Valuing water access

The National Resources Defense Council is a legal organization, not an economic one, but our work overlaps quite a bit. We won't get into valuation in this class, but when economists try to put price tags on environmental commodities they have to talk to people who use them. The NRDC is apparently trying to do this in order to add pressure on the Maryland DoE to get them to in turn pressure Baltimore to improve their storm drainage system. I got this email today:

New Year's Update

Heard from Joseph Fleming from last semester, who is starting to see Resource Economics everywhere, and he's right. Here's a look at a few issues that have been in the news over the past few weeks:

• Industry is trying solar power in all formats, including a $2.5 billion mega-plant in the middle of the California desert. Maryland won't be doing anything so huge, but Maryland has put itself in the mix of governments trying to figure out how best to meet a commitment to green energy.

• NPR reviewed an Oxfam study reviewing food systems around the world. The authors conclude that,  "There is enough food overall in the world to feed everyone. But 900 million people still don't have enough to eat, and 1 billion people are obese. It's a crazy situation." Specifically in the US food is cheaper than in most countries, but a lot of that cheap food puts people on the fast track for obesity and diabetes. Not good.

• Hey GMO haters: GMO's may be the only way we can save Florida's oranges (and the $9 billion business associated with them). A new pest is doing huge damage to the crop, and so far no one has a better solution. That would be sort of like how GMO's saved papaya in Hawaii, and have done a lot of good in other places with no harm yet identified. Is that really wrong? Why?

• West Virginia had a chemical spill that reminded people that water is pretty important. The company quickly went bankrupt. How conveeeenient.

• Brazil had been looking forward to a huge windfall as oil discovered beneath the ocean floor in deep water was accessed, but that oil may be stuck down there. Bad news for Brazil, but maybe good news for the planet as that carbon stays in the ground. (I say "maybe" because if it just means that we burn other high carbon sources, we haven't gained much.)

• California (and my hometown of Reno, Nevada) are facing a huge water deficit: the snowpack which supplies most of the water through the year is at 20% of normal. Not 20% less than normal, 1/5 of the average. In addition to people's drinking water, you may have heard that California does this kind of important thing called "farming" in which they produce huge amounts of produce for the world, such as 82% of the world's almonds.

• Venezuela, where gas used to cost pennies per gallon, is considering raising prices. Some possible implications include reducing government spending, reducing incentives for people to drive around in land yachts, and maybe someday giving a reason for people to learn about the crazy foreign concept of "conservation."

I'm telling you, it's all over the place!

Nuclear Waste Troubles Linger

The articles that I read discussed the major problems of the cleanup of former nuclear weapon sites that are causing enormous budget increases and delaying deadlines. State officials where these sites are located are frustrated and want more action to be taken by the Department of Energy, who is responsible for overseeing the clean-ups. Since the radioactive waste projects started there have been many issues that have come up but the first and foremost is funding. The shortage of funding for each of the several nuclear weapon sites has led to delays, which has caused budget increases by the billions. The cleanup sites have been faltering and need further investment to ensure safety. One article compared it to replacing the roof on a house that is going to be torn down, but the waste needs to be cleaned up before it leaks into the nearby water tables. Employees are saying that the DOE and its contractors are punishing them for “raising technical and safety concerns”. In addition, the contractor from the Hanford site in Oregon has been cited for making 34 technical decisions that were unverified by the DOE. The Savannah River Site in South Carolina has been successful in creating the world’s largest liquid bomb stabilizing plant, which mixes the waste with molten glass in stainless steel canisters where it will last for millenniums. Despite this success, there is now a need for a place to store the waste canisters especially since the Yucca Mountain proposal was cancelled.

            This is a very serious matter, as seen in the Fukushima disaster, where they are still trying to recover. It will be complicated process finding enough funding for each site, but keeping strict regulation on the DOE-chosen contractors could prevent future budget increases and deadline extensions. How to distribute funding is always tricky but slowing funding to sites where contractors have caused problems would cease current accusations that the contractors are just being “rewarded for bad behavior”. Next to the urgency to complete these projects, the problem of where to store the stabilized waste has yet to be determined. Perhaps following in the steps of other countries like France, where they have found methods to recycle radioactive waste would reduce the amount that needs to be stored while also finding a beneficial use. As the completion dates get pushed decades away and budgets continue to climb it is clear why frustrated state officials want the DOE funding to go their state’s cleanup site. It is also clear that because of budget cuts by Congress contractors and the DOE have discredited workers who bring up safety issues in order to prevent additional costs. Although there are inevitable complications due to the magnitude of these projects, concern for radioactive waste contaminating the country’s water should be a top priority. Experts are in agreement that these sites completion dates cannot continue being push farther away. The leakages will happen sooner or later, it is just the matter of how soon. 
--Gianna Rosati

Dead Zones

    Algae blooms are typically green, red, or brown, and are slimy and smelly. Gigantic blooms have become an increasing problem all around the world. The blooms deprive the water and other organisms of vital nutrients and water before the die and rot. When this occurs, fish cannot survive the hypoxic and nutrient deprived conditions. This creates “dead zones.”  A large cause of the algal blooms is because of agriculture. Algae can multiply quickly in water where nitrogen and phosphorus are abundant, and these are the two prime nutrients we focus on when talking about agriculture runoff from fertilizers.
     Not only do algae blooms kill huge numbers of fish, but they also can cause a severe loss in tourist revenue if beaches have a reputation of being full of green slime. Real estate prices in areas with significant algae blooms have seen an extreme drop. Not only that, but every facet of the economy in summer residency areas feels the effects, from car washes to supermarkets. A conservative estimate of the yearly impact of algal blooms in the United States is $100 million, and that number only includes the ocean side of things, not freshwater, which are in the billions.
     A 10-year study of the Chesapeake Bay concluded this summer and found that algal blooms have been dramatically affecting the bottom feeding fish in the bay, causing wide-spread dead zones. These fish include croaker, white perch, spot, striper, and flounder. All of these fish are a key part of the bay’s ecosystem and a huge support of the commercial and recreational fisheries. The algae kill the bottom-dwelling invertebrates that these fish eat.
     While agriculture is an extremely important part of Pennsylvania’s and Maryland’s economy and history, these states have to find a way to get farming and fishing to work together. Both industries need to develop more sustainable strategies, so that the long run outcome is more desirable. Agriculture dumps a huge amount of fertilizers on the soil to meet the demands of the food industry, and the nutrients from these fertilizers ends up in places like the bay, causing the algae blooms. While meeting food demand is crucial, I do not believe sacrificing the entire bay’s ecosystem is worth it. Many people rely on the fisheries as their way of life, and the bay is a huge tourist and recreational attraction, as well a historical and important part of everyone in the watersheds life. Heavier control on fertilizer use and more regulations on having buffer zones on farms are necessary. Enforcement of policies is huge, because I do not believe most policies are properly enforced. For the fishing industry, over-harvesting needs to be addressed immediately. If the pollution of the bay and overfishing continue, soon there will be no fish left to harvest. If the problem of algae blooms, as well as the numerous other problems with pollution and water quality throughout the Chesapeake Bay, is not properly addressed, the fishing industry on the bay will eventually collapse completely.
--Rachel McCloskey

Farming Amazonia

An article in the NYT by an ecology professor at Brown University takes a surprising look at a soybean farm in Brazil, on land that used to be rainforest. To me, that's already kind of wrong: rain forest supports huge biodiversity and carbon sequestration, among other environmental issues: there's a reason it's called the "lungs of the planet," and turning that into Iowa (as the article title suggests) just seems to me to be a Bad Idea. The author goes to look at it, though, and unsurprisingly sees more than I would.

It's sure not all good news: 15% of CO2 emissions comes from land use change. Still, the original people who converted the forest into pasture weren't very productive farmers, and these new mega-fields of soy are apparently more efficient. More efficient = less waste = less environmental damage and less need to convert more land, so that's good, right?

Did you know that there was a 61 mile long conveyor belt in Morocco moving phosphate ore to the Atlantic to become our fertilizer? Whoa.

A last quote: "One thing is clear: In the coming decades we will need to produce a lot more food. I’m not suggesting Mato Grosso’s farms are the answer, far from it. But it’s time to move beyond the oversimplification that large-scale agriculture is incompatible with environmental goals....We need to admit that food production is going to be the dominant use of land in the 21st century, and to decide whether we are going to farm more land or farm more intensively. Then we can move on to the grand challenge of making our farms sustainable."

Green Revolution

Y'all just need to know what this is. I think this may be the first time I've ever linked to a wikipedia page, but that kind of general overview is good enough for a minimum level of awareness. You folks at least need to know what it is! There is likely to be some kind of short essay question related to this topic on the reading quiz: be sure you know what this is, and then, say, some of its good and bad characteristics. Hint: saving a billion lives is a good thing!

Out with the coal, in with the nukes

    Poland is one of the most coal dependent countries in the world. 88% of the electricity generated for Poland is through the use of coal. In order to decrease their carbon emissions, Poland has decided to go with nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy is the most cost efficient plan for Poland. The government intends to build a three gigawatt nuclear plant. It is expected to cost about 16,178,100,000 billion dollars. They hope to have the plant completed by 2023. This would increase their spending on power infrastructures to 8.3-11.8 billion dollars a year on top of the current 18 billion dollars. After the plant is operational, Poland can generate money by connecting their power grid with neighboring countries and selling electricity. Poland believes that this plant would help them meet the EU requirements to reduce carbon emissions. In 2010, the UN signed a climate treaty that would hold the rise of global temperatures to below 3.6 Fahrenheit. However, the current carbon emissions make this goal unattainable.
    After reading these two articles, I believe that this would be a good idea for Poland. They are too dependent on coal as a source of energy. I always thought that nuclear energy should be the next step in using energy more efficiently, at least until we have cost efficient green energy sources. One of my biggest concerns with the use of nuclear power plants is the risk of a meltdown. If something were to happen to Poland’s plant, how would they respond? Japan is still struggling with issues at Fukushima Daiichi. The problems from Fukushima Daiichi are one of the main reasons that Japan will not meet its requirement to reduce carbon emissions. This makes me wonder what type of precautions the Polish government will take in order to prevent a disaster similar to Japan’s.
--Seung Shin