Climate change developments

A few things caught my eye over the weekend. First, and most excitingly, the price of solar and wind energy is dropping significantly, to the point that they are competitive with gas and coal. While that sounds technical, the bottom line is that cheap energy is what people want, so if solar and wind energy can be produced cheaply, we are well on our way to getting rid of carbon emitting fuels. The sticking point, the article notes, is that both are still intermittent: you don't get energy from a windmill on a calm day. So, the issue is whether someone can develop a good battery. Hopefully with Elon Musk on the job, we can overcome this technical barrier and stop relying on dirty fuels.

Second is that scientists have proposed a link between climate change and the "polar vortex" incidents that are becoming more common. Warming in the Arctic changes the jet stream flow, bringing down the polar air onto unsuspecting places like Denver, which a few weeks ago experienced a 40 degree drop in temperature in 6 hours. When I graduated from Cal in 2008, the graduation speaker said that instead of climate change people should be calling it, "Global Climate Destabilization." Fairly apocalyptic, but that name fits this jet stream movement pretty well, if in fact it is traceable to climate change.

Finally, the NYT has a series on the oil industry in North Dakota. Since deposits there recently became accessible, the economy there has boomed, but so has the industry's influence, to predictably foul effects.  Part I and Part II so far.

A new carbon sink: compost on the range

"Cover the earth with compost!" This may be the new rallying cry of environmentalists: a recent study finds that spreading compost on rangeland helps the land absorb carbon from the atmosphere at the same time as it improves soil fertility. Whoa! A double benefit!

It's sure nice to have some non-controversial good things to post on the blog from time to time!

GMO critic changes his mind

This guy is long-winded, to put it mildly, but it's a convincing account of the views of a published GMO critic who rethinks his position. Even if you don't agree, there are some interesting thoughts here.

I think he is a little harsh in his treatment of organic agriculture: he condemns it as 40-50% less productive than conventional agriculture, and notes that less productive methods mean that more land must be used to produce the same amount. While this is true, I think he overlooks the fact that chemical-intensive practices and repeated monocropping deplete the soil. That mostly means that it's important to rotate. Also it's important to remember that some varieties of GMO actually reduce the need for chemicals. Others don't, but Bt cotton is an example of a crop that requires fewer pesticides than other crops.

Chesapeake Oysters

For the last few years I have banned "oysters" as a possible term paper topic. The first few times I offered the course I was inundated by a surge of bad oyster papers, and I tell students that they gave me indigestion. The truth is just that I didn't see much controversial about them: they clean the Bay and they are economically viable in some places. So what's not to like?

Nice little article set me straight about it: traditional harvesters (locally called "watermen") apparently don't like oyster farmers because they put part of the Bay off limits for harvesting. Also they can't like the competition, though farmed oysters, being at least somewhat more labor intensive than the naturally harvested variety, may cost more. Also, some people find the nets unsightly.

Nothing's ever that easy, is it?

Water in the West

You don't often hear people complaining that the price of something is too low, but here's someone doing just that. He's absolutely right!

$17 billion net benefits from a clean Chesapeake

At least, according to work written up in the NYT last week. (I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I found out about this from the Twitter feed of O's fan Josh Charles, who used to be a star on the Good Wife which my wife and I enjoy watching.)

The study says that $22 billion in yearly gains would accrue from a $5-6 billion annual investment, so it's clearly a good investment. I imagine the devil's in the details, as usual. I mean, if it's going to be done right, the Feds probably need to write some farmer in upstate NY a check to compensate for their reduced productivity on their land, which stems from their reducd use of fertilizers.... It's tough to identify all the winners and losers, which makes it hard to work out an equitable agreement. Still, I'm glad the EPA seems poised to enter the fray. Without Federal leadership, I don't see much happening, unfortunately....

Economics and the environment: the basics

The St. Louis Fed has put out a nice little primer on how economists think about the environment. It's here. Short version: we try to balance costs and benefits!

A hat tip to Ms. Shana Gass for noticing the post. Thanks!