Joe Biden's Plan for Clean Energy

Governmental policy has a huge impact on how our environments are sustained. Donald Trump had made many changes to the United States environmental policies, and many were against sustainability. The United States citizens have brought attention towards many movements, for example The Nature Conservancy, which help sustain our environment and keep it as close to its natural form as much as we possibly can. The Trump administration has been linked to roughly 74 political actions that are harmful towards environmental protection regulations. (Gross) The Clean Power Plan, which was introduced by former President Obama, was replaced by the Trump administration. The plan they introduced included weaker regulations. Weaker regulations allow for companies to increase production with less fees, or pollution tax. The industries who pollute the most have the most benefit, but those with the most harm are the citizens and the environment as the air around us becomes more contaminated every day. Revenue brought in from these industries increases GDP in the short run, but in the long run it will become a huge mess for innovators to clean up.

Changes within environmental protection regulations has been a widespread discussion for decades now and according to the new president elect, Joe Biden, changes will finally start to take place with his Clean Energy Revolution. This is an important step for the American people because “our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.” (Biden) According to Biden's campaign website, his new environmental protection plan will “ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050”. (Biden) One of the ways the Biden administration plans to do this is making a large investment towards clean energy innovation on a large scale. Unfortunately, this will start to put certain industries out of business, for example natural resource refineries. The American citizens demand for energy will be shifted towards a completely different energy sector due to these possible changes. Biden's administration plans to gather a collective of investments valued at $5 trillion over the next 10 years. This is a large investment compared to what the country usually spends on subsidies towards nonrenewable resources, which ultimately means taxes will increase on federal and state levels.

Renewable energy technology has been available to us since the 1970’s and governmental action must take place now before we deplete our planets natural resources. 2050 is enough time for these companies to change their ways towards renewable energy and not be forced to commit drastic layoffs, but if it were to be a quick, drastic change towards regulations, unemployment will become the nation’s next economic problem. Nevertheless, 30 years, according to many environmentalist groups, is not quick enough to slow climate changes progress. Climate change will inevitably happen naturally but using nonrenewable resources has been linked to speed up the process. According to Biden's campaign website, he plans to make a day one executive order to reduce emissions. Hopefully it’s as impactful as environmentalists and scientists’ desire.

 

Work Cited

Gross, Samantha. “What Is the Trump Administration's Track Record on the Environment?” Brookings, Brookings, 27 Oct. 2020, www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-trump-administrations-track-record-on-the-environment/.

Biden, Joe. “Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Joe Biden.” Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website, 29 Oct. 2020, www.joebiden.com/climate-plan/.

An Analyis of the Violence Utilized by the Mau Mau Rebellion

According to Clough in “The Movement and the Oaths” chapter of Mau Mau Memoirs, “the oath was strongly militant and implicitly threatened violence against Europeans and those who betrayed the movement” as well as “the oath was compulsory; people called to oathing ceremonies were not allowed to refuse or leave and were beaten and threatened with death if they tried” (98). In my opinion, if any movement requires such violent threats/actions to indoctrinate members, then the movement may be unjust in their ideology as well. Clough also states later, on page 101, “The desperation of late joiners could be fueled by fear.” If this movement was growing to this degree, to the point where some people felt compelled to join out of fear for their own safety, then they had real power to affect change just through numbers.

In “The Chief Mau Mau Propagandist”, the author covers the experiences that caused Gakaara wa Wanjau to become the main anti-colonial literary activist that shaped the political consciousness of the Mau Mau fighters. The author Lucy Waithanwa cites the mistreatment and unfair actions taken by Europeans against black Africans. “Carey Francis was a disciplinarian who punished Gakaara severally” and unfairly expelled Gakaara from his high school in 1940 (265). Later that year, Gakaara joined the war efforts as an army clerk in Ethiopia. Through this, he learned from “black servicemen from British colonies such as Nigeria, Gold Coast, Tanganyika, Uganda, Nyasaland, and Southern and northern Nigeria [that]... these servicemen portrayed a yearning for independence for the colonised peoples” (265). With such actions persisting through the war, Gakaara’s distrust grew into contempt for the British. Based on these actions, a movement such as the Mau Mau sounds more justified in their motivation. I still cannot condone their recruitment methods. That being said, the first action taken by the Forty Group Association (precursor of the Mau Mau movement) was to free Nairobi women from slaving on a terracing project which kept them separated from their children (Waithanwa 266). 

However, after reading the Report on Mau Mau letter, which states “Fanatics reserve their full hatred for those of their own kind, or nearly of their own kind, who refuse to go along on the True Way” (4), I have to say that I cannot justify the violence of this movement. They would kill their own, some of whom were just as anti-European as the Mau Mau, in order to establish the ‘needed’ tribal solidarity against the Europeans.

Works Cited

Clough, M. S. (1998). The Movement and The Oaths. In Mau Mau memoirs: History, memory, and politics (pp. 97-109). Boulder, CO: Lyne Rienner.

Reed, D. E. (1954, October 28). Report on Mau Mau [Letter to Mr. Walter S. Rogers]. Kenya, Nairobi.

Waithanwa, L. W., Mwaruvie, J., & Maina, L. M. (2017). The Chief Mau Mau Propagandist: Experiences that Prompted Gakaara wa Wanjau into Anti-Colonial Literary Activism. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 6(4). doi:10.24940/ijird/2017/v6/i4/mar17070

 

Biogas -Waste Efficiency in Salem, OR

Biogas -Waste Efficiency in Salem, OR

        A new biogas facility at a wastewater treatment plant in Salem Oregon, the Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, is being built to provide a clean source of energy. This energy production will save the Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant and allow it to produce its own energy while saving 5,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases from being released. Salem’s mayor, Chuck Bennet, stated “by turning waste into energy, we’re powering the plant, saving money and protecting our environment. . . taking pollutants out of the waste stream helps reduce Salem’s impact on the natural environment”. What the plant is doing right, and what Mayor Bennet identified, is the efficiency of turning waste that is inevitably produced by any kind of activity, and turning it back into a useful product, in this case, energy.

 I would go as far as to say they found a potential Pareto Improvement. While the plant will cost a total of $10.9 million, the majority of the funds were derived from diverted existing utility bills. The plant will also save the facility $300,000 per year and should be operational for 50+ years. Just from a monetary standpoint, it appears to make a Pareto Improvement, but it also will have the benefits of being clean and helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, if all potential waste that could be used in biogas was used, it would be the equivalent of eliminating the emission of 11 million vehicles.  Therefore, the benefits of this plant appear to be greater than the cost and a Pareto Improvement appears feasible.

References:

 Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). (2017, October 3). Fact Sheet - Biogas: Converting Waste to Energy. Retrieved November 28, 2020, from https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-biogasconverting-waste-to-energy

Woodworth, W. (2020, November 15). Here's how biogas could save Salem money and cut pollution. Salem Statesman Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2020/11/15/salem-new-willow-lake-biogas-facility-decrease-pollution-energy-costs/6287849002/

ENSO Impacts of global agriculture economy

    ENSO, known as El Nino Southern Oscillation, is a constant climate cycle over the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The process is spilt up into three sections, including neutral, El Nino, and La Nina. ENSO has global impacts on weather affecting agriculture and can take about five years to cycle through. This blog post will give a brief explanation of how ENSO works and La Nina’s economic impacts on agriculture.

    To begin, ENSO works because the sun warms Pacific waters around the Equator. ENSO is known as oscillation because the Trade Winds cause warm water to move east to the eastern Pacific, displacing a cold-water body east to the Western Pacific. The movement of warm and cold-water bodies impacts the surrounding atmosphere, affecting global weather patterns. For example, when the Trade Winds are strong, they move warm water west over to Asia and Australia. The water warms the atmosphere creating moisture in the air and steady rains for Asia and Australia; this phenomenon is known as El Nino. As warm water moves west, it displaces cold water, forcing it to move east to the Americas. The cold water brings dry air to the Americas, causing drought; this is known as La Nina. These cycles are continually happening; it can take up to four to five years to go through an El Nino and La Nina phase and back. This weather phenomenon has incredible impacts on agriculture and the global economy.

    At the moment, the Americas are currently seeing La Nina weather conditions. La Nina will bring dry cold air from the Pacific Ocean across all the Americas. Dry conditions can cripple cash crops' production, including soybean, corn, wheat, coffee, and sugar. The droughts can lead to crop shortages impacting the global economies. For example, Argentina and Brazil are major global soybean exporters. China is a significant soybean importer. They are trying to build their hog population back up, devastated by the swine flu with soybean feed. During the last La Nina of 2018, Argentina saw a 30% less soybean output, causing prices to rise by at least 20%.

    Argentina will also face a big hit with the production of corn. Argentina is the world's 3rd largest corn producer. Estimates indicate that Argentina will produce 47 million tons of corn in 2021 compared to 50 million tons in previous years. Brazil will also have smaller corn yields, thus increasing the US's dependence to export both corn and soybean. The shortage can lead to acreage disputes between corn and soy in the US. On the other hand, La Nina brings fine weather to South Africa. During the La Nina of 2018, South Africa had record corn yields. They did not import any corn and were Africans #1 corn exporter.

    Some parts of Brazil, including Sao Paulo, are seeing record droughts. Brazil is the world's largest sugar producer. During the last La Nina event of 2010-2012, sugar prices skyrocketed and had been the highest in over thirty years. Brazil also produces 40% of the world's coffee. Drought and heavy rainfall will also negatively impact coffee output.

    In all, ENSO and particularly La Nina will have drastic impacts on the global agricultural market. South American countries like Argentina, Brazil will see a lower output in soybean, corn, sugar, and coffee. Lower exports of these crops will put more pressure on the US to make up for soybean and corn yields, although the US will likely see dryer conditions and shortages. Shortages in these crops are likely to cause increased global prices. ENSO has differing impacts on global weather. While some regions face drought, others can see warmer weather and increased rains. For example, Australia will have the opportunity to make up for wheat production lost in the Americas due to good weather. Scientists have yet to discover the duration or the intensity of this La Nina cycle. 

References 

Intelligence, G. (Director). (2020, October 29). How Will La Niña Affect Global Agricultural Markets? [Video file]. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hY84eMy4M

Tan, H. (2020, September 10). Soybean futures have been surging on Chinese demand, trade group CEO says buying could continue. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/soybeans-have-been-surging-on-chinese-demand-and-purchases-could-continue.html

Climate change connection to wildfires

 Climate change is the reason for the intense fires across the western American states over the past. Some of these factors are people, forest management decisions that allowed a vast amount of vegetation that can burn quickly and turn into fuel. Fire is simple in only requiring three components which are the right weather and climate conditions, plenty of combustible fuel, and a spark. According to Jennifer Balch, a fire ecologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, "people are changing all three of those."

 A study which Balch was a co-author, found that humans were responsible for 97 percent of the ignitions that caused fires that then threatened homes in the wildland-urban interface between 1992 and 2015. The clearest connection with climate change is the warming air temperatures. the planet has heated up continuously since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s. With humans beginning to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide that traps excess heat in the atmosphere. This has caused the average temperatures to raise up 1.8 degrees and California is closer to 3 degrees. Since the 1980's the warming has accelerated per decade, and it is most likely to accelerate further in the future. 

Even though that seems like a small amount, but it can have a major effect. Hot air, if not 100 percent humidity, is like a thirsty sponge: it soaks up water from whatever it touches (plants both living and dead, soil, lakes, and rivers. The hotter and drier the air, the more it sucks up, and the amount of water it can hold increases exponentially as the temperature rises. The small increases in the air's heat can mean big increases in the intensity with which it pulls out water. Scientists can measure this "vapor pressure deficit" which the difference between how much water the air holds and how much it could hold. If this deficit is cranked up for a long time, soils and vegetation will parch. Brief heat spells will dry out the smallish stuff or already dead fuel. This causes record-breaking heat waves in the western United States during August and early September and forms more combustible material, and associated drought and the regional vapor pressure deficit climb to record levels. 

With the snow melting earlier, snow cover in February and March was below its usual average. The heat kicked in and remained, the average temperature across the U.S. was 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average. California along with much of the West had longer and deeper aridity. This also non coincidentally resulted in five of the state's hottest years on record occurred in the past decade. This climate change affects the snow that usually provides about 30 percent of the state's summer water needs, is melting earlier in the year. Giving the plants and soil longer to dry out and become potential fuel. 

Higher autumn temperatures and less precipitation, in particular, a growing delay in the onset of winter rains which usually puts an end to the fire season in California, which have led to a 20 percent increase in the number of autumn days for burning. The western fire season has extended by at least 84 days since the 1970s. California's fire protection service has stated publicly that it no longer considers a wildfire "season," due to the season being year-round. The fires are also changing growing larger and more intense, this can increase future fire risk. This also affects forests as they burn and we cant count on them to self-regenerate. These similar plant transitions are also occurring across other fire-prone habitats, like Southern California's chaparral and Colorado's forests. 

Climate change has increased fire risk in both direct and indirect ways. Even if it's a natural spark that starts a forest fire. Climate change, forest management, human behavior, and learning to adapt to the new reality and mitigate risks which require swift and decisive action from many different angles. Balch states "That's the tricky thing about fires-it isn't any one thing that's causing them, it's multiple puzzle pieces fitting together."

source:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/climate-change-increases-risk-fires-western-us/

The Reality of Recycling

Recycling is a great way to reuse used plastic amenities and products that can no longer be used, but what really happens to most recyclables? Most people would think that recyclable products are broken down to be remade into new products, although that is not the case. Much of the plastics from the United States are exported to countries with poor waste management like Indonesia where the plastics are dumped and burned. This not only leaves long lasting impacts on the communities that take care of plastics, but also pollutes the Earth from shipping the plastics all the way across the world which releases over millions of tons of carbon.

In 2017, the United States exported 276,200 shipping containers, equating to 1.5 million metric tons of plastic waste. In some cases, the plastics are roughly sorted, shredded, and melted by impecunious families in dangerous, hazardous conditions. To make matters worse, most of the low-quality plastic that were recycled never even make it back to the United States. Because of all the waste that ends up in other countries, many places are seeking policy changes to cut back on the amount of waste that ends up in their countries.

China established the National Sword policy which would restrict the amount of plastic waste incoming from other countries as well as establish their own domestic recycling program. In response to China’s policy, recyclers from across the world mover their operations from China to other countries in Asia, leading to unethical procedures in those areas. Jan Dell from the Plastic Pollution Collision states the policy led, “to the rise of over two hundred illegal operations in Malaysia” (Dell). Sending out plastics to other countries is a simple and easy way for industrialized countries like the United States to tally their plastic waste as “recycled” without having to deal with the environmental impacts and disposal costs.

The number of shipping containers containing used plastic good is steadily declining for the United States. The Plastic Pollution Coalition found that, “…about 157,000 large 20-ft (TEU) shipping containers (429 per day) of U.S. plastic waste were sent in 2018 to countries that are now known to be overwhelmed with plastic waste…” (Dell). Following in 2019, the number of plastic waste exports fell to 88,000 shipping containers. While these numbers do show great progress, the precise amount of plastic waste that end up in countries with high waste mismanagement may be under reported due to the fact that the United States exports millions of pounds of plastic waste to countries like Japan and Canada who then can export the waste elsewhere.

 

Sources

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2020/4/6/why-is-the-us-still-offshoring-post-consumer-plastic-waste-around-the-world

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2019/3/6/157000-shipping-containers-of-us-plastic-waste-exported-to-countries-with-poor-waste-management-in-2018

Is Violence Ever an Acceptable Means of Social Change?

    In Ben Case’s article “Beyond Violence and Nonviolence”, he discusses how the violence-nonviolence dichotomy is archaic and needs to be updated by movements. He quotes Ghandi’s philosophy of satyagraha, saying “In this view, nonviolence is valued over political victory, since enacting violence in order to achieve a material goal would not be a victory at all” (Case). I have never heard this before, but it seems very morally strong in that violence on the part of movements can overshadow the actual purpose of said movements. For example, without getting political, the George Floyd protests earlier this year. Many protestors turned to violence and looting to get their point across, but in doing so, hurt many innocent people and their businesses. Some people even used this movement as rationale to loot for personal gain. With such evidence on the table, it seems that violence is not justified and can often hurt the movement more than help. Case also cites Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict: “Nonviolent movements are almost twice as likely as violent ones to achieve ‘maximalist’ political goals (overthrowing a leader, ousting a foreign occupation or seceding from a territory”. 

    However, Malcolm X famously said “We only mean vigorous action in self-defence, and that vigorous action we feel we’re justified in initiating by any means necessary”. Any movement for human rights gets into more of a grey area. I believe this is because sometimes, people just don’t listen to nonviolent protests, and thus the movement must resort to violence just to be heard. I still think that violence should be avoided at all costs, but I feel that society is more to blame for the movement turning violent than the movement itself. Everyone deserves to be heard as equals, and if strategic nonviolence is not being heard, what more can one do before turning to violence? This can be tied in with Peter Gelderloos’ How Nonviolence Protects the State: “Nonviolence, in its current manifestations, is based on falsified histories of struggle. It has implicit and explicit connections to white people’s manipulations of the struggles of people of color” (5). He also states “If our movements are to have any possibility of destroying oppressive systems such as capitalism and white supremacy and building a free and healthy world, we must spread these criticisms and end the stranglehold of nonviolence over discourse while developing more effective forms of struggle” (6). Gelderloos is not condemning the use of violence, but nor is he endorsing it. He believes that nonviolence is illogical and basically will not get the job done, but we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to violence either. A middle ground form of a movement that can still convey its message would be much more effective.

Works Cited

Case, B. (n.d.). Beyond Violence and Nonviolence. Roar.

Gelderloos, P. (2007). How Nonviolence Protects the State. ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION.

M. (1965, February 14). Confronting White Oppression. Retrieved November 02, 2020, from http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/malcolm_x-oppression.html

Brazil Increases Deforestation in 2020

Brazil is home to a large portion of the world’s tropical rainforests. The Brazilian Amazonia has been talked about many times in the news over the past few decades as environmentalists show concern for the forest’s health. Mining, logging, and agriculture have been the main drivers for these deforestation operations, but governmental actions have also created problems towards the Brazilian Amazonia. Brazil has a large income gap between poverty and rich, not many individuals lie in the middle. Many of the successful individuals in Brazil have occupations within these deforestation driving industries. Money is power in many economies, especially within underdeveloped countries. Underdeveloped countries, like Brazil, usually see higher rates of corruption within the government sector. Vice President Hamilton Mourao in 2020 was offered “funds from Europe, Asia, and South America that collectively manage nearly $4 billion”. (France-Presse) These countries sent an open letter to the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, to “stop projects that threaten to accelerate the destruction of the planet's largest rainforest”. This shows Brazil has international attention directly related to the deforestation operations and it is ultimately causing problems within foreign policy. 

The countries rapid increase in deforestation operations poses a threat to environmental tipping points worldwide, so these countries are willing to pay Brazil the difference associated to the potential losses from these industries. This shows how deforestation in Brazil is not only Brazils economic problem, but also the worlds environmental problem. According to the World Wildlife Fund, which is an environmental protection organization, Brazil has increased their deforestation by “33% more than last year”. (WWF) The World Wildlife Fund is a non-governmental organization, but it helps establish many of the wildlife/nature guidelines internationally. When they assess an environmental threat towards the imports of Brazil, many countries will listen.  

The increase of deforestation operations in Brazil has caused some of the major Brazilian markets to start failing. One of the markets includes agriculture, which is a major market in Brazil because of the warm, humid climate perfect for crops. Agriculture is a large portion of why areas become deforested in the Brazilian Amazonia. The soil is rich with nutrients and the lumber can sell for a small profit. With Brazil not being great at foreign policy, trade restrictions have started to emerge against them very recently. If COVID international shipping restrictions are the cause of this, then it shows that the Brazilian markets are not in high demand on a major level. The Brazilian economy is taking a huge plunge in 2020 with the pandemic restrictions.

According to World Bank charts, the Brazilian GDP was at an all time high in 2011 valued at 2.6 trillion US dollars. The latest charts, which gives data received from 2019, shows Brazils GDP has decreased tremendously since 2011 and is now valued at 1.8 trillion US dollars. After calculating this data, GDP in Brazil has experienced a 30% decrease. The damage to the economy was already taking place in Brazil, even before the COVID outbreak occurred. Now that many major exports are getting cut out of their GDP, you can assume Brazils economic future will be rough with a lengthy recovery.

Work Cited

France-Presse, Agence. “Brazil's Amazon Deforestation Increased By 25 Per Cent In 2020.” NDTV.com, NDTV, 10 July 2020, www.ndtv.com/world-news/brazils-amazon-deforestation-increased-by-25-per-cent-in-2020-2260679.

World Bank. “GDP (Current US$).” Data, 2019, data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2019.

WWF. “Annual Deforestation Rate in the Brazilian Amazon Increases by 33%.” WWF, 7 Aug. 2020, wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?584271%2FAnnual-deforestation-rate-in-the-Brazilian-Amazon-increases-by-33.

 

Curbing the Illegal Trade of Wild Orchids

  With all of the various markets that exist worldwide, whether legit or illegal, they all seem to follow a common idea: If there is a demand, there are people willing to supply these demands. Plants like orchids are no exception. In a 2019 Mongabay news article called Wild orchid trade in China is huge, overlooked and ‘devastating,’ study finds by Shreya Dasgupta, a study found that markets in southern China like the provinces of Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong are full of orchids illegally acquired from the wild rather than from nurseries at a cost. Some species of orchids are native to the country while others come from countries like Laos and Myanmar. Yet due to orchids being bought and sold at cheap prices far below their worth, this has driven up demand and supply to the point of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) regulating all 29,000 species of orchid. As such, establishing ownership of wild orchids through a contract will make it easier to enforce them and provide incentive for taking care of them while protecting them from illegal trade.

First, having a contract that establishes the ownership of wild orchids will make it easier to enforce it. As Dasgupta states, many of the wild orchids being sold were mostly undeclared or undocumented. This is a problem because even though this is in violation of CITES regulations, the lack of documentation proving otherwise makes it hard to legally enforce. So people can keep acquiring wild orchids without repercussion. Yet this is not the case when having a contract that stipulates the owner(s) of these wild orchids, whether the owner is a single individual or multiple government bodies. A contract would explicitly state the punishments or consequences of breaking this contract. So if someone other than the owner(s) takes these wild orchids without permission or properly paying for them, law enforcement can intervene. Therefore, a contract that establishes the ownership of these wild orchids makes it easier to enforce it when any violations arise.

Likewise, establishing ownership of wild orchids through a contract provides incentive for taking care of them along with protecting them against illegal trade. The author mentions in the article that in the orchid trading market, these flowers can potentially be worth as much as $14.6 million. But as mentioned earlier, these orchids are bought and sold at values way below their worth. Mainly because no one considers these flowers to be of much value, especially when they are found in nature and there is typically no person or entity that owns it. So people can easily take them without any legal repercussions. However, establishing ownership through a contract turns these unclaimed wild orchids into personal property of the owner(s). This gives them an incentive to take care of the wild orchids while protecting them from people taking and selling them illegally because these owners now have a personal and economical stake in wild orchids. Also, it presents an opportunity for either the owner(s) or people who happen to work for the owner(s) to be paid fairly in order to buy the wild orchids, whether locally or internationally. Thus, the owner(s) of the wild orchids, as stated in a contract, will have an incentive to take care of them and protect them from illegal trade.

Altogether, a contract establishing ownership of the wild orchids makes it easier to enforce and provide incentive for taking care of them as well as protecting them from illegal trade. First, a contract not only stipulates who owns the wild orchids but outlines the parameters for breaking the contract, which makes it easy for law enforcement to enforce. Next, establishing the owner(s) through a contract brings economical and personal value to the wild orchids, which adds an incentive to the owner(s) to preserve them while protecting them from illegal trade. Also, there is the incentive for the owner(s) and/or workers to receive a fair price from anyone wishing to buy the orchids. Taking everything into account, all countries including China can continue to trade orchids while minimizing the risks of them becoming extinct by promoting fair and legal practices that can help them grow and survive for years to come.

Source

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/wild-orchid-trade-in-china-is-huge-overlooked-and-devastating-study-finds/

Climate Change Effect on Crop Yields

Natural disaster occurrences have been steadily increasing over the past few decades. Wildfires rage through many western U.S. States such as California and Colorado, or as typhoons have torn through the Philippines all the way across the world. While these terrible disasters are the most notable, there are less noticeable, but still a major effect that climate change has such as its effects on crop yields.

Research has shown that,  ”…global yields for 18 of the most farmed crops—wheat, maize, soybeans, rice, barley, sugar beet, cassava, cotton, groundnuts, millet, oats, potatoes, pulses, rapeseed, rye, sorghum, sunflower and sweet potatoes—crops that, all together, represent 70 percent of global crop area and around 65 percent of global caloric intake” (Seo). With temperatures increasing, certain areas of the world will be affected tremendously. Some of the locations that will be affected more substantially are: Sub-Sahara African countries and countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Venezuela.

While some countries will be affected negatively from a 1-degree Celsius rise, other locations around the Earth will benefit. United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data shows that countries with an already high crop yield will be able to increase their total yields. Similar findings have also been found when looking at calorie consumption among countries, higher yields for higher caloric consumption and lower yields for lower caloric consumption.

Geographics play major roles for specific crops. Depending on the crop, it may benefit from an overall increase in temperature in one place, but not the next. Environmental Health News states, “For rice yields, for example, a 1-degree Celsius temperature rise predicted an approximate 20 percent yield decrease in India, but an approximate 10 percent yield increase in Russia” (Seo). Knowing this it will be important that countries and regions adapt to their circumstances. Countries whose crop yields benefit from climate change should attempt to produce more. Without adaption, food shortages will rise throughout the world making food prices rise and even inaccessible for some people.

References

https://www.ehn.org/climate-change-and-food-security-2647870834.html

Economic Impacts of wolves

 In the 1970s, people in the United States began to look at the environment in a new way, calling for policies that would protect the environment. In 1973, President Nixon passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and since then, groups including environmentalists, ranchers, and hunters have been debating the economic impact of endangered species. This blog post will discuss the economic impact of the endangered species known as the wolf. 

To begin, President Richard Nixon put the wolf on the endangered species list in 1974. The ESA calls for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to take the necessary actions to restore a species to its historical numbers and habitats. Federal laws are also placed to protect the species from being hunted or their habitat further being threatened. While the Fish and Wildlife Service have successfully restored certain species populations, like the bald eagle's, other species have proven to be more challenging. The wolf has proved to be a tricky species to work with because no one knows how many wolves is enough. For example, the wolf used to roam a greater part of North America, known as the lower 48 states. Today wolves roam parts of the Western Great Lakes states, parts of the Northern Rocky Mountain states, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, and New Mexico, about 20% of their original range extent. The current wolf population has recovered to about 6,000 wolves. This is where the arguing begins. Some argue that this is plenty of wolves. Others argue that it is not enough and that they must return to more of their historical territory. 

An environmentalist economic conception of the wolf species' reintroduction into Colorado and other states incorporates the benefits the wolf provides to an ecosystem. The wolf is a cascading trophic species, meaning that it impacts the ecosystem it lives in by positively changing the landscape. The wolf is valuable to an ecosystem because they control deer and elk populations. In turn, reducing the deer and elk population reduces grazing, allowing natural grasses to flourish and regrow. The regrowth of grasses reduces erosion around river banks. Wolves are also valuable to an ecosystem because they promote biodiversity. Wolf hunts attract other animals like bears, coyotes, and birds to feed off the wolves' kill, causing them to move in from other places creating biodiversity. 

Hunters and ranchers, on the other hand, have a different economic perspective on wolves. Since the days of the settlers, wolves have been the enemies of the ranchers. Wolves are notorious for killing livestock from foal to larger livestock like sheep, cattle, and horses. A dead animal not only costs the rancher the animals market value worth but also the opportunity cost of all the milk or meat that would have been produced by the animal. Wolves have also been known to push cattle from fresh pasture to the overgrazed pasture. This leads to a decrease in the weight of the cattle and a reduction in meat sold. The stress the wolves put on the cattle also causes fewer cows to get pregnant. Hunters also oppose wolves because the elk and deer wolves kill leaves less deer and elf for the hunters to kill.

In all, the reintroduction of wolves has its costs and benefits. Benefits are biological for ecosystems, and costs are economical for ranchers and hunters. The wolf is a difficult species to work with because no one can agree on how many wolves are enough and what extent of land should be covered by wolves.

The Bootleggers in European Green Deal

The Bootleggers in European Green Deal

“Strong sectoral integration required for 100% renewable energy system in Europe” a news article posted back in May, discusses the goal of recovering Europe’s energy sector after damage to the economy caused by COVID-19. According to the article,

“[a] new report shows that it is entirely possible to achieve a 100% renewables scenario in which Europe meets the climate-neutrality target before 2050. The report also finds that a 100% renewable energy system is the most cost-efficient way to become climate neutral in Europe by 2050, with levelized costs of energy 5-6% lower than in a less ambitious scenario”

         Various executives in Europe’s energy discuss the impacts of the report, with some praising it as a needed ambition, an “ambition to turn the proposed COVID-19 support into an EU green recovery and to continue our fight against climate change” as Thomas Nowak, the Secretary-General of the European Heat Pump Association (EHPA),  asserted. Several others in the renewable and battery sector made similar claims, to turn the disaster of COVID-19 into an opportunity to create an energy transition and save the plant, to turn an evil into a good.

Yet, while they proclaim this gospel of saving the world broken by COVID through completely clean energy production in Europe, they are more bootleggers than Baptists. While many are strong advocates of clean energy to combat climate change, it is worth noting how much they will gain from Europe’s Green Deal, which was announced in December 2019. One of the biggest bootleggers here are the EHPA. They stand to benefit enormously from the Green Deal. As of now, heat pumps supply less than 10% of buildings in Europe (Market Data, EPHA), but with the Green Deal, they will be required if the Green Deal is to be successful. Every other sector the article mentions would see similar benefits, which is why they all sing the praises for the report and for the European Green Deal.

References

Market Data. (2019, May 02). Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.ehpa.org/market-data/

Strong sectoral integration required for 100% renewable energy system in Europe. (2020, May 12). Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.pv-magazine.com/press-releases/strong-sectoral-integration-required-for-100-renewable-energy-system-in-europe/

A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.

 

Jordan Silva

Environmental Economics

Dr. Eubanks

Blog 5

 

A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.

 

            This article is about severe flooding in the Houston area of Texas. For years most of the money that was spent on flood protection went to the wealthier areas and severely neglected the poorer areas. The old approach was based on protecting the most valuable property and the poorer areas suffered greatly. Since Hurricane Harvey hit the are in 2017, flood protection has been more focused on the areas that have less resources to make a full recovery. “Environmental policy experts say it makes no sense to decide which people get protection based on which property is more valuable. That approach reinforces historical discrimination, which contributed to minority neighborhoods having lower property values in the first place. And it doesn’t address the deeper question of who needs the most help, or why.” (Flavelle, Christopher). Making sure wealthier areas are taken care of first is just keeping the status quo, the poorer areas will continue to be devastated and a full recovery will remain out of reach.       

            A wealthier opponent of this spending to help poorer areas, Beth Guide stated that, “She rejected the idea that priority should go to people who would have the hardest time bouncing back from a disaster. “The fact that you decide that you want to have a Netflix account versus whether you want to pay for your flood insurance is not my problem.” (Flavelle, Christopher). This approach is not only degrading to poorer people but a total disregard of the less fortunate areas of Houston.

            Helping a community protect itself from a flooding disaster is what the allotted 2.5 billion in tax dollars is supposed to go to. Making sure the money is spent only in wealthier areas because the average property value is much higher is wrong. Taxes are paid by both poor people and wealthy people so why should the money only be spent in wealthier areas of the county? An equal spreading of the 2.5 billion throughout the county to fix drainage systems and ditches is the right approach.

The Modern Revolutionary Ethos of Iran

In the Encyclopedia of Political Revolutions, the chapter “Iranian Islamic Revolution (1979)” outlines a strong base for the modern revolutionary ethos in the country. It opens with the telling of early United States interference with its politics, as described on page 248: “The coup that saved the shah was the first major step toward the revolution that ended his dynasty. The shah lost legitimacy and was tainted as ‘America’s shah,’ irrevocably damaged his relationship with nationalists and intellectuals.” Based on this, the modern political turmoil and distrust of western powers in Iran makes much more sense. The chapter later states that the shah created SAVAK, his feared secret police, with CIA support in 1957. Washington also supported the White Revolution, “the linchpin of which was the distribution of land to the landless peasants” (Goldstone 248). This further divided the shah and the upper classes. In many ways, these actions created a civil war of politics that ended up being the Iranian nationalists against the western world and culture.

In The Ayatollah Begs to Differ, Hooman Majd discusses “feeling a tinge of pride in their nation’s rapid ascent to a position of being taken seriously by the world’s greatest superpower”, referencing Iran and the United States’ relationship (3). He also makes note that without the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran would likely not have much of a say in global affairs today. Later on page three, Majd states: “For two or three hundred years Iran had been, in all but name, a proxy of Western powers - specifically Britain and then the United States when it took over the mantle of empire after world War II.”  This ties in well with what I referenced in my first paragraph, in that it was a struggle of Iranian nationalists against the western influences exerted on it.

In a children’s story titled The Little Black Fish, the story exemplifies how modern revolutionary ethos is rekindled every so often in Iranian generations. According to the course reading list description, the author officially “drowned” after writing the book. Whether or not this is true, most Iranians believe the 28-year-old author, Samad Behrangi, was murdered by U.S.-backed SAVAK agents for challenging the Iranian regime. Just the simple fact that most Iranians believe this reason for the author’s death says a lot about their perception of the United States and its influence on the region.

Works Cited

Behrangi, S. (n.d.). The Little Black Fish.

Goldstone, J. A. (1998). Iranian Islamic Revolution (1979). In The encyclopedia of political revolutions (pp. 248-251). Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.

Majd, H. (2008). The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: Understanding Iran and Iranians. New: Doubleday.

Carbon Trading to the Rescue

  Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, maintaining and funding wildlife conservation areas have taken a major hit in many countries. One such country is Africa. In a Mongabay news article called Tourism has crashed: Are carbon credits the future for funding conservation in Africa? by Mantoe Phakathi, she mentions that with the lack of tourism and limited philanthropy, the trading of carbon credits has become an alternative for financially maintaining wildlife conservations in Africa. On top of that, she mentions how companies with carbon credits end up reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) into the air. Yet the author also points out assertions from critics that the carbon trading market is expensive and carbon credit prices are too low to incentivize people. Despite these assertions, carbon trading is an effective tool for funding wildlife conservation along with reducing greenhouse emissions since it takes trade-tested betterment and the market as a discovery process into account.

First, by taking trade-tested betterment into account, carbon trading becomes an effective tool for funding wildlife conservation along with reducing greenhouse gases. Deirdre McCloskey, a Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and of History, and Professor Emerita of English and of Communication, came up with the phrase “trade-tested betterment” in reference to the poor becoming better off by the bourgeoisie introducing products at high prices into the market before the poor experience these benefits through higher wages, better quality of living, etc. In terms of wildlife conservation and greenhouse emissions, the act of trading carbon credits within the market at possibly high prices allows the sellers to put such proceeds towards funding conservations or provide higher wages that workers can then donate to such conservations. Also, companies with these credits end up limiting the amounts of carbon dioxide they emit into the air, which further limits the amount of greenhouse gases that negatively impact one’s health and the climate. As such, individuals that do or do not participate in this voluntary, pair-wise social interaction still become better off and find incentive in such an exchange. Therefore, taking this display of trade-tested betterment into account makes carbon trading an effective tool for funding wildlife conservation along with reducing greenhouse gases.

Likewise, carbon trading is an effective tool at funding wildlife conservation as well as reducing greenhouse emissions since it acknowledges the market as a discovery process, unlike the assertions made against it. For instance, by the end of 2016, governments / companies from all over the world with excess credits and other companies demanding such credits within the carbon trade market came together to voluntarily exchange carbon credits. The result was $300 million of credits had been sold on voluntary markets; Africa accounted for just $20 million of this global total, as Phakathi states. This example shows that the economic exchange of carbon credits between these buyers and sellers helps unearth discoveries of benefits. In this case, the benefits being the millions of dollars that can be put towards financially supporting the maintenance of wildlife conservations and decreased levels of carbon dioxide that companies emit into the air, which tends to negatively impacts one’s health and the climate. Thus, by considering the fact that the market is a discovery process, carbon trading becomes an effective tool for funding wildlife conservation and reducing greenhouse gases.

Altogether, carbon trading acknowledges trade-tested betterment and the market as a discovery process, which makes it an effective tool for funding wildlife conservation and reducing greenhouse emissions. First, due to trade-tested betterment, governments and companies involved in the carbon trade may buy or sell carbon credits at possibly high prices. But those prices would allow governments / companies selling the carbon credits to put the proceeds towards wildlife conservations themselves or pass on the benefits of their proceeds to the workers through higher wages, better quality of living, etc. that they can then put towards such endeavors as wildlife conservations. At the same time, companies that possess the carbon credits provide the added benefit of decreasing greenhouse emissions by not producing as much carbon dioxide into the air, which lessen the risks to one’s health and the climate as a whole. Likewise, accounting for the market as a discovery process allows participants to discover the benefits of such transactions as generating millions of dollars in revenue that can go towards funding wildlife conservation and decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, carbon trading opens the door to future possibilities that can better sustain biodiversity and the environment for years to come.

Source
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/tourism-has-crashed-are-carbon-credits-the-future-for-funding-conservation-in-africa/

The Power of Influence

     In crafting and enforcing environmental legislation, many different parties have their say. Industry and environmentalists are two of those parties that have significant influence over legislation and enforcement. By environmentalists I mean the major environmental groups and their millions of members. In general, industry is better at garnering funds, while environmentalists are better at generating votes and public support (Goodstein and Polasky 263). While industry outspends environmentalists, their dollar doesn't goes far because it doesn't carry the votes that environmentalist dollars do. Nonetheless, the substantial political influence between the two groups is undisputed, and recent lobbying and campaign finance reforms reflect growing concern over their influence.  

    It is fair to say that environmentalists are generally favored by the public in terms of information and political influence. This reflects their success over industry in influencing environmental legislation. Both groups spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers to win the influence game, and legislation is often delayed or compromised. Getting the right "information" to lawmakers and the public is where most of this money goes. Both sides find researchers and experts that find information that confirms their stances. For instance, researchers hired by fossil fuel industries might point to efficiency standard concerns for certain legislation and garner support from congressmen in states where those industries are more prevalent. Conversely, environmental groups lobby for information that suggests safety standards are more important. Government agencies are often burdened by this information war between these two groups which further contributes to reporting-bias.

    While money is important for hiring researchers, lawyers and lobbyists it also buys access to lawmakers. Good lobbyists often have strong access to lawmakers because of the revolving door in lawmaking and lobbying. Working in congress might be a stepping stone for a large pay day in working as a lobbyist for industry. While environmentalists generally outperform industry in influencing legislation, industry performs better in the regulatory sphere because of their monetary advantage. This is where significant outspending on lobbyists pays off for industry. After legislation has been passed, industry often has more influence by spending more on lobbying "implementation and enforcement of these laws by state officials" (Goodstein and Polasky 264). 

    The power of influence resides in both environmentalists and industry. In general, environmentalists have the advantage in influencing laws, and industry has the advantage in influencing how those laws play out. Environmentalists generally push toward overregulation to mitigate industry's advanatage in the regulatory field. Concerns over how much influence these parties have on environmental legislation and regulation have been expressed, but stances on both sides of the spectrum are being advocated.     

                                                                           Works Cited

GOODSTEIN, E. S. (2014). ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. S.l.: JOHN WILEY.

Self Interest and Melting Ice

     Tom Tietenberg and Lynne Lewis discuss the the importance of payoff in climate change policy. They summarize an experiment in which groups are rewarded monetarily for stopping climate change and punished for failure to stop it. In this experiment, the groups were more inclined to fight emissions when the payoff came sooner, and less inclined the longer it took. Parties will also act in their own self interest. This translates to climate change policies in the real world as well. China can be observed in its pursuit of cleaner air. The payoff for China to fix its pollution problem didn't seem feasible due to the time and money it would take to fix it, until recently when it started having adverse affects on human health. This is why China is more concerned recently. The melting of the ice caps in a unique environmental issue. 

    There is no payoff for saving the ice caps as many instances are not recoverable. There is no nation that will see a benefit from stopping the melting, only a best case scenario in which everything stays the same. There is also no single governing body or indigenous people to act in their own self interest in Antarctica, and few afflicted people near the Northern ice shelves. Greenhouse gas emissions are believed to be the primary cause of melting ice, as they raise the global temperature, but it could be as much as 100 years before enough ice melts enough to change the geography of coastal nations. In this instance, the benefit of new regulations would not be realized for a long time, and no financial payoff would be recognized. It is difficult to incentivize these nations. In Chinas air pollution case, their incentive is to improve the health of their people by repairing their own actions. There are not enough people directly affected by melting ice to act in their own self interest.

    Without a foreseeable and tangible payoff, it will be difficult to create new regulations regarding sea ice. Luckily, many countries are seeing other symptoms of raising emission levels, and it is possible that lowering emissions due to other reasons could aid the effort to save the ice. Unfortunately, this is a climate change issue that cannot be resolved. It can only be slowed or stopped, but the damage done is permanent.

Bureaucratic Goals

     While the EPA is forced to regulate under imperfect information, it is often unclear how they use their positions to satisfy personal goals. The EPA does not have the resources to effectively regulate the environment, so they often rely on the industry being regulated for information. The information-gathering process is often tainted by reporting-bias, and the regulation process is never steadfast and requires substantial bureaucratic discretion in regulatory decisions. Businesses and industry affected by regulations have a strong incentive to influence bureaucratic discretion. While there are ethical concerns over industry having such a significant impact over regulation, industry has the best resources and knowledge over the impact of such regulations (Goodstein and Polasky 260). A problem considered by Goodstein and Polasky is how the industry's access to bureaucrats might influence their discretion that is contradictory to their objective. Agency building, external career building and job satisfaction are three types of goals where personal interests might hinder bureaucratic discretion. These goals can lead to overregulation, under regulation or maintaining the status-quo.

Agency building is often regarded as the main goal of bureaucracy managers. Bureaucracies are constantly pushing for a higher budget in order for more effective tools and power for their personnel. "A bias toward unwarranted growth may lead to 'overregulation'" (Goodstein and Polasky 261). Overregulation then leads to inefficient outcomes and overspending. 

Another personal bureaucratic goal is external career building. Bureaucrats often do not have salaries as high as law or consulting firms, and they often pursue careers in these fields after working in government. When making difficult regulatory decisions, bureaucrats might be considering future careers in industry and make their decisions accordingly. They often have a better grasp of environmental concerns from the industry perspective than from the public. The conflict of interest might influence bureaucracy to under-regulate.

Lastly, job satisfaction goals might be the biggest influencer in bureaucratic discretion. Ideological preferences could sway decisions one way or the other depending on if the regulator leans toward free-market or more environmentally cautious ideologies. Finally, living a "quiet life" is often an easy way to advance in bureaucratic agencies. The quiet life phenomenon refers to decision making that doesn't upset either side of environmental regulation. This often means enforcing the bare minimum. "One former EPA employee maintains that EPA officials are more interested in keeping their heads low than in sticking their necks out...Those who don't cooperate will find lobbyists lobbying for their heads" (Goodstein and Polasky 261). 

                                                                           Works Cited

GOODSTEIN, E. S. (2014). ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. S.l.: JOHN WILEY.

Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal

 

Jordan Silva

Environmental Economics

Dr. Eubanks

Blog Post 4

 

Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/science/exxon-carbon-tax.html?ref=energy-environment)

           

This article talks about imposing a carbon tax on companies that make energy derived from fossil fuels. The proposal would have “an initial tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, which would add 36 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline sold.” The money raised would benefit lower income families with around $2,000 a year as a dividend. This tax is supposed make the free market move faster towards renewable energy than current regulations.

Putting a carbon tax in place would be the opposite of beneficial. For starters, production may shift to other countries with lower carbon taxes, Businesses may also hide their pollution in order to pay less in taxes. External costs are also difficult to measure making it hard to know exactly how much the tax should be to be most effective. The tax would also make the cost of just about everything increase and outweigh the benefit giving to lower income families.

According to nationalreview.com, “William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale University who won the Nobel Prize in economics last year for his work on climate-change policy, is a long-time advocate for a carbon tax. Nordhaus has underscored the ‘importance of near-universal participation in programs to reduce greenhouse gases.’ In 2007, he estimated that if only half of the world’s countries agreed to participate in a carbon-tax effort, there would be an ‘abatement cost penalty of 250 percent.’ In other words, the countries that have imposed the carbon tax will have to more than double their carbon-tax rates in order to compensate for the free-riding countries.” (Robert Bryce). Lesser developed countries are more concerned with economic stability than reducing their pollution. Making the United States do more work to compensate free ridding countries seems like the wrong approach. Profits ahead of climate change seems to be the issue with many countries and getting everyone to play by the rules of a carbon tax is a stretch to say the least.

An alternative to a carbon tax according to futurefuelstrategies.com, “What if, instead of making fuel and other commodities and services more expensive, we used a financial incentive to make technologies that help reduce emissions – such as solar, wind and geothermal energy – more affordable?” (Sumedha Basu). This approach would make your home electricity bill cheaper with the use of solar panels and driving an electric car more affordable to everyone.

 

Works Cited

1.       Bryce, Robert. "The Three Major Problems with a Carbon Tax." nationalreview.com, 4 Feb. 2019, www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/carbon-tax-proposals-three-major-problems/.

2.       Basu, Sumedha. "Why We Need the Opposite of a Carbon Tax to Reduce Emissions." Future Fuel Strategies, 9 July 2020, futurefuelstrategies.com/2020/07/09/why-we-need-the-opposite-of-a-carbon-tax-to-reduce-emissions/.

Costs Related to Deforestation Drivers

            Many drivers come to mind when thinking of deforestation and they may be able to explain why deforestation rates have increased over the years. A few of the drivers that are important to note are mining, logging, and agriculture.

Precious metals can be discovered during mining operations, such as gold, making the low costs of deforestation appealing. According to the Amazon Aid Foundation, “there are an estimated 5 million people directly engaged in some form of artisanal mining as of 2017”. Many of these jobs include deforestation within their operations, but the gold is what they care about most. The debris of these mining sites ends up destroying not only the trees, but also the land around it. This effects the ability to provide tourism in that area. While examining the decrease in tourism, opportunity costs become associated to the land. According to Statista, the total expenses from the top mining companies worldwide equal to $515 billion, as of 2019 statistics. The total revenue equals $692 billion as of 2019. (Garside) When comparing the information of costs and revenue made during these mining operations, there is only a 34% gap between the two. Since this is a revenue statistic, that means the return, in terms of profits, is low compared to operating costs. Adding in the opportunity cost of destroying the land will ultimately affect the country’s economy but fill the mining companies’ pockets.

Another driver towards deforestation, which is important to discuss, is logging. Companies invest in logging operations to produce wood and paper for our rapidly growing population. According to Yale University, “while logging is important to regional economies and rural communities, if not managed properly, it can contribute to deforestation and forest degradation”. At the rate logging is occurring, forest preservation organizations are unable to make the impact necessary for preserving the lands natural qualities. This ultimately decreases the supply of timber at a dangerous rate. Another factor to consider is the business world mostly moving paperless, which has put pressure on the demand for timber products. With the high costs associated with logging, operations typically only provide 3% to 5.5% profit margins. (Kinney) Although most companies in the logging industry abide by the law, illegal logging has caused conflict in the timber industry. Governments have been able to catch many of these loggers operating in the black market, but the lack of regulations has caused a decrease in “global prices for timber by about 7-16%”. (Yale University)

The last driver towards deforestation that will be examined is agriculture. Agriculture takes up large pieces of land to produce crops for human, or cattle, consumption. This part of deforestation has been deemed to be important for the survival of our food industry, but agriculture has been proven to ‘starve’ our soils when done incorrectly. When farmers do not give closer examinations to their soil’s nutrients, the land becomes useless. Underdeveloped countries run into this problem quite often. The depletion of the land becomes a long-run cost that can be ignored by most farmers.

These drivers towards deforestation are important to examine because the high costs do not outweigh the potential profits. Luckily, many of these industries are dying as our technology increases. Solutions must be identified to not only save our forests, but also provide economic stability towards our future within renewable industries.

 

Work Cited

Amazon Aid Foundation “The Cost.”, 12 Dec. 2019, www.amazonaid.org/jeweler-toolkit/the-cost/.

Garside, M. “Topic: Mining.” Statista, 2019, www.statista.com/topics/1143/mining/.

Kinney, Suz-Anne. “A Complete Look at Logger Expenses.” Forest2Market, 2014, www.forest2market.com/blog/a-complete-look-at-logger-expenses.

Yale University. “Illegal Logging.” Global Forest Atlas, 11/6/2020, www.globalforestatlas.yale.edu/forest-use-logging/logging/illegal-logging.

Yale University “Logging” Global Forest Atlas, 11/6/2020 www.globalforestatlas.yale.edu/forest-use-logging/logging.

Hydroponics and Aquaponic System

 

The idea of hydroponics and aquaponics is to be able to bring the two together where they can grow produce and raise fish at the same time. The way this works is that both methods don’t require any type of soil use. Hydroponic grow plants that only need water that contains chemical fertilizers that give the required nutrients. Aquaponics utilizes fish in order to help replace the chemical fertilizer with the natural waste that comes from them.

Although this method seems like it would be more environmental and cost-efficient it is an indoor operation. This however demands a high amount of energy needed for lighting, heating, and water pumping. This process also has a high cost that goes to feeding and fertilizing both the plant and fishes.

They found that this system did lead to a 45 percent less environmental when considering fossil fuel use, global warming, water acidification, and eutrophication from the usage of its resources, waste, and emissions released. “The aquaponic system is more environmentally friendly when you look at the total environmental footprint per US dollar of the economic value of the products,” Huang said “But that is based on using Indiana’s current energy mix. If we consider using more renewable energy sources, things start to change.” Although the university of Purdue has the best interest in doing this project to make it more environmentally and economically friendly it has some issues of its own.

The most common aquaponics problems it the issue of the dying plants that can be from algae growth, dead fish, too many fish, water temperatures, contaminated water, or plant nutrient deficiency. The progress of being able to make this more economically and environmentally possible is due to a controlled environment. There also other things to consider on a grander base that is the idea of the common. Where to try and develop this new idea to help the environment and still make this cost-efficient. This project needs to think of how to use a broad set of resources, natural and cultural that are shared like groundwater resources for this particular system that is accessible to many.  It needs to be established how these resources will be used and if it would be open access to all because using commons is essential for society.

What this system fails to consider is that even though people seem to support the hydroponics and aquaponics system, they probably don’t understand that the label of environmentally friendly doesn’t mean no contamination in the water. Also, it expressed that wind energy would be a large part of production requiring farmers to reduce their environmental footprint. This may sound like the best idea but still leaves out the waste of using the material to produce wind energy that would take away from making this less cost-efficient.

Sources:

https://ag.purdue.edu/stories/purdue-study-addresses-environmental-economic-impacts-of-hydroponic-aquaponics-systems/

https://www.thegardeningpal.com/15-most-common-problems-with-aquaponics/

EU’s Plan to Stop Global Emissions

            During September 17^th of 2020, the European Commission has stated a plan and a goal of reducing EU greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 55% by 2030; compared to emissions levels in 1990. This came from an amendment to the European Climate Law proposal, in which the Council and Parliament confirmed the 55% target as the EU’s new Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. The strives that Europe is making has the potential to make Europe the first climate neutral continent in the world by 2050, but there is still work to be done to achieve those levels.

Currently, the Commissions assessment estimates the EU is on target to not only reach but pass their current 2030 emissions target by at least 50%. Much of this success so far comes from Europe investing in more renewable energy sources within its countries. Assessments of Member States' National Energy and Climate Plans has proven that they are advancing their energy and climate transition. The EU’s share of renewable energy has the possibility of reaching 33.7% by 2030, surpassing their current target of a minimal 32%.

Europe has been making tremendous achievements regarding climate change and much of those accomplishments come from Polycentric Governance. The EU consists of countries from all over Europe such as Austria, Greece, Poland, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The list goes on, but what is important is that scientists, economists, and leaders from all those countries are working together to achieve a healthier world. By creating a standard that most countries agree upon, the implementation and enforcement of those protocols becomes much easier.

Although Europe is setting a precedent for how countries should operate regarding climate change, to make a difference worldwide, most countries must be involved as well. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a perfect example of how countries can collaborate to make a better world. The UNFCCC established the Paris Agreement, which establishes the goal of limiting average temperature increases globally. As of November of 2020, 194 states have signed the agreement, while 187 sates and the EU have ratified the agreement. Even though every country has not ratified, a majority has and that shows great potential for the future.

Works Cited

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1599