Another (possibly) interesting way of looking at the Christmas story is through the lens of economic development. Christmas may be viewed as the story of some very poor people who managed to live through very challenging times, surviving a number of threats to their lives created by the underdeveloped conditions in which they lived.
It is difficult to imagine that life expectancy, infant mortality, or education levels were much better (and were probably much worse) than they are today in much of the developing world. Most children did not live to adulthood, and it is remarkable that a child born under the presumably unsanitary conditions that reigned in the barn of the local inn (itself probably just someone's home, with some rooms rented out to earn some income) after a long pre-natal journey by mule-back would survive.
Perhaps Jesus' birth was miraculous in a more conventional sense.
Indeed, it is unsurprising that so much of the new testament is devoted to accounts of the miraculous healings that Jesus performed--presumably because illness, under extremely unsanitary conditions and with poor medical treatment--would be rife.
Under conditions like this, and where the state was relatively weak and there was no social safety net provided by government, informal social institutions within communities and ethnic groups would take on great importance as the only places to turn when people encountered misfortune and needed a hand. Religious orders, community and family groups, and local power-brokers would be the only places people could turn for help if they were sick or needed money. Small wonder that Jesus' attempts to craft a new social order were frightening to local elites!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Christmas: An Institutional Story
As the semester has come to a close, I've been thinking about the Christmas holidays a bit. Looking forward to being with family and old friends for a little while, and also have been thinking about the Christmas story writ large.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I'm back
Not sure how many of my regular readers (read: family and office-mates) I've retained through the last semester, but just as a heads-up, I'll be writing these posts again myself for a while now. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Social Groups
by: Ally Kranz
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Greenhouse Gases a Danger to Human Health!
by: Tim Garaffa
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute:
by: Peter Benton- Sullivan
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Colony Collapse Disorder
by: Chelsea Gifford
Colony Collapse Disorder, sometimes referred to as honeybee depopulation syndrome (HBPS), is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive abruptly disappear. It has no direct explanation although it has been suggested that it may be due to a combination of factors. Starting in 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the east coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honeybee colonies. Specific symptoms include: the rapid loss of adult worker bees from affected colonies, a lack of dead worker bees both within and around the affected hives, and the delayed invasion of hive pests. Reports indicate that 35 states have been affected. In 2007, bee losses were approximately 30%. In 2008, those losses increased to 35% nationwide. So far, there has not been a conclusive answer as to why this decline is taking place. Some potential causes are mites, pathogens, pesticides, and different management strategies of both the bee colonies and the farms. Do you feel that the importance of bee pollination has often been neglected? What are some policies that could give bee pollination and pest management more importance in agricultural production?
Colony Collapse Disorder, sometimes referred to as honeybee depopulation syndrome (HBPS), is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive abruptly disappear. It has no direct explanation although it has been suggested that it may be due to a combination of factors. Starting in 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the east coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honeybee colonies. Specific symptoms include: the rapid loss of adult worker bees from affected colonies, a lack of dead worker bees both within and around the affected hives, and the delayed invasion of hive pests. Reports indicate that 35 states have been affected. In 2007, bee losses were approximately 30%. In 2008, those losses increased to 35% nationwide. So far, there has not been a conclusive answer as to why this decline is taking place. Some potential causes are mites, pathogens, pesticides, and different management strategies of both the bee colonies and the farms. Do you feel that the importance of bee pollination has often been neglected? What are some policies that could give bee pollination and pest management more importance in agricultural production?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The War in Afghanistan
by: Kylie Bechdolt
On Monday November 30th, the New York Times ran an article outlining the preliminary details of President Obama’s plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Since then, the President has officially announced that the surge will be occurring to “reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents.” The new troops are to be sent over the next year or year and a half and will bring the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to around 100,000. There has been a large amount of debate over the decision to go forth with the surge and President Obama’s statement that the troop drawdown will begin in July of 2011. Additionally, there is concern over whether or not U.S. allies will contribute more troops to further aid the efforts in Afghanistan. France and Germany have already expressed that they will not be committing more troops anytime soon and it looks like other U.S. allies will only be committing a very limited number of additional soldiers. The war is generally negatively perceived in Europe and many other countries who question whether or not this is a war that can actually be won. Do you think the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Also, what do you think this might mean for our international image?
On Monday November 30th, the New York Times ran an article outlining the preliminary details of President Obama’s plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Since then, the President has officially announced that the surge will be occurring to “reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents.” The new troops are to be sent over the next year or year and a half and will bring the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to around 100,000. There has been a large amount of debate over the decision to go forth with the surge and President Obama’s statement that the troop drawdown will begin in July of 2011. Additionally, there is concern over whether or not U.S. allies will contribute more troops to further aid the efforts in Afghanistan. France and Germany have already expressed that they will not be committing more troops anytime soon and it looks like other U.S. allies will only be committing a very limited number of additional soldiers. The war is generally negatively perceived in Europe and many other countries who question whether or not this is a war that can actually be won. Do you think the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Also, what do you think this might mean for our international image?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Property rights and sustainability
by: Justin Burman
Is it ethical to designate ownership of a public goods such as a fisheries to an individual? The ownership of a resource often promotes its sustainability. Resources are better cared for when ownership is designated because it is in the owners best interest to not exploit it. The longer the resource lasts the more profit the owner can obtain. Despite the common befits to both the resource and it owner it seems some what egotistical. Who owns a fishery? Who has the right to sell it?
Is it ethical to designate ownership of a public goods such as a fisheries to an individual? The ownership of a resource often promotes its sustainability. Resources are better cared for when ownership is designated because it is in the owners best interest to not exploit it. The longer the resource lasts the more profit the owner can obtain. Despite the common befits to both the resource and it owner it seems some what egotistical. Who owns a fishery? Who has the right to sell it?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ban of Federally Funded Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reversed
by: John (Brady) Bryan
A huge step in stem cell research was made Wednesday as the federal government has approved the first human embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Previous policy enacted in 2001 during the Bush administration banned the use of all federal tax dollars in supporting research of any cells obtained from human embryos. Now the National Institute of Heath has cleared 13 specific lines of cells that previously would have been off limits to federally funded researchers. The embryonic stem cell lines will still need to be created with private monies but the information generated will be accessible to all researchers. Many members of the scientific community believe that answers regarding the nature as well as possible cures for a myriad of diseases lie in the information held within these cells and rejoice in the removal of the ban of their use as a huge step forward in medical research. Many supporters of this new policy are disappointed however that it did not go deeper and allow federally funded scientists to create embryos to be researched or to clone embryos. Regardless scientists and health professionals across the country rejoice and see this as a victory over the hurdles that blocked access to the multi-billion dollar budget that supports scientific researchers. However not everyone is happy about the new policy, many critics believe that it is ethically wrong for taxpayers to be forced to support research that depends on the abortion of a human embryo. Critics also claim that this policy supports and encourages the destruction of human embryos. I do understand the argument made against this new policy, but personally believe that it is unethical to refuse to conduct such promising research when human embryos are destroyed everyday regardless. What do you think about using government funding to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201955_pf.html
A huge step in stem cell research was made Wednesday as the federal government has approved the first human embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Previous policy enacted in 2001 during the Bush administration banned the use of all federal tax dollars in supporting research of any cells obtained from human embryos. Now the National Institute of Heath has cleared 13 specific lines of cells that previously would have been off limits to federally funded researchers. The embryonic stem cell lines will still need to be created with private monies but the information generated will be accessible to all researchers. Many members of the scientific community believe that answers regarding the nature as well as possible cures for a myriad of diseases lie in the information held within these cells and rejoice in the removal of the ban of their use as a huge step forward in medical research. Many supporters of this new policy are disappointed however that it did not go deeper and allow federally funded scientists to create embryos to be researched or to clone embryos. Regardless scientists and health professionals across the country rejoice and see this as a victory over the hurdles that blocked access to the multi-billion dollar budget that supports scientific researchers. However not everyone is happy about the new policy, many critics believe that it is ethically wrong for taxpayers to be forced to support research that depends on the abortion of a human embryo. Critics also claim that this policy supports and encourages the destruction of human embryos. I do understand the argument made against this new policy, but personally believe that it is unethical to refuse to conduct such promising research when human embryos are destroyed everyday regardless. What do you think about using government funding to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201955_pf.html
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Shark Finning
by: Leslie Martin
While I was doing some research today on the practice of shark fining, I discovered a ray of sunshine for predatory shark’s future as the top of the marine food chain. As of April 23, 2009 following the European Union Fisheries Councils meeting where the Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks was adopted, more stringent polices are to be enacted in Scottish waters. The EU has now stated that making stricter regulations on the practice of shark fining is to become a priority and there’s no better time for this to be announced then now!
Shark fining is the practice of killing large predatory shark by chopping off the dorsal fin and then throwing the live body back to the sea to be eaten by other animals or suffer a slow death on the ocean floor. The shark meat is undesirable because there is no market for it and the bodies are bulky and would take up a lot of room on the fishing vessel. The fins that are removed are used to make shark fin soup, a product that is in extremely high demand primarily in China and Taiwan. This multimillion dollar industry is booming right now due to such high demand mainly from China’s emerging middle class. Because of this market many large predatory shark species are being driven to extinction and at an alarmingly rapid rate. Sharks have been at the top of the food chain for an unfathomable amount of time and if removed there is no way humans could cope with their disappearance.
Some of the regulation that this meeting proposed was having an ‘observer’ present on all fishing boats practicing shark fining, This person is supposed to make sure rules are being followed. Also, it is hoped that the extra cost of employing an observer will deter people from applying for fining permits. Although this is a positive step forward for these sharks, much more needs to be done and I fear that the extra cost for these boats will not be a problem since as it stand this industry is extremely lucrative. We can only hope for the best I guess and keep pushing for more effective policies…
While I was doing some research today on the practice of shark fining, I discovered a ray of sunshine for predatory shark’s future as the top of the marine food chain. As of April 23, 2009 following the European Union Fisheries Councils meeting where the Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks was adopted, more stringent polices are to be enacted in Scottish waters. The EU has now stated that making stricter regulations on the practice of shark fining is to become a priority and there’s no better time for this to be announced then now!
Shark fining is the practice of killing large predatory shark by chopping off the dorsal fin and then throwing the live body back to the sea to be eaten by other animals or suffer a slow death on the ocean floor. The shark meat is undesirable because there is no market for it and the bodies are bulky and would take up a lot of room on the fishing vessel. The fins that are removed are used to make shark fin soup, a product that is in extremely high demand primarily in China and Taiwan. This multimillion dollar industry is booming right now due to such high demand mainly from China’s emerging middle class. Because of this market many large predatory shark species are being driven to extinction and at an alarmingly rapid rate. Sharks have been at the top of the food chain for an unfathomable amount of time and if removed there is no way humans could cope with their disappearance.
Some of the regulation that this meeting proposed was having an ‘observer’ present on all fishing boats practicing shark fining, This person is supposed to make sure rules are being followed. Also, it is hoped that the extra cost of employing an observer will deter people from applying for fining permits. Although this is a positive step forward for these sharks, much more needs to be done and I fear that the extra cost for these boats will not be a problem since as it stand this industry is extremely lucrative. We can only hope for the best I guess and keep pushing for more effective policies…
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Agricultural Carbon Sequestration
by: Jordan Osterman
There exists a legitimate opportunity for the United States to reduce our carbon footprint while simultaneously improving water quality, biodiversity, and overall human health. Agricultural carbon sequestration is essentially the employment of sustainable agricultural practices on agricultural land. Practices such as conservation tillage or riparian buffers increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, which in turn, sequesters carbon out of the atmosphere and places it into long-term storage in the soil. The large quantity of agricultural land in the United States amounts to massive potential for use as a carbon sink. Additionally, the ease of conversion to sustainable agriculture practices combined with the immediate sequestration ability of crops makes for a valuable tool for battling climate change on a short-term basis.
Currently there exists little legislation that encourages conversion from traditional agriculture to sustainable agriculture, but under the guise of carbon sequestration policy makers have a large incentive to promote its use. Currently, the Senate is debating the Kerry-Boxer Bill, which, amongst other things, includes legislation that will initiate a Cap and Trade market for trading carbon credits. Included in the bill is language that promotes the use of carbon sequestration for offsetting carbon emissions. The ease of agricultural carbon sequestration along with the co-benefits often associated with the practice should make it one the clear choices for use in the Cap and Trade in market. I sincerely hope that the senate specifically identifies agricultural carbon sequestration as an effective tool in our effort towards curtailing America’s carbon emissions. To learn more about agricultural carbon sequestration go to http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html.
There exists a legitimate opportunity for the United States to reduce our carbon footprint while simultaneously improving water quality, biodiversity, and overall human health. Agricultural carbon sequestration is essentially the employment of sustainable agricultural practices on agricultural land. Practices such as conservation tillage or riparian buffers increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, which in turn, sequesters carbon out of the atmosphere and places it into long-term storage in the soil. The large quantity of agricultural land in the United States amounts to massive potential for use as a carbon sink. Additionally, the ease of conversion to sustainable agriculture practices combined with the immediate sequestration ability of crops makes for a valuable tool for battling climate change on a short-term basis.
Currently there exists little legislation that encourages conversion from traditional agriculture to sustainable agriculture, but under the guise of carbon sequestration policy makers have a large incentive to promote its use. Currently, the Senate is debating the Kerry-Boxer Bill, which, amongst other things, includes legislation that will initiate a Cap and Trade market for trading carbon credits. Included in the bill is language that promotes the use of carbon sequestration for offsetting carbon emissions. The ease of agricultural carbon sequestration along with the co-benefits often associated with the practice should make it one the clear choices for use in the Cap and Trade in market. I sincerely hope that the senate specifically identifies agricultural carbon sequestration as an effective tool in our effort towards curtailing America’s carbon emissions. To learn more about agricultural carbon sequestration go to http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html.
Monday, December 7, 2009
US Tire Tariffs
by: Matt Clark
In a time of increasing deficits, inflation, and spending, President Obama has taken a step to help out the the american tire industry by imposing up to a 35% tariff on tire imports from china. This is in reaction to america losing 5000 jobs in the tire manufacturing industry over the past 5 years to China. The goals of their policy are to increase production and consumption of U.S. Based tire manufacturing and in specific jobs in the steel industry. The group most benefiting from the tariff by far is the United Steelworkers Union who stand to retain thousands of paying members in an industry thats been in decline for the past two decades.
President Obama is not the first president to impose tariffs in favor of large labor unions and not the first to place tariffs on steel in favor of the United Steelworkers Union. The difference between the past and now is the current economic and financial climate here in the U.S. and the world. Because China owns a very large amount of U.S. Debt and produces such a large percent of our manufactured goods means China can really interfere with our markets if it chooses to. When we try and help the steelworkers here with a tariff, we hurt the steelworkers there, leading China to impose tariffs of there own. What will be the impact on us and our “weakened” economy if China begins to impose protectionist policies against our industries? It cannot be in out interest to influence our partners to protect themselves against us, especially in the current global climate.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html
In a time of increasing deficits, inflation, and spending, President Obama has taken a step to help out the the american tire industry by imposing up to a 35% tariff on tire imports from china. This is in reaction to america losing 5000 jobs in the tire manufacturing industry over the past 5 years to China. The goals of their policy are to increase production and consumption of U.S. Based tire manufacturing and in specific jobs in the steel industry. The group most benefiting from the tariff by far is the United Steelworkers Union who stand to retain thousands of paying members in an industry thats been in decline for the past two decades.
President Obama is not the first president to impose tariffs in favor of large labor unions and not the first to place tariffs on steel in favor of the United Steelworkers Union. The difference between the past and now is the current economic and financial climate here in the U.S. and the world. Because China owns a very large amount of U.S. Debt and produces such a large percent of our manufactured goods means China can really interfere with our markets if it chooses to. When we try and help the steelworkers here with a tariff, we hurt the steelworkers there, leading China to impose tariffs of there own. What will be the impact on us and our “weakened” economy if China begins to impose protectionist policies against our industries? It cannot be in out interest to influence our partners to protect themselves against us, especially in the current global climate.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html
Sunday, December 6, 2009
“Europe Places Solar Panels in North Africa”
by: Andrew Sieving
Once again it seems that Europe is ahead of the world in green energy. The Desertec Industrial Initiative, a German led group of energy providers is planning to provide solar energy to Europe from northern Africa by 2015. 15% of Europe’s energy consumption will supposedly come from this grid in 2050. What the article fails to report is what countries will receive this energy, where the energy will be refined, but it does comment on the highly energy efficient cables. Although, Europe always seems to be able to come up with new green ideas, it seems to promote these exclusive benefits within the EU. I wonder if these energy benefits will be available outside of the EU; or will they be highly taxed outside of the group. If European countries can span across a continent to find alternative solar power why can’t the United States harness solar energy in Death Valley or in the many desert regions within our own country. Obviously, corporate mindsets are no fluctuating with the market or our user preferences aren’t environmental. If consumers control the demands of the market then we should as consumer demand green energy.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/40650
Once again it seems that Europe is ahead of the world in green energy. The Desertec Industrial Initiative, a German led group of energy providers is planning to provide solar energy to Europe from northern Africa by 2015. 15% of Europe’s energy consumption will supposedly come from this grid in 2050. What the article fails to report is what countries will receive this energy, where the energy will be refined, but it does comment on the highly energy efficient cables. Although, Europe always seems to be able to come up with new green ideas, it seems to promote these exclusive benefits within the EU. I wonder if these energy benefits will be available outside of the EU; or will they be highly taxed outside of the group. If European countries can span across a continent to find alternative solar power why can’t the United States harness solar energy in Death Valley or in the many desert regions within our own country. Obviously, corporate mindsets are no fluctuating with the market or our user preferences aren’t environmental. If consumers control the demands of the market then we should as consumer demand green energy.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/40650
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Texting While Driving
By: Kelton Kragor
Last year, over 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured from accidents related to drivers sending text messages. On December 1, 2009 Colorado will join eighteen other states in banning texting, emailing or ‘tweeting’ while driving. If issued a citation, fines range from $50-$100. The new law also bans bus drivers and teens from using a phone in any way possible while operating a vehicle. My question is, how will authorities know if a person is texting or sending an email if that person can easily conceal his/her phone after being pulled over? What do you guys think? Obviously texting has become a major problem and contributed to numerous accidents. Will people collectively stop texting while driving; or will it get worse with new phones coming out every month? I don’t see the fines as being that hard of a penalty.
Last year, over 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured from accidents related to drivers sending text messages. On December 1, 2009 Colorado will join eighteen other states in banning texting, emailing or ‘tweeting’ while driving. If issued a citation, fines range from $50-$100. The new law also bans bus drivers and teens from using a phone in any way possible while operating a vehicle. My question is, how will authorities know if a person is texting or sending an email if that person can easily conceal his/her phone after being pulled over? What do you guys think? Obviously texting has become a major problem and contributed to numerous accidents. Will people collectively stop texting while driving; or will it get worse with new phones coming out every month? I don’t see the fines as being that hard of a penalty.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Blog Commenting for Public Policy
Folks,
Just a note that I will count any blog comments towards your grade that you make up to the 17th at 11 AM (the end of the final exam time for section 002). There will be postings going up for at least the next week or so, in case you were concerned.
Glenn
Just a note that I will count any blog comments towards your grade that you make up to the 17th at 11 AM (the end of the final exam time for section 002). There will be postings going up for at least the next week or so, in case you were concerned.
Glenn
Nudity in Boulder
by: James O'Connor
For the past decade Boulder has hosted a Naked Pumpkin Run on Halloween. Last year there were over 150 runners, and a dozen were ticketed, however the tickets did not amount to much because identification problems. This year, police chief Mark Beckner has increased the number of officers present and will arrest individuals for indecent exposure, which would mean they would have to register as sex offenders. Beckner has said he is doing this because “We enforce the law.” But this seems irrational on a few levels, first indecent exposure is defined as one exposing oneself in circumstances “likely to cause affront or alarm” running through a crowd of people there specifically to watch the event at 11pm does not fit. In addition the police have admitted they get few complaints about the run and even our mayor supports the run:
“. . . it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else”.
Now the City Council is drafting a municipal ordinance making it illegal to be walking/running around the city naked. The upside to this is it would not require violators to register as sex offenders, the downside is that it would make nudity illegal where it is not necessarily now. I personally hope the ordinance does not pass and if you get arrested as a sex offender you should simply hire a lawyer, as Beckner clearly does not have his head on straight. What do you think?
For the past decade Boulder has hosted a Naked Pumpkin Run on Halloween. Last year there were over 150 runners, and a dozen were ticketed, however the tickets did not amount to much because identification problems. This year, police chief Mark Beckner has increased the number of officers present and will arrest individuals for indecent exposure, which would mean they would have to register as sex offenders. Beckner has said he is doing this because “We enforce the law.” But this seems irrational on a few levels, first indecent exposure is defined as one exposing oneself in circumstances “likely to cause affront or alarm” running through a crowd of people there specifically to watch the event at 11pm does not fit. In addition the police have admitted they get few complaints about the run and even our mayor supports the run:
“. . . it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else”.
Now the City Council is drafting a municipal ordinance making it illegal to be walking/running around the city naked. The upside to this is it would not require violators to register as sex offenders, the downside is that it would make nudity illegal where it is not necessarily now. I personally hope the ordinance does not pass and if you get arrested as a sex offender you should simply hire a lawyer, as Beckner clearly does not have his head on straight. What do you think?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Environmental Illness
by: Harrison Ferrone
Environmental Illness
My main policy problem that has really affected my life is the governmentʼs
position on acceptable levels of PCBʼs, POPʼs and other various Phalate containing and
offgasing compounds. These include carpets, furniture, water bottles, any plastic and
most of the chemicals that are used in preparing and serving our food, not to mention in
the food itself. Phalates have been shown through exhaustive scientific study to be the
root cause of ALL disease. You may find this hard to believe, as it is not really
acknowledged by most of the medical profession, but that is simply ignorance of the
data in favor of burying their collective heads in the sand. The way phalates do this is
by acting as endocrine and hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and immune system
attacking agents. Basically they mimic body system functions, and then mess them up,
which causes symptoms that we interpret as disease. My point is that the current
regulation standard limits on our exposure to these compounds is way above the
amount needed to cause disease. Hopefully, when enough people get sick and die
from this the government will do something. Hopefully.
Environmental Illness
My main policy problem that has really affected my life is the governmentʼs
position on acceptable levels of PCBʼs, POPʼs and other various Phalate containing and
offgasing compounds. These include carpets, furniture, water bottles, any plastic and
most of the chemicals that are used in preparing and serving our food, not to mention in
the food itself. Phalates have been shown through exhaustive scientific study to be the
root cause of ALL disease. You may find this hard to believe, as it is not really
acknowledged by most of the medical profession, but that is simply ignorance of the
data in favor of burying their collective heads in the sand. The way phalates do this is
by acting as endocrine and hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and immune system
attacking agents. Basically they mimic body system functions, and then mess them up,
which causes symptoms that we interpret as disease. My point is that the current
regulation standard limits on our exposure to these compounds is way above the
amount needed to cause disease. Hopefully, when enough people get sick and die
from this the government will do something. Hopefully.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Afghan Culture Night
by: Kaiti Taylor
On Thursday the Afghan Student Union brought an Afghan Culture Night to the
UMC on CU Campus. It was a large event that lasted for three hours including women
warriors of Afghanistan performance, live music, food, and covered many other areas in
Afghan culture. After 9/11 views on Afghanistan and the Middle East in the United
States and the event was a movement for peace and national unity for all Afghan
people, in and outside of the country. Afghanistan culture is intriguing and beautiful to watch and be a part of. Last year, I traveled to Jordan and Israel to experience middle eastern culture despite of many judgements the US has made on their countries, and even in the UMC I felt like I was part of the culture again. Part of the event that interested me the most and made me want to get involved was the presentation from
Afghans4Tomorrow(A4T). A4T is a non-profit, non-political, humanitarian organization
dedicated to the reconstruction and redevelopment of Afghanistan through sustainable
community driven projects with a focus on Education, its an all volunteer program. A4T
is operating three elementary schools and are trying to bring more schooling to the girls (after an attack of one of their girl schools they were operating, they now have to do small in house schooling with the girls). Not only are they focused on Education, also they run two Health Posts which offer basic health care, medicine and immunizations. The newest program that A4T launched is a program training Afghans to make fuel briquettes for heating and cooking. The facility is in Kabul and people from surrounding villages can come to be trained to start their own briquette business. Not only does this help Afghans start making money (the average Afghan makes two cents per day), the project also benefits the environment (Briquettes produce less smoke and reduce burnable garbage). A4T has teamed up with Bare Root Trees Project and have planted/distributed over 120,000 fruit pine and other trees to communities in Kabul in villages. Its amazing that there is an extreme amount of effort going to help bring peace to Afghanistan and rebuild the country...get involved!!
visit: www.afghans4tomorrow.com if your interested!
On Thursday the Afghan Student Union brought an Afghan Culture Night to the
UMC on CU Campus. It was a large event that lasted for three hours including women
warriors of Afghanistan performance, live music, food, and covered many other areas in
Afghan culture. After 9/11 views on Afghanistan and the Middle East in the United
States and the event was a movement for peace and national unity for all Afghan
people, in and outside of the country. Afghanistan culture is intriguing and beautiful to watch and be a part of. Last year, I traveled to Jordan and Israel to experience middle eastern culture despite of many judgements the US has made on their countries, and even in the UMC I felt like I was part of the culture again. Part of the event that interested me the most and made me want to get involved was the presentation from
Afghans4Tomorrow(A4T). A4T is a non-profit, non-political, humanitarian organization
dedicated to the reconstruction and redevelopment of Afghanistan through sustainable
community driven projects with a focus on Education, its an all volunteer program. A4T
is operating three elementary schools and are trying to bring more schooling to the girls (after an attack of one of their girl schools they were operating, they now have to do small in house schooling with the girls). Not only are they focused on Education, also they run two Health Posts which offer basic health care, medicine and immunizations. The newest program that A4T launched is a program training Afghans to make fuel briquettes for heating and cooking. The facility is in Kabul and people from surrounding villages can come to be trained to start their own briquette business. Not only does this help Afghans start making money (the average Afghan makes two cents per day), the project also benefits the environment (Briquettes produce less smoke and reduce burnable garbage). A4T has teamed up with Bare Root Trees Project and have planted/distributed over 120,000 fruit pine and other trees to communities in Kabul in villages. Its amazing that there is an extreme amount of effort going to help bring peace to Afghanistan and rebuild the country...get involved!!
visit: www.afghans4tomorrow.com if your interested!
Pesticide use in the continental United States
by: Marcus Eisen
Since the end of World War Two there has been excessive use of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to treat the endless stream of potential threats against our crops, trees, grasses, streams, etc… It has been prescribed for nondescript problems at an exponential rate. In 1947 the production of synthetic pesticides was 124,259,000 pounds; in 1960 that number jumped to 637,666,000 pounds. In 2001 the total number of pesticides used per year was measured at 4,972 million pounds, the majority of which was used by the agricultural sector. While the fact that the total amount of pesticides per year may have increased it’s important to keep in mind that the treatments occur every year and have a tendency to be magnified when passed on through the biological chain. The most intimidating fact about the use of these pesticides is that decades after they have been deemed unusable due to health risks they are still being found in large quantities throughout the Midwest and sections of California. Dieldrin, a chemical that was banned in the 1980s, is still found in Illinois at a concentration that exceeds the wildlife benchmark. While found in other Midwestern states as well, no where is the chemical found in such a high quantity. So, do you think the market for pesticide use is driven purely by economic incentives for invertors and therefore poses a significant risk to unaware consumers? Does it seem necessary for the agricultural sector in the United States to dump almost 3 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients onto crops each year? What type of policy changes must occur for the public to change its opinion about the widespread use of pesticides? And lastly, does anyone have any personal anecdotes about pesticides?
Since the end of World War Two there has been excessive use of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to treat the endless stream of potential threats against our crops, trees, grasses, streams, etc… It has been prescribed for nondescript problems at an exponential rate. In 1947 the production of synthetic pesticides was 124,259,000 pounds; in 1960 that number jumped to 637,666,000 pounds. In 2001 the total number of pesticides used per year was measured at 4,972 million pounds, the majority of which was used by the agricultural sector. While the fact that the total amount of pesticides per year may have increased it’s important to keep in mind that the treatments occur every year and have a tendency to be magnified when passed on through the biological chain. The most intimidating fact about the use of these pesticides is that decades after they have been deemed unusable due to health risks they are still being found in large quantities throughout the Midwest and sections of California. Dieldrin, a chemical that was banned in the 1980s, is still found in Illinois at a concentration that exceeds the wildlife benchmark. While found in other Midwestern states as well, no where is the chemical found in such a high quantity. So, do you think the market for pesticide use is driven purely by economic incentives for invertors and therefore poses a significant risk to unaware consumers? Does it seem necessary for the agricultural sector in the United States to dump almost 3 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients onto crops each year? What type of policy changes must occur for the public to change its opinion about the widespread use of pesticides? And lastly, does anyone have any personal anecdotes about pesticides?
Apologies
My apologies for the infrequency of posts for the last week or so. I'll be catching up now.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Aral Sea
by: Lindsey Organ
One of the biggest environmental disasters of our time was, not surprisingly, caused by man. The Aral Sea used to be the fourth largest lake in the world. However, it is now only about 10-20% of its original size. The sea, that is located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, dried up as the two contributory rivers were rerouted by the Soviet Union in the 1960’s in order to irrigate water thirsty crops like cotton. This had serious impacts on the Aral Sea Basin region. The salinity of the lake has increased to that of more than the ocean, which has killed many species causing large decreases in biodiversity of the area. The fishing industry, that at one time employed more than 60,000 people, is destroyed. The areas of the lake that dried up became a desert polluted with toxic chemicals and salt, which get blown about by dust storms. This has had serious, harmful health effects on people, vegetation, and animals. Also, the large lake mitigated the climate. The summers have become shorter and drier and the winters are longer and colder causing a decrease in the length of the crop growing season.
The Kazakhstan government has borrowed money from the world bank to build dams and fix leaky irrigation systems to try to restore the northern part of the Aral Sea. The water level has increased dramatically and many of the fish species have returned. The rest of the sea continues to shrink and there is little sign of hope for it. Some suggestions for restoration are to redirect large rivers from the north to refill the sea and farm less water-intensive crops. Those ideas are probably not economically viable options so the region most likely will continue to suffer from the loss of the sea.
One of the biggest environmental disasters of our time was, not surprisingly, caused by man. The Aral Sea used to be the fourth largest lake in the world. However, it is now only about 10-20% of its original size. The sea, that is located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, dried up as the two contributory rivers were rerouted by the Soviet Union in the 1960’s in order to irrigate water thirsty crops like cotton. This had serious impacts on the Aral Sea Basin region. The salinity of the lake has increased to that of more than the ocean, which has killed many species causing large decreases in biodiversity of the area. The fishing industry, that at one time employed more than 60,000 people, is destroyed. The areas of the lake that dried up became a desert polluted with toxic chemicals and salt, which get blown about by dust storms. This has had serious, harmful health effects on people, vegetation, and animals. Also, the large lake mitigated the climate. The summers have become shorter and drier and the winters are longer and colder causing a decrease in the length of the crop growing season.
The Kazakhstan government has borrowed money from the world bank to build dams and fix leaky irrigation systems to try to restore the northern part of the Aral Sea. The water level has increased dramatically and many of the fish species have returned. The rest of the sea continues to shrink and there is little sign of hope for it. Some suggestions for restoration are to redirect large rivers from the north to refill the sea and farm less water-intensive crops. Those ideas are probably not economically viable options so the region most likely will continue to suffer from the loss of the sea.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Hunger
by: Courtney Coleman
The issue with world hunger today is more of a distributive problem than a constraint on the amount of available food. Recently there was a world summit on food security where the Chinese Vice Premier laid out a four-point plan on how to address these issues.
His four points were investing more in agriculture to make it self sufficient, developed countries cutting subsidies and opening markets, creating a world food security safeguard, and global efforts to ensure balanced growth.
I feel these are all valid points, especially the overall stress that this needs to be a global effort. Investing in developed countries to help boost their self-sufficiency is important to help them become more economically stable. It's important for developed counties however to keep in mind the problems in our own system, such as reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, to try to help build more sustainable agriculture elsewhere. Getting rid of subsidies would help show the true value of artificially low priced crops. This combined with removing trade barriers could help developed countries compete in the world market. A food safeguard system would help with the distribution of food to countries when they are in need. If there is a global effort pushing towards all these things, I would also propose that there needs to be global standards for treatment of workers and the environmental to keep countries in check and at the same playing level. This plan definitely has good points, the most important point, making this a global effort, becomes the biggest issue. It is nearly impossible to get all countries to agree to and uphold these standards and efforts.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8981865.htm
The issue with world hunger today is more of a distributive problem than a constraint on the amount of available food. Recently there was a world summit on food security where the Chinese Vice Premier laid out a four-point plan on how to address these issues.
His four points were investing more in agriculture to make it self sufficient, developed countries cutting subsidies and opening markets, creating a world food security safeguard, and global efforts to ensure balanced growth.
I feel these are all valid points, especially the overall stress that this needs to be a global effort. Investing in developed countries to help boost their self-sufficiency is important to help them become more economically stable. It's important for developed counties however to keep in mind the problems in our own system, such as reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, to try to help build more sustainable agriculture elsewhere. Getting rid of subsidies would help show the true value of artificially low priced crops. This combined with removing trade barriers could help developed countries compete in the world market. A food safeguard system would help with the distribution of food to countries when they are in need. If there is a global effort pushing towards all these things, I would also propose that there needs to be global standards for treatment of workers and the environmental to keep countries in check and at the same playing level. This plan definitely has good points, the most important point, making this a global effort, becomes the biggest issue. It is nearly impossible to get all countries to agree to and uphold these standards and efforts.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8981865.htm
Monday, November 16, 2009
Addressing the Future: Climate-Caused Human Migration
By Jon Hammond
A recent article in FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) has raised concern regarding international law and the future migratory-displacement of populations as a result of climate change.
http://www.field.org.uk/media/media-release-climate-exiles
Though there is some debate about the causes of climate change, it has become clear that the international community needs to be prepared for the possibility that some small islands and low-lying areas will be underwater sometime during the next century, potentially displacing more than 600 million people. The resulting migratory panic will be disastrous without international assistance. Currently, there is no international framework in place to mitigate this.
Migration necessitates the use of financial resources and community networks in destination countries, which are typically inaccessible to poorer populations. Without international assistance, smuggling networks are often times the only option available to people, forcing them into vulnerable positions that can be manipulated by a lawless authority. The international community needs to institute a system that provides protection and assistance to climate change refugees.
TPS (Temporary Protection Status) is given to populations affected by natural disasters. However, climate change will bring about more subtle and gradual changes that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement than natural disasters. The international definition of ‘refugee’ is premised on the notion of persecution, but does not take into account climate change. Under current international law, climate change refugees receive little to no protection because environmental degradation is not considered a form of persecution- though, perhaps it should be.
The climate will undergo a number of changes in the next hundred years that have the power to be incredibly devastating. Some of these changes include increased desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, rising sea levels, and water salinization. Migration will be one of the most common methods of adaptation that will rapidly exacerbate the situation, unless it is addressed and planned for right now.
See also:
Free PDF- Migration (magazine), Autumn 2009 http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=530
A recent article in FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) has raised concern regarding international law and the future migratory-displacement of populations as a result of climate change.
http://www.field.org.uk/media/media-release-climate-exiles
Though there is some debate about the causes of climate change, it has become clear that the international community needs to be prepared for the possibility that some small islands and low-lying areas will be underwater sometime during the next century, potentially displacing more than 600 million people. The resulting migratory panic will be disastrous without international assistance. Currently, there is no international framework in place to mitigate this.
Migration necessitates the use of financial resources and community networks in destination countries, which are typically inaccessible to poorer populations. Without international assistance, smuggling networks are often times the only option available to people, forcing them into vulnerable positions that can be manipulated by a lawless authority. The international community needs to institute a system that provides protection and assistance to climate change refugees.
TPS (Temporary Protection Status) is given to populations affected by natural disasters. However, climate change will bring about more subtle and gradual changes that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement than natural disasters. The international definition of ‘refugee’ is premised on the notion of persecution, but does not take into account climate change. Under current international law, climate change refugees receive little to no protection because environmental degradation is not considered a form of persecution- though, perhaps it should be.
The climate will undergo a number of changes in the next hundred years that have the power to be incredibly devastating. Some of these changes include increased desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, rising sea levels, and water salinization. Migration will be one of the most common methods of adaptation that will rapidly exacerbate the situation, unless it is addressed and planned for right now.
See also:
Free PDF- Migration (magazine), Autumn 2009 http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=530
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Snake River
by: Steve Urich
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Wildfire Impact and the Human Dynamic
by: Brian Schleckser
In recent years the presence and impact of wildfires (both man-made and natural) has grown in the public eye. This new focus results in some curious study, and follow-up questions. Focusing on the temperate and semi-arid U.S. forest regions, fire is a natural occurrence and important for biological cycles. Current weather trends (past few decades) have produced more el Niño seasons than in the past. This coupled with increased activity on the human/forest interface has resulted in increased intensity and frequency of fires. Fires occurring in long “managed” forests where few if any fires were allowed, are now fueled by decades of saved up fuel, resulting in extreme intensity. These fire dynamics endanger humans and their property living on or near the interface. Increasingly, these fires are occurring away from this area, in more populated areas (see California). This raises some important questions:
What role did recent human policies play in creating this situation?
Is it a useful utilization of taxpayer money to attempt to fight a beast we seem ill-equip to match?
Should we broadly readjust fire suppression strategy and take up alternative proven strategies such as controlled burns?
What rights does man have when living in or near a forest system with regard to fire suppression expectations? (And vise versa?!)
What responsibility does local government have to manage a process which is as natural as a hurricane or tornado?
Resources on fire dynamics, policy and management:
http://www.gac.ca/activities/abstracts/2009_Joint_Assembly/absbook/ja09_B12A.html, http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-05.pdf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire
In recent years the presence and impact of wildfires (both man-made and natural) has grown in the public eye. This new focus results in some curious study, and follow-up questions. Focusing on the temperate and semi-arid U.S. forest regions, fire is a natural occurrence and important for biological cycles. Current weather trends (past few decades) have produced more el Niño seasons than in the past. This coupled with increased activity on the human/forest interface has resulted in increased intensity and frequency of fires. Fires occurring in long “managed” forests where few if any fires were allowed, are now fueled by decades of saved up fuel, resulting in extreme intensity. These fire dynamics endanger humans and their property living on or near the interface. Increasingly, these fires are occurring away from this area, in more populated areas (see California). This raises some important questions:
What role did recent human policies play in creating this situation?
Is it a useful utilization of taxpayer money to attempt to fight a beast we seem ill-equip to match?
Should we broadly readjust fire suppression strategy and take up alternative proven strategies such as controlled burns?
What rights does man have when living in or near a forest system with regard to fire suppression expectations? (And vise versa?!)
What responsibility does local government have to manage a process which is as natural as a hurricane or tornado?
Resources on fire dynamics, policy and management:
http://www.gac.ca/activities/abstracts/2009_Joint_Assembly/absbook/ja09_B12A.html, http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-05.pdf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Form of Governance
by: Chris Burkhardt
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting at a picnic table on campus by the economics building doing a bit of schoolwork. It was a typical nice warm fall day and the sun was shining without a cloud in the sky. I looked up from my studies and something caught my attention. I noticed a regular looking student with a backwards cap on inspecting every single bike on the bike rack across from where I was sitting. He gave a nice tug on each bike to see if they where nicely secured and was performing his inspection with efficiency. The student then proceeded to check the other three bike racks in the vicinity before walking due east down the main path. I sat there for a minute and contemplated on what just happened. Was that student just trying to steal a bike in broad daylight? Was that even a student? He didn’t have a backpack… About a minute or two went by and I decided that I should hop on my skateboard and go follow this guy. As soon as I stepped onto my skateboard a funny feeling came over me and I suddenly began to feel like inspector gadget. Weaving in and out of traffic I spotted my culprit at another bike rack. However, this time he had managed to find a loose one and took off with it heading east again. I trailed the perpetrator for a couple of minutes and I thought maybe he was going to go back to his house and that would lead me to the mother load of bikes that he has been stealing. Then my suspect stopped at the bike rack by the new Atlas building and parked his bike. I kept a good distance as he began to inspect every single bike on that bike rack thoroughly just as he had originally. All of a sudden the culprit was startled as if he had seen a ghost and ran into the Atlas building lost from my site. I then noticed that a police officer had just pulled up next to the bike rack. I decided that it was time to inform the proper authorities of what inspector gadget was up to. I told the cop that there was a suspicious kid checking for unlocked bikes at every bike station and I think he stole that one over there. I also told him that he just ran into the Atlas building. The police officer was very concerned and asked me what he looked like. I new he had a backwards cap on, but for some reason that’s all I could remember. I didn’t want to get the wrong guy in trouble so that’s all I said. I then realized that I had to go turn in a paper and left it into the police officers hands to catch my guy.
I returned to the scene of the crime about 10 minutes later after handing in my paper to find that the cop was gone and so was the bike. I’m not sure if the culprit was caught or not, but at least I tried to create my own governance.
This really annoyed me because I have had my bike stolen from campus before and I didn’t even leave it there unlocked. Someone had clipped my heavy-duty lock one day when I was studying in the library. Please always lock your bike and don’t ever leave it overnight.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting at a picnic table on campus by the economics building doing a bit of schoolwork. It was a typical nice warm fall day and the sun was shining without a cloud in the sky. I looked up from my studies and something caught my attention. I noticed a regular looking student with a backwards cap on inspecting every single bike on the bike rack across from where I was sitting. He gave a nice tug on each bike to see if they where nicely secured and was performing his inspection with efficiency. The student then proceeded to check the other three bike racks in the vicinity before walking due east down the main path. I sat there for a minute and contemplated on what just happened. Was that student just trying to steal a bike in broad daylight? Was that even a student? He didn’t have a backpack… About a minute or two went by and I decided that I should hop on my skateboard and go follow this guy. As soon as I stepped onto my skateboard a funny feeling came over me and I suddenly began to feel like inspector gadget. Weaving in and out of traffic I spotted my culprit at another bike rack. However, this time he had managed to find a loose one and took off with it heading east again. I trailed the perpetrator for a couple of minutes and I thought maybe he was going to go back to his house and that would lead me to the mother load of bikes that he has been stealing. Then my suspect stopped at the bike rack by the new Atlas building and parked his bike. I kept a good distance as he began to inspect every single bike on that bike rack thoroughly just as he had originally. All of a sudden the culprit was startled as if he had seen a ghost and ran into the Atlas building lost from my site. I then noticed that a police officer had just pulled up next to the bike rack. I decided that it was time to inform the proper authorities of what inspector gadget was up to. I told the cop that there was a suspicious kid checking for unlocked bikes at every bike station and I think he stole that one over there. I also told him that he just ran into the Atlas building. The police officer was very concerned and asked me what he looked like. I new he had a backwards cap on, but for some reason that’s all I could remember. I didn’t want to get the wrong guy in trouble so that’s all I said. I then realized that I had to go turn in a paper and left it into the police officers hands to catch my guy.
I returned to the scene of the crime about 10 minutes later after handing in my paper to find that the cop was gone and so was the bike. I’m not sure if the culprit was caught or not, but at least I tried to create my own governance.
This really annoyed me because I have had my bike stolen from campus before and I didn’t even leave it there unlocked. Someone had clipped my heavy-duty lock one day when I was studying in the library. Please always lock your bike and don’t ever leave it overnight.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Mountain Pine Beetle
by: Gavin Deehan
The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic that is currently taking place is one of the biggest we have seen. There is much controversy over whether we should be using our resources and taking action to help prevent or at least slow down the current outbreak. It is a hard decision to make be because of course it is only natural to let it take place and let the forest fend for itself. But now we also have to think of all of the people that live in our Rocky Mountains and what we can do to keep it a safe area for them.
So is it better for us to keep the inhabited areas as safe as we can or to let nature take it’s course?
Here are some of the things that can be done to help battle the current outbreak. Spraying the trees properly will help protect them before they are attacked. If fully sprayed to the correct height this will help prevent the beetles from attacking the tree. Removal of dead trees will help protect the area from future fire outbreaks. Proper practice of silviculture to design land will prevent future problems, with trees properly spaced and healthy they will be less likely to be attacked. Also there are pheromones that can be applied to signal beetles that certain trees are already taken. All of these prevention techniques only work and help if put to use the right way.
Whether you think we should take action or we should stay out of it, should some of these techniques be put into place with some sort of enforcement?
The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic that is currently taking place is one of the biggest we have seen. There is much controversy over whether we should be using our resources and taking action to help prevent or at least slow down the current outbreak. It is a hard decision to make be because of course it is only natural to let it take place and let the forest fend for itself. But now we also have to think of all of the people that live in our Rocky Mountains and what we can do to keep it a safe area for them.
So is it better for us to keep the inhabited areas as safe as we can or to let nature take it’s course?
Here are some of the things that can be done to help battle the current outbreak. Spraying the trees properly will help protect them before they are attacked. If fully sprayed to the correct height this will help prevent the beetles from attacking the tree. Removal of dead trees will help protect the area from future fire outbreaks. Proper practice of silviculture to design land will prevent future problems, with trees properly spaced and healthy they will be less likely to be attacked. Also there are pheromones that can be applied to signal beetles that certain trees are already taken. All of these prevention techniques only work and help if put to use the right way.
Whether you think we should take action or we should stay out of it, should some of these techniques be put into place with some sort of enforcement?
An opportunity from the law school:
Folks, if anyone is interested in writing on this for their assigned blog posting or writing an additional blog posting for credit in place of an absence, the following is taking place this coming Monday:
The Public Interest Student Association at the Law School is hosting a panel on the topic: State Revenue Shortfall and Proposed Budget Cuts. The panel is this coming Monday, November 16, 2009, 5- 6:30PM at the Wolf Law Building room 207.
We are excited about this panel because of our featured panelists:
Todd Saliman, Director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting
Carol Hedges, Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute
The Public Interest Student Association at the Law School is hosting a panel on the topic: State Revenue Shortfall and Proposed Budget Cuts. The panel is this coming Monday, November 16, 2009, 5- 6:30PM at the Wolf Law Building room 207.
We are excited about this panel because of our featured panelists:
Todd Saliman, Director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting
Carol Hedges, Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Medical Marijuana Laws Need Clarification
by: Will Duff
In November 2000, Coloradans passed amendment 20, which legalized the use of medical marijuana for those with specified illnesses and conditions. Although marijuana for medicinal purposes has been available since 2000, only recently has it began to gain popularity among residents as an alternative to other medicine. The state department has been receiving upwards of 400 medical marijuana applications a day and it is estimated that there are over 100 dispensaries state wide, with more slated to open in the coming months. Taking a look at any local paper would affirm that the medical marijuana industry is booming, with countless ads taken out for new medical marijuana dispensaries opening or doctor offering to help people obtain their medical marijuana licenses.
The Obama administration has recently made public a hands off a approach to medical marijuana in the United States. A far departure from the Bush administration policy which raided medical marijuana growers in several states, Obama has said he does not plan to interfere with medical marijuana users as long as they are operating within the confines of state law. Although Colorado medical marijuana users no longer have to fear repercussions on a federal level, there is still much uncertainty within the state regarding medical marijuana policy as the laws are unclear. The aspect of the law perhaps most unclear is whether dispensaries are legal under state laws. Currently, there is nothing in the Colorado Constitution or statutes regarding dispensaries or grow operations.
While Boulder County DA Stan Garnett has stated that he does not intend to prosecute medical marijuana cases until laws are made more clear. Other counties, such as Weld, Jefferson and El Paso, are prosecuting operators of medical marijuana dispensaries and shutting down grow operations. Many cities, such as Greeley and Broomfield have banned dispensaries outright and others, like Breckenridge, have issued a 120-day moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries from opening until laws can be established.
It is imperative that law-makers and citizens alike take the proper measures to establish laws regarding medical marijuana. Guidelines should be established, such as where dispensaries are allowed to open, limits on number of dispensaries per city and what, if any, permits are needed to operate a dispensary, etc. It is imperative that laws are established so regulations about medical marijuana are more clear cut and people are not getting prosecuted unjustly.
In November 2000, Coloradans passed amendment 20, which legalized the use of medical marijuana for those with specified illnesses and conditions. Although marijuana for medicinal purposes has been available since 2000, only recently has it began to gain popularity among residents as an alternative to other medicine. The state department has been receiving upwards of 400 medical marijuana applications a day and it is estimated that there are over 100 dispensaries state wide, with more slated to open in the coming months. Taking a look at any local paper would affirm that the medical marijuana industry is booming, with countless ads taken out for new medical marijuana dispensaries opening or doctor offering to help people obtain their medical marijuana licenses.
The Obama administration has recently made public a hands off a approach to medical marijuana in the United States. A far departure from the Bush administration policy which raided medical marijuana growers in several states, Obama has said he does not plan to interfere with medical marijuana users as long as they are operating within the confines of state law. Although Colorado medical marijuana users no longer have to fear repercussions on a federal level, there is still much uncertainty within the state regarding medical marijuana policy as the laws are unclear. The aspect of the law perhaps most unclear is whether dispensaries are legal under state laws. Currently, there is nothing in the Colorado Constitution or statutes regarding dispensaries or grow operations.
While Boulder County DA Stan Garnett has stated that he does not intend to prosecute medical marijuana cases until laws are made more clear. Other counties, such as Weld, Jefferson and El Paso, are prosecuting operators of medical marijuana dispensaries and shutting down grow operations. Many cities, such as Greeley and Broomfield have banned dispensaries outright and others, like Breckenridge, have issued a 120-day moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries from opening until laws can be established.
It is imperative that law-makers and citizens alike take the proper measures to establish laws regarding medical marijuana. Guidelines should be established, such as where dispensaries are allowed to open, limits on number of dispensaries per city and what, if any, permits are needed to operate a dispensary, etc. It is imperative that laws are established so regulations about medical marijuana are more clear cut and people are not getting prosecuted unjustly.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Mineral Rights in the Allegheny National Forest
by: Malcolm Conolly
In the Allegheny National Forest located in northwest Pennsylvania the federal government and oil companies are currently fighting over mineral rights. The surface property in the forest is owned by the national government, and the subsurface property or mineral rights are owned by private oil companies. Around 2000 during the spike in oil prices companies began placing more drilling equipment in the Allegheny Forest. Before this time the federal government had no problem with companies drilling in the national forest. Anywhere that an oil company owns subsurface land they can legally access it. In fact it is not uncommon in this part of the state to see an oil drill on a houses front lawn. With the increase in drilling equipment in the national forest the government suddenly changed their view on oil drilling. In April 2009 in an out of court settlement the government decided to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act which makes oil or gas drilling in the forest subject to public judgment. Recently government workers have been arresting the employees of oil companies who are installing drilling equipment in the forest. On June 1, 2009, the Minared Run Oil Co., Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Allegheny Forest Alliance and Warren County Government sued the United States District Court in Erie Pennsylvania over the National Forest Services use of the National Environmental Policy Act. This case will have a major impact on the economy of the area. The Allegheny forest accounts for a large percent of the oil used by local refineries. If drilling is banned from the forest then an already economically troubled area would lose its biggest source of income.
In the Allegheny National Forest located in northwest Pennsylvania the federal government and oil companies are currently fighting over mineral rights. The surface property in the forest is owned by the national government, and the subsurface property or mineral rights are owned by private oil companies. Around 2000 during the spike in oil prices companies began placing more drilling equipment in the Allegheny Forest. Before this time the federal government had no problem with companies drilling in the national forest. Anywhere that an oil company owns subsurface land they can legally access it. In fact it is not uncommon in this part of the state to see an oil drill on a houses front lawn. With the increase in drilling equipment in the national forest the government suddenly changed their view on oil drilling. In April 2009 in an out of court settlement the government decided to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act which makes oil or gas drilling in the forest subject to public judgment. Recently government workers have been arresting the employees of oil companies who are installing drilling equipment in the forest. On June 1, 2009, the Minared Run Oil Co., Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Allegheny Forest Alliance and Warren County Government sued the United States District Court in Erie Pennsylvania over the National Forest Services use of the National Environmental Policy Act. This case will have a major impact on the economy of the area. The Allegheny forest accounts for a large percent of the oil used by local refineries. If drilling is banned from the forest then an already economically troubled area would lose its biggest source of income.
Coburn, the NSF, and Social Science Research
A very interesting discussion, if you have the patience, here.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ford Profits
by: Mitch Buthod
This quarter Ford was able to post huge profits even with the current economic slump. They were able to accomplish this by cutting costs by more than $4 billion. Layoffs and increased production efficiency were the key factors in Ford's ability to cut cost this year. They also were the only major U.S. car manufacturer to not receive a bailout from the Federal government.
To learn more about this read the following Economist article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8337876.stm
This quarter Ford was able to post huge profits even with the current economic slump. They were able to accomplish this by cutting costs by more than $4 billion. Layoffs and increased production efficiency were the key factors in Ford's ability to cut cost this year. They also were the only major U.S. car manufacturer to not receive a bailout from the Federal government.
To learn more about this read the following Economist article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8337876.stm
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Mine Cleanup and Good Samaritans
by: Jonathan Nelson
Last month Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado proposed new Good Samaritan law for abandoned mine cleanup. S.1777 Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines of 2009 was introduced on Tuesday, October 13. Here is a link to the video of his proposed bill to Congress: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=281. I was just doing some web surfing trying to find more info on my policy research topic and found myself at his website watching the video. The proposed bill is different than others because it only addresses specific liability issues and doesn’t dismiss other environmental laws. An issue in the past has been that the proposed bills have attempted to change “too much” in the words of environmentalists and stakeholders on the issue. If the bill becomes law Good Samaritans would be able to apply for a permit to cleanup an abandoned mine. During the permitting process they would have to also submit a detailed plan on remediation which would be reviewed and the permit granted. Another cool thing about the bill is that it allows any equipment or techniques that are required for remediation. This makes it possible for mining companies to potentially go to an abandoned mine and recycle the waste that contributes to acid mine drainage for precious metals leftover by inefficient mining techniques. But you can’t get too excited! The bill was only introduced to Congress. Upon being introduced all bills are then submitted to a committee of senators, this bill has been submitted to the Congressional Committee of Environment and Public Works. If the committee gets around to reviewing the bill they then report it favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House letting it receive full consideration. However often times some bills never even get considered by the committee they are referred to so they don’t even make it to being considered by the full body: the Senate or the House. Also if the committee has doesn’t have the member of Congress that introduced the bill on it, there is little chance for the stakeholders to give input to the committee when the bill is getting the most important consideration. I was able to find the website for the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works. The committee is made up of 19 senators, of whom Mark Udall is not one of them. However there are 6 senators from Western states: CA, MT, ID, WY, NM, and OR. All of these states have abandoned mines in them so there is a possibility that these senators have an interest in this new bill. Also Mark Udall’s cousin, Tom Udall (D-NM), is on the committee. He may be the biggest voice for the stakeholders of Good Sam policy. In a 2008 Outside article the Udall family is considered the legacy of Western Conservation dating back to the 1850’s with their great grandfather David King Udall. Here is the link for that article: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200803/mark-and-tom-udall-1.html
So hopefully with six Western Senators and one member of the Udall family on the senate committee that is reviewing the Good Sam bill, there will be some positive outcome that gets good Samaritans closer to reclaiming western water. Follow this link to look at the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1777
Last month Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado proposed new Good Samaritan law for abandoned mine cleanup. S.1777 Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines of 2009 was introduced on Tuesday, October 13. Here is a link to the video of his proposed bill to Congress: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=281. I was just doing some web surfing trying to find more info on my policy research topic and found myself at his website watching the video. The proposed bill is different than others because it only addresses specific liability issues and doesn’t dismiss other environmental laws. An issue in the past has been that the proposed bills have attempted to change “too much” in the words of environmentalists and stakeholders on the issue. If the bill becomes law Good Samaritans would be able to apply for a permit to cleanup an abandoned mine. During the permitting process they would have to also submit a detailed plan on remediation which would be reviewed and the permit granted. Another cool thing about the bill is that it allows any equipment or techniques that are required for remediation. This makes it possible for mining companies to potentially go to an abandoned mine and recycle the waste that contributes to acid mine drainage for precious metals leftover by inefficient mining techniques. But you can’t get too excited! The bill was only introduced to Congress. Upon being introduced all bills are then submitted to a committee of senators, this bill has been submitted to the Congressional Committee of Environment and Public Works. If the committee gets around to reviewing the bill they then report it favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House letting it receive full consideration. However often times some bills never even get considered by the committee they are referred to so they don’t even make it to being considered by the full body: the Senate or the House. Also if the committee has doesn’t have the member of Congress that introduced the bill on it, there is little chance for the stakeholders to give input to the committee when the bill is getting the most important consideration. I was able to find the website for the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works. The committee is made up of 19 senators, of whom Mark Udall is not one of them. However there are 6 senators from Western states: CA, MT, ID, WY, NM, and OR. All of these states have abandoned mines in them so there is a possibility that these senators have an interest in this new bill. Also Mark Udall’s cousin, Tom Udall (D-NM), is on the committee. He may be the biggest voice for the stakeholders of Good Sam policy. In a 2008 Outside article the Udall family is considered the legacy of Western Conservation dating back to the 1850’s with their great grandfather David King Udall. Here is the link for that article: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200803/mark-and-tom-udall-1.html
So hopefully with six Western Senators and one member of the Udall family on the senate committee that is reviewing the Good Sam bill, there will be some positive outcome that gets good Samaritans closer to reclaiming western water. Follow this link to look at the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1777
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Decriminalize Marijuana in Breckenridge
by: Stephen Capinski
Breckenridge residents will soon be voting on whether to decriminalize marijuana. Many argue that there are many good reasons for doing so, but at the same time are we showing our children and others that pot is okay? Pot is found to be less addictive then its legal cousins alcohol and tobacco. There is a contradiction in the law that the less harmful marijuana is illegal when the more harmful alcohol is legal. It is rarely, if ever, found to be the substance that accounts for aggressive action such as household abuse, violence, car accidents etc. But it is still not healthy, however; this can be argued about anything. Too much of anything becomes bad, from video games to alcohol.
What Breckenridge residents will be voting on will be the decriminalization of marijuana. This code would allow adults to hold small amounts of marijuana (less then an ounce) for personal use. It will not make the drug more available to children, you will not be allowed to smoke in public, and you won’t get out of stoned driving. You simply will not get busted for possession. The law would still be far stricter then those that apply to alcohol, which allow you to have as much as you would like, and to drink in public.
The last issue is that pot can have a greater “footprint” then alcohol. As the recent pot busts at Arapahoe basin show parents do not want to walk their children through a smoke filled parking lot. So as these small possession tickets become a thing of the past, perhaps we will need to replace them with a “nuisance pot smoke” ticket. This could be similar to alcohols public intoxication ticket.
summitdaily.com/article/20091021/OPINION/910219982/1024/NONE
Breckenridge residents will soon be voting on whether to decriminalize marijuana. Many argue that there are many good reasons for doing so, but at the same time are we showing our children and others that pot is okay? Pot is found to be less addictive then its legal cousins alcohol and tobacco. There is a contradiction in the law that the less harmful marijuana is illegal when the more harmful alcohol is legal. It is rarely, if ever, found to be the substance that accounts for aggressive action such as household abuse, violence, car accidents etc. But it is still not healthy, however; this can be argued about anything. Too much of anything becomes bad, from video games to alcohol.
What Breckenridge residents will be voting on will be the decriminalization of marijuana. This code would allow adults to hold small amounts of marijuana (less then an ounce) for personal use. It will not make the drug more available to children, you will not be allowed to smoke in public, and you won’t get out of stoned driving. You simply will not get busted for possession. The law would still be far stricter then those that apply to alcohol, which allow you to have as much as you would like, and to drink in public.
The last issue is that pot can have a greater “footprint” then alcohol. As the recent pot busts at Arapahoe basin show parents do not want to walk their children through a smoke filled parking lot. So as these small possession tickets become a thing of the past, perhaps we will need to replace them with a “nuisance pot smoke” ticket. This could be similar to alcohols public intoxication ticket.
summitdaily.com/article/20091021/OPINION/910219982/1024/NONE
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Colorado River
by: Brendan Browne
The Colorado is a vital resource to millions of Americans. Human influence, however, is slowly destroying this ecosystem. Little to no water is allocated to Mexico, although the river runs hundreds of miles along its borders. Areas downstream are completely dried up, and in some areas these dry river beds have already been developed. As an environmentalist, I would like to see the area restored to its original state. I realize that this is a huge task, but we can certainly start to reverse our negative impacts.
Dams along the river create a huge problem. They not only block sediment flow, but some of them do not allow fish to swim through and the unnatural flows of water are washing away the beaches that attract so many tourists. The dams are already implemented, but there could be modifications made to them that allow fish to swim upstream as they naturally want to. The government could also coordinate and regulate the flow of water allowed by dams down the river. This would cut down on erosion of the banks and maintain the successful tourism industry in the area. It could also help the populations of the four endangered fish species in the area. If one of those species were to go extinct, it could have devastating effects on the health of the river ecosystem.
Although the Colorado River acts as a border between Mexico and the U.S., very little of the water is given to communities along the river on the Mexican side. The areas near the delta where the water should flow into the Gulf of Mexico are dried up completely. If every Colorado River water rights owner in the U.S. was forced by government action to give up a small percent of this water, we can slowly start to bring life back to the areas downstream. It could also potentially strengthen ties with the Mexican government.
The Colorado is a vital resource to millions of Americans. Human influence, however, is slowly destroying this ecosystem. Little to no water is allocated to Mexico, although the river runs hundreds of miles along its borders. Areas downstream are completely dried up, and in some areas these dry river beds have already been developed. As an environmentalist, I would like to see the area restored to its original state. I realize that this is a huge task, but we can certainly start to reverse our negative impacts.
Dams along the river create a huge problem. They not only block sediment flow, but some of them do not allow fish to swim through and the unnatural flows of water are washing away the beaches that attract so many tourists. The dams are already implemented, but there could be modifications made to them that allow fish to swim upstream as they naturally want to. The government could also coordinate and regulate the flow of water allowed by dams down the river. This would cut down on erosion of the banks and maintain the successful tourism industry in the area. It could also help the populations of the four endangered fish species in the area. If one of those species were to go extinct, it could have devastating effects on the health of the river ecosystem.
Although the Colorado River acts as a border between Mexico and the U.S., very little of the water is given to communities along the river on the Mexican side. The areas near the delta where the water should flow into the Gulf of Mexico are dried up completely. If every Colorado River water rights owner in the U.S. was forced by government action to give up a small percent of this water, we can slowly start to bring life back to the areas downstream. It could also potentially strengthen ties with the Mexican government.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Elections
There has been a lot of punditry in the last couple of days about the elections in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, etc. Perhaps a question is whether you all think these mean something, or whether any kind of interpretation across elections is bound to be inaccurate.
On a related note, the Boulder elections returned three incumbent city council members, defeated proposals to bond for more open space, and extended term limits for the district attorney (among others).
On a related note, the Boulder elections returned three incumbent city council members, defeated proposals to bond for more open space, and extended term limits for the district attorney (among others).
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Moustache as a Public Good
Discussing the nature of different types of goods today in class, we discussed public and private goods, toll/club goods and common pool resources.
At one point in the noon class (section 1), the example of my moustache was given as an example of a toll good. I got thinking about this after class.
I could, presumably, only provide certain individuals the visual enjoyment of my moustache by wearing a ski mask most of the time and only letting certain people see it (maybe this is what Subcomandante Marcos has going on--a moustachioed individual unwilling to show off his stubbly resources to the non-Zapatista), but normally, my moustache is not an excludable good. You all get to enjoy the externality of my brilliantly executed moustachery. Instead, I would call my moustache a public good. You all benefit from my moustache being awesome. The good is non-excludable and non-subtractable.
However, though there is some cost to my moustache (takes me a little while to shave around it in the morning, and I have to clean up after trimming it lest my wife get mad at me), the internalized benefits are still greater than the costs (really helps me get interviews started doing the fieldwork, for one thing).
The endshot is, I would like to encourage all of you who have the proper genetic makeup (generally, a Y chromosome) to get in touch with your inner Karl Marx/Francisco Villa/Prince Albert/John Henry Holliday/Miguel Grau and grow some mutton chops, handlebars, or other soup-straining hirsute headgear.
At one point in the noon class (section 1), the example of my moustache was given as an example of a toll good. I got thinking about this after class.
I could, presumably, only provide certain individuals the visual enjoyment of my moustache by wearing a ski mask most of the time and only letting certain people see it (maybe this is what Subcomandante Marcos has going on--a moustachioed individual unwilling to show off his stubbly resources to the non-Zapatista), but normally, my moustache is not an excludable good. You all get to enjoy the externality of my brilliantly executed moustachery. Instead, I would call my moustache a public good. You all benefit from my moustache being awesome. The good is non-excludable and non-subtractable.
However, though there is some cost to my moustache (takes me a little while to shave around it in the morning, and I have to clean up after trimming it lest my wife get mad at me), the internalized benefits are still greater than the costs (really helps me get interviews started doing the fieldwork, for one thing).
The endshot is, I would like to encourage all of you who have the proper genetic makeup (generally, a Y chromosome) to get in touch with your inner Karl Marx/Francisco Villa/Prince Albert/John Henry Holliday/Miguel Grau and grow some mutton chops, handlebars, or other soup-straining hirsute headgear.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Green house gases tipping point
by: Chandika Maharjan
We reached 455 parts per million CO2 equivalent of green house gases in the atmosphere by 2007 when it was expected to take a decade showed the extent of problem. 455 parts per million is considered a tipping point which means the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause dangerous climate change. We are already at risk. It's not next year or next decade, it's now. The current trajectory of climate change is now much worse than the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) had originally projected in part due to China and India's increasing reliance on coal power. The research shows carbon emissions have grown sharply since 2000, despite growing concerns about climate change. During the 1990s, carbon emissions grew by less than 1% per year. Since 2000, emissions have grown at a rate of 3.5% per year. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008. Scientists claim that we are basically looking now at a future climate beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model situations. Number of floods, droughts and storms around the world in 2007 amounted to a climate change "mega disaster”. We are seeing the effects of climate change. This is here and now, this is with us already. Unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.
We reached 455 parts per million CO2 equivalent of green house gases in the atmosphere by 2007 when it was expected to take a decade showed the extent of problem. 455 parts per million is considered a tipping point which means the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause dangerous climate change. We are already at risk. It's not next year or next decade, it's now. The current trajectory of climate change is now much worse than the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) had originally projected in part due to China and India's increasing reliance on coal power. The research shows carbon emissions have grown sharply since 2000, despite growing concerns about climate change. During the 1990s, carbon emissions grew by less than 1% per year. Since 2000, emissions have grown at a rate of 3.5% per year. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008. Scientists claim that we are basically looking now at a future climate beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model situations. Number of floods, droughts and storms around the world in 2007 amounted to a climate change "mega disaster”. We are seeing the effects of climate change. This is here and now, this is with us already. Unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
House Presents $894 Billion Health Package
by: Colin Bowen
Today October 29, 2009 Democrats in the House of Representative presented a new $894 billion health package that could potentially provide affordable healthcare to 35-36 million low-income subscribers over the next ten years. It involved drastically expanding Medicaid, a state-federal insurance program designed for the poor by creating a subsidized incentive for moderate-income American families to purchase insurance from the new government plan rather than private insurance carriers.
Citizens of the United States have a right to health just like they have a right to happiness and to be free of oppression. This bill takes a big step forward to accommodating those individuals that have not had the ability to a healthy lifestyle. However, at what cost does this new proposed system undermine our capitalist society and medical insurance businesses? It is projected that some $150 billion will be removed from the private Medicare Advantage plans over the next ten years. The bill proposes that the government would sell health insurance directly harming private insurers through subsidized competition. This competition would lower premiums and could potentially remove private insurers from the market all-together. It could also have the effect of lowering the quality of medical insurance universally.
This issue is extremely controversial. On one side everyone can understand how having a generally healthier population could make our nation stronger and on the other side paying for others medical treatment especially those who are the least efficient workers in our capitalist society seems unfair for the hard working successful people that have earned their wealth. Furthermore, this system has the potential to upset the medical business and lower the general quality of healthcare for those that are willing to pay “top dollar”. We need some balance of the two, but to me almost $900 billion over 10 years seems excessive especially in times of economic depression where critics claiming our Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will bounce in nearly eight years. If this bill does pass I hope that the government realizes their obligation to make new medical laws sustainable.
Today October 29, 2009 Democrats in the House of Representative presented a new $894 billion health package that could potentially provide affordable healthcare to 35-36 million low-income subscribers over the next ten years. It involved drastically expanding Medicaid, a state-federal insurance program designed for the poor by creating a subsidized incentive for moderate-income American families to purchase insurance from the new government plan rather than private insurance carriers.
Citizens of the United States have a right to health just like they have a right to happiness and to be free of oppression. This bill takes a big step forward to accommodating those individuals that have not had the ability to a healthy lifestyle. However, at what cost does this new proposed system undermine our capitalist society and medical insurance businesses? It is projected that some $150 billion will be removed from the private Medicare Advantage plans over the next ten years. The bill proposes that the government would sell health insurance directly harming private insurers through subsidized competition. This competition would lower premiums and could potentially remove private insurers from the market all-together. It could also have the effect of lowering the quality of medical insurance universally.
This issue is extremely controversial. On one side everyone can understand how having a generally healthier population could make our nation stronger and on the other side paying for others medical treatment especially those who are the least efficient workers in our capitalist society seems unfair for the hard working successful people that have earned their wealth. Furthermore, this system has the potential to upset the medical business and lower the general quality of healthcare for those that are willing to pay “top dollar”. We need some balance of the two, but to me almost $900 billion over 10 years seems excessive especially in times of economic depression where critics claiming our Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will bounce in nearly eight years. If this bill does pass I hope that the government realizes their obligation to make new medical laws sustainable.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Salmon
by: Steve Urich
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
Bolivian Elections
A very good summary of the Bolivian election rules from my favorite Bolivia blog, here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Public Option
by: Matt McReynolds
I believe a public option on health care is a fair and responsible thing to do for the American people. It will bring competition to the health insurance industry therefore lowering costs and expanding access to Americans currently without coverage. I believe this is the only right thing to do especially considering the current advanced state of the medical field with seemingly “miracle” vaccinations that save lives. If you are sick and cannot afford medicine, you should not have to suffer and possibly die for financial reasons.
This is a humanitarian issue to me and it is the responsibility of the government to provide the best possible wellbeing and health for ALL of its citizens. You are now designating Americans into two groups: the ones that can afford “to survive” and the ones that cannot (no matter how small the percentage), essentially. We are basically saying these people are unimportant in our society because they are too poor and are not worth helping maintain their health and essentially are hung out to dry.
Opponents of the public option contend a public option would drive private insurers from the market and lead to an eventual government takeover of the health care system. Then there are radical claims of socialism and ridicules things of that nature including a senator shouting out “liar, you lie” at the president during a Congressional speech on the same topic. I honestly believe this is another case of the powerful special interests in Washington showing their influence over American politics. A recent article claimed the public option might pass if states are allowed to possibly “opt out” of it (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/health.care/index.html). Do the right thing America!
I believe a public option on health care is a fair and responsible thing to do for the American people. It will bring competition to the health insurance industry therefore lowering costs and expanding access to Americans currently without coverage. I believe this is the only right thing to do especially considering the current advanced state of the medical field with seemingly “miracle” vaccinations that save lives. If you are sick and cannot afford medicine, you should not have to suffer and possibly die for financial reasons.
This is a humanitarian issue to me and it is the responsibility of the government to provide the best possible wellbeing and health for ALL of its citizens. You are now designating Americans into two groups: the ones that can afford “to survive” and the ones that cannot (no matter how small the percentage), essentially. We are basically saying these people are unimportant in our society because they are too poor and are not worth helping maintain their health and essentially are hung out to dry.
Opponents of the public option contend a public option would drive private insurers from the market and lead to an eventual government takeover of the health care system. Then there are radical claims of socialism and ridicules things of that nature including a senator shouting out “liar, you lie” at the president during a Congressional speech on the same topic. I honestly believe this is another case of the powerful special interests in Washington showing their influence over American politics. A recent article claimed the public option might pass if states are allowed to possibly “opt out” of it (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/health.care/index.html). Do the right thing America!
Monday, October 26, 2009
More corn for Mexico?
by: Laura Schafenacker
Early on in the semester there was a blog post about genetically modified crops. Until recently I did not know how these crops were received outside of the United States. The CNN article: “Greenpeace Protests Genetically Modified Corn In Mexico” brought to my attention the use of genetically modified crops in other countries. The Mexican government recently approved 2 farming permits for the growth of genetically altered corn on their fields. For a country who’s main crop and livelihood is corn – with the majority of farmers getting their seed from previous harvests or other farmers – this is a big deal. If the genetically modified corn takes off in Mexico, all farmers would be required to buy their seeds from one of four companies, and pay royalties if their crop contaminates non-genetically modified crops. The government is trying this on a case-by-case basis, because it allows Mexico the ability to become independent from other countries. Currently Mexico imports 89% of feed corn (yellow corn vs the white corn that can be consumed by humans), and in 2007 Mexico faced a food shortage that lead its people to take to the streets to protest the price of tortillas, a staple food in the Mexican diet. Genetically engineered corn gives the option of greater yields, which would lower high food prices, lower Mexico’s dependence on the United States for corn, and increase the wealth of the country. But do these benefits outweigh the costs? Will the genetically engineered corn change the livelihoods and culture of the Mexican citizens?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/20/greenpeace.mexico/index.html
Early on in the semester there was a blog post about genetically modified crops. Until recently I did not know how these crops were received outside of the United States. The CNN article: “Greenpeace Protests Genetically Modified Corn In Mexico” brought to my attention the use of genetically modified crops in other countries. The Mexican government recently approved 2 farming permits for the growth of genetically altered corn on their fields. For a country who’s main crop and livelihood is corn – with the majority of farmers getting their seed from previous harvests or other farmers – this is a big deal. If the genetically modified corn takes off in Mexico, all farmers would be required to buy their seeds from one of four companies, and pay royalties if their crop contaminates non-genetically modified crops. The government is trying this on a case-by-case basis, because it allows Mexico the ability to become independent from other countries. Currently Mexico imports 89% of feed corn (yellow corn vs the white corn that can be consumed by humans), and in 2007 Mexico faced a food shortage that lead its people to take to the streets to protest the price of tortillas, a staple food in the Mexican diet. Genetically engineered corn gives the option of greater yields, which would lower high food prices, lower Mexico’s dependence on the United States for corn, and increase the wealth of the country. But do these benefits outweigh the costs? Will the genetically engineered corn change the livelihoods and culture of the Mexican citizens?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/20/greenpeace.mexico/index.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Green Campus
Universities across the country are being pushed towards cleaner energy. The Sierra Club and the Sierra Club Student Coalition have been working towards ridding college campuses of coal through a new ad campaign. Three video ads are online along with printed advertisements that focus on the dirtiness of coal on college campuses. One of the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md0Fdy0dlq8&feature=player_embedded
tries to reach a young college audience by poking fun at the college lifestyle. All humor aside, there are organizers on the ground in several of the more than 60 campuses with on-site coal plants. This campaign is not just trying to lessen the use of coal but also transition schools to using 100% clean energy.
These advertisements are supposed to urge people and specifically students to sign petitions asking school presidents to shut down on- campus coal plants. Hopefully, if the Sierra Club campaign is successful students will mobilize and take action to move away from dirty coal. Currently more than 11,000 students are making efforts to transition their schools to more sustainable and clean energy. You may have seen students on campus today at the UMC working for this anti-coal campaign. The question of debate is whether this ad campaign will really help motivate students to take action. What do you think? Are these videos effective for college students to want to take action? If you are interested in signing the petition you can do so at http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=10052009_TooDirtyForCollege_Petition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md0Fdy0dlq8&feature=player_embedded
tries to reach a young college audience by poking fun at the college lifestyle. All humor aside, there are organizers on the ground in several of the more than 60 campuses with on-site coal plants. This campaign is not just trying to lessen the use of coal but also transition schools to using 100% clean energy.
These advertisements are supposed to urge people and specifically students to sign petitions asking school presidents to shut down on- campus coal plants. Hopefully, if the Sierra Club campaign is successful students will mobilize and take action to move away from dirty coal. Currently more than 11,000 students are making efforts to transition their schools to more sustainable and clean energy. You may have seen students on campus today at the UMC working for this anti-coal campaign. The question of debate is whether this ad campaign will really help motivate students to take action. What do you think? Are these videos effective for college students to want to take action? If you are interested in signing the petition you can do so at http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=10052009_TooDirtyForCollege_Petition.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What about the Baby Seals?
by: Patrick Hanks
Hello fellow readers, It’s me Henry… oh wait... let me introduce myself, I am Henry Seal, the baby seal that met his fate when oil from an oil spill destroyed my habitat. It’s a long story why I am here, but my words are few and filled with wisdom from the beyond! So let’s get started; in Prince William Sound Alaska, my once admired homestead, I used to live free and healthy, frolicking amongst the other baby seals, and learning to court the love of my life, Jessy Seal. On one infamous morning, March 24, 1989; an Oil tanker spilled over 10.8 million gallons of oil, covering 11 million square miles of our home. I had nowhere to go, trapped, isolated, and destined to face an awful death; all the while watching thousands of my salmon, sea otter, and bird friends suffering a most gruesome end. I can’t even speak of my Jessy Seal, my heart has been broken in two; but my love for her will last forever.
I bring this most saddening story to light in hopes to inform and prevent such a terrible disaster from happening again. This is just one example of many thousands of oil spills that have occurred over many years, taking the lives of baby seals just like me. Oil companies are standing by their methods to transport oil, and cleaning up their disasters is about the last thing they really want to deal with. Oil Spills affect the lives of millions of animals and humans each decade, and yet the same methods of transporting oil are still followed. I speak for a lot of deceased baby seals and animals when we say, OIL SPILLS KILL!! I have thought of some incentives to place on oil companies in order to help reduce such terrible disasters.
1. Government can place heavy fines (or subsidies) on companies in order to prevent and provide consequences for oil spills
2. Government can create new legislation in which stricter transportation procedures can be created and enforced.
3. Instill Leviathan institutions that can self regulate and face their collective action problem without intervention from the government. It could be an effective way to stabilize the oil distribution industry.
4. As a society, we can influence the oil companies simply by reducing their market influence. We can influence the market by reducing our oil and natural gas consumption, as well as only purchasing oil from organizations that follow a more stable procedure in transporting oil.
Please tell me what you think; what incentives would you create in order to change the incentives of oil companies? How would you adjust the suggestions above? Your opinion is greatly valued, because if just one baby seal is saved, it will all have been worth it.
Sincerely,
Henry Seal
Hello fellow readers, It’s me Henry… oh wait... let me introduce myself, I am Henry Seal, the baby seal that met his fate when oil from an oil spill destroyed my habitat. It’s a long story why I am here, but my words are few and filled with wisdom from the beyond! So let’s get started; in Prince William Sound Alaska, my once admired homestead, I used to live free and healthy, frolicking amongst the other baby seals, and learning to court the love of my life, Jessy Seal. On one infamous morning, March 24, 1989; an Oil tanker spilled over 10.8 million gallons of oil, covering 11 million square miles of our home. I had nowhere to go, trapped, isolated, and destined to face an awful death; all the while watching thousands of my salmon, sea otter, and bird friends suffering a most gruesome end. I can’t even speak of my Jessy Seal, my heart has been broken in two; but my love for her will last forever.
I bring this most saddening story to light in hopes to inform and prevent such a terrible disaster from happening again. This is just one example of many thousands of oil spills that have occurred over many years, taking the lives of baby seals just like me. Oil companies are standing by their methods to transport oil, and cleaning up their disasters is about the last thing they really want to deal with. Oil Spills affect the lives of millions of animals and humans each decade, and yet the same methods of transporting oil are still followed. I speak for a lot of deceased baby seals and animals when we say, OIL SPILLS KILL!! I have thought of some incentives to place on oil companies in order to help reduce such terrible disasters.
1. Government can place heavy fines (or subsidies) on companies in order to prevent and provide consequences for oil spills
2. Government can create new legislation in which stricter transportation procedures can be created and enforced.
3. Instill Leviathan institutions that can self regulate and face their collective action problem without intervention from the government. It could be an effective way to stabilize the oil distribution industry.
4. As a society, we can influence the oil companies simply by reducing their market influence. We can influence the market by reducing our oil and natural gas consumption, as well as only purchasing oil from organizations that follow a more stable procedure in transporting oil.
Please tell me what you think; what incentives would you create in order to change the incentives of oil companies? How would you adjust the suggestions above? Your opinion is greatly valued, because if just one baby seal is saved, it will all have been worth it.
Sincerely,
Henry Seal
Friday, October 23, 2009
Mountain Pine Beetle
by: Sam Cimino
The Mountain Pine Beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae is a species of bark beetle native to western North America. The mountain pine beetle invades pine trees for shelter, reproduction, and to harvest their larvae. The most common pine trees invaded are the Lodgepole pine, Ponderosa Pine, and the Whitebark Pine. The invaded trees on average die within two to three weeks and their needles turn orange and red. The "dead stands" create an increase in fuel load for fires the lack of water intake creates greater erosion in the area. The mountain pine beetle outbreaks naturally occur on a decadal cycle; however, the recent outbreak has been ten times more devastating to the ecosystem than any others recorded in the past.
There are various measures being taken and even more ideas being observed in order to control this outbreak. The measures that are in effect as of now are not very effective and very costly. The Bureau of Land Management is working with private companies, typically ski resorts, on control policies in areas where public safety may be at risk. In areas that can be controlled, the BLM will remove all dead stands, thin out susceptible trees, and install repellent pheromone packs.
The steps the BLM are taking is a good start, but it may be too little too late. The removal of dead stands is mostly for safety reasons due to the high risk of falling trees in outbreak areas. Additionally, the thinning of susceptible trees should have been done years ago, and due to the suppression of fires Rocky Mountain forests have become increasingly unhealthy. Fire suppression has caused more intense fires when they do occur, which creates single aged forests. Pine beetle will only attack trees of a certain age and diameter and if all the trees are possible recipients of the beetle the entire forest could be invaded which is appears to be happening now. Finally, the installation of repellent pheromone packs is extremely expensive. What the repellent packs do is inhibit the pine beetles to send out a signal telling the other pine beetles that the tree is suitable for invasion. The packs need to be installed each year and can be up to twenty dollars per tree. If they install the repellent into a thousand trees (which is a little less than average) they are spending twenty-thousand a year just on the repellents.
What should be done in the control of the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak? Is it too late to try and save the Rocky Mountain forests? Should there be a state or nationwide policy for the control of the pine beetle?
The Mountain Pine Beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae is a species of bark beetle native to western North America. The mountain pine beetle invades pine trees for shelter, reproduction, and to harvest their larvae. The most common pine trees invaded are the Lodgepole pine, Ponderosa Pine, and the Whitebark Pine. The invaded trees on average die within two to three weeks and their needles turn orange and red. The "dead stands" create an increase in fuel load for fires the lack of water intake creates greater erosion in the area. The mountain pine beetle outbreaks naturally occur on a decadal cycle; however, the recent outbreak has been ten times more devastating to the ecosystem than any others recorded in the past.
There are various measures being taken and even more ideas being observed in order to control this outbreak. The measures that are in effect as of now are not very effective and very costly. The Bureau of Land Management is working with private companies, typically ski resorts, on control policies in areas where public safety may be at risk. In areas that can be controlled, the BLM will remove all dead stands, thin out susceptible trees, and install repellent pheromone packs.
The steps the BLM are taking is a good start, but it may be too little too late. The removal of dead stands is mostly for safety reasons due to the high risk of falling trees in outbreak areas. Additionally, the thinning of susceptible trees should have been done years ago, and due to the suppression of fires Rocky Mountain forests have become increasingly unhealthy. Fire suppression has caused more intense fires when they do occur, which creates single aged forests. Pine beetle will only attack trees of a certain age and diameter and if all the trees are possible recipients of the beetle the entire forest could be invaded which is appears to be happening now. Finally, the installation of repellent pheromone packs is extremely expensive. What the repellent packs do is inhibit the pine beetles to send out a signal telling the other pine beetles that the tree is suitable for invasion. The packs need to be installed each year and can be up to twenty dollars per tree. If they install the repellent into a thousand trees (which is a little less than average) they are spending twenty-thousand a year just on the repellents.
What should be done in the control of the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak? Is it too late to try and save the Rocky Mountain forests? Should there be a state or nationwide policy for the control of the pine beetle?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Froggies
By: Brittany Smith
There are about 4000 frog species in the world. The major centers of diversity are South America and Africa, Australia and New Guinea. Currently 208 named Australian species are recognised, although it is estimated that some 20-35 more are to be discovered. The fossil record of frogs extends to the early Jurassic of South America. The earliest material from Australia is of the Eocene, from Queensland. The overall morphological conservatism of frogs over such an extensive period indicates that several frog species have survived a wide range of climates and other environmental changes over at least 45 million years. The dramatic and unexplained decline of many species in recent years is, therefore, a matter of severe concern. Frog habitats are relatively unknown because in the past 200 years the Australian landscape has been altered by urbanisation, land clearing, and water diversion and pollution on a large scale. The effect of these activities on the conservation of the fauna, particularly the habitats available to species of frogs, has gone unnoticed.
There were isolated suggestions in the early 1980s that there had been declines in frog populations but no verifications were made. It was not until 1989, at the First World Congress of Herpetology in Canterbury, England, that there was any perception of a significant pattern of declines on a global basis, and any recognition of the desirability of taking steps to ensure the survival of amphibians. The Action Plan for Australian Frogs is the first attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and needs of Australia's frogs, and to estimate the costs of the required conservation research and management. The Action Plan suffers from a fundamental deficiency of biological information when compared with the Action Plans developed for marsupials and birds, and also by the fact that there are relatively few herpetologists in Australia with experience sufficient to generate the information required. There is an urgent need to raise the level of commitment to the conservation of frogs and frog habitats by wildlife conservation agencies, and the level of awareness about the fauna in the general community.
Some possible reasons for these declines are thought to be due to an enormous array of human activities impinge upon the viability of frogs include insecticide use in agricultural and horticultural areas, particularly aerial spraying, land reclamation by drainage in wetland areas, resulting in loss of breeding sites, the conversion of temporary ponds to dams for stock use resulting in the destruction of peripheral sheltering sites,introduction of the Mosquito Fish Gambusia holbrooki which preys on frog eggs and tadpoles. Other factors being considered as potentially implicated in frog declines include: global changes to air and water quality, increased exposure to ultra-violet radiation caused by depletion of the ozone layer, habitat modification, impacts of introduced species, pollution, hormonally active pesticide residues, pathogens and disease, acidification and climate change, including changes in climatic extremes (Tyler 1994).
Because the cause for the population of frogs decline is uncertain, there is not much conservation poicies can mandate. At the moment, Austrailia has "recommendations" that they try to enforce. Some recommendations include, that high priority be given to research and management action to address frog declines. That research be continued into the toxicity of pollutants, particularly herbicides and their dispersants. It is also recommended that low-toxicity surfactants be required, particularly for herbicide use near water bodies and drainage lines, that research and analysis be undertaken to clarify the possible contributing role of these factors, including data already available from Australian and international studies. Examples include: pathogens, local water quality, impacts of introduced fish (eg. Gambusia holbrooki, trout, carp), impacts of introduced terrestrial predators such as cats and foxes, subtle climatic changes and perturbations, and impacts of global changes to air and water quality, and that attempts be made to determine if there are causal factors common to these declines and if any of these operate together, or even synergistically. Finally, that high priority be given to survey and research necessary to clarify the distribution, abundance and conservation status of insufficiently known species.
Sources:
Australian Government, department of the enivornment http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/frogs/6.html
There are about 4000 frog species in the world. The major centers of diversity are South America and Africa, Australia and New Guinea. Currently 208 named Australian species are recognised, although it is estimated that some 20-35 more are to be discovered. The fossil record of frogs extends to the early Jurassic of South America. The earliest material from Australia is of the Eocene, from Queensland. The overall morphological conservatism of frogs over such an extensive period indicates that several frog species have survived a wide range of climates and other environmental changes over at least 45 million years. The dramatic and unexplained decline of many species in recent years is, therefore, a matter of severe concern. Frog habitats are relatively unknown because in the past 200 years the Australian landscape has been altered by urbanisation, land clearing, and water diversion and pollution on a large scale. The effect of these activities on the conservation of the fauna, particularly the habitats available to species of frogs, has gone unnoticed.
There were isolated suggestions in the early 1980s that there had been declines in frog populations but no verifications were made. It was not until 1989, at the First World Congress of Herpetology in Canterbury, England, that there was any perception of a significant pattern of declines on a global basis, and any recognition of the desirability of taking steps to ensure the survival of amphibians. The Action Plan for Australian Frogs is the first attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and needs of Australia's frogs, and to estimate the costs of the required conservation research and management. The Action Plan suffers from a fundamental deficiency of biological information when compared with the Action Plans developed for marsupials and birds, and also by the fact that there are relatively few herpetologists in Australia with experience sufficient to generate the information required. There is an urgent need to raise the level of commitment to the conservation of frogs and frog habitats by wildlife conservation agencies, and the level of awareness about the fauna in the general community.
Some possible reasons for these declines are thought to be due to an enormous array of human activities impinge upon the viability of frogs include insecticide use in agricultural and horticultural areas, particularly aerial spraying, land reclamation by drainage in wetland areas, resulting in loss of breeding sites, the conversion of temporary ponds to dams for stock use resulting in the destruction of peripheral sheltering sites,introduction of the Mosquito Fish Gambusia holbrooki which preys on frog eggs and tadpoles. Other factors being considered as potentially implicated in frog declines include: global changes to air and water quality, increased exposure to ultra-violet radiation caused by depletion of the ozone layer, habitat modification, impacts of introduced species, pollution, hormonally active pesticide residues, pathogens and disease, acidification and climate change, including changes in climatic extremes (Tyler 1994).
Because the cause for the population of frogs decline is uncertain, there is not much conservation poicies can mandate. At the moment, Austrailia has "recommendations" that they try to enforce. Some recommendations include, that high priority be given to research and management action to address frog declines. That research be continued into the toxicity of pollutants, particularly herbicides and their dispersants. It is also recommended that low-toxicity surfactants be required, particularly for herbicide use near water bodies and drainage lines, that research and analysis be undertaken to clarify the possible contributing role of these factors, including data already available from Australian and international studies. Examples include: pathogens, local water quality, impacts of introduced fish (eg. Gambusia holbrooki, trout, carp), impacts of introduced terrestrial predators such as cats and foxes, subtle climatic changes and perturbations, and impacts of global changes to air and water quality, and that attempts be made to determine if there are causal factors common to these declines and if any of these operate together, or even synergistically. Finally, that high priority be given to survey and research necessary to clarify the distribution, abundance and conservation status of insufficiently known species.
Sources:
Australian Government, department of the enivornment http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/frogs/6.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bolivian Lithium
Foreign Policy magazine has a pretty good article about Lithium in Bolivia here.
You all, by the way, should go to Uyuni (the Bolivian salt flat, and the biggest salt flat in the world) before it gets developed. It is simply the most amazing place I have ever been.
You all, by the way, should go to Uyuni (the Bolivian salt flat, and the biggest salt flat in the world) before it gets developed. It is simply the most amazing place I have ever been.
Watered-Down Enforcement
by: Corey Lovato
I read an article in the New York Times that has left me concerned (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html). The article details the clean water laws that are supposed to apply throughout the country and the various ways in which they are often neglected. Essentially, the laws are written to be enforced on a state-by-state basis, lacking federal oversight by the EPA or any other federal agency.
The result is often that the laws are enforced to different degrees in different places, and many violations are overlooked. This may be for as sinister a reason as the local politicians getting their campaign funds from the very companies they are supposed to regulate, or perhaps a more benign but equally unacceptable reason. For example, funding is subject to state policy, and may be inadequate to enforce the laws. Additionally, the lack of centralized oversight may be a deterrent for enforcement officials to fulfill their duties, as there is often no penalty for failing to properly enforce the laws.
The consequences can be dire; affected residents report everything from dental problems and skin rashes to cancer and organ failure. My girlfriend is a first year law student and was assigned to read the book A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr to study the legal implications of this. Basically, it's so difficult to prove a link between a chemical dumped by a certain company and an effect in a citizen that lawsuits are ineffective. In effect, no solution has yet been found to fully regulate water pollution.
I read an article in the New York Times that has left me concerned (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html). The article details the clean water laws that are supposed to apply throughout the country and the various ways in which they are often neglected. Essentially, the laws are written to be enforced on a state-by-state basis, lacking federal oversight by the EPA or any other federal agency.
The result is often that the laws are enforced to different degrees in different places, and many violations are overlooked. This may be for as sinister a reason as the local politicians getting their campaign funds from the very companies they are supposed to regulate, or perhaps a more benign but equally unacceptable reason. For example, funding is subject to state policy, and may be inadequate to enforce the laws. Additionally, the lack of centralized oversight may be a deterrent for enforcement officials to fulfill their duties, as there is often no penalty for failing to properly enforce the laws.
The consequences can be dire; affected residents report everything from dental problems and skin rashes to cancer and organ failure. My girlfriend is a first year law student and was assigned to read the book A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr to study the legal implications of this. Basically, it's so difficult to prove a link between a chemical dumped by a certain company and an effect in a citizen that lawsuits are ineffective. In effect, no solution has yet been found to fully regulate water pollution.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Energy Future
By: Chris Gerbi
Last week I learned that Obama decided to spend $5 Billion dollars on the Biotech industry for R&D and other things. I usually support any investment in a science related field, but this one doesn’t sit as well. Mostly because that industry doesn’t need it. I’m pretty sure that our Biotech industries are top in the world right now. Don’t get me wrong , I think that it is an important industry, but aren’t there other areas where investment would have a larger impact? I’m thinking about the energy industry. Currently there is only .8% investment for things like basic research and technology. That is .8% of the net profits for energy companies in this country. What kind of change is this going to produce? Almost none. I care about finding different ways to produce and deliver energy. To be competitive and viable new technologies must be invested in so that they are allowed to reach economies of scale. For most other new industries to become competitive in this manner about 20% - 30% of the profits are re-invested. This is a drastic difference. As much as we see commercials about BP and Shell becoming “energy companies” they are still oil companies. I know that we are deeply entrenched in our existing infrastructure but that doesn’t mean we are stuck. There are many reasons why it makes sense to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. One thing people forget is that we have one resource that is renewable and greatly untapped and that is our technological and innovational creativity. Let’s use this to our advantage and get a jump on producing new ways to produce and consume energy. I mean, if I wake up in a few years and find that China has passed us in this sector – which they can do under their authoritarian system – we will have let a great chance to improve at a profit slip through our fingers.
Last week I learned that Obama decided to spend $5 Billion dollars on the Biotech industry for R&D and other things. I usually support any investment in a science related field, but this one doesn’t sit as well. Mostly because that industry doesn’t need it. I’m pretty sure that our Biotech industries are top in the world right now. Don’t get me wrong , I think that it is an important industry, but aren’t there other areas where investment would have a larger impact? I’m thinking about the energy industry. Currently there is only .8% investment for things like basic research and technology. That is .8% of the net profits for energy companies in this country. What kind of change is this going to produce? Almost none. I care about finding different ways to produce and deliver energy. To be competitive and viable new technologies must be invested in so that they are allowed to reach economies of scale. For most other new industries to become competitive in this manner about 20% - 30% of the profits are re-invested. This is a drastic difference. As much as we see commercials about BP and Shell becoming “energy companies” they are still oil companies. I know that we are deeply entrenched in our existing infrastructure but that doesn’t mean we are stuck. There are many reasons why it makes sense to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. One thing people forget is that we have one resource that is renewable and greatly untapped and that is our technological and innovational creativity. Let’s use this to our advantage and get a jump on producing new ways to produce and consume energy. I mean, if I wake up in a few years and find that China has passed us in this sector – which they can do under their authoritarian system – we will have let a great chance to improve at a profit slip through our fingers.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Green Mapping
by: Alexa Turzian
The Green Map System was developed in 1995, but has just recently started to
sprout as a booming business. Spreading to over 550 cities and 54 countries
worldwide it’s hard not to recognize the significant impact this green movement
has had on the world. So what is it? The Green Map System allows anyone from
students to reputable political figures to get involved with their communities
and map green living, nature and social or culture resources. These maps are
quite useful as they provide a guide for tourists to seek out green sites and
projects in the cities, help build sustainable communities, bring locals together,
and so much more. These maps may also act as comprehensive inventories for
environmental policy.
I wanted to write my blog about green maps, not only because many people are
unaware of them, but also because I feel they could be a very useful tool for
decision-making now and especially into the future as cities focus more on
sustainable development. The Green Mapping System shines a light on the
global green movement, providing models for all others to follow.
Take a look at the website and let me know what you think. Can these maps act
as a tool to make environmental policy decisions into the future? Can anything
change the environmental catastrophe we are running straight into? Hopes are
that each voice and map created will slowly spread awareness and at best begin
to convince people worldwide that we need to respect the world we live in for
every bit of dirt it’s worth.
*http://www.greenmap.org/*
The Green Map System was developed in 1995, but has just recently started to
sprout as a booming business. Spreading to over 550 cities and 54 countries
worldwide it’s hard not to recognize the significant impact this green movement
has had on the world. So what is it? The Green Map System allows anyone from
students to reputable political figures to get involved with their communities
and map green living, nature and social or culture resources. These maps are
quite useful as they provide a guide for tourists to seek out green sites and
projects in the cities, help build sustainable communities, bring locals together,
and so much more. These maps may also act as comprehensive inventories for
environmental policy.
I wanted to write my blog about green maps, not only because many people are
unaware of them, but also because I feel they could be a very useful tool for
decision-making now and especially into the future as cities focus more on
sustainable development. The Green Mapping System shines a light on the
global green movement, providing models for all others to follow.
Take a look at the website and let me know what you think. Can these maps act
as a tool to make environmental policy decisions into the future? Can anything
change the environmental catastrophe we are running straight into? Hopes are
that each voice and map created will slowly spread awareness and at best begin
to convince people worldwide that we need to respect the world we live in for
every bit of dirt it’s worth.
*http://www.greenmap.org/*
Medical Marijuana News
Here.
An interesting an important development relevant to one of our presentations last week. If the federal government won't enforce prohibitions on medical marijuana, what will the states do? And what will happen down the road--what will the next administration do, and what will the current administration do in the future?
An interesting an important development relevant to one of our presentations last week. If the federal government won't enforce prohibitions on medical marijuana, what will the states do? And what will happen down the road--what will the next administration do, and what will the current administration do in the future?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Non-Point sources of Pollution
by: Jimie Demonte
The policy issue that I have become increasingly interested in and am writing my term paper on concerns non-point source pollution sources and how they affect our waterways. The current issue is very complicated, but the main issue is that we have not solved the full issue of non-point source pollution. According to the Clean Water Act “Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet)”. So even if we may think we know where a pollutant comes from, such as storm water run-off into streams, there is not a policy we can make about it because it is not coming out of a pipe. My problem with this issue is that there most likely are ways to solve this problem, or ways that the government or the EPA can provide incentives to the general public. I’m thinking monetary rewards/ incentives every time the waterway in a county is tested and there are less traces of motor oil or soap from washing your car on the street, etc. And – what about the non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off? This is a problem since farms or CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) need to be a certain size before they must attain a permit. So where is the incentive for small local farms to obtain a permit, unless they are very environmentally inclined, even so- permits are expensive!! So where is the incentive? Again, I’m thinking we could give monetary incentive to use organic fertilizers or minimize herbicide use, or even incentive to buy a permit, by rewarding small farms in a rivers drainage area when there is a decreased amount of pollution from year to year. This problem is a difficult one to institute, and the monetary incentives need to come from somewhere, but I know that pollution mitigation and pollution testing is very expensive and if the EPA saved more money because they didn’t have to mitigate the issue, that money could go directly to residents or farm owners.
The policy issue that I have become increasingly interested in and am writing my term paper on concerns non-point source pollution sources and how they affect our waterways. The current issue is very complicated, but the main issue is that we have not solved the full issue of non-point source pollution. According to the Clean Water Act “Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet)”. So even if we may think we know where a pollutant comes from, such as storm water run-off into streams, there is not a policy we can make about it because it is not coming out of a pipe. My problem with this issue is that there most likely are ways to solve this problem, or ways that the government or the EPA can provide incentives to the general public. I’m thinking monetary rewards/ incentives every time the waterway in a county is tested and there are less traces of motor oil or soap from washing your car on the street, etc. And – what about the non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off? This is a problem since farms or CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) need to be a certain size before they must attain a permit. So where is the incentive for small local farms to obtain a permit, unless they are very environmentally inclined, even so- permits are expensive!! So where is the incentive? Again, I’m thinking we could give monetary incentive to use organic fertilizers or minimize herbicide use, or even incentive to buy a permit, by rewarding small farms in a rivers drainage area when there is a decreased amount of pollution from year to year. This problem is a difficult one to institute, and the monetary incentives need to come from somewhere, but I know that pollution mitigation and pollution testing is very expensive and if the EPA saved more money because they didn’t have to mitigate the issue, that money could go directly to residents or farm owners.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Water Contamination
by: Mikaela Madalinski
Externalities Involved in Water Contamination
I recently read an article that focused on a man that had been drinking contaminated water that came from a nearby spring to the tap in his cabin in Western Colorado. About a year and a half ago, he took a drink of the bad water and it resulted in throat burning, head pounding, stomach pain and feelings of suffocation. The reason that his water is contaminated is due to surrounding oil and gas fields. Before this incident, Ned Prather had no idea that he had been drinking contaminated water. Tests showed that the water from the spring he had been drinking from for years and years is heavily contaminated with BTEX – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzine and Xylene, which is a mix of chemicals that are not only damaging to the nervous system but are also carcinogenic. This case is a great example of an externality. It is clear that the BTEX in Prather’s water is from oil and gas production because it is exactly the mix of chemicals that comes to the surface in the production water of oil and gas wells.
The sad truth is that 16 months after Prather drank the terrible throat burning water; there is not one source that has been pinned down for the contamination. His tap water still yields a very strong odor, similar to that of diesel fuel. Water contamination is very common anywhere where oil and gas are being sequestered. In fact, in 2008 there were 206 spills in Colorado that were connected to or suspected to be connected to 48 cases of water contamination. I am sure that this issue of externalities is being dealt with all across the world. What is the proper way to handle the externalities involved in water contamination?
Link to the article I read:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13535728
Externalities Involved in Water Contamination
I recently read an article that focused on a man that had been drinking contaminated water that came from a nearby spring to the tap in his cabin in Western Colorado. About a year and a half ago, he took a drink of the bad water and it resulted in throat burning, head pounding, stomach pain and feelings of suffocation. The reason that his water is contaminated is due to surrounding oil and gas fields. Before this incident, Ned Prather had no idea that he had been drinking contaminated water. Tests showed that the water from the spring he had been drinking from for years and years is heavily contaminated with BTEX – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzine and Xylene, which is a mix of chemicals that are not only damaging to the nervous system but are also carcinogenic. This case is a great example of an externality. It is clear that the BTEX in Prather’s water is from oil and gas production because it is exactly the mix of chemicals that comes to the surface in the production water of oil and gas wells.
The sad truth is that 16 months after Prather drank the terrible throat burning water; there is not one source that has been pinned down for the contamination. His tap water still yields a very strong odor, similar to that of diesel fuel. Water contamination is very common anywhere where oil and gas are being sequestered. In fact, in 2008 there were 206 spills in Colorado that were connected to or suspected to be connected to 48 cases of water contamination. I am sure that this issue of externalities is being dealt with all across the world. What is the proper way to handle the externalities involved in water contamination?
Link to the article I read:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13535728
Friday, October 16, 2009
Hydraulic Fracturing
by: Ross Maestas
Hydraulic fracturing is a process that allows the oil and natural gas drilling companies to extract more product from their oil shale drilling sites. They do this by pumping a huge amount of water, sand and chemicals into the ground. This prevents the cleats, or cracks, in the rocks from closing, thus allowing them to produce more natural gas. Recently there has been concern in Colorado that the chemicals used in this process are contaminating the groundwater tables. There have been numerous reports of gas workers and even nurses becoming very ill after exposure to these chemicals. Also, people in Colorado have been able to literally light their tap water on fire as it comes out of the spout. The companies responsible for these injuries has refused to release the formulas for these chemicals because they cite them as "trade secrets." They claim it would be like asking Coca-Cola for the formula to Coke. Do you think that legislation should be passed to force these drilling firms to release the chemical formlas of what they are pumping into our ground?
Hydraulic fracturing is a process that allows the oil and natural gas drilling companies to extract more product from their oil shale drilling sites. They do this by pumping a huge amount of water, sand and chemicals into the ground. This prevents the cleats, or cracks, in the rocks from closing, thus allowing them to produce more natural gas. Recently there has been concern in Colorado that the chemicals used in this process are contaminating the groundwater tables. There have been numerous reports of gas workers and even nurses becoming very ill after exposure to these chemicals. Also, people in Colorado have been able to literally light their tap water on fire as it comes out of the spout. The companies responsible for these injuries has refused to release the formulas for these chemicals because they cite them as "trade secrets." They claim it would be like asking Coca-Cola for the formula to Coke. Do you think that legislation should be passed to force these drilling firms to release the chemical formlas of what they are pumping into our ground?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize
by: Myles McReynolds
It used to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was given out for actually doing
something amazing or leading a very influential and inspiring life. Recipients
like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, and the 14th Dalai
Lama resemble extremely influential and inspirational attitudes and values that
definitely merit the Prize. But these days it seems that you don’t even have to
do anything and you can be a legitimate candidate. Granted, the most recent
recipient, Barack Obama, has already done a great thing for this country showing
that it is possible for an African American to be president – something that 30
years ago people would say is impossible. But what else has he done to deserve
this coveted award? He received this award for a promise - a promise to change
our nation and get it back to what it used to be. One thing that this does is
place an extreme amount of pressure on him to turn his eloquently expressed
vision into real improvements in what are some of the world's most difficult
problems.
Even though the Nobel committee will say that the award was given for
his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy", not all will
agree and some may offer a counter argument saying where have those efforts led?
The committee also awarded him the Prize based on his "vision of and work for a
world without nuclear weapons." But, our world still has nuclear weapons, if not
more than before, so once again it is easy to ask – what has that vision done?
Did they give Terrell Davis the Super Bowl XXXII MVP trophy in the middle of the
first quarter? No, he had to work hard for it, suffering through pain, hit after
hit, and migraine headaches the entire time – the same rule applies in this case
(excuse the football analogy but it is a good way to look at it). Let Mr.
President prove something and change something before crowning him with the
Nobel Peace Prize. Instead give it to someone more deserving that has actually
done something to preserve the peace. I am interested and excited to see what he
can do with this added pressure and the question now is whether the president
can render his vision into a policy that protects this country's interests and
lives up to the promise of his words. What do you guys think? Was the award
merited or do you think it was a bad idea and should have gone to somebody else?
It used to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was given out for actually doing
something amazing or leading a very influential and inspiring life. Recipients
like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, and the 14th Dalai
Lama resemble extremely influential and inspirational attitudes and values that
definitely merit the Prize. But these days it seems that you don’t even have to
do anything and you can be a legitimate candidate. Granted, the most recent
recipient, Barack Obama, has already done a great thing for this country showing
that it is possible for an African American to be president – something that 30
years ago people would say is impossible. But what else has he done to deserve
this coveted award? He received this award for a promise - a promise to change
our nation and get it back to what it used to be. One thing that this does is
place an extreme amount of pressure on him to turn his eloquently expressed
vision into real improvements in what are some of the world's most difficult
problems.
Even though the Nobel committee will say that the award was given for
his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy", not all will
agree and some may offer a counter argument saying where have those efforts led?
The committee also awarded him the Prize based on his "vision of and work for a
world without nuclear weapons." But, our world still has nuclear weapons, if not
more than before, so once again it is easy to ask – what has that vision done?
Did they give Terrell Davis the Super Bowl XXXII MVP trophy in the middle of the
first quarter? No, he had to work hard for it, suffering through pain, hit after
hit, and migraine headaches the entire time – the same rule applies in this case
(excuse the football analogy but it is a good way to look at it). Let Mr.
President prove something and change something before crowning him with the
Nobel Peace Prize. Instead give it to someone more deserving that has actually
done something to preserve the peace. I am interested and excited to see what he
can do with this added pressure and the question now is whether the president
can render his vision into a policy that protects this country's interests and
lives up to the promise of his words. What do you guys think? Was the award
merited or do you think it was a bad idea and should have gone to somebody else?
Immigration and Evangelical Christianity
An interesting discussion of immigration policy by Evangelical Protestants here.
Boulder Open Space
An interesting attempt to limit externalities with relation to Boulder open space here.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Lithium Run
Stephanie Lance
Just as we depend on oil for gas-powered cars today, our future will be depending on scarcely mined Lithium with electric cars. Lithium is the world’s lightest metal, with the smallest solid density. It holds a charge well, which is why is has become so valuable for delivering the appropriate energy to electric cars without weighing them down, or requiring frequent recharging stops. The versatility of Lithium helps to charge laptops, and even treat bipolar disorder as a mood-stabilizing drug. Lithium is mined in briny solutions found beneath salt flats. Recently, Bolivia has found an estimated 5.95 million tons of lithium reserves beneath a high-altitude desert, the Salar de Uyuni salt flat sheds. They have to potential to become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” but at what cost? A group of salt gatherers and quinoa farmers on the edge of the desert know that the lithium may be Bolivia’s, but it is also their property. Bolivia doesn’t know how to proceed with the mining, and electric car companies are starting to put cars on the market, but with very expensive batteries because of the limited supply. If Bolivia begins to mine this area, the people who exploit the land now will need to find their resources in other places, however, Bolivia’s economy will boom with this large, lucrative, and highly demanded lithium export. Will this 12,000 foot-high desert prove to be integral in the reduction of the United States dependency on foreign oil? Will Bolivia’s nationalization of the lithium industry have an impact on world energy?
Just as we depend on oil for gas-powered cars today, our future will be depending on scarcely mined Lithium with electric cars. Lithium is the world’s lightest metal, with the smallest solid density. It holds a charge well, which is why is has become so valuable for delivering the appropriate energy to electric cars without weighing them down, or requiring frequent recharging stops. The versatility of Lithium helps to charge laptops, and even treat bipolar disorder as a mood-stabilizing drug. Lithium is mined in briny solutions found beneath salt flats. Recently, Bolivia has found an estimated 5.95 million tons of lithium reserves beneath a high-altitude desert, the Salar de Uyuni salt flat sheds. They have to potential to become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” but at what cost? A group of salt gatherers and quinoa farmers on the edge of the desert know that the lithium may be Bolivia’s, but it is also their property. Bolivia doesn’t know how to proceed with the mining, and electric car companies are starting to put cars on the market, but with very expensive batteries because of the limited supply. If Bolivia begins to mine this area, the people who exploit the land now will need to find their resources in other places, however, Bolivia’s economy will boom with this large, lucrative, and highly demanded lithium export. Will this 12,000 foot-high desert prove to be integral in the reduction of the United States dependency on foreign oil? Will Bolivia’s nationalization of the lithium industry have an impact on world energy?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Geo-engineering to Solve Climate Change?
by: Kerstin Johansson
Geo-engineering is planetary engineering. Geo-engineering projects are large scale and would and transform the environment to combat global warming and keep the Earth at optimum conditions for human use. Geo-engineering has become more researched ever since global warming has become a widely accepted problem. Geo-engineering projects include projects to control the amount of solar radiation (sunlight) reaching the Earth’s surface and projects to control the amount of heat re-radiating and leaving the Earth’s surface. The technology is available today to do many of these projects.
Some examples of geo-engineering projects that could be implemented in the future if we become desperate enough are: increase the cloud cover and cloud density over oceans by creating sea spray that reaches high altitudes, sulfur-aerosol injection to change the proportions of the atmospheric makeup and lower Earth’s temperature, and add large amounts of iron to the ocean to create enormous algae blooms that can intake lots of carbon dioxide. We have the technology to do all of these projects now if we wanted to. One method of climate reversal that has been proposed but is not technologically feasible now is quite outrageous. The idea is to create sun shields by shooting millions of ceramic disks into space.
Geo-engineering climate change reversal methods are extreme, dangerous, and many times irreversible with unknown effects. They are considered for use only when the situation needs to be solved immediately. Because they are so inexpensive one person could potentially start one of these projects this could be very dangerous. Could geo-engineering projects be our solution in the future if we don’t get climate change under control now?
Wood, Graeme. “Energy & Earth: Moving Heaven and Earth.” The Atlantic July/August 2009. 70-76.
Geo-engineering is planetary engineering. Geo-engineering projects are large scale and would and transform the environment to combat global warming and keep the Earth at optimum conditions for human use. Geo-engineering has become more researched ever since global warming has become a widely accepted problem. Geo-engineering projects include projects to control the amount of solar radiation (sunlight) reaching the Earth’s surface and projects to control the amount of heat re-radiating and leaving the Earth’s surface. The technology is available today to do many of these projects.
Some examples of geo-engineering projects that could be implemented in the future if we become desperate enough are: increase the cloud cover and cloud density over oceans by creating sea spray that reaches high altitudes, sulfur-aerosol injection to change the proportions of the atmospheric makeup and lower Earth’s temperature, and add large amounts of iron to the ocean to create enormous algae blooms that can intake lots of carbon dioxide. We have the technology to do all of these projects now if we wanted to. One method of climate reversal that has been proposed but is not technologically feasible now is quite outrageous. The idea is to create sun shields by shooting millions of ceramic disks into space.
Geo-engineering climate change reversal methods are extreme, dangerous, and many times irreversible with unknown effects. They are considered for use only when the situation needs to be solved immediately. Because they are so inexpensive one person could potentially start one of these projects this could be very dangerous. Could geo-engineering projects be our solution in the future if we don’t get climate change under control now?
Wood, Graeme. “Energy & Earth: Moving Heaven and Earth.” The Atlantic July/August 2009. 70-76.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
By Nick Ludolph
For those who do not know, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was a Cash Allowance Rebate System used throughout the summer of 2009 where consumers who traded in their “clunker” received a voucher for $3500 to $4500 to be used towards a new car with better fuel economy. The idea behind the program was to stimulate the economy while replacing fuel-guzzling vehicles with more efficient vehicles thus theoretically reducing carbon emissions. I am writing to offer criticism of some of the economic and environmental implications of the program.
The “Cash for Clunkers” program was advertised as a great thing for the environment as well as the economy. Although the program had an exceptionally high turnout, its economic and environmental impacts were covered by a veil of misconceptions about the actual improvement it was making. Although the program successfully took almost 700,000 “clunkers” off the roads, there were external environmental impacts created by the production of the new vehicles that replaced the “clunkers” as well as the specific disposal requirements of the program.
Under the “Cash for Clunkers” program, “clunkers” that were disposed of had to be destroyed to ensure that they were not resold and put on the roads again. The disposal method used involved running the engines with sodium silicate replacing the motor oil, causing the engine to seize and become useless. Because the engines were destroyed, there were strong economic implications for scrap yard owners and workers who would normally sell the engine and other parts to offset the price of disposing of the old cars. In this sense, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was harmful economically causing some car recyclers to not participate in the program. This disposal method also created a large amount of waste because all of these disabled engines and parts next had to be disposed of somewhere instead of recycled. The emissions created by the production of new cars were also an issue. Participants in the “Cash for Clunkers” program were often unaware that the emissions for producing their new car would take on average five years to offset with driving their new car, depending on how much they drive and the fuel economy difference between the traded in car and the replacement.
I believe that we could have created this program to be more environmentally and economically helpful if we allowed the parts to be recycled and reused for other vehicles. This would require some regulation but many of the parts that were destroyed under the program do not affect fuel economy. Also, if we adopt a program similar to this in the future, I stress the importance of properly advertising the program so that people understand the full implications both economic and environmental.
For those who do not know, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was a Cash Allowance Rebate System used throughout the summer of 2009 where consumers who traded in their “clunker” received a voucher for $3500 to $4500 to be used towards a new car with better fuel economy. The idea behind the program was to stimulate the economy while replacing fuel-guzzling vehicles with more efficient vehicles thus theoretically reducing carbon emissions. I am writing to offer criticism of some of the economic and environmental implications of the program.
The “Cash for Clunkers” program was advertised as a great thing for the environment as well as the economy. Although the program had an exceptionally high turnout, its economic and environmental impacts were covered by a veil of misconceptions about the actual improvement it was making. Although the program successfully took almost 700,000 “clunkers” off the roads, there were external environmental impacts created by the production of the new vehicles that replaced the “clunkers” as well as the specific disposal requirements of the program.
Under the “Cash for Clunkers” program, “clunkers” that were disposed of had to be destroyed to ensure that they were not resold and put on the roads again. The disposal method used involved running the engines with sodium silicate replacing the motor oil, causing the engine to seize and become useless. Because the engines were destroyed, there were strong economic implications for scrap yard owners and workers who would normally sell the engine and other parts to offset the price of disposing of the old cars. In this sense, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was harmful economically causing some car recyclers to not participate in the program. This disposal method also created a large amount of waste because all of these disabled engines and parts next had to be disposed of somewhere instead of recycled. The emissions created by the production of new cars were also an issue. Participants in the “Cash for Clunkers” program were often unaware that the emissions for producing their new car would take on average five years to offset with driving their new car, depending on how much they drive and the fuel economy difference between the traded in car and the replacement.
I believe that we could have created this program to be more environmentally and economically helpful if we allowed the parts to be recycled and reused for other vehicles. This would require some regulation but many of the parts that were destroyed under the program do not affect fuel economy. Also, if we adopt a program similar to this in the future, I stress the importance of properly advertising the program so that people understand the full implications both economic and environmental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)