Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf says research will address “the concern that there is a relationship between hydraulic fracturing and childhood cancers.”
In my stats class on Thursday students were upset that they couldn't ever "accept" the null hypothesis: it seems to them that one should either reject the null hypothesis or accept it. Well, here's one reason why not: as the article says, “The fact that there is no known environmental factor associated with
the development of Ewing Sarcoma does not mean there is no environmental
factor in the development of Ewing Sarcoma,” Dr. Ketyer said. “It just
hasn’t been studied. The cancer is very rare.” Just because we don't find evidence doesn't mean that the truth is elsewhere!
In other news, natural gas is showing a lot less promise than it did as little as a few years ago. For one thing, it has proven to be really cheap, and for another, renewables are proving cheaper still.
Update, January 2020: "produced water" from fracking is often radioactive, and workers dealing with it are often ill-protected, according to this Rolling Stone exposé.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Friday, November 22, 2019
Value of a Statistical dog's life
While this may seem whimsical, creepy, or just nuts, actually this is useful: if a hypothetical policy saves 100 dogs' lives, how much should we be willing to pay for that policy? This paper says that the answer is easy: about $10,000 per dog. Now to find a way to include this in my class in the spring.... :)
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Traffic in the city
I've posted many times about ride-sharing, but another under-appreciated factor that is contributing more and more to gridlock is package delivery. It's still more efficient than driving your car however far to pick up one (or a few) items, but the logistical difficulties are starting to pile up. Food for thought....
11/4: Lil more food for thought on traffic:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1191295205187686400
11/4: Lil more food for thought on traffic:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1191295205187686400
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Health and taxes
No one is excited about taxes and fees, but the good news is that they can do a lot of good. For example in London, where kids breathe in high levels of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, new traffic taxes (AKA congestion pricing) are making a difference, reducing pollution by as much as a third. New York City is poised to join the ranks of cities participating by 2021, when a new fee will hopefully curb pollution as well as raising over a billion dollars for transportation infrastructure.
Another positive tax is a tax on soda. In Mexico, an approximately 10% tax on soda decreased soda consumption by about 6%, an impact that is estimated to potentially prevent almost 200,000 cases of diabetes. Wow.
Three of these four were from the Global Health Now newsletter; you can subscribe at https://www.globalhealthnow.org/subscribe
Another positive tax is a tax on soda. In Mexico, an approximately 10% tax on soda decreased soda consumption by about 6%, an impact that is estimated to potentially prevent almost 200,000 cases of diabetes. Wow.
Three of these four were from the Global Health Now newsletter; you can subscribe at https://www.globalhealthnow.org/subscribe
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Chicken economics
You've probably had or at least seen Costco's famous $5 rotisserie chicken, but you probably haven't thought about it in this much depth before. From the importance of the size of the chicken through the vital role that Nebraska corn is playing in taking on basically a new agro-industrial undertaking, there's a lot here. Take a look!
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
New York Times on Climate Change
A couple of articles in the NYT on the effects of climate change. First, one on the oceans: "If fossil-fuel emissions continue to rise rapidly, for instance, the maximum amount of fish in the ocean that can be sustainably caught could decrease by as much as a quarter by century’s end. That would have sweeping implications for global food security: Fish and seafood provide about 17 percent of the world’s animal protein, and millions of people worldwide depend on fishing economies for their livelihoods."
Second, one on agriculture and food production more generally: "Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year....Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese....plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all."
Second, one on agriculture and food production more generally: "Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year....Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese....plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all."
Friday, September 20, 2019
Offshore Wind... cheaper than coal?
That is the screaming headline of this Bloomberg piece, and if true that's really amazing. I guess I need to read up more on how exactly that is supposed to happen: this short piece doesn't have a lot of details....
Update October 7: one of the reasons is economies of scale, and another reason is improvements in technology such that they turn in even really low wind. I know very little about this technology, but I am curious about how it stands up to extreme conditions. I'm sure the engineers have thought of that, but can they really?
Update October 25: Another recent report has highlighted the vast potential of offshore wind. Unfortunately this doesn't say why costs are dropping so drastically, but they say that as much as $1 trillion could be invested in projects by 2040. That would be... a lot!
Update October 7: one of the reasons is economies of scale, and another reason is improvements in technology such that they turn in even really low wind. I know very little about this technology, but I am curious about how it stands up to extreme conditions. I'm sure the engineers have thought of that, but can they really?
Update October 25: Another recent report has highlighted the vast potential of offshore wind. Unfortunately this doesn't say why costs are dropping so drastically, but they say that as much as $1 trillion could be invested in projects by 2040. That would be... a lot!
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Uber is great!
A great observation this morning by Benjamin Golub:
Regularly, I'm stunned by how much social surplus Uber created by inventing its basic platform. One of the most striking things for my immigrant family about the US in the 90s was how, even in the inner suburbs, having no car really limited how much of a person you could be.So if you were e.g. a young adult of modest means or a woman in a bad marriage, lacking control of a car crippled and constrained you. Cabs existed but were basically out of the question given how bad and expensive they were outside approximately three cities. Those use cases for vulnerable populations are crowd-pleasers. But in zillions of other cases, more mundane convenience makes a day much better; now add that up across hundreds of millions of people. One reason among many that people mock the company is that it bleeds money. But at an Econ 101 level all that means is that they're (for now) keeping very little of the enormous value they created. Other companies followed, but pioneering the platform and getting it to work in real life was... a big deal. So this is just an ill-advisedly earnest appreciation of the beauty of economic growth—new new ways of mutually beneficial exchange. We have justified concerns about lacking good (or sometimes even decent) urban planning and public transit. And justified criticisms of asshat CEOs and whatever else. But it's easy to forget how big of a difference it made for folks to have better choices, given our actual world.
To paraphrase, the company isn't making money right now, but that just means that it's a large consumer benefit: basically the company is subsidizing riders, and that's good for consumers! There are secondary issues such as traffic that are important, so getting the taxes right is important (and that will make it harder for Uber to get into the black) but this is a good reminder of the importance of straight up consumer benefits!
Regularly, I'm stunned by how much social surplus Uber created by inventing its basic platform. One of the most striking things for my immigrant family about the US in the 90s was how, even in the inner suburbs, having no car really limited how much of a person you could be.So if you were e.g. a young adult of modest means or a woman in a bad marriage, lacking control of a car crippled and constrained you. Cabs existed but were basically out of the question given how bad and expensive they were outside approximately three cities. Those use cases for vulnerable populations are crowd-pleasers. But in zillions of other cases, more mundane convenience makes a day much better; now add that up across hundreds of millions of people. One reason among many that people mock the company is that it bleeds money. But at an Econ 101 level all that means is that they're (for now) keeping very little of the enormous value they created. Other companies followed, but pioneering the platform and getting it to work in real life was... a big deal. So this is just an ill-advisedly earnest appreciation of the beauty of economic growth—new new ways of mutually beneficial exchange. We have justified concerns about lacking good (or sometimes even decent) urban planning and public transit. And justified criticisms of asshat CEOs and whatever else. But it's easy to forget how big of a difference it made for folks to have better choices, given our actual world.
To paraphrase, the company isn't making money right now, but that just means that it's a large consumer benefit: basically the company is subsidizing riders, and that's good for consumers! There are secondary issues such as traffic that are important, so getting the taxes right is important (and that will make it harder for Uber to get into the black) but this is a good reminder of the importance of straight up consumer benefits!
Monday, August 26, 2019
Air Pollution getting worse and worse
The hit jobs keep coming: first air pollution is associated with eye problems, such as macular degeneration. Then air pollution is linked to infant mortality. Next, in more polluted counties in the US, there are more neurological disorders, and that ends up in bipolar and depressive disorders. Finally "ambient air pollution has a substantial impact on hospital admissions" and even death: in India last year, air pollution was responsible for 1.2 million deaths in India.
The evidence is accumulating that the toll of air pollution is much higher than previously imagined. If only international institutions- wait, heck, even if the US- was interested in fighting pollution....
Update November 2019: A libertarian blog has posted this long run-down on the effects of air pollution. Given that these folks are not usually quick to talk about social problems (other than over-regulation!) it surprises me to see them being so open about this.
The evidence is accumulating that the toll of air pollution is much higher than previously imagined. If only international institutions- wait, heck, even if the US- was interested in fighting pollution....
Update November 2019: A libertarian blog has posted this long run-down on the effects of air pollution. Given that these folks are not usually quick to talk about social problems (other than over-regulation!) it surprises me to see them being so open about this.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Agriculture Today
Just a few quick ones on Agriculture today:
1) The Atlantic has a heartbreaking story on how black farmers have been non-quite-systematically deprived over their land over the years, thanks largely to white interests that used government policy to further their own agenda at the expense of African American farmers.
2) Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, in addition to dismantling a highly respected research office, has gone on the record laughing at farmers as he blows off their concerns in the face of Trump's trade war.
3) Fun piece on an idea for a meat tax (maybe not such a bad idea given that more than 1/3 of Americans eat fast food every day). A great way to fight climate change is to eat less meat.
4) (moved up here) a quick Twitter thread on Farming Today by the amazing Dr. Sarah Taber
5) More on Roundup from the New York Times in September: Roundup is not going away any time soon. "Roundup is still a fabulous tool," said Mr. Bensend, who grows corn, soybeans and alfalfa. He relies on Roundup’s key ingredient — glyphosate — to easily kill weeds, helping increase his yields and reduce his costs."
1) The Atlantic has a heartbreaking story on how black farmers have been non-quite-systematically deprived over their land over the years, thanks largely to white interests that used government policy to further their own agenda at the expense of African American farmers.
2) Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, in addition to dismantling a highly respected research office, has gone on the record laughing at farmers as he blows off their concerns in the face of Trump's trade war.
3) Fun piece on an idea for a meat tax (maybe not such a bad idea given that more than 1/3 of Americans eat fast food every day). A great way to fight climate change is to eat less meat.
4) (moved up here) a quick Twitter thread on Farming Today by the amazing Dr. Sarah Taber
5) More on Roundup from the New York Times in September: Roundup is not going away any time soon. "Roundup is still a fabulous tool," said Mr. Bensend, who grows corn, soybeans and alfalfa. He relies on Roundup’s key ingredient — glyphosate — to easily kill weeds, helping increase his yields and reduce his costs."
Changing College for the Better
At Goldsmiths, University of London, they are making some really impressive changes.
-Beef will not be for sale on campus
-divesting from fossil fuels (by Dec)
-phasing out single-use plastics
-switching to a renewable energy provider
-ending chemical use in gardening
-rewilding unused land
-mandatory first-year modules on climate and ecology
-...and going carbon neutral by 2025
This is based on a couple of tweets by Jason Hickel.
I'm impressed! While I'm guessing that there isn't a lot of land in London to re-wild, these are all great steps. Perhaps Towson might consider something?
-Beef will not be for sale on campus
-divesting from fossil fuels (by Dec)
-phasing out single-use plastics
-switching to a renewable energy provider
-ending chemical use in gardening
-rewilding unused land
-mandatory first-year modules on climate and ecology
-...and going carbon neutral by 2025
This is based on a couple of tweets by Jason Hickel.
I'm impressed! While I'm guessing that there isn't a lot of land in London to re-wild, these are all great steps. Perhaps Towson might consider something?
Friday, August 9, 2019
Supply Curves
Just yesterday I posted about the new report by the IPCC on diets and climate change. Remember? Nature says "Eat Less Meat." The Guardian says, "We can't keep eating as we are." That article contends that eating a kilogram (about 2.2 lbs) of beef is associated with as much carbon emissions as driving a new car for a year or for one passenger to have a round trip from London to New York. (Wow. I'm not sure about that, but that's what it says!)
Another part of the costs is the place where the goods are produced and how much it costs to get them to the market. For example, do you think it costs more or less to buy an egg in say Sub-Saharan Africa than it does in the US? If you guessed that the price of eggs is about 7 times more expensive in SSA than in North America, you guessed right!
Virtually all foods are much more expensive there. The only one that's even close is sugary snacks- not exactly the best news for the world's diet. So, the upshot: "most nutritious foods are expensive in lower-income countries....[and] the relative cheapness of unhealthy calories is an important explanation of the obesity epidemic in higher-income countries" (Headey & Alderman 2019, linked above). Although we have made huge strides over the years in production technology, not much of that has translated to the poor.
Another example is fruits and vegetables. In order to eat healthy, we all need them, but right now most people literally cannot get enough access to be healthy.
Imagine putting climate change on top of all of these problems. Wow. I'm pretty sure it won't work to the advantage of the poor....
Another part of the costs is the place where the goods are produced and how much it costs to get them to the market. For example, do you think it costs more or less to buy an egg in say Sub-Saharan Africa than it does in the US? If you guessed that the price of eggs is about 7 times more expensive in SSA than in North America, you guessed right!
Virtually all foods are much more expensive there. The only one that's even close is sugary snacks- not exactly the best news for the world's diet. So, the upshot: "most nutritious foods are expensive in lower-income countries....[and] the relative cheapness of unhealthy calories is an important explanation of the obesity epidemic in higher-income countries" (Headey & Alderman 2019, linked above). Although we have made huge strides over the years in production technology, not much of that has translated to the poor.
Another example is fruits and vegetables. In order to eat healthy, we all need them, but right now most people literally cannot get enough access to be healthy.
Imagine putting climate change on top of all of these problems. Wow. I'm pretty sure it won't work to the advantage of the poor....
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Buy better meat but less of it
“Cheap meat isn’t a win. I want people to spend the same amount on meat as they do now, and buy better meat, but less of it." This quote from a vegetarian-turned-butcher seems right on to me: the problem isn't meat itself, it's the industrial production of beef in particular. This dovetails perfectly with an article in today's Wall Street Journal on climate change. As we've talked about on this blog before, a big part of the solution to climate change involves changing what we eat and how it's produced. According to the WSJ article, about 1/3 of the earth's usable land is dedicated to pastures. "The resources used to produce a serving of beef release four times the greenhouse gases as a calorie-equivalent amount of pork, and five times as much as an equivalent amount of poultry."
Put differently, “Some dietary choices require more land and water, and cause more emissions of heat-trapping gases than others,” said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II. “Balanced diets featuring plant-based foods, such as coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and animal-sourced food produced sustainably in low greenhouse gas emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation to and limiting climate change,” she said.
AND FINALLY! Today was the first day that the Impossible Whopper was available from Burger King, so I marched right down (after Googling where the nearest Burger King was!) and had one. Well, I can report that it has nice fresh lettuce and onions. As to the burger, the best I can say for it is that it wasn't memorable. The onion rings were ok, though they would have been better if they were still warm when they arrived at my table. I have to say that while as a somewhat careful consumer I am happy to see these burgers out there, but I am not too optimistic about these meat substitutes. I hope that they work out, but the Whopper is more expensive and no more tasty, so I would be surprised if they catch on. Update: apparently they are gathering much more interest than I hoped, with food service providers Aramark and Sodexho signing up. Well, go fake meat!
Put differently, “Some dietary choices require more land and water, and cause more emissions of heat-trapping gases than others,” said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II. “Balanced diets featuring plant-based foods, such as coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and animal-sourced food produced sustainably in low greenhouse gas emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation to and limiting climate change,” she said.
AND FINALLY! Today was the first day that the Impossible Whopper was available from Burger King, so I marched right down (after Googling where the nearest Burger King was!) and had one. Well, I can report that it has nice fresh lettuce and onions. As to the burger, the best I can say for it is that it wasn't memorable. The onion rings were ok, though they would have been better if they were still warm when they arrived at my table. I have to say that while as a somewhat careful consumer I am happy to see these burgers out there, but I am not too optimistic about these meat substitutes. I hope that they work out, but the Whopper is more expensive and no more tasty, so I would be surprised if they catch on. Update: apparently they are gathering much more interest than I hoped, with food service providers Aramark and Sodexho signing up. Well, go fake meat!
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
One in 14 miles traveled by car in DC is on Uber
Finally Uber and Lyft are admitting that they're increasing traffic. This piece in Vox gives the details, and they wonder if increased taxes will follow. If they are trying to do the best for society, the taxes will definitely go up....
Update 8/9: today's news is that Uber lost over $5 billion (with a B) in the last quarter. According to the NYT, a big chunk of that involves expenses associated with their debut on the stock market, but they are still over $1 billion (still with a B) in the red. Apparently their long-term strategy relies on automated drivers...? While there are many signs that that age could be imminent, it always seems to be 5-10 years out to me. Hopefully not- man, I'd love a ride to school every day!- but if you are counting on that transition to finally make you profitable, that seems like a tenuous position on which to base your ability to continue to exist. On the other hand, some financial folks do see Uber's future as pretty bright. They definitely are doing a lot of business, and after all, Amazon wasn't profitable either for a long time, so maybe there's hope?
Update 8/9: today's news is that Uber lost over $5 billion (with a B) in the last quarter. According to the NYT, a big chunk of that involves expenses associated with their debut on the stock market, but they are still over $1 billion (still with a B) in the red. Apparently their long-term strategy relies on automated drivers...? While there are many signs that that age could be imminent, it always seems to be 5-10 years out to me. Hopefully not- man, I'd love a ride to school every day!- but if you are counting on that transition to finally make you profitable, that seems like a tenuous position on which to base your ability to continue to exist. On the other hand, some financial folks do see Uber's future as pretty bright. They definitely are doing a lot of business, and after all, Amazon wasn't profitable either for a long time, so maybe there's hope?
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Natural gas... and an alternative
Researchers have known that a fair amount of methane escapes during mining for natural gas. This new article reveals that gas escaping isn't just a problem associated with the frack sites: it's a huge problem all over the US. Of course, it's worse near frack sites, where babies are more likely to suffer. Gas is so much better than coal, but problems just keep cropping up!
On the other hand the offshore wind energy sector seems to be booming. New Jersey's making a $1.6 billion wind farm, offshore wind generation is set to expand in Britain, and just last week New York approved another large facility. Wow, I was wrong: it's so ridiculously expensive that I thought there were better alternatives, but this looks like where things are going in the near term, at least!
Update 7/29: more offshore wind now online in Scotland.
Update 11/20: it looks like the natural gas boom may be winding down
On the other hand the offshore wind energy sector seems to be booming. New Jersey's making a $1.6 billion wind farm, offshore wind generation is set to expand in Britain, and just last week New York approved another large facility. Wow, I was wrong: it's so ridiculously expensive that I thought there were better alternatives, but this looks like where things are going in the near term, at least!
Update 7/29: more offshore wind now online in Scotland.
Update 11/20: it looks like the natural gas boom may be winding down
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Minimum wage
This really isn't my bag, but this article on the effects of raising the minimum wage caught my eye. In places where the minimum wage is raised:
* Suicide rates drop (and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poor does too)
* Criminality drops
* Consumer spending rises
* Workers are more productive
* Wage increases happen for higher paid employees as well
* Poverty rates drop
* Job-hopping drops
* Old folks work longer
* Suicide rates drop (and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poor does too)
* Criminality drops
* Consumer spending rises
* Workers are more productive
* Wage increases happen for higher paid employees as well
* Poverty rates drop
* Job-hopping drops
* Old folks work longer
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Global destabilization
Can you tell I'm cleaning out my files for tidbits that were of interest to me over the past year? I hope you find something interesting in all of this!
This tidbit focuses on how the 1492 interaction of Europeans with indigenous Americans was a major turning point for world climate. Yes, about 60 million people died, and though most of that wasn't anyone's fault, it's certainly true that the Europeans' behavior was hardly exemplary thereafter. More importantly from the climate's perspective, a great deal of carbon was removed from the atmosphere as plants took up a lot of what had been previously used by people clearing fields for crops and burning wood and other fuels.
This is the latest update I've seen on the inquiry that for me started with Jared Diamond's Guns Germs & Steel and later continued in Charles Mann's books 1491 and 1493. I am not an expert on this area at all but I do find it fascinating! I welcome anyone else's suggestions on books or other work on this topic.
This tidbit focuses on how the 1492 interaction of Europeans with indigenous Americans was a major turning point for world climate. Yes, about 60 million people died, and though most of that wasn't anyone's fault, it's certainly true that the Europeans' behavior was hardly exemplary thereafter. More importantly from the climate's perspective, a great deal of carbon was removed from the atmosphere as plants took up a lot of what had been previously used by people clearing fields for crops and burning wood and other fuels.
This is the latest update I've seen on the inquiry that for me started with Jared Diamond's Guns Germs & Steel and later continued in Charles Mann's books 1491 and 1493. I am not an expert on this area at all but I do find it fascinating! I welcome anyone else's suggestions on books or other work on this topic.
Meat vs. Carbs
Two contrasting points for you today! Should we:
1) limit our red meat intake? That heightens your risk of dying by 10-13%. :O
or
2) limit our intake of carbs? Wrong again: that will increase your probability of coming down with Alzheimer's. :( So I guess we should eat only vegetable, fruits, chicken, and fish...?
That's pretty much the right answer, actually, according to this 2019 article in leading health journal the Lancet (Lancet link here, found online here). "Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts, including a greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and a greater than 100% increase in consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes."
1) limit our red meat intake? That heightens your risk of dying by 10-13%. :O
or
2) limit our intake of carbs? Wrong again: that will increase your probability of coming down with Alzheimer's. :( So I guess we should eat only vegetable, fruits, chicken, and fish...?
That's pretty much the right answer, actually, according to this 2019 article in leading health journal the Lancet (Lancet link here, found online here). "Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts, including a greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and a greater than 100% increase in consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes."
Friday, July 5, 2019
10x US spending on education?
Do you know what the US government spends its money on? More than the defense budget, and 10x more than all education spending, at $649 billion per year (as of 2015) fossil fuel subsidies are even higher than Medicare, if I'm reading this right. Whoa.
Meanwhile, I found this video on Nuclear pretty interesting, and there's more on Forbes about renewables. Certainly our tax dollars can be better spent!
Meanwhile, I found this video on Nuclear pretty interesting, and there's more on Forbes about renewables. Certainly our tax dollars can be better spent!
Glyphosate & Australia
In my class this spring semester we watched a documentary about glyphosate that was posted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The end of the movie talks about what a huge change it is going to be for agriculture across the country if glyphosate is no longer a part of the system. Today I read that workers are taking the first steps to rid themselves from reliance on the chemical. Rooting that out is going to be a difficult process but hopefully they can make progress!
Update: found another interesting article on the role of glyphosate in modern agriculture. "Desiccation makes it possible to cultivate massive tracts of farmland and feed billions of people profitably. Based on the evidence we have so far, we can’t prove that that there is any health cost to the practice. But neither can we say there isn’t a cost—and there are many reasons to think there might be one. "
Update: found another interesting article on the role of glyphosate in modern agriculture. "Desiccation makes it possible to cultivate massive tracts of farmland and feed billions of people profitably. Based on the evidence we have so far, we can’t prove that that there is any health cost to the practice. But neither can we say there isn’t a cost—and there are many reasons to think there might be one. "
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Costs of climate change so far: $4 TRILLION
Ouch. "We estimate that since 2000, warming has already cost both the US and
the EU at least $4 trillion in lost output, and tropical countries are
greater than 5% poorer than they would have been without this warming." Link
Monday, June 10, 2019
Fishing licenses
Maine, often hailed as an example of a successful fishery via licensing, is changing their rules a bit. Turns out things haven't gone so well for new folks hoping to enter the industry. Well, you remember your Resource Econ class? You maximize total profit NOT by allowing free entry and exit, but by limiting catch. Looks like that's what's up in Maine.
Similarly, there's an article in Nature Conservancy's magazine on work they are doing with organizing fishers in Peru. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of progress yet, but the industry is starting to set some boundaries. Remember, the monopoly outcome isn't a terrible result in situations where there are externalities, such as common resources.
Meanwhile, back at home: it turns out it's pretty profitable to mix foreign crab into your domestic product and then pretend that it's good ol' American Blue crab. Virginia's Casey Seafood was found guilty of doing this to the tune of several million dollars. Assuming that this is rare behavior, and that we do want to promote our local industry, here is a listing of businesses that serve only real product.
Similarly, there's an article in Nature Conservancy's magazine on work they are doing with organizing fishers in Peru. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of progress yet, but the industry is starting to set some boundaries. Remember, the monopoly outcome isn't a terrible result in situations where there are externalities, such as common resources.
Meanwhile, back at home: it turns out it's pretty profitable to mix foreign crab into your domestic product and then pretend that it's good ol' American Blue crab. Virginia's Casey Seafood was found guilty of doing this to the tune of several million dollars. Assuming that this is rare behavior, and that we do want to promote our local industry, here is a listing of businesses that serve only real product.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Climate Change & Health
Heat waves. More disease vectors and more disease. Even increasing loss of crops and food security. The effects of climate change are increasingly apparent....
One of the more hidden risks is the way that climate change may affect plant growth. That sounds pretty obscure, but the bottom line is that crops won't have as many nutrients. For a lot of people that's no big deal, but if you're poor and depend on those crops to survive, that could be a big deal indeed.
One of the more hidden risks is the way that climate change may affect plant growth. That sounds pretty obscure, but the bottom line is that crops won't have as many nutrients. For a lot of people that's no big deal, but if you're poor and depend on those crops to survive, that could be a big deal indeed.
Friday, June 7, 2019
Nuclear power & climate change
In Spring of 2019 for my Resource Economics class I stumbled upon this very convincing TED talk about nuclear energy. This guy, Michael Sullenberger, argues that of course solar and wind are great choices but they just don't provide sufficient energy to provide the world with the power it needs: as we'd need to basically cover the earth with solar panels and/ or wind turbines. Solar panels have limited lifetimes and contain some nasty substances as well that we'll need to be very careful when they eventually make their way to the trash heap.
Also futurist Steven Pinker and climate change experts Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist have recently published an article called, "Nuclear Power Can Save the World," in which they argue a few things. First, they say that the waste is manageable- more manageable than coal ash, which like nuclear waste is toxic, but much more voluminous. Further coal and to a lesser extent natural gas create a great deal of air pollution, which kills many, many people every year. Second, they remind us that while accidents involving scary and invisible radiation have happened, the only one that has led to a loss of human life is the horribly mismanaged facility at Chernobyl. Yes, other harm has resulted as land was rendered unusable by Fukushima and other incidents, but how much land has been devastated by mining, or how much would be needed for solar and wind? Surely a lot more.
A similar argument for nuclear is echoed by the Washington Post's Charles Lane: Germany under Merkel has tried and failed to limit carbon emissions without incorporating nuclear energy into the mix, with poor results. Bloomberg contributor Chris Bryant sums that up: "Germany’s nuclear shutdowns might please the electorate but they’re boneheaded from a climate perspective." Case closed?
Just when I was starting to be pretty swayed, I found a few other articles coming to the opposite conclusion. "Wild weather, fires, rising sea levels, earthquakes and warming water temperatures all increase the risk of nuclear accidents, while the lack of safe, long-term storage for radioactive waste remains a persistent danger" argue Heidi Hutner and Erica Cirino. "Nuclear power... makes no economic or energy sense." Who's boneheaded now?
The other big piece on the subject is by Gregory Jaczko, former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has two key contentions: first, the costs of implementing nuclear today are just off the charts: cost overrun followed by cost overrun has led to spending tens of billions of dollars in a couple of sites without any power to show for it. Second, renewables are doing the job better: when Japan took its nuclear plants down after the Fukushima incident, they coped by ramping up conservation and reliance on renewables. Today they have plenty of power and greenhouse gas emissions are down. Jaczko has become an advocate for offshore wind energy.
I don't want to go too far down that other track, but suffice to say that offshore wind, while doing well in some parts of northern Europe, is pretty expensive. Here is a 2019 report published by the US EIA, saying that offshore wind is pretty darn expensive. Obviously that's not the final word, but I am still left balancing Sullenberger vs. Jaczko. What do you think?
PS Here are a few letters to the editor referencing the Jaczko letter. Skip the first but there are a few tidbits after that....
Also futurist Steven Pinker and climate change experts Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist have recently published an article called, "Nuclear Power Can Save the World," in which they argue a few things. First, they say that the waste is manageable- more manageable than coal ash, which like nuclear waste is toxic, but much more voluminous. Further coal and to a lesser extent natural gas create a great deal of air pollution, which kills many, many people every year. Second, they remind us that while accidents involving scary and invisible radiation have happened, the only one that has led to a loss of human life is the horribly mismanaged facility at Chernobyl. Yes, other harm has resulted as land was rendered unusable by Fukushima and other incidents, but how much land has been devastated by mining, or how much would be needed for solar and wind? Surely a lot more.
A similar argument for nuclear is echoed by the Washington Post's Charles Lane: Germany under Merkel has tried and failed to limit carbon emissions without incorporating nuclear energy into the mix, with poor results. Bloomberg contributor Chris Bryant sums that up: "Germany’s nuclear shutdowns might please the electorate but they’re boneheaded from a climate perspective." Case closed?
Just when I was starting to be pretty swayed, I found a few other articles coming to the opposite conclusion. "Wild weather, fires, rising sea levels, earthquakes and warming water temperatures all increase the risk of nuclear accidents, while the lack of safe, long-term storage for radioactive waste remains a persistent danger" argue Heidi Hutner and Erica Cirino. "Nuclear power... makes no economic or energy sense." Who's boneheaded now?
The other big piece on the subject is by Gregory Jaczko, former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has two key contentions: first, the costs of implementing nuclear today are just off the charts: cost overrun followed by cost overrun has led to spending tens of billions of dollars in a couple of sites without any power to show for it. Second, renewables are doing the job better: when Japan took its nuclear plants down after the Fukushima incident, they coped by ramping up conservation and reliance on renewables. Today they have plenty of power and greenhouse gas emissions are down. Jaczko has become an advocate for offshore wind energy.
I don't want to go too far down that other track, but suffice to say that offshore wind, while doing well in some parts of northern Europe, is pretty expensive. Here is a 2019 report published by the US EIA, saying that offshore wind is pretty darn expensive. Obviously that's not the final word, but I am still left balancing Sullenberger vs. Jaczko. What do you think?
PS Here are a few letters to the editor referencing the Jaczko letter. Skip the first but there are a few tidbits after that....
Food waste
A student in my class this spring wrote a paper on food waste, and I wanted to highlight a few key pieces of literature. First is this piece about food recycling in Korea, which has a stunning 95% recycling rate for food. For a country that is famous for filling restaurant tables with little "Banchan" dishes that aren't ordered, this is a pretty impressive development!
A leading voice among economists who are interested in food waste is Prof. Marc Bellemare; here is a 2018 blog post. He basically contends that food waste isn't really worth getting too excited about.
A leading voice among economists who are interested in food waste is Prof. Marc Bellemare; here is a 2018 blog post. He basically contends that food waste isn't really worth getting too excited about.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Air pollution
Did you know that pollution is associated with mental health issues? Cognitive functioning? Murder rates? I could definitely see the first, and maybe the second, but third.... To be clear these results are not from studies that employ full-on causal analysis, but this is interesting nonetheless.
A more straightforward but still chilling conclusion from a different study: one of the largest causes of infant mortality in Europe is air pollution. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1084
"Worldwide, outdoor air pollution reduces the average life expectancy at birth by one year. The effect is much more pronounced in some countries: It cuts the average Egyptian’s life span by 1.9 years and the average Indian’s by 1.5 years. In Russia, it’s around nine months." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/climate/air-pollution-deaths.html
"[W]e find significant positive effects of air pollution ... on body mass index (BMI)" http://ftp.iza.org/dp12296.pdf
“Air pollution can harm acutely, as well as chronically, potentially affecting every organ in the body,” conclude the scientists from the Forum of International Respiratory Societies in the two review papers, published in the journal Chest. “Ultrafine particles pass through the [lungs], are readily picked up by cells, and carried via the bloodstream to expose virtually all cells in the body.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/17/air-pollution-may-be-damaging-every-organ-and-cell-in-the-body-finds-global-review
This NYT summary talks about the effects of air pollution on mental health while this research article shows that "PM2.5 reduces hedonic happiness and increases the rate of depressive symptoms" http://ftp.iza.org/dp12313.pdf
Historical studies of for example the four day London smog of 1952 increased mortality rates by 2%, and caused long-term damage to human development, ability to work, and increased cancer risk for decades.
Update July 2019: "New study links air pollution with over 30,000 deaths and reduced life expectancy in the United States" PLoS article
Also, dust from the Sahara desert increases infant mortality NBER paper
A more straightforward but still chilling conclusion from a different study: one of the largest causes of infant mortality in Europe is air pollution. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1084
"Worldwide, outdoor air pollution reduces the average life expectancy at birth by one year. The effect is much more pronounced in some countries: It cuts the average Egyptian’s life span by 1.9 years and the average Indian’s by 1.5 years. In Russia, it’s around nine months." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/climate/air-pollution-deaths.html
"[W]e find significant positive effects of air pollution ... on body mass index (BMI)" http://ftp.iza.org/dp12296.pdf
“Air pollution can harm acutely, as well as chronically, potentially affecting every organ in the body,” conclude the scientists from the Forum of International Respiratory Societies in the two review papers, published in the journal Chest. “Ultrafine particles pass through the [lungs], are readily picked up by cells, and carried via the bloodstream to expose virtually all cells in the body.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/17/air-pollution-may-be-damaging-every-organ-and-cell-in-the-body-finds-global-review
This NYT summary talks about the effects of air pollution on mental health while this research article shows that "PM2.5 reduces hedonic happiness and increases the rate of depressive symptoms" http://ftp.iza.org/dp12313.pdf
Historical studies of for example the four day London smog of 1952 increased mortality rates by 2%, and caused long-term damage to human development, ability to work, and increased cancer risk for decades.
Update July 2019: "New study links air pollution with over 30,000 deaths and reduced life expectancy in the United States" PLoS article
Also, dust from the Sahara desert increases infant mortality NBER paper
Friday, March 1, 2019
Food Economics
The topic of "food" is finally something broad enough that I can use it to talk about pretty much everything I'm interested research-wise. Here are three four articles that caught my attention, and they have food in common, if not much else! :)
The first is from the New York Times: it's about the idea of developing a "National Institute of Nutrition." While this seems like a no-brainer, a conference I attended this week featured several nutritionists agreeing that one of the defining characteristics of nutritionists is that the discipline is a mess. Every day another new study comes out pushing some new superfood or potential carcinogen. How do we make sense of that if the experts can't? I'll leave that right there.
The second is about another hidden dimension of climate change: impacts on fish. Since most of the world's fish come from the ocean and since the ocean is, well, huge, it's hard to see all the impacts of climate change. Yet another place where we may not know what's going on until it's too late.
A late addition: I've been hearing a fair amount about lab-produced meat lately, and this article is an interesting overview. I'm surprised that the impact is as low as it is: it's apparently only slightly less impactful than regular meat, and a long way from better alternatives. The chart on the page also indicates that CO2 impacts of pork are less than those of chicken, which I didn't expect. Curious.
Finally I wanted to highlight this piece by my professor David Zilberman. He is pretty negative about organic agriculture, but a few days ago I heard a similar opinion from uber-nutrition professor Barry Popkin. I have a lot to learn about this area and I'm keen to hear more.
***Update: this brief article in the Guardian highlights updates for improving the food system in the UK. Unfortunately it has only good things to say about organics. To be clear, there are certainly good things about organic agriculture, but the large decrease in yields is pretty concerning!
The first is from the New York Times: it's about the idea of developing a "National Institute of Nutrition." While this seems like a no-brainer, a conference I attended this week featured several nutritionists agreeing that one of the defining characteristics of nutritionists is that the discipline is a mess. Every day another new study comes out pushing some new superfood or potential carcinogen. How do we make sense of that if the experts can't? I'll leave that right there.
The second is about another hidden dimension of climate change: impacts on fish. Since most of the world's fish come from the ocean and since the ocean is, well, huge, it's hard to see all the impacts of climate change. Yet another place where we may not know what's going on until it's too late.
A late addition: I've been hearing a fair amount about lab-produced meat lately, and this article is an interesting overview. I'm surprised that the impact is as low as it is: it's apparently only slightly less impactful than regular meat, and a long way from better alternatives. The chart on the page also indicates that CO2 impacts of pork are less than those of chicken, which I didn't expect. Curious.
Finally I wanted to highlight this piece by my professor David Zilberman. He is pretty negative about organic agriculture, but a few days ago I heard a similar opinion from uber-nutrition professor Barry Popkin. I have a lot to learn about this area and I'm keen to hear more.
***Update: this brief article in the Guardian highlights updates for improving the food system in the UK. Unfortunately it has only good things to say about organics. To be clear, there are certainly good things about organic agriculture, but the large decrease in yields is pretty concerning!
Monday, February 4, 2019
Dumb and dumber
A shocking article I can't fully process right now: I need to get the original research. Take a look!
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Social Costs
Yes, it's the start of a new term and I'm teaching Resource Economics again, so more of my gaze is devoted to issues like this. However, this article might've caught my eye regardless: the AP summarizes fossil fuel rollbacks under the current administration to be complicit in billions of dollars of damages and thousands of deaths per year. The catch? It's hard to link specific deaths to pollution. Statistically speaking, the deaths are happening, we just don't know who is dying. At least some mention is being made of this ledger!
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Chesapeake update
I haven't done a good job of keeping up with the news on the Chesapeake, but fortunately a couple of articles from the Baltimore Sun this month have bailed me out. First comes a piece talking about the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's State of the Bay report, which showed a deterioration in quality this year sparked by the heavy rains that inundated the region. This is the first time the ranking has gotten worse year-on-year in at least 10 years.
A longer list of bullet points summarizes the situation in this second article. While the rain wreaked havoc on water clarity (and thus didn't work wonders for bay grass health) many categories of the report showed very little change. The above article preaches doom about the crab population, but the CBF is a bit more sanguine, noting that the number of juveniles is up. Still, the authors caution that wastewater must be better controlled going forward, particularly as the developed areas in the watershed continue to expand. Hopefully we have a more normal year as far as rainfall, and bay grasses continue to expand, while runoff is increasingly sequestered in buffers. We'll see!
A longer list of bullet points summarizes the situation in this second article. While the rain wreaked havoc on water clarity (and thus didn't work wonders for bay grass health) many categories of the report showed very little change. The above article preaches doom about the crab population, but the CBF is a bit more sanguine, noting that the number of juveniles is up. Still, the authors caution that wastewater must be better controlled going forward, particularly as the developed areas in the watershed continue to expand. Hopefully we have a more normal year as far as rainfall, and bay grasses continue to expand, while runoff is increasingly sequestered in buffers. We'll see!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)