Comments Jason D Scorse has made

And these are the same fools trying to delay healthcare!!! Uhhhhhhh

David- you make some sounds points, but unfortunately these are muted by your continued disdain for economists and the economics profession which clouds your thinking. Mankiw is a brilliant guy but he is also an apologist for failed Republican policies and is well-deserving of sufficient scorn. But he is right about taxes being better than cap and trade- even the originator of the cap and trade system says this- as do many influential environmental economists. You are correct that the current bill calls for a majority of permits to be auctioned but do you really think this will make it into the final bill? If this bill even passes the chances of a significant number of auctioned permits is low and this will likely be another corporate giveaway. Cap and trade in theory could work, but it will likely fail, and there are many other significant monitoring problems and implementation issues that make it very difficult to do right. On the other hand, the chances of a greenhouse gas tax are close to nil so what to do? That's the topic of a future post- maybe next week. In the meantine, I suggest that you put aside your hatred of economics; it doesn't serve you or your readers well.

Jason

Sam...

the book is all about sustainable seafood, with only the afterward about veggies so check it out.

PermieWriter- couldn't agree more- I always put suateed shitakes in sushi, plus smoked tofu, sundried tomatoes, avocado, and other good stuff....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Gar....

I'm not sure how to respond to your comments. Remember, this is a book about environmental issues not fire codes and worker safety standards for OSHA. I think I was pretty clear about a great need for C&C regulation in the realm of toxins- much more than most economists freely admit- so again, I don't quite understand your critique.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

great points....

these guys really are the concern trolls of the environment movement- maybe i should write a paper the death of the death of environmentalism.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

good post

the industrial meat industry is a cancer on the planet that must ultimately be stopped either through sane policy mandating that meat producers pay the real cost of their resources and waste or through consumers turning away from their toxic products- or better yet, both.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

So sad.....

that in large parts of the country being a vegetarian is negative- really pathetic actually. But once resource prices reflect their true costs many more people will make the switch and live better and longer for it.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Sean.....

you make many good points as usual, and while I won't back away completely from what I've put forth, let me reiterate that I'm not saying it's a panacea or that it wouldn't cause distortions with unintended consequences- it would- I'm just trying to grapple with how to really make a permanent shift away from fossil fuels- maybe a large greenhouse gas tax is enough, maybe R&D in alternatives is enough, but I'm not convinced at this point....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

I think you're confusing a couple things...

how do we price in the externality of funding terrorism? We can't. We can price in how much we spend protecting oil supplies but that's not even the half of it.

Also, with uncertainties as great as climate change simple cost-benefit analysis doesn't work- we're talking risk reduction strategies in a world of large unknowns. CBA simply cannot handle that.

It's funny that as an economist I'm making these arguments, but I think when we're talking paradigm shifts standard economic analysis, while helpful, is incomplete.

If your solution is what ultimately enacted I can live that- it would be a great improvement, but I guess I'm arguing for something much more fundamental: a societal commitment to begin a permanent move away from a fossil-fuel based economy, starting with oil.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Hey Bill.....

I think you are being WAY WAY too optimistic here and perhaps overly diplomatic (just in case McCain wins).

Bottom line: there is NO WAY McCain does a serious climate bill if elected. He's already backtracking on everything from caps to auctions- he wants to give windfall profits to the energy companies.

Obama may actually do something serious- at least major investments in green tech, but with the financial crisis dominating I think the chances of 80% reductions in law are very slim for the first 2 years- after dealing with the crisis, we got healthcare and tax reform, and raising energy prices is simply not going to be a priority.

I may be wrong and if anyone can do everything at once and do it well, it's Obama, but even he and his Administration are human.

Bottom line: Obama is our only hope and even then we may not get the type of climate legislation that is necessary.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

i don't buy the peak oil.....

stuff you throw in here- oil isn't going away anytime soon and neither are cars or sprawl- but on the fact that the GOP has become a cancer on the republic that must be removed i agree- on nov. 4 we will send the modern republican party to the dustbin of history where it belongs and the adults will be back in charge to get america back on track- do whatever you can to make obama-biden a landslide with huge majorities in Congress- there is nothing better right now that we can all do for the environment.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Friedman nailed it....

he was 100000 times better than Gore and is exactly the right spokesman for the cause. And this coming from someone who never really liked him all that much....until now.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

A dialogue is a good thing......

let's unpack a few of your statements a little more because I think they are inaccurate:

1. Prosperity as economic analysis

I am definitely open to multiple dimensions of prosperity, which is precisely why I didn't use GDP- but again, I will make the claim- whatever your measure of prosperity, it is greater in developed/less agrarian societies than in less developed/more agrarian societies- and it's not a coincidence.

2. Most economists think it's a good thing that Mexicans come to U.S.....

First of all, the notion that it's U.S. corn imports that have put Mexicans out of work is patently FALSE (it's a nice story that floats around the internet and protectionist circles without a shred of evidence). There has been huge migration out of Mexico for decades, both before and after NAFTA. The details are too much for a blog post but the places where people immigrate from in Mexico are the poorest regions, cut off from infrastructure, education, and often with Spanish as their second language. What corn production is here is for subsistence and is therefore by definition not affected by the market price.

The fault lies mostly with the highly regressive and racist government of Mexico that treats the indigenous states like second-class citizens and routinely neglects their needs as they have done for 500 years. The areas in Mexico with the lowest levels of immigration are those that export to the U.S.

As to the larger issue of immigration, economists are actually extremely liberal on this count- as a rule economists favor very open immigration policies.

3. As to the issue of externalized effects now you're talking- in fact, you're using the terminology that economists have developed over decades. And this is exactly what I am getting at- subsidized agriculture that doesn't have to pay for its pollution (a passive subsidy) is the root cause of the problem. But nowhere in your principles do you really state this explicitly.

In summary, I think you are an environmental economist who doesn't yet realize it....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

I think these are very good points....

My only critique (and many people will get mad at me for saying it) is that the bottom line is that most people don't care enough about the environment or global warming to really care all that much about this aspect of a candidate's or party's platform (maybe 5-10% of the electorate, whereas 60% or so thinks choice and abortion are the most important thing).

But, we can make the connection between energy policy and security and this will sway Americans in a big way because sending money to the Mideast, Russia, and Venezuela is obviously harming our national security- in addition to the fact that wind and solar employ a lot more people all over the country than can oil and gas. These arguments will always hold a lot more sway, whether we like it or not.

My 2 cents for now....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Humans are part of the environment....

not separate and there is nothing wrong with humans trying to live materially comfortable lives. Yes, we need to reduce bad forms of consumption but the biggest problem we face as a species is the UNDER-consumption of 2/3 of the world that lives in poverty. Sorry, they are not going to listen to environmentalists telling them that cars, TVs, and refrigerators are "luxuries".....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Excellent article....

a few comments:

1. Here in CA many small farmers do pretty well because of the much greater demand for fresh food so it depends on where you are a lot

2. Whether or not organic food is healthier or not people pay a premium for it and it sure seems to taste better to me- I buy 90% organic but will buy some conventional as well if it's fresh- the allure of farmers markets to me is the freshness and sense of community.

3. Which brings me to my final point- all of this is based on voluntary actions and supply and demand- in areas where people demand high-quality produce and are willing to pay a premium farmers can make a decent living and live the lives they want to- in areas without this demand they can't- people can change occupations, move, or whatever- the point is that at least here in a rich country we get a choice.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

I thought Warner shoiuld've run for Prez.....

and wrote as much back in 2006- he would've crushed McSame in a landslide- but I think some of his bipartisanship has gone a little far for my taste in this interview. It is Republicans who have blocked most serious energy legislation for years and I will put big money on McCain doing little if anything for climate change legislation if elected.

Sometimes issues are partisan and there's nothing wrong with saying Dems are right on this and Reps wrong. The Republicans do it all the time but somehow the Dems try to go the "nice guy" route. Doesn't work. Never has and never will.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

This is an amazing article....

I've already sent it around to all my people. Some thoughts:

1. The level of sophistication and depth that Obama and his team displays is very impressive- this is definitely the adults back in charge team, not the crony capitalism corporate giveaway team of McCain-Bush

2. Obama seems to get the fundamental nature of modern capitalism, which is:

• create a strong regulatory environment in which markets can work effectively that protects labor and the environment and against crises

• then let the market allocate resources and do what it does best- innovate

• use the tax code to redistribute from very wealthy to middle class and poor

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Nice resource here....

is Biden perfect? Is anyone? Especially anyone steeped in Washington politics? But this guy is the real deal and no joke- I actually am surprised he didn't make more of a run in the primaries given his command of the issues both domestically and on foreign policy- this was the best choice for sure.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Lovin this combo.....

hearing Biden rip into McCain already made my weekend- this is gonna be good.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

My only point of disagreement....

or what I would add is that I think the biotech industry and further innovations in computers and AI could be the next "big thing" that America could potentially be dominant in. If it's green technology great, but I think there are other paths America could take in its development that would still lead to increased exports and general prosperity.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Mfox....

you need to learn how to really cook- meat and dairy are for those who don't understand the full palate of flavors and need to overwhelm dishes with fat and salt and grease. Come over to the vegan side and you will discover a world of flavors you never knew possible....it will blow you away. I promise.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

We do that out here in Monterey....

my friend made pickled kelp with garlic that was incredible- it's an amazing renewable resource since in the summer kelp grows almost a foot a day and surfers love the harvesting since the kelp gets in the way.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

And we're getting it...

Toyota and Honda are both expanding in the U.S. since our companies dropped the ball. That's the beauty of globalization- if local dinosaurs don't step up someone overseas will. Bring it on....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Here's an interesting take:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0c11c572-7597-4 ...

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

amc98...

this is exactly my point. If you get into the game of the environment as nothing more than a consumptive resource you ultimately lose.On Some big whales no longer in trouble posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Libertarianism?

Actually, I am most definitely a social libertarian and proud of it. I believe in individual liberty and the government minding its business and not butting into people's personal lives.

As to socio-economic policy, if you think I'm a libertarian you haven't paid attention to anything that I've written on Grist for the past 2+ years.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Environmentalists can't win this argumnent....

if they rely on sustainability criteria alone. If a species isn't threatened with extinction and that's the only criteria for protection then the Japanese and Norwegians are correct that it's ok to kill many species of whales. Like I pointed out to 2 years ago:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/13/123759/733

if environmentalists don't embrace basic notions of animal welfare then they have essentially no case against whaling.

P.S. Jabailo- what rightwing institute pays you to provide us with all of this free comedy? I want to thank them for the laughs.On Some big whales no longer in trouble posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Jon....let me be clear

I absolutely think that there is both room for and a good case for very large scale government intervention in the marketplace- in fact, it's what I study and often advocate. A carbon tax is a huge intervention as is a cap and trade.

I also think that a huge Manhattan Project for alternative energy is a good idea. Even better perhaps, a national electricity grid.

All I'm opposing is the government micro-managing and getting into really stupid things like ethanol subsidies and all subsidies for specific types of technologies- fund the basic R&D, give prizes, grants, even support the infrastructure, put a price on carbon and other greenhouse gases, but DO NOT pour tons of money into one type of specific technology over the other- that's all.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Can we all finally admit....

that Gore is actually a very bad spokesperson for policy- after his MTP interview and now this it's pretty clear he doesn't know how to play hardball. Maybe why he lost what should've been an easy election.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Reason #135335 to be a vegetarian

as if environmentalists needed any more reasons....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Yawn....Employee contributions...

are meaningless. Who cares? They are citizens and can give whatever they want for a variety of reasons. And these numbers are miniscule. Obama has raised 100s of millions from small donors, some of whom work for big corporations.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

vakibs.....

the plight of developing countries under despots who plunder their raw materials is one of the most saddening, maddening, and alarming trends of the past generations. I'm glad you pointed this out and this is very different from democratic regimes who focus on raw material exports.

I'm sure you have heard of the "resource curse" which is associated with what you describe. Countries with lots of oil, diamonds, gold, etc. tend to lead to very corrupt and despicable regimes who plunder the wealth of their people. One of the few exceptions is Botswana, which is one of the best-run African nations.

Let's examine whether free trade exacerbates this or not.

I don't think it does. The question we need to ask is whether the Nigerian government, one of the worst regimes in the world, would change if we somehow tried to ban oil imports from them:

1. It would be very hard to enforce and likely many countries including China wouldn't honor it

2. It would lead to a massive increase in the price of oil, which would harm the entire world economy (including many other developing countries)

3. There would be a huge incentive for illegally selling the oil, which would only increase the the price

4. The Nigerian regime might crackdown even harder against its opponents (or maybe not, hard to tell)

5. The little benefit from the oil revenue that the Nigerians now get would disappear, making them potentially even poorer

A deal was put in place by the Chad government to do this and guess what happened when the ruler wanted to use the money for weapons instead? He simply ignored the agreement and diverted the money.

I think you are absolutely right to highlight these problems but they have very little to do with free trade and a lot more to do with a lack of democracy. Economists have some ideas of how to beat the resource curse in democratic regimes but we don't know very much (nor does anyone) on how to deal with despots intent on robbing their people.

P.S. Vigorous debate is good- no offense taken.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

moyesii

1. The Uruguay Round led to decreased agricultural subsidies- particularly export subsidies that are now WTO illegal- these are the worst form of subsidies

2. The Uruguay Round greatly diminished ag tariffs in developed countries, this increasing market access for developing countries

3. The WTO Court has ruled against U.S. distortions of ag trade in cotton, which is a huge victory for West Africa and Brazil (but just the beginning)

4. The Urguay Round diminished (though not eliminated) escalating tariffs, which are the worst form of trade protectionism against developing countries ag sectors

5. The Doha Round was to substantially cut ag subsidies and tariffs even more, as well as fishery subsidies which are destroying the world's oceans

Seriously, I am sure you mean well so don't take my word for it- investigate the issues yourself in detail- don't only read the leftwing anti-globalization crowd. Talk to serious trade policy people, serious environmental organizations, serious academics with real credentials and you may come to believe that the way the mainstream portrays the WTO is a caricature and that we could make a lot of progress if people got their facts straight. Blogs like Grist are just the beginning.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Vakibs....

no offense, but I don't need a lesson on trade theory. You make a couple points that are erroneous.

The notion that all developing countries only export raw materials and that this is somehow exploitative is wrong. First, many developing countries export a mix of products. Second, you need to differentiate between raw materials because some can be processed in country and some not- i.e. natural gas versus coffee. And even in countries that are exporting raw materials, which you may not like, they are generating much needed foreign exchange.

Where there is actually exploitation is in the little known world of tariff escalation, where developed countries imposed higher tariffs on processed goods than raw goods- i.e. more on refined sugar than raw cane- even if both of the absolute levels are low, say 10% and 5% respectively, the ration is 2:1 which greatly biases exports from the developing country towards the raw material. As we know, value-added is concentrated in processed and finished goods.

The way to deal with this?

The only organization directly attacking this exploitative practice is the WTO. But I would guess that people like you and probably Jon are opposed to the WTO (correct me if I'm wrong), which gets us back to the place we started: most people have a simplistic and knee-jerk aversion to globalization and don't understand the actual policies that would make for a fairer trading system (unintentionally of course, but still).

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Doesn't sound good to me....

How do you define regions in a non-arbitrary way? So Mexico and Canada are part of the same region but not Canada and Japan? I don't get it. I'm for trade between any and all countries that want to sell to each other. Your view would doom many regions of the world to lower standards of living because there is simply not enough market demand in areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa to generate sufficient economic growth. I think it's great if people in rich countries buy goods from people in poor countries no matter how far away.

Second point: Industries are born and die every decade- there is nothing inherently wrong with that- look at the Fortune 500- every decade firms are knocked off and others enter.

The key issue is making sure people can get the training they need to transition from one job to the next since few people will stay with one firm during their career. Also, we need universal healthcare so that people don't lose healthcare when they change jobs or are out of work for a period.

And let me also make clear that I walk the walk on this point. I work at an institute that does not have tenure. If I don't do a good job or if the economy changes and my institute is no longer profitable I will lose my job. What does that mean? 1. I had better strive for excellence and continually upgrade my skills. 2. I had better be fiscally prudent and not make decisions that will come back to haunt me if I am out of work sometime in the future. 3. I should also make sure that I develop skills that are transferable to other places if the need arises.

And by the way, if higher fuel prices discourage trade fine- that's exactly how it should be. Economists have been arguing for higher fuel prices for decades. But hopefully renewable fuels will come on line soon that reduce transport costs and trade will increase but in a clean way.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

jabailo....

that's probably the first accurate thing I've seen you write on this website. And you are right. But Obama's cap and trade policy and overall energy policy are much better than McCain's and there are a dozen other issues where Obama is superior.

But you are right on this one. McCain has been much better on ag subsidies than pretty much any Democrat. I'll give him credit for that.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Let's try to keep things on point....

Ron has made excellent points about how the WTO actually works, and this should be the focus. No one is claiming that the WTO is perfect but the way it has been demonized is silly and really part of a knee-jerk leftism that stifles debate and actually hurts the causes that environmentalism champions (and this coming from someone who proudly calls himself a liberal).

I can say with pretty strong confidence that a world in which we have an organization (however imperfect) whose goal is to make trade rules uniform and scientifically-based and to decrease all sorts of distortionary tariffs and subsidies and quotas is a good thing- I have back this up with theory and with empirics or even very simple thought-experiments as laid out in this piece.

So the job of those who think the WTO is terrible (please stop the use of the word fascist- it's ridiculous) is to start with a theory as to why the world would but better off without it. And sorry, something in the vain of "well once the corporations stop ruling the world..." is not a theory- how would the goals of environmentalism be better served in a world without the WTO? Or the converse, tell me exactly how the WTO makes the world worse? And this needs to be based on facts, not simple assertions.

I'm waiting....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Gloablization led to a lot of suffering?

That's a pretty ridiculous statement- first off, globalization, like sustainability, is a catchword that can mean virtually anything. If you mean greater trade, FDI, and cultural exchange globalization has been an extremely positive thing overall.

It saddens me when otherwise intelligent environmentalists jump on the anti-globalization bandwagon.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

The American public isn't so dumb....

to believe that more drilling is going to solve the problem. And Obama pointing out that inflating tires would do more than offshore drilling is a beautiful illustration of reality versus demagoguery.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/5/17190/39536

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

moyesii....

2 points:

1. Like Ron said, you are 100% wrong that the WTO restricts testing of GMOs (can you tell me where people get this misinformation?)

2. You call me naive for thinking that people have the intelligence to determine whether GMOs are better for their farms or not? Maybe you think people are dunb and gullible, but I think that farmers are some of the smartest people on Earth, and while everyone makes mistakes, they will not buy products over long periods of time that are bad for their business (they may experiment and lose once or twice but you can say that with all technology).

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

I like Sebelius but...

it's kind of a snub to Hillary to pick another woman VP and she is not very dynamic- that being said, Obama could do a lot worse.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

Been away for a few days.....

but again, there's a lot of misinformation in these comments that it seems like need constant dispelling:

1. I am not opposed or against GMOs- if they don't work fine, then no one will buy them- why oppose something that may hold promise?

2. Haiti's problems are legion and agricultural production is probably the least of their worries- the day they have the wealth to be net importers of food will be a great day in their history

3. The WTO is trying to make markets freer because they are not free now- that's the whole point

4. Free market does not mean unregulated- it means no subsidies and tariffs- regulation for the environment is accepted by 99.9% of economists from the most liberal to the most conservative

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

I must say that the....

"if people stop eating meat it would harm the economy" is the weakest argument I have ever heard for eating meat, and that's saying a lot. Jeez.On Getting to the meat of the matter with Boston chef Jamie Bissonnette posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

Can we please all agree....

to ignore anyone who invokes Nazism and Hitler in a discussion of agricultural policy (or any environmental policy for that matter)? Thanks.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

I don't know enough....

about the plants that wiscidea describes to comment on the specifics of her complaints, but I think this makes the point well, however, that the notion that somehow GMOs are automatically bad and things like "organic" automatically good overly simplistic and ultimately self-defeating.

The environmental community needs to be more outcome-based and spend less time fetishizing about this process or the other that some group has defined and get to root causes of problems.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

JMG and Amazingdrx....

if you actually want to have a substantive conversation check out my larger points:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/27/221942/699

and then let's discuss. If you want to cherry-pick and throw strawmen around, I'll pass.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Whether GMOs are good or not....

will be determined by both market forces and R&D. Ideological opposition one way or the other is a waste of time. Anyone interested in this post, please see my post on moving towards a truly sustainable agricultural system....

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Pelosi holding firm

check it

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/24/Pelosi_House_wont_ ...

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Convergence on this is good....

but not sure we're so different on the political spectrum- if I had to choose a political philosophy to identify myself with it's classic liberalism- strong government institutions, rule of law, libertarian on social issues, well-functioning markets, progressive income tax, and minimal to zero special-interest government boondoggles such as farm and ethanol subsidies.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

I had the exact same response

as David- the questions were terrible but Gore had a full 30+ minutes to turn things around and he failed miserably. He really is a terrible spokesperson and one remembers why he was such an uninspiring presidential candidate (who should've blown Bush out of the water by such margins that stealing the election was impossible.)

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Helenros....

A few comments:

1. You are correct that the 2000 election was stolen but it shouldn't have been close. That it was is an indictment of the American people's judgment.

2. From all my readings the 2004 election was not stolen and Bush won the popular vote by around 3 million.

3. I absolutely agree that high gas prices hurt the poor the most, which is why I vote for progressive politicians who want to cut income taxes for the lower income classes. Low gas prices are not the solution to poverty as they subsidize Hummers and rich people as much as the poor. The way to help the poor is to target programs at their needs, while making everyone pay high prices for energy so we move to a decarbonized economy. Obama is calling for a $1000 middle income tax break to offset higher fuel prices, but we still want people switching to more fuel efficient vehicles.

4. I reject the notion that poor people can't buy fuel efficient cars. I just bough a 95 Honda Civic in great shape for $2400- you just need to shop around for deals.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Glad you posted this...

Engber's piece was garbage- did America's DNA simply morph and mutate over the past 20 years to turn us into the most obese people in the world? Please, that is ridiculous. We have become a nation of couch-potato gluttons, whose diets rank #1 in environmental damage- that's the story, period.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Also, at a certain point...

information overload sets in and consumers ignore it all.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Mad Mac....

you're right with respect to the Middle East but the states there can import food and desal water so not sure it changes the game too much in the medium run.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

George.....

I don't remember you making the bet but if you can find the proof I will honor it. As for your points, I'll go with a counter-prediction, global GDP growth will not contract- we can bet on that too if you want. I'm not saying there will never be a global recession, but that there will not be a prolonged period of negative global GDP growth anytime in the forseeable future. In fact, it's quite amazing that global growth is still positive given the financial crisis and the commodity/oil shock- once we get through the former I predict robust growth even if oil stays reasonably high. I'm always the optimist....

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree...

it's time to reclaim terms that have been demeaned by the far right for decades- I'm a liberal, feminist, environmentalist- how's that??

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

but could solar power in many parts of the country during winter months really power the transport, residential, and industrial sectors? I don't see it. I think we need some largescale stuff in the mix as well. But again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, when I mean never recover, I meant our dominant economic position- obviously no downturn is permanent.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

The prize idea...

is McCain's first decent idea- he has a few braincells left apparently- good to know.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree with biodiversity....

the critique of "capitalism" that GS is making is about as old as environmentalism itself and from this interview he seems to simply be rehashing old lines that I'm not sure get us very far.

The simple fact is that 99% of the people who bemoan capitalism are those at the top of the pecking order- who have all the modern comforts, technology, and travel the world- it has always been this way. The 99% of the world that doesn't enjoy these things wants them, and no one is going to stop them from getting them.

Environmentalists are left with only 1 option: figuring out how to provide a high material quality of life without destroying the world's ecosystems for everybody. Very difficult task, but this is our job, and all the talk of changing consumer culture is not going to stop a single Chinese or Indian or Brazilian from wanting a car, a refrigerator, and the ability to take a vacation overseas or send their child to a top university.

P.S. One commenter above posited that free markets are markets free of regulation- this is 100% wrong! I don't want to get into a long discussion of what a free market is, but unregulated it is not- and no economist has ever said this.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Obviously, these models are flawed

but I don't think they're any more flawed than any other scientific models- the phenomena is simply too complex to predict with accuracy- doesn't mean the information isn't useful as a guide, a way to examine ranges, to see how different variables may influence projections, etc.

They shouldn't be the end all be all but if we don't use any modeling what are we going to do, sit in a room and use tarot cards? We need some baseline to begin the conversation.

And economists are pretty good at some types of predictions. For example, monetary policy is quite effective- Ben Bernanke has done a tremendous job helping us avert major economic catastrophe- he based his analysis on some degree of predictions- not CGE models- but on, if I do A, B will happen. I'll take that any day of the week if it works.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Sean...

great points. The natural follow-up to this is which policies are the most flexible. I'm writing on this as we speak and have a little in the past- there's a lot out there on the best types of policies that don't pick winners and allow science and technology to guide decisions in the future. Maybe you want to take this up....

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I want to second cneal's comments...

1. Discounting is simply a reality- if we truly valued the future as much as we value the present our savings rates would be orders of magnitude greater- this is empirical fact, not an economic bias

2. Monetization is simply one metric and without it we simply have less information, which is a problem. CBA should not be the only factor influencing decisions, but it is useful.

3. The key is determining the areas where it is useful- when there are high degrees of uncertainty CBA is less useful

4. I think in some ways cost-effectiveness analysis is the way to go- society figures out it's environmental goals and then figures out the cheapest (most efficient) way to achieve this

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Huh????

Don't understand why these things are mutually exclusive. A serious greenhouse gas tax would most definitely shift production, consumption, and innovation patterns in big ways. This doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be things that businesses and consumers might overlook even with a tax. I don't get it.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

The variability issues with agriculture...

are overblown. Just because farming is subject to natural variation doesn't mean the government has to interfere. That's what crop insurance and futures markets are for. Every industry these days is subject to growing competition and uncertainty is par for the course; no reason to subsidize farmers. It's simply corporate welfare that is destructive to the environment and wastes for in tax money than it saves people on grocery bills.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Tom....

I agree with you 90%. But I also think that a lot of people- poor and rich- spend a lot of money on useless garbage and not enough on their own health. Many poor people can't afford organic food, but many can but instead choose to spend their money on other things. I was low income for a good portion of my life and went without a car, a cell phone, a new computer, new clothes, a new tv, but never skimped on food. It's both a matter of priorities and price.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Just for the record Tom...

Borlaug is a Nobel prize-winning scientists whose work on the green revolution technologies is conservatively responsible for saving millions of lives. It's not like he's some crank. That doesn't mean you have to believe everything he says, but I think he deserves a little more credit than portraying his as some rightwing wacko. Please.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Thanks for the comedy you two....

now anyone have anything interesting or constructive to say?

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

For those who want...

more info on the sulfur dioxide trading program check out this article:

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2005-1/environment/2005-1- ...

the program wasn't without its flaws but it definitely worked better than if people had thrown darts- in fact, it would've never happened without decades of economic theory.

Yet another example of how economics is really an ally of the environmental community- if only environmentalists could open their eyes and take a breath they might see that they have much more to gain from understanding economics than bashing it.

On this note, in the next few months I will be making a book available entitled "What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics: A Practical Guide". I'll keep you all posted.

Thanks,
J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Hi everyone....

thanks for the comments.

1. To say economists got us into this mess really should disqualify anyone from serious discourse, but what can I say, blame the economists all you want- those omnipotent men smoking cigars in the back room. It's a view of the world that isn't befitting a toddler.

2. David- I'd love to bet you on the issue of cap and trade so name your terms. You say economists make predictions that are no better than throwing darts- ok, so let's think of a series of potential future outcomes with respect to a number of environment issues (more than just cap and trade) and I'll use economic logic and you use a random number generator for your predictions. To make things interesting let's put some money on it? If you're game email me and we'll work out the terms and post them on Grist for everybody to see.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

willa...

good to see someone who eats animal products who can see through the illusions, rationalizations, and sheer nonsense that people utter in order to make them feel better about their choices. I have much more respect for some who acknowledges that animal products cause suffering but still insists on buying them than someone who pretends that it doesn't exist.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree....

good updates.

And branch out my friend- animal products are a crutch for the chefs who don't know any better- the world of plant food is so much deeper and more satisfying than the salt and fat of animal products that basically anyone can make taste good. This is not meant as a disrespect, but as a mildly provocative suggestion for all those who somehow think that animal-free cuisine is missing something.

Thanks again....

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Remember, with growing populations....

decreasing per capita emissions is not enough- we need reductions in absolute emissions.

Also, even if China reaches its ambitious solar goal it is literally a drop in the bucket with respect to total energy use- that ain't gonna do it.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb2 ...

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I don't think we need...

to be preached morals by the Catholic Church!!! And saying that pollution or genetic manipulation is a sin is ridiculous- burning wood at a boy scout camp is pollution and farmers have been practicing genetic manipulation for millennia- please, don't look to religion for answers to our problems, it creates even more....On Pollution is on Vatican's updated list of mortal sins posted 1 year, 8 months ago 9 Responses

Colin....

If oil is trading at over $100 a barrel in 2009 then I will start to re-examine my assumptions- until then, I will continue to find the peak-oil discussion  alarmist.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Jon....

I see no evidence for worldwide collapse even with the prospect of climate change, which is very real. I think there are serious issues that demand serious solutions, but I don't believe the sky is falling.

As to a world without oil, absolutely we should be thinking of that. But I think you mean a non-fossil fuel based economy because there is plenty of coal to last for centuries.

As to how to best make this transition, there are dozens of good ideas many of which are discussed on Grist. Many of them have a strong economic component, whether they be Pigouvian taxes or cap and trade systems.

I support all of those as well as renewable portfolio standards, massive R&D for alternative energy and efficiency, as well as potential geoengineering solutions.

I think we're on the same page except for perhaps our understanding of how dire is the current situation. High oil prices are bad- especially when the money is going to terrorists- but it's not doomsday.

In fact, the world economy is much less dependent on oil for GDP growth- so far we have record prices and world growth is chugging along. The mortgage and financial crises are MUCH GREATER problems than the price of oil if we're talking economic growth. In fact, if we hadn't had a housing bubble we could probably shrug off the high oil prices, and the dollar wouldn't have fallen so much- further compounding the problem.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I know I'll get grief for this but....

I still don't see a long-term trajectory in these prices- yes, the dollar's fall is contributing a lot to this, but much of the oil rise is speculative at this rate- and if it gets high enough to seriously choke economic growth that will lead to decreased oil demand- I've been wrong before but I'm still not yet ready to jump on the oil price mania just yet.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Angry African can we get a dollar for every....

time you repeat yourself? Or are you actually a spambot in disguise paid by the meat lobby?

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

For the record....

almost all top-tier economists are at the forefront of supporting full auctions for cap and trade systems.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

100s of reasons not to vote for McCain....

and this is near the bottom of the list.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

And don't forget....

that besides completely trashing the environment meat-eating often involves this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Been saying this for years...

but it's always good to see it again. If only people would reduce their animal consumption the world would be a MUCH better place and like David says, it's voluntary- it's not like driving a car to work, which for most is mandatory. And vegetarian food tastes much better too, which is the real rub.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I put in a post about this...

and now I know why it wasn't published.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as sustainable fishing on a commercial scale.

Buying a Big Mac is probably better for the environment than buying tuna.

Dems the facts.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Obama-Webb 08

get on board people- it's time for the 1st black president who will be the best environmental president of our generation.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Commercial fishing is simply ecocide...

plain and simple. Unless you're fishing with a rod and reel for a single fish at a time you're probably inflicting grave damage on the marine ecosystem. It's not that difficult. The hard part is that this means eating zero or very little seafood, which is the only solution.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

greenengineer....

since about 85% of the grain produced in the country is fed to animals and an increasing portion of the 15% used for fuel the idea that ending subsidies would lead to inadequate food supply is untenable.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Tom..I appreciate the response

And you make some good points. We probably agree more than we disagree. My bottom line, however, is that farmers simply don't deserve or need subsidies. If farmers can produce things that people want and make money doing it fine; if not, they shouldn't be in farming. I apply the same logic to my life so I walk the walk on this one.

There are good social and economic reasons for subsidizing things that have positive externalities- where the social benefit is greater than the private benefit (e.g. education). Agriculture simply doesn't fall into this category. When I go to the farmer's market (as I do every week) I pay for healthy food that supports local farmers and I get the benefit that I pay for. People who don't care about local food don't buy it and they probably don't pay much attention to agricultural issues. And in fact, farmers throughout most of California receive zero subsidies.

I can live with investments in basic R&D and quality control and regulatory efforts but that's all. New Zealand's example is not a 1-1 for U.S. policy, but the lesson is still instructive. I have faith that American farmers could be competitive and healthy without government help. Anything else is in my view essentially an insult to farmers, saying that they need government welfare in order to make a living- they really don't. One day we'll get there and we'll wonder why we wasted so much money for so long.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

yet another reason to go vegetarian

if there weren't enough already.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Sorry Farm Bill Girl..

that's not accurate. You and Tom are both wrong on this one. Check out the history of New Zealand's end to subsidies- it's exactly what Econ 1 predicts.

http://www.newfarm.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies ...On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

Great piece Ryan...

In plain language you show why the "buy local" focus is misguided.

I'd like to emphasize one additional point: if we don't buy things from poorer countries they will never be able to generate the foreign reserves to buy things like medicine, computers, refrigerators, etc. and they will be doomed to perpetual poverty. There is no way a small country could ever develop its own industries in all of these areas and without selling exports they are left in an underdeveloped capacity.

Keep up the good work....

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

No one took me up on my March bet...

which I would almost surely lose. See how many money the doom and gloom peak oilers stand to make!

We'll see, as I said I'm betting on strong economic growth and sustained prosperity- the fact that oil is so high and it's having so little effect on economic growth is what's encouraging me- also, Econ 1- as the price rises so does the incentive for substitutes and conservation.

Either I'm woefully naive or rightly confident that this will all work out. Until proven otherwise I'll settle for confident that the sky isn't going to fall.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Patrick....

make sure to vote in the next election, even from China. There will be one candidate who will do all of these things and another that will fight against them and give more tax cuts to the rich.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Excellent...

You and I agree more than you probably realize. So maybe we can flesh out what this would look like. What a farm policy based on free-market principles and anti-trust safeguards would actually mean. And then translate this into talking points for environmentalists and those interested in agricultural reform so that it maybe actually happens sometime in our lifetime.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

So a question for you Tom...

if you had your choice which would you prefer?

A. That these corporate agribusiness types were actually consistent with their free-market ideology and therefore eschewed most, if not all, government interventions in agriculture (except for insistence, environmental controls to make sure that the externalities are addressed)

or

B. That they were consistent with their desire to milk government in every way possible so as to maximize profits for their constituencies and they dropped the pretense of being free-market types

I think your answer will be instructive as to the direction environmentalists should pursue.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

While I agree....

that there are some elements of the Farm Bill that are ok, we'd be much better off if we scrapped the whole thing and used the money as a downpayment on universal healthcare or even S-CHIP.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Great piece...

and I think you hit on all of the key points. Also, glad to see you pushing the Obama plan.

The only quibble I have is that there are serious voices in the environmental movement who are still talking about sacrificing our material standard of living- Bill McKibben for example with books like Enough. And many articles in the Sierra Magazine play into the negative stereotype of anti-business and anti-markets that the right uses. While much of the environmental movement has moved beyond the doom and gloom and anti-economic growth rhetoric not everyone has.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Sean- thanks for the responses...

they seem reasonable to me. The point of the questions was to illustrate that in an imperfect, uncertain, and crazy world economic analysis is sometime the best tool we have, but like you say the bar is low.

Also, I agree that economists' point estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. We can't know virtually any future economic activity down to the dollar. But we can predict reasonable ranges and orders of magnitude, and I would argue that this is crucial and very useful. Economists might not be able to tell you exactly how much gas consumption will go down if we had a $1 a gallon gas tax, but they can present a reasonable range that is probably pretty accurate. I'll take that. And I wouldn't trust anybody else's guess that's for sure.

My point about Bernanke- who I think is doing an amazing job- is that just because he doesn't have a crystal ball doesn't mean that he doesn't have a very good sense of trying balance these very complicated forces that have such huge implications for us all. Maybe a PhD in economics is overrated, but not expertise in economics. We have people like Bernanke at the helm because this stuff is serious serious business and we want people with a profound understanding of economic forces to set things like interest rates. If Bernanke's salary was $100 million it would be a bargain.

Anyway, as to economists not being humble or admitting their imperfections, I don't know. I see a lot of hubris and arrogance in just about every profession, especially throughout the humanities and the rest of the social sciences. And a lot of it is spewed by people who don't have a clue about economics. But anyway, that's a secondary issue.

Thanks again.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Nice synopsis....

this is exactly why I have been supporting Obama from the start and working on his campaign. Let's make it happen people!!! It's time for a change, a real change....

http://www.barackobama.com/

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree 95%...

the only inaccuracy in this post is that economists believe that the market produces optimal outcomes. No they don't and they haven't for decades. In fact, all of the policy options that you discuss are the fruits of economists thinking about when and why markets fail and how to correctly align incentives, as you say. The "economists believe markets are perfect" is largely a strawman created by critics of economics, who really don't know much about the profession.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Let me be clear about a few things...

1. I have never claimed that prizes alone are sufficient or that the current small prizes are sufficient- neither is true- but the concept is much better than subsidies- I think that's non-controversial

2. As for conservatives not listening to market-based solutions that's not true- it is classical economists who created the entire theoretical framework for market failure and the ways to address it- and look at people like Gregory Mankiw who is calling for a carbon tax, or conservative economists at places like CATO or Heritage foundation that have been ripping agricultural and energy subsidies for many years.

3. In order to engage the right, you need a comprehensive argument and a solid understanding of economics is absolutely crucial to discussing intelligently virtually all policies discussed here at Grist- i.e. cap and trade (which comes from Ronald Coase's work, who by the way is a serious libertarian conservative economist) or taxes (which comes from Pigou, another classical economist). Is economics the whole answer? No, but it is a necessary condition, just not sufficient.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Jon...

I have no idea why you would suspect that I don't want government involvement in policy when that's what my job is- I teach environmental policy- and I have numerous posts on Grist about government policy- the good, the bad, and the ugly. I must say that your comment is utterly baffling.

What I object to is even indirectly equating Hitler and Stalin with global warming- it's silly, counter-productive, and cheapens the environmental movement. I'd be happy to discuss policy all day long, well maybe not all day, but you get the point.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Thanks for this...

just discussing cap and trade in class. Every economist since forever has pretty much been in favor of auctioning- it's the political issue that's tricky- we'll see if this time something can change. I'm not holding my breath. Hasn't happened in the EU scheme.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Prediction...

100 years from now when we look back and catalog the elements of most egregious environmental degradation of the 21st century industrial meat production and the ecocide taking place in the oceans will rank as #1 and #2.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Wow David....

you sound like an environmental economist. Good for you....and the environment.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Attention...

all peak-oilers, if you really think that the price of oil is about to skyrocket please email me and let's make a bet about it. We'll name our terms and announce the bet on Grist.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Oil is going to get more expensive!!

What an insight!

And someday there will be less in the ground? Another amazing fact.

Now can we get on with serious policy discussions.....

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

This is more ridiculous hype...

as one commenter noted, cage-free can mean thousands of hens in a dark factory floor crammed together. "Humane" animal products is 99% greenwashing. Sorry folks.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

True..

public funding of roads is a huge subsidy, but don't forget trains like AMTRAK that get a lot of money for very inefficient and poor service.

On a related note, I wonder how much driving would have to cost to get people to live in much different ways. Nominal gas prices have tripled in less than a decade and barely anything has changed. Americans love cars and are probably willing to pay quite a good deal to live away from dense cities and drive hours to work. I don't get it, but it persists.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Take a gourmet vegetatarian chef...

and match them against a meat and dairy chef and the vegetarian chef will wipe the doormat with the latter. Dairy is salt and fat, which is about as creative as a McDonald's logo, and meat is the easy way to get a hunk of salty protein without any skill whatsoever. Sorry, I ate top-notch meat and seafood for half my life and the culinary pleasures to be drawn from plants by an expert chef are so much more intricate and complex than animal food. There is no comparison.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Interesting

Galbraith makes some decent points, but count me as not persuaded. Government action is absolutely central to addressing climate change, but I don't think we have any idea about what the "right" technologies are going to be- if they even exist yet- and therefore planning is a bad idea. I think the best we can hope for is a serious cost on carbon enforced internationally coupled with lots of government funded R&D into all types of things plus some government mandates in areas where the benefits are clear. The political capital necessary for this is going to be tough enough to muster, but it's the best hope we got.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I second that...

a lot of people think fish is "healthy" - it's not really- you can get all the benefits without the heavy metals and marine destruction from plant foods.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I am spearheading a move...

at my institute to ban bottled water from all vending machines and institute functions. Let's make bottled water a thing of the past.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

JMG....

You've made your point and you're right. No matter what the technology eventually we will hit limits. But where you're wrong is that those limits need be soon. With major technological innovation, changing consumption patterns, and eventual leveling off of population growth we can push back the "limit" hundreds or likely thousands of years. That's good enough for me. If it's not for you, fine, worry about the year 3000 all you like. In the meantime, let's work on getting renewable technology online ASAP.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

A couple responses:

1. I'll wait and see about the prizes- I think they have huge potential, but notice that I put investment in basic science ahead of that.

2. As to sustainable growth, I am firmly on planet Earth. Yes, we can grow forever and not necessarily use more resources through technological innovation. Will we achieve that? I don't know, but trying to get there is what these past posts are about. Will we eventually need a new paradigm for consumption and how we organize economies? Very likely. But for now the 3/4 of the world that are poor are going to do everything in their power to become rich and enjoy all of the consumption that we do- that means cars, tv's, restaurants, electricity, computers. We can wish away the "materialism" and "over-consumption" of the West all we want but that isn't going to change a thing. And if you look at many types of pollution rich countries are now much cleaner than they were 50 years ago. Not with respect to CO2 emissions and overall energy use, which is what this discussion was focused on.
   

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

More detailed responses....

1. First off, what a great Grist interview with Barack- this guy displays a level of sophistication that is extremely rare- which is why I am a big supporter- he has to make compromises to special interests in Iowa right now but he gets it- I would trust him to make major policy changes. Anyway...

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/30/obama/index.htm ...

2. As for not being impressed with the X prize, fine, let's wait and see, but I think much bigger prizes could yield incredible things.

3. As far as price not being a sufficient incentive for innovation there is a lot of evidence that there is serious inertia and path dependency that is hard to overcome but I don't think there's a question that a high price for carbon that was steadily increasing and persistent would lead to major economic changes in the predicted direction.

4. As to regulatory reform, absolutely. Natural monopolies are notoriously tough to regulate even from a theoretical perspective because of conflicting incentives between consumers and the environment and the lack of competition. Also, with California's disastrous experiment with deregulation there is understandable caution on this front. But making it so that small producers have greater access and flexibility to the grid is key.

5. Economic growth need not come from increased resource use- it can come from new efficient renewable technology- which is what this post was essentially about.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Great comments....

Which I will get back to (except for JMG's who can't take a step back and realize that economics is not the enemy)- but real quick, here's another example of egregious government policy making things worse:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.ht ...

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Vegans are (fill in the blank)...

is ridiculous. The greatest triathalete is vegan, there are vegan boxers, vegan fat people, skinny people, pretty people, ugly people- i.e. all sorts of people- at least on Grist let's move beyond stereotypes, ok?

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

David- do the math!!!!!!

I have to keep repeating myself because people can't seem to multiply. Sorry.

And technology is affected largely by regulation- that was stated plainly in the last paragraph of the post- i.e. policy=regulation. You completely misread the post. You should pay more attention to the specifics of what I say if you want to critique them.

And finally, no, an emphasis on future technology does not only benefit entrenched powers. That is a completely ignorant statement. I'm amazed that you would believe that. Tell that to the Silicon Valley startups in renewable energy that will become dominant in the next decades.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Fine....

the semantics are not the issue. The issue is that large numbers of people getting on bikes is not enough. Or people doing X, whatever that is. That's the take home point. Without major improvements in technology lifestyle changes will fall way short of significantly curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

A few comments:

1. Improved efficiency is improved technology

2. I think many of you don't appreciate the scale of the problem- here's some numbers

• say our current level of greenhouse gas emissions is represented by 100

• scientists say we need to reduce it by 80%, which means down to 20

• based on nothing more than reasonable population and economic growth projections that 100 will probably be somewhere in the range of 5000-10000 by 2100 if we simply multiplied today's per capita consumption by the new numbers of people and their wealth

• this means that that 80% reduction from today is much much harder to achieve

• We DO NOT have the technology right now that could achieve this

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

X- prize is awesome, but too small

How about $5 billion for an AIDs vaccine or a car that gets 200mpg for under $25000- prizes I think will play a major role in future policy.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

We'll have to agree to disagree....

but keep in mind, I think many people let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It's fine to expect a lot from candidates and pay close attention to details- I applaud that- but don't be too quick to rush to judgment on one or two particular proposals, that's what I'm trying to say.

A President Obama, Edwards, or Clinton would likely do great things for the environment- let's work hard to get them in office- that should be the #1 priority right now I'm my view.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

I agree with David...

not a good post. This has absolutely nothing to do with veganism, but simply a couple's stupidity. Veganism is by and the large the healthiest diet on the planet and with the hundreds of millions suffering and dying from animal products every year, it is sad that vegan/vegetarianism now has another ridiculous strawman to contend with in the public consciousness. But the truth will eventually win. Always does, just takes time.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

I like it...

I would prefer the elimination of ALL natural resource subsidies- including all ag subsidies of any sort aside from public domain research, along with the elimination of water subsidies and energy subsidies- but this is a good first step- and what I prefer has zero chance of happening anytime soon.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

and a couple weeks ago

the pope said the secularists are the biggest threat to civilization- please, we don't need inspiration from religious extremists to make our case.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

As to animal welfare....

those posts represent about 10% of what I write about and given that reducing meat consumption would reduce CO2 emissions by 20% it is far from trivial. In fact, meat consumption is more serious than what type of car one drives and many other issues that environmentalists focus on.

Also, the immense torture of billions of sentient beings each yar for nothing more than our dinner plate is never trivial from a serious environmental ethic in my view, but again, we can agree to disagree.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

A quick scan of Grist mainpage articles...

1. Green cards

2. Green blue-jeans

3. Green consumption at Amazon

4. Are hybrids for men? from Esquire magazine

5. Earth Day TV

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Caniscandida....

thanks for the compliment- I am so glad to be considered religiously shallow- I will go a step further-I am religiously empty!!

Your notion that sin means "separation from god" proves my point precisely. Any notion that something like recycling separates people from god is beyond absurd on every level.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Gar, you are correct....

in fact, the majority of my posts on my own website:

http://voicesofreason.info

revolve around foreign policy, war, security, and human rights and rarely the environment

Check it out.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Mmika- sorry to offend you...

but yes, I do think that the concept of sin- that there is some supreme being judging as and dishing out rewards and punishments for our behavior is infantile- but just as I will always fight for my right to say that I will also fight for your right to believe whatever religion you want- I just don't think it's a useful or correct way to view the world, particularly with respect to environmentalism.

Shaming and sin as frames will always produce a backlash and muddy the issues. Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that moral principles should guide us but I don't think anyone is "bad" who drives a car a lot or turns on the air-conditioning. I reject this thinking entirely.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Gar- I think you simplify the issue...

If the price of carbon increases dramatically in the short-run large segments of society will be affected- this is not trivial.

Also, while I agree that income transfers from rich to poor should be part of the policy process to mitigate the regressive effects of climate change policy think of how difficult politically all of this is going to be.

Finally, I don't think a winning political strategy will be to take money from the military budget to help pay the Indians and Chinese to burn cleaner fuel.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

David- fair enough

Here are a couple articles- one from Grist- but I do need more info to back up my claim- more coming soon...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/23/121237/422

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_third.cfm?NewsID=348 ...

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

great post....

women's empowerment + prosperity= lower population

who can't agree with that?

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

great discussion

I'm glad that people here are decrying the lack of opportunity for developing country farmers in our developed country markets and not jumping on the "if it's not local so it's not 'sustainable'" bandwagon, which I heartily reject.

One slight point of disagreement- I don't think the organic standards are all that good or rigorous- the certification is relatively weak with no surprise visits and consistent testing of any sort- and the rules themselves allow for plenty of environmentally unfriendly practices- the rules for animal agriculture are particularly lax. This is from someone who buys 95% organic.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Very interesting comments...

1. I both agree and disagree with David's point that politicians follow public pressure- while this is true, it is also the mark of a great leader to convince and illustrate to the public why certain issues are important- with respect to the environment we should demand that our national leaders understand the key issues, articulate them, craft effective policies, and be good at making the case why the rest of us should care- I don't see much of that.

2. Education is definitely key- the word environmentalist didn't really exist 40 years ago and now it's as common as any- education creates the groundswell that politicians can't ignore- which is why Grist is important

3. As to the demand side, I agree that our collective purchasing power can have big impacts, but like I said in the piece, what a single president can do with a sign of the pen is more than millions of us can do collectively because the global economy is so big and America's influence so vast

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Yes, this is a huge deal...

what I can't figure out is how the 4 "conservative" Justices ruled as they did. Roberts has been talking a lot about wanting to forge large majorities and how 5-4 rulings undermine the Court. It's one thing for the Chief Justice to be in the 5 in these close rulings, but it looks really bad to be in the 4. And this case didn't mandate any specific action or even that we need to regulate CO2- it only said that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 because, duh, climate change may actually affect the United States. Maybe some legal scholars can fill me in on why they choose to vote against this- it seems bizarre to me.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

This will probably do more...

to reduce meat eating than any talk about the environment!

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Finally Tom!!!

You hit the nail on the head. I share your frustration as my favorite- Barack- has gotten suckered into the ethanol madness and the Dems are probably even worse than the Republicans on this one.

The solution? A carbon tax or cap would address this because it would raise all of the inputs into corn production and make corn ethanol uneconomic- this is why we must address the roots of the problem- everything else has too many loose ends.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

By the way....

I am an environmentalist. I always preface my critiques with words like "some" or "many"- and Grist contains many examples that bolster this statement. I stand by all of my critiques.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

I agree that economists sometimes..

do not take long-term costs into account, but this problem is something the entire human race is guilty of, not just economists.

Also, what bothers me about many environmentalists is that they are often so eager to find the "magic pill" that they endorse solutions without thinking them through- we see this just about everywhere. And they are very eager to tell everywhere to follow along and they want to enact new laws right away mandating their perceived solutions.

Bottom line: complex problems require complex solutions, and we all would benefit from a little more humility.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

GreenEngineer

Not quite- while our empathy and morality is the most advanced other animals do show signs of caring about other animals- we don't have a monopoly on that trait.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

very good article

I think the key is that the premiums are in the processed food and unfortunately the meat and dairy, which have the weakest organic requirements. There is also no doubt that the imports, most of which are likely not truly organic, are cutting into market share. Another issue is risk- farmers may take a small hit during the transition and many are not willing to do this especially if they are unsure of how the market will develop.

Solution?

Focus on the core of the problem- the ag subsidies, the energy subsidies, the water subsidies, and tax ag pollution- this is a long-time fix, but the only one that will lead to long-term transitions to more sustainable agriculture.

J.S.On If organic food is so popular, why are so few farms transitioning their land? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses

One small pet peeve....

can we all agree to drop any rhetoric akin to "save the world" or "save the planet"? The world and the planet can shrug us off like a mosquito and will be fine. Even a nuclear holocaust or global warming or an asteroid would only result in a temporary blip in the world's progress towards new life forms. What we're trying to do is save ourselves and the ecosystems that we rely on. We also want to save wildlife and plants but we certainly are not saving the planet.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

SMLowry...

maybe these words from Gandhi will cheer you up:

1. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

2. When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

jabailo....you have it completely backwards

increased demand leads to increased price, not lower price, but aside from that, the fast food market is so distorted due to ag subsidies that it's a moot point trying to look at the issue one dimensionally anyway. fruits and veggies have no subsidies and with rising energy and land costs it's no surprise that prices have risen- also, demand HAS rose along with it.

My one quibble with the thrust of the article is the view that somehow poor people are so poor that they have no choice but to buy junk food. In some cases that's true, but I know plenty of not so poor people who eat little but junk and there are plenty of lower income people that have money for cellphones, cars, big tvs, and new sneakers so don't forget that they have choices and chose priorities too.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

These are very serious proposals...

though I don't quite get the need to throw in the lightbulbs issue- kind of detracts from the whole thing- but impressive nonetheless. Very close to what the best and brightest economists have suggested on the policy side, although economists tend not to favor immediate moratoriums- but that's not a huge detail. I think David is right- how can you wage a presidential campaign on something this sensible? Never been done before to my knowledge.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

sunflower....

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/20/215759/627

you're thinking ahead

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

caniscandida....

I agree with you in some sense, but like the discussions last year demonstrated, once you start bringing animals and wildlife into the discussion in anything other than "save endangered species" environmentalists can't agree- and in fact, they can't agree on the best ways to even save those species that are threatened. It will probably take another couple of generations until we experience the paradigm shift necessary to radically alter humans attitudes and behaviors to animals- it's going to happen, but we're still a way off. You're ahead of the curve.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Obama's recent comments on the environment....

He outlined his environmental platform, saying he is a chief sponsor, along with U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., of a "cap and trade" bill that would allow polluters to sell and trade credits for reducing emissions, spurring more climate protection by industry. Obama said he also supports higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, increased production of various types of ethanol, and "sequestration" of the carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants, an emerging, as yet unproven, technology.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/19/obama_offers_change ...

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

That's true...

it's part politics, part the environment not being taken seriously, and part the general field not having many alternatives. He can do a lot better-I'm trying to help him!!!

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

People who wouldn't vote for a black man

with Hussein as his middle name wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. On the positive side I am hearing stories from all over the country about Republicans who have never voted for a Democrat in their life who say that they would support Obama.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

I agree, but...

isn't what people like Gore are doing exactly what you are advocating? And he just got an Oscar and has done more to raise awareness about climate change than all scientists combined.

May I suggest that what we need is our politicians, the ones who actually are in power and control the votes, to use more moral language when discussing the environment. That's what I want to see more of.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

Nucbuddy

your point demonstrates why big business is going to get behind universal health care, eventually.

Also, although US car companies do have high health care costs, which makes them less competitive, it doesn't explain why the cars suck and get terrible mileage.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

You're right, language is important...

a more accurate description of using animals for food would be:

1. For those we force to make the ultimate sacrifice...

or if we want to cut right to the chase..

2. For the animals we kill to satisfy our taste for their flesh...

Euphemisms are the enemy of reason and transparency.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

This will only matter if it effects politics....

because dealing with the major environmental issues requires new national leadership. I am open to the possibility of this movement being influential, but until large segments of the evangelical community are willing to openly support and vote for Democrats based on a broader and more comprehensive notion of life it will be mostly a talking point and not a major force.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

This seems sensible...

1. The poor people of the world are not going to be denied material prosperity and unless we help them build economic livelihood we can kiss the remaining habitats goodbye- it's why sustainable development has the word "development" in it

2. Environmental education is huge- 35 years ago the word environmentalist didn't exist and the word biodiversity has only become part of our lexicon much more recently- with environmental education comes empathy, which is in my view the most noble and potentially revolutionary of human traits

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

On second reading (it's spring break)...

this article is deeply disturbing- just substitute "the man" for the "system" and it gets even weirder. I totally reject the perception that somehow the entire economic and social system is corrupt and the enlightenment is dooming us to half-measures. Please, no more uptopian fantasies of a "new way"- the 20th century saw enough of that.

And carbon taxes and trading schemes are the best way to combat climate change. If the author thinks we've been failing at getting our message out so far imagine what it would be if we start telling people that the whole "system" needs to be scrapped. That would doom environmentalism to permanent marginal status, at just the time we're making some progress.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

David- you've convinced me....

Unlike other Grist members, I don't purport to be able to read minds so I can't know whether Broad was out to get Gore or whether this is simply a guy trying to get a story and being sloppy. Either way, you should write a letter to the editor of the NYT- I bet they would publish it.

Also, it would be nice to see an article written by members of the environmental community on the uncertainties surrounding climate change in a very forthright and transparent way as a counter-balance to what is this real and/or perceived bias. I don't know enough about the science, but I'm sure that someone here does.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

It wasn't me this time!!!

But seriously, I think the media is doing a big disservice here- there's a big opportunity here for some serious discussion about energy use in wealthy countries-- that I failed miserably to initiate myself-- but I think there's still an opportunity out there for someone to examine this issue in a serious and dispassionate way. Maybe that's expecting too much. I'm not going to try again...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info. He is a proud liberal in the true sense of the term.

There are many cheeses with vegetable rennet...

All "real food" stores should have them.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Robert...

your desire to smear and personalize everything really isn't what this site is about- at least the last time I checked. I wonder if it's even a good idea to respond to you since it only legitimizes your continual baiting- I'm a neocon now because I pointed out that Gore (whom I voted for) uses a lot of energy? Are you smoking something?

Above I was making the exact point that I am as guilty as anyone of using lots of resources- try to read the threads okay? It's the least you can do. And yes, yours and I personal lifestyles have a carbon footprint that's huge, which is why I don't think throwing stones is a good strategy. If we went point by point I almost sure that my footprint would be smaller than yours, but there's no need to go there- it's stupid. I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever. Trust me on that. And to insinuate that environmental economics is somehow a negative, places you in a fringe so far out there that I fear you may never come back down to Earth.

Anyway, my earlier piece on "An Opportunity For Reflection" was meant to be just that- to wonder how we've gotten ourselves into the situation where we are all so dependent on cheap energy and all of our footprints are so huge. I'll keep working on solutions to this and you can keep doing whatever you feel is best, but I will no longer partake in a tit-for-tat over such ridiculous nonsense- it's such a brain drain and waste of time. Feel free to trash me as much as you want if that's what gets you off. Best to you.

J.S.

P.S. David- if you want to defend Gore's carbon footprint go for it- I fully admit that I had some of the facts wrong, most definitely, but the BIG fact- that he uses huge quantities of energy for his personal life- orders of magnitude more than most rich Americans- is simply not debatable.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Repeating lies?

Classic.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Actually, most of the facts are true

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

What's so mind-boggling to me...

and probably deserves it's own post is that if we simply raised CAFE standards to reasonable levels we could save money, have cleaner air, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the benefits would be orders of magnitude greater than what biofuels promise- but we spend day after day debating the merits of corn v. sugar v. reused oil-- all of which should in a rational world be a sideshow- a second-best option that is largely unnecessary- it goes to show how we can't break out of the supply-side management paradigm and how we are wedded to the current framing- energy conservation simply isn't sexy and doesn't win over special-interest groups. I'm not blaming anyone for this, but it must be stopped. With a Democratic congress maybe the time is right. To be continued....

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Excellent points....

I don't have much to add, except to say that let's keep this on the radar screen. It's so crucial and yet doesn't get enough attention.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

GreenEngineer- great question

I think the answer has many components- let me take a shot at a more complete answer:

1. Classic problem of political economy- the costs of perverse subsidies are diffuse and yet the benefits are very concentrated to the people who gain- this makes them put a lot of effort into maintaining the subsidies while the environmentalists are not nearly as centralized and mobilized

2. Many of the subsidies are concentrated in rural areas that are disproportionately represented electorally (particularly in the Senate) which makes them very tricky politically

3. Many environmentalists are not very educated about the effects of subsidies (hence this post)- e.g. there is still this romantic misperception that subsidies for fisherman actually help fisherman (which they may in the short-run, but not the long-run) or small farmers. Also, I think the aversion to economics among much of the environmental community explains a lot since to really talk intelligently about them you need to be economically literate, which most people are not (due to a variety of additional factors).

4. Because many environmentalists WANT to subsidize "green" products and production they feel that they have to accept some "bad" subsidies in order to get the "good" ones they want- instead of fighting to eradicate subsidies in the first place- this is most common in energy and agriculture where environmentalists tend to want to get a share of the subsidy pie instead of arguing against them.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Those are good questions sunflower....

I'll leave them to you to explore.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Man, I love Grist!!

One day I'm a tree-hugging animal rights extremist and the next a rightwing hack. I never knew I was such a master of disguise. The comments here sometimes do more to brighten my day than anything. I truly appreciate it. Thanks so much. I mean it.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

The point was not the zinc mine at all...

it was that it was from a company with a terrible environmental record- that would be a big deal in my book if it were true but I guess it's not.

It seems that this issue is largely spurious so thanks for the info. Like I said, I believe most personal choices are overrated in terms of their environmental impacts and I don't subscribe to the "I'm a better environmentalist than you" credo, but I do think our leaders should be held to higher standards. That is important to me. Seems like Gore isn't doing so poorly after all.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I admit that I am not schooled...

in the full diversity of opinions on Peak Oil, but without a catastrophic vision it's pretty much boiler-plate economic analysis- prices rise, substitutes come on line, change comes, economies shift, etc. etc.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

People who want to bet me email me....

I'll check the web sites mentioned to place a few of my own bets- thanks for the tip.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Like all good economists....

I propose a bet with any of the Peak Oilers- you name your scenario and let's put down some wagers on it. I'll start:

I think in real terms the price of oil (measured by average price over the year) will not be greater than $65 a barrel during any year over the next 5 years (unless there is another major war in the Middle East).

Takers?

By the way, saying that oil prices are going to rise or that oil exploration is going to get more expensive over time is like saying the sun rises in the East- so what? The economy can and will handle that. What Peak Oil predicts is catastrophe- rapid increases in prices- and I will put my money on the fact that that is wrong.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

This is Grist at its best

good comments, nothing personal, lots of information, and rational discourse.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Classic.....thanks

As for rightwing publication recommendations that's tough- a lot of it is really really hard to get through- I just bookmark all of them and peruse them weekly. Sorry to not have something definite, but with respect to other sources I would recommend reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman if you want to understand the source of conservative thinking about economics- part of it will make you shake your head, other parts you'll agree with, and overall you'll realize it's worth engaging- it's not voodoo economics, but a serious body of philosophy and discourse. It's also a quick easy read. A classic.

Also, I'd also highly recommend reading this speech by RFK that's posted at the Sierra Club

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rf ...
It gets at the heart of what I'm talking about overall with respect to market distortions and the environment.

Finally, for any of those interested, I'm supporting Barack Obama for president and I've never voted for a Republican for national office, although I would if they adhered to true conservative principles, not this theocon belligerent nonsense that passes for "conservative" these days.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Here's the link:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070305&s=editorial03 ...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Last point....

this article does not make the case libertarianism- that's NOT the point. Well-functioning markets are not synonomous with libertarianism.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Great comments....

I certainly don't criticize all efforts to combat global warming since I'm actually involved in many of those efforts. I just think sometimes environmentalists should shift a little towards the needs of the present, that's all.

Also, I know since I'm an economist this will sound self-serving, but I think economists on the whole earn their keep and provide society with way more value than their salaries. Anyone who doubts this should spend a year or two in a mismanaged economy. In addition, if we don't have well-trained economist we can pretty much kiss all environmental solutions goodbye because sound economic analysis is central, especially to climate change. In fact, climate change policy is almost 100% about changing economic incentives. Environmentalists should be clamoring for more economics, not less.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Gar...

Since this piece is obviously a lightly veiled critique of my recent piece I will respond.

First off, I don't get it. You point out how irrational the world is and then you want to blame people for trying to be more rational!! Huh?

So I'm a narcissist because I want to use want the creative energy and resources I have to actually do the most good? Again, can you explain how that's bad?

As a policy analyst I am aghast at how much waste there is and how many serious problems go under-funded while others are rat holes that eat up billions. I would think that environmentalists would applaud efforts to change this, but instead people like me are told that we're elitist or condescending because climate change is not the only thing we care about.

So if I don't jump on every bandwagon here at Grist I'm somehow not genuine and just fooling myself?

What can I say? I'm completely baffled.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Sorry wren7

Suggesting that a plague would be "good" for the world is not within the bounds of reason. You may be well intentioned and even joking but come on, it's not constructive in the slightest. Sorry if my response was harsh, but that type of rhetoric really gets to me.

Peace,
J

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

By the way....

An open invitation:

Anyone who wants to debate me on any of these topics get in touch. I could put together a really nice forum with lots of graduates students and faculty and I think it would be productive. Blogs are nice, but they are a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction and as evidenced here can easily degenerate into accusations and name-calling instead of substance.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David...

Your sarcasm is not really appreciated, but it's a perfect illustration of the smugness of many environmentalists who when confronted with serious ethical issues would prefer to trivialize them. I'm saddened but not surprised.

Anyway, what can I say?

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Yeah....

during the 1990s oil was at its lowest price and the SUV craze took off and Gore did what for fuel-economy standards? I hear the crickets now. But wait, he's the savior don't you know? How dare I rain on the parade.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

wiscidea

great points- a few responses:

1. I believe that at the heart of environmentalism is sustainable development- I think many environmentalists have focused too much on the sustainable side and not enough on the development side- you're right that it's not an either/or but perhaps a rebalancing.

2. I think while environmentalists rightly draw attention to log-term problems sometimes I think this comes at the expense of short-term realities where people are suffering in the here and now, not in some theoretical future. This is the essential tension in sustainability- if you care about people 100 years from now shouldn't you care at least equally about those alive today?

3. I don't understand an environmentalism that thinks of humans as separate. In combination with point #1, I think extreme poverty is the worst form of pollution.

4. I once suggested a forum on the meaning of environmentalism. It was at the height of the animal welfare debate so Dave Roberts didn't think more philosophical debates were in order. Since that was a while ago maybe it wouldn't be a bad time to rethink introducing the topic. I think it is absolutely crucial. I am not of the "environmentalism is dead" school, but I think environmentalism has suffered from an identity crisis for a long time. Some discussion on the topic I think would be valuable.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

By the way, showing that CC

may increase disease vectors does not disprove my point. I am not saying that CC has no effects on human welfare. I am making claims about priorities. I stand by the fact that there are many more pressing needs than CC and that those should be addressed first if a choice has to be made, and are a better source of charitable giving.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Yeah, I think you are correct....

I am worried a lot more about the state of the developing nation NOW than what may happen in 50 years, when most of these people will be dead.

My point with respect to diseases is that the current economic structure funnels more money into aesthetic cures and impotency drugs than on curing diseases that afflict poor people- there is no CC policy I have ever seen that would change this dynamic and if resources are finite I think environmentalists should focus more on immediate human suffering that exists right now- but we can disagree.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Luarance...

you make good points, but I must admit that I am not convinced that climate change's impacts are so all-encompassing that they naturally include the other issues I'm talking about.

For example, even if we massively reduced CO2 that will do nothing to shift R&D into poor people's diseases instead of baldness cures and Viagra. It will do next to nothing to improve drinking water for the poorest of the poor.

The point being, that I think that addressing these issues is a GREATER priority than addressing climate change right now. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but I think it is not realistic to assume that addressing CC by default touches on these other very serious issues.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Listening to celebrities on key

global challenges is about as helpful as using an Oscar's list to determine good movies.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I largely agree...

the key here is the concentration and anti-competitive practices right now in agribusiness- Mexico suffers under many of the worst monopolies in the world. The solution: anti-trust policy in Mexico.

J.S.On How Archer Daniels Midland cashes in on Mexico's tortilla woes posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

The point is that there are good and bad subsidies

In fact, there is a whole literature devoted to telling the difference between the two. There are some things, for example public goods, that require and benefit from subsidies- think environmental quality and national defense- and some that are indefensible- try oil and gas subsidies and 90% of agricultural subsidies.

We need good rationales for distinguishing between what are good and bad subsidies and economics is the only discipline that has a coherent, defensible, and scientific basis for this undertaking.

I think I'll have to write a post on this when some time frees up. In the meantime, check out this article on "perverse subsidies", which are the worst of the worst.

http://www.brocku.ca/envi/db/envi1p90/readings/Perverse%2 ...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Valuation in some sense is circular...

and we cannot escape anthropomorphism. I think it is wrong to kill and abuse animals because they have a right to be free from such abuse at human hands- i.e. basic welfare protections- but if my view prevailed (which it will eventually) this would come about because enough people DECIDED that non-humans have value- so in some way we're in a catch-22.

That being said, if we created a system where our actions towards the non-human world were more restricted that would in effect be a true recognition that they have intrinsic value that we can't exploit. I accept that economics has a very hard time with this, which is why my value system is not bounded by utilitarianism.

My point that in decision-making the environment typically has a default value of zero is not a knock against economics at all- it is a knock against politics and human ignorance- economists have been trying for decades to get society to recognize environmental values in tangible ways.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Amtrak should definitely be defunded....

it is one of the most colossal wastes of money. I think you could buy everyone who uses it a new hybrid given how inefficient it is.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I have consistently campiagned...

against ALL subsidies and will continue to do so.

As to air pollution ratings on my 1988 Volvo all I am going by is the recent results of my CA smog test, in which my car places in the bottom 10% for emissions in CA, but possibly new cars are cleaner on some dimensions not measured by the smog check.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

My 1988 volvo

has such low emissions that they are almost off the chart- well-maintained solid cars (i.e. not U.S-made cars) have very low pollutants. It's a myth that you need to buy new models to reduce pollution.

Also, the idea that me and millions of others should pay thousands of dollars each out of our own pockets to subsidize hybrids so that later on they will be better doesn't make sense.

It would do much more good to save the money and use it for a host of other things like helping AIDs patients or conserving habitat- and yes, I do this with my money, it's not just theoretrical.

Let's get carbon priced correctly and the market will provide all of the necessary incentives.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

yes, good discussion

a couple quick points:

1. definitely the weakness of the tax is that it doesn't guarantee a precise reduction in CO2, but as Nordhaus points out, the cap and trade really doesn't either because of the leakage and difficulty with monitoring and enforcement

2. a tax works on exactly the same varied market incentives that a cap and trade would, but it has the benefit of not falling prey to "grandfathering" which is highly likely with CO2 permits- the tax is set and all actors are immediately affected- also, like permits, they can be phases in over time

3. yes, a carbon tax would have to be high and that would be politically difficult but again, if paired with major tax DECREASES for the middle class it could work. also, a tough cap and trade would dramatically raise the price of CO2 and have the same effect as a tax anyway, which is why almost all of the proposals have "escape valves" that weaken the system from the start

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Cap and trade does not have to be a subsidy.

it can be if the government gives out the permits but not if it auctions them. Then it acts almost like a tax. BUT, there are still good reasons to favor the tax that have to do with implementation, enforcement, uncertainty, and saliency. Check the Nordhaus paper for details.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

forget this ready or not nonsense....

please, and while you're at it drop "electability" and other useless crap. let's work hard for the best candidates and move on- it's the 21st century. right now obama is my choice and i think he will be an amazing president to usher in a new era of progressive government. anyone not "ready" for a black man to run the country is a racist and should be called one. don't buy into the rightwing framing. fight hard for your values against the onslaught of ignorance, stupidity, and mediocrity that will try to drag them down.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

great comments...

of course this is not meant to be a joke, but IS. The problem is that in many quarters environmentalists are perceived this way, and as someone who works daily on environmental issues these paternalistic and elitist attitudes sometimes DO surface.

The solution? Difficult question.

I tell my classes all the time that any environmentalism that doesn't make room for 6 billion middle class consumers is simply a non-starter because the poor of the world, who have been sitting on the sidelines watching us consume for decades, are not going to be denied, period.

So some combination of technology transfer, green consumerism, international standards, and leading by example is what I think we need to do. We definitely cannot tell people that they can't industrialize. Just this week China made it clear that Western countries must take the first step on carbon dioxide reductions because the Chinese will not sacrifice their economic development for climate change (even if it may be in their long-term interest). Until we realize that the burden right now is on Us not Them we are going to lose.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Excellent....

reducing industrial meat consumption (this includes  fish as well) is the single greatest thing anyone can do in their personal life to benefit the environment- it is orders of magnitude greater than just about all of the second best options.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

It's a free country....

everyone who wants to run should and if people are dumb enough to vote for idiots then it's their fault plus ours that we didn't turn out more for reasonable candidates- it's called democracy folks.....that gore didn't win by a nader-proof majority was his fault, sorry.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Again, knee-jerk solutions

produce terrible outcomes, just like is happening with corn ethanol in the U.S. And it is worth repeating- until we incorporate the full environmental costs into our actions we will get madness like this- economics is at the heart of the problem and solution.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Some suggestions:

1. Definitely Earth Balance margarine- the whipped version is best

2. The Goddess dressing is my favorite- Annie's has lots of other great flavors

3. In terms of milk substitutes, hemp and oat milks are also great- different tastes but worth a try- also, soy milks that have kombu in them are supposed to be better for people who have a hard time digesting soy

4. Sunshine burgers are great for people who don't like fake meat as much- they are pure vegetable

5. As to desserts- all of the rice cream bars covered in chocolate are excellent- not the pints- I had Dominican kids who eat nothing but meat and dairy loving those things and not knowing they were made of rice

6. As to deserts, Dave, since you're in the Bay Area Black China bakery stuff, which you can get at Whole Foods is the best, people who are not vegan think that their vegan chocolate cake is better than with dairy

7. Not many good cheese substitutes, but nutritional yeast is amazing and has an almost parmesan flavor- if you make vegan pizza with sundried tomatoes, olive oil, sauce, and nutritional yeast it's the best- you can put this on rice and beans, pasta, everything- it's pure vitamins, minerals, protein, and B-12- amazing stuff- everyone should have a jar off it in the kitchen- the large flakes are the best

8. For making breaded cutlets use egg replacer as a coagulant- works perfectly- vegan eggplant cutlets are amazing

To be continued...

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Let me just say that I am very glad...

that Grist has taken the issue of factory-farming and meat production seriously- it is probably the single most important environmental issue in one respect: its huge impacts plus how relatively easy it is to solve- there are other things that may be more important ultimately but the solutions are much more complicated. This is one is easy; eat less meat. Even a carnivore can do that.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Will....

a diet of coca-cola and skittles is vegan- of course, plant-based doesn't mean healthy and anyone who suggests it is out of their mind. There are meat eaters who eat healthier than vegetarians. But so what? If anything, it's the environmental effects that are the most relevant to Grist and on that dimension there is no comparison.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Ron- again, excellent comments...

you should write an article for Grist.

And Patrick- please don't assume that because I don't dedicate pages of text to something doesn't mean I don't care about it. This is a blog after all and there are A LOT of problems in the world. If you really want to help farm workers then you want to promote economic development; it has the greatest track record for expanding opportunities and getting people out of back-breaking labor.

J.S.On Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look posted 2 years, 10 months ago 42 Responses

Tom..until you

come out either in favor of production subsidies or not it's impossible to tell where you really stand- maybe my position isn't perfectly clear- blog entries rarely are- but it's pretty straight-forward, transition away from all production subsidies and work on universal social safety nets for EVERYONE- and let agriculture exist within a system of regulation but largely a free market.

And Patrick- can you tell me any point in history when farm laborers have faired well? And by the way, they are doing a hell of lot better than they were in Mexico- that's why they risk so much to come here.

J.S.On Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look posted 2 years, 10 months ago 42 Responses

And don't forget Mooshoes

http://www.mooshoes.com/products.cgi?rm=list&manufact...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

They fare so poorly....

because of the agricultural subsidy program which leads to land capitalization and corporate concentration- I think it is a very paternalistic and sad view to believe that in the 21st century America's farmers, the top in the world, need welfare payments.

J.S.On Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look posted 2 years, 10 months ago 42 Responses

Check out this article

http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?sto...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

The WTO analysis has been done...

there are many papers on this from international orgs and academics- just google around and you'll get a bunch.On Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look posted 2 years, 10 months ago 42 Responses

and remember....

many environmentalists are calling for massive biofuels subsidies- it's better to burn oil and coal than to destroy pristine forest for biofuel- it's insanity- but expect a lot of it in the next Farm Bill- and unfortunately, many Grist members to favor such a misguided policy

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Wow....

if we can't help provide alternative forms of economic development for the people of the world they WILL destroy the wildlife, it's that simple.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Yup, farms and biofuels are

definitely natural resources and they should get NO subsidies- BUT, I realize that's not going to happen  even though we need to start from that position. If we do, the compromise can be a huge improvement because there are bad subsidies and really bad subsidies, with the majority falling in the latter.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Like I say, it's a free country....

and I'm thankful for that. That I choose to continue to point out what I see as an internal contradiction of the environmental movement is my perogative. It amounts to a comment or so every couple of weeks, which seems reasonable to me. Sorry if it bothers you. Too bad.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

As much as I think the FT piece...

is condescending and belittles the very real, practical, and rational work that environmentalists do there is no doubt a grain of truth to their underlyin claim. I like to say that the far left environmentalists and the far right christians are two sides of the same coin in many ways- they both crave a prior utopia of traditional values that is pre-industrial, simple, and anti-capitalist. This is true. One only needs to read some of the Gristmill comments to see that this strand is alive and well. But it is just one strand and overall the environmental movement is full of mature people who get the big picture.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

For the record...

I agree with 99% of the whole article- it's truly a great summary of things that need to be said and done.

I buy 95% organic, don't eat animal products, use about as little energy as anyone I know, live a pretty minimialist lifestyle, but still agree with this article- the serious changes require a lot more than lifestyle changes, although I am a big advocate of these, especially moving away from animal products since these have the most immediate and devastating environmental impacts.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

GMB...

are you trying to suggest that the findings of the IPCC are bunk? That you don't believe there is a warming trend? That you don't think we have something to do with it?

For the record, I'm not a climate change alarmist, I don't think the world is going to end, I don't think climate change is going to be the worst thing we have ever faced, but I do think it's real and needs to be addressed and I think the evidence is pretty strong- not definitive- but within the realm where we should act.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Saddam did no wrong?????!!!

That is one of the most obscene statements I have seen in a while (and that's saying something)- one can still see Saddam as the genocidal madman that he was and oppose this war and the kagaroo trial and execution- but please, saying he did what was "necessary" is astonishingly racist, cruel, and I don't think what you really meant.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Not to play spoiler...

but a few examples of extreme weather events doesn't mean very much of anything. I too believe global warming is a serious problem but it is exactly the type of unscientific- oh my god, we are having no snow this winter or oh my god record snow this winter- that makes environmentalists lose credibility. Stick to the facts, you don't need anything more than that- and you need trends to make a case, not single data points- please....

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Funny....

how when someone criticizes a Democratic candidate they are "insane" or on a "privileged" perch- can we please stick to the topics and not call each other names- I thought junior high school was over a long time ago and if you all hate the insipid DC Press Corps than let's have higher standards.

Onto the ACTUAL ISSUES:

1. I like Edwards personally a lot- I voted for him and Kerry and 04 and I think he would probably make a fine president overall- but I don't think he's the best person for the job- for the reasons I outlined- I think his priorities are wrong and he doesn't understand foreign policy well, which I kind of somehow think is important in the world- crazy right? All those nukes and wars and terrorists and stuff....

2. Yes, the Press Corps sucks, but so what? If you're running for president of the US you better be ready to handle every piece of garbage these people send you and be able to twist it around to make your points and make the press look like the idiots they are- see, the American people aren't dumb, so if you can get your message through to them, and it's sensible you'll be successful

3. As to why I don't think poverty should be the #1 issue here's why:

• We have declared wars on poverty before and it's not something people believe the government can eradicate
  
• I don't think the "2 Americas" theme is good because Americans like someone who talks about our commonalities, not our differences
  
• Most poor people don't vote so politically this is not a great strategy
  
• The best anti-poverty programs would be universal health care and an increase in the earned-income tax credit, which all Dems support anyway (yes David- both Hilary and Obama are on record supporting universal health care already)

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Nobody above...

was criticizing John Edwards' excellent work as a trial lawyer so please drop the straw man. What we were discussing was his newfound focus on poverty, which is exactly that- new- protecing people who have been screwed by corporations is great, but it's not an anti-poverty program and he never did do any work for people when he didn't have the chance of making millions. I'm a capitalist and have no problem with that, but it just makes me questions this new mission he's found, which by the way, I think is NOT the biggest problem facing America and like I said, I don't think his platform overall is very impressive. So please, keep things in perspective. You want to vote for Edwards go for it- we could do a lot worse- but we could also do a lot better.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

good point...

but i don't think he did any of this where he didn't have the potential of making large sums- anyway, it's a side issue- the fact is, he's not the best person for the job

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

If you don't like, don't read it

It's a free country last time I checked. You can do your thing and I'll do mine. Happy new year!

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

But remember everyone...

"environmentalists" aren't supposed to care about animal welfare- it's a "separate" issue for those "animal rights" people- this is an "environmental" forum.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I never said people give up meat...

I said get rid of the industrial agricultural system. And by the way, none of these solutions have a high probability, but that's not the point. This is a long-term issue, and band-aids are not worth the effort in my view- if anything, they will just extend the life of a bad system.

You're right, getting rid of ag subsidies, water subsidies, taxing carbon, etc. are going to take a long time, but if we don't even have our eye on the ball we will never get there. The world isn't on the verge of collapse so I'd prefer to work on real solutions than "fixes" that really don't do anything.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Pets, I won't go there....

and I'm not into framing issues as "true" environmentalists..that starts getting into dangerous territory. I think it's enough to set some basic goals and standards and measure ourselves accordingly, but let's try to refrain from the "in" and "out" group mentality- even if we all are guilty of it sometimes.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

For the record...

I have written numerous posts on the connection between environmental degradation and meat-production. The animal welfare issues are yet an added layer, which in my view, makes it clear that environmentalists should do their best to reduce meat consumption, and certainly not support factory farming in any way.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Monopolies are not corrupt...

they are ineffcient- and as a laid out in this piece the story is more complicated than you suggest:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/25/101437/786

Also, we have relatively strong anti-trust laws in both the U.S. and the EU but they are largely inconsequential in many agricultural markets because of so much competition. There is some growing monopsony power with big retail buyers for sure, but those are actually hugely beneficial to consumers.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree...

I have pointed out the absurdity of big=bad, small=good for decades- it still plagues environmentalists- I just want what works, the scale is simply a non-issue to me. To the extent that there are significant bottleknecks, economies of scale, or positive externalities that are preventing optimum investment by private companies in largescale projects, then let us deal with them-and let us pour a lot of money into basic R&D and the like- what I do not think is a good idea is the government choosing one or two winners and then pouring gazillions into those- we see this already with biofuels, which should give everyone pause about the government jumping on any specific technology bandwagon. This is different from the government backing a general overall objective, which i am all for.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

erin...

so you're saying that we can't preserve ecosystems for any values except extractive? who says that we couldn't block mining operations even if there wasn't a major fishery with fish we ate? there are large ecosyystem effects and non-use values- i care about rivers and streams and am willing to pay for their protection even though i don't eat fish and so do many others

j.s.On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

I don't disagree...BUT....

how do you think that fish in Alaska gets to your plate in the continental 48? A: it doesn't swim- it takes tons of energy to refrigerate fish and ship it thousands of miles- much more energy than producing grains and shipping then (on a calorie basis). Also, much of the fish sold as wild is not- it is farmed but people cheat to make extra money.On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

Moderation sounds good..

but we do not want moderate amounts of torture, slavery, terrorism, or species extinction right? The point- not everything is a slippery slope where we need to search for a middle ground- there are some rights and wrongs, some dos and donts, some things to support and others to avoid. Sometimes the answers are not so complex.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Hmmm....

seems like changing one's diet may do more to decrease CO2 emissions than buying that energy-intensive Prius whose life-cycle analysis isn't so much better than an SUV- but that would be radical wouldn't it?

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Alright people, you got me...

I'm really a corporate-loving swine out to destroy the environment so I wrap my rhetoric in my "liberal credentials".

But seriously, if you all are interested in being serious here are my responses:

1. Tom- I pointed out the subsidy issue because that is much more responsible for environmental destruction than anything else- we could buy organic and fair trade all day and it wouldn't come close to the benefits of removing agricultural subsidies- that's all- let's keep our eye on the ball

2. Those who think organic and fair trade are different than 'corporate' need to go check out the composition of these industries- they are not simply 'mom and pop' operations

3. Personally, I would rather support a good corporation (like Starbucks) than a small business full of people who treat their workers like crap- there is no correlation between the size of a business and how it treats workers

4. Those who think that coffee-producing nations have a future in focusing on coffee should read a little about the history of economic development- I for one would like to see more doctors, computer programers and engineers in the developing world and less farmers, but hey, I'm just an economist who wants people to live middle class lives instead of slaving away in fields all of their life so don't pay attention to what I say

5. I buy all organic and all local food, but the difference is, I don't romanticize it- it's great- I love it- but industrial food can be efficient and safe and healthy too and I eat it sometimes also. I just happen to be relatively wealthy by world standards and choose to spend some of that money on specialty fresh food.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Tom...

An overall very good summary. 2 quick points-

1. biodiverisity is right- essentially all grain is for human consumption- 90% is wasted going through the guts of chickens, cows, and pigs

2. you won't be surprised that I say we do away with all subsidies- if the fuels are efficient they should be able to compete on their own

Tom...

An overall very good summary. 2 quick points-

1. biodiverisity is right- essentially all grain is for human consumption- 90% is wasted going through the guts of chickens, cows, and pigs

2. you won't be surprised that I say we do away with all subsidies- if the fuels are efficient they should be able to compete on their own

biodiversity...

I absolutely agree about the biofuels- in fact, if we removed subsidies biofuels would largely disappear

also, notice what I said about animal foods:

"supporting a move away from animal-based diets"

I am advocating exactly the moderate position that you suggest.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Samuel...

a few quick points:

1. sulfur is highly toxic and used quite intensively by organic growers. here in monterey many of the organic nitrate fertilizers from strawberries are damaging sloughs and coastal watersheds- i'm not claiming conventional is better than organic, only that organic has plenty of problems of its own

2. the concentration of agricultural production is tricky- in many ways it's great- we are rich because less than 2% of our people work in agriculture not despite of this- but there are many problems with concentration, especially due to subsidies which are the most responsible- take production subsidies out of the equation and the picture would be better

3. i don't think it's fair to say that the economist took the hudson institute line- there are some very smart people besides them who caution major transitions to organics

4. what i'm for is a system without subsidies, where producers pay for the environmental damage they cause, and then let everyone compete on an equal footing- sound ok to you?

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

greenlagirl...

actually the Economist routinely has articles on ways to improve environmental policy and I daresay they are better than most- if they were actually enacted the environmental improvements would be orders of magntiude greater than buying organic or fairtrade could ever dream of.

P.S. I am going to get back to all of the other comments soon as well. Thanks.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

atreyger...

1. You really think capitalism needs poor people to be successful? How about the Great Depression? Record unemployment- millions looking for work- and it was capitalism's worst decade ever. This is a lingering fallacy that really needs to be debunked. Capitalism prospers when people HAVE MONEY to buy things- this require a strong middle class- China's rise is leading to higher wages and this is GOOD for capitalism.

2. Brazil's soybean industry is super high tech and super industrial and part of a larger diversified economy that includes manufacturing- look at the major coffee-growing economies and if only they could emulate Brazil they would be so lucky. Brazil still has huge problems but they are making big progress. Agricultural development is almost always the first step in development but it needs to transform from small-scale peasant agriculture- if it stagnates on that level the countries are doomed to poverty.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

A few comments:

1. Buying local is part of a a "free market" solution- it's you the consumer freely choosing to buy from who you want to buy from- it is entirely consistent with classic economics

2. The Economist has been consistently opposed to agricultural subsidies and has been pretty good on climate change policy- these are very smart people who are not simply mouth pieces for rightwing orthodoxy

3. As to organics- even a 10% differential in land use multiplied across the world is huge. Also, many organic inputs are worse for the environment than conventional under some circumstances- the point being that you can't be default say organic is always better.

4. As to the point that conventional soy beans are destroying the rain forest that is true- no one is saying that the conventional system is perfect- Brazil is faced with an interesting situation and if all goes well it might not be what environmentalists ideally want but it might not be too bad- in exchange for allowing a chunk of the rain forest to be developed for agriculture the government will permanently protect the rest- the ag business is so hugely responsible for Brazil's rise that it might end up making them wealthy enough to finally take preseving the majority of the rain forest in perpituity. I'm not saying this is ideal, but it's not a worse case scenario.

5. As to coffee growers being poor in the conventional system-yes- there is simply no room for 20+ countries and a hundred million farmers to live middle class lives growing coffee- the same could be said for dozens of things- countries that don't transition out of low value goods are destined to perpetual poverty and keeping large numbers in the coffee industry decade after decade is a bad strategy.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I think this would be great...

also, cars would last longer since so many mechanical parts wouldn't be required and once we get large scale wind & solar we could get even bigger emissions reductions. By the way, I'm an envrionmentalist who is not the least skeptical of technological fixes- we're living proof of the great power of technology as we type away on the internet...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Midnight oil rocks...

but seriously, I don't know much about Australian politics, how big a deal is this?

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

And to the rest of the Grist community...

who are actually willing to read people's arguments and use reason, arguments, and insight to discuss them instead of resorting to straw men and personal attacks, please click on my name and check out some of the threads over the past few months. Many, especially the ones on whales, were really good. So good in fact, that they were cited in a review of best environmental blogs:

http://www.env-econ.net/2006/10/a_review_of_env.html

So to all of those who realize that environmentalism truly is dead once we cut off debate welcome!! Bring your values to the table and air them out.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Backcut, good point....

I think the health of ecosystems has to be the top priority- even animal rights activists can be persuaded that without a healthy ecosystem there are no animals to protect- so I think this shouldn't be a huge issue.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Robert and David....

I'm disappointed in both of your reactions but not surprised. You don't even take the care to deal with the arguments and even refer to them as animal rights, which I made a point of eschewing months ago.

Anyway, Grist is quite big and I have posted on many topics and will continue to post on many more. In fact, as an economist the animal welfare issues are really just a hobby.

Robert, when you start your "Whales are special becuase I say so" group let me know- until then I'll assume that you don't really want to kill whalers like you said over the summer- that it was just a joke. Or maybe not. Maybe you're really a closet animal rights extremist who won't admit it. Lol.

And David, since you're in charge of this place, if you don't want more posts on animal welfare issues- I mean come on environmentalists carrying about animals- how crazy!!- just let me know. You're the boss. I don't have to waste my time if you think it's not a good use of this site's collective energy.

Peace and Love,
J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

fatman....

nothing I have written suggests paying attention to the well-being of mosquitos- apart from their role in ecosystems- and a right to existence does not require negotiation- we give it to babies who are less conscious than monkeys, whales, or dogs- it does not require reciprocity- this is a common error in reasoning of those who oppose considering the well-being of animals.

It simply requires us to acknowledge that we are not the only beings who have a right to existence- if you disagree with that fine- but you cannot use the negotiation rationale since if you did so you would then condone the killing of many humans who lack the ability to negotiate, which I don't think you want to do.

Also, a right to life is nothing more than to acknowledge that animals have a reason to live apart from what they give to us, which is about the lowest common denominator I can imagine- if you can't agree with that then I guess you truly do believe the 100% complete exceptionalism of human beings- which is essentially a religious doctrine and not grounded in science.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Although I agree with some of your points...

are you prepared to tell India and China that their "fetish" with growth was misplaced? They lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty- more so than every charity and development program in history combined- through little more than economic growth and they have become major world powers in a few decades. Since they represent about 50% of the developing world it seems like economic growth was a pretty good strategy....

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I love pimentel's work too...

and a massive push for biofuels will have devastating environmental consequences- it is another case of a poor reasoning, the search for a quick fix, and so many layers of government subsidies that it's dizzying- let me repeat again- remove ALL NATURAL RESORUCE SUSIDIZES- price carbon, and let the market work!!!

J.S.On Three perspectives on the biofuels debate posted 2 years, 11 months ago 18 Responses

I love pimentel's work too...

and a massive push for biofuels will have devastating environmental consequences- it is another case of a poor reasoning, the search for a quick fix, and so many layers of government subsidies that it's dizzying- let me repeat again- remove ALL NATURAL RESORUCE SUSIDIZES- price carbon, and let the market work!!!

J.S.On An interview with David Pimentel posted 2 years, 11 months ago 18 Responses

Sure...

they do it for race horses and circus elephants, etc. I'm not saying this to be corny and while most people like to paint me as a hardcore rightwing economist (which is hilarious), I just think that maybe we need to rethink how we treat animals- maybe pay them a little respect- I'm not arguing for a syrupy sentimentality or any sort of hippie-dippy kumbuya circles, but just maybe we can step back and rethink our basic relations with other animals, and maybe not try to sap every little bit of energy from them that we can- maybe realize that they are living sentient creatures too, who might enjoy a little life free from exploitation- that's all.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Instead , maybe give them a little place...

to live out their days after devoting their lives to producing for humans. But I guess that would be too much to ask.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Like I said....

I am in the midst of trying to put a statement of principles on animal welfar together and we'll see if you all think these should reasonably represent a starting point for environmentalists. Stay tuned....

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Definitely, focus on the pleasure...

i host vegan bbq's every year and blow people's minds with the food- it works!!!On Eric Schlosser on America's food industry and his delicious new film posted 2 years, 11 months ago 22 Responses

I agree with the points mentioned above...

and the fact is that if you were to line up all of the individuals and company executives involved in animal testing who have done insanely cruel, wasteful, and absurd experiments on animals and often lied about them and then lined up the number of extremist animal rights protesters the first line would be so much greater than the second that it would be a joke.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

just price the resources correctly and let people

do what they want

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I fundamentally disagree with this piece...

Rationality and reason has been central in a number of movements:

1. The development of market economies and the great wealth this has brought us is based on reasoned analysis

2. The abolishment of slavery was partially based on reason

3. As was women's rights

4. And at its core environmentalism is reasonable and rational

I, for one, will work hard for a world that is more rational and based on reason.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

First of all...

I have never said any of these rights are hallowed or absolute- ever. The only rights that have that staus as far as I'm concerned are in the Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights- neither of which say that people are free to move from one country to another or that any country must accept foreign investment from others.

The issues are relatively simple:

1. Every country has a right to control its borders and who comes into the country for a variety of reasons and unless you want to question the entire valdity of nation states we must accept that

2. Nations can choose to trade with each other in multiple ways- both goods and FDI- I think both of these are good and lead to huge societal benefits (even if not every single individual in every single country benefits- there's nothing that can achieve that- that's why we have social safety nets, progressive taxation, etc.)

3. In my ideal world, I want to see Mexico become a wealthy nation so that people aren't driven by poverty and lack of opportunity to leave their homes and suffer incredible hardship to come work for low-wage U.S. jobs- how to do that? It's quite complex, but anything that restricts trade and FDI is likely going to have the opposite effect. Just look at immigration statistics from Mexico- most are coming from the poorest areas where subsistence agriculture dominates- and in fact not from the areas where people are producing goods to sell to the U.S.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Tom...

Economists traditionally have been and still are some of the most liberal in their views of immigration- that is, they tend to favor more v. less- but this doesn't mean that there aren't real costs for open borders. I think you could appreciate what would happen if we simply opened all borders right now- we'd have hundreds of millions of people trying to get into the U.S. and putting aside the security concerns this would be a huge upheaval and have huge costs since most of these people would be uneducated and low skilled.

Putting that aside for a moment, you think the embedded labor idea is flimsy- well consider this, China's manufacturing sector is booming largely driven by demand for products abroad- it is booming so much that at least 100 million people have been lifted out of abject poverty and many are entering the middle class- wages are rising- do you not see this as evidence that when people go to Walmart they are in effect hiring Chinese workers- but who just so happen so reside in China? I don't think it's a stretch of the imgaination- I think it is actually quite easy to see and a very real phenomenon.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Thanks for the invite Tom...

a couple quick points that I'm sure will get everyone riled:

1. First off, while I don't have very strong positions on immigration either way- although this may change- I think that if there aren't U.S. workers to pick the food and we as a society say that we want to limit Mexican immigrants into the country then some businesses are going to fold- it's that simple- is that good, bad? I don't know- for the farmers it certainly is and for the Mexican illegals it is, but if society decides that we want to limit illegal immigration than maybe that trumps the other losses- there are trade-offs here and I don't believe one has to be a racist to believe that a country has a right to decide who comes in- if we wanted even cheaper food we could let in 100 million people and let them bid the price of labor so low that lettuce would be a few cents less- is that right?

2. I think Tom's belief that somehow we're going to wake up and find no food produced is simply ludicrous- food production just about everywhere is at an all-time high, farmers markets are thriving just about everywhere, organic is growing by double digits every year, and in areas where fresh food becomes scarce people will be willing to pay more for it which will keep production going- I have no worries whatsoever about that

3. What I do worry about are some of the environmental effects since agriculture can really trash the environment- but like I have said before, we can eliminate much of that by eliminating production subsidies, which we should everywhere

4. The point that goods flow freely over borders but not people is something economists have studied for decades and it's not that simple- actually, embedded in goods is labor and resources- if I import something from China or Mexico I'm importing the labor that went into the good- so if agriculture shifts to other areas that will increase labor employment there- would it be so terrible if agricultural jobs in some parts of the U.S. shifted to Mexico? Wouldn't the Mexicans prefer that rather than crossing over illegal borders under the risk of death?

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David- great points that I will explore...

I am a huge opponent of most forms of commercial fishing- I don't call it ecocide for nothing- and this stuff needs serious regulation or outright bans. As to ships, I will look into this and I agree- to the extent that we can install devices that decrease whale mortality from ships we should do so- whether this be through technology or limiting the lanes, or whatever. Getting run over is probably worse than a harpoon, though I'm not sure.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David...

You are correct that a few Humpbacks are currently killed in the Caribbean but the Japanese decision to begin to expand the "scientific" killing of Humpbacks is the largest planned slaughter of these whales and Japan is leading the world towards the expansion of killing Humpbacks...so while your details are duly noted I stick by the thrust of my original point- Japan is at the forefront of efforts to expand international whaling, including Humpbacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_Whale

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Let's not forget....

that a carbon tax is a very big government intervention/policy- it is an acknowledgement that the market alone does not price carbon correctly and that we need intervnetion to correct for this- it is inconsistent with a very strong libertarian position and is in fact what most environmentalists think is close to the optimum- this shows how serious economic analysis is consistent with many "schools" of thought- this is something that Reason magazine and Greenpeace agree on- in fact, there are many such convergences once we actually explore the realms of economic ideas and realize that economists have been the leaders at identifying where markets fail and how to correct them- especially in the realm of environmental policy.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

A couple of responses....

Dave- while I agree with you on some level, since we don't know what the new technologies are going to be we definitely don't want to invest in massive new infrastructure right now by government. Also, maybe this new technology will be decentralized- we can't be sure.

John- I agree and disagree- yes, we need to eliminate all energy subsidies but also have a more progressive income tax system that ensures that low income people are ok- these are separate but related issues. As far as nuclear insurance, if private insurance won't step in then it should not exist- also, with a high enough price it would and this would include a rational calculus of the liabilities, which government insurance precludes by offering a lower value that doesn't represent the full liabilities.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

patrick...fair enough

like i said, i'm not saying that the west has had a benign influence in africa- only that it is clear that china has no intentions whatsoever except to exploit the resources and block attempts to punish regimes it likes- as little as the u.s. is doing for sudan, unfortunately, it is more than every other country in the world, and much more than china.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I have never shopped at Walmart and never will...

and I will continue to work to decrease consumption of McDonald's products, which are some of the worst in the world. But, am still be happy that they have made the moves you mention- my desire for a world free of McDonalds is not mutually exclsuive with a desire to see a more environmentally friendly McDonalds in the interim.

Also, the comparison between MickyD's and Walmart isn't apt- Walmart sells plenty of products that are not bad for people's health and the planet, while McDonald's sell exclusively (or just about) products that are bad for people and the planet.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

TheSSg is absolutely right...

grain produced in large quantities and shipped is orders of magnitude more efficient than people driving around in trucks chasing deer.

J.S.On Umbra on eating locally in winter posted 3 years ago 15 Responses

how about this...

male humans have more genetically in common with male apes than they do with female humansOn A former McDonald's cook explains his return to the family farm posted 3 years ago 22 Responses

I second that...

the transition to a plant-based diet was the best personal decision I ever made- Thanksgiving is a great time to make the switch as we think about how good we have it in a country where we have so much food at our fingertips and plenty of options besides the meat-industrial madness.

J.S.On Eric Schlosser on America's food industry and his delicious new film posted 3 years ago 22 Responses

labor rights asbolutely...

you can't mention sustainable development without labor rights and last time i checked that was the environmental buzzword

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Oh boy...

the signal is called price- it's something economists have been studying for going on 3 centuries- and right now the price of oil is dropping- if we look to peak oil for policy we're screwed...big time

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

exactly

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Tom- I agree with you 100% (shocked?)

Notice that the worst part of the Farm Bill is the production subsidies that lead to land capitalization and benefit mostly larger growers...and which virtually all economists have been trying to get rid of for decades.

They are also illegal under the WTO- another reason why the WTO should be strengthened, not weakend.

I oppose pretty much all subsidies but a lump-sum payment for small farmers or money for R&D into sustainable farming practices or organic certification or just about anything else than 90% of what the current system spends its money on I could live with.

J.S.On What the Democrats' win means for the sustainable-food movement posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

no, photovoltaics are much more expensive

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

some good suggestions...

i think changing foreign aid to green technologies is an excellent possibility and doable- but for those who still don't recognize that there is a tradeoff, coal is the cheapest fuel in the world and china is developing coal for that reason and because it has a lot of it- yes, they are doing much in the way of efficiency improvements but nothing even close to cutting their carbon levels down the realms that are necessary

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

ok, sounds good to me....

and if you got sick from the local chicken you would not sue the local farmer or the government for not protecting you, right? i point this out because this is where it gets messy.... food safety regulation is a big deal. and by the way, i think the factory farming system is an abomination and should be completely dismantled- i'd like this to come from consumers since the government will never do it

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

anyone notice the following pattern....

1. someone makes wild strong about the "evils" of industrial agriculture (which there are some)

2. an economist (myself) asks them to qualify how they would promote regulations and policies that would fit their view of "local is good"

3. we get lots of info on how economists are naive, misguided, purveyors of the status quo (all of which are wrong) and never answers the questions

I have been researching the different levels of pesticides by farms of different sizes and I completely gave up the task of trying to define small since it was arbitrary- also, the U.S. government does it by income, which makes no sense at all.

By the way, what did I find- there is no significant difference between the amount of pesticides applied per acre between the smallest and the largest farmers- i.e. on this metric small farms are not better for the environment- not worse, but not better.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

or is the process unethical from the start?

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

As much as we don't need new hearings..

I definitely hope a lot of thought goes into this- a whole lot- we probably have one major shot to do this right and there are big stakes so if this gets messed up- a la the CA energy deregulation crisis- the public will likely not tolerate a second chance. The Dems might want to lay the groundwork but do the comprehensive stuff in 08 when they control all the branches of government...

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

sunflower...

and how do you plan to criminalize coal for the 1.2 billion Chinese?

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

For the record...

I have been very careful to use the term "animal welfare" and not rights. And there seems to be lots of confusion out there because let me repeat- if animal welfare is not an issue and should be entirely separated from environmentalism then environmentalists had better go ahead and drop their objection to sustainable whaling, dolphin slaughter, and many of the other issues that have defined the movement.

Sure, when you put things in this simplistic manner above and bring up issues of extreme positions you may get people to say that environmentalism shouldn't deal with animal welfare issues, but if you think about it a little more it makes no sense.

And it also contradicts my main point in "Big Tent Environemtnalism" that diversity is strength- for example, just because I don't think most hunting is good doesn't mean I can't work with hunters- looking for intellectual purity in a movement- while appealing- is a fool's errand in my opinion.

And an environmentalism that believes it has nothing to say about whaling as long as it's "sustainable" because somehow that's a separate issue left for animal rights' activists has lost its soul and will likely go the way of the dinosuars.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

sunflower...

I'm all about the rule of law- that's what cap and trade programs ARE- if you don't have a permit to emit you get severely punished- they are a heavy form of regulation- and if the cap is tight enough the costs to industry are serious. The fact that an inefficient company can pay an efficient one for more permits is not unlawful or immoral- it's called smart-- since who cares where the CO2 reduction comes from as long as it comes- and cap and trade are some of lowest cost ways. Ask yourself this: Is it immoral to spend more money on CO2 abatement, that could've been used for schools or health care, than on policy that is cheaper?

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

sunflower- please, cool the rhetoric...

that's a ridiculous point you're making- you don't have electricity, drive a car, eat food, use a refrigerator?

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

What are corporatarians? Never heard of that.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

A new Harvard study on the benefits of

plant diets over animal diets.

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=71938-low-c...

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

TokyoTom..

maybe you're reading the poll wrong- 75% DO NOT want to separate environmentalism from animal welfare- so I think your view is in the minority- as to farce I think that's reserved for people who somehow think that we can focus exclusively on "sustainability" and say it's ok to brutally slaughter highly sentient beings- that's the true farce.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

pandu...

much respect to you and I'm sure the cows' food you eat is great, but it's not superior to a vegan diet- the belief that humans need to eat cow's milk is about as sound as the belief that we need to eat gorilla's milk- zero. But enjoy.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

as to getting veggies in winter...

i think you should be eating veggies all year round whether you're vegetarian or not- go for root vegetables and the like and dark greens if you want to stay the most local- and dried beans and grains, even grown afar are extremely efficient since they are easily transportable and don't require refrigeration

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

wow...pombo out is huge

it is like christmas, which i don't even celebrate!!!

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

fair enough, but this says it all

"The fossil record has plenty of examples of what can happen when people, for lack of choice, or out of ignorance, end up eating a diet comprised mostly of corn, or rice without enough meat, eggs, or insects. They didn't have modern nutritional knowledge and developed debilitating iron or other deficiencies."

We live in a modern world where this is irrelevant- in the Western world we suffer from problems of excess on almost every dimension so whether you want to reduce consumption of animal products or not or go vegan or not, the last thing on your mind should be the fear of nutritional deficiency since that is simply a non-issue for an educated person in a developed country.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Let me chime in....

I have no problem with animals on farms at all- what I want is humane treatment and like Pandu said we don't need to kill them- their services are welcomed and to the extent it makes sense lets have animals on farms. As to the more basic question of resource use, there is simply no way to have a sensible or sustainable food system in which people eat meat and dairy every day multiple times a day like the average American. That is unsustainable- period. Perhaps we could have a sustainable food system where people consumed animal products a couple times a week and that would be a great improvement. I think zero would be the best for the environment, humans, and animals but I'm all for whatever reduction we can get since the mass consumption of factory-farmed animal products is a disgrace and a travesty.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Because of the effects!!!

Please atreyger- you seem like an intelligent person- do you watch dolphins raping each other and say "see, nature does it so I can too?" I hope not. Gee, do you really want to argue in favor of complete and utter Darwinianism for the human species? Do you really understand the implications of what you're suggesting? Think about it for a moment.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David- excellent points..

I fully agree.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I disagree..

I think science will compel us to re-examine our relationships with the environment, although there are many other valid reasons as well.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David....

#1: A simple yes or no question- do you think the Japanese goverment should subsidize whaling or not?

#2: You say: I pointed out the ridiculous and contradictory nature of some of the arguments made against whaling in the west

Sorry my friend, but the arguments that whales are highly sentient beings who deserve better than grenade-tipped harpoons and being drowned in order to satisfy the demand for whale burgers in the richest countries in the world is not a ridiculous and contradictory argument. Maybe some of the specious scientific arguments are weak, but not this one. In fact, it is an argument based on strong moral philosophy and ethics, and I have no doubt that this century these ethics will prevail. History will show that the really ridiculous argument was the one that said somehow it was ok to kill whales, because hey, it was "sustainable" and sustainble for some bizarre reason got confused with "good"- completely disregarding other ethical concerns.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

David...forgive me...

if I put more stock in articles from the Economist than on demand for whale meat put out by the Japanese government (I presume) that you post on your wesbite. That being said, let's see if we can agree on a couple things:

1. The whale industry should not be subsidized in any way- either on the supply or demand side- and that includes a lot of what the Japanese government currently does

(I'll also agree that all animal agriculture should be free of subsidies, in fact, all agriculture period)

2. Our main difference is one of value systems- you believe it's ok to kill whales and I don't- these positions are mutually exclusive- you are unhappy if whale slaughter is banned and I am unhappy if it is not banned- therefore, until perfect consensus is reached there will be winners and losers

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Thanks David for the other article...

which you say is "much better". Well, here's what it says about the demand for whale meat:

"All that is left of this once-thriving business is the market for whalemeat and, on the available evidence, this market is small and stagnant. Whale is cheaper than beef in Norway. Yet, despite the Ministry of Fisheries' claim that whale "tastes delicious and is very healthy", and despite the low prices at which Norway's modest catch is sold, it still has whalemeat left over for export. The Japanese, eager to resume whaling and by tradition a nation of whale-eaters, might be expected to be buyers, but they are not. They think Norwegian whalemeat contains too many pollutants to choke the stuff down.

They also think this of some Japanese-caught whales. But the Japanese anyway seem to have lost their taste for what was once a delicacy. Whalemeat is expensive in Japan, and little eaten. Only one restaurant in all of Tokyo, a gourmet's paradise, specialises in whale cuisine. No one seems to think the market will grow much, even if prices drop. The government organises national whale-eating days and special events. But the young prefer burgers."

So it looks like the thrust of the original article was true- left entirely to market forces the whaling industry would probably die off, but because of government efforts to prop it up (out of politics, stubornness, and charges of cultural imperialism) it is expanding.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

I agree...

I would never advocate telling people what to eat- but just to think about it.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

sorry about that...

yeah, it's for subscribers

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Quick questions atreyger....

1. So people who don't like ice cream are restricting themselves because they don't like going to ice cream parlors? and people who don't like opera... and....

2. Can you tell me where I said:

I don't recall ever saying something absurd like that.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Yes, you can and should rag on McCain...

he is the worst all of possible worlds- a fox in sheep's clothing- an ultra-conservative who ultimately backed torture, wants to outlaw reproductive freedom, is still calling for massive increases in troops to Iraq when no one believes this is even remotely feasible, enabled Bush and continues to do so, and on the environment can be counted to bow down to special interests all the way- don't get fooled.

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

No one is suggesting...

wildlife corridors as the only solution, but they are quite well-respected by the ecological community as a very sound method of biodiversity preservation and if you combine them with larger biodiversity preserves they would have a big impact. They are things we should be doing regardless of global warming. As to hubris, there is enough of that to go around, and it finds quite a comfortable home in the environmental community...

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Great comments all..

my cynism is already lower!! But seriously, I think we are approaching that point where we are going to have do something on a big scale. I think the more it emphasizes technological innovation, adaptation, and technology transfer between rich and poor countries the better- and the more spinoff effects that we'll get. On a positive note, maybe such grand cooperation could actually be used as a springboard for cooperation on other issues like disaese and nuclear proliferation. Ok, let me sign off before I start singing Kumbuya all to myself....

J.S.

J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.

Thanks David...

the juxtaposition of these 2 articles was perfect:

#1: We are discovering that animals are way more intelligent and self-aware than we thought

#2: Environmentalists are increasing efforts to kill them in order to "save" them

Anyone besides me notice the contradiction??

J.S.

J.S. teaches economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.