Environmental Kuznets Curve

The greatest threat to biodiversity is habitat loss. In particular, let’s talk about forests. According to studies, forests have been growing in countries with a per capita income above $8,000. These studies can be explained by the environmental Kuznets curves.

                                Hypothetical Kuznets Curve

Late pre-industrial and industrial countries like El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Kenya have chopped trees far faster than the rate at which trees can grow back. None of these countries have per capita incomes above $5,000. These countries favor the marginal utility of consumption over the marginal utility of the environment. Countries like the United States, Denmark, and France all have forest growth and per capita incomes above $8,000. These countries favor the marginal utility of the environment over the marginal utility of consumption. A big factor affecting the environment is that countries switch from being industrial economies to service based economics.
I believe that economic growth benefits biodiversity, but there needs to be more than income growth. A few of the things that must be addressed are environmental taxes, environmental education, and stopping social inequality. If people internalize their external costs, then there would be monetary drawbacks to chopping forests and incentives to planting forests. This allows forests to grow. If people gain an education about the necessity of having a healthy environment, then this allows people to be activists and fight for the environment. As biodiversity is hard to quantify, knowledge is a key ingredient to fighting forest degradation by allowing people to see hidden costs of habitat destruction. Social equality has been very bad in North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone. This restricts the economy and thus propels environmental derogation as citizens make money by any means necessary. At the very least these three factors speed up the process of forest growth making woodland habitats available to contain a plethora of biodiversity.

--Forest Krueger

Gasland & FrackNation

I didn't mean to end a debate as much as start one by exposing people to FrackNation, but it doesn't seem like that's what it's done, so I wanted to encourage you to read a few more articles about the movies. In other words, here's MY version of the essay I asked you to write!

When Gasland first became popular, the gas industry responded by debunking the claims of the movie. Fox responded with more evidence on his claims. A seemingly fair evaluation of the evidence was posted on the NYT website here, mostly validating Fox's claims.

Again, this is not my area of expertise, and I'm not sure where the truth lies. That said...

Floating Windmills

    Although it hasn't been as common this semester, often students like to write about new environmental technology. We've had past posts on everything from technological devices to capture carbon from the air (which I imagine costs significantly more than a tree, which does the same thing) to biotech-based energy solutions such as gas-from-algae. Today the NYT has one I haven't heard of: offshore wind energy from floating windmills. The article does a good job of noting that while of course there are far-flung hopes of salvation for us all, more likely there are going to be unexpected costs and difficulties associated with making these things fully operational. Japan's putting some serious money behind this one, though, so we'll see.

China's ongoing problems with air pollution

    I decided to look at China’s air pollution issue and how it comes with a heavy price tag for the Chinese. While China has one of the biggest economies as far as growth, they’re paying for it; Vicki Ekstrom says, “Although China has made substantial progress in cleaning up its air pollution, a new MIT study shows that the economic impact from ozone and particulates in its air has increased dramatically. Quantifying costs from lost labor and the increased need for health care, the study finds that this air pollution cost the Chinese economy $112 billion in 2005. That’s compared to $22 billion in such damages in 1975.” Researchers looked at both short term and long term effects on health, and in doing so they found that two main causes for the increase in pollution’s costs are rapid urbanization in addition to the increased number of people exposed to the pollution. Also, higher incomes raised the costs associated with lost productivity. Nam, a researcher, says that pollution led to a $64 billion loss in gross domestic product in 1995.
    China has become the world’s largest emitter of mercury, carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Even after significant improvements over the past 25-30 years, the concentrations were still five times higher than what is considered safe. These high levels of pollution have led to 656,000 premature deaths in China each year from ailments caused by indoor and outdoor air pollution, according to World Health Organization estimates from 2007. China is taking steps to respond to these health and economic concerns. In January, the nation set a target to limit its carbon intensity by 17% by 2015, compared with 2010 levels.
    That article is from February of last year and still today, almost 2 years later China still is dealing with intense air pollution. Today this article was released discussing the continuous air pollution issue in China. Choking smog all but shut down one of northeastern China's largest cities on Monday, forcing schools to suspended classes, snarling traffic and closing the airport, in the country's first major air pollution crisis of the winter.  An air pollution level above 300 is considered hazardous, while the World Health Organization recommends a daily level of no more than 20. Some parts of Harbin, the gritty capital of northeastern Heilongjiang province and home to some 11 million people today, saw a reading of 1,000.
     Visibility was reportedly reduced to 10 meters; the smog is expected to continue for the next 24 hours. Air quality in Chinese cities is of increasing concern to China's stability-obsessed leadership because it plays into popular resentment politically and to the rising inequality in the world's second-largest economy. Domestic media have run stories describing the expensive air purifiers government officials enjoy in their homes and offices, alongside reports of special organic farms so cadres need not risk suffering from recurring food safety scandals. The government has announced plans over the years to tackle the pollution problem but has made little progress.
    The information revealed in both of these articles seems like enough to cause for major concern in China and should inspire the Chinese government and citizens to address this air pollution problem immediately. People are expressing their anger over social media and in another article I read it says some citizens are even starting to protest. This caught my attention because the Chinese people are some of the last people I would expect to publicly show frustration with their government.  China has been dealing with this issues for decades and it isn’t going to be fixed overnight but, one suggestion I have for China’s government is creating incentives or subsidies for companies and/or regions of the country that keep air pollution at a safe level.
--Joseph Fleming

Green vs. Gold in Romania

Over the past two months Romania has been protesting the plans for Europe’s largest planned mining expedition in the town of Rosia Montana. Canada’s Gabriel Resources owns a majority of this corporation that is planning on mining 314 tons of gold and 1500 tons of silver.  Thousands are protesting the mining because the process will include using cyanide and razing four mountains, overall having a huge impact on the environment.  These mines are also full of ancient Roman history that would be 95% destroyed after the mining.
Others are arguing that mining will create jobs for the local people as well as add money into the Romanian economy.  The mining project is estimated to create 3000 jobs and Romania would receive 6% royalty on the gold extracted.
Lawmakers are still in the process of passing this right to mine and are torn between both viewpoints.
My question to you all is what should the Romanian lawmakers decide?  Should they risk the cyanide that will enter the environment as well as destroying four historical mountains or should they lean towards gaining more money in their economy and creating 3000 more jobs?
In my opinion, they should not mine.  It does not seem worth it to Romania.  Not only will they be destroying ancient mines but they will be greatly affecting the environment.  It is said that they will be creating a cyanide lake along with causing tons of pollutants in the air.

--Rebecca Aikman

More on "clean coal"

We have heard a lot this semester about the proposed EPA restrictions on coal plants, and the WSJ (gated link) has an update for us. (See Blackboard for a copy.) A company has invested quite a lot in trying to build a "clean coal" plant in Mississippi. The plant will hopefully soon be completed, but cost overruns have continued to climb- the total cost is now projected at nearly $5 billion, a far cry from the $2.5 billion or so originally projected. Taxpayers will split these cost overruns with shareholders of the company building the plant, leaving them facing surcharges on their power bills and the state of Mississippi with some of the highest priced power for years to come. Then again, they'll be burning a locally available source in a very clean way, so while the total and average costs are high, the marginal costs should be very low. I wonder which is going to be less expensive: off shore wind power or coal gasification?

Movies!

In some sort of order....

Pork Production Problems- Assessing Externalities
Aquaculture
Costs and Benefits of State Parks
Chicken Farming
Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Organic Vegetable Production
Forestry and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chemical Fertilizers and the Chesapeake
Natural Gas Extraction
GMO or No