© 2012 Joshua Stark
According to some producers, wild salmon just don't grow fast enough. Oh sure, a Chinook salmon can reach 40+ pounds in two years, feeding for free and adding to the health of our lands and waters as it does, but this kind of willy-nilly public resource just doesn't cut it for those who wish to have complete control over their market. So in the name of profit, these folks have genetically engineered a species of salmon that grows over twice as fast as wild fish. Meant to be farmed in closed systems, these GE salmon will be fed by fishing for baitfish, presumably, and will not be allowed to enter our oceans, for fear that they will out-compete and destroy wild salmon. First, however, the producers of this fish must get past the FDA, which doesn't look like too big a hurdle.
While the FDA wrestles with the question of legalizing GE salmon for consumers, California is considering whether or not to require labels identifying such meat as GE in the marketplace. And while I might address the basic question of even allowing GE salmon at some future point, right now I want to address consumer knowledge in the marketplace.
This, of course, is a no-brainer outside of the halls of governance: Libertarians to Socialists agree that consumers have the right to know where and how their food comes to be. Even the opponents of the labeling bill (AB 88) couch their opposition in a manner that acknowledges some leeway in labeling requirements, arguing not that they shouldn't be labeled, per se, but that such requirements are the responsibility of the federal government, not the State.
In reality, the bill's opponents are concerned that if consumers know what they are buying, they will probably choose not to buy it (about 50% say they wouldn't). Really, consumer choice is the issue here, and California has every right to require labeling.
Showing posts with label economic concepts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic concepts. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Professor Mankiw's frustrating comment - with no chance to comment!
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Sorry for the non-environmental post, but the Harvard Econ. Professor Greg Mankiw has me a tad frustrated this morning.
I'm no economist, and so, if he cared to, I'm sure Mr. Mankiw could come in and take apart my comments here, (frankly, I'd love that, because I want an accurate representation of economics out in the public, and where I'm mistaken, I want to be corrected). My real problem is that the Professor posts to a blog, but doesn't allow comments.
First, I would hope Mr. Mankiw would understand that the interactive nature of the internet makes it a world-changing phenomenon, and participate wholeheartedly in this interaction. Second, I think by opening comments, Mr. Mankiw would watch his own posting a bit more carefully. Case in point:
I'm poking through the cadre of economic minds on-line (starting at Env-Econ, of course) this morning, and I come across a little post by Prof. Mankiw. He ends this three-sentence post with:
"If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent."
Of course, I'm frustrated by this comment, because it misses a basic economic concept, "diminishing marginal utility". But, when I scroll to the bottom of the page to respond, I find no way to comment!
So, I'm taking time to point out a couple of mistakes that Mr. Mankiw makes in his implication (as I understand it, he is implying here that our federal tax system is sufficiently progressive).
First of all, as he points out, the richest 1/10 of 1% pay about double in "federal taxes" (we'll get to that definition in a minute) what the middle quintile pays. My immediate question: What is 14% to a person making the middle quintile vs. 30% to one of the richest 1/10th? So, I follow the link he posted, and I find that the middle quintile is defined as people making between ~ $34k and $62k, while the richest 1/10th are defined as making over about $2,468,000.
Then I ask: What is the marginal utility of this money - the relative impact of 14% on $34k ($4760) vs. 30% on $2,468,000 ($740,400)? Am I the only one to see that the five grand is way more valuable to the person making $34k than the $750K is to the person making the nearly $2.5 million? If you don't see that, then realize that I just swallowed the poorer persons yearly after-tax salary in the rounding error for the richer person.
Now, consider that these were just the examples of the poorest in the group. For the richest of the 1/10th, we are talking billions upon billions of dollars earned per year.
Upon closer examination, then, it becomes obvious that 14% is a far heavier tax burden on the middle quintile than 30% is on the richest 1/10th.
And there is one other problem. The "effective federal tax rate" Mr. Mankiw uses doesn't even include federal excise taxes - like the 18.4 cents-per-gallon on gasoline. For poorer people, these taxes are heavy burdens (one study showed that the folks in the middle quintile pay about a quarter of their income on transportation), but for rich folks, that regressive tax is almost nil.
Professor Mankiw, please consider teaching folks in the ether about real tax burdens and economic concepts (like diminishing marginal utility), and please oh please start participating in the earth-changing world of the interwebs.
I'd be tickled pink if you'd start here.
Sorry for the non-environmental post, but the Harvard Econ. Professor Greg Mankiw has me a tad frustrated this morning.
I'm no economist, and so, if he cared to, I'm sure Mr. Mankiw could come in and take apart my comments here, (frankly, I'd love that, because I want an accurate representation of economics out in the public, and where I'm mistaken, I want to be corrected). My real problem is that the Professor posts to a blog, but doesn't allow comments.
First, I would hope Mr. Mankiw would understand that the interactive nature of the internet makes it a world-changing phenomenon, and participate wholeheartedly in this interaction. Second, I think by opening comments, Mr. Mankiw would watch his own posting a bit more carefully. Case in point:
I'm poking through the cadre of economic minds on-line (starting at Env-Econ, of course) this morning, and I come across a little post by Prof. Mankiw. He ends this three-sentence post with:
"If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent."
Of course, I'm frustrated by this comment, because it misses a basic economic concept, "diminishing marginal utility". But, when I scroll to the bottom of the page to respond, I find no way to comment!
So, I'm taking time to point out a couple of mistakes that Mr. Mankiw makes in his implication (as I understand it, he is implying here that our federal tax system is sufficiently progressive).
First of all, as he points out, the richest 1/10 of 1% pay about double in "federal taxes" (we'll get to that definition in a minute) what the middle quintile pays. My immediate question: What is 14% to a person making the middle quintile vs. 30% to one of the richest 1/10th? So, I follow the link he posted, and I find that the middle quintile is defined as people making between ~ $34k and $62k, while the richest 1/10th are defined as making over about $2,468,000.
Then I ask: What is the marginal utility of this money - the relative impact of 14% on $34k ($4760) vs. 30% on $2,468,000 ($740,400)? Am I the only one to see that the five grand is way more valuable to the person making $34k than the $750K is to the person making the nearly $2.5 million? If you don't see that, then realize that I just swallowed the poorer persons yearly after-tax salary in the rounding error for the richer person.
Now, consider that these were just the examples of the poorest in the group. For the richest of the 1/10th, we are talking billions upon billions of dollars earned per year.
Upon closer examination, then, it becomes obvious that 14% is a far heavier tax burden on the middle quintile than 30% is on the richest 1/10th.
And there is one other problem. The "effective federal tax rate" Mr. Mankiw uses doesn't even include federal excise taxes - like the 18.4 cents-per-gallon on gasoline. For poorer people, these taxes are heavy burdens (one study showed that the folks in the middle quintile pay about a quarter of their income on transportation), but for rich folks, that regressive tax is almost nil.
Professor Mankiw, please consider teaching folks in the ether about real tax burdens and economic concepts (like diminishing marginal utility), and please oh please start participating in the earth-changing world of the interwebs.
I'd be tickled pink if you'd start here.
Friday, September 2, 2011
President Obama concedes the wrong point in pollution regulation
© 2011 Joshua Stark
President Obama has pulled back from his earlier proposal to put stricter limits on ground-level ozone, a major pollutant and cause of asthma attacks and deaths, reports the Associated Press.
By this act, the President has conceded to opponents the very idea that pollution regulations are job killers, and opened the door to a flood of rollbacks, and the subsequent pollution increases that will come with them.
Hard choices have to be made, and the President has ducked a big one right here. Sadly, he has done it by buying into the notion that pollution control is a net loss to our economy, thus legitimizing the idea, even though, under our current circumstances, it almost never has merit.
In our dirtiest places, Americans live like 3rd World countries. California's Central Valley has thousands of Americans who can't even drink their own tap water, and one-fifth of their children have asthma (for a thorough look at the impacts of asthma and ozone on the Valley, click here).
The regulation that the President has backed off would have direct impacts on asthma rates in places like the Central Valley, improving the quality of life for millions of Americans, particularly the poor. But, what would be the economic impact?
Well, in 1997 the EPA estimated that asthma cost the U.S. between $9 and $11 billion (today, that would be $12.5 to %15 billion). And these rates don't calculate lost productivity due to parents' worries over a hospitalized child, stress from losing a child, young people's inability to perform work throughout their life due to their impaired physiques and oxygen loss during growth.
Additionally, these calculations don't take into account the value of individual dollars - a gaping intellectual hole when calculating economic impacts. Simply put, one dollar is worth more in a poor person's hands than it is in a rich person's hands, especially now. A poor person, when getting a dollar, will spend that dollar, because it is more valuable turned into food than it is sitting in a bank. A rich person may spend that dollar, or they may save it, because its value as a saved dollar may be bigger than its value as one more hamburger.
Right now, our economic problem is in large part due to our low total demand for goods and services because we can't afford them, because there isn't enough circulating money. Money isn't circulating because we have too many people out of work, unable to afford things.
We are in the beginning stages of a vicious cycle, economically-speaking, and this cycle has nothing to do with our pollution. But, regulating our pollution can go a long way toward ending this cycle and getting us out of our current slump. Robust pollution regulation can lead to direct job growth in the testing and regulating industries (often public-private partnerships), and it will lead to increased productivity among those who would see improved health. The additional demand from this growth of more valuable dollars would lead to increased supply to meet that demand, pushing up employment.
Make no mistake, companies who fight these regulations want to pollute. If they didn't want to pollute, they would not care about the regulation. They do not care about total demand, they do not care about social health improvements. The individuals who work in these companies might care, but officially and professionally, they don't make their decisions based on what is good for the nation; they cannot, because the pressures of their fiduciary duties and their pressures to see quarterly profits are too great.
Economic reasons aren't the only reasons for robust pollution controls, and they shouldn't even be the first reasons. But, there are real economic benefits to robust pollution control, and the President, by ignoring these, has lost sight of the good of the nation and has given over to ideas that will further stunt our growth, economically and otherwise.
President Obama has pulled back from his earlier proposal to put stricter limits on ground-level ozone, a major pollutant and cause of asthma attacks and deaths, reports the Associated Press.
By this act, the President has conceded to opponents the very idea that pollution regulations are job killers, and opened the door to a flood of rollbacks, and the subsequent pollution increases that will come with them.
Hard choices have to be made, and the President has ducked a big one right here. Sadly, he has done it by buying into the notion that pollution control is a net loss to our economy, thus legitimizing the idea, even though, under our current circumstances, it almost never has merit.
In our dirtiest places, Americans live like 3rd World countries. California's Central Valley has thousands of Americans who can't even drink their own tap water, and one-fifth of their children have asthma (for a thorough look at the impacts of asthma and ozone on the Valley, click here).
The regulation that the President has backed off would have direct impacts on asthma rates in places like the Central Valley, improving the quality of life for millions of Americans, particularly the poor. But, what would be the economic impact?
Well, in 1997 the EPA estimated that asthma cost the U.S. between $9 and $11 billion (today, that would be $12.5 to %15 billion). And these rates don't calculate lost productivity due to parents' worries over a hospitalized child, stress from losing a child, young people's inability to perform work throughout their life due to their impaired physiques and oxygen loss during growth.
Additionally, these calculations don't take into account the value of individual dollars - a gaping intellectual hole when calculating economic impacts. Simply put, one dollar is worth more in a poor person's hands than it is in a rich person's hands, especially now. A poor person, when getting a dollar, will spend that dollar, because it is more valuable turned into food than it is sitting in a bank. A rich person may spend that dollar, or they may save it, because its value as a saved dollar may be bigger than its value as one more hamburger.
Right now, our economic problem is in large part due to our low total demand for goods and services because we can't afford them, because there isn't enough circulating money. Money isn't circulating because we have too many people out of work, unable to afford things.
We are in the beginning stages of a vicious cycle, economically-speaking, and this cycle has nothing to do with our pollution. But, regulating our pollution can go a long way toward ending this cycle and getting us out of our current slump. Robust pollution regulation can lead to direct job growth in the testing and regulating industries (often public-private partnerships), and it will lead to increased productivity among those who would see improved health. The additional demand from this growth of more valuable dollars would lead to increased supply to meet that demand, pushing up employment.
Make no mistake, companies who fight these regulations want to pollute. If they didn't want to pollute, they would not care about the regulation. They do not care about total demand, they do not care about social health improvements. The individuals who work in these companies might care, but officially and professionally, they don't make their decisions based on what is good for the nation; they cannot, because the pressures of their fiduciary duties and their pressures to see quarterly profits are too great.
Economic reasons aren't the only reasons for robust pollution controls, and they shouldn't even be the first reasons. But, there are real economic benefits to robust pollution control, and the President, by ignoring these, has lost sight of the good of the nation and has given over to ideas that will further stunt our growth, economically and otherwise.
Monday, August 1, 2011
A short, non-environmental post on the debt "deal"
© 2011 Joshua Stark
The title of this AP piece, and EVERY article about this horrific deal should be:
REPUBLICANS VOTE TO RAISE TAXES; DEMOCRATS VOTE TO CUT
Here's the most important quotation from the above-linked article:
"Yet it appeared Obama's proposal to extend the current payroll tax holiday beyond the end of 2011 would not be included. Nor would his call for extended unemployment benefits for victims of the recession."
Republicans are now running around saying they kept taxes from going up, but what happened is that they wouldn't vote for an extension of a tax cut to working folks, nor would they vote to back-fill these tax losses through taxing corporate jets.
Democrats are running around saying that they get the debt ceiling raised, thus averting catastrophe, but happened is that they were willing to let their major donors in the financial sector get away with not having to deal with the catastrophe they've created, this limping-along recoveryless recovery. They also voted to cut unemployment extensions and to raise taxes on working people at the same time.
Here's a quick reminder of the definition of "unemployment": Those who do not have a job, but who are able to work and are actively seeking work. It's these people that keep inflation in check - and if there are too many of them, they drive down wages and keep recoveries from happening (sound familiar?).
This is a sham, another slap in the face to working people and people who want to work, and another meaty steak for the rich. What a sorry, sorry state we are in.
The title of this AP piece, and EVERY article about this horrific deal should be:
REPUBLICANS VOTE TO RAISE TAXES; DEMOCRATS VOTE TO CUT
Here's the most important quotation from the above-linked article:
"Yet it appeared Obama's proposal to extend the current payroll tax holiday beyond the end of 2011 would not be included. Nor would his call for extended unemployment benefits for victims of the recession."
Republicans are now running around saying they kept taxes from going up, but what happened is that they wouldn't vote for an extension of a tax cut to working folks, nor would they vote to back-fill these tax losses through taxing corporate jets.
Democrats are running around saying that they get the debt ceiling raised, thus averting catastrophe, but happened is that they were willing to let their major donors in the financial sector get away with not having to deal with the catastrophe they've created, this limping-along recoveryless recovery. They also voted to cut unemployment extensions and to raise taxes on working people at the same time.
Here's a quick reminder of the definition of "unemployment": Those who do not have a job, but who are able to work and are actively seeking work. It's these people that keep inflation in check - and if there are too many of them, they drive down wages and keep recoveries from happening (sound familiar?).
This is a sham, another slap in the face to working people and people who want to work, and another meaty steak for the rich. What a sorry, sorry state we are in.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Non-environmental economics post
© 2011 Joshua Stark
But, it's a quick one.
I just wanted to re-post this quotation from Professor Brad DeLong's blog:
"A depressed economy with a slack labor market, low wages, and very low interest rates can be consistent with high asset values and ample corporate profits. But policies that produce such an outcome aren't policies for economic recovery. They are policies for class war. They are not in the public interest..."
But, it's a quick one.
I just wanted to re-post this quotation from Professor Brad DeLong's blog:
"A depressed economy with a slack labor market, low wages, and very low interest rates can be consistent with high asset values and ample corporate profits. But policies that produce such an outcome aren't policies for economic recovery. They are policies for class war. They are not in the public interest..."
Sunday, June 5, 2011
A classy piece from a good man
© 2011 Joshua Stark
If you have not yet read it, please read this piece by Bill Magavern on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which he describes as, "the centerpiece of California's economic democracy." If you think that is a reach, then definitely read it to understand his position.
If you have not yet read it, please read this piece by Bill Magavern on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which he describes as, "the centerpiece of California's economic democracy." If you think that is a reach, then definitely read it to understand his position.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Where are all the conservative conservationists? & a quick economics rant
© 2011 Joshua Stark
I know quite a few conservative conservationists, yet I'm completely baffled by the support I hear for their political leadership in recent days. Everything from dam removal studies to support for the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, whose corporate partners include Altria, Anheuser-Busch, and Bass Pro Shops, is slated for defunding.
And it isn't as if this leadership is trying to curb government spending: The same folks who decry these programs as too expensive have already suggested building a gigantic dam with federal funds, and are fighting to keep subsidizing money-losing dams on the Klamath.
Nor is it as if the leadership is trying to remove the federal government from local decision-making: The same leaders who complain that local folks don't have a say are pushing to defund those Klamath plans, plans that locals have arrived at after years of internal negotiations, and after some deep soul-searching and compromise. By moving funding from removal studies and back into subsidizing those money-holes in the water, conservative leaders are bringing down the heavy hand of D.C. government into the affairs of locals.
So please, my conservative conservationist friends, please contact your leadership and tell them that we all value the wild, that it is part of our shared American experience and spirit.
-----
Now, my economic rant (those of you who know me have heard this from me a million times, but in my defense this is because it's been said a million times): Every politician talks about putting America's economic house in order, because the typical American family has to balance its budget, and therefore so should our government.
Baloney. Pure B.S.
First, the typical American family does not balance its budget. If any of you has a car payment, house payment, boat payment, college loan payment, or credit card payment, then you have deficit spent, and you have an unbalanced budget. If you don't have any of these, it's probably because you already paid it off, but at one time you deficit spent to get there, and you probably did it to the tune of many times your annual salary.
We all deficit spend in order to build our economic house. We pay it off, and save, when we are better able to do so. We save, in part, for those hard times we know will come.
Second, the typical American family cannot regulate business, nor does its spending influence the overall cost of goods and services in the economy.
To make the analogy is to lie, in a big way, to the American people.
I know quite a few conservative conservationists, yet I'm completely baffled by the support I hear for their political leadership in recent days. Everything from dam removal studies to support for the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, whose corporate partners include Altria, Anheuser-Busch, and Bass Pro Shops, is slated for defunding.
And it isn't as if this leadership is trying to curb government spending: The same folks who decry these programs as too expensive have already suggested building a gigantic dam with federal funds, and are fighting to keep subsidizing money-losing dams on the Klamath.
Nor is it as if the leadership is trying to remove the federal government from local decision-making: The same leaders who complain that local folks don't have a say are pushing to defund those Klamath plans, plans that locals have arrived at after years of internal negotiations, and after some deep soul-searching and compromise. By moving funding from removal studies and back into subsidizing those money-holes in the water, conservative leaders are bringing down the heavy hand of D.C. government into the affairs of locals.
So please, my conservative conservationist friends, please contact your leadership and tell them that we all value the wild, that it is part of our shared American experience and spirit.
-----
Now, my economic rant (those of you who know me have heard this from me a million times, but in my defense this is because it's been said a million times): Every politician talks about putting America's economic house in order, because the typical American family has to balance its budget, and therefore so should our government.
Baloney. Pure B.S.
First, the typical American family does not balance its budget. If any of you has a car payment, house payment, boat payment, college loan payment, or credit card payment, then you have deficit spent, and you have an unbalanced budget. If you don't have any of these, it's probably because you already paid it off, but at one time you deficit spent to get there, and you probably did it to the tune of many times your annual salary.
We all deficit spend in order to build our economic house. We pay it off, and save, when we are better able to do so. We save, in part, for those hard times we know will come.
Second, the typical American family cannot regulate business, nor does its spending influence the overall cost of goods and services in the economy.
To make the analogy is to lie, in a big way, to the American people.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Non-environmental economics post: The Texas "miracle"
© 2011 Joshua Stark
The L.A. Times reports on Texas' $27 billion debt.
The Times gives a positive spin to this problem, even after talking up just how haughty Texans had been over a perceived economic superiority to California, by saying that Texas' problems are now "in the same league" as California's.
Um, no.
California's economy is five hundred billion dollars larger than Texas'. Again: one half of one trillion dollars more is generated in California than in Texas, every single year. And yet, even with the positive business climate in Texas, even with very low taxes, they still find themselves in a far, far larger debt-to-income ratio than California, which means that they are far, far closer to any kind of default.
Now, how do you suppose Texas is going to deal with its debt? Lower its taxes to take advantage of the Laffer curve? I'm guessing they've already fallen off that ideal peak.
There's only one way to go, folks, if you are a government entity who cannot deficit spend any more, and I fear that a parallel of Keynes' comment may come true: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
So God bless Texas. They need it.
The L.A. Times reports on Texas' $27 billion debt.
The Times gives a positive spin to this problem, even after talking up just how haughty Texans had been over a perceived economic superiority to California, by saying that Texas' problems are now "in the same league" as California's.
Um, no.
California's economy is five hundred billion dollars larger than Texas'. Again: one half of one trillion dollars more is generated in California than in Texas, every single year. And yet, even with the positive business climate in Texas, even with very low taxes, they still find themselves in a far, far larger debt-to-income ratio than California, which means that they are far, far closer to any kind of default.
Now, how do you suppose Texas is going to deal with its debt? Lower its taxes to take advantage of the Laffer curve? I'm guessing they've already fallen off that ideal peak.
There's only one way to go, folks, if you are a government entity who cannot deficit spend any more, and I fear that a parallel of Keynes' comment may come true: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
So God bless Texas. They need it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Quick posts on federal and state politics
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Though not environmental (because he decided not to ever try to do anything about the environment any more, apparently), my comment on the President's speech is what it was last year:
I am very disappointed, just as I was with Bush, that the first words out of his mouth weren't, "we are a nation at war", followed by a good long talk about the killing and dying we demand of many of our young men and women and their families.
So please, all of you, whether you support or oppose our military actions overseas, please take a moment to let the President know that you want him to focus on the sacrifices he orders others to make in our names. Their blood is on all of us.
Now, a little note about Gov. Brown's proposed budget. Of course, just like his predecessor (we can't expect our different parties to actually govern differently, can we?), he's proposed cutting millions of dollars from our State Park system, which will end up closing some parks.
I'm still saddened by this, but at least we know that the majority of Californians didn't want to pay for it, anyway, and so voted down last year's proposition to get unlimited entry into parks by California cars for a once-per-year fee.
It's very difficult to come to the realization that your perspective is in such a small minority. Most Californians, and indeed most Americans, it would seem, have decided that their own, personal economy is more important.
And this from a man who was out of work (and looking) for nearly six months, the most in my entire working life. I still voted for that proposition while unemployed (which, for those who don't know, is defined as "no job, but actively seeking work").
Though not environmental (because he decided not to ever try to do anything about the environment any more, apparently), my comment on the President's speech is what it was last year:
I am very disappointed, just as I was with Bush, that the first words out of his mouth weren't, "we are a nation at war", followed by a good long talk about the killing and dying we demand of many of our young men and women and their families.
So please, all of you, whether you support or oppose our military actions overseas, please take a moment to let the President know that you want him to focus on the sacrifices he orders others to make in our names. Their blood is on all of us.
Now, a little note about Gov. Brown's proposed budget. Of course, just like his predecessor (we can't expect our different parties to actually govern differently, can we?), he's proposed cutting millions of dollars from our State Park system, which will end up closing some parks.
I'm still saddened by this, but at least we know that the majority of Californians didn't want to pay for it, anyway, and so voted down last year's proposition to get unlimited entry into parks by California cars for a once-per-year fee.
It's very difficult to come to the realization that your perspective is in such a small minority. Most Californians, and indeed most Americans, it would seem, have decided that their own, personal economy is more important.
And this from a man who was out of work (and looking) for nearly six months, the most in my entire working life. I still voted for that proposition while unemployed (which, for those who don't know, is defined as "no job, but actively seeking work").
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Non-environmental economics post: Unintended Consequences? Or crazy like a fox?
© 2011 Joshua Stark
A threat is an interesting thing.
When Governor Brown proposed his budget for the State of California, it included eliminating the redevelopment agencies.
I don't have an economic opinion on that proposal, because I've never waded into those waters. However, I have noticed a number of fast-tracked redevelopment agency projects in the wake of this announcement.
Here's Fremont.
And San Jose.
And Riverside.
This recession has needed large infrastructure projects for both the short- and long-term health of our State. It looks like Brown figured out just how to spur those projects, without resorting to any more state deficit spending.
The question for me is, did he mean it? He's just crazy enough to have thought this through, if you ask me. But, I really don't know.
A threat is an interesting thing.
When Governor Brown proposed his budget for the State of California, it included eliminating the redevelopment agencies.
I don't have an economic opinion on that proposal, because I've never waded into those waters. However, I have noticed a number of fast-tracked redevelopment agency projects in the wake of this announcement.
Here's Fremont.
And San Jose.
And Riverside.
This recession has needed large infrastructure projects for both the short- and long-term health of our State. It looks like Brown figured out just how to spur those projects, without resorting to any more state deficit spending.
The question for me is, did he mean it? He's just crazy enough to have thought this through, if you ask me. But, I really don't know.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Why does Bjorn Lomborg get paid to publish and I have to do mine for free?
© 2011 Joshua Stark
I had decided a long time ago not to do a post on Mr. Lomborg, what with my desire to stay away from popular topics...
Really, I felt (and still do) that he doesn't have much credibility concerning the things he discusses. For years, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Lomborg was the poster boy for deniers of human-caused climate change. Since I felt (and still do) that the science proving human-caused global warming was pretty solid, and that a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager fits nicely into the notion, I decided that this fellow didn't need any publicity I would give him.
Now, of course, he's changed his tune, and argues that we must do something about human-caused climate change. So he's now entered the 1990's in terms of scientific advances; good for him. But I wasn't going to spend my time on him, except that this time he tries to stray into planning, efficiency arguments, and science, and he falls so flat (without any real attacks on his claims) that I've got to clear the air.
Mr. Lomborg, in his piece, argues that efficiency actually worsens our ability to fight climate change, and he does so by completely misrepresenting the rebound effect (where efficiency gains lead to people increasing consumption).
Fortunately, one doesn't have to do any research to debunk Mr. Lomborg's claim, as he effectively counters his own conclusions with the data he uses as example. So without further ado, Lomborg claims, in his own words:
From this:
"Back in the early 1970s, the average American expended roughly 70 million British thermal units per year to heat, cool, and power his or her home. Since then, of course, we have made great strides in energy efficiency. As the Washington Post recently reported, dishwashers now use 45 percent less power than they did two decades ago, and refrigerators 51 percent less. So how much energy do Americans use in their homes today? On a per capita basis, the figure is roughly what it was 40 years ago: 70 million BTUs."
And this:
"the proportion of resources that we expend on lighting has remained virtually unchanged for the past three centuries, at about 0.72 percent of gross domestic product. As Saunders and his colleagues observe in their journal article, "This was the case in the UK in 1700, is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies.""
To this:
"the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it."
I have one simple question for Mr. Lomborg:
Does "greater than" = "nearly equal to"?
There are more mistakes in his article... in fact, I was pretty amazed at his ability to throw together so many mistakes in such a small space.
Ultimately, readers should ask what Mr. Lomborg was attempting in his article. His trite little ending, encouraging people to get their leaders to think up good ideas, is completely uninspired and silly, considering this is supposed to be a tremendous scientific mind at work trying to help fix climate change. The only lesson this article illustrated to me is that aggressive exaggeration gets published, regardless of the logic, even when a person's popularity and "credibility" came from a background in science.
Perhaps he was more helpful when he pretended he didn't believe in human-caused climate change. We look worse having him as a "cheerleader."
I had decided a long time ago not to do a post on Mr. Lomborg, what with my desire to stay away from popular topics...
Really, I felt (and still do) that he doesn't have much credibility concerning the things he discusses. For years, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Lomborg was the poster boy for deniers of human-caused climate change. Since I felt (and still do) that the science proving human-caused global warming was pretty solid, and that a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager fits nicely into the notion, I decided that this fellow didn't need any publicity I would give him.
Now, of course, he's changed his tune, and argues that we must do something about human-caused climate change. So he's now entered the 1990's in terms of scientific advances; good for him. But I wasn't going to spend my time on him, except that this time he tries to stray into planning, efficiency arguments, and science, and he falls so flat (without any real attacks on his claims) that I've got to clear the air.
Mr. Lomborg, in his piece, argues that efficiency actually worsens our ability to fight climate change, and he does so by completely misrepresenting the rebound effect (where efficiency gains lead to people increasing consumption).
Fortunately, one doesn't have to do any research to debunk Mr. Lomborg's claim, as he effectively counters his own conclusions with the data he uses as example. So without further ado, Lomborg claims, in his own words:
From this:
"Back in the early 1970s, the average American expended roughly 70 million British thermal units per year to heat, cool, and power his or her home. Since then, of course, we have made great strides in energy efficiency. As the Washington Post recently reported, dishwashers now use 45 percent less power than they did two decades ago, and refrigerators 51 percent less. So how much energy do Americans use in their homes today? On a per capita basis, the figure is roughly what it was 40 years ago: 70 million BTUs."
And this:
"the proportion of resources that we expend on lighting has remained virtually unchanged for the past three centuries, at about 0.72 percent of gross domestic product. As Saunders and his colleagues observe in their journal article, "This was the case in the UK in 1700, is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies.""
To this:
"the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it."
I have one simple question for Mr. Lomborg:
Does "greater than" = "nearly equal to"?
There are more mistakes in his article... in fact, I was pretty amazed at his ability to throw together so many mistakes in such a small space.
Ultimately, readers should ask what Mr. Lomborg was attempting in his article. His trite little ending, encouraging people to get their leaders to think up good ideas, is completely uninspired and silly, considering this is supposed to be a tremendous scientific mind at work trying to help fix climate change. The only lesson this article illustrated to me is that aggressive exaggeration gets published, regardless of the logic, even when a person's popularity and "credibility" came from a background in science.
Perhaps he was more helpful when he pretended he didn't believe in human-caused climate change. We look worse having him as a "cheerleader."
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Air Resources Board is poised to make a bad decision... help them see the light!
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Contact the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and tell them to vote down the current cap & trade proposal before them tomorrow.
I haven't written on cap & trade in quite a while, but here's a quick run-down of my views:
1) Carbon pricing must be collected by the government - giving away carbon 'credits' is tantamount to allowing companies to tax consumers for the companies' pollution;
2) Carbon offsets are too costly to monitor and too easy to get around - if you don't trust that California can pay for adequate monitoring of its carbon offset projects, do you really believe Brazil or Chiapas can?;
3) Cap & trade can work, but only if it is fairly expensive, and only if the revenues are given back mostly to the people via a direct rebate, and the rest only used to mitigate or adapt to climate change.
(If you are interested in my more extensive writings on the topic, click here, here, here, and/or here.)
Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as a "carbon market" - it isn't a good or service with any consumption value, and any scarcity of carbon will be contrived by the government - it is easy to remember that any attempt to put a price on carbon emissions will be a tax of some sort. This is not bad! Taxes are not always bad! However, they are bad if they are allowed to be collected by private parties, and the latest proposal, by giving away carbon credits to the companies and industries that pollute the most, will do exactly that.
In addition, the forest rules in the latest proposal will most likely provide incentives for timber companies to clear-cut, and they will definitely subsidize wood products in California, with the subsidies, again, being paid by consumers directly to the companies that pollute the most (those getting the free credits). Look for California oil companies to start buying a lot more wooden chairs and tables than you'd think they'd need. Also look out for giant chair bonfires at your local refinery...
This is a bad proposal, and its complexity makes it ripe for gaming. It is also probably going to be so cheap that it will do very little to curb actual carbon emissions, with the result being a nominal tax on consumers given directly to polluting companies. What an interesting way to save our planet!
For more information, start with this article at California Watch; to contact CARB about the cap & trade proposal, click here.
Contact the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and tell them to vote down the current cap & trade proposal before them tomorrow.
I haven't written on cap & trade in quite a while, but here's a quick run-down of my views:
1) Carbon pricing must be collected by the government - giving away carbon 'credits' is tantamount to allowing companies to tax consumers for the companies' pollution;
2) Carbon offsets are too costly to monitor and too easy to get around - if you don't trust that California can pay for adequate monitoring of its carbon offset projects, do you really believe Brazil or Chiapas can?;
3) Cap & trade can work, but only if it is fairly expensive, and only if the revenues are given back mostly to the people via a direct rebate, and the rest only used to mitigate or adapt to climate change.
(If you are interested in my more extensive writings on the topic, click here, here, here, and/or here.)
Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as a "carbon market" - it isn't a good or service with any consumption value, and any scarcity of carbon will be contrived by the government - it is easy to remember that any attempt to put a price on carbon emissions will be a tax of some sort. This is not bad! Taxes are not always bad! However, they are bad if they are allowed to be collected by private parties, and the latest proposal, by giving away carbon credits to the companies and industries that pollute the most, will do exactly that.
In addition, the forest rules in the latest proposal will most likely provide incentives for timber companies to clear-cut, and they will definitely subsidize wood products in California, with the subsidies, again, being paid by consumers directly to the companies that pollute the most (those getting the free credits). Look for California oil companies to start buying a lot more wooden chairs and tables than you'd think they'd need. Also look out for giant chair bonfires at your local refinery...
This is a bad proposal, and its complexity makes it ripe for gaming. It is also probably going to be so cheap that it will do very little to curb actual carbon emissions, with the result being a nominal tax on consumers given directly to polluting companies. What an interesting way to save our planet!
For more information, start with this article at California Watch; to contact CARB about the cap & trade proposal, click here.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
California okays methyl iodide
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Yesterday, the State gave the final approval to methyl iodide, despite the opposition of dozens of scientists, and more than a few legislators.
Back in June, I posted a piece using the methyl bromide-to-iodide controversy as a great example of "internalizing externalities". In the case of this switch, it seems ridiculous to me that we should replace one chemical because of its impacts on the ozone layer with a chemical that stays closer to home, thus raising serious cancer (and other) risks.
As sfgate.com reports, State officials are reassuring the public by claiming that this fumigant will only be applied by specialists, and the soil will be covered by an impermeable tarp... must I point out how much more awful that makes the product sound? What a way to reassure!
And this reassurance illustrates, yet again, just how we structure our ag. policies to favor huge, monocropping companies. How many mom-&-pop small farms will be willing or able to tap strawberries when the big companies are able to increase yield/lower prices by paying for "specialists"? The burdens to entry into the strawberry market are thus ratcheted up, leaving it safer for oligopoly.
Again, in the wrong direction with our agriculture.
Yesterday, the State gave the final approval to methyl iodide, despite the opposition of dozens of scientists, and more than a few legislators.
Back in June, I posted a piece using the methyl bromide-to-iodide controversy as a great example of "internalizing externalities". In the case of this switch, it seems ridiculous to me that we should replace one chemical because of its impacts on the ozone layer with a chemical that stays closer to home, thus raising serious cancer (and other) risks.
As sfgate.com reports, State officials are reassuring the public by claiming that this fumigant will only be applied by specialists, and the soil will be covered by an impermeable tarp... must I point out how much more awful that makes the product sound? What a way to reassure!
And this reassurance illustrates, yet again, just how we structure our ag. policies to favor huge, monocropping companies. How many mom-&-pop small farms will be willing or able to tap strawberries when the big companies are able to increase yield/lower prices by paying for "specialists"? The burdens to entry into the strawberry market are thus ratcheted up, leaving it safer for oligopoly.
Again, in the wrong direction with our agriculture.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Fear mongering and non sequitors from a couple of pro-Big Ag liberals
© 2010 Joshua Stark
A Grist blogger slams Ezra Klein at the Washington Post over a snippet in support of industrial agriculture. Klein "argues", in two paragraphs, that we'll have to keep agriculture industrial, and he quotes a man saying the same thing... well, in fact, half of "his" piece is the quotation. The good news? If that's the best he can get in support of big ag., then we don't have much to worry about in the arena of reason.
The quotation claims that farming benefits from economies of scale, like steel manufacture, so we should keep it industrial, and even make it super-industrial. Klein tries to add to this excruciating generalization by noting that no other enterprise that has gone industrial has ever gone back, and he does so in a remarkably juvenile fashion, I might add. We can comfortably ignore Klein's little "addition" because there is no argument in there. It's so silly, in fact, it's actually quite shocking.
However, the gentleman being quoted, Mr. Raynor from the Observer, attempts some semblance of a conversation on a serious topic that involves the lives of billions of people.
Mr. Raynor believes that the U.K. is on the verge of food shortages of such a level as to cause riots. His description of the British food supply goes a long way toward proving how silly that sounds, but he sticks to it - it is the gist of his opening line, after all.
In light of the cheap, perfect-looking foods Brits have come to expect, Mr. Raynor argues, the only way they will avoid Mozambique-like riots over food is to build a big mega-dairy...?
From there, he gets even more lost.
First, Mr. Raynor makes an across-the-board claim about agriculture, taking an extraordinarily diverse concept and treating it as if it is one product in one market. His belief that "agriculture" always and everywhere benefits from economies of scale illustrates his ignorance of both agriculture and economics.
Mr. Raynor fails to realize, for example, that economies of scale in agriculture most often come from lax environmental regulation, extraordinarily cheap labor, poor animal treatment, and/or subsidies. Mr. Raynor spends much time considering the British apple market, probably because they are an iconic English crop, but he gives no example of how big ag. can save British apple production. Would he be willing to allow DDT, labor at a pound or so per day, and tax breaks in order to save apples? I think he would argue that these measures wouldn't save British farming, and he would be 100% right.
And if Mr. Raynor is worried about the status quo, he must surely realize that the status quo includes big ag. for most of his food supply right now, anyway. Those imported apples he hates? They get there only through a few, gigantic corporations. Instead of vilifying the apples, he should be praising their availability to the skies.
Since he couldn't provide an industrial ag. solution for the problem he outlined, he picked up another one: dairy. I don't know the specifics of the dairy industry in England, and from Mr. Raynor's quick description, neither does he. I've spent some time debunking the "farmers don't get profits from sick animals" claim, so I won't do that here, but the fact that he uses this as his argument in favor of a mega-dairy says a lot about how much he really knows about food production facilities.
His last point, the inference that organic and sustainable farming practices can only be enjoyed by the wealthy, actually undermines his first point, that Brits have put themselves in a pickle by demanding produce at half of what they've previously paid (and will even burn buildings and kill people if they have to go back).
Mr. Raynor's bias of omission is also startlingly revealing: No mention of the impact of oligopoly on food markets, which often exacerbate scarcity and jeopardize food security to maximize profits - the very crises he hopes to avert by concentrating food production in the hands of a few people and places. He needs to consider the past 25 years of price gouging and collusion that major corporate agriculture enterprises have committed, and study the recent foodborne disease outbreaks originating from huge, centralized production facilities, before he goes waving the Big Ag Flag in public.
To me, though, his biggest offense is that he compares Mozambique with England to give a frightening picture of a possible English future. This is just wrong, and maybe immoral. Mozambique's GDP per capita in 2008 was roughly $440. Ten years ago, it was below $200, which means that Mozambique has been slowly improving, and that people remember times worse than when they averaged four hundred bucks per person. This, alone, should explain the reaction of Mozambicans in light of a 30% hike in bread prices, and it should make startlingly clear just why it is so wrong to compare Mozambique to England. What do Londoners pay for bread, two pounds? If it rose 100%, there would be no riots. If it rose 500%, there would be sternly-written letters to MP's, replete with apologies for doing so, but there would be no riots.
Mr. Raynor points out that Brits are paying half of what they paid for food 20 years ago, from about 20% to about 10% of their incomes. If prices rose 100% for all foods, not just bread, they'd just be back where they were twenty years ago.
Mr. Raynor makes no serious claims for supporting big ag.; he obviously is not familiar with scientific studies that point to organic and sustainable smaller ag. producing higher yields and more sustainable business models without the need for exploitation of the resource or of humans; he ignores the market impacts of oligopoly that come with big ag.; he completely misses the problems associated with food security when production is centralized; and he tries to scare people in England into thinking that they may start killing each other over the price of bread.
I don't buy it.
A Grist blogger slams Ezra Klein at the Washington Post over a snippet in support of industrial agriculture. Klein "argues", in two paragraphs, that we'll have to keep agriculture industrial, and he quotes a man saying the same thing... well, in fact, half of "his" piece is the quotation. The good news? If that's the best he can get in support of big ag., then we don't have much to worry about in the arena of reason.
The quotation claims that farming benefits from economies of scale, like steel manufacture, so we should keep it industrial, and even make it super-industrial. Klein tries to add to this excruciating generalization by noting that no other enterprise that has gone industrial has ever gone back, and he does so in a remarkably juvenile fashion, I might add. We can comfortably ignore Klein's little "addition" because there is no argument in there. It's so silly, in fact, it's actually quite shocking.
However, the gentleman being quoted, Mr. Raynor from the Observer, attempts some semblance of a conversation on a serious topic that involves the lives of billions of people.
Mr. Raynor believes that the U.K. is on the verge of food shortages of such a level as to cause riots. His description of the British food supply goes a long way toward proving how silly that sounds, but he sticks to it - it is the gist of his opening line, after all.
In light of the cheap, perfect-looking foods Brits have come to expect, Mr. Raynor argues, the only way they will avoid Mozambique-like riots over food is to build a big mega-dairy...?
From there, he gets even more lost.
First, Mr. Raynor makes an across-the-board claim about agriculture, taking an extraordinarily diverse concept and treating it as if it is one product in one market. His belief that "agriculture" always and everywhere benefits from economies of scale illustrates his ignorance of both agriculture and economics.
Mr. Raynor fails to realize, for example, that economies of scale in agriculture most often come from lax environmental regulation, extraordinarily cheap labor, poor animal treatment, and/or subsidies. Mr. Raynor spends much time considering the British apple market, probably because they are an iconic English crop, but he gives no example of how big ag. can save British apple production. Would he be willing to allow DDT, labor at a pound or so per day, and tax breaks in order to save apples? I think he would argue that these measures wouldn't save British farming, and he would be 100% right.
And if Mr. Raynor is worried about the status quo, he must surely realize that the status quo includes big ag. for most of his food supply right now, anyway. Those imported apples he hates? They get there only through a few, gigantic corporations. Instead of vilifying the apples, he should be praising their availability to the skies.
Since he couldn't provide an industrial ag. solution for the problem he outlined, he picked up another one: dairy. I don't know the specifics of the dairy industry in England, and from Mr. Raynor's quick description, neither does he. I've spent some time debunking the "farmers don't get profits from sick animals" claim, so I won't do that here, but the fact that he uses this as his argument in favor of a mega-dairy says a lot about how much he really knows about food production facilities.
His last point, the inference that organic and sustainable farming practices can only be enjoyed by the wealthy, actually undermines his first point, that Brits have put themselves in a pickle by demanding produce at half of what they've previously paid (and will even burn buildings and kill people if they have to go back).
Mr. Raynor's bias of omission is also startlingly revealing: No mention of the impact of oligopoly on food markets, which often exacerbate scarcity and jeopardize food security to maximize profits - the very crises he hopes to avert by concentrating food production in the hands of a few people and places. He needs to consider the past 25 years of price gouging and collusion that major corporate agriculture enterprises have committed, and study the recent foodborne disease outbreaks originating from huge, centralized production facilities, before he goes waving the Big Ag Flag in public.
To me, though, his biggest offense is that he compares Mozambique with England to give a frightening picture of a possible English future. This is just wrong, and maybe immoral. Mozambique's GDP per capita in 2008 was roughly $440. Ten years ago, it was below $200, which means that Mozambique has been slowly improving, and that people remember times worse than when they averaged four hundred bucks per person. This, alone, should explain the reaction of Mozambicans in light of a 30% hike in bread prices, and it should make startlingly clear just why it is so wrong to compare Mozambique to England. What do Londoners pay for bread, two pounds? If it rose 100%, there would be no riots. If it rose 500%, there would be sternly-written letters to MP's, replete with apologies for doing so, but there would be no riots.
Mr. Raynor points out that Brits are paying half of what they paid for food 20 years ago, from about 20% to about 10% of their incomes. If prices rose 100% for all foods, not just bread, they'd just be back where they were twenty years ago.
Mr. Raynor makes no serious claims for supporting big ag.; he obviously is not familiar with scientific studies that point to organic and sustainable smaller ag. producing higher yields and more sustainable business models without the need for exploitation of the resource or of humans; he ignores the market impacts of oligopoly that come with big ag.; he completely misses the problems associated with food security when production is centralized; and he tries to scare people in England into thinking that they may start killing each other over the price of bread.
I don't buy it.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Must... avoid... cliché... can't resist... must try... ah, heck: A rose by any other name will still cause obesity
© 2010 Joshua Stark
How can a person resist the ease of title-writing via cliché when the topic makes it so horribly easy? BlogHer reports that the makers of high fructose corn syrup want to officially change its name to "corn sugar".
The author of that report, Rita Arens, took the topic further at her personal blog, and it's well worth reading.
As Ms. Arens points out, for those already into these issues, a name change won't make a difference. But in my humble opinion, the name change will have a detrimental effect on the public's buying habits. In general, marketing works. It works so well that we've decided, socially, to develop our media streams solely on the back of the revenue generated through marketing.
Specifically for this product, "high fructose corn syrup" is not very sweet sounding, because you have to get through three un-sweet words before you get to syrup. Additionally, the term has become one word, really, and a social inertia has been building against it. By changing the name to something vaguely nutritious in our society (corn) and something sweet that has already well stood the forces aligned against it (sugar), and is even a term of endearment, hfcs producers hope to distance themselves from the social opposition that has taken hold against the term. They are betting that A) a typical consumer won't read labels and stay up on the news; and B) the association with "sugar" will diminish the social stigma.
But, the purpose of hfcs, just like marketing, is a means to maintain market share. Marketing differentiates between products, building resistance to competition in the marketplace. High fructose corn syrup is a very expensive endeavor to begin, with huge up-front cost in materials and labor, making it difficult for competitors to enter the market. Unfortunately, these ways of increasing barriers to entrance create scarcity in food markets to create profitability among a few, gigantic corporations. This trumped-up scarcity for a necessity is a bad way to build a market and a horrible way to distribute food. In fact, creating scarcity completely contradicts the purpose of economics.
The Basic Economic Problem, the only reason for the existence of the field of study, is scarcity.
How can a person resist the ease of title-writing via cliché when the topic makes it so horribly easy? BlogHer reports that the makers of high fructose corn syrup want to officially change its name to "corn sugar".
The author of that report, Rita Arens, took the topic further at her personal blog, and it's well worth reading.
As Ms. Arens points out, for those already into these issues, a name change won't make a difference. But in my humble opinion, the name change will have a detrimental effect on the public's buying habits. In general, marketing works. It works so well that we've decided, socially, to develop our media streams solely on the back of the revenue generated through marketing.
Specifically for this product, "high fructose corn syrup" is not very sweet sounding, because you have to get through three un-sweet words before you get to syrup. Additionally, the term has become one word, really, and a social inertia has been building against it. By changing the name to something vaguely nutritious in our society (corn) and something sweet that has already well stood the forces aligned against it (sugar), and is even a term of endearment, hfcs producers hope to distance themselves from the social opposition that has taken hold against the term. They are betting that A) a typical consumer won't read labels and stay up on the news; and B) the association with "sugar" will diminish the social stigma.
But, the purpose of hfcs, just like marketing, is a means to maintain market share. Marketing differentiates between products, building resistance to competition in the marketplace. High fructose corn syrup is a very expensive endeavor to begin, with huge up-front cost in materials and labor, making it difficult for competitors to enter the market. Unfortunately, these ways of increasing barriers to entrance create scarcity in food markets to create profitability among a few, gigantic corporations. This trumped-up scarcity for a necessity is a bad way to build a market and a horrible way to distribute food. In fact, creating scarcity completely contradicts the purpose of economics.
The Basic Economic Problem, the only reason for the existence of the field of study, is scarcity.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The science of choice, bovine flatulance edition
© 2010 Joshua Stark
...and I don't mean it like, "The Breakfast of Champions."
Economics is often called the science of choice (which is also why it's called the "dismal science"), because an economist spends her time thinking about everything you could have done with that $1.25 you spent on the King Sized Snickers you bought at the corner liquor store (the Standup Economist has a simply genius take on this when translating Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics).
It's interesting, because economics looks at the choices we make with an eye toward improving efficiencies, but efficiencies come in many shapes and sizes, and increasing one efficiency may, in fact, create a less efficient outcome for something else. Take California cow farts, for example.
That's right. KQED posted a snippet about methane digesters at two huge dairies in the Central Valley, and the problems they are having getting them up and running. In it, they talk about the farmers' troubles with lowering their pollution. You see, methane is a greenhouse gas, but burning it causes a local pollutant known as NOx. It just so happens that the air quality district in which these dairies operate is almost constantly far beyond the legal limit for its local, human-health-destroying pollutants. For some perspective, note that one in five children in the Central Valley has asthma.
Unfortunately, KQED decided to place this in its "ClimateWatch" series, and not its, "OhMyLordOurIndustriesAreKillingOurChildren" series, where the "efficiencies" argument might be considered in a different light. However, they did, and they talked about how these farmers, in trying to do a good, unselfish deed, were coming up against the heartless and cold steel wall of bureaucracy. Why, one poor farmer has had to spend $200k for one pollution control device!
But, what the report does not do is compare the costs of containment to a number of other factors. For example, how much was saved in medical costs for asthma attacks? I'm no doctor, but I'm guessing that a couple hundred grand is chump change. Also, how much of these farmers' energy costs were offset by generating their own power, even after the added pollution-control measures? How much ag. production from neighboring farms was saved, since pollution is responsible for probably a 15% reduction in plant productivity from dimming the Sun in the Valley?
And, if they'd saved that money, how many additional cows could they have bought, thus increasing their pollution contribution?
Economics uses money because it is a convenient way to measure relative efficiencies, but it isn't the only way, nor is efficiency the only thing to worry about. For example, how many children were spared a painful, frightening and life-threatening asthma attack? How many parents were spared the horror of rushing a child, who simply cannot breathe, to the hospital? We can put these savings into dollar amounts, but that would cheapen it in a bad way, now wouldn't it?
I will tell you right now that these farmers did not fund methane digesters simply because they believe that global warming is partly their fault, just like we consumers don't all put solar panels up on our houses or run out and buy an electric car just to save the planet. They ran the numbers, and the energy saving they'll get from doing it in-house pays off. Plus they may get carbon offsets in the near future. Plus they help do their part to save the planet. Plus they have the ability to cover the up-front costs of conversion, and the risk of doing something fairly new.
I commend these farmers for taking a step out unfamiliar territory, and I'm especially glad that John Fiscalini at Fiscalini Farms put in that pollution control device. That's great work. I'm also very happy with the work of regulators telling folks that they have to control their NOx pollution in a place with the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not so happy with KQED losing the heart of this story by contriving an angle to shoehorn it into their ClimateWatch series.
Economics, in getting us to consider our choices, is a great boon to society. But remember that these choices go beyond the over-simplified monetary quantities. Our choices have real impacts.
And, when you click over to the KQED piece, please note the convolutions the editor had to go through to get to use, "cut it", in the title of a piece on cow farts.
...and I don't mean it like, "The Breakfast of Champions."
Economics is often called the science of choice (which is also why it's called the "dismal science"), because an economist spends her time thinking about everything you could have done with that $1.25 you spent on the King Sized Snickers you bought at the corner liquor store (the Standup Economist has a simply genius take on this when translating Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics).
It's interesting, because economics looks at the choices we make with an eye toward improving efficiencies, but efficiencies come in many shapes and sizes, and increasing one efficiency may, in fact, create a less efficient outcome for something else. Take California cow farts, for example.
That's right. KQED posted a snippet about methane digesters at two huge dairies in the Central Valley, and the problems they are having getting them up and running. In it, they talk about the farmers' troubles with lowering their pollution. You see, methane is a greenhouse gas, but burning it causes a local pollutant known as NOx. It just so happens that the air quality district in which these dairies operate is almost constantly far beyond the legal limit for its local, human-health-destroying pollutants. For some perspective, note that one in five children in the Central Valley has asthma.
Unfortunately, KQED decided to place this in its "ClimateWatch" series, and not its, "OhMyLordOurIndustriesAreKillingOurChildren" series, where the "efficiencies" argument might be considered in a different light. However, they did, and they talked about how these farmers, in trying to do a good, unselfish deed, were coming up against the heartless and cold steel wall of bureaucracy. Why, one poor farmer has had to spend $200k for one pollution control device!
But, what the report does not do is compare the costs of containment to a number of other factors. For example, how much was saved in medical costs for asthma attacks? I'm no doctor, but I'm guessing that a couple hundred grand is chump change. Also, how much of these farmers' energy costs were offset by generating their own power, even after the added pollution-control measures? How much ag. production from neighboring farms was saved, since pollution is responsible for probably a 15% reduction in plant productivity from dimming the Sun in the Valley?
And, if they'd saved that money, how many additional cows could they have bought, thus increasing their pollution contribution?
Economics uses money because it is a convenient way to measure relative efficiencies, but it isn't the only way, nor is efficiency the only thing to worry about. For example, how many children were spared a painful, frightening and life-threatening asthma attack? How many parents were spared the horror of rushing a child, who simply cannot breathe, to the hospital? We can put these savings into dollar amounts, but that would cheapen it in a bad way, now wouldn't it?
I will tell you right now that these farmers did not fund methane digesters simply because they believe that global warming is partly their fault, just like we consumers don't all put solar panels up on our houses or run out and buy an electric car just to save the planet. They ran the numbers, and the energy saving they'll get from doing it in-house pays off. Plus they may get carbon offsets in the near future. Plus they help do their part to save the planet. Plus they have the ability to cover the up-front costs of conversion, and the risk of doing something fairly new.
I commend these farmers for taking a step out unfamiliar territory, and I'm especially glad that John Fiscalini at Fiscalini Farms put in that pollution control device. That's great work. I'm also very happy with the work of regulators telling folks that they have to control their NOx pollution in a place with the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not so happy with KQED losing the heart of this story by contriving an angle to shoehorn it into their ClimateWatch series.
Economics, in getting us to consider our choices, is a great boon to society. But remember that these choices go beyond the over-simplified monetary quantities. Our choices have real impacts.
And, when you click over to the KQED piece, please note the convolutions the editor had to go through to get to use, "cut it", in the title of a piece on cow farts.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Internalizing externalities, cancer-causing pesticide edition
© 2010 Joshua Stark
The San José Mercury News reports on the probable use of methyl iodide in California.
"The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed registering methyl iodide as a pesticide in California to the dismay of scientists and environmental groups, who say it is so toxic that even chemists are reluctant to handle it."
Methyl Iodide was proposed and accepted by the US EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide in 2007. Methyl Bromide was phased out because of its damage to the ozone layer.
So, instead of using a pesticide that causes an externality to the atmosphere, we as people are about to switch to an agent that 'internalizes' that damage, so to speak.
This is also another example of a false choice. Where's the "none of the above" box to check?
If you are interested in weighing in on this issue, please make your voice heard at the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's public comment section. The article above has the address and email, or you can email:
mei_comments@cdpr.ca.gov
The San José Mercury News reports on the probable use of methyl iodide in California.
"The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed registering methyl iodide as a pesticide in California to the dismay of scientists and environmental groups, who say it is so toxic that even chemists are reluctant to handle it."
Methyl Iodide was proposed and accepted by the US EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide in 2007. Methyl Bromide was phased out because of its damage to the ozone layer.
So, instead of using a pesticide that causes an externality to the atmosphere, we as people are about to switch to an agent that 'internalizes' that damage, so to speak.
This is also another example of a false choice. Where's the "none of the above" box to check?
If you are interested in weighing in on this issue, please make your voice heard at the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's public comment section. The article above has the address and email, or you can email:
mei_comments@cdpr.ca.gov
Friday, May 28, 2010
Opportunity Cost and environmental ethics
© 2010 Joshua Stark
To be honest with you, the reason I bring up a lot of economics on this blog is because economics is the study of scarcity and our solutions to scarcity, which also happens to be a really big question in environmental ethics, only with (sometimes fake) numbers and an overly-(pseudo)scientific approach. Here, then, is another economics concept that applies to environmental ethics: Opportunity cost.
flx1247rg
Strangely for economics, the term "opportunity cost" is actually very descriptive of the idea. Opportunity cost is simply everything else you could have done when you chose to do something. For example, if you spent $5 on lunch, you could have saved that $5 one more day, you could have bought a toy, etc. The cost to you is every other choice you could have made with that five bucks.
Yes, it is depressing. But, it can be really helpful in honestly looking at what you have and how you should use it - basically, your opportunities, and what they cost you. If you get too bummed-out, just take a moment and think about opportunity benefit - what you get from your decisions.
Now, let's use opportunity cost in an example brought up by Prof. Ray Hilborn of Washington University. The good professor contends that if we were to replace the protein we get from fishing by instead farming on land, we'd have to use additional land about 22 times the size of our current rainforests. Dr. Hilborn then compares land-based agriculture's to fishing's impacts on biodiversity, and claims that fishing has shown to have reduced biodiversity about 30%, whereas land-based farming, in his opinion, results in a 100% decrease in biodiversity.
Dr. Hilborn is a well-known (to fisheries nerds), typically pro-commercial fishing scientist, and so his description needs to be taken in that context, but the general concepts are valid, and bear some thought. What are the true opportunity costs to switching from fishing to on-land agriculture?
I find Dr. Hilborn's biodiversity comment a tad oversimplistic on both ends: directly decreasing biodiversity from fishing will have many impacts on food webs; and farming practices exist that provide better biodiversity impacts than his claim. But, these questions do offer some real meat for future research as well as future decision-making by agencies and individuals regarding food choices, and these decisions will be based on the opportunity costs to the values we hold for our wild places, our oceans and lands, and ourselves.
So, that five bucks you were going to spend on a burger today... where will it go? What else could you have done with it?
To be honest with you, the reason I bring up a lot of economics on this blog is because economics is the study of scarcity and our solutions to scarcity, which also happens to be a really big question in environmental ethics, only with (sometimes fake) numbers and an overly-(pseudo)scientific approach. Here, then, is another economics concept that applies to environmental ethics: Opportunity cost.
flx1247rg
Strangely for economics, the term "opportunity cost" is actually very descriptive of the idea. Opportunity cost is simply everything else you could have done when you chose to do something. For example, if you spent $5 on lunch, you could have saved that $5 one more day, you could have bought a toy, etc. The cost to you is every other choice you could have made with that five bucks.
Yes, it is depressing. But, it can be really helpful in honestly looking at what you have and how you should use it - basically, your opportunities, and what they cost you. If you get too bummed-out, just take a moment and think about opportunity benefit - what you get from your decisions.
Now, let's use opportunity cost in an example brought up by Prof. Ray Hilborn of Washington University. The good professor contends that if we were to replace the protein we get from fishing by instead farming on land, we'd have to use additional land about 22 times the size of our current rainforests. Dr. Hilborn then compares land-based agriculture's to fishing's impacts on biodiversity, and claims that fishing has shown to have reduced biodiversity about 30%, whereas land-based farming, in his opinion, results in a 100% decrease in biodiversity.
Dr. Hilborn is a well-known (to fisheries nerds), typically pro-commercial fishing scientist, and so his description needs to be taken in that context, but the general concepts are valid, and bear some thought. What are the true opportunity costs to switching from fishing to on-land agriculture?
I find Dr. Hilborn's biodiversity comment a tad oversimplistic on both ends: directly decreasing biodiversity from fishing will have many impacts on food webs; and farming practices exist that provide better biodiversity impacts than his claim. But, these questions do offer some real meat for future research as well as future decision-making by agencies and individuals regarding food choices, and these decisions will be based on the opportunity costs to the values we hold for our wild places, our oceans and lands, and ourselves.
So, that five bucks you were going to spend on a burger today... where will it go? What else could you have done with it?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Some recent posts on basic environmental economics
© 2010 Joshua Stark
I read Paul Krugman the other day as he decided to weigh in a bit on economics and greenhouse gasses. It's a good piece, and a good example of the reason economics is called the 'dismal science'. No free lunch, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, etc., etc.
I found it at my favorite environmental economics website, however, and I recommend you read their environmental economics primer, too. Env-Econ., run by two professors at Appalachia State and Ohio, I believe, make good points, and the site is worth a visit every couple of days.
Krugman also commented on his blog about some kickback from environmentalists for his piece, and he tries to explain himself a bit.
In his blog post, he mentions a belief among many environmentalists that he doesn't quite hold, himself:
"On the first (belief among many environmentalists, the claim that): there is actually a fair bit of evidence that many energy-saving measures would also be cost-saving, even at current prices. Like most economists, I take these estimates with a grain of salt: if these actions really are cost-saving, why aren’t they being taken already? Isn’t that an indication that there are hidden costs? That said, in the real world people aren’t perfectly rational, so there may well be energy-saving measures with negative cost that aren’t being undertaken."
I've got to disagree with the Nobel Laureate, Princeton economist on this one.
First, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the constraints of poverty. For example, how exactly will a renter put in energy-saving washing machines and dishwashers? How will homeowners put them in, if they must pay, also, for the upgrades? The same goes for water heaters, windows, new heating and A/C units, cars - the list is long.
Second, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the imperious influence of huge corporate interests on the marketplace and infrastructure. Oligopoly and oligopsony play powerful roles in determining just where the "efficiencies" end up in a market, and the dollar amounts rarely reflect the greatest efficiencies for consumers.
You can tell a person that for $20,000, they can eliminate their electricity bill with a solar panel system, but if A) they can't get twenty thou., and B) they have to remove themselves from the electrical grid or suffer penalties and be responsible for the maintenance of a brand-new thing, they won't do it, even if it'll save them $300 a month.
If, however, you tell homeowners that they can roll their solar loan into their home loan, and they will get back wholesale price for the extra energy they give to the electrical company (often during peak energy use hours, interestingly enough), then you would see the true efficiencies being borne by the consumers, and you would see a rise in solar use. If you tell landlords the same thing, then they can do that plus get a small premium (smaller than the monthly electrical bill in a similar home, for the renters), too.
So, it isn't the efficiency of the product when compared to other forms of energy, it is the efficiency of the product to the individual user through the hurdles of market manipulation and poverty.
I usually like Prof. Krugman, but in this case, he doesn't seem to see the trees for the forest.
Update: David Roberts over at Grist has a similar, though not the same, complaint to Krugman.
I read Paul Krugman the other day as he decided to weigh in a bit on economics and greenhouse gasses. It's a good piece, and a good example of the reason economics is called the 'dismal science'. No free lunch, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, etc., etc.
I found it at my favorite environmental economics website, however, and I recommend you read their environmental economics primer, too. Env-Econ., run by two professors at Appalachia State and Ohio, I believe, make good points, and the site is worth a visit every couple of days.
Krugman also commented on his blog about some kickback from environmentalists for his piece, and he tries to explain himself a bit.
In his blog post, he mentions a belief among many environmentalists that he doesn't quite hold, himself:
"On the first (belief among many environmentalists, the claim that): there is actually a fair bit of evidence that many energy-saving measures would also be cost-saving, even at current prices. Like most economists, I take these estimates with a grain of salt: if these actions really are cost-saving, why aren’t they being taken already? Isn’t that an indication that there are hidden costs? That said, in the real world people aren’t perfectly rational, so there may well be energy-saving measures with negative cost that aren’t being undertaken."
I've got to disagree with the Nobel Laureate, Princeton economist on this one.
First, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the constraints of poverty. For example, how exactly will a renter put in energy-saving washing machines and dishwashers? How will homeowners put them in, if they must pay, also, for the upgrades? The same goes for water heaters, windows, new heating and A/C units, cars - the list is long.
Second, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the imperious influence of huge corporate interests on the marketplace and infrastructure. Oligopoly and oligopsony play powerful roles in determining just where the "efficiencies" end up in a market, and the dollar amounts rarely reflect the greatest efficiencies for consumers.
You can tell a person that for $20,000, they can eliminate their electricity bill with a solar panel system, but if A) they can't get twenty thou., and B) they have to remove themselves from the electrical grid or suffer penalties and be responsible for the maintenance of a brand-new thing, they won't do it, even if it'll save them $300 a month.
If, however, you tell homeowners that they can roll their solar loan into their home loan, and they will get back wholesale price for the extra energy they give to the electrical company (often during peak energy use hours, interestingly enough), then you would see the true efficiencies being borne by the consumers, and you would see a rise in solar use. If you tell landlords the same thing, then they can do that plus get a small premium (smaller than the monthly electrical bill in a similar home, for the renters), too.
So, it isn't the efficiency of the product when compared to other forms of energy, it is the efficiency of the product to the individual user through the hurdles of market manipulation and poverty.
I usually like Prof. Krugman, but in this case, he doesn't seem to see the trees for the forest.
Update: David Roberts over at Grist has a similar, though not the same, complaint to Krugman.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Corporatism has eaten libertarianism, and now it starts gobbling environmentalism
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Although I am not a libertarian, I have often appreciated folks who hold to libertarian ideals. I am partial to them because libertarianism is an ethos, and people who subscribe to it often do so because they are honestly thinking about their impacts on others, and how people should behave towards one another.
But libertarianism as a concept in the minds of many has been consumed by corporatism, and though individuals may hold to true libertarian ideals, the word among the public is now a cover for the type of behemoth corporate accumulations our economic and political system has spawned and nurtured.
Our market system is not a free market system - for example, our borders are not free, thus regulating one of the four basic factors of production, labor. Our market system is generally more free than some, and more regulated than others. But, the style of our regulations in recent decades (see my post from yesterday) has become more and more slanted in favor of large corporate enterprises, such that individuals within corporations may wish to behave in certain ways, but corporate pressures for profit, magnified by regulations that encourage this behavior, make long-term prudence and personal ethos nearly impossible to enact.
Where the large corporate enterprises create economies of scale (the fancy way of saying "more efficiency by being bigger"), we should allow it in some fashion. But where it does not, we should not use it.
One major problem with our current market system is the elimination, over time, of competition. When companies "win" in our markets, they actually beat other companies, which means those companies cease to exist. But, instead of new companies taking their place, more often the "winning" company eats the old company, grows larger, and exerts more power over the market. This power, in turn, causes political ripples in favor of the remaining company, often at the expense of free society and government representation, as well as consumer prices and efficiency.
Noting the strong libertarian streak in our American ideals, many companies have used the notion (rather than the actual principles) of libertarianism as a way to maintain our current system, while at the same time stifling competition through political influence. The past decade saw many politicians finding cover in the words of libertarianism while actually undermining those libertarian principles of our government.
Now, corporatism has made serious inroads into the environmental movement, and threatens to eat it like it has eaten libertarianism in the minds of the public - through controlling the conversation and political processes. From "greenwashing" to lobbying, corporations are exerting a level of control over our environmental consciousness that threatens to crush real changes where those changes may risk individual corporate profits.
One current example of this is in California, where the Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game Commission are working to enact the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). Though I like the idea - enacting a series of protected areas akin to national parks and wildlife refuges on land - the continuing state budget crisis has been used as a final corporate crowbar, an excuse to privatize our public regulatory and legislative processes. This bodes ill for our public processes and the reasons for our public actions.
This week, High Country News has a great blog entry titled "Privatizing Conservation", where they write in better detail about the MLPA and the influence of Packard Foundation and the Western States Petroleum Association. Especially note the chair of the MLPA process. I highly recommend it for everyone, because, unlike our neighbor to the East, what happens in California almost never stays in California.
After reading that previous post, please read this piece from the San Luis Obispo Tribune on a new offshore drilling proposal between oil companies and three environmental organizations.
Environmental organizations have always had to look for money in order to operate, and many wealthy folks want to do right by the environment. However, private donations and membership don't always pay all the bills, and so corporate foundations and other pools of money offer to cover many expenses and battles, and usually with few or no strings attached. Heck, I've even been paid by RLFF money. But these payments, often in the form of non-profit foundation grants &/or pools of money set aside as mitigation for illegal activities, sometimes make advocacy a winding, twisting road. Add the idea that many companies both donate to environmental organizations and groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and large-scale battles over the fate of the California Environmental Quality Act take on an interesting hue.
Generally, these issues are not a problem - 95% of the time, people come to the table to debate and discuss, our representatives vote, and we move forward. However, occasionally (and especially over the big fights like CEQA and climate change), these conflicted interests create problems.
In the case of the MLPA, the problem is that the ocean isn't receiving adequate or appropriate protections for habitat or for people to care about its fate in the future, and the appearance of bias in favor of the private industries involved makes the process look very bad, indeed. Currently, the protected areas (MPA's) look like "no fishing" zones for recreational and commercial fishermen, but with absolutely zero protections against pollution, other visitation impacts, commercial fishing in neighboring federal waters (more often by huge international operations rather than by local folks), or take for scientific purposes. In addition, the Fish & Game department's own wardens believe that they cannot adequately protect the areas designated, which means that only lawbreakers would get to fish, and then they would do it with little fear of reprisal.
Consider this: If a company was polluting the Merced River before it flowed into Yosemite Valley, would we stand for it? And yet, the same company that pays a huge chunk of money for the MLPA process, Hewlett-Packard, is represented by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which lobbies to keep the California Coastal Commission from coming down hard (or at all) on coastal polluters.
This same company helps pay for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a beautiful place and a hub of conservation efforts. However, the fact that MPA's don't protect from scientific take becomes more ominous when the Vice President of the Aquarium is on the Fish & Game Commission, and when it remains unclear whether or not scientific take is currently the largest fishery in California, because landings are not monitored like they are for commercial fishing. If it isn't the largest fishery, many believe it is close.
Last, please read this piece in Calitics about the President of the Western States Petroleum Association... er, I mean the Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act... calling for more drilling off the coast of California.
Many local environmental and environmental justice groups in Northern California are making a ruckus over the MLPA as it moves into their neighborhoods. Northern California environmentalists seem to have come around to the positive impacts of local food and appropriate access to the wild, and hopefully these ways can educate and inform the process such that we get a more nuanced and appropriate set of rules for the North Coast.
The appearance of huge, private enterprises funding and running actual government processes marks an unfortunate turn in the environmental community. We all must tackle our demons, and the pressures of our current market structures are such that, even when individuals want to give large chunks of money to protect the environment, corporate pressures tend to put undue pressures to protect their profit interests. This is why we created a government of, by, and for the people - we understand that the pressures of a market can cloud people's judgment, and so we try to remove those pressures when making public decisions. This deeper encroachment into our public life needs to be reassessed.
Although I am not a libertarian, I have often appreciated folks who hold to libertarian ideals. I am partial to them because libertarianism is an ethos, and people who subscribe to it often do so because they are honestly thinking about their impacts on others, and how people should behave towards one another.
But libertarianism as a concept in the minds of many has been consumed by corporatism, and though individuals may hold to true libertarian ideals, the word among the public is now a cover for the type of behemoth corporate accumulations our economic and political system has spawned and nurtured.
Our market system is not a free market system - for example, our borders are not free, thus regulating one of the four basic factors of production, labor. Our market system is generally more free than some, and more regulated than others. But, the style of our regulations in recent decades (see my post from yesterday) has become more and more slanted in favor of large corporate enterprises, such that individuals within corporations may wish to behave in certain ways, but corporate pressures for profit, magnified by regulations that encourage this behavior, make long-term prudence and personal ethos nearly impossible to enact.
Where the large corporate enterprises create economies of scale (the fancy way of saying "more efficiency by being bigger"), we should allow it in some fashion. But where it does not, we should not use it.
One major problem with our current market system is the elimination, over time, of competition. When companies "win" in our markets, they actually beat other companies, which means those companies cease to exist. But, instead of new companies taking their place, more often the "winning" company eats the old company, grows larger, and exerts more power over the market. This power, in turn, causes political ripples in favor of the remaining company, often at the expense of free society and government representation, as well as consumer prices and efficiency.
Noting the strong libertarian streak in our American ideals, many companies have used the notion (rather than the actual principles) of libertarianism as a way to maintain our current system, while at the same time stifling competition through political influence. The past decade saw many politicians finding cover in the words of libertarianism while actually undermining those libertarian principles of our government.
Now, corporatism has made serious inroads into the environmental movement, and threatens to eat it like it has eaten libertarianism in the minds of the public - through controlling the conversation and political processes. From "greenwashing" to lobbying, corporations are exerting a level of control over our environmental consciousness that threatens to crush real changes where those changes may risk individual corporate profits.
One current example of this is in California, where the Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game Commission are working to enact the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). Though I like the idea - enacting a series of protected areas akin to national parks and wildlife refuges on land - the continuing state budget crisis has been used as a final corporate crowbar, an excuse to privatize our public regulatory and legislative processes. This bodes ill for our public processes and the reasons for our public actions.
This week, High Country News has a great blog entry titled "Privatizing Conservation", where they write in better detail about the MLPA and the influence of Packard Foundation and the Western States Petroleum Association. Especially note the chair of the MLPA process. I highly recommend it for everyone, because, unlike our neighbor to the East, what happens in California almost never stays in California.
After reading that previous post, please read this piece from the San Luis Obispo Tribune on a new offshore drilling proposal between oil companies and three environmental organizations.
Environmental organizations have always had to look for money in order to operate, and many wealthy folks want to do right by the environment. However, private donations and membership don't always pay all the bills, and so corporate foundations and other pools of money offer to cover many expenses and battles, and usually with few or no strings attached. Heck, I've even been paid by RLFF money. But these payments, often in the form of non-profit foundation grants &/or pools of money set aside as mitigation for illegal activities, sometimes make advocacy a winding, twisting road. Add the idea that many companies both donate to environmental organizations and groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and large-scale battles over the fate of the California Environmental Quality Act take on an interesting hue.
Generally, these issues are not a problem - 95% of the time, people come to the table to debate and discuss, our representatives vote, and we move forward. However, occasionally (and especially over the big fights like CEQA and climate change), these conflicted interests create problems.
In the case of the MLPA, the problem is that the ocean isn't receiving adequate or appropriate protections for habitat or for people to care about its fate in the future, and the appearance of bias in favor of the private industries involved makes the process look very bad, indeed. Currently, the protected areas (MPA's) look like "no fishing" zones for recreational and commercial fishermen, but with absolutely zero protections against pollution, other visitation impacts, commercial fishing in neighboring federal waters (more often by huge international operations rather than by local folks), or take for scientific purposes. In addition, the Fish & Game department's own wardens believe that they cannot adequately protect the areas designated, which means that only lawbreakers would get to fish, and then they would do it with little fear of reprisal.
Consider this: If a company was polluting the Merced River before it flowed into Yosemite Valley, would we stand for it? And yet, the same company that pays a huge chunk of money for the MLPA process, Hewlett-Packard, is represented by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which lobbies to keep the California Coastal Commission from coming down hard (or at all) on coastal polluters.
This same company helps pay for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a beautiful place and a hub of conservation efforts. However, the fact that MPA's don't protect from scientific take becomes more ominous when the Vice President of the Aquarium is on the Fish & Game Commission, and when it remains unclear whether or not scientific take is currently the largest fishery in California, because landings are not monitored like they are for commercial fishing. If it isn't the largest fishery, many believe it is close.
Last, please read this piece in Calitics about the President of the Western States Petroleum Association... er, I mean the Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act... calling for more drilling off the coast of California.
Many local environmental and environmental justice groups in Northern California are making a ruckus over the MLPA as it moves into their neighborhoods. Northern California environmentalists seem to have come around to the positive impacts of local food and appropriate access to the wild, and hopefully these ways can educate and inform the process such that we get a more nuanced and appropriate set of rules for the North Coast.
The appearance of huge, private enterprises funding and running actual government processes marks an unfortunate turn in the environmental community. We all must tackle our demons, and the pressures of our current market structures are such that, even when individuals want to give large chunks of money to protect the environment, corporate pressures tend to put undue pressures to protect their profit interests. This is why we created a government of, by, and for the people - we understand that the pressures of a market can cloud people's judgment, and so we try to remove those pressures when making public decisions. This deeper encroachment into our public life needs to be reassessed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)