied to the timeline of 2085, but if the cost of dealing with GW soar after 2085 then the entire plan will not have cost-effectively dealt with GW.
Fourth, the author assumes that a world of more wealth is a world where we will put more money towards Research & Development (R&D) of sustainable technologies (assuming that immediately eliminating carbon emissions would reduce greatly the wealth of the world). Markets work off doing what is profitable, and as long as price does not reflect cost markets will not provide for sustainable technologies. For R&D in sustainable technologies to occur in a significant amount it would take internalizing negative externalities which usually requires government intervention. To continue with business as usual without accurate pricing will not supply us with the technologies that are needed to reduce our negative impact on our environment. Technological development will proceed, but not for technologies that make possible substitutions for underpriced coal, wood, natural gas and oil.
Fifth, the author seems to be using the Pareto Criterion to justify the allowance for damage to occur from uncontrolled GW because those with “just claim” will be fully reimbursed for damages incurred. Attempting to get polluters to pay for these damages would be a very complex undertaking; perfect information would be needed on who is emitting carbon, how much they are emitting, and what damages were caused by what and by whom. This information collection system would be overwhelming, and convincing people to pay up for damages done would be a difficult struggle. The author’s policy recommendations hinge on this one, unrealistic plan.
Sixth, once again we are presented with another false choice between two options. We can do both what the author recommends and we can take action to immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions. It would be foolish for reasons that the author points out to just focus on abating GW through immediate carbon emission reductions, but it would also be foolish to not take any action to lower carbon emissions in the near future. We can and should do both.
Here is the article
And here is my critique:
Liberty is defined by freedom from constraint. Libertarians then want non-constraint and a free market with minimal government intervention. For this to function for the benefit of most people price needs to reflect cost. But, there have always been actors in markets creating negative externalities, and it takes constraint to internalize those externalities. I want liberty from bad actors skewing markets, and that takes government intervention. I write this critique to show how Libertarianism can be unrealistic in its quest for liberty.
In the article by CATO titled “What to do about Global Warming” the author, Indur Goklany, delivers an articulate argument for not immediately and rapidly decreasing carbon emissions. The author points out that if we compute the costs, according to his calculations and assumptions, it would be less costly to just continue on our course of carbon emissions and to just pay for the damage (considering the timeline of now until 2085). While I agree with considering the costs and benefits of a policy, some parts of the author’s analysis are shallow and incomplete.
First, there is no discussion of existence value. While existence value is difficult to quantify, the idea behind it is sound: people derive utility from knowing that the environment is of a certain quality. In the scenario of letting Global Warming (GW) continue as it has there is no valuing of the human anguish from letting the natural environment suffer just because “we can pay for it.” Furthermore, the author assumes that natural and physical capitals are interchangeable and misses this distinction by not accounting for non-extractive direct use or passive use value (existence value, option value and quasi-option value).
Second, the author does not include in his analysis the cost of unlikely, yet possible catastrophic events. The scary part about GW is not the chance of catastrophic occurrences but the number of potential catastrophic occurrences. If the mid-Atlantic current slowed, if large amounts of methane were suddenly released from the ocean floor or if a sudden collapse in the web of life occurred then the damage would be larger then we could fathom.
Third, the author admits that his conclusions should only be applied to the timeline of 2085. So, if we let concentrations build up and pay for the damages then we have only addressed problems that will occur by 2085. The author’s proposal could be the most cost effective as applied to the timeline of 2085, but if the cost of dealing with GW soar after 2085 then the entire plan will not have cost-effectively dealt with GW.
Fourth, the author assumes that a world of more wealth is a world where we will put more money towards Research & Development (R&D) of sustainable technologies (assuming that immediately eliminating carbon emissions would reduce greatly the wealth of the world). Markets work off doing what is profitable, and as long as price does not reflect cost markets will not provide for sustainable technologies. For R&D in sustainable technologies to occur in a significant amount it would take internalizing negative externalities which usually requires government intervention. To continue with business as usual without accurate pricing will not supply us with the technologies that are needed to reduce our negative impact on our environment. Technological development will proceed, but not for technologies that make possible substitutions for underpriced coal, wood, natural gas and oil.
Fifth, the author seems to be using the Pareto Criterion to justify the allowance for damage to occur from uncontrolled GW because those with “just claim” will be fully reimbursed for damages incurred. Attempting to get polluters to pay for these damages would be a very complex undertaking; perfect information would be needed on who is emitting carbon, how much they are emitting, and what damages were caused by what and by whom. This information collection system would be overwhelming, and convincing people to pay up for damages done would be a difficult struggle. The author’s policy recommendations hinge on this one, unrealistic plan.
Sixth, once again we are presented with another false choice between two options. We can do both what the author recommends and we can take action to immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions. It would be foolish for reasons that the author points out to just focus on abating GW through immediate carbon emission reductions, but it would also be foolish to not take any action to lower carbon emissions in the near future. We can and should do both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)