Comments CrosbyMacDonald has made

I wish I'd seen you there!

I was at Sasquatch, and had a great time, but also was sad and disappointed to find no recycling facilities anywhere (obviously I missed you!).  So many bottles and cans went into the trash, and while we packed some out, it's shocking that such an event didn't consider recycling important...

The event was supposed to be carbon neutral through a group that buys credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, so that's a start and the CCX is probably much better than some other iffy offset schemes, but a more holistic approach would help the organizers maintain some credibility.  I hope they bought their electricity from the nearby wind farms...

On another note, it's kind of funny how a festival like sasquatch is sometimes associated with progressive social action, just because some hippy -types gather and listen to musicians that generally are very liberal.  Definitely someone like Michael Franti is inspiring, but sitting around listening to music is not exactly a substitute..  (for you South Park fans, "Wait until the corporations hear these crunchy grooves man!")On The Girls of Grist do Sasquatch posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

A company is doing this..

Magenn Power has a device called M.A.R.S. Wind Power Anywhere generator which is a helium-lofted wind turbine able to produce 4 kw of energy by virtue of the high altitudes so accessed.  See www.magenn.com.

The 4.0 kW unit will enter production this year, with another 7 more models in the pipeline which will be released within the next four years.

They're pretty cool looking, and according to the company, they are "less expensive per unit of actual electrical energy output than competing wind power systems."

Interesting anyways...
On Neat posted 2 years, 6 months ago 31 Responses

up here in Canada..

actually the article gets it slightly wrong, as Green Globes is not "Canada's version of LEED"...

We actually have LEED Canada, licensed from the USGBC, administered by the Canada Green Building Council (caGBC) and modified for Canada-specific needs.

I don't know enought about either to make a judgement, but from the developers I've spoken to, there are clearly areas for improvement in LEED (and any other rating system).  Ie. there are certain things that aren't recognized, and many innovative green builders are ahead of LEED.

Still, there is value in having a comprehensive standard that can be applied, so maybe these two initiatives should learn from each other.

Green building is really a no-brainer in many cases, certified or not...

With sustainable building designs and technologies, about 30 percent of GHG emissions from buildings could be avoided by 2030 "with net economic benefits", says the latest IPCC report.On LEED competition posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

it is a bit spooky sci-fi...

.. and as with everything else, there is a possibility of it going horribly wrong as it is manipulated by those not concerned with the important issues raised above.

But, as with nearly everything else our society does, I expect there is a way that this could be done to minimize nearly all of those concerns.  Ie., it doesn't necessarily have to follow that people will wantonly trash water basins if they are no longer needed to grow food, but sigh, the sad reality is that they might/probably will.

Being an optimist, I hope that enormous threats such as climate change and freshwater depletion will spark a worldwide eco-revolution.

For me, I would rather live out my days on a small farm, growing what I can and buying the rest nearby, and reading Huxley or Orwell, laughing at how eerily similar our world now is to their stories.  

But I still worry about solutions for the other 8,999,999,999 people that are going to be around in a few decades...On Can we live with skyscraper farms? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 29 Responses

Good points...

I think many of them are addressed in the research at www.verticalfarm.com.  Links on the left go to some in depth papers.

The researcher acknowledges that there is further study needed, but I guess the main point is that to sustain the likely inevitable population growth, we need to change food production (and many other things).  Our environmental footprints are just too large.

thoughts on your questions:

1) You'd need to do a life cycle analysis to check out how the materials for construction balance against the benefits, but I'm willing to bet that with sustainable building techniques it could be done very efficiently.  Around 20% of a building's environmental footprint is in its construction, whereas 80% is in the energy used during its lifecycle (UN - dont have the link now).  

2)Proper filtration could address all of these concerns - wastewater for agriculture is already in use.  The researcher also specifies that all production would need to be organic.

3)Not sure, but the research is detailed, so I am sure this was taken into account.

4)This seems alarmist.  Certainly many critical systems in buildings around the world have backup power.  Especially with onsite renewables, this shouldnt be a problem with proper design.

5)I'd rather avoid GMOs, but of course if that's your thing then it would be possible.  Not necessarily tied to the concept, though.

I find this kind of stuff incredibly interesting and creative...  good to discuss.On Can we live with skyscraper farms? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 29 Responses

I lived in Denmark..

where they have the separated bike lanes, and it's fantastic.  They even have lights especially for bikes.

Copenhagen is an exception among cities because it is almost entirely flat, but nearly everyone bikes there, and a large reason is the separation from traffic.

I've never known why city planners will say that they're going to create all these bike lanes and then just paint a few yellow lines, it does nothing.

In Vancouver, Canada, we claim to be a bike friendly city but the reality is that there are only a few painted lines and biking downtown is like taking your life in your hands.On What would we do if bikers' lives were worth as much as auto convenience? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

It's about pragmatism..

This is precisely the kind of deadly, ruthless, overly quantified and overly economics-talk writing...

Using the argument for 'ecological services' is simply a method of communicating the value of biodiversity to those who don't necessarily share the same passion for the natural world that caniscandida and others at Grist obviously have.

How do you persuade someone who is living in poverty, cutting down the forest to feed their family, to stop because they should care about saving a type of flower or species of frog?  Some people see the intrinsic value, others don't, and you can yell until you're blue in the face, but you won't convince them to share your views.

Objecting to the quantification of ecological services is simply a roadblock in bringing the argument for conservation to a much larger audience.  

In the interview with Dr. Raven, I think this is an important point he makes:

If you put all that together, I think it is a fantasy to say that resources, including forests, won't face accelerating pressure in the future.

Definitely true, and this is why we need solutions now, even if they offend some of our sensibilities and seem to anthropocentric or economic-minded.  

Sustainability means long term environmental, economic, and social value is preserved.  We need to unite the three in order to galvanize action.
On Biodiversity loss accelerating posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

I'll respond..

To caniscandida's questions..  

I think a sober reading of the facts shows that a. market distortions are the #1 problem facing the environment ...
>>
I have no idea what that means.  
<<
... and b. speaking in this language is very appealing to those on the right.

Ditto

I'm not an expert but maybe my layman's understanding will help.

A 'market distortion' is something that makes the whole supply/demand equilibrium somehow inefficient.  

Typically, in terms of the environment, this takes the form of an 'externality'.  For example, when we burn fossil fuels, the 'cost' of the emissions in terms of climate change is not included in the cost of the fuel.  So, we burn more than we should.

Subsidies also cause distortions, because they artificially lower the price of say, fossil fuels or corn ethanol, also resulting in excess consumption.

What I think Jason is saying is that removing these subsidies, and placing an appropriate price on things like greenhouse gas emissions, would be the most effective environmental policy.

For (b.), if you frame the environmental debate in terms of market inefficiency, and economic results, you will be more able to convince those that are usually not interested in green policies because they seem to contradict their free-market goals.  In reality, the market and the environment, with some smart policies, are perfectly compatible.

We do live in a capitalist society/world.  So unless we want to or are able to overhaul that completely, the system itself may be the best way to protect the environment.

People often assume economists are concerned with money, but that isn't the case.  Economists are generally concerned with 'welfare', which includes money, but also intangibles like the environment, and happiness.  Placing a number value on the environment just makes it possible to measure it against our current system for value, money.On There's a coalition waiting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 60 Responses

Pretty significant..

...that a group of some of the largest investors - aka. people who control capital, and therefore can set the stage for how investments are made, how energy is built, etc. - is now stepping in to address what would have been an environmental disaster?

Sure it's not perfect, but it's a HUGE change from several years ago.  I for one am glad to see this, as it's another sign that many big businesses are waking up to the realities of climate change, and recognizing that it poses not only an environmental threat, but also a financial threat, and therefore an opportunity to prosper by investing in cleaner energy.On This is huge posted 2 years, 9 months ago 21 Responses

Designing cities and communities better..

would also go a long way to reducing transportation energy and emissions costs.

I agree with earlier comments that transit needs to be affordable, quick, and comfortable for mass-use.  Designing communities around transit hubs and incorporating transportation into city planning is essential.

Locating residential areas close to commercial and industrial amenities helps in a huge way to create more sustainable and livable communities.

I live in Vancouver, Canada, in the downtown core, which is one of the densest neighbourhoods in North America.  I walk to work, have all the shops I need on the way home, and generally park my car for days at a time because I don't need to drive anywhere.

Cities with suburbs that are purely residential end up having huge commuter traffic - this is still an issue in my city as well.  

New Yorkers actually have one of the smallest environmental footprints in the US, because its better for many to walk or take the subway to work than to sit in traffic.  On More fun with analogies! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 32 Responses

Doesn't a tax provide the same incentives..

as a cap-and-trade system?  

I'm not sure this statement is correct: "Unlike a tax, it encourages innovation by creating incentives and rewarding those who lower emissions at the least cost."

A tax simply puts a price on emissions, so companies that can reduce them will have to pay less tax.. this creates an incentive for cleaner technologies, much the same way a cap-and-trade would.  

Setting the tax amount would be difficult, but so is allocating the right amount of permits.  I think the advantages of a tax are:

• it's easier to apply (no allocation or trading system needed)

• It can cut across ALL sectors of the economy, preventing playing favourites

• the gov't revenues can be applied to reduce other taxes - NOT necessarily directed to subsidize a few technologies.  
  

The cap-and-trade system could work as well, and some businesses favour it because they generally dislike taxes and see it as more 'market-based' somehow, but I don't think the essay above makes a very strong argument.On A guest essay from Environmental Defense posted 2 years, 9 months ago 41 Responses

agreed...

Thanks for responding, I got a little incensed with the implication that the 'social arrangement' facing Inuit hunters and Atlantic fisherman was not just or humane, so I appreciate your calm reply.

Nunavut and other treaties aside, there certainly is a history of both social and economic marginalization of indigenous peoples in Canada.  Residential schools, the reserve system, and systemic racism have put many peoples in a deep economic and social hole from which they are slowly climbing out.

To help in this, I think a good way forward is to give people increased opportunities to control the natural resources on their lands and practice sound environmental stewardship.  First Nations groups with strong leaders have been active in acting as environmental consultants to industry.  While the romantic notion that indigenous people are always more 'green' than others and won't exploit resources doesn't always hold true, their connection to the land has helped them participate in sound management in many examples.

This article talks about First Nations and environmental health, while this one talks about their efforts to establish sustainable business ventures.

These resources include forests and salmon streams, as well as the less-friendly minerals, oil and gas.  

As well, they include traditional food animals, such as seals or polar bears. Though there are obviously objections to classifying them as 'resources', they are, like many fish and livestock, consumed by humans with economic and environmental consequences.

I didn't mean to endorse polar bear hunting - I would rather see it abolished, and see programs in place to help the Inuit make a living guiding people to view the magnificent bears.  

With seal hunting, it is controversial because the images of the hunt are shocking, and the seals are very small and cute.  

Certainly if the hunt is continued, it should be done so in a humane manner - I gather there are many hunters using guns now instead of clubs, but I'm not an expert and the media images tend to focus on the graphic (Paul McCartney's visit).

But I'd like to play devil's advocate and suggest that the seal hunt should not be viewed any differently than human killing of any other animals - including wild fish like tuna, and even domesticated animals like cows and pigs.  

Would the seal hunt be alright if the seals were able to be put to sleep peacefully?

The seal population is more than healthy, and if quotas are designed appropriately, then the hunt is 'sustainable' in that the population will remain healthy for the long term.  That is more than can be said about the Atlantic cod and other species which were horribly overfished to the point of collapse, largely by Canadian fleets.

So for me, I think that while the seal hunt is certainly disagreeable, there are other, far more pressing environmental problems: overfishing of deep sea species, climate change, habitat loss, etc.  

Economenvironmentalism

Canadian logging practices are NOT horrendous

Actually, our publicly-managed system in which forest lands are retained by the government and logging companies must meet reforestation standards is a much more effective management method than the U.S. market system...   the US just spent several years attacking our system as 'subsidized', collecting $6 billion in duties which were repeatedly found by WTO and NAFTA panels as illegal..  

Now, I would definitely like to see an improvement in some Canadian logging practices, particularly in enforcement of regulations around salmon spawning streams, etc., and the general protection of valuable habitats, but there are a few important facts...

• Canada has the largest area of independently certified forest in the world, and is fifth when measured as a percentage of forest land certified. (ie. Forest Stewardship Council certified)

• A report produced by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies says "Canada has emerged in recent years as among the world's leaders in aggressively improving sustainability practices".

• Members of FPAC, the forestry association representing 75% of working forests in the country, have cut greenhouse gas emissions to 28 percent below 1990 levels, a 44 percent reduction per tonne of production - 57 percent of members' energy is provided through self-generated biomass (as it should be).
  

Now, pointing fingers may be fun and a good way to  feel better about our own countries, but let's get off our respective environmental high horses (which no one in North America really has a right to ride) and get on with spurring real action.

Economenvironmentalism

Why is everyone so surprised..

with the 100 to 105 % target?

These are big companies, and they want to keep making money.  So they want to have time to invest in technologies, efficiency, etc., to reduce their emissions and take advantage of the opportunities any emissions capping legislation will create for renewable energy, carbon trading, etc.

Sure it's not the most ambitious target, but 70 to 90 percent of current levels by 2020 would be a good start, if the politicians actually follow through.  Given the current path we're on, it seems unlikely that we'll get any better than that, although more is needed.

Before calling this 'disgusting', people need to get real.  Emissions can't be cut overnight, not unless you shoot out the tires of every SUV, and make everyone turn of their lights at 9pm.  

WE cause emissions, every one of us - whose TV and computer do you think these companies power? Whose homes do they heat?

Realistically, a five-year timeline is needed for serious emissions reductions to start.  Now, we should have been starting that in 1997 or earlier, but just because we dropped the ball back then doesn't mean we can now snap our fingers and magically cut emissions now.

The most important thing is that major companies, including very, very large emitters, are now advocating climate change legislation, when 5 or 10 years ago they would have been howling at the thought of it.  

They want certainty for the future of their business, so they want rules now to plan for the future.  (Maybe they'd rather take their chances now with Bush in power than risk much stricter legislation if a Democrat gets in next time, but I don't think that's their only motivation)

These companies are the ones that are going to need to make the emissions cuts, so instead of railing against them, how about constructively suggesting that their emisisons targets be a little tougher?  Or, providing them with ways to meet them and go even further?  Get realistic and get pragmatic.

Economenvironmentalism

If thats what it takes...

to get CFLs in more common usage, then I'm all for it.  

I find it crazy that only 6 percent of households use a product that is so obviously superior to conventional lightbulbs, in both cost and efficiency - it seems like the most simple green step anyone can take.  If it requires the Wal-Mart mega-model to get the word out to everyone, then I'll slap them on the back if they reach their goal.

However you feel about the rest of Wal-Mart, I blind criticism is hopeless, and smacks of pure anti-corporate sentiment with no room for compromise, which does very little to advance the environmental movement.   Wal-Mart won't be toppled, but they can be influenced towards good causes such as this if they can be shown it will benefit their business in the end.  

Economenvironmentalism

I agree that subsidies in general should go...

but I wonder about the immediate consequences of cutting them without making other important adjustments.

From an environmental perspective, it is better to buy California or Florida-grown produce than the same good from China, where it will have been subject to less stringent regulations on land and water management, and will also have been shipped across the Pacific in a freighter burning bunker fuel.  In general, imported food carries a higher environmental price than locally grown, unless the imports are growin with outstanding organic practices and shipped using biodiesel.

Of course, if transportation were costly enough to take its effects on climate and pollution (diesel from ships is a significant source of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide, smog-forming pollutants contributing to acid rain and causing respiratory problems), then the imports would be expensive enough to limit them somewhat, allowing local farms to continue production while lowering price and increasing variety for consumers.

I think subsidies are a poor solution to many problems, but is it environmentally or economically appropriate to shift production of many food items to developing countries where labour costs are low?  I think that a healthy society can generally benefit from maintaining a mix of rural and urban populations, and a mix of industry and agriculture.  

I am somewhat familiar with the economic argument for free trade, but I think there are things that current pricing models do not take into account - ie. social and environmental considerations that affect overall welfare.

No question that North American and EU subsidies hurt some developing countries, but how can they be properly trimmed without putting a large section of the population out of a livelihood, without dooming rural lands to industrial development, and without causing increased environmental pressures from a global supply chain?

Economenvironmentalism

on India...

Hi Patrick,

The info in India comes generally from the UN FAO - I was able to track down one FAO report -  google "india 214.5" on the FAO site, it won't let me post a PDF link here. I also have this quote here: " This unhappy trend has been confirmed by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), which estimates that over a fifth of India's population still suffers from chronic hunger and that the number of undernourished people in the country increased substantially in the second half of the 1990s. "

India has experienced tremendous economic growth during this period, and hopefully this will allow many people to rise out of poverty and malnutrition.  

I am not sure if the situation in India - or other countries - is due to a lack of available food, but more likely it is due to a lack of resources to buy food.  Basically, developed countries that import food from poor nations are willing and able to pay a higher price, so for the farmer or agribusiness that is growing crops in India, it makes sense to sell it in export markets.  

Often, the international community will believe that making developing countres increase their exports is the best path to growth.  Loans will help install modern irrigation, buy hybrid seeds that are more productive and expensive fertilizer inputs, so that local farmers can increase production and gain access to world markets.  Economically, this makes sense, and there are cases where it has helped reduce poverty.  But not in all cases.  I generally believe that growth can  be achieved through the application of economics, but (and this is a big but*) with a social and environmental conscience, which economically could be shown by incorporating social and environmental costs in growth models.

I'm not sure what the solutions to global food production are - there are problems in distribution, poverty, and environmental impacts.  I'd be interested to hear from an expert on agricultural trade on what the impacts of removing all agricultural subsidies would be on world markets.

crosby
 

Economenvironmentalism

Seems like a failure of democracy and markets

I wonder if the persistence in whaling is driven by public opinion or more by government policy and support from special interest groups.

If the public doesn't want to eat that much whale meat, why are the governments continuing to support it?  This to me seems like a failure of the government to accept the failure of a market, meaning their intervention is economically inefficient and impacting the country negatively.

I am not sure how the public in these nations are thinking on this issue, but if they are indifferent or anti-whaling, then I think this is an example of a disconnect between public desires and government actions we are seeing in countries around the world.  

In North America at least, a perceived lack of public voice, and a media and lobbying system that has seized control of power has led to undemocratic democracies, where often the government's actions are contrarty to what the public wants.

Case in point: Canada is currently resisting international pressure (even from G.W. Bush) to enact a ban on bottom trawling in international waters.  If you were to poll Canadians (some organizations have done so but not in a statistically rigid manner), they would overwhelmingly favour the ban.  Yet the government is supporting the fishing industry's desire to keep bottom trawling in domestic and international waters despite scientific evidence of its negative impacts.  

Canadians overall support the Kyoto Protocol and think of ourselves as environmental stewards, but government actions in recent years have proven that this image is drastically wrong, and that we are among the least progressive nations in environmental policy.

Maybe the democracy part is off-base with the whaling issue - it may just be on my mind today - but certainly propping up a failing market isn't something a government should ever do unless there are compelling social/environmental benefits that make supporting it economically efficient in the long-run (ie. positive externalities or extreme risk if the market were to collapse).
 

Economenvironmentalism