Projects to Stash Carbon Dioxide Underground Get a Boost

 

Jordan Silva

Environmental Econ

Blog 3

Dr. Eubanks

 

Projects to Stash Carbon Dioxide Underground Get a Boost

 

            This article provides great insight to a newer form of technology to help fight climate change. Any industrial site must capture their carbon dioxide waste before it hits the atmosphere and damages the planet. The capturing of carbon dioxide, however, is extremely costly and company’s lack the incentive needed to make this crucial change. “In 2018, Congress approved a lucrative tax break for companies that trap carbon dioxide.” This is the incentive companies needed to start and fund the expensive project. ““That was one of the keys we’ve been waiting for,” said Robert McLennan, chief executive of Minnkota Power Cooperative, an electric utility planning to retrofit a coal plant in North Dakota. The project aims to capture 3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to the pollution from 640,000 cars, and bury the gas more than a mile underground. At an estimated cost of $1 billion, he said, the venture wouldn’t be financially viable without the credit.” Incentives matter, without them, innovations and new technologies can be halted because it would cost more to take the necessary action to reduce pollution. These industrial sites would lose money by making the choice to stash carbon dioxide underground without the government tax credit. The tax credit, “is worth up to $50 for each ton of carbon dioxide captured and permanently stored underground, and up to $35 per ton if the captured gas is buried during enhanced oil recovery. For large projects, that break could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the measure’s 12-year lifetime.”

            Stashing carbon dioxide will also save communities that base their survival on the local industrial plant. It would save jobs and prevent many plants from shutting down. The carbon dioxide that is captured could be sold to nearby oil fields or buried for the tax credit. Taking a toxic waste out of the air and being able to earn a profit by repurposing it is a perfect solution to the pollution problem many company’s face.

COVID-19 and Unemployment in the United States

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment in the United States has reached the highest peak since as early as January 1948. Since April 2020, when unemployment hit its highest at 14.7%, the unemployment rate has steadily dropped to 6.9% as of October. However, the pre-pandemic rate was 3.5% in February, so we are clearly not back to normal yet (Unemployment Rate).  In the United States, unemployment spiked to 14.7% as unessential workers were either temporarily or permanently laid off. The labor market momentum indicator dropped to its lowest in many years. Labor market momentum is described as such: “A positive value indicates that labor market conditions are above their long-run average, while a negative value signifies that labor market conditions are below their long-run average” (KC Fed Labor Market Conditions). According to an article on the Business Insider website, more than 60 million Americans (about 1 in 5) have filed for unemployment insurance, which is more than the number of claims filed during the 18-month Great Recession of 2008. For scale, the peak unemployment during the Great Recession was 10% in October 2009. 

A research group by the name of the Brookings Institution found that over 37 million Americans were immediately impacted by COVID-19. These industries include “retail, passenger transportation, arts and entertainment, accommodation, restaurants and bars, and a variety of other personal services” (Berube & Bateman).

Vulnerable workers are highly concentrated in metro areas in immediate-risk industries. “Vulnerable workers comprise at least 30% of the total workforce in a mix of tourism-dependent and energy-dependent metro areas” (Berube & Bateman). As such, areas like Las Vegas, Honolulu, Myrtle Beach, and several areas of Florida were affected by the travel restrictions and bans as well as the shutdown of hospitality industries. According to the same study, the vulnerable workers are disproportionately young and possess less formal education. This is due to the fact that younger people are traditionally employed by sectors such as retail, food service, and arts/entertainment as gateway jobs to get started in their careers. Thus, many have yet to achieve higher education: “42% possess no more than a high school diploma, compared to 30% of other workers” (Berube & Bateman). This may make it more difficult, at least in the short term, to redeploy their skills into other, less vulnerable industries.

Works Cited

Berube, Alan, and Nicole Bateman. “Who Are the Workers Already Impacted by the COVID-19 Recession?” Brookings, The Brookings Institution, 17 June 2020, www.brookings.edu/research/who-are-the-workers-already-impacted-by-the-covid-19-recession/.

KC Fed Labor Market Conditions Index, Momentum Indicator. 10 Dec. 2020, fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FRBKCLMCIM.

“Unemployment Rate.” FRED, 4 Dec. 2020, fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE/.

Addressing climate through our ocean

For many years multiple organizations have fought to preserve our planet from the effects of climate change. Some policies have been implemented to help reduce greenhouse emissions but through inadequate U.S. climate policy and non-believers it has been a slow process. The new bill introduced by House Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee seems to really be taking climate more seriously. It is mostly aimed at helping to protect our Ocean waters by using ocean and coastal resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will also help the coastal community to learn to adapt to the current climate change that is causing these impacts.

The “Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act” is the first bill of its kind that takes the ocean into account to help with climate change. This bill will grant permission to halt new offshore oil drilling as well as to promote offshore wind and other ways to protect coastal ecosystems for carbon sequestration. By doing this, it will give aid to improving wildlife habitats as well as coastal storm protection. Many environmental organizations have long ignored fighting big-time oil companies that harm the ocean and caused so much of the world’s pollution. This is quite the wake-up call for all those in the climate community to start looking for different ways to help reduce greenhouse emissions but most importantly to take the vital water source more seriously. It is amazing that the ocean has been ignored for so long since it is an important economic resource that is worth $373 billion, with 127 million Americans that inhabit the coastal counties. Yet the communities are bound by culture and survival they choose to ignore the ocean waters increasing rise, warmth, and acidification.

  Although this newly presented bill seems promising it lacks the inability to remove organizations that are currently causing our oceans to become acidic, warmer, and rising. In order to combat climate change more needs to be done than just stopping new oil drilling in our oceans. There have to be policies implemented that will protect our oceans from being damaged through oil rig spills and further greenhouse emissions. Although the promotion of offshore wind sounds like a cleaner solution it's forgetting that the waste from these offshore winds will be greater and a plan to maintain the waste also needs to be implemented. If we were to introduce more offshore wind, there must be a way to find a cost-efficient way to produce them in order to prevent further waste that will later become an even bigger problem.

From an environmental point of view, people seem to support the ocean bill, yet they probably don't understand that clean energy doesn't mean no waste disposal but a small solution that still promotes business as planned product and productions. In addition, a significant amount of turbine blades will eventually be disposed of into the water causing a whole other problem in the near future. These newly acquired Ocean policies will only come into law if the people see to elect leaders that will systemize environmental economics over their personal interest in fossil fuel.

Source:

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/522926-you-cant-address-climate-by-ignoring-71-percent-of-the-planet

 

The Cost of Abandoned and Orphaned Wells

Canada contains over 127,992 inactive or orphaned wells just across three of its provinces. Alberta contains the most with over 91,000 inactive and 9,992 orphaned wells. Following behind, Saskatchewan contains 24,000 inactive or abandoned wells and British Columbia has around 10,000. These abandoned wells are raising many concerns as the aging wells impose risks of polluting the soil and water of ranches, farms, and forests that exist on old well sites.

Industry standards require that companies must pay for the clean up of wells that are not currently in use. The company that owned the site would remain reasonable for the site until the area has been completely reclaimed. Although, in recent years there has been a downward trend in the use of fossil fuels, while instead prioritizing in a cleaner energy source. Because of this, some companies have gone bankrupt and can not cover the high costs of clean up, creating an orphan well.

The cost associated with cleaning up inactive or abandon wells is extremely high, especially for Alberta, where the clean up costs are as high as $260 billion. British Columbia and Saskatchewan have estimated costs of $3 billion and $4 billion. These numbers are alarming, but those costs lay in the company’s hands. Orphan wells on the other hand no longer have any parties responsible for cleanup, where the costs associated are extremely high. The International Institute for Sustainable (IISD) Development states Alberta’s orphan wells cleanup cost, “a staggering $100 billion, but the actual amount to clean up Alberta’s oil patch could be much higher”. This puts the Canadian Government in charge of the cleanup and the costs, instilling frustration in many Canadian citizens.

Much of the animosity from the citizens comes from the fact that their taxes will be raised to pay for the cleanup, instead of the companies who are responsible. To make matters worse, the inactive wells already pose massive threats to the surrounding communities well-being and health, such as ranchers and farmers who are stuck with wells that leak contaminants on their soil. Due to this, it is crucial that the oil industry must remain responsible for the liabilities.

If the liabilities are left up to the government to handle, they will bail out oil and gas companies that have profited off Canada’s public resources without funding any cleanup, essentially making oil and gas companies free riders. To curb this behavior, the government can apply the “polluter-pays” principal which places the liabilities back on to the companies at fault. Even if the companies are bankrupt, former owners of the well will take on the responsibility of cleaning up the mess that was made. 

Works Cited

https://www.iisd.org/articles/who-will-pay-albertas-orphan-wells

Too Big to Succeed

 “Too Big to Fail” became the well-known phrase dating back to the time of the Great Recession from 2007-2009. This phrase referred to the government bailing out big financial institutions or companies that were deemed too important to the economy to let fail. In contrast, there is another phrase used for companies that are “Too Big to Succeed.” In a Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) article called Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Succeed, and the Foolish Crusade to Break Up Big Tech by Anne Bradley, she applies this phrase in connection with US government views of big tech companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. being monopolies in the market. Thus government must intervene in order to curb such monopolistic occurrences, using methods like splitting up the companies. Yet she clarifies that such notions / actions are big mistakes on the government’s part, just like when government dealt with the companies that were “Too Big to Fail” years earlier. Altogether, government interference in the market ends up impeding economic freedom and growth along with creating faulty conclusions to justify their actions by disregarding the Rule of Law and the entrepreneurial role in the market discovery process.

First, the government interfering in the market without following the Rule of Law impedes economic freedom and economic growth. The Rule of Law refers to a collection of rules or laws that are fixed and established beforehand that governments are supposed to follow without any risk of arbitrary decisions. In terms of the US government dealing with the big tech companies, Bradley states, “The decision to regulate or break up big tech firms will be arbitrary, as all government decisions are. Regulation in this sense faces the same problems central economic planning does: chief among them, the mistaken assumption that somehow, bureaucrats know what size firms should be, or that they even know how to make markets more competitive through legislation.” This example shows that despite the U.S. not being a centrally planned economy, government actions on behalf of consumers to correct economical detriments based on arbitrary decisions definitely impede on economic freedom. Consumers will no longer have the option of choosing for themselves what they wish to buy or what goods meet their demands. Rather they are at the whim of the government to decide such things, which reduce competition and innovation. Thus, the government simultaneously reduces economic freedom and growth by not following the Rule of Law when interfering in the market.

Similar to ignoring the Rule of Law, government interference while disregarding the entrepreneurial role in the market discovery process leads it to justify its actions based on misconceptions. Taken from an economist of the Austrian School of Economics named Ludwig von Mises, the entrepreneurial role involves figuring out the cheapest and best possible way to provide goods or services that meet consumer demands. Entrepreneurs attempt to fill this role through trial and error, which adds to the market discovery process first mentioned by Friedrich Hayek, another economist of the Austrian School of Economics. When referencing the big tech companies, they take on this same kind of role. For example, the author mentions how people “don’t have to shop on Amazon; [they] have many alternatives, which helps keep entrepreneurs in check. It’s not that Amazon or Google don’t each have a desire to increase their power, it’s that they have no natural course to obtain it. Economic profit does not equal coercive power.” In this example, it is the consumers who have the power over these companies and not the other way around. Consumers are the ones that decide if the goods / services being offered to them meet their needs affordably and efficiently. If so, then they buy the good or service. If not, then the company can either come up with ways that meet consumer demands or eventually shut down, allowing for other entrepreneurs to replace them after discovering the reason(s) why these former entrepreneurs failed. Yet by ignoring these facts, the result is forming misconceptions like companies having power over consumers. As such, the government uses these misconceptions to justify its actions for intervening in the market without taking the entrepreneurial role in the market discovery process into account.

Therefore, government interference in the market impedes economic freedom and growth along with forming faulty misconceptions by disregarding the Rule of Law and the entrepreneurial role in the market discovery process. First, by not following the Rule of Law when making decisions pertaining to the market, the government is stripping people of their economic freedom of choice as well as reducing economic growth from lack of competition and innovation. Likewise, government interference without factoring in the entrepreneurial role in the market discovery process leads to misconceptions such as companies having power over what consumers buy as the reasons for interfering in the market. Overall, by following the Rule of Law and accepting the role of entrepreneurs in the market discovery process, the government minimizes the risk of another financial crisis forming.

Source

https://fee.org/articles/too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-succeed-and-the-foolish-crusade-to-break-up-big-tech/

14er on Private Property: A New Way to View Conservation?

 A few years ago there was a parcel of land for sale in Colorado. The unique situation of this $100 million piece of property is it comes with a 14,000 ft peak. This makes the peak the only privately owned 14er that people have to pay if they wish to summit it. This stirs public outcry, but we should reconsider if paying to access nature is a bad thing.

Culebra Peak is a privately owned 14er and Bierstadt is on national forest land. With these comes different rules. Culebra peak requires permits in advance as well as provided guides for hunting and fishing. Bierstadt requests nothing for admission and required documents for other recreational activities such as a fishing license. The benefits of open access give people the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. The entity in charge of Bierstadt is the USFS. Their goal is to be the steward of the land to preserve nature for current and future generations. Their motivations come from managing the forests to benefit the American people. In contrast, the privately-owned peak may share the same attitudes for nature but their motivation is to profit so they can maintain the land for a source of income. The point I want to make is the restricted access to Culebra limits human traffic creating less damage to the environment. Also, the surrounding area of Culebra is used for high-quality fishing and hunting suggesting the wildlife within the area is superior too. Now, I am not suggesting we privatize America’s forests but we consider admission fees as a conservation tool.

One example of admission fees being a conservation tool is Colorado Parks and Wildlife. To enter any state park or hunt or fish there are respective fees. CPW is largely funded by park admission, hunting, and fishing fees. No funding comes from citizen taxes. The rest of the funding largely comes from grants and lottery proceeds. CPW has more autonomy from politics than the USFS since the USFS funding is subject to congressional approval. With this distinction prices help reflect the cost of using recreational resources. With prices comprising the majority CPW funding there is an incentive to achieve similar goals of the USFS but motivation to adjust pricing so CPW can adequately manage state land. Although this method is imperfect it is more efficient than the model of which the USFS operates. 

The outdoors is seen as a place for all, but charging a price for entry is a turnoff to some. However, we should reconsider what the price represents. It represents the efforts needed to keep the lands people use in a condition to be used for generations. 

Naughty Nestle?

In Chaffee county, there is a controversy over water use. Nestle is applying for a 10-year extension of a permit to extract and bottle water for sale. However, people have concerns about their environment and economy for the future of their county. Specifically, a group called Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water (UPCC)  was formed in opposition to Nestle’s presence. A public hearing happened at the public hall where Nestle and UPCC made their case to the county commissioners. The county commissioners are in charge of determining whether the permit will be renewed or not.

UPCC of Nestle renewing the permit to remove water believes Nestle’s presence should benefit the county’s economy and not damage the environment and those permit requirements weren’t fulfilled. The prior permit obtained by Nestle had provisions that aimed to guarantee economic benefits and sustainable use of resources. One provision was 50% of truck drivers would be county residents. UPCC argued Nestle failed to meet the requirement and obtained relief from the commissioners rather than resolve the issue. Another benefit was Nestle investing money into the community philithropanthicly. Although the initial proceeds were large, later philanthropic efforts were marginal contributions and determined by Nestle which gives Nestle the power to give minimally without punishment. Nestle stated they invested $6 million in improving recycling, but UPCC noted that only thousands stayed within Colorado and the money went towards glass recycling in Denver. So, the nearly 300,000 plastic water bottles brought to Chaffee county is a burden that Nestle produces. Additionally, other water bottle companies are more efficient at supplying bottled water to the county so there is no need for Nestle. Lastly, the property Nestle operates on was verbally agreed on to be turned into a conservation easement to benefit fishermen and conservationists. However, UPCC argues that this easement is still under process, which means Nestle did not fulfill that commitment. Plus, by being turned into an easement the county forgoes potential development and property tax earnings. UPCC believes Nestle has not fulfilled their permit requirements and should not be granted a renewal under these circumstances.

Nestle argues that they are sustainable and not an economical burden on the county. Nestle states that the quantity of plastic used in their water bottles has been halved from 16 grams of plastic to 8-9 grams of plastic. Additionally, they have invested money into recycling efforts, but not within Chaffee county. Also, a hydrology engineer analyzed water flows that would be impacted by Nestle’s wells and water removal and found Nestle has not made an adverse impact on water flows. Nestle is also turning the land they own into a conservation easement to benefit wildlife both on land and water which would benefit fishermen and conservationists for decades to come. A commissioner expressed discontent with Nestle’s philothropanthic efforts over the years. This begs the question if Nestle was doing so to keep good relations with the city so they can ensure a permit renewal and were not being truly philothropanthic. Nestle notes that a goal to ensure economic benefits to Chaffee county was to hire at least 50% of their truck drivers in Chaffee county as residents. Although Nestle has been struggling to maintain that promise they state they communicated this dilemma and maintained efforts to achieve said goal.

Nestle is a large water bottle producer in America and to maintain such a presence they have to move a lot of water. In doing so they drew the attention of the public in Chaffee county where Nestle removes water from. UPCC is concerned that Nestle’s presence has unsustainable use of water, production of plastic, and lack of economic growth will be a burden and not a benefit for the county.

A Case of Polycentricity

In Colorado, there have been growing concerns about water availability for agriculture use, municipal use, and the environment. Rivers have run dry or have experienced drops in water flows. In response efforts across the state range from governmental institutions to private firms and non-profits. This situation is an example of a polycentric order.

To start, we will define a polycentric order. This is the order of organization for social tasks that arise spontaneously. This encompasses many organizations that exist to achieve individual goals and work together or alone. They are constrained by rules. Traditionally, individuals are the unit of analysis however it is possible for firms and public agencies to be the unit of analysis too. For firms, they must be subject to the same rules and incentives as others. With this criterion established we can connect the efforts of Colorado to solve water scarcity to polycentric order.

To illustrate polycentric order within Colorado we will look at an individual project on water conservation. Let’s establish the rules for water use. In Colorado, there is the Colorado Doctrine which states that the right to use water must be for a beneficial purpose and if there isn’t one person forgo their right of water use. In this situation, water users are inclined to maximize their use of water since there is no benefit to leaving it in the water. Consequently, rivers have led to environmental degradation and increase competition for water. In 1973 a law was passed that ruled water left in the stream as a beneficial use for wildlife, which means conservationists could buy a water right and have a water court repurpose the right for leaving water in the stream to guarantee greater water flows. An example of successful water conservation is the Crystal River Project. This project was motivated by the Colorado Water Trust and agriculture producers to achieve consistent flows in the river even in times of drought. To resolve this issue other conservation agencies involved hired a firm to perform analysis on the river to establish a management plan. Here we have many actors working to achieve a goal for different reasons. For example, the agriculture industry is aiming to improve water flows for financial reasons. Meanwhile, the Colorado water trust and other conservation organizations are interested in higher water flows. Then, a land trust is interested in improving the land for its members. There is no hierarchy here where one organization holds more priority or power than the order. This phenomenon can best be described by polycentric order. Notably, similar efforts have leased water rights from agriculture or purchased to achieve similar outcomes. Still, these situations have many actors and no hierarchy. 

Polycentric order is an observation of the world as it is occurring. With the water scarcity in Colorado, there have been diverse organizations involved with this predicament. The response to this issue is an example of polycentric order involving firms, non-profits, and public agencies operating with zero notions of hierarchy.

USFS Fire Management and the Cameron Peak Fire

 In the year 2020 Colorado has set a record for state history. This record is the largest wildfire in state history. The Cameron Peak fire is over twice the size of the prior record holder. With this fire comes damage to property and great financial costs. There are many factors that lead up to this event, but it is not clear who is to blame.

There are many factors that lead up to this event such as climate change, beetle kill, and anti-fire forest management. The Cameron peak wildfire takes place in northern Colorado just above Rocky Mountain National Park and goes north to Red Feather Lakes. In these areas, there will often be a fire ban that lasts during the summer. Additionally, in the winter higher elevation areas experience a lot of trees fall from avalanches and other factors. Also, both of these areas experienced large amounts of beetle kill over the years. Lastly, climate change leads to faster snowmelt, and in effect soils and plants dry faster lengthening the time period for fire season. So, these areas are left with dry land and abundant dead trees on the forest floor.

The primary institution responsible for this area is the US Forest Service (USFS). The USFS is responsible for setting the rules (such as fire bans) and the steward of the land. Since they own the land, is the out of control fire their fault? Granted climate change is not within their control, but the removal of fire hazards is. Plus, the efforts of fighting this fire is estimated to cost over $98 million. Public budget reports show the USFS dedicating funds for fire suppression efforts and improving the forest habitat over the decades. Yet, the fires seem to have gotten worse as seen with the Cameron Peak fire. Ecologists will note that fires occur over periods of time and the suppression of routine fires primes the land for large difficulties to suppress fires. The unintended consequence of fire suppression efforts of the USFS is large uncontrollable fires that can cost more to fight than to prevent. This situation arises from political agendas to suppress fires as they are seen as a disturbance, and not considered a tool for forest management. In this situation, political perspectives and science are at odds with one another and that places USFS to accommodate politics in order to receive adequate funding to manage their land. 

The Cameron Peak fire is an example of the unintended consequences of fire suppression forest management. The fire is the largest in Colorado history and is approaching $100 million in fire fighting efforts. The USFS is responsible for fire suppression and although efforts are in place for fire prevention large amounts of funding are dedicated to suppression which opens the opportunity for uncontrollable fires. 

Beach Cleanup

 

James Santiago

Econ 3300

10/24/20

Beach cleanup

In April of 2010, after an explosion on Deepwater Horizon, which was an offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico caused an oil spill. This explosion also killed 11 workers, the Deepwater Horizon was owned by a corporation called Transocean and leased to oil company BP (formerly British Petroleum). This oil leaked into the gulf for three months, effecting both ecology and economy of coastal states with, particularly Louisiana. During early efforts to clean up the oil-soaked beaches in Louisiana, you could spot workers wearing scarlet pants and T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Inmate Labor” were easy to spot. This raised multiple questions including is BP hiring prisoners while the oil spill forced so many residents into unemployment. BP stated that local workforce was not willing to work the hot, dirty, exhausting, and dangerous 12-hour a day job at the $10 per hour they were offering. According to the Louisiana Workforce Commission they could field 400 new non-prisoner employees on any Monday and then have only 200 show the following day. The state of Louisiana has prisoners housed in private prisons, parish jails, and work-release centers. Prisoners that partake in these jobs for between zero and forty cents an hour plus opportunity to earn time off their sentences. This is not available for prisoners convicted of dangerous crimes or have bad behavior. So, the question I raise is why we do not use prisoners to clean beaches.

Beaches has multiple sources of pollution from wet weather discharges, trash and litter, vessel discharges, and nitrogen and phosphorus. These different sources have resulted in beach closings, shellfish bed closings, and aesthetic problems. Some of these pollutants that could be cleaned up are trash, chemicals, sediment, gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, fertilizers, pesticides, and pet waste. Collecting some of these pollutants would go a long way of cleaning up our beaches and building tourist areas up. Many American beaches have been closed or have restrictions on them. A beach closure can lead to significant economic and social losses to coastal communities and their surrounding areas. Now this can refer to full closure’s, swimming advisories, and contamination advisories.

Using prisoners to clean the beach would be a cheap and affordable. It will also give the prisoners less of a chance to escape. And make people close to the road crews, feel safer and keeps them away from other citizens. This is also a chance for the prisoners to give back to the community and maybe work a plan to get some time lifted off their sentence. The cleanup of the beaches would bring money and business into the economy. Some of benefits can be with food trucks, beach wear and other beach supplies. Also, they would bring in people to surrounding business and hotels and motels.

 

Prisoner Labor Used to Clean Up BP Oil Spill

 

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2011/mar/15/prisoner-labor-used-to-clean-up-bp-oil-spill/

Climate Change is Putting Ocean Fish Stocks in Danger

    Fish are among the most sought-after food resources in the world. So much so that nearly 48 million tons of fish are caught each year, which creates over $77 billion USD according to research done by the University of British (UBC) Columbia. Nations from all over the world enjoy eating fish, creating a very high demand. To help countries maintain the large supply, the United Nations stablished Exclusive Economic (EEZ) Zones. An EEZ gives a sovereign state rights over marine resources that extend 200 nautical miles from the states coast. These zones are crucial to many countries, but climate change is changing EEZs forever.

    While people are capable of following territorial boundaries, fish are migratory in nature and do not abide by EEZs or human boundaries. This leads to major issues as warming waters are changing the distribution patterns of transboundary fish. Researchers from UBC found that, “…some countries get over 80 per cent of their catch from transboundary species”. With such a high supply coming from transboundary fish, the altered patterns impose risks for many countries, but especially ones in tropical regions.

    Pacific Island countries like Palau and Solomon Islands could see a 10 to 40 per cent drop in yellowfin tuna and skipjack catches by 2050 due to their redistribution. With their most exported fish being redistributed, these islands economies could be affected tremendously. Even the USA, Canada, Iceland, and Norway have had conflict dealing with the allocation of Atlantic mackerel, a transboundary fish that has been changing locations. While some countries EEZs are hit negatively, certain places have seen an increase in catches. For instance, UBC Professor Rashid Sumaila states, “catches are expected to increase by 15 to 20 per cent in Kiribati and the Cook Islands”.

    Due to the unpredictability of transboundary fish, global cooperation is required. Without cooperation, certain fish species could become extinct to ocean mismanagement. Improper assessment of the worlds shared waters and marine species will put many countries economies and wellbeing in jeopardy. Proper cooperation would allow the world to maximize the economic and ecological qualities of Earth’s waters. Global coordination would most importantly provide future generations with a vital food resource and monetary security.

Works Cited

https://oceans.ubc.ca/2020/10/21/transboundary/

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-impact-climate-tropical-fisheries-ripples.html

Assessing the Investment Potential and Benefits of Green Hydrogen

The Earth’s population is constantly growing and so have carbon emissions. This has led to the rise of ideas surrounding renewable or sustainable energy. One form of sustainable energy is green hydrogen, which involves using renewable energy like wind or solar to electrolyze water and separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms from each other. In a 2020 CNBC article called The investment opportunities in ‘green hydrogen’ might not be where you think by Anmar Frangoul, the author discusses the opportunities of investing in green hydrogen as well as the benefits of utilizing this new form of renewable energy in sectors like industry and transportation. However, the environmental implications are minimally discussed and the economic implications are few in this article.

First, on an environmental level, the use of green hydrogen having positive implications are minimal at best. For example, the author alludes to a statement made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that “hydrogen production [being] responsible for roughly 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.” The emission of carbon dioxide is a well-known factor of climate change. Yet Frangoul also references from Wood Mackenzie - a global energy, chemicals, renewables, metals and mining research company - that despite how attractive green hydrogen seems at combating carbon dioxide emissions, green hydrogen’s “role in the overall energy mix is small, accounting for just 0.1% of worldwide hydrogen production in 2020.” Taking both examples into account, the fact that green hydrogen would barely have any effect on the annual amount of roughly 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide causes one to wonder if it is even worth using, let alone investing in.

But from an economic perspective, the article is lacking. For instance, there is no mention whatsoever of such ideas as the “optimal” level of pollution regarding carbon emissions. The “optimal” level of pollution refers to the marginal costs of reducing pollution is greater than the marginal benefits. However, the article talks about the EU’s initiative of creating zero carbon emissions by 2030 with the help of green hydrogen without addressing this idea of optimal pollution levels. How much are people willing to pay to reduce carbon emissions by using green hydrogen? Do the marginal benefits of using green hydrogen outweigh the marginal costs? Since research into its use is still ongoing, the answers to these questions and seeing whether or not green hydrogen is an efficient renewable energy tool remains unknown.

Likewise, there is a brief discussion of investment opportunities for green hydrogen having the potential to increase renewable energy growth. Frangoul quotes Mark Lewis, a chief sustainability strategist at BNP Paribas Asset Management who says, “About 400 billion is what we think will be required, and fully half of that is for dedicated new renewable energy capacity. So … this is only going to increase the growth opportunity that was already there around renewables.” Considering this statement, there is the question of demand. Namely, the number of consumers in the public or in the sectors that could use green hydrogen who will demand this good. Moreover, with the author’s assertion of green hydrogen production being expensive, this ties in with how demand for this good holds up against demand for pre-existing renewable energy alternatives like solar, wind, ethanol, etc. Altogether, boasting that green hydrogen will increase the opportunity for renewable energy growth seems rather presumptive.

Therefore, on the surface, this article presents the investment potential for utilizing green hydrogen in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions and being a positive tool of renewable energy. But at this stage, the full scope of these potential benefits are a mystery that will hopefully be uncovered in the next couple of years.

Source

Frangoul, Anmar. “The investment opportunities in ‘green hydrogen’ might not be where you

think.” CNBC, 13 Oct. 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/investment-opportunity-in-

green-hydrogen-may-not-be-where-you-think.html.

Financially Responsible

 

Colorado has an election coming up in November 2020. One of the issues on the ballot is the reintroduction of gray wolves. Wolves used to roam the lands of Colorado until they were hunted to extinction. This extinction was motivated by the livestock industry because wolves had a reputation for hunting livestock. In consideration for the reintroduction of the wolves, the proposed bill has a solution to deal with the conflict between livestock and predators.

Traditionally there has been a dilemma in dealing with the reintroduction of predators because they can cause financial damage to livestock owners. Wolves have been known to prey on livestock. Even with preventative measures in place, wolves still kill approximately 300 animals a year across 3 states that have adopted similar reintroductions of wolves. Historically, this has led to efforts that lead to the extinction of gray wolves within Colorado. In this case, there is a private property owner being damaged by a wolf with nobody being liable. With this dilemma, the incentive for property owners is to protect their investments or else face financial losses. But the catch is it's illegal to kill wolves for preventative purposes so that leaves ranchers out of money and with little resolutions. The issue here is the lack of liability for the damage of wolves to ranchers livestock and the rules stopping ranchers from protecting their livestock, to begin with. 

In recent times states have adapted to solve the issue of liability between wolves killing livestock. Colorado is following the approach of other states to pay livestock owners for deaths due to wolves. Here, wolves are treated as a private good where there is now financial ownership of the wolves from the government. The entity that will be in charge of compensation and management of the wolves is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. The bill states the compensation for killed livestock will be fair. This resolution seeks to deal with the dilemma livestock owners face with wolves. This solution establishes liability by holding the government financially liable for Gray wolves. 

An issue with reintroducing Gray Wolves is the lack of liability for the damage caused by wolves. The bill aims to resolve the dilemma by changing the rules. Traditionally, it is illegal to kill wolves with exceptions so livestock owners are put in a losing situation. But, the bill holds a government agency financially liable for wolves which removes the losing situation livestock owners were initially in.

 

Bad teaching is tearing America apart!

E.D. Hirsch who is 92 years old best known for his 1987 book, “Cultural Literacy: What every American needs to know.” Mr. Hirsch makes an argument that bad teachers are tearing America apart. Mr. Hirsch states that the current way teachers teach now where they allow students more freedom to learn at their own speed. According to Mr. Hirsch, an intellectual error has become a threat to the well-being of the nation. Mr. Hirsch states that how the educational system is tearing America apart and discusses what he believes will fix it. He uses the success of his Core Knowledge curriculum of some form. Mr. Hirsch also states “educators: simply haven’t faced up to their duty to provide a coherent sequence of knowledge to children.”

The shift of online teaching is showing the parents more of an inside view of their children’s learning. I think that while this technique offers a different type of issue with teaching, I do not agree with Mr. Hirsch's opinion that “Bad teaching is tearing America apart.” I believe that the new age of technology and instant answers change the way teachers must teach. I believe that walking around and catering to individual students is important. Some students do not understand the lectures where a teacher just stands in front of the class. This can be due to a lack of attention span with instant availability from today's technology.

I also believe that even though students have been able to succeed in Mr. Hirsch Core Knowledge schools, I think that kids that have more experience, learn a lot about life and don’t take failure so seriously. These experiences show children that failure is not the end of the world, you can gain knowledge by learning from your mistakes. I agree with Mr. Hirsh where he says that school is important in helping create an American ethnicity. I think that younger grades can be taught more ethnicity history at that younger age so they can evolve into better citizens. This includes a history of all backgrounds such as Native Americans, African Americans, Latin Americans, and European Americans. I believe this is important to help build a better America. We see people learning other ethnical histories through social media during the recent protests and riots.

In conclusion, I do agree with Mr. Hirsch, where he states that no matter the circumstances, “kids delight in learning things.” I believe that all kids learn differently and at different speeds. I see it in college that some students do not understand a teacher’s way of teaching and then they get a tutor who teaches them a little differently and they understand the subject better. I think that teachers should try to find ways to educate the students in the best way possible. The issue is that the learning criteria needs to be changed. Kids these days have access to more ways to find the information they just need to be motivated. During this pandemic, we have seen the way kids are influenced by social media and are more adapt to social change. I believe that teaching needs to evolve along with everything else.

Ikea Will Buy Back Some Used Furniture

 

Why Do Environmentalists Seem Determined To Torment, Rather Than Convince?

 Jordan Silva

Environmental Econ.

Blog post 2

 

Why Do Environmentalists Seem Determined To Torment, Rather Than Convince?

 

            This article poses the question, instead of tormenting people by banning the use of certain plastics or charging for non-plastic bags at the grocery store, why not incentivize it? Instead of getting charged for non-plastic bags or not being able to use a certain plastic container because it has been banned, pay people to recycle.

A company called Wecyclers “is fueling social change for the environment by incentivizing people in low-income communities to capture value from recyclable waste in Lagos, Nigeria” (goexplorer.org). They use a fleet of low-cost bicycles as a collection service. Everything that is collected is sorted at central deposits. Then the recyclables are sold to recycling companies. Wecyclers provides jobs as collectors and sorters to low-income youth. “Families who recycle their waste receive redeemable Wecyclers points over their mobile phone through an SMS-based incentive program. These points can then be used to buy goods they value, such as cell phone minutes, basic food items and household goods” (goexplorer.org). Giving people a reward, or something they value in return for recycling is the way to go. “Wecyclers have diverted more than 1,000 tons of recyclable waste from landfills into productive reuse” (goexplorer.org).

Incentivizing recycling will benefit the recycler and the economy. Producing goods using recycled materials means less waste and pollution while consuming less water and energy. Plus, the production of recycled goods also creates more demand for them. Another way that would encourage recycling would be to have people pay by volume for the trash the truck takes to the landfill. Making people pay per pound would push them to recycle more, the more you recycle the less you have to pay for disposal.

 How Enforcement and Measurement Kill Incentive-Based Climate Regulation

    First-party enforcement is the most effective way of enforcing environmental regulations. This means that a government entity would not need to enforce rules regarding climate, and that the polluting parties, due to either their beliefs or other personal motives, would self regulate all the time. Unfortunately, first-party enforcement is nearly impossible. It seems the closest we could come is incentive-based regulation. Theoretically our government can incentivize polluting parties through taxes on polluting. It would be in these companies/individuals best interest to abide by the regulations to minimize their operation costs. Issues with mass enforcement and accurate measurement make incentive-based regulation difficult.

    Research has come a long way, but there is still a lot we don't know about climate change. What we don't know, we cant measure. Issues that we are aware of can even be difficult to measure. The inability to effectively measure elements in the natural world make it difficult for economists to create models that will continue to work. The challenge of the unknown usually leads to more learning, which can make the unknown know. Only then can a repeatable economic model be produced. With matters concerning climate change, we cannot make the unknown known, at least not in a reasonable time frame. Without a sustainable and repeatable economic model, it is difficult to determine what regulations should be installed. If the correct regulations can be determined, we will have to deal with enforcing them.

    The perfect government, when concerned with enforcement, would be global. It would be able to control the world's doing as a state government controls its state. Unfortunately, government opinions and abilities differ even within a single country. It is common practice in a free market for a company to move to where the cost to operate is lowest. It works the same on a consumer level. I would prefer to register my vehicle in Montana, where the sales tax is zero and I can save money. A corporation would move to another state if their pollution tax were lower. In the United States, we can create federal regulations to assure that cant happen, but we are just one of many nations. An effective climate control plan would have to be governed by everyone, and preferably a single entity. Pollution based incentives will never be the same across the board and this will lead to competition. A country can offer no incentive tax with the hope that companies will base operations there just as countries can draw companies with lower hourly wages.

    The incentive-based regulation of climate issues seems ideal. If the entire world could work together to identify measurable climate issues, and regulate together, it would be ideal. The current state of the world, however, makes it nearly impossible to effectively implement incentive-based climate control.

Is This The End of New Pipelines?

 

Jordan Silva

Blog 1

Environmental Econ

Dr. Eubanks

 

Is This the End of New Pipelines?

 

            This article talks about numerous different fossil fuel pipelines around the United States and their effect on the people and environment around them. In the United States there is enough pipeline to circle the globe! These pipelines damage waterways and the many animal species that lay in the pipelines path.

Clean energy is becoming more relevant and as of today can be used in a variety of ways that make it superior to fossil fuels. However, “the federal government approved projects and permits without the complete analyses required under environmental laws.” The government is knowingly approving permits without proper analysis. I would assume this probably has to do with lobbying and special interest groups throwing money around to get what they want. The current administration has “vowed to expand America’s oil and gas infrastructure and his administration has pushed to limit the ability of states to challenge pipelines.”

A chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute stated that ““Our nation’s outdated and convoluted permitting rules are opening the door for a barrage of baseless, activist-led litigation, undermining American energy progress and denying local communities the environmental, employment and economic benefits modern pipelines provide.” According to chooseenergy.com, “a successful clean energy transition could generate 65 million new jobs worldwide and result in $26 trillion in financial benefits by 2030.” Jobs will be lost due to clean energy transition but as with every new technology some jobs get lost but many are gained as well, and society as a whole will have a greater benefit from clean energy.

Investment into fossil fuels will decline in the future as cleaner sources of energy will be needed to combat climate change.” Microsoft and Apple wrote a letter to Dominion, a company that backs the Atlantic Coast pipeline,  questioning its plans to build new natural gas power plants in the state, arguing that sources like solar power and battery storage were becoming a viable alternative as their prices fell. And earlier this year, Virginia’s legislature passed a law requiring Dominion to significantly expand its investments in renewable energy.” These two companies are on the right side of the argument. Investment is going to grow substantially in solar power and other sources of clean energy. As demand increases for clean energy alternatives such as solar power or a battery powered Tesla these products should be come cheaper and more affordable for the everyday consumer.  

 

Works Cited

1.      https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/report-says-clean-energy-create-65-million-new-jobs.

The American War for Independence as a Social Movement

          I would consider the American War for Independence a transformative movement. It aims “at a total

change in supra-individual systems” (Aberle 317). Aberlie cites revolutionary movements as an example

of transformative movements. However, I enjoy learning about history and thus know that, at much of the

beginning of the war for independence, many colonists wished to still repair their relationship with Great

Britain. It wasn’t until much later due to the works of Thomas Paine and others, as well as the drafts of the

Declaration of Independence, that the idea of independence from Great Britain was taken seriously. Before

these ideas became mainstream, it was seen as a radical idea. 

        Therefore, one could make an argument that the war for independence started as a reformative

movement, aiming at "a partial change in supra-individual systems", more of a rebellion than a

revolutionary movement (Aberle 317).

Works Cited

Aberle, D. F. (1966). A Classification of Social Movements. In The Peyote Religion Among the Navajo

    (pp. 315-333). New York, NY: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

Maryland’s Foam Food Container Ban Takes Effect

     Over the years, many cities and countries alike have taken steps to correct negative environmental impacts like pollution, waste disposal problems, etc. Some of these steps include bans regarding certain goods that contain or are made of materials believed or proven to increase these negative effects on the environment, like plastic bags. In a 2020 U.S. News & World Report article called Maryland Foam Food Container Ban Takes Effect by Elliott Davis, she discusses Maryland’s new ban on the use of foam food containers that was supposed to go into effect on July 1, 2020 but allowed restaurant owners to use any remaining supply of these containers until October, due to the coronavirus pandemic. There is also discussion on the economic impacts of this ban on restaurant owners, especially concerning costs. Overall, the Maryland ban fails to take the law of supply and demand into account despite capturing the price elasticity for food.

    The first failure of the foam food container ban is not taking the law of supply into account. As taught in many microeconomic classes, the law of supply states that sellers will increase the supply of a good if the price of that good goes up, all other factors being equal. Regarding this new ban, many restaurant owners would have to find an alternative to foam food containers, which can increase production costs. Since the idea of making a profit relies on marginal revenue being greater than marginal costs, these same owners would traditionally capture these costs in the pricing of the good, which would include increasing the price of the food they sell. This in turn becomes an evident failure on the part of the Maryland ban for not taking the law of demand into account.

    In addition to not considering the law of supply, the foam food container ban fails to take the law of demand into account. The law of demand refers to the idea that if the price of a good goes up, there will be a lower demand for that good, all other factors being equal. In terms of buying food at restaurants with increasing prices, less and less customers will choose to buy food at these restaurants. They instead may choose substitute goods or alternative means for getting food. For example, some customers may choose to buy food from less-pricey restaurants. As such, this shows how the Maryland ban on foam food containers fails at taking the law of supply into account.

    On the other hand, the Maryland ban does capture the price elasticity of food. In other words, this ban does take into account the fact that food is an inelastic good, meaning that no matter what happens to the price of food, people will still buy it. As such, even if restaurant owners raise the prices of food, customers will still come to purchase their compared to cooking food at home. Therefore, this ban successfully captures the price elasticity of food.

    Altogether, the law of supply and demand are left out of the Maryland ban on foam food containers despite capturing the price elasticity of food. In terms of the law of supply, restaurant owners are left to increase the costs of the food they sell in order to cover the increase in costs for using non-foam containers. In terms of law of demand, people would be less inclined to buy food that is more expensive. Yet due to food being an inelastic good, customers will still come to purchase food from these restaurants regardless of the ban. Thus, if the creators of the bill apply such concepts as the law of supply and demand together with the price elasticity of food, this ban can positively impact economic growth while being a tool to minimize environmental waste.

Source

Davis, Elliott. “Maryland Ban on Foam Food Containers Takes Effect.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 1 Oct. 2020, www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-10-01/maryland-ban-on-foam-food-containers-takes-effect-squeezing-restaurants.

Assessing California's Proposed Bill to sell only Elective Vehicles by 2035, Pros and Cons

 California legislature is looking to pass a bill that will require all passenger vehicles sold by 2035 to be a zero-emissions vehicle, which really means that only electric vehicles (EVs) will be allowed to be sold in the state by 2035 as those are the only viable zero-emission vehicles. What does this mean for car producers and how will it affect the public?

The only automaker that can be truly ecstatic about this new regulation as of now is Tesla, as they have a near-monopoly on the EV market because of their specialization in EV technology. Every other car company might be less happy with this bill as they will try to play catch up to Tesla and have electric cars ready by 2035 or they risk losing out on one of the biggest car markets in the US, California. The problem that could arise from this rush to make an EV to sell in California is the process may be rushed and the resulting car that would be sold to the public of California will be lacking in quality. Another problem with the bill is that it would require that no new registration can be given to a gas-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. However, the price of an EV will need to fall significantly if all socioeconomic levels will be able to buy or register a vehicle by that date. ICE cars are significantly cheaper than electric cars. Therefore, many individuals of lower socioeconomic status can afford used ICE cars, which is a necessity for those individuals as California is a car-dependent state, with millions of people who drive to their place of work every day. This regulation risks hurting lower socioeconomic individuals, who may find themselves unable to afford to meet the new registration requirements of an EV.

California; however, is betting on the fact that their new regulation will create an increase in competition on the EV market that will lead to prices being driven down. Though Tesla has been the dominating name in EV's for the past few years, their success has indicated to others that the EV market is worth entering. Big-name companies like GMC and Ford have announced that they will begin making EV's; Ford announced that it will come out with an electric mustang and F-150. There are numerous new EV makers, like Rivian and Lucid Motors, that will be putting their EVs out in the next year or so. Having one of the biggest car markets in America claim it will only register EVs should increase the incentive for automakers to produce EVs.

California is gambling that their bill will create enough competition that EV prices will be driven down to the point where they become affordable to every socioeconomic class. EVs as of now are still very expensive and prices will need to be driven down significantly to be affordable in every socioeconomic class. If prices fall, as California hopes, then the bill may be considered an environmental, and perhaps even economic success. Yet if prices do not fall enough, then people in lower socioeconomic levels will be hurt, as they can no longer afford to register a new vehicle.  For the sake of those people, this bill better create competition in the EV market. 

Temple, James. “California Looks to Ban Gas Guzzlers – but Legal Hurdles Abound.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 24 Sept. 2020, www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/23/1008840/california-looks-to-ban-gas-guzzlers-but-legal-hurdles-abound/.

An Analysis of the Cuban Revolution from a Structuralist/Voluntarist Perspective

  In C. Wright Mills’ “Listen Yankee”, it is stated that “It was a thorough and complete racket,

controlled, directly or indirectly, by the big men of the tyranny” (33). This seems to regard the

revolution as both structuralist and voluntarist. However, just a few lines later, “whatever Cubas has

been in all these respects, you helped make it that: by your support of “our” government, by your

gangsters who were in on it, and by the patronage and the whims of your rich tourists” (Mills 33). From

this line, it seems to me that the Cubans thought of their country as a structuralist environment, and thus

revolution was needed. 

        Che Guevara attest to as such in "The Cuban Economy" stating "The Cubans were only observers;

they had no part in the negotiations" as well as "the slave system of exploitation kept the cultivation [of

sugar cane] on a subsistence level" (589). The United States impressed its monopolistic power on Cuba,

creating an economic factory for sugar and industrial output.

        In the newspaper article about an interview of Fidel Castro in 1957, the author writes"[Havana]

does not and cannot know that thousands of men and women are heart and soul with Fidel Castro... it

does not know that hundreds of highly respected citizens are helping Senor Castro... that a fierce

government counter-terrorism has aroused the populace even more against President Batista"

(Matthews 2). By this recollection of events in Cuba, it seems that much of the populace is rising up

against the system and the president/dictator, Fulgencio Batista. I would argue this is central to the

voluntarist perspective: the idea of free will and pursuing goals.

Works Cited

Guevara, E. C. (1964). The Cuban Economy; its past, and its present importance. London: Blackwell.

Matthews, H. L. (1957, February 24). Cuban Rebel is Visited in Hideout. The New York Times, pp. 1-2.

Mills, C. W. (1961). Listen, Yankee: The Cuban Case Against the United States. New York: Ballantine Books.

 

Carter Haan

Blog Post 1

10/2/2020

How Bias and Politics Makes Climate Change Regulation Ineffective

            The political process of drafting and implementing environmental regulations has too many steps with too many involved parties. The process starts with congress voting and passing a bill. The bill then passes through the system of checks and balances in which the president can approve or veto the bill. Once it is approved by the president, the bill has already been in processing for potential years. The work now falls to the Environmental Protection Agency, who is tasked with turning the bill’s words into actual regulatory actions. The EPA is required to provide a scientific and economic analysis to demonstrate the expected affect of these regulations. To complete this analysis, they participate in various information gathering endeavors that include gathering public opinions. This process can also take years to complete, given that congress has allocated enough funds to complete it at all. Once the EPA has provided its guidelines, it falls on state governments to enforce them.

            There are issues regarding the time-table and the information gathering abilities of the EPA. Over the years these regulations take to pass, new climate change information can cause the EPA to change their policies, further drawing out the process. The EPA also struggles with funding to achieve their research needs. These inefficiencies can be traced to personal biases along the chain, starting with congress.

            To pass a proposed bill, congress must reach a majority of 435 votes. Each of the 435 congress members exercises their own discretion in voting, discretion that often has external motivations. The public opinion of these officials is very important to their career building, and a bill that wastes money does not look good in the public’s eye. The great concern for fiscal efficiency leads to a sort of paradox between congress and the EPA. The EPA does not have enough funding to complete its research efficiently, and its lack of efficiency makes congress want to waste less tax dollars on environmental regulations. Political ideology can also prevent policy makers from voting in appropriate environmental regulations. The idea that scientific research on climate change is incorrect or incomplete can be very politically driven and the desire to further one’s career can influence a congressperson’s vote.

            Bias can extend into smaller players on local levels as well. The EPA’s research process relies on data and opinions provided by corporations, local officials, and involved citizens. For this reason, the EPA struggles with reporting bias. Eban Goodstein and Stephen Polasky provide an example in Economics and the Environment. They discuss pesticide regulation research, in which the EPA must rely on agrichemical companies for cost and resource information. It is in the agrichemical companies’ best interest to prevent pesticide regulations. This can lead to false reporting. While not every company will report falsely, the EPA must research many different parties to create their analysis’ and they will inevitably encounter reporting bias.

            The EPA also struggles with threats form industries and corporations that command more power than they do. Attempts to regulate large industries such as oil companies, can present significant barriers to the EPA. Instances of lawsuit threats, lobbying, and even bribery have stopped the EPA form fully implementing policies. The capacity of large companies outweighs that of governmental agencies. They have more staff, more money, more influence, and more power. Their ability to vilify the EPA and exaggerate the financial results of their regulations can sway public opinions, which in turn sway congressional opinions.

            The process of environmental regulations is too slow and too inefficient. The delays and the backlash make it difficult for the government to control climate change. We have little time to combat this issue and we must find more efficient means to implement regulations.