Final Wiki Essay

According to “The Economics of Renewable Energy”, “the history of industrial civilization is a history of energy transitions”. In less developed, agrarian economies, people’s basic need for food calories is provided through simple forms of agriculture, which is essentially a method of capturing solar energy for human use. Solar energy stored in firewood or other biomass energy meets other basic needs for home heating and cooking. As economies develop, its energy needs increase exponentially. “Historically, as supplies of firewood and other biomass energy proved insufficient to support growing economies in Europe and the United States, people turned to hydropower (also a form of stored solar energy), then to coal during the nineteenth century, and then to oil and natural gas during the twentieth century”. Currently, fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) are by far the dominant energy source in industrial economies as well as in developing economies (82% of global energy consumption). However, the next great transition in energy sources is upon us: from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources. Leading factors for this transition include concerns about environmental impacts, technological change, and limits on fossil fuel supplies. Much of the capital stock and infrastructure of modern economic systems are centered on fossil-fuel energy use, and thus any transition away from fossil-fuel dependence will require massive restructuring and investment. 

Commonly utilized renewable energy sources include biomass, hydropower, wind power, direct solar energy, and geothermal energy. There are pros and cons to each of these energy sources. 

Biomass is any fuel derived from plant matter, such as wood, crops, crop residues, and animal waste. There is, however, a negative externality of biomass use: air pollutants, as biomass is generally burned in some way. For biomass in all its forms, it is true that it requires large amounts of land to generate a significant amount of energy. Therefore, the economics of biomass are, to a large extent, land economics. This constitutes an opportunity cost, as the same land could be used to produce food or fiber. Due to these land constraints as well as the fact that the total quantity of biomass energy is relatively small in relation to current energy consumption, biomass can at most provide a small portion of total energy needs. 

Hydropower is the world’s largest source of renewable energy, generating about 16% of global electricity as of 2008. It can also be inexpensive where conditions are favorable. “ The total energy available from hydropower depends on the volume of water available (flow), and its

vertical drop (head). Head and flow are substitutes for producing hydropower: a given amount of power can be obtained with relatively low flow and high head, or with high flow and low head”. The best sites for hydropower have both high head and high flow (like Niagra Falls). However, many of these best sites have already been developed, and additional development would come at a higher cost. The U.S. Department of Energy released a report that indicated developing electrical generation facilities at existing dams could significantly increase hydropower potential. There are environmental externalities to consider as well. For example, in New England, the native salmon and shad populations were “reduced in part by dams blocking migration routes that fish used during spawning”. Tidal power, although related to hydropower, often has rather low average tidal head, implying higher costs. It also has a greater potential for environmental externalities in a marine environment. 

Wind power, like hydropower, faces issues of location. The difference between wind power cost on the best sites versus on less suitable sites is notable. Another drawback of wind power is that the amount of power available at any particular moment also varies greatly with wind speed. However, on the best sites, the electricity production from wind is very close to cost parity with sources like coal and nuclear power. Environmental externalities of wind power includes the aesthetic impact, noise from the wind in the turbine blades, as well as bird mortality from collisions with turbine blades. 

Solar energy comes in three basic forms: low temperature solar thermal, solar electric or photovoltaic (PV), and high temperature solar thermal. Low temperature solar applications include solar water/space heating. This method retains heat from the sun and uses it to heat air or water. The main issue with this source is that the greatest demand is in winter, when there is the least supply of sun. PV cells employ semiconductor material to generate a flow of electricity when struck by sunlight. The biggest issue of photovoltaics is that, though the technology is now well developed and reliable, it is also expensive compared to current energy sources. However, the costs of solar PV have fallen and are projected to continue that trend, so it is only a question of when these prices will become competitive in the energy market. 

Getting more into the economics of renewable energy, the world currently gets about 80% of its energy supplies from fossil fuels because these sources generally provide energy at the lowest cost. Be that as it may, the cost advantage fossil fuels hold over renewable energy sources has been and will continue to decrease as the supply of fossil fuels drops and renewable energy becomes more efficient and less expensive. At this point in time, it is not a matter of if, but when, the world will make the shift to renewable energy sources. It is important to make haste, as while we may yet still have a supply of nonrenewables, the impact they have on our environment may be too much for it to handle.

Works Cited

Timmons, David, et al. The Economics of Renewable Energy. Global Development and Environment Institute, 2014.

 

Th Paris Climate Accord Could Still be Possible

     The United States is the worlds second biggest carbon emitter. When the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, the global greenhouse gas emissions target set by the agreement seemed like it could be out of reach. Several events in the past four years have potentially changed the tone on the possibility of success for the Paris Climate Accord. 

    The pledges by countries not included in the accord to reach net zero emissions by the middle of the decade have helped optimism for global goals. China, Japan, and South Korea plan on reaching zero emissions by 2050. President elect Joe Biden also plans on reaching net zero emissions by 2050. It is estimated that by the time Biden steps into office, 63% of all global emissions will be accounted for by some form of net zero plan. If these countries can achieve their goals, the global warming projections will be well within the specifications of the Paris agreement. Only a year ago, 50-100 year climate change projections looked devastating. The unexpected ambition of the worlds largest polluter, China, has motivated other countries.

    The coronavirus pandemic has also given some unexpected boosts in pollution reduction. Global emissions have dropped roughly seven percent in 2020, and while this is likely a temporary reduction, government stimulus packages as a result of covid could play a huge role in pollution reduction. Many countries in the European Union have devoted significant funds toward "green" deals. One third of Germany's stimulus package will be directed toward renewable energy and electric vehicles. France is investing heavily in its automotive industry with the goal of becoming Europe's leading electric vehicle producer. The EU itself will be financing renewable energy research and infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. 

    If these new goals are met by the countries making them, the ambitions of the Paris Climate Accord will likely be realized.

 

“Too Much Of A Good Thing: The Cautionary Tale of Biotech Crops”

This article on NPR discusses the issues cotton and corn farmers are having with clean technology. The technology is modified cotton and corn plants that have been infused with a naturally occurring bacteria gene that kills off common pests of these crops. This gene only targets specific insect pests. This provides a big advantage over pesticides as it will only kill off the pest insects while leaving the other beneficial or non-harmful insects alive. It also means fewer to no chemicals are being spread out by the farmers, which saves them time and money as they do not need to spend the effort to distribute it across their fields. 

The problem has arrived from the overuse of this altered gene; the pest insects have evolved and become immune to it, due to the forced selection process which guarantees that only insects that are immune will survive and pass on the immune gene to future generations. The article presents a valid solution to this; a field of the crop that does not have the bacteria gene, which will be lost to the insects, and therefore not force only the immune insects to pass on their gene. 

However, farmers do not want to waste valuable land on a crop that is guaranteed to fail, even if it will benefit them in the long term. The article simply suggests the solution to this is more government regulations that force farmers to grow a “lost crop”. However, this is not a great solution, as it will force the farmers to adapt without providing incentives to change and understand why they need to have a crop without the gene that kills the pests. There are other solutions that the government can use that would fare better to promote clean technologies and help improve understanding. 

One way to do this is to have a subsidy for farmers to have “lost crops”. The government could buy the crop that is guaranteed to fail, which would provide a better incentive for farmers to have a crop like this. Another way is through technical assistance programs. These programs educate both the benefit of clean technology and how to use it. Luckily, for agriculture, these programs exist, in the form of state agricultural schools and extensive services. Actions such as these would work better than a regulation as it provides both incentives and understanding as to why having an unmodified crop will benefit their modified crops.

Charles, D., Sofia, M. K., & Hanson, B. (2020, December 01). Too Much Of A Good Thing: The Cautionary Tale of Biotech Crops. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/transcripts/936621362

COVID-19 and Its Rapid Outbreak

According to the CDC, the earliest reported case was on December 31, 2019 in Wuhan, China (Pan, Bao, Fan, Liu & Douglas 2020). Within one month, the virus had spread rapidly to several other countries, including Italy, the United States, and Germany. The aggressive spread was partly due to the size of Wuhan (about 14 million people including full-time and transient) and its wide range of transportation, including airplanes, trains, interstate buses, and private transportation. Located in central China, Wuhan is a major hub and capital of Hubei Province, making it a horrible place for a pandemic to erupt. “The city is recognized as the political, economic, financial, commercial, cultural, and education center of Central China” (Focus on Wuhan). 

Since appearing in the United States, coronavirus cases have not exhibited a negative slope at all. They have steadily increased to the current value of 11,367,214 total cases. Sixty-one percent of these cases have been recovered to healthy, leaving almost 7 million people still infected.

Global production has slowed to a crawl amidst this pandemic, causing shortages of many products. Among some of the most important shortages exist a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as medical masks, gloves, face shields, sanitizing products, and a few scary shortages of hospital beds, ICU beds, oxygen therapy, ventilators, and ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation devices used to oxygenate blood of children) devices (Shortages). Using the basic knowledge of supply and demand, these products prices were vastly increased or even sold to the highest bidder. “China made half the world’s mask before the coronavirus emerged there, and it has expanded production nearly 12-fold since then. But it has claimed mask factory output from itself. Purchases and donations also brought China a big chunk of the world’s supply from elsewhere” (Bradsher & Alderman). Figures from China Customs show that some 2.46 billion pieces of PPE had been imported in a month valued at $1 billion. The prices of PPE have risen drastically as the world rushes to get supplies. “Wholesale costs for N95 respirators … have quintupled. Trans-Pacific air freight charges have tripled” (Bradsher). 

Works Cited

Bradsher, Keith. “A Global 'Free-for-All' to Buy and Sell Face Masks Emerges amid Coronavirus Battle.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 1 Apr. 2020, www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-nyt-coronavirus-face-mask-shortage-20200401-5xms3wfiirb3rewtqc3v5vhe4q-story.html. 

Bradsher, Keith, and Liz Alderman. “The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them, but Has Been Hoarding Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html.

Canada, Global Affairs. “Focus on Wuhan, China.” Trade Commissioner Service, Government of Canada, 2 Jan. 2020, www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/market-facts-faits-sur-le-marche/96289.aspx?lang=eng. 

Shortages Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 6 Dec. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic. 

Real or Fake Christmas Tree

Every year 80% of Americans put up a Christmas tree and, roughly, 80% of those trees are fake. If you buy a fake tree, you now have a mass of plastic, but it can be used year after year. Choosing a real tree entails cutting down millions of trees every year for use of decoration. Which brings about the question, which type of Christmas tree is better for the environment?

Fake Christmas trees can be reused year after year, but according to USA Today, Americans still purchase 10 million fake trees each Christmas season. These trees are made from plastic and metal that are not biodegradable. Most of these fake trees are shipped from China, meaning that acquiring them comes with a bigger carbon footprint. Considering the tree is expected to break down within ten years, these fake trees will eventually end up in landfills and be replaced.

About 30 million real trees are sold each year for Christmas. These trees are grown in the United States and do not have the carbon footprint of fake trees. In order to supply 30 million trees every year, tree farms are growing between 350-500 million trees at any given time. As these trees grow, they are taking carbon in and releasing oxygen. And because these are grown on farms, forests are not being cut down to supply Christmas trees. When the holiday season is over, these trees are completely biodegradable.

When compared side by side, real trees are by far better for the environment. With fake trees being the cheaper financial option, how can we encourage families to make the switch to real one? One such option would be to put tariffs on fake trees coming from China. Increasing the price for the consumer will lower the demand. Those tariffs could also be used to fund green initiatives here in the US. 

While its fun to compare the two trees and their impact on the environment, we likely wont ever see policy to influence our Christmas tree purchases. In the grand scheme of things, Christmas trees have a miniscule impact on our environment. These trees 'account for less than 0.1% of the average person's annual carbon footprint.'

-Steven Brown

Sources: 

VERIFY: Is a real or fake Christmas tree better for the environment? | king5.com

Real vs. Fake Christmas Trees: Which Is More Eco-Friendly? (greenmatters.com)

Illegal Tampering on Diesel Emissions

Five years ago Volkswagen got caught installing devices designed to trick emission control monitors.  These so called 'defeat devices' would reduce the vehicles performance during tests to meet emission requirements. During regular driving, they would boost vehicle performance while allowing cars to emit as much as 40 times more pollution than what is allowed under emission standards. Having been forced to recall about 9 million vehicles, in addition to paying a countless number of fines and lawsuits, the Volkswagen sandal ended up costing the company around 30 billion dollars. This punishment will hopefully deter other companies from trying to cheat the system. However, it wont stop people from modifying their own vehicles.  

A new report by the EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement, shows a problem still exists with vehicles today; by way of aftermarket modifications. Marketed legally as a performance enhancement technology, these devices are being modified to cheat emissions and serve as the aforementioned 'defeat devices'. 

Drew Kodjak, the executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, who alerted the EPA of these devices, said, 'This is far more alarming and widespread than the Volkswagen scandal. Because these are trucks, the amount of pollution is far, far higher.'

According to the EPA's report, these modifications will allow trucks to release more than 570,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide. That's 10 times more than the illegal Volkswagen vehicles. Even worse, these are more difficult to enforce. The EPA has shut down some manufactures of the diesel-tuner market, but there are a lot of small businesses in play. And again, these devices are not illegal. Only after they are modified do they become illegal. 

As we see in the market, there is a demand for these 'defeat devices'. Making such devices illegal is an attempt by the government to cut off the supply. However, when the demand still exists, black markets are created. Or, in this case, loopholes are exploited to get their devices back on the market as 'diesel tuners'. One possible solution does exist. Emission inspectors could test the tailpipe emissions instead of reading the computer. This would be an expensive change for new technology and for additional time consumed during testing. It's up to the states to decide if the benefits of reducing emissions from these vehicles would outweigh the higher costs involved for improved emissions testing. 

-Steven Brown

Sources:

Volkswagen: The scandal explained - BBC News

Illegal Tampering by Diesel Pickup Owners Is Worsening Pollution, E.P.A. Says

VW Is Said to Cheat on Diesel Emissions; U.S. to Order Big Recall

Pandemic’s Cleaner Air Could Reshape What We Know About the Atmosphere

    Clean air is something most take for granted. We are beginning to see studies that show the increases levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants can cause certain health risks such as asthma and lung disease. The Clean Air Act is one policy that has helped institute policies that enforce restrictions on the amount of pollutants that enter our atmosphere. COVID has been devastating to the economy and for human health. However, there is a slight silver lining. The COVID shutdowns have allowed scientists to conduct large real time experiments of the amount of pollution that humans contribute. 

Many cities around the world have seen the effects of increased pollution. A gray haze that lingers over the cities makes it very evident that the vehicles and factories below may be the culprit. It’s been very difficult to prove exactly how much is being contributed through commuting and other sources of pollution coming from civilization. The shutdowns enacted during this global pandemic have allowed scientists to closely examine the reductions in pollutants. They are then able to compare these reductions and compare them with estimates of reduced travel in major cities. One way they do this is by attaching sensors to small planes and flying over major metropolitan areas along the east coast. They have found a reduction in pollution levels that hasn’t been seen in decades. 

These findings give fuel to the fire for arguments for increasing restrictions that enforce stricter pollution control measures. Many scientists agree that the levels of carbon dioxide being contributed on a daily basis is cause for concern. The levels of pollution that we are seeing today may be what environmental groups are hoping for. This low level of pollution comes with a severe price in loss of production. We have seen huge hits to the economy during the pandemic caused by these lockdowns. The government has been trying to keep the economy running by throwing trillions of dollars into the economy. This is a temporary solution to the problem. 

Maybe once we see a vaccine, we will start to see our cities return back to normal along with the pollution levels that come with it. If government officials wish to keep the low levels of pollution that we saw, we could expect to see more severe restrictions on pollution control. This may hinder the economy until the technology and infrastructure is in place to handle the heightened goals of a greener planet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/climate/coronavirus-clean-air.html

Is This the End of New Pipelines?

    We are seeing a major shift in the priorities of Americans. Americans are becoming less concerned with being a global leader in fossil fuel energy and becoming more concerned with becoming a leader of renewable energy. This has caused major strain on oil and gas companies due to the scrutiny they have been put under. The oil and gas companies have been forced to delay projects and spend millions of dollars in litigation to keep their projects alive. The argument against a lot of these projects is that we shouldn’t be expanding our oil and gas infrastructure but expanding on clean energy infrastructure. Increasing pressure from both democrats and left leaning conservatives has given power to environmental groups in the fight against continued expansion of oil and gas infrastructure. This has caused big hits in the number of jobs available and loss of job opportunity that would have been created if these projects were able to get up and running. Many states have also been jumping on board with the fight for greener energy which makes it increasingly difficult for these gas and oil companies to obtain permits necessary to begin their projects. These new policies are forcing established energy companies to rethink their outlook on the future of energy production. It’s becoming more and more apparent that oil and gas is beginning to fade, and greener energy is on the horizon.

COVID also isn’t helping these oil and gas companies financially justify taking on such large investments in infrastructure. The pandemic has caused a major drop in demand for oil and gas. Less people are driving now, and more people are staying home. This makes it more difficult to justify such huge investment commitments in the near future. With the hits these companies have faced in litigation from environmentalist movements and the state and federal governments, the pandemic only makes it that much tougher. 

Greener energy is a good thing for the environment. It may cause some strain on the economy at first because of the large initial costs necessary to begin making the switch. However, in the long run I believe that this shift will help keep our economy in front of the inevitable global shift to cleaner energy. As new technology develops, initial costs will fall and the idea of shifting into this new realm of energy will begin to seem more attainable. I look now and I can’t imagine a world with new gas engines and gas burning furnaces. It will take time and a huge shift in the industry to make this fantasy a reality. Adjusting to cleaner energy will help keep our planet in a condition to continue prosper and growth for the economy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/climate/dakota-access-keystone-atlantic-pipelines.html

San Francisco moving towards renewable energy

On Earth Day of 2019, San Francisco became the first US city to introduce 100% renewable energy requirements for commercial buildings. These requirements offer a timeline for when different sized buildings have to comply. All commercial buildings over 500,000 square feet have until 2022, buildings over 250,000 square feet have until 2024, and buildings over 50,000 square feet have until 2030. This move to renewable energy is expected to reduce emissions from commercial buildings by 21%. A big number considering commercial buildings make up 44% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the city. 

The ordinance comes with 3 important exceptions:

    1) If there is a lack of renewable energy available to meet demand

    2) If the cost for renewable energy is more than 5% of the providers default option

    3) If the new requirement conflicts with new state or federal energy laws

Number one is important, because you can not issue fines to businesses for failing to comply if the energy supply is not available. Such a drastic increase in demand would be hard for any supplier to meet. To prepare the city for this change, the Bay area has been offering incentives for energy companies to develop renewable options. San Francisco first established a goal of 100% renewable power back in 2008. Since then, they have awarded numerous grants for renewable energy projects. 

Number 2 is needed in order to stop energy companies from price gouging. By making the renewable energy a requirement, the city is forcing the demand line to become vertical at the number of all commercial buildings. The law would also make renewable energy an inelastic good. No matter the price, the businesses would still have to purchase in order to comply with the law. To combat this, the city put a price ceiling on renewable energy. We know that price ceilings often result in a shortage of supply, and the output of lower quality goods, so it will be interesting to see of the incentives offered by the government are enough to bridge the gap.

This type of large government action throws a big wrench into the workings of the free market. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over the next ten years. San Francisco serves as a test run for other large cities, who can take this information and create plans of their own as we move to become a greener nation.

-Steven Brown

Sources

Go 100% Renewable Energy : San Francisco - 100% Renewable Power by 2030 (go100percent.org)

San Francisco Now Requires 100% Renewable Energy for Commercial Buildings (fbm.com)

Political Accountability and Access to Information

    The lack of political accountability along with suppression of information in regards to environmental protection was present during Soviet communism. When the communist regime became public so did the environmental atrocities committed through industrialization in the government owned economy. The "industrialize at all costs approach" without regard for the environment was made possible by limited information and lack of democracy. For example, the environmental problems that persisted in the USSR were not made public until after the fall of the Soviet Union. Concerned scientists took personal risks by coming forward with information about the environment and their information was not accessible to the general public. Lack of information and accountably haas been present in the United States, as well. "Many of the worst hazardous waste sites in our country resulted from U.S. military programs, shrouded in Cold War secrecy"(Goodstein and Polasky 268). The Hanford nuclear site being on of the most prominent examples. 

  

    While government action was the root of environmental degradation in the USSR, government is not the main source of environmental problems in free-markets. Some would argue that government inaction or ineffective action is the main cause of environmental complications in capitalist countries. Environmental problems in free-markets generally result because of a lack of payment for negative externalities from business, citizens, and even government. For government to create effective policy to target negative externalities there needs to be easy access to good information and "effective widespread democracy". Citizens need a method to air their grievances, otherwise their problems will go unknown and unsolved. Without tension from citizens to government, the demand for environmental safety and protection is not accounted for. In other words, the environmental costs are not paid for and there is a lack of incentive to pollute less.   

        Another example of limited information having negative consequences on the environment are poor developing countries that commit environmental atrocities similar to the USSR. Citizens in these countries do not have information to meet the needs for a cleaner environment, such as alternatives, nor the means to pressure their government to take action.

                                                                           Works Cited

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

Value of Environmental Health Risks in China

     In the United States, we can place a return value on environmental regulations. As pollution related illness and death increase, the affected individuals can no longer contribute to the economy. When environmental regulations are implemented, they can change this value. If the number of people that will be able to contribute to the economy after the bill is high enough to offset the cost of the bill, it is more likely to be implemented. In China, individual income is much lower than in the United states, so environmental regulations in China are less likely to pay off.

    The median household income in the United States is around $43,000, so if a household were to die from a pollution based illness, the US economy would lose that contribution. China's annual disposable income is much lower on a individual basis. When implementing environmental regulations, it takes fewer affected individuals to pay off a bill in the United States than it does in China. For this reason, China's attention to environmental issues has been put on the backburner until recently. The lower disposable income per household in China also means that individuals are less likely to spend their money on health concerns. 

    In 2013, China implemented their first air pollution control act. The inability of their citizens to invest personal finances into the problem led to serious air quality issues that finally presented a financial burden on Chinas economic system. The edge was reached where improved health of the population would increase wealth enough to offset the cost to implement the plan and China spent 1.8 trillion dollars on the issue.

Projects to Stash Carbon Dioxide Underground Get a Boost

Pollution has become a growing issue and one that more people are taking more seriously. It’s become apparent that we cannot pollute as much as we want without consequences. Pollution comes in many forms from waste, oil spills, or carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. The latter is one that this article discusses trying to clean up. Many power sources require digging beneath the earths surface in order to gather the precious resources necessary to power our modern lives. This releases billions of tons of carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This is an issue that scientists have been working on solving and are making headway into processes to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.

       Burying carbon dioxide is a process that may be a small contribution to the vast amounts of carbon dioxide created every day. Industrial plants are working on catching carbon dioxide emissions and burying them deep below the earths surface. This is a concept that hasn’t gone mainstream yet. This is due to complications with tax breaks that are in the works that would incentivize these industrial companies to take this action. This process takes a rather large initial investment. The Trump has recently approved the new tax breaks and the IRS is in the process of learning how to put this policy into action. This new tax break will allow these companies to receive up to $50 per ton of carbon dioxide that is permanently buried underground. This could be a big incentive. A coal plant in North Dakota estimates that it could capture up to 3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s a significant income at roughly $150 million. 

These types of projects and concepts will help the hopeful transition into using only renewable energy sources. It will help make traditional energy resources such as oil, coal, and ethanol much easier to continue using. It will be easier to except these traditionally high pollutant contributing resources into slightly greener means until the technology and infrastructure is in place for renewable energy sources. This also allows the energy producing industries that create many jobs keep these jobs and hopefully make the transition smoother. Jobs created by energy resources are a substantial part of the labor force and will significantly hinder the labor market if the ability to use these high pollutant resources is stopped through policy. That’s why it’s important to develop concepts to make our current processes greener while new renewable energy infrastructure is developed. 

We are now in a time where nearly everyone is aware of the impacts that humans have had on the environment. It’s tough to deny our impact when we see the smog, increase in significant weather, and amount of waste created. It’s important to keep researching and developing different ways to improve our environment to ensure we can keep enjoying the resources we have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/climate/carbon-capture-tax-break.html

New England’s Forests Are Sick. They Need More Tree Doctors.

    I’ve recently been more aware of the importance of trees and the impact they have on the habitat around them. This article caught my attention and it discussed a few important aspects of the importance of trees for the environment. I was surprised on the claims that this article makes on all of the different environmental factors that are impacting the overall health of our forests. Disease, invasive species, climate change and others all of a significant impact on trees. 

This is cause for concern because trees are vital for the health of our ecosystems and also play an important factor in our economy. Construction of residential and commercial properties are dependent on the use of lumber. Lumber seems like a commodity that is coming from a seemingly endless supply. Most people don’t really give much thought to it, they drive to the nearest home improvement store and there it is. Without much thought on how that wood got there. Luckily, wood is a very replenishable source. That replenishment, however, is being impacted by the high demand and stressors trees must overcome to stay healthy and grow. 

This article discusses the threats unhealthy trees can cause such as decreasing habitat quality for wildlife and threatening the overall success of tree survival. They are looking at trees in the New England area. Here in Colorado, we have seen the impacts disease and poor climate conditions can cause. I recently was helping with the East Troublesome fire in the Granby, CO area. The fire was devastating for the local population but even more for the forests and wildlife in the area. I have spent a lot of time in the forests in Grand County and have noticed the amount of beetle killed lodgepole pine in the area. You can look at the mountain side and see gray patches and sometimes whole mountain sides containing still standing and fallen trees that were overwhelmed with the beetle infestation. This is great fuel for fires and the East Troublesome fire flourished in the area. 

These fires cost millions of dollars to contain and fight. That is money that could have been spent elsewhere but due to the decline in forest conditions must be utilized to fight fires. This is a devastating reality that we find ourselves in. Most of the problems with our forests aren’t an easy solve. Weather and spread of disease are issues that can’t be solved in the short term. I do believe it is worth allocating resources into analyzing these issues and developing solutions. If we push it off, we could start to see loss of forest areas not caused directly by humans through logging but from environmental factors that humans have contributed to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/climate/new-england-trees-forests.html

Elk Return to Kentucky, Bringing Economic Life

    Too often do we hear about wildlife populations hurting because of the spread of human civilization over the landscape. It seems like every week there is a story about a predator had to be put down because of its proximity to a neighborhood or hear how our waste is affecting the ecosystems of the animals that most of us appreciate. This story is not one of those stories. This story is a success story, although it is does include a bit of sad irony. 

The irony is that we created as humans caused the problem that we are trying to fix. Since settlers came over the Atlantic ocean our wildlife resources have severely been depleted. Big game animals are the ones that took the biggest hit as settlers saw them as an endless resource until they almost did and for some ended completely. Elk have seen a huge comeback in the west over the last few decades, some say that some of the western states have elk populations restored to where they were before settlers arrived. However, the west is not where elk previously used to thrive, they thrived across the whole country, similar to whitetail deer today. 

In Kentucky elk used to thrive according to journals by settlers. The elk however were completely gone within the state borders by the start of the civil war. The rocky mountain elk foundation (RMEF) strived to return elk to Kentucky and see that at least part of the population can be restored. This project was set to happen in an area of Kentucky that had been decimated by coal mining in the 1900’s. This is an area that few people want to live because of the threat of disease from the old mines. However, this area has the right conditions for elk to thrive. The RMEF brought, by air, over 1500 elk from the western states in 1997. Kentucky is now home to over 13,000 Elk and the population is rising.

    I myself am an avid hunter and fisher, so naturally I'm a huge supporter of wildlife and wildlife habitat. I am also a member of the RMEF. Hearing stories like this really makes me happy because I do believe wildlife is an excellent resource that should not be taken for granted. Wildlife habitat continues to be encroached upon by developing towns and cities. In many areas the wildlife, particularly big game, are forced out of their habitats and forced to move to other areas. Elk used to be a prairie dwelling animal, however, with the continued pressure of humans, they have moved to the difficult landscape of the mountains to avoid human contact. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/science/kentucky-elk-wildlife-coal.html?searchResultPosition=1

U.S. Overconsumption and the Consequences

Many of the United States citizens are taking advantage of how we consume our products and are reluctant to admit that it is a major problem within our economy. These procedures to get rid of our waste are limited and it has been ultimately hurting our environment. It takes a large amount of resources and energy to dispose of our waste yet United States citizens, who “constitute 5% of the world’s population, consume 24% of the world’s energy”. (IBDG) The amount of energy we use is one problem, but the amount of consumption is where the problem truly lies. It effects the overall health of our citizens and according to the CDC, which stands for the Centers for Disease Control, “prevalence of obesity was 40.0% among young adults aged 20 to 39 years, 44.8% among middle-aged adults aged 40 to 59 years, and 42.8% among adults aged 60 and older”. (CDC) 

These statistics can show support towards a trend among United States citizens in which individuals uses their freedom to consume as much as they want. As of 2008, an “estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United States was $147 billion” due to obesity related conditions. (CDC) These costs come from care related to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other harmful conditions, which all stem from United States citizens overconsumption. Healthy products are deemed as expensive, but in some cases “obesity prevalence was higher in the highest income group”. (CDC) Finding what works best with your health, while consuming moderate proportions, is essential to living a long and healthy life.

Life having no limits seems like a extraordinary concept, but it is not an optimal outlook on how life works and will ultimately result in consequences. With the US having the 2^nd highest amount of human waste, “the average American generates 52 tons of garbage by age 75”. (IBDG) These are resources turned into waste and according to the Scientific American, a magazine that covers scientific data, “the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper”. (Scientific American) United States citizens, with the help of governmental policies, must change overconsumption habits. 

Governmental actions can enforce “public policies that promote access to healthy, low-fat, high-fiber foods”, but many citizens will most likely be outraged as once favorite eats become unavailable. (Yoffee) Although making these unhealthy foods can be created within your own household, the efficient options of classic fast food may cease to exist causing anger. Overconsumption can be related to healthy foods as well, so not all the blame can go towards unhealthy options. Eating in moderation and having knowledge towards your waste is important for the United States citizens to overcome this epidemic.

 

Work Cited

CDC “Adult Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 June 2020, www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.

IBDG “Hungry Planet: Consumption Around the Globe.” International Business Degree Guide, 22 Nov. 2013, www.internationalbusinessguide.org/hungry-planet/.

Scientific American. “Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 14 Sept. 2012, www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/.

Yoffee, Lynn, et al. “How to Avoid the Obesity Epidemic - Healthy Living Center.”EverydayHealth.com, 2009, www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/obesity prevention.aspx.

New Zealand climate Change state of Emergency

 As climate change begins to take a toll in some parts of the world many countries are beginning to declare climate change as a state of emergency. One of those countries is New Zealand, as it begins to see rising sea levels, flooding, water shortages as well as wildfires ravage across the land at an unprecedented rate. The extreme weather patterns have also caused a significant decline in New Zealand species as well as the indigenous biodiversity. The call for a climate change state of emergency is not only an answer to the current residents but for future generations that will be burden if no immediate actions are taken. 

The government plans to take action and be at the forefront of fighting climate change by making several changes to help the countries reduce carbon emissions and minimize degradation of land. Although New Zealand’s contribution to the global emissions is only 0.17% which may seem small, for its size it’s higher than most. This makes it the 17th country out of the 32 in the OECD with a net emission that has rose in the past two decades by 60%. Their future plans are to require the use of only electric or hybrid vehicles to help reduce the automobile fleet by 20%. Next, they plan to eliminate the use of cold fired boilers in buildings across all public sectors. New Zealand is determined to show that they improve the economy with such actions and have even wagered reducing the government’s own emissions. They are determined to become a carbon-neutral government by the year 2025. 

Although this all sounds like a step in the right direction, they must have evidence in hand that that supports that their actions will have positive effects on climate change. This is so the residents of New Zealand will believe in the movement and have adequate resources to participate and help contribute to the cause. A proposal needs to be made to help identify how New Zealand’s can benefit by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and ways that it can help both the residents and the environment. It has to show what the socio-economic options are to help with this reduction. This plan needs to provide information about the innovative technology being used, the policies in place to accomplish such a goal and sufficient ways of changing behavior to consider the different factors. This proposal can help identify ways moving forward without altering productivity and growth. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/02/new-zealand-declares-a-climate-change-emergency

Unintended consequences of emissions

 The New York Times posted an article on November 25, 2020, titled Illegal Tampering by Diesel Pickup Owners Is Worsening Pollution, E.P.A. Says. The article explains that in 2015 Volkswagen was caught manufacturing vehicles with "defeat devices." NYTimes explains that the defeat devices "sensed when the car was being tested and then activated equipment that reduced emissions, but the software turned the equipment down during regular driving increasing emissions far above legal limits" (Gates). NYTimes explains that these defeat devices are installed to increase fuel efficiency, acceleration, and torque (Gates). Volkswagen ended up having to pay $14.7 billion to settle the scandal in the U.S. But the NYTimes explains that the problem today is not with a specific car manufacturer rather diesel truck owners who are installing aftermarket defeat devices and tuning their diesel trucks to beat the emissions checker.

Over the past decade, the E.P.A. has been investigating the installation of defeat devices on diesel trucks in the U.S. The study focuses on heavy pick-up trucks, but the problem is perceived to affect many types of vehicles. Vehicle owners are tuning their cars with defeat devices to trick emissions tests since the test only checks the vehicle's computer and not the actual tailpipe emissions. Once the car's computer tells the emissions test everything is okay, drivers are free to pollute the air. The NYTimes explains that the E.P.A. reports "diesel tuners will allow the trucks to release more than 57,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant linked to heart and lung disease and premature death, over the lifetime of the vehicles" (Davenport). The trucks are also estimated to release "5,000 excess tons of industrial soot" (Davenport). Keep in mind that 57,000 tons of nitrogen and 5000 of soot only include the pollution from the perceived trucks to be breaking emissions and not all the other cars and S.U.V.s that have similar modifications. Reading through the article, I noticed that this issue is an unintended consequence and how the market for defeat devices and tuning has risen due to the emissions regulations.

Unintended consequences, also known as the Cobra Effect, are the reactions from imposed government action. The government will try to combat a problem. In response, people are incentivized to act against the set government action, and the problem is often exacerbated. A famous example of unintended consequences is from a case from India. The cobra population was high, so government officials put a bounty on cobras. People were getting paid to kill cobras and turn them in. The cobra population went down but then began to rise again as people figured to bread the cobras and kill them for bounty rewards. Soon the government caught on stopped paying bounty, and the breeders released the cobras back into the streets. The cobra population was larger than before the intervention.

We can see similar unintended consequences in the case of the E.P.A. and private vehicle owners. The E.P.A. has set emission regulations to combat the amount of nitrogen dioxide and soot released into the air, but car manufacturers and private vehicle owners want higher vehicle performance. Out emerges the market for illegal defeat devices and tuning and consequently higher amounts of pollution. The emissions issue was resolved with Volkswagen because the E.P.A. was able to target one offender and sued for a large sum, considering how large Volkswagen is. That is not the case with the trucks. Many small manufactures are providing defeat devices, and many of them can be purchased on Amazon. Small mechanic shops can tune the vehicles, there for the E.P.A. can not sue these small companies for huge settlements like Volkswagen. In all, it is hard to say, would there be less pollution in the air without emission regulations? Is there a way to correct unintended consequences without more unintended consequences!?

References

Davenport, C. (2020, November 25). Illegal Tampering by Diesel Pickup Owners Is Worsening Pollution, E.P.A. Says. Retrieved December 01, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/climate/diesel-trucks-air-pollution.html

Davies, A. (2019, September 06). The Cobra Effect: Lessons in Unintended Consequences: Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan. Retrieved December 02, 2020, from https://fee.org/articles/the-cobra-effect-lessons-in-unintended-consequences/

Gates, G., Ewing, J., Russell, K., & Watkins, D. (2015, October 08). How Volkswagen's 'Defeat Devices' Worked. Retrieved December 02, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html?action=click 

Trees losing leaves due to climate change

 Every year trees around the world go through a process called senescence which slowly deteriorates the trees. The leaves of the trees begin to change from vibrant green to autumn colors and eventually fall off. This process also suspends the trees growth and extracts nutrients from the foliage indicating that winter is approaching. Once senescence begins, the leaves no longer absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis leaving carbon sequestration vulnerable to man-made innovations. 

According to researchers, as seasons begin to get longer due to global warming, European trees are now dealing with engine leaves loading their leaves two weeks ahead of their normal schedule. It is predicted that this change in climate will extend some seasons two to three weeks which could be devasting to farmers. To better understand the effects climate change has had on the environment and a timeline of degradation, researchers have studied six different European deciduous tree species; European horse chestnut, silver birch, European beech, European latch, English oak and rowan over the course of six decades. The study concluded that elevated carbon dioxide, temperatures and light levels have contributed to these trees losing their leaves earlier than normal and disrupting nature's natural feedback loop.  

Previous to these studies, It was believed that there were only two contributing factors to loss of foliage, fall temperatures and day length. The third perpetrator (carbon dioxide), is self-containing its productivity into these massive mechanisms known as trees and as a result these trees photosynthesis absorb sooner, forcing them to lose their leaves earlier. This is similar to a person consuming too much food during a short period, the body cannot retain such a huge amount and eventually gets expelled. As seasons continue to get longer and consumption continues to grow, just like a human, a tree can only take so much. 

Tress are not like machines, they are living and breathing organisms that share the world with us and need to be cherished. As third world countries slowly begin to develop and America's needs continue to grow, we need to cognitive of our actions and find connections amongst the earth. We must look for ways to reduce CO2 to help prevent climate change that don't alter the natural state of the tree cycle. Trees in general are extremely valuable and a growing asset that are worth three times its initial investment. 53 tons of carbon dioxide can be removed with just one hundred trees. About 430 pounds of air pollution can stay embedded in the earth per year due to sequestration. As we carelessly release CO2 into the air and continue to deforest our lands, we are choosing to acknowledge the present economy with a foreseeable end state instead of investing in a future that can be tangible and profitable for both the consumer and the environment. Business as usual is not always good business. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/europe/fall-leaves-intl-scli-climate-scn/index.html