Early list of spill impacts

No fix in sight, and Reuters says there has already been serious damage to Louisiana's $2.4 billion seafood industry, which employs 27,000 people. 75% of the gulf fishery is apparently still open for fishing, but that part is more expensive to access and already "hundreds of thousands" of recreational and commercial fishers are affected. Wildlife is also increasingly affected, and tourism is way down. 20% of Florida's economy is tourism, and while things are ok there now, it won't take a lot of oil washing up before the million people employed in the sector start taking a serious hit.

While all of these are very serious concerns, I'm also nervous about the other environmental ramifications of the underwaters plumes of oil. The known impact of that is an expanse of hypoxia, which afflicts the Chesapeake to varying degrees every year (due in part to algae blooms from fertilizer runoff). It's bad enough on a relatively small scale- I'm not looking forward to seeing what that means on a larger one!

Interest heating up in natural gas market

Exxon Mobil bought XTO energy late last year, and now Royal Dutch Shell, another big operator, is investing more in US-based natural gas production by dropping $4.7 billion to pick up East Resources, an extractor of natural gas in the Northeast and in the Rockies. As I've said before, I like the investment in domestic production, and I'll like it more after the EPA has done a more thorough job of setting standards for "fracking," the environmentally damaging process of gas extraction. It seems to be better than the alternatives, but I'm sure that it can be made safer and more efficient with research.

Costs of Gulf oil spill hurting Marylanders already

I'm not sure how many Marylanders realize that a lot of the seafood they buy at crab shacks and restaurants comes from the south, but they're going to be learning something about where their food comes from this weekend and on into the future as prices climb for crabs, shrimp, and oysters. New scarcity makes food expensive, and even the successful growth of the Chesapeake crab industry fostered by the short-term bans isn't going to open things up wide enough to limit our losses. Somehow we tend to remember things that affect our wallets- hopefully some people will take the next step and remember the importance of markets as well as of the environment!

Chicken processors fined

A chicken processor in England was fined over $100,000 for excessive pollution. Good thing the chicken industry here is much cleaner!

Maryland oyster sanctuaries to grow

As Rand Paul brings the debate between government and private ownership back to the fore, the Maryland state government is making its own statement by calling for increased sanctuaries to be dedicated to oyster cultivation. Oysters clean the bay as well as serving as dinner, and the hope is that by allowing some private citizens to invest in aquaculture, the whole Bay will reap the benefits. Of course, private harvesters are unhappy that some land, and particularly some high quality existing oyster beds, will be put off limits by the new regulations, but the hope is that short-term pain will produce long-term gain. It worked for stripers and just this past year it seems to have worked for crabs, so here's hoping that oysters too will benefit!

Agricultural subsidies hurting the poor

It's always tough to say how agricultural subsidies will pan out with respect to the poor. After all, the poorest people are usually in rural areas, often subsistence farmers. If they're totally subsistence farmers, they don't care about the price of the goods they produce, but if they're doing any selling they need high prices. Price supports keep prices artificially high in the subsidizing country, but they can lead to gluts which are sometimes dumped on developing countries, killing their prices. Thus, subsidies may or may not help the rural poor.

On the other hand, the urban poor have to buy food. Lower prices unambiguously help them, so price supports hurt.

Weighing all the evidence, this extended blog post argues that price distortions and trade barriers on balance hurt the poor. Their simulations show that without the barriers to trade, poverty would drop by 3%. It's a complicated picture, but it makes sense!

Less offshore drilling means...

...more reliance on the Canadian oil sands, among other things. Today's NYT reports that the tar sands could be over 1/3 of US imports by 2030. Hopefully by 2030 increased reliance on domestic natural gas will cut demand for imported oil so that number won't be as high as it would be today, but we're still talking a considerable amount of fuel. While terrestrial sources don't come with the same type of risks as offshore platforms, the oil sands have plenty of negative environmental consequences as it is. Environmental groups note that mining and processing the tar into usable oil is energy and water-intensive, contributes to some serious deforestation, and produces large amounts of pretty nasty waste. Others point out that Venezuelan and Mexican oil similarly require large amounts of processing, making them not much better environmentally.

As a side note, the article also quotes Daniel Yergin, who appears on one of the homeworks for this class. Hm, how can I work him in again?