Week 15 (Blog)

This seems like a silly point to argue. Sure, we can say that other countries should try to develop while polluting less, but unles developed countries are going to step up to the plate and 1) reduce their own emissions, 2) help developing countries leap frog in technology, and 3) utilize newer cleaner technologies (so that they develop and become more cost effective) then we need to button our lip and stop dictating what the developing countries should be doing. Developing countries have a long history of taking advantage of the under dog.

May 17, 2006

Is it better to be clean and poor or dirty and...less poor?

We've talked before about environmental Kuznets curves. In it's simplest form, the EKC implies that a poor country will develop at the expense of the environment, but eventually, additional development will lead to environmental improvements. Environmental economists have struggled to see the EKC in action. Some studies suggest the EKC exists while others don't. Despite the lack of evidence, it looks like developing countries are starting to design EKC based development policy. From Reuters (via ENN.com):

India said on Tuesday that poor nations had to give priority to ending poverty rather than fighting global warming at 189-nation U.N. climate talks criticised by environmentalists as a rambling talk shop.

Nations from Papua New Guinea to Iceland gave speeches during a novel two-day U.N. "dialogue" trying to bridge huge policy divides about how to slow a rise in temperatures that many scientists say could trigger catastrophic climate changes.

In one of the most forceful talks, India told rich nations to take the lead in cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels, saying India needed more energy to end poverty for the 35 percent of its people living on less than a dollar a day.

I'm trying to picture the rich countries reaction: No you can't develop at the expense of the environment. Sure we're rich and we pollute, but that doesn't mean you can't be richer and clean. Just because we have nucular weapons doesn't mean that you should. Oops, I think I got my topics confused. Har de har har. It's a famous double standard!! Welcome double standard, I didn't think I'd see you today! Come and have a cup of Tea!

Posted by Tim Haab at 07:08 AM

Week 14 (Blog)

What a concept... It is the start of the End of Suburbia... Gas increases and people drive less... novel concept. My only question deals with the distinction made in the second paragraph between utilizing policy to redistribute income and utilizing a gas tax to redistribute income... isn't that the same difference??

May 15, 2006

The effect of high gas prices on middle class commuters

From the NYTimes (Full tanks put squeeze ...):

As many drivers struggle to cope with soaring fuel prices, working-class people like Ms. Lopez who commute long distances to their jobs are suffering the most. In many cases, they had moved far away from major metropolitan areas to be able to afford decent houses. Now, paradoxically, the cost of gas is making the distance prohibitively expensive.

This stinks, sure. But remember, environmental policy, trade policy, etc. is a terrible way to redistribute income if that is what you want to do. Increase the gas tax to deal with a number of environmental problems and redistribute income directly with the tax code (if that is what you want to do).

In the short run no one is able to adjust their situations much to high gas prices. Now, the mid-term economics is actually optimistic. Suppose that middle income workers with car commutes decide that they can't commute to their city jobs anymore. They'll take suburb jobs that pay less but their take home pay, after travel costs, will be higher. The resulting city labor shortage might drive wages upwards until commuters are attracted back into the city jobs.

In the long run, if gas prices stay relatively high, people will adjust their location decisions and the suburbs won't get the low gas price subsidy:

Roberto Alviarez, 49, a bellman at the Bentley Hotel, has begun using his bicycle for errands near his home in Coral Gables. Mr. Alviarez said he was looking for an affordable place to live closer to work.

Posted by John Whitehead at 07:24 AM

Week 13 (Blog)

Wow. I wonder what the American reaction to such a story would be (say, if this were posted all over American newsfeeds such as CBS, NBC, and ABC...). I don't think that it is far fetched or unbelievable (but I buy all the global warming and "hey-we're-destroying-the-earth" shit) and I can see how there could be a correlation. I also admit that there could be a correlation between humans being less superficial about mates and breeding. Now that we all cover ourselves tightly and care about "the person inside" there probably is less of a chance to laugh at the guy with the smaller package and move on. Basically, the evolutionary tactics that bred out the small penis are no longer in place. On the other hand, I definately believe that pollution and environmental degredation is making us sick (cancers, asthma, allergies), so why should the fact that environmental degredation affects our developing physiology seem such a shock? It doesn't. Truly, if you look at it from a certain angle, our susceptibility to cancers, asthma and allergies in itself represents an affect in our developing physiology. Or maybe this goes back to my earlier correlation and people who have cancers, asthma, and allergies are now less likely to be seen as undesirable mates and therefore are not weeded out of the gene pool. Now that everyone thinks I'm a cold and heartless bitch, I'm signing off while the night is still young!

May 01, 2006

That's One Way to Focus Mens' Attention on Environmental Issues

Warning...the following contains adult themes. We'll give it a PG-13 rating.

After last weeks intense gas price monomania, I thought I would lighten things up a bit. From the London Free Press: Pesticides may affect penis size

A renowned U.S. scientist who has documented fertility and sex changes -- including decreasing penis size -- due to environmental contamination says he wouldn't apply pesticides on his own lawn.

Alright...you have our attention.

A zoologist, Guillette has spent the last decade studying the influence of environmental contaminants on fetal development and reproductive systems of wildlife and humans, including the differences between alligators living in contaminated Florida lakes and those in cleaner ones.

He found abnormalities in sex organs, dramatic differences in egg-hatching rates and hormone levels.

Penis size of the animals from the polluted lake was smaller than animals from the less-polluted lake.

"This is important because it is not just an alligator story. It is not just a lake story. We know there has been a dramatic increase in penile and genital abnormalities in baby boys," Guillette said.

A followup study by another scientist involving healthy couples with 5,000 healthy babies also found reduced penis size with higher contamination levels.

"Are (their penises) so small they are actually having problems? We don't know. These are baby boys," he said.

But rodent studies have indicated more difficulty with fertility and other aspects later on, he said.

The researchers also found the alligators from contaminated water had abnormal ovaries. Some of the abnormalities were traced to chemical compounds with estrogen, a sex hormone. Estrogenic-type compounds are found in some pesticides, including atrazine, mostly widely used in North America for weed control.

Guillette said he doesn't support a total pesticide ban, saying their use is proper for public health and probably in agriculture. But when people can reduce their exposure they should, he said.

Anybody want to volunteer for the cost/benefit analysis on this one?

Posted by Tim Haab at 08:34 AM

Week 12 (Blog)

Global Warmind skepticism? Kyle is proof that some people still refuse to get it, but I guess there is not help for everyone. Some of the following proposals are ridiculous in nature while others make for good brain fodder. The interesting thing here is that some of the arguments presented here (or close variants) are ones that I've used as excuses for not believing other things.

April 28, 2006

SciAm Blog: Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part III

Scientific American's blog has a "summary of misgivings about whether global warming is occurring and whether it is caused by human activity." The list is extensive, so I am only going to include the main sections, but there is quite a bit of more detail in the original list. Also, in case anyone wants to participate, there is a poll on which arguments against global warming are the most compelling:

SciAm Blog: Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part III: As promised, here is the updated list of misgivings about whether global warming is occurring and whether it is caused by human activity. I've incorporated comments from the first and second threads and from private emails, and I've reshuffled some of the categories. I've done my best to be fair in representing the variety of opinion.

I think most people would agree that some of these arguments are stronger than others. What we need to do is find some way to rank them. As a start, I've set up a poll. After you take a look at the arguments, I invite you to go to the polling site and select which broad category you find the most persuasive. For completeness, I've included a response option for those who do think that anthropogenic warming is occurring, although I don't intend for this to be a broad survey of opinion. The poll is imperfect: for instance, the difference among categories II, III, and IV is a matter of degree. But I think it would help focus the discussion if we got a rough-and-ready sense of which line of argument is considered the most important.

View poll (The poll is a bit of a hack, so please bear with me. ...)

1. Warming may not actually be occurring. Most respondents seemed to agree that the global average temperature is rising, but some did not.
   
   1. This past winter was so cold. Where's the warming?
   2. Temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago in Western Europe.
   3. The global average temperature has been decreasing since 1998. This is the start of a cooling trend predicted by Theodore Landscheidt.
   4. Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect or localized natural temperature variation.
   5. Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.
   6. Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.
      
2. The present warming could be a natural uptick. Respondents pointed out that climate conditions fluctuate because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal (chaotic) variability. If pre-industrial fluctuations were natural, then industrial-age ones could be, too. One respondent put it this way: "Every time I read that we have had 'the hottest summer in 100 years' I wonder what caused that hot summer 100 years ago." Some people are too special.
   
   1. It is not, in fact, historically anomalous. Evidence suggesting as much is shaky.
   2. It could be explained by any number of natural processes.
      
3. CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming. This is complementary to the previous category: instead of arguing for a natural cause, the respondents here argued against an anthropogenic one.
   
   1. The emissions are too puny. But our forests are down by 2/3rds.
      
   2. Historical climate data rule out a significant role for CO2.
   3. CO2 levels might be driven by temperature, rather than the other way around. For instance, warm oceans can hold less CO2.
   4. The physics of CO2 absorption is too poorly understood to blame it for warming.
      
4. Climate models are unconvincing. In this category, I put the argument that, whatever the inherent plausibility of anthropogenic global warming, climate scientists have yet to present a solid case.
   
   1. Models do not capture the complexity of the climate system.
   2. Proper application of the scientific method does not support anthropogenic warming.
      
5. Warming is a good thing, so we shouldn't try to stop it. It might be good in a absolute sense or in a relative one. "Again last night I had that strange dream, where everything was exactly as it seemed/concerns about the world getting warmer, people thought that they were just being rewarded/for treating others as they'd like to be treated/obeying stop signs and curing diseases/for mailing letters with the address of the sender, now we can swim any day in November"
   
   1. It will increase humidity in tropical deserts and improve the lot of high-latitude regions.
   2. Higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth, and that's good.
   3. Historically, humanity has done better when the climate was warm, such as at the height of the Roman Empire, than when it was cold, such as the early medieval period. WTF?!?
      
   4. For most of its history, Earth has been warmer than today. Animals and plants seemed to do just fine in those periods of warm climate. One respondent wrote: "Our present chilly climate is the aberration when judged on a geological time scale."
   5. It staves off the next glaciation, which we're due for. Or does it set off the chain reaction which causes it sooner?
      
   6. Claims that global warming has worsened storm damage, or will do so, are overblown. If damage seems to have increased, it is simply because more people live in storm-prone regions and their plight is more widely publicized than before. Wasn't Katrina the worst hurricane seen thus-far... In terms of ferocity and wind speed. What about the tsunami which was arguably one of the worst ones.
      
   7. Attempts to stop global warming would do more damage they than avert. Warming might be bad, but it is better than the alternative, be it Kyoto or some other mitigation strategy. The underlying assumption here is that the null strategy -- letting people move away from shorelines as sea levels gradually rise and adopt non-carbon energy sources as commodity prices dictate, without any explicit climate policy -- carries the least net costs. And kills more of us. Thanks, Mr. Wizard.
      
6. Kyoto is useless, or worse. Many of the complaints were specific to the Kyoto Protocol, which has set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Although these comments don't really pertain to the science, I include them because some respondents linked their mistrust of climate science to their misgivings about Kyoto.
   
   1. It would bankrupt us. One correspondent said Kyoto mandates "a practically unlimited expenditure of effort (and money, naturally)."
   2. It may not bankrupt us per se, but it would divert resources from other, better-established priorities.
   3. It is an inefficient response to climate change. We are better off dealing with the consequences directly. For instance, an increased malarial threat could be handled by mosquito control measures.
   4. It reeks of social engineering: holier-than-thou environmentalists telling people how to lead their lives.
   5. It would reduce warming by 0.02 degrees C or a similarly meager amount.
   6. It exempts developing countries, whose emissions intensity and growth rates are much higher than those of developed countries. In effect, Kyoto lets developed countries outsource their emissions.
   7. It "demands that developed countries send money to Third World dictators for greenhouse gas credits."
   8. People may claim to support it, but their energy-wasting habits belie their true sentiments.
      
7. People who argue that human activity causes global warming can't be trusted. So... is cause and effect now just a horrible ruse? Now we get to what seems to be the single biggest complaint: doubts as to the competence or motivation of scientists and others who accept anthropogenic climate change. Many respondents perceive scientists as jumping to conclusions, haughtily dismissing doubters, refusing to take the time to explain things, and adopting absolutist positions. One respondent wrote: "What data would convince me? I don't know if data is the problem as much as needing to perceive an objective voice." This is an interesting perspective seeing as humans have been on the earth for a tiny period and we are pretty arrogant all the time and scientists are constantly jumping to conclusions only to rescind them and change their minds a year or two later. I'm not saying that I buy it, but I can see where it could get its credibility.
   
   1. Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.
   2. Climate scientists behave unscientifically.
   3. Activists and journalists have gone overboard.

I should point out that the above taxonomy doesn't capture all the responses. Some people simply asked questions about climate science, proposed that other human activities be incorporated into models, or commented on the motivations of the skeptics themselves. We can return to these thoughts as the discussion unfolds.

Posted by Mark Thoma at 02:11 AM

Week 11 (Blog)

Here's an interesting subject... (along the lines of several of my other posts, sorry)

April 16, 2006

A Little More Rain on the Hybrid Parade

Seems like others are starting to figure out what I pointed out last year (A Little Rain on the Prius Parade look down), that hybrids aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16kitman.html Below

J.S.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

A Little Rain on the Prius Parade

As an ardent environmentalist, it may surprise you that I am not entirely sold on the hybrid revolution that has been initiated by the wildly popular Toyota Prius. Before I explain why, let me be clear that I think the Prius is a great car and there are many reasons to buy it independent of its fuel efficiency (e.g. it’s very quiet, it drives well, and who can’t appreciate the button instead of the key ignition?). The fact that the Prius is now somewhat of a status symbol while sales of Hummers have dropped precipitously is an unambiguously great thing.

The Prius (and other recent hybrids) are being touted as extremely fuel efficient and therefore, as an effective means of decreasing our dependence on oil and our CO2 emissions. Sales are way up and a wide variety of government-sponsored rebates for the purchase of “green” cars are currently in the works. The fact is, however, that hybrids are not really much more efficient than many conventional gas cars that have been around for decades. At this point, from a strictly environmental standpoint it’s likely that the added cost is not justified.

The Prius is listed at 60mpg city and 51mpg highway, but these numbers are for “ideal” conditions and are not realized in practice. I know two people who own a Prius and they get low 40s on the highway and mid-high 40s in the city (I’ve been told that the Honda Civics hybrids get slightly better mileage). While very good numbers, particularly when compared to SUVs, this mileage is not much better than for conventional compacts. Many Hondas and Toyotas get close to 40mpg and even a number of American brands get in the mid-30s. So for a Prius we’re only really talking about a 10-20% increase in efficiency over many other less expensive models when driving on the highway. While the city mileage is certainly better, people drive far fewer city miles, and there are many more public transportation options in cities. So the improvement in city mileage doesn’t cut into the bulk of gasoline demand, which is for highway commuting.

Let’s look at an average commuter who drives 12,000 miles per year. If we’re comparing a Honda Accord to a Prius the savings in gasoline is in the range of 30-60 gallons a year. A gallon of gasoline emits about 5-6 pounds of carbon and I’ll round that off to 10 since there’s also energy used in gasoline production. So that’s 300-600 pounds of extra carbon a year.

(Note: I am ignoring the possibility that once consumers purchase a highly fuel efficient car they may actually increase their amount of driving since it has now become cheaper, and therefore, cut into some of the CO2 reductions brought about by the higher mileage. Also, I am not taking into account the extra energy that goes into producing the lithium battery for the Prius and the CO2 that results.)

Now the question is: With the sticker price of a Prius roughly $4,000 more than a standard Accord with similar features is this a good deal for 600 pounds less carbon? (I’ll go with the high number)

(Note: while hybrid owners save money in gas they also have to pay a lot for battery replacements so I’m going to assume these costs and benefits cancel each other out.)

The way to answer this question is to determine how much it would cost to decrease CO2 emissions by an equivalent amount in some other fashion. One excellent way to accomplish this is by planting trees. Although estimating the precise amount of CO2 sequestration from trees is extremely complex, the amount of trees needed to annually absorb 600 pounds of carbon is very small; a tiny fraction of an acre.

So here’s my conclusion: If decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere is your primary motive it’s much more efficient to forego the Prius (and buy an Accord, Civic, or Corolla- perhaps even a used one) and spend the extra money on tree planting and the general preservation of open space.

This takes us to a general point on the issue of CO2 emissions that seems to have gotten lost in the larger debate these days. With such a focus on hybrids and the complete lack of political will to increase mileage standards (which is the most important thing we should be doing on this front) the role of forests in carbon sequestration is no longer at the forefront in the public’s consciousness (when was last time we heard about preserving the Amazon Rainforest?). This is unfortunate because not only do forests and open space decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, but they also provide a host of other environmental benefits (such as biodiversity preservation and watershed protection), and payment for these services can be an excellent way to help the poor in developing countries (although of course we can also plant trees here as well). Some amount of global warming is now inevitable and many species are going to need large areas to roam in order to adapt to the shifting climate; therefore, habitat preservation and expansion should be a top priority. what would this policy look like?? Instead of extra highways and wider streets, more parks and landscaping in our cities... Sounds rather nice to me...

In addition, there are literally dozens of home energy conservation options (retrofitting windows, purchasing more efficient appliances, better insulation) that would cut down CO2 by as much as driving hybrids for a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, much of the resistance to implementing these commonsense and relatively simple fixes is due to the shortcomings of human psychology; it’s much more sexy and feels more substantive to buy a hybrid car than to make basic home improvements. I like this option because it doesn't make me feel like a dick for not being able to sell my car and purchase a new one.

None of this is to suggest that fuel efficiency and hybrid technology are not important; they are. People who are investing now in hybrid cars are fueling the demand, which will hopefully lead to successive generations of new technology that will have much higher mileage, perhaps even approaching 100mpg. When this happens hybrid cars will clearly be worth the added cost on every dimension. In the meantime, I recognize that what’s optimum from an economic standpoint is not always what’s politically or socially most practical; consumer trends and human psychology are powerful forces. That said, I think the money being spent on consumer rebates for hybrids would be better spent on direct public investments in R&D for hybrid technology, the protection and expansion of the world’s forests and critical habitats, and paying people to make energy conserving home improvements. Here's some room for improvement: hybrid SUVs that get lower mpg than my mom's forester... Can we say "pointless?" I think we can!! Any company that is proud of the fact that it has made a hybrid with an mpg of 12 needs to have a long think about the purpose of hybrids. As for a vehicle with an mpg approaching 100, check out this baby: 157 mpg and still achieves 0-63 in 20 seconds... Yes, it utilizes diesel fuel which is dirtier than gasoline fuel, but look at how little of it you would use... Break it down by looking at my truck and my normal driving activities... My truck gets 23 mpg, I get just about 320 miles. If my truck got 157 mpg, that means I could go almost 2200 miles on one fill up... I consider my family to be light drivers... We drive about 300 miles in a typical month, which means we fill up once a month (14 gallons). If the truck got 157 mpg, we'd have to fill up every six months... Sure, we may drive an extra time to Louisville, but I do not think that it would significantly affect our driving frequency or distance. That's a lot of fuel saved. Therefore (to address the dirtiness issue I brought up earlier), even though the fuel used is "dirtier," I do not think that we would be polluting more based on the miles driven and amount of pollutant released. Diesel fuel would have to be a whopping six times dirtier...

J.S.

*Thanks a lot to James Manley, Duncan Callaway, and Meredith Fowlie for their insightful comments and to Molly Norton for reminding me to write about this issue.

P.S. For a really good use of hybrids check out this article on NYC taxis.

Posted 07/08/2005 @ 12:29am

Sweet Victory: NYC Makes Way for Hybrids

Frustrated by exorbitant gas prices, Kwame Corsi, a taxi driver from the Bronx, had been waiting years for the chance to drive a hybrid car. In New York, where 93 percent of the city's cabs are Crown Victorias (large Ford models that guzzle a gallon every twelve miles), drivers like Corsi often pay up to $100 dollars a day on fuel. Up until last week, New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission had refused to grant medallions for hybrid taxis.

Now, thanks to the City Council's unanimous decision to approve the "Clean Air Taxis Act ," Corsi will get his wish and New Yorkers will literally breathe easier. New York, which was ranked by the American Lung Association as one of America's most polluted cities in 2004, suffers from the highest asthma mortality rate in the country. But under the new law, which will put hybrids on the street by this fall, the harmful emissions spewed out by New York's fleet of 13,000 cabs will be dramatically reduced. According to the Sierra Club, hybrids are particularly well-suited for New York City, because the greatest difference in emissions from hybrids comes under conditions of slow traffic and idling. Way to utilize available technologies!! This makes much more sense than commuters who buy Priuses.

"The New York yellow taxi is an American icon. What better way to showcase a great solution to our air pollution and oil dependence problems?" said Mark Izeman of the NRDC in a press release from the Coalition Advocating for Smart Transportation (CAST), a group that has been at the forefront of the fight for green cabs in New York City. Lets not get carried away, there are non-hybrid vehciles that get 36-38 mpg.

New York's high profile win is the latest in a string of victories for the "Green Fleets" movement. A few weeks ago, legislators in Charlotte, NC voted to hybridize the city's municipal fleet, and Denver, Seattle, and Madison have also made strides in converting their fleets to green.

As is increasingly the case, cities across the country are making progressive strides in the face of an obstinate administration that refuses to declare its independence from oil. It's time to tell Congress to seriously invest in a clean energy plan. Take action by supporting the Apollo Alliance and clicking here to send a letter to your Senators and Congressmen.

Life in the Green Lane

IF you make your way over to the Javits Convention Center for the New York International Automobile Show — or if you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so — you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics.

And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome — saving gas.

Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources — one a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor — the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. For this reason, federal, state and local governments have been bending over backward to encourage the sale of hybrids, with a bewildering array of tax breaks, traffic lanes and parking spaces dedicated to hybrid owners.

But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a nonhybrid car. The truth is, it depends on the hybrid and the nonhybrid cars you are comparing, as well as on how you use the vehicles. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid S.U.V.'s — just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets.

Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too.

Lately, right-minded people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid S.U.V. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional S.U.V.'s, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise — hybrid or not. Because the Lexus 400H is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ.

The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla — which costs thousands less. For the owner who does the majority of her driving on the highway, the Prius's potential for fuel economy will never be realized and its price premium never recovered.

For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution — the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard.

Just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on oil.

Week 10 (Blog)

Well, I was hopeful for some more interesting material for this week's entry (stuff more like the overwhelming amount from the 22nd) and nada, so I'm falling back to this which reflects my general thoughts at this point... the comments were terribly ridiculous as well. So much argument out of something taken too seriously ... seesh, I understood what he meant! Just read it in its intention, then get a kick out of the amount of arguing it illicited... This got better reaction than did some of the other stuff posted that WAS serious...

April 11, 2006

Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Global Warming

When it comes to global warming, there's times when I feel like I'm in the middle of one of those old Looney Tunes exchanges:

Bugs Bunny: Shoot him [pointing to Daffy Duck]

Daffy Duck: Shoot him [pointing to Bugs]

Bugs: Shoot him

Daffy: Shoot him

Bugs: Shoot me

Daffy: NO, SHOOT ME!

BANG!

Maybe it's because of stories like this...

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Scientists: Global warming is a problem

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: OK, maybe it is

Scientist: No it isn't

BANG?

Comments

The Daily Telegraph?

Come ON.

Posted by: M1EK | April 11, 2006 at 11:39 AM

M1EK,

Granted, a conservative slant, but the purpose was more toward pointing out that reputable sources with large audiences are sending mixed messages. Simply because it's conservative doesn't mean it's wrong. That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative.

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 12:05 PM

Bob Carter is a willful misleader.

WMI = 9.0275

_______________

Willful Misleader Index (WMI)

Scale: 1-10

1 = Ideologue who only selectively reading work with words that appeal to narrow worldview.

5 = Innocent, new to issue, seeking information.

10 = Shill, paid mendacicizer, employee of PR firm.

_______________

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 11, 2006 at 02:40 PM

okay, so are the scientists shooting you or your reader? I'm confused.

Posted by: DW | April 11, 2006 at 02:51 PM

I find the fact that you see yourself in opposition with "the scientists" to be very enlightening.

And it is of course emblematic of a wider social dynamic.

Posted by: odograph | April 11, 2006 at 03:16 PM

No, Tim, the Telegraph is willfully political. The NYTimes has an unconscious liberal (really just an elitist urban) bias. Not the same thing at all.

The NYTimes would report the true state of science even if it opposed their political aims. We already know the Telegraph won't.

Posted by: M1EK | April 11, 2006 at 03:45 PM

M1EK,

ALL English newspapers are political (I just checked with my English friend to make sure I could say that comfortably)--The Telegraph, the Guardian, The Independent, The Times, all of them. My point is, poeple read them and take what is written as fact--even if they are slanted. And the facts on global warming are confusing. But, instead of dismissing entire news sources based on their slant, I instead prefer to try to decipher fact from opinion. And in an article/editorial that claims to use "temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"--a reputable source--I have an obligation to ask, IS THAT FACT? I don't know at this point, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there that believe it.

DW,

That bang was supposed to be the global warming explosion (hence the question mark).

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 04:08 PM

"That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative."

And you would believe anything in the NYTimes because?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz | April 11, 2006 at 07:04 PM

Tim, the easy questions to ask are:

- how many sets of climate records exist?
- do those records agree in a simple numeric sense?
- given those sets, do scientists agree on the extrapolation to an "earth temperature?"
- does Bob Carter use a standard extrapolation?

I'd guess, as a casual observer that questions like "how do we average the air column" and "how do we average the ocean water column" would lead to an array of answers. Do they agree on 1998-2005 cooling?

For what it's worth, this graph shows a climb:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/

Posted by: odograph | April 11, 2006 at 07:47 PM

Tim, the issue is that Bob Carter is a willful misleader and he uses the language of the obfuscators and propagandists to mislead the reader.

If one is more inclined in a worldview to get an emotional response from certain phrases, one is more apt to be duped by this sort of language, used liberally in this op-ed; in my experience, this sort of reader fails to follow-up on the 'facts' given, thus locking in their dupedness.

I'm not sure why you wrote this post, as it is confusing and lacks the clarity of thought that I associate with your posts.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 11, 2006 at 08:28 PM

Dano,

If I'm batting .900, I'll take it.

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 09:10 PM

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

this might be the graph Mr Carter was using...and the global temp clearly shows a slight decline in global mean temp between 1998 and 2005.

have fun all. :)

Posted by: joshua corning | April 11, 2006 at 09:32 PM

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

and this little toy from nasa clearly shows the slight decline between 1998 and 2004...it doesn't have 2005 on it

Posted by: joshua corning | April 11, 2006 at 09:38 PM

Nice one Joshua. That graph is pretty telling when you read it alongside Carter's story isn't it? Carter talks about a trend up from 1920-1940 and then down from 1940-1960 and then up again as if these are just all random ups and downs that even out, but if you look at the whole century it looks like a pretty strong solid rise in the first half, a little bit of choppy consolidation in the middle and then a second strong solid rise in the second half.

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

Posted by: David Jeffery | April 11, 2006 at 10:13 PM

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

Well if people were claiming that such a rise was unprecedented then that CEO would.

The question is not if there is a rise but if that rise is outside of historical norms, which it is not.

That rushing sound you are hearing between your ears would be the whole argument of human induced global warming being flushed down the toilet.

But take a look at the second graph I pointed to...the one from nasa. It shows the same temp in 1980 and 2003.

ouch! That has got to hurt.

But i should not be so mean to you David. I mean at least you are honest and forward enough to actually make a reasoned arguement. Unlike say dano who's response is to first attack Bob Carter, calling him a "willful misleader" without actaully expaining why or how or where and then to attack Tim's post as "confusing and lacks...clarity" again without actually putting forth a reasoned arguement.

Posted by: joshua corning | April 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM

speaking about scientists here is one that might agree with Carter.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Posted by: joshua corning | April 12, 2006 at 11:49 PM

A while back Joshua, I put forward:

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

You rejected that, saying in part:

"Trying to postulate this pure idea of good basic science verses inpure bad political motivated science is a lie. It is all political and you can never get away from it, and the best solution in removing the curruption of science is to not fund it. Let the ideas fight it out in the private sector rather then giveing a certian side the goverment seal of approval depending on who happens to be in office."

... I think you've kind of abandoned the right to name scientists ..according to you it is all a lie.

Posted by: odograph | April 13, 2006 at 09:57 AM

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

I agree that science should be held to high non-political standard...but in the context you were trying to defend federal funding of science and i was simply pointing out that federal funding by default puts it on political grounds and the only clean way of removing politics from science is to stop funding it with public dollars.

But yeah quote me out of context to make your BS stick...that is constructive.

Posted by: joshua corning | April 13, 2006 at 01:45 PM

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

Posted by: odograph | April 13, 2006 at 03:04 PM

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

Nasa story?? You must mean the little toy I found here:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

...hey i never said it wasn't political...i only ment to point out that it seems to conflict with the hockey teams "consensous" and agrees with the points made by Bob Carter.

But you would have to be crazy to think that what NASA does is not political.

Ever hear of the space race and the cold war?

Posted by: joshua cornings | April 13, 2006 at 07:43 PM

In related news, Global Warming Skeptics Take a Page from Big Tobacco's Disinformation Playbook

Posted by: odograph | April 14, 2006 at 09:54 AM

Well there is a corrilation with cancer and smoking...probably becouse smoking couses cancer.

Trouble with global warming is that there is no corrilation between increased CO2 and rising tempretures...i mean why was it hotter 800 years ago when CO2 consentraions were lower?...and why the platous instead of a steady gain in temp? and why did most of the temp gain over the last 200 years happen when there was the least amount of CO2? And why did the Temp rise start before the industrial revolution, before large amounts of were poured into the atmosphere?

Posted by: joshua corning | April 14, 2006 at 02:12 PM

Why should I care when someone repeats tobacco lobby talking points?

Posted by: odograph | April 14, 2006 at 06:42 PM

odo, he's just showing you how easy it is to incorporate Tobacco FUD phrases and disinformation tactics into a different issue (although I think Philip Morris would object to the every-other-word-misspelled tactic, tho...).

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 14, 2006 at 07:17 PM

Week 9 (Blog) 3

I have no more deep comments to add, I just thought with so many of my responses aimed toward this problem (and the whole questionare thing) that I would include this on my page as well, for my reference.

Taxing miles in Oregon

Out of some perverse fear that the gas tax revenue spigots will clam shut, Oregon is testing a GPS system for the impending mileage tax (Seeking Fiscal Health ...):

The Oregon experiment is among several efforts across the country designed to increase state revenue for road maintenance and construction without raising gasoline taxes. Oregon's examination of a "vehicle miles traveled tax" comes at time when many states are facing depleted transportation budgets, chiefly because of inflation.

Call me a Luddite (did I just hear someone call me a Luddite?) but sometimes what sounds cool isn't so cool. Here are a couple of problems:

• The aggregate cost of the GPS devices could be high
• Those who buy fuel efficient cars won't be happy about getting stuck with a tax they tried to avoid with good behavior

Also, drivers who hate gas taxes aren't likely to celebrate taxing miles.

And just for the record, environmental economists like gas taxes because they can be used to correct negative externality problems (i.e., reduce pollution) not for their generation of revenue at a relatively low deadweight loss.

Week 9 (Blog) 2

So here is where I finish my social ranting... (placed within the text)

March 30, 2006

I thought new CAFE standards were dead?

From the NYTimes (U.S. Raises Standards ...):

The Transportation Department announced new fuel economy standards Wednesday for sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans that will make some of them go farther on a gallon of gasoline than the average car does, and will apply to many of the biggest S.U.V.'s for the first time. An SUV that gets better mpg than a car, sign most of America up. Thing is, will this be more like the Ford Escape Hybrid? Can we acheive the mpg of that hybrid (31-33 combined mpg) without a hybrid engine, and if we can, does this mean we can acheive 40-45 with a hybrid engine? With measurements taken with realistic conditions and drivers instead of the way EPA mpgs are measured? (I think I touch on this in an earlier response how EPA mpg is not accurate - it's usually too high.)

But the overall fuel savings, 8.1 percent when the rule is fully phased in, were characterized as too modest by many conservation advocates, who also noted that the biggest pick-up trucks will still be unregulated. Remarks by auto manufacturers were restrained.

Here is something I said about CAFE standards back in August.

August 23, 2005

New CAFE standards

From the WSJ's Evening Wrap:

The U.S. Transportation Department imposed new fuel-economy standards on trucks, minivans and some SUVs, a move it said would cut consumers' gasoline bills, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said new calculation methods -- representing the biggest change to the fuel-efficiency regime in decades -- would encourage auto makers to build heavier vehicles, improving highway safety. But the new standards don't apply to cars or the biggest SUVs, such as the Hummer. And environmentalists said they were too lax to significantly cut gasoline costs or reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Despite what we think of CAFE standards, this is welcome news.

Update (8/25): My knee jerk reaction was that any fuel efficiency proposal must be a good thing. I'm a bit embarrassed now. Instead, let me say this: We don't like CAFE standards. More reasons why are here (below) and here (below that) and here (below both of those).

July 28, 2005

Fuel Efficiency

Today's NYTimes reports that the USEPA is delaying a report that says that fuel efficiency has declined significantly since the late 1980s (duh):

Some of what the report says reaffirms what has long been known. Leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient, and the rise of sport utility vehicles and S.U.V.-like pickup trucks has actually sapped efficiency. The average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's, according to the report. What is the obsession with speed? A vehicle realistically doesn't need to go above 80mph (speed limits, remember those?) and, quite frankly, people with vehicles that go from 0-60 is 2 seconds tend to get jumpy around stopped situations and can cause wrecks (remember those, they are bad and people get hurt or killed). Unless you're in the Indy 500, there really is no reason to beable to get from 0-60 is 2 seconds on your way to the grocery store... Plus this sudden burst in speed wrecks havoc on mpg - sudden speed is a major drain on gasoline and a steady increase is much easier on an engine, transmission, and fuel consumption.

The problem seems to be that the new energy bill does not improve fuel efficiency or conservation when one goal of the energy bill is (or should be) the reduction in dependence on foreign sources of oil, oil consumption in general and greenhouse gas emissions. Releasing the EPA report this week might be embarrassing.

But what about raising CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards in order to achieve this goal? Economists have, for a long time, said that CAFE standards aren't really the way to go.

For one thing, the amount that people drive, and therefore emissions, aren't regulated. The perverse effect of rising fuel efficiency is the increased incentive to drive more miles. If I get 40 mpg instead of 15 mpg it is cheaper to drive so I'll drive more. The positive impact of higher fuel efficiency is reduced.

Another problem is safety. One way to increase fuel efficiency is to make the cars lighter and therefore less safe. The increased miles driven also decreases safety. The increased time spent on the road by each driver and the increased congestion makes it more likely that something bad will happen.

So, what can be done to increase fuel efficiency and safety efficiently? How about raising the gas tax? Okay, so an increase in mpg may increase miles for many of Americans - this is where education comes into play. Yes, there is a time when people need to travel long distances, but there is also a time when people need to invesigate alternatives. Quite frankly, why do people drive most often? Honestly it is to go somewhere to spend money and purchase items (from personal experience, my husband and I do not shop more than is necessary... so we go to Kroger for groceries once or twice a month and maybe we go to the mall once every 3-4 months...) therefore, if we decrease the need for consumption, we may find that we decrease miles driven.

On economic efficiency grounds alone, raising the gasoline tax would be a far better approach to reducing gasoline consumption than tightening CAFE standards, because it exploits all potential behavioral responses for reducing fuel use .... Unlike CAFE, a fuel tax does not “work against itself” by encouraging people to drive more; instead it raises the cost of driving--and does so for both existing as well as new vehicles. Gasoline taxes encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles (and thus create incentives for automakers to produce them), to use more efficient vehicles if they have more than one, and to conserve fuel through their patterns of driving and maintenance. But then we do the same thing we do with the tobacco tax, hurt the poorer people. The rich people who buy big, expensive, SUVs that guzzel gass aren't strongly affected by the gas tax. These are also the people most likely to purchase the newer, more efficient vehicles. Many people who are in the lower-middle to lower classes aren't going to be able to just junk their current vehicle and purchase a newer model - therefore they won't reap the benefits of a higher CAFE standard - and definately not if they have even more of their money being flushed away in gas. This directly affects the tobacco tax which is designed to discourage smoking... When I worked at Walgreens, the biggest complaint I heard from smokers who wanted to quit was that it was too expensive to purchase the patches or gum. If you sat down and looked at it, they would save hundreds of dollars a year by quitting (if you smoke 1 carton a month at $33/carton, in a year you would spend $396! and the patchs and gum run about $20/box) the problem is the DISPOSABLE income of these people is too low to afford the patch or gum because the poor people don't buy cigs by the carton - they purchase 2 or 3 packs at a time which is more expensive (a carton comes with 10 packs in it, but a pack is almost $4). If these people don't have the disposable income to purchase a $20 box of stuff to help them quit, how are they going to have the money to purchase a newer, more efficient car??

Source: RFF Discussion Paper 03–44

August 25, 2005

CAFE: States vs Fed

The cynic wonders: why new CAFE standards now? after the energy bill rejected them?

From today's NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...) we learn that the proposed CAFE standards are weaker than those sought by California and other (blue) states. The state standards would hurt GM and Ford more than the fed standards and are strongly opposed by GM and Ford:

But the plan conflicts with air quality rules passed by California. The administration supports legal efforts by automakers to turn back the rules, which sharply curb tailpipe emissions of global-warming gases.

Because such emissions are related to how much gas a vehicle uses, California's rules would save far more at the pump for the state's residents than the White House plan. That would also be the case in states in the Northeast and Northwest that follow, or plan to follow, California's car rules. For California alone, the state projects annual net gas savings of more than $1 billion by early next decade. This hits on an earlier post I made (if I remember correctly) because the people making the decisions are worried more about their businesses and corporations. Who was it, GM that killed the idea of US commuter trains because it wanted to see it's gas vehicles (I keep remembering someting about a stock in oil/gas)? These companies do not have society's or Earth's best interests in mind.

...

The administration's proposal is aimed at model year 2008-to-2011 light duty trucks, a category that includes sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. The administration projects 10 billion gallons of gas savings over nearly two decades, about what is consumed in 25 days.

By contrast, California's emissions regulation would effectively force automakers to have a combined fuel economy for cars and trucks of about 33 m.p.g. by the 2016 model year and save 1.7 billion gallons of gas in California alone in just five years, the state's Air Resources Board projects. Quite frankly, I think that sounds great, if we can do it, why shouldn't we? Up there somewhere it mentions lighter vehicles being more unsafe... Can I direct this conversation more to the way Americans drive? We are DEFensive drivers - or we are taught to be. If everyone drove defensively, we would be better off, but there are those who choose to drive OFFensively and they ruin it for the rest of us. In Europe, everyone there is taught to drivve OFFensively and everyone does - they have less automobile accidents. I can also attest that they have way more concentrated trafic. The SMART car (a Swatch and mercedes(?) collaboration) gets the equivalent of 70mpg. It is also small and easy to park. They also have regulations set up where on Sundays (the most popular pleasure driving day - where people usually travel the most out of city) big shipping trucks cannnot be on the roads, they must all be parked so that the roads are less congested and safer for pleausre drivers. This is only one example of regualtions that other countries have that are geared toward the happiness and safety of the CITIZENS rather than the CORPORATIONS. Priorities need to change here in the United States.

...

The White House plan is intended to help the struggling domestic automakers ... Umm... did I mention that CAFE sounded like it was more intended toward corporations than the American people?

August 24, 2005

The view on proposed CAFE standards from the Gristmill

From the Daily Grist:

The Bush administration surveyed the landscape -- gas prices rising, fears of oil dependence spreading -- and concluded that bold leadership was required. So it invaded an oil-rich country. Heh, well ... on to Plan B! Yesterday, the administration proposed a new set of auto fuel-economy rules. Tightening the standard for passenger cars? Uh, no, that would stay at an average of 27.5 miles per gallon. Finally imposing some requirements on mega-SUVs like the Hummer H2? Wrong again. Instead, most SUVs, pickups, and minivans would be divided into six categories based on size, each with its own fuel-economy requirements. The administration says the plan would increase the average mileage of these vehicles a whopping 2.8 mpg by 2011, to 24 mpg. Amazing but true! Despite the obvious logic of the plan, it has critics, some of whom point out that it would actually provide an incentive for auto manufacturers to make their light trucks larger, so they'd be bumped into categories with lower mileage standards. [emphasis added] "The proposal is almost embarrassing in terms of its effect on fuel consumption," said Eric Haxthausen of Environmental Defense.

An excellent point, and an excellent example of the types of obvious things I miss everyday.

Update (8/25): An example from the NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...):

For instance, Ford could add less than an inch to the dimensions of its Explorer Sport Trac and move it from a class with a fuel target of 24.5 m.p.g. to one with 23.3 in 2011 models.

Week 9 (Blog)

So is coral considered passive use and active use? I guess it could be, depending on who was being asked. But anyway, people probably read this and go, "oh well" and hop back to whatever they were doing. Maybe one of the problems is social strata and where social pressures lie... people won't change until they feel a social alternative. Global warming is so much more than an economic issue - it's a social issue based in how we live our lives and until that changes, nothing will change.

Caribbean Coral Suffers Record Death

Calculated Risk has news about a large loss of coral in Caribbean waters":

Calculated Risk: AP: Caribbean Coral Suffers Record Death: Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer reports: Caribbean Coral Suffers Record Death

A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.

Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in official monitoring sites has recently died.

"It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."

When we discuss long term economic issues, global warming should be #1. This article shocked me (there is a reason my email address is dive_hike). Best to all.

Week 8 (Blog)

An issue to sink my teeth into... Much of this really sounds like nothing is being said. It's the same argument, we need to take externalities into consideration, the polluter's should pay so that the people can make better decisions (based on price instead of relying on each person knowing what the externalities are and relying on them to make a decision) and so that the world will be cleaner... But, hold on, we don't know what these things are worth... So now who do we value these things so that we can price them... This is a circle that has no end. At least the Chinese are doing SOMETHING while we sit around and scratch ourselves. The value of ecological services would be too tremendous to add up - we are not the only being who use these services, every living thing on the planet requires clean air, clean water, habitat, etc. and to value these things means its value not only to us, but to the life cycle as a whole. Humans are so arrogant to think that this is something they can measure. There is only ONE planet that we can live on. There is only ONE place we have to survive. We are destroying it. We need to stop. There is only a forward, there is no backward. Instead of talking, we should act. Act in small ways, act in ways to change our societies and our lives. Many people die in the US over worked and under socialized - we are going toward the wrong goal - this is the fast train to the wrong station. Wake up and smell the fair trade, something needs to be done. Something serious and something immediate and something radical. People and corporations fight policies designed to make us better off because they are afraid they will lose their business - lose their money - lose their place in society. People bitch about how low minimum wage is, about not wanting to raise minimum wage, but we put "famous people" up on pedistals and they get paid MILLIONS of DOLLARS for many of the things that they do and we say, "aren't they great?" Is that rational?!? We value someone who can write a TV show that makes the rest of the world insecure and belittled... And this makes sense? We have 12 year olds having sex, 8 year olds with eating disorders, news that showcases on the depressing side of humanity because that is what sells? We are sick and depraved and I am way off topic, but it was a nice rant and I feel relevant to the whole idea of our socioeconomic system.

Scott, I have a question about part of the post (green italic farther down) and I would appreciate it mightily if you would post a comment and shed a little light on it. Thank you.

Capitalism and Sustainability

Al Gore and David Blood discuss capitalism and sustainability and argue that sustainable economic development requires mechanisms to ensure that businesses fully internalize the social and economic costs they bring about. One mechanism to force businesses to internalize costs is government policy, but an emerging factor is consumer preferences for sustainable business practices:

For People and Planet, by Al Gore and David Blood, Commentary, WSJ: Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society. ... Our current system for accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes and the creation of "national accounts" ...

While this system was precise in its ability to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic development is hard-wired to externalize ... costs...

Externalities are costs created by industry but paid for by society. For example, pollution is an externality which is sometimes taxed by government in order to make the entity responsible "internalize" the full costs of production. Over the past century, companies have been rewarded financially for maximizing externalities in order to minimize costs.

Today, the global context for business is clearly changing. ... and we think ... financial markets have a significant opportunity to chart the way forward. ... The interests of shareholders, over time, will be best served by companies that maximize their financial performance by strategically managing their economic, social, environmental and ethical performance. This is increasingly true as we confront the limits of our ecological system ... The "polluter pays" principle is just one example of how companies can be held accountable for the full costs of doing business. Now, more than ever, factors beyond the scope of Keynes's national accounts are directly affecting a company's ability to generate revenues, manage risks, and sustain competitive advantage. There are many examples of the growing acceptance of this view.

In the corporate sector, companies like General Electric are designing products to enable their clients to compete in a carbon-constrained world. ... Whole Foods and others are addressing the demand for quality food by sourcing local and organic produce. Importantly, the business response is about making money for shareholders, not altruism.

In the nongovernmental sector, organizations such as World Resources Institute, Transparency International, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) and AccountAbility are helping companies explore how best to align corporate responsibility with business strategy.

Over the past five years we have seen markets begin to incorporate the external cost of carbon dioxide emissions. This is happening through pricing mechanisms (price per ton of carbon dioxide) and government-supported trading platforms such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme in Europe. Even without a regulatory framework in the U.S., voluntary markets are emerging, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and state-level initiatives such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative...

The investment community has also started to respond. For example, the Enhanced Analytics Initiative, an international collaboration between asset owners and managers, encourages investment research that considers the impact of extra-financial issues on long-term company performance. The Equator Principles, designed to help financial institutions manage environmental and social risk in project financing, have now been adopted by 40 banks which arrange over 75% of the world's project loans. In addition, the rise in shareholder activism and the growing debate on fiduciary responsibility, governance legislation and reporting requirements ... indicate the mainstream incorporation of sustainability concerns.

While we are seeing evidence of leading public companies adopting sustainable business practices in developed markets, there is still a long way to go to make sustainability fully integrated and therefore truly mainstream. A short-term focus still pervades both corporate and investment communities, which hinders long-term value creation.

As some have said, "We are operating the Earth like it's a business in liquidation." More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet.

Mr. Gore, a former vice president of the United States, is chairman of Generation Investment Management. Mr. Blood, formerly head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is managing partner of Generation Investment Management, which he co-founded with Mr. Gore.

One note. I would have mentioned Simon Kuznets when discussing development of national income accounts, and noted that economists weren't always the obstacle in developing better measures of well-being:

EconLib: Simon Kuznets: In the late forties, however, [Kuznets] broke with the Commerce Department over its refusal to use GNP as a measure of economic well-being. He had wanted the department to measure the value of unpaid housework because this was an important component of production. The department refused, and still does. This is confusing... he broke with the CD because CD refused to use Gross National Product as a measure of economic well-being... but he also wanted the CD to measure the value of unpaid labor such as people working in their homes... Sounds like Kuznets wanted something more like the GenuineProgressIndicator and so did the CD... so where was the problem? Can you shed some light on this Scott?

Comments

The concept is beautiful. Too bad people have to be involved in it. Even in the formulation above the concept has already been degraded by political anit-captialism pollution. "Business" is portrayed as the source of pollution. In reality people, everybody, are the source of pollution.

I am sick to death of all of the hypocrital psuedo-environmentalists who blather on about what other people must do to "save the earth". Al Gore is a prime example, as is John Kerry. They drone on about what I must do while they keep there multiple SUVs idling in the driveway of their multiple mansions so they don't have to bother with the inconvenience of using their ignition keys. Will they can just stuff their grossly immoral pompous panderiing. And so can the people who follow along after them, licking up the droppings that they leave behind. But for all their licking, most of them cannot clean up after themselves. I have already done more than they can ever do to protect the earth.

The real results of their concepts can be viewed in the environment destruction left behind by the anti-captialistic regimes of the USSR and the Democratic Republic of Germany.

Woe to the comman man when he is ruled by despots with heads overflowing with brains.

Posted by: Don Kosloff | March 28, 2006 at 05:37 AM

Gore and Blood's goal is this:

"More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet."

The assumption seems to be that human beings can know in advance what the "externalities" will be if we just have enough economists working on it. It sounds cumbersome and bureaucratic. Do markets really work that way?

Posted by: Duncan Brown | March 28, 2006 at 07:21 AM

Duncan -- Your question hits the nail squarely on the head. Can we do a better job of identifying externalities? Yes, probably, but it is questionable that we can identify them all (especially secondary, tertiary, quaternary "ripple" effects). Can we put a value on these externalities? This is much more doubtful.

While theory states that everything will be optimal by "simply" identifying and evaluating all costs and benefits, the reality of doing so is highly questionable I think. This then brings up the question of whether this paradigm will really work and whether we need a new paradigm. I think we're in a brave new world, and straight-up free market capitalism is going to have to see some major adjustments as an organizing paradigm and worldview (in my humble non-economist's opinion).

John Cobb's essay "Economism or Planetism: The Coming Choice" that is posted on the "rival" Ecological Economics web site has some provocative ideas along these lines.

http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/ecoecon/2006/03/economism_or_pl.html#more

David

Week 7 (Blog) 2

This I think demonstrates how crappy politics are. Wait, wait, we have an endangered species but we want to decimate the fish population so let's make it no longer an endangered species, we don't need the whales. Umm... except maybe the Earth needs them. We are so arogant to think that the entire Earth must bend to our desires. Things like this make me feel so intelligent, but so helpless - which makes me feel stupid since if I'm intelligent I should be able to think of a solution.

'Free Willy' expensive to farmers and developers

The Farm Bureau and Building Industry Association are suing to remove Puget Sound Orcas (the 'Free Willy' type whale) from the endangered species list. To understand why, follow the food chain. The Endangered Species Act prohibits anyone from messing with listed species' habitats. If farmers or developers do anything near a river that might harm salmon--the fish that Orcas like to eat--then the offending farmer or developer would be subject to fines and penalties under the ESA.

Here's more:

Farming and industry groups in Washington state sued to remove Puget Sound's several dozen killer whales from the endangered species list, saying the designation will result in unnecessary water and land-use restrictions.

The listing, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in November, will result in "needless" restrictions on the state's farms, especially those near rivers inhabited by salmon - the orcas' prime food source - the groups wrote in the federal lawsuit filed Monday.

"Farmers could face fines and even imprisonment for the most basic farm practices should such actions allegedly disturb salmon," the lawsuit reads.

Sarcastic Sidebar:

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute. Suppose--and I'm speaking purely hypothetically here--there were government legislation--oh, for the sake of argument let's call this legislation 'The Farm Bill'--that subsidized crop production in watersheds that feed into rivers that are home to salmon. Wouldn't that make the hypothetical 'Farm Bill' illegal under the ESA? Just wondering.

Back to the story:

So how do farmers and developers plan to get around the problem? Well that's easy...they argue that sub-species can not be listed separately under the ESA.

Lawyers for the Farm Bureau and the Building Industry Association argue that those orcas do not meet the technical requirements for protection under the Endangered Species Act because they are not a "distinct population" of the species.

While the entire subspecies known as "Northern Pacific resident orcas" could be listed as endangered, they argue, the Puget Sound pods alone may not. The subspecies also includes orcas off Alaska and Russia.

Comments

This is also a shot across the bow to a local land-use initiative that the Farm Bureau is collecting signatures on for inclusion on the Fall ballot, à la Oregon's M37.

Agitatin' the base, so to speak, as the two are related, IMHO.

What would be easier and cheaper for the farmers is to have some hedgerows around their property. The Gov. just passed legislation to let them expand uses on their land - what's next? Subdivisions on the alfalfa?

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | March 23, 2006 at 02:13 PM

This controversey brings home the same issue that so-called environmentalist refuse to address-that consuming meat of any kind (including fish) is detrimental to total environment so I wonder why are environmentalists going to WAKE UP?????????
Very few of these environmental reporting agencies ever address the issue of degradation of the environment and it's relation to meat consumption - of any kind.

Posted by: Mary Ellen | March 24, 2006 at 01:58 PM

Very few of these environmental reporting agencies ever address the issue of degradation of the environment and it's relation to meat consumption - of any kind.

follow the money mary...tribes and fishing industry are huge contributors to the enviornmental lobbies....of course if someone owned the fish and the water this would all be figured out in the market with externalities given better consideration.

Anyway I don't like fish they taste fishy...but I will continue to eat meat. My eyes point forward i have sharp canines and my brain is able to track objects through three dimentianal space...you don't beat your cat for killing a mouse do you?

Posted by: joshua corning | March 30, 2006 at 02:19 PM

This is also a shot across the bow to a local land-use initiative that the Farm Bureau is collecting signatures on for inclusion on the Fall ballot, à la Oregon's M37.

Agitatin' the base, so to speak, as the two are related, IMHO.

What would be easier and cheaper for the farmers is to have some hedgerows around their property. The Gov. just passed legislation to let them expand uses on their land - what's next? Subdivisions on the alfalfa?

join the dark side dano...the property rights crowd is not going away why not join us before the croney capitalists f$%k it up.

By the way housing dvelopments use less water then alfalfa...and should never be grown in eastern washington anyway...if markets were free this wouldn't happen.

Posted by: joshua corning | March 30, 2006 at 02:30 PM