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.

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.

1/25/09: Obama the Environmentalist and some more realistic rhetoric on energy and the economic crisis

Obama, he might not fix all of our problems, but he is trying. He is finally doing something that i forgot could happen politically; Obama is raising the the fuel-efficiency standard of vehicles for the nation and not only allowing but encouraging states to follow the more strict standards that California is allowed to set but has been prevented from doing so by the former president Bush II.

So, yes, we all know that according to Global Warming things are heating up including Antarctica, but this article from the BBC discusses the heating of that giant ice cube. If Antactica really does break into pieces it will greatly speed up the rising of the oceans and will augment oceanic patterns. The changes will reverberate. When reading the article notice the language used by the BBC regarding global warming, they seem to still be in the stage of appeasing and addressing global climate change deniers.

Energy Independence is a mine in the battle field of environmentalism dressed up as an end to be sought after. As with the "buy local" movement, it is a good idea so long as you do not do it completely. MotherJones gives a good commentary on the myths of energy independence, be critical of MotherJones' criticalism, but this article is part of the corrections that need to be made to environmental theory and policy.

The CATO Institute is a great place to learn about what is really going on with the economy and what are the purely economic fixes. There has been a lot of political rhetoric and explanation for our current situation. Read this from CATO and make some adjustments to your beliefs and facts.

For political news, Obama is altering the executive order that allows former presidents to control the public releasing of sensitive documents. Obama is making it so that Bush II has to sue Obama just to attempt to keep documents unreleased.

1/18/09: The Environment is the focus once again

The importance of the financial bailout will show its self in the near future. The point of the financial bail out is to ensure cheap credit to everyone, cheap credit is the driving force of our economy. This article from the NY-Times talks about the future of many businesses that are looking at a future that demands payment on loans of which companies do not have money for. This issue is going to rear the rest of its head in the next year as many companies fall out of the market.

Environmentalism used to be so simple: find the bad guys and make them stop. Well, we are finding that environmentalism is effective when it is practical not just reactive. The EU is very progressive and loves all out bans like its ban on GMO. The EU is trying to decrease production and use of synthetic pesticides but it will be at a price. It will mean increased pests, increased instances of infection from things like malaria, and a higher cost of producing some agricultural products. Everything comes at a price, and when it comes to "banning bad things" a comprehensive approach is needed.

Bush has made some last minute envrionmental decisions, some good, some not so good. This is a really good coverage of the changes and some commentaries on their effects and circumstances. It is from National Geographic.

The Detroit Auto Show revealed plenty new cars mild changes to the combusion engine model. The chevy Volt is the star thus far, it is an electric car with a regular engine, it goes 40miles on the electric then if uncharged starts running the oil burning engine. The electric car seems to be the favorite and it makes sense when you consider that electric cars depend on electric energy generation that at this point depends on hydroelectric dams and coal fired power plants. The great thing about electric cars is that the more energy we generate from renewable sources the more the electric car is environmentally friendly.

While buying one of these new cars from Detroit seems like the environmental thing to do, it may be more environmental to just use an old well preserved car that gets fairly good mileage. Or, vehicular conversions to biodiesel or other renewable systems could be more environmental. This article from the ChristianScienceMonitor gives some commentary.

Democrats from the House of Representatives in the American Congress are pushing for more than $80 billion to be spent on "the environment." If you want really good details on this current issue the Scientific American provides a great news article that lays it all out.

1/11/09: The human world is still confused and endangered, but atleast the times are interesting.

According to facts, and measurable results globalization has done the most to reduce poverty out of any effort ever made in the modern world. Emerging economies are tied to developed economies and right now that is not the best thing, and as modern history as shown increased economic protectionism in times of crises just makes the situation worst for everyone. So a slump in our wealth means a slump in poverty reduction.

Criticisms of the International Energy Agency (IEA) are emerging regarding their view of the future of renewable energy. The agency gives advice to many large governments in the world regarding energy policy. What the IEA's position on renewables has created is a reinforcement for government leaders that oil and coal will continue to be our energy sources in the next couple of decades.

This is an article from Canadian news. There is a perception that Canada is more "liberal" than America, but this article will show that this is not so true when it comes to the CBC. This article gives a critique of hydrogen and electric cars and while it is vastly misleading and pathetic there is some good information on the subject. Where the author goes wrong in the article is in two ways: one, although there are many technological obstacles to electric and hydrogen cars that is no reason to abandon the entire project, technology limitations has never stopped us especially when there is no alternative, two, the main critique of alternative cars is that they will be less powerful, more inconvenient and more costly- of course it will be at first and as it becomes more researched and manufactured cost and inconvenience will decline. But, the most ridiculous thing about the article is that because of a slightly higher cost and some inconvenience the author seems to suggest that we should just continue as we have been and accept the consequences of environmental degradation. I think that this is called Nihilism and laziness.

This article is an example of what the future will hold as the consequences for our toxic economy begin to reveal themselves as the bio-feedback mechanism rears its ugly, environmentally corrective head. Disoriented Pelicans are falling out of the sky in large numbers, test are being done, but so far it looks like our fault.

George Bush II has an environmental legacy? This is news to me, but apparently Bush is setting aside some non-controversial isolated bits of marine environment as a sanctuary. This totals 3 sanctuaries created by Bush, at least he did something good.

1/6/09: The new elctric car movement

Shai Agassi is one of my new heroes. He is a young man who has made it his mission to materialize a vibrant market for electric cars so to end the world dependence on oil. He is making deals in Israel and Denmark and is trying in America. Agassi is so far unsuccessful with the American government, not a surprise.

This is a long article about Agassi, his efforts and his company.

It is technology that improves our lives. Everyone outside of creating and implementing new technologies is just dancing around trying to get recognition, money, power, etc.

1/3/09: Sustainable consumerism, Financial Bailout is unsuccesful, Canadian forest's disturbed, An auspicious movement in the Muslim world

China's economy is doing worse than expected and will have to deal with a downturn. Since the Chinese government is very controlling over its people it can implement economic plans more effectively, like spending more and saving less.

This article from MotherJones shows a list of ways to be more sustainable in your home. One column shows what to buy according to American advertising and the other column shows what to buy or not buy to actually be more sustainable. The point of sustainability is not to throw out your appliances and buy ones that use slightly less energy, the point is to change behaviors and lifestyles, which sometimes means using a cloths line more, or showering less while using less water during each shower.

Canadian forests, mainly the Boreal, are on the aggregate emitting carbon instead of "sinking" it, they are considered a carbon "source." Just when we need the earth to compensate for our carbon emissions the mechanisms for naturally dealing with our carbon emissions are being hindered by rising global temperatures. Furthermore, beetles are infesting forests because of the lack of cold winters and burning forests seems to be the only human solution in use.

Pakistan, a supposed ally of the USA, has a record of not dedicating themselves to ending terrorism in their country: whatever that means. The recent attacks on India by a group based out of Pakistan has increased mutual opposition between India and Pakistan. What will the future of this conflict be, i do not know.

A non-religiously educated man from the Middle East becomes a celebrity and helps start a new movement in the Muslim world of modern and moderate faith practice. The efforts of this man is what is greatly needed. Religious conflicts have been dealt with in the past by moderate religious leaders gaining popularity by preaching peace. This man is my new hero. His name is Ahmad al-Shugairi, checkout his facebook account, it is the only thing in english i could find.