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.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)