Comments davidzet has made

  • sounds like a waste of money...

    ...if demand is so great, Berkeley should direct the $$ to other green projects that "need" subsidies.On Berkeley's program to finance solar systems through property tax assessments is off to great start posted 9 months ago 5 Responses

  • Peak Water is meaningless...

    http://aguanomics.com/2009/01/peak-water.htmlOn Is there anything that isn't peaking? posted 10 months ago 8 Responses

  • good new and bad news...

    The good news is that water can be allocated by price. There will be NO "bankruptcy." Price mechanisms can also be pro poor (i.e., some for free, pay for more)

    The bad news is that climate change WILL have adverse impacts on supply, and we will have to cope.

    I hope that the hysterical tone helps, rather than hinders progress in these areas...On World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 10 months ago 31 Responses

  • water and price...

    If you want to encourage people to change their water habits and install water-saving technologies, you have to raise the PRICE of water above current levels that are anchored by cost.

    Read about true conservation pricing (i.e., scarcity pricing) at my blog: http://aguanomics.com/2009/01/amending-ab2882.htmlOn Musings from an L.A. green-biz conference posted 10 months ago 1 Response

  • Preaching to the Choir...

    ....we already know that economists can't agree on many things, and we already know that there are branches of economics that conflict with each other. (It used to be macro vs. micro until macro got "micro-foundations," but now it's neoclassical versus institutional and experimental; more here: http://aguanomics.com/2008/08/neoclassical-failure.html)

    I consider my self post-autistic and DO see that many economists dress up their opinions as mathematical or econometric "proofs," but I do NOT agree that economics has nothing consistent to say.

    Economists all agree on the Law of Demand; they all agree that incentives matter; they all agree that negative externalities should be taxed and that property rights can affect their impacts; etc.

    I read Czech's book years ago and took his message to heart. Unfortunately for us, the "growth cult" is stronger among politicians than economists, and SOME economists hand politicians ready-made arguments for the "end of growth = collapse of civilization". Those of a more thoughtful bent know that growth per se is not relevant. More here: http://aguanomics.com/2008/12/sustainable-economies.html

    I could go on...

    I am happy to see Mr. Meyer discussing this topic (and I often do report on economic confusion/bias/uselessness at my blog), but I also want to caution readers that they should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.On Does economics even look at the real world? posted 11 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

  • CCS is another form of geo-engineering

    ...and just as mistaken.

    It's cheaper to emit less than grab it once emitted.On Government report criticizes U.S. plans for carbon dioxide burial posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • Good point...

    ...and I discuss the competition of tap vs bottled (and the EWG study) here: http://aguanomics.com/2008/10/poll-results-bottled-or-tap ...On Bottled water is a sham answer to low-quality tap water posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • Excellent Piece!

    I got my PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics and learned just how corrupt the food system has become. USDA is an industry lobbyist and Congress has distorted production and distribution to surreal levels (most recent, ethanol).

    If the Federal government did NOTHING wrt food, we'd all be better off -- safer, cheaper, sustainable food.

    End tax and subsidy schemes, decentralize food safety to its lowest level and FREE THE FARMERS.On The food system as 'largest quasi-public utility in the world' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • LADWP *will* deliver...

    I know that LADWP can get the job done. They are just maneuvering now.

    In the early 90s, there were severe penalties for using more water (a drought, sound familiar?) and LADWP cut its [customers'] use by enough to get millions of "conservation" rebates.

    I favor a tax over C&T (for reasons discussed above), but be SURE to know that LADWP will reduce emissions if there's money at stake.On Los Angeles utility starts to squawk as it stares down a $700 million carbon bill posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

  • Jason's Right...

    The WTO is more than democratic -- all countries have a veto over rules. That's why the WTO negotiations have broken down - there's a lot of opposition to corporate give-aways (TRIPS, etc.) from developing countries and a lot of opposition to ending ag subsidies from developed countries.

    With WTO out of the picture, big countries pursue MUCH MORE imbalanced bilateral agreements that introduce more distortions than the WTO would.

    GMOs are NOT forced on people/farmers. I am aware of the Indian farmer suicides (and I blame salesmen for that), but there is HUGE GMO demand from farmers in developing countries. The biggest blockage to GMOs comes from Europeans -- and their fears are being strokked by funding from -- guess who -- european companies that manufacture pesticides!

    @Woverine -- Chill! We're only on 12 comments and you've already validated Godwin's law. Let's talk more facts and less emotion.

    Bottom Line: Ending subsidies and freeing trade will do more for sustainablility than a fleet of hybrids or millions of victory gardens.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

  • Our National Mess

    I'd say that the solution would be LESS, not more, federal involvement in water policy. As you point out, the natural management unit is a watershed -- not a State border -- and locals can "manage" their watershed with more sensitivity than any federal agency or politician.

    In fact, I'd go further and say that federal interference (through regulation AND funding) has done more to paralyze and thwart watershed management than any other influence.

    It's my experience that the biggest blunders in water management (in the West, at least) have been orchestrated by federal bodies (USACE, Reclamation, Interior). Without their malevolent influence, we'd not only have fewer disasters in our past but be able to do more RIGHT NOW. (That's the reason for all that "disaster as usual" testimony you saw.)On Oh, wait, we don't have a national water policy posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • Great Post

    It's sad to hear what you all are going through. Food IS life, so at least your work is life-affirming (unlike, e.g., a tennis-shoe plant :).

    Those who survive will have fewer competitors; hopefully, higher prices will help you rebuild.On The toll of agriculture and hundred-year rains on Wisconsin's farmland posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • end subsidies...

    ...for people living in flood areas (e.g., levees). Combine this with mandatory flood insurance, and people will move away -- or pay the price -- from flood areas.On The Midwest will suffer if we don't change our approach to flood protection posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

  • Too many MCs, not enough Mikes

    Folks,

    As Charles pointed out, carbon taxes are meant to help people differentiate between good and bad choices by taxing "bad" choices. We all know that SUVs sales are dropping like a rock. Taxes would make them drop twice as fast.

    I am in favor of tax and dividend, since the government is not-so-hot at picking technologies (remember the semi-conductor alliance? how about hydrogen car? etc.) If rebates are per capita they are progressive.

    Further, taxes will not just "drip through cracks" -- they will be even easier to collect than sales taxes.

    "Shunning of motorized recreation."? Are you kidding me? Stop tell people what to do and just charge them for being stupid. We will never "command and control" our way to negative carbon flows...

    Related posts at my blog:
    http://aguanomics.com/2008/06/bureaucrats-versus-markets. ...
    http://aguanomics.com/2008/06/counterpoint-on-carbon-taxe ...On Putting a price on carbon is only the first step in energy policy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

  • Yep....

    I've seen the anti-immigrant stuff all over the place in CA. Pretty sad since stopping migration will fix nothing and will cause more problems...On Anti-immigrant groups hide agenda behind environmental concerns posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

  • Go Organic!

    1. "Artificial" fertilizer needs natural gas as an input. Expensive.

    2. Macro-nutrient fertilizers do not have many useful components.

    3. Organic fertilizers are sustainable, balanced, and local.

    Yes -- food will be more expensive, but it has only been cheap because we've been "borrowing" resources from the future. On The WSJ on fertilizer markets so manipulated, they might make a Saudi prince blush posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

  • civil war at the USDA?

    Glad to hear that someone at USDA is thinking about the impacts of GW. Now all they need to do is end all the stupid USDA programs (e.g., ethanol) that are making the problem worse!On Climate change doing a number on U.S. West, says USDA report posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

  • tradeoffs...

    First, I want to point out an inconsistency: "Here in North America, we have 7 percent of the world's population and 15 percent of the world's fresh water, but we are doing a great job wasting this bounty; within the next 10 years, water shortages are expected in 36 U.S. states."

    You are including Canada (LOTS of water) with the US (not nearly as much per capita esp. when you consider population densities...) -- so the problems with water management are much bigger than "15 percent" implies.

    Second, I think that the questioner's dilemma reflects an important fact -- where water is abundant, water management is not so important BUT we all want to feel like we are doing everything we can for the environment.

    I think that this thinking is misplaced. Despite all the excellent reasons offered about why people in Portland should conserve water, the abundance of water means that conservation is not so important -- relative to OTHER issues (e.g., car congestion, forests, population growth, etc.)

    The reason that people in the SW are more aware of water issues is that water is far more important in the SW relative to minor issues (how do I get enough sunshine :)

    So, my answer would be to go find a real problem.

    Read more about the tradeoffs in water at my blog:  http://aguanomics.com/On Umbra on water conservation posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • better yet....

    ...would be protecting wild salmon populations by assigning/auctioning property rights and fixing up rivers. Wild salmon IN THE WILD are better for you. Sure, they're going to be more expensive, but who said you had the RIGHT to salmon anyways?

    More on the destruction of California's salmon here:
    http://aguanomics.com/search?q=salmonOn USDA considers first-ever organic standards for farmed fish posted 1 year, 6 months ago 1 Response