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.

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

Bolivian Elections

A very good summary of the Bolivian election rules from my favorite Bolivia blog, here.

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!

Public Support for Cap and Trade...

...is very strong, according to this CNN poll.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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/*

Lobbying

An interesting post on lobbying which may be relevant to some of my students here.

Book Clubs are Bad (?)

Blattman refers us to this.

Book clubs evil?

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

Congrats to Ostrom and Williamson...

...recipients in the Nobel Prize in Economics.

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.

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.

Afghanistan

by: Hannah Small

It appears that the saying “things have to get worse before they get better” still holds true. Over the weekend we have learned of the eight U.S. soldiers that died in an east Afghan battle, this also happens to be the most U.S. causalities in single battle since July 2008. In July nine American soldiers were killed in the same province as the newest battle. This tragic even should be able to heat up the debate in Washington over the eight war in Afghanistan, as of now President Obama has been receiving flack for his antics concerning the war. Many consider him to be at fault for the increase in troops and not trying to draw ourselves out of the area, a columnist for National Times stated “Afghanistan is now Barack Obama’s war, a war other world leaders want to distance themselves from, and a war over which Obama is paralyzed.” In March President Obama had announced to send more U.S. troops over to Afghanistan, but now it seems that many think the plan should be reconsider and we are no longer fighting for the right reasons. Originally we had gone in after September 11 to gather control of the Taliban and reconstruct the country. Now eight years later, it appears we have steered away from the original attack and are looking more for control of the country and want to run it ourselves. At what points is the line drawn where we realize there is nothing more we can do and we are just hurting our own civilians. Plus it seems that our own country needs the most help right now, and our focus should be on getting our own country back on track. I would be interested to know who feels we should continue the battles in Afghanistan or is it time to bring all the troops home?

One-Stop Shop Society

Going to the grocery store used to mean just buying fruit, vegetables, meat and milk. Now, you can get a cup of coffee with free Wi-Fi, go to the bank, and obtain healthcare advice and treatments. Since when is it acceptable to add “doctor visit”, or “get immunization” to the bottom of your grocery list? With these super-convenient “retail clinics” not only has healthcare become more affordable, but now minor injuries and pains can be taken care of evenings and weekends. Though these “retail clinics” are easily accessible, is it really acceptable? What will happen to the traditional doctor’s office? To become competitive, Walmart and other grocery stores are offering prescriptions for less and even in store doctors, opticians, and pharmacies- is the public taking on healthcare reform? Is a line being crossed when fitting in a physical between the deli and produce? Especially now, with the semi-pandemic of the H1N1 virus, healthcare should not be such a public affair. Now, just like the rest of our world, healthcare has become a convenience and part of the mass-market merchandising.

Negative Impacts of Wind farms on Wildlife

There are many Policy issues surrounding climate change as well as species endangerment. Changes are trying to be made to the energy industry to address climate change. The main alternatives to fossil fuels include wind and solar energy. When it comes to species endangerment there have been many studies on effects of human impacts and much enthusiasm towards protecting species biodiversity. Although climate change has a direct effect on many of these species, I never thought that an alternative energy such as wind, which is geared toward lessening climate change, would affect species diversity just as much as fossil fuels were.

Looking at the decline of the lesser prairie chicken and its decline due to wind turbines is a perfect example of this paradox. This bird and other prairie species seem to avoid contact with any sort of building such as wind turbines, even if there is suitable habitat available. This inhibits movement of the species which correlates to poor genetic diversity. It also limits the habitat of the birds and according to the species area curve, decreased area results in decreased species richness.

Wind turbines are ideal in strong wind areas which are normally prairies, and ideal habitat for the prairie chicken. The policy question becomes: should we increase wind turbines to lessen our use of fossil fuels, or concern ourselves with a potentially threatened species. This, like all policy questions, is a tough one to answer. My suggestion would be, like the article "It’s Not Easy Being Green: Wind Energy and a Declining Grassland Bird," said, is to limit wind turbines to within 5 miles of prairie bird habitat. Although this will not be optimal for wind companies, it will be optimal for the environment as a whole. There will be less greenhouse gas emissions, less impact on prairie species and profits from wind energy.

Citation:
Pruett, Christin L., Michael A. Patten, and Donald H. Wolfe. "It’s Not Easy Being Green: Wind Energy and a Declining Grassland Bird." BioScience 59.3: 257-62. Print.

Policy relevance--big bucks.

At the Chronicle, here. This may be desirable or a problem.

Conflicts of Power in Environmental Issues

by: Cortney Owen

It seems justifiable that the original descendents from a particular land should have some input in attempts made to conserve it. Discussion of this issue has become controversial, however, in that many large-scale NGO’s feel they have the right to make decisions about conservation and preservation management strategies in areas where indigenous peoples reside. How is one to determine whether original descendents or environmentalists are more qualified in implementing these strategies?
NGO’s such as WWF and the Nature Conservancy, which are the main actors in these situations, have accumulated considerable wealth and influence in the past few decades. Attempts for alliance with aborigines and community based management plans have decreased considerably as NGO’s focus on large-scale conservation and rely on science, rather than social realities, in determining their agendas. This new focus has allowed large organizations to dominate policy and management in areas considered to have an environmental risk.

Indigenous people have been continuously invaded, conquered, and deprived of their rights throughout history, but recently there has been an attempt to disregard the native status and rights of these peoples in relation to their environmental influence. Once-traditional cultural practices have even been deemed illegal. Some argue that natives are destructive to their land causing environmental degradation and resource depletion and are particularly hostile to deal with.

Indigenous peoples argue on their behalf that as original descendents of particular lands, they have a greater knowledge of the environment, attempt to partake in respectful resource use, and are stewards of survival for future generations. Their agenda is to respect history, religion, and culture while making a living on land without destroying resources. Many conservationists argue that some native lands should be off limits to people for the sake of preserving biodiversity and resources. With obvious conflicting interests, conservationists and aborigines strive to impose their different agendas. This frequently leads to one agenda, particularly the native’s, not being accredited.

There lies a power conflict between indigenous peoples and conservationists in that conservationists have better access to fundraising and political support than do natives. Environmental issues have become dependent upon, and rooted in financial and political affiliations, thus creating a disadvantage to native peoples. Indigenous peoples are not as well connected with their government and do not have such means to support their causes. NGO’s have become so powerful and profitable that they often do not see the fault in a lack of cooperation with the natives.

Mountain Biking Regulations

By: Rand Shoaf

I have always wondered why exactly is it that mountain bikes are banned from designated wilderness areas within the U.S. Mountain bikes are a human powered, zero pollution, environmentally sustainable, outdoor recreation, so I decided to do some research to find an answer. Quite frankly, I didn’t find any strong arguments supporting the ban of mountain bikes, but I didn’t find a plethora of evidence supporting the lifting of it.

The most compelling evidence stems from a handful of diverse scientific studies regarding the environmental impacts of mountain bikes vs. hiking. I’m not going to go into detail of any particular studies, but what I found was that there are none that have proven mountain bike activity any more environmentally damaging than hiking. So why is it that mountain bikes are banned?

The mountain bike ban from the 1984 wilderness regulation act is a historical artifact. It is a remnant of early caution and the fear and hostility towards emerging recreational use and encroachment of mountain bikers on trails during that time. This 1984 ban is antiquated and clearly indicates the lack of accurate information and fear at that time.

Not only does it discriminate against and harm a significant number of cyclists, but it ultimately weakens the intactness of environmental and outdoor recreation communities; resulting in a less unified community to protect nature and wilderness lands. Creating multiple use guidelines and allowing mountain bikes to utilize some wilderness trails is the best policy.

The Embargo

And here, for those of you interested in agricultural subsidies/energy policy/the Cuba embargo, is a discussion by renowned political thinker Jorge Castañeda on Cuba.

Religious Imperialism?

Blattman (again) points out the irony of the Catholic church calling protestant evangelism "imperialism."

Seriously.

Thoughts?

Nonviolence and Authoritarianism

Chris Blattman comments on Gandhi and "Twitter Nonviolence" in non-democratic regimes here.