Aaron Ostrovsky’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Buy local

  This seems like yet another reason that buying local, non-organic food (including milk) is more environmentally friendly than buying organic food that has been shipped (and that the end-user potentially cannot monitor the production of).  Fortunately, milk is one of those foods that is locally produced in many communities; it's usually easier to buy locally produced milk than, say, oranges.On The case for boycotting factory-farmed 'organic' milk posted 3 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  counter productive

  In Werbach's "Death" speech, he ends by saying that if you are "a conservative, and believe in dismantling our government, selling off our common assets, and endless war, but you still love nature, we wish you well, but we need you to leave this movement."  I think the same thing can be said for helping a corporation that is genuinely a blight on our society, even for green purposes.  So, Adam, take a hike, your services are no longer needed.

  Although Dudley and Sellers might seem cynical, they are giving Werbach a treatment right out of his own book and I think he deserves it.  (I would encourage the doubting commentators to read or re-read Werbach's speech, it's great.)  As Werbach himself said, this movement can no longer be green - it is about progressive policy, secular humanism, and improving life generally for all on this planet.  Werbach himself acknowledged that all things are connected - he is doing no good at Wal-Mart if he is "selling" green light bulbs to people who can't afford health-care.  But I bet he is being well compensated.On In working with Wal-Mart, activist Adam Werbach is abandoning his principles posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Anti-globalization? Too late!

  Andrew,

  I think your mention of anti-globalization protesters brings up a good point: at some point (I would argue that point is passed) the question of whether globalization will happen becomes moot and the real question is how will it happen and how will the stake-holders participate?

  Protesting globalization is starting to look like a waste of resources.  It is upon us.  And further, as you have pointed out, globalization may be BETTER for ecology, the environment, human rights, etc. than the protectionist frameworks of centuries past (of course, there are exceptions).

  I totally empathize with activists who simply want to be let into the WTO machine (rather than to eradicate it).  And there is much to be gained from participating.  The environmental benefits of ending subsidies (whether they be farm or fish) are real and the quicker the green movement realizes there are coalitions in the WTO that have similar goals, the better. On Break in Doha talks leaves fate of fisheries uncertain posted 3 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What I meant

  "Or do you mean that the more CO2 mass a single entity generates the per unit tax should increase, like $6 per ton up to a million tons, then $10 per ton for tonage between 1 and 5 million tons, then $20 per ton and so on?"

  Yes, like that.  I assumed that Stiglitz meant to tax major producers such as coal plants and auto-manufacturers but not individual drivers (this seems like it would be impossible unless it was a gas-tax).  But unless it was progressive in the way you described above, the first million ton would cost as much as the tenth.  Whereas in a cap-and-trade market system, as one producer buys more and more allowances, the remaining available allowances become more and more expensive due to scarcity.  Also, as has been demonstrated in the acid rain program, allowances can be "retired" permanently, either by being purchased by environmental groups or by the regulatory agency.  This is another perk that would not happen with a tax.

  But, again, I emphasize, cap-and-trade is good for a domestic market - it would be almost impossible to do on a global scale unless it is done through treaties such as Kyoto (but then you run into the enforcement problem Stiglitz advocates using the WTO to solve).
  On A "simple remedy" for global warming posted 3 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Bargaining chip

  Hi Kit - I think you are bringing up two separate points.

  My comment regarding no actual emissions cap was in response to the commentator asking what the difference is between an carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system.  The comparison between the two is strictly a domestic issue - what motivates produces within a country to reduce emissions within a country, regardless of what nations do amongst themselves.  

  But Stiglitz's suggestion regarding the tax is exactly as you suggest (in my opinion) - a bargaining chip for other nations to coax (or force through a WTO dispute) into easing off the carbon emissions.  But as I said before, the WTO is not the panacea everyone outside the trading system hopes it is.  Stiglitz's idea that we subsidize carbon emissions in this country is true from a pure economics point of view.  But from a pure economics point of view, it is hard to find anything that isn't a subsidy.  (For instance, is France's health care system a subsidy for French companies?  Does our national park system unfairly subsidize the tourist industry?)  Whether it is an illegal subsidy under the WTO is a whole other question.

  And, as many nations have discovered, whether they are armed with a "bargaining chip" or a real threaty of a WTO dispute - no one plays hardball in international trade like the US.On A "simple remedy" for global warming posted 3 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses