Cotton and Crop Prices Jumping

Limited supplies of corn, soybean and wheat have sent their prices very high in the past year. Primarily, this is due to the fact that corn is not only used for human dietary consumption, but also for biofuel. Wheat last year in Russia was ruined because of drought, and drought is also threatening China’s wheat crop. China is the world’s largest producer. Usually farmers have responded to the prices by using more land to grow those food crops. However, this year many in the southern states are growing cotton. Cotton prices have increased due to the demand for clothes- for the world’s population and cotton has had some bad harvest seasons which limit supply. Now there is an “acreage war between rival commodities used to feed and clothe the world’s population.”

Farmers are making the switch to cotton, because of course they are compensated better for growing cotton. The fear is that many farmers will follow this trend, and many more people will go hungry- as those in the poor countries can barely afford food right now. It is predicted that there will a 19% increase in acreage for cotton. The price of cotton reached $2.20 per pound which is up $ 1.43 per pound from last year. Farmers are counting on the price staying around $1.00 per pound- as the price is expected to fall. The regular cotton growing states are North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. However, there is a particular region in Texas that is not a usual cotton grower- the Panhandle region. Cotton is usually not grown there because of the area’s conditions – it is not friendly to growing a crop like cotton, because cotton requires a long growing season. Farmers there usually tapped the Ogallala Aquifer for watering the corn crops. However, cotton is an attractive crop because there may be water restrictions because the aquifer has been depleted. The local gin- Moore County Gin is preparing to clean 90,000 acres worth of cotton this year- as they have gotten notice from about 40 farmers that are growing cotton for the first time this year. The Moore County Gin is building an expansion to handle the extra load.

First the staple crop of corn is used as biofuel, drought and natural disaster ruined wheat and so the people of the world- particularly the poor- have been denied food. Now, cotton is king of the market and the demand is for clothing? Although clothing is a necessity, it would seem that food would be the primary need. One needs food and water to survive, however, clothes are not a life and death necessity as there are large portions of the world that wear very little clothing due to the climate of the region. It appears to me that the increase in cotton demand is driven by the quickly developing/ developed countries. Industrialization tends to lift people out of poverty therefore it’s an increase in demand for goods such as clothes, gadgets and devices- particularly China and India comes to mind. It seems like a vanity issue. Given the uncertainty of the market do you think that it is worth farmers to forsake the staple crops of corn, soybeans, and wheat to answer the call of the clothing industry? Although I understand that farmers have to make a living too . . . Should there be regulations on how many acres used for a single crop? On the other hand locally there may be some benefits, such as a need for more farm hands to grow and pick the cotton, and gin workers to clean the cotton. However, what happens when cotton is no longer the cash crop? It is a tradeoff for short term success/ profits where as people will always have a demand for edible crops. If there is a food crisis, should the government ban exports on staple crops?

--Nia Govan

Fewer pesticides, less fertilizers, and anti-organic

A movie made for our class by Russell, Pamela, and Ryan discussed the damages of Genetically Engineered crops as they affect alfalfa in particular, but recently the USDA announced that objections notwithstanding, GE alfalfa is being given free rein. GE Advocates crowed that organic farmers must protect their own crops: "The burden is on them." According to the movie, alfalfa propagates via the wind; protecting crops from the wind will indeed be one heck of a burden for organic farmers!

What's the expected value of nuclear power?

When there are only a few possible outcomes, economists calculate "expected value" by multiplying the probability of each outcome by the chance of it happening and adding them up. With nuclear power, that calculation has changed a bit, since the estimated probability of a catastrophe has increased. However, it has only changed a tiny bit: out of all the hours that nuclear power plants have been running, an extremely small share of them have involved problems. Yes, the difficulty associated with such a problem has increased, so the "expected value" has dropped a bit, but the calculation hasn't changed a whole lot.

On the other hand, popular opinion has changed rather drastically. People are understandably more nervous about nuclear plants in general and nuclear waste in particular, since the holding ponds for spent fuel are one of the most dangerous parts of the current problem in Fukushima. The specter raised recently of being unable to use tap water, while always a part of life for Mexicans, is a scary one for us in the US. The Obama administration had supported an increase in nuclear power, but that drive has been just as ill-fated as their advocacy of increased drilling in the Gulf. Going forward, what exactly will the nation's energy strategy be? These days that's even a tougher question than usual.

End period 1

Here endeth the set of material upon which Reading Exam I rests. Don't forget also the parking articles.

Light Bulb Laws

This article is about the 2007 bill that was passed and signed which heightens efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. More specifically, “it sets standards for the amount of light emitted per watt of power used. Current 100 watt bulbs must become 25 percent more efficient.” Many people see this as government encroachment on telling us what kind of light we can use in our homes and also do not want to pay for the more expensive, flickering, hazardous fluorescent bulbs. These regulations have already started to affect the economy. General Electric had to shut its last US incandescent producing plant down last fall because most of the fluorescent bulbs are made in Asia. Although, many light bulb producing companies are working on alternatives to fit the new standards such as LED and halogen incandescent bulbs.

I think that the new regulations are a good idea in theory. Reducing energy use as well as electric bills is something that I’m sure is a top priority for many people. However, until there is a better alternative to the current light bulbs, I think people will still complain. Also many people have started to stock up on the old light bulbs so that they will still have them once they are removed from the shelves. This seems to defeat the purpose of the regulations because they will still be using the same amount of energy as we were before. However, there is no way of regulating that without the government going into every home to inspect their light bulbs, and there would definitely be an uproar about that. I think the regulations also need to include some sort of way to keep light bulb production “local.” A good portion of the sustainable effort is getting products from places as local as possible in order to cut down on transportation and packing costs. If we are importing all of our lightbulbs from Asia, we are negatively affecting our economy defeating the whole “Green Movement” to begin with.

--Kristen Wilkinson

More Rebound Effect

The New York Times journalist, John Tierney, is well known for his controversial writings through his career, like his 1996 article in which he wrote that recycling is a waste of American’s free time. He thrives on engaging readers in his articles, often through outrageous statements, but in a generation that has defined itself on working towards more efficient and eco-friendly life styles it is refreshing to know there are people who do not simply jump on the bandwagon. His recent article in The New York Times science section is not a far departure from his usual writings. Tierney spends this article questioning the efficiency of our modern “efficient technologies”. He starts out with the story of the “efficient” front loading machine washer that is quickly replacing old fashioned top loading washers because of its efficient use of water and energy. However, Tierney points out, the same features that make these washers environmentally friendly also makes them inefficient. They use less energy by using less warm water, but according to Tierney, this simply leaves the clothes as dirty coming out of the washer as when they were put in. This problem can be found throughout the energy efficient/ environmentally friendly/ green technologies on the market. He terms it as the energy rebound effect which is also known as the Jevons Paradox. “Some of the biggest rebound effects occur when new economic activity results from energy-efficient technologies that reduce the cost of making products like steel or generating electricity. In some cases, the overall result can be what’s called “backfire”: more energy use than would have occurred without the improved efficiency” (Tierney). So what is the solution to counteracting the Jevons Paradox? Tierney proposes that there should be more visible taxes on the public. The increase of taxes acts as a disincentive to engaging in excess economic activities. He closes the article by saying, “No matter what laws are enacted, people are going to find ways to use energy more efficiently — that’s the story of civilization. But don’t count on them using less energy, no matter how dirty their clothes get” (Tierney)

The case that Tierney presents is something that I have been in support of for a long time. “Eco-friendly” has become a pop culture phenomenon with fans who follow blindly. It is almost every few month the we see a new, more efficient vehicle, television, toaster or what have you, and I will confess, I am impressed with the levels of technology that have emerged in the past few years. However, there has not been a significant advancement in eco friendly behavior in America. One that truly promotes reduced overall consumption of goods. One prime example is the obsessions that people have developed with Apple products. Though they sell “green” technology, they also release new technology every few months. For those who like to be up to snuff with the new gadgets, they dump their old computers and gizmos and rush to the stores. However, I realize the sheer difficulty in accomplishing such a goal. Taxes are never a favorable addition to anyone’s pockets, and like Tierney said, politicians run away from any talk of increased taxes and take the easy eco friendly route to environment conservation. Like most things worth pursuing, there is no simple route, and it will take determination and commitment to balance the scales of eco technology’s impact on the environment.

--Charles Zulu

On the Rebound

According to John Tierney, the latest and greatest energy efficient technological wonders we all enjoy may actually do more harm to the environment than good. One example of this theory is proven when examining the driving habits of hybrid vehicle owners. The hybrid gets considerably better gas mileage than say a regular auto but the added efficiency often results in more miles driven. Since the hybrid technically saves the driver money at the pump, the driver has the tendency to drive more than those driving traditional vehicles, thus resulting in a greater impact on the environment. Tierney goes on to explain that the energy efficient label on most products today has been overused and in many cases proven false from an economic standpoint. For example, many today now spend money on new green labeled products that in fact do save the consumer money but with the money saved the consumer often spends it on additional harmful products. When added together these products have a grater effect on the environment than the less efficient counterpart. The term used to describe such a situation is the rebound effect. Tierney further outlines how the effect can “backfire” resulting in a substantial negative impact on the environment. The example he uses is an increase in the efficiency of a steel plant in China. Since it now costs less to make steel the plant is going to produce more at a faster rate than if it were using older technology resulting in a green technology backfire.

Although many theorists discount the negative impacts green products have on the environment, the fact is when the products save consumers money the consumer will buy more goods, which negatively impacts the environment. In my opinion this means we still have a long way to go in the realm of green technology. We must engineer our products to be as efficient as possible while reducing our collective impact on the environment. There must also be a point where the consumer takes a step back and examines their individual negative contributions. Until that occurs I believe we are going to continue down the same path we are currently on. Therefore, we must find a balance between product efficiency and accountability when we reach this point we can truly begin to see a greener future.

--Ryan Bailey