The Green Tech Boom

Bloomberg recently published an article entitled 'VCs Bet on Solar, Biofuel Money-Losers in Green Energy Frenzy'. This article is quite lengthy, but very informative in comparing the current boom in renewable energy to the technology boom of the 1990's and analyzing the future growth of the sector. Topics discussed include global warming, expensive alternative, subsidies, geothermal power, nanotechnology, etc. Here is an excerpt:

The 40-stock WilderHill Clean Energy Index has rocketed since its August 2004 debut, rising 90 percent to a record 251.17 on May 5. Since then, the index has fallen 23 percent to trade at 194.21 on June 28.

As they did in the late 1990s, stock investors are baying after companies that have yet to turn a profit. Pacific Ethanol Inc., based in Fresno, California, for example, lost $611,763 in 2005 on sales of $38 million. Its stock? Up 129 percent in the 12 months ended on June 28.

The frenzy troubles Silicon Valley pioneer Vinod Khosla, who co-founded Sun Microsystems Inc. in 1982 and, then, as a partner at Menlo Park, California-based VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, helped finance Amazon.com Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp.

``We need to be cautious that this doesn't become like the dot-com bubble,'' says Khosla, 51, a champion of ethanol. ``We don't want to get ahead of ourselves.''

For now, the alternative-energy bulls are charging. They say a collision of powerful forces -- from the soaring price of OPEC crude to the booming economy of China, to growing concern that global warming threatens our planet -- is about to usher in a new era of green power.

Oil prices have tripled during the past three years, and the first energy crunch of the 21st century has begun to rip through the world's fossil fuel-based economy. In the U.S., the largest energy consumer, $70-a-barrel oil has sapped consumers' confidence and raised the threat of stagflation, a toxic combination of accelerating inflation and slackening economic growth last seen in the 1970s.

President George W. Bush has urged the nation to break its ``addiction'' to foreign oil and find new, cheaper sources of power. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, has a geo-thermal system.

Today, the world is straining to feed its seemingly insatiable appetite for energy with oil, natural gas and coal. Tomorrow looks even worse. China, now the No. 2 energy consumer, devours 6.5 million barrels of oil a day. By 2025, it will gulp 14.2 million a day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Emerging economies such as India's will swallow still more.

China's Demographic Dilemma

On June 30th 2006, Howard W. French wrote an article for The New York Times entitled 'As China Ages, a Shortage of Cheap Labor Looms'. Throughout China, 'one of the greatest demographic changes in history' will be taking place as the policies of communist China hinder economic growth over the upcoming 40 years. Here is the beginning of the article:

Shanghai is rightfully known as a fast-moving, hypermodern city — full of youth and vigor. But that obscures a less well-known fact: Shanghai has the oldest population in China, and it is getting older in a hurry.

Twenty percent of this city's people are at least 60, the common retirement age for men in China, and retirees are easily the fastest growing segment of the population, with 100,000 new seniors added to the rolls each year, according to a study by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. From 2010 to 2020, the number of people 60 or older is projected to grow by 170,000 a year.

By 2020 about a third of Shanghai's population, currently 13.6 million, will consist of people over the age of 59, remaking the city's social fabric and placing huge new strains on its economy and finances.

The changes go far beyond Shanghai, however. Experts say the rapidly graying city is leading one of the greatest demographic changes in history, one with profound implications for the entire country.

The world's most populous nation, which has built its economic strength on seemingly endless supplies of cheap labor, China may soon face manpower shortages. An aging population also poses difficult political issues for the Communist government, which first encouraged a population explosion in the 1950's and then reversed course and introduced the so-called one-child policy a few years after the death of Mao in 1976.

That measure has spared the country an estimated 390 million births but may ultimately prove to be another monumental demographic mistake. With China's breathtaking rise toward affluence, most people live longer and have fewer children, mirroring trends seen around the world.

Those trends and the extraordinarily low birth rate have combined to create a stark imbalance between young and old. That threatens the nation's rickety pension system, which already runs large deficits even with the 4-to-1 ratio of workers to retirees that it was designed for.

Demographers also expect strains on the household registration system, which restricts internal migration. The system prevents young workers from migrating to urban areas to relieve labor shortages, but officials fear that abolishing it could release a flood of humanity that would swamp the cities.

As workers become scarcer and more expensive in the increasingly affluent cities along China's eastern seaboard, the country will face growing economic pressures to move out of assembly work and other labor-intensive manufacturing, which will be taken up by poorer economies in Asia and beyond, and into service and information-based industries.

Scientists OK Gore's Slideshow

Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press recently wrote an article entitled 'Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy'. Here is the first half of the article:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

The article concludes by saying:

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

Wasteful Incandescent Bulbs

On June 29th 2006, BBC News published an article by Richard Black entitled 'Lighting the key to energy saving'. Here is an excerpt:

A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth. That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs. The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power.

Better building regulations would boost uptake of efficient lighting, it says. "Lighting is a major source of electricity consumption," said Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report's authors.

"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website. The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.

Not many inventions last for more than 100 years without major modifications. The light bulb, developed a century and a quarter ago by luminaries including Sir Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison, is one, and still produces almost half of the light used in homes around the world.

But incandescent bulbs are very inefficient, converting only about 5% of the energy they receive into light.

Ford Withdraws Hybrid Promise

On June 29th 2006, Detroit News published an article by Bryce G. Hoffman and Deb Price entitled 'Ford bails out on hybrid promise'. Here is a snippet:

Ford Motor Co. Chairman and CEO Bill Ford Jr. is backing away from his much-publicized commitment to produce 250,000 hybrid vehicles a year by the end of the decade, saying the company intends to pursue a broader environmental strategy that focuses more on other alternative-fuel vehicles.

With timing perhaps intended to blunt criticism of the move, Bill Ford announced the strategic shift in an e-mail to employees Wednesday, the same day he and the CEOs of General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group sent a letter to Congress promising to double their annual production of alternative-fuel vehicles to 2 million by 2010. Critics decried the back-pedaling on hybrids as another broken promise by the automaker to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Bill Ford's hybrid pledge, made last September, was the centerpiece of a national advertising campaign touting the company as an environmental and innovation leader. "What I didn't foresee at the time was how rapidly other technologies would evolve," Bill Ford wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The Detroit News. "Now, I am convinced that the objective we had set earlier to build capacity for 250,000 hybrids at the end of the decade is too narrow to achieve our larger goals of substantially improving fuel economy and CO2 performance."

Bill Ford said the company will now focus more on other fuels like ethanol, clean diesel and bio-diesel, as well as advanced engine and powertrain technologies.

Internal Pedometer of Cataglyphis

0n June 29th 2006, The Economist published an article entitled 'A stilted story'. This article discusses how Dr. Matthias Wittlinger manipulated ant appendages 'to investigate a century-old hypothesis that desert ants have internal pedometers'. Here is an excerpt:

If there were a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ants, Matthias Wittlinger of the University of Ulm, in Germany, would probably be top of its hate list. The reason is that Dr Wittlinger and his colleagues have, as they report in this week's Science, been chopping the feet off ants. And not only that. They have been making other ants walk around on stilts.

Saharan desert ants of the genus Cataglyphis have to travel long distances to discover food in their impoverished, sandy environment. How they find their way home once they have done so is a mystery. Ants in more temperate climates often lay down chemical trails, but Cataglyphis, apparently, does not. Like honeybees and ancient mariners, they can navigate by the sun, so they know the general direction in which to travel. But, also like ancient mariners (who knew their latitude, but not their longitude), such solar reckoning cannot tell them when to stop.

Dr Wittlinger, therefore, decided to investigate a century-old hypothesis that desert ants have internal pedometers—in other words, they count their steps out, and they count them back. When one total matches the other, they are home.

Crops Sans Nitrogen Fertilizer?

On June 28th 2006, Nature published an article entitled 'Crops could make their own fertilizer'. Here is the abstract:

Plants that build homes for bacteria could do without chemical nitrogen.

Plant geneticists have induced plants to form 'fertilizer factories' without the aid of bacteria that are normally crucial to the process. If the technology can be transferred to plants such as wheat or rice, industrial fertilization of these crops could be reduced or even abolished.

Global Fair Trade

On June 28th 2006, BBC News published the article entitled 'Global Fairtrade sales taking off'. With a 40% annual growth rate in the UK, "Increasingly, companies are knocking on the door of the labelling organisations because they want to have the certification mark on their products." Here is the article:

Global sales of Fairtrade products increased by more than a third to hit £758m ($1.38bn) in 2005, the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation (FLO) has said. More than 300 companies signed up for the global scheme last year, according to the FLO. The body said that 508 producer groups in 58 nations are certified to supply goods under the scheme. Goods sold include coffee, sugar and fruit.

In the UK, Fairtrade sales rose by 40% from 2004 to more than £195m. Ethical shopping has become increasingly popular in the UK. Earlier this year, UK retail giant Marks and Spencer launched a range of Fairtrade cotton clothing.

Under the Fairtrade scheme, producers receive a minimum price to cover production costs plus an extra premium for investment in social or economic development projects. Luuk Zonneveld of FLO International said the scheme was of great help to producers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. "Increasingly, companies are knocking on the door of the labelling organisations because they want to have the certification mark on their products," he said.

Coffee is the commodity that has the highest percentage share of fair trade sales, with 20% of roasted coffee sales, and 4% of total coffee sales, accounted for by fair trade products.

Charlie Rose Interviews

Charlie Rose consistently interviews fascinating people. Here are some videos with guests from the past seven months that I found interesting.

Here is the interview with Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama from November 16th 2005.

Here is the interview with James D. Watson and E.O. Wilson from December 14th 2005.

Here is the interview with Milton Friedman from December 26th 2005.

Here is the interview with the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh from February 27th 2006.

Here is the interview with Gene Sperling from March 8th 2006 (interview begins at 23:30).

Here is the interview with Daniel C. Dennett from April 3rd 2006.

Here is the interview with Noam Chomsky from June 9th 2006.

Here is the interview with Thomas L. Friedman from June 12th 2006 (interview begins at 29:40).

Here is the interview with Al Gore from June 19th 2006.

Here is the interview with Warren Buffett along with Bill & Melinda Gates from June 26th 2006.

Japan Might Bury Emissions

On June 28th 2006 (Australian Eastern Standard Time), The Sydney Morning Herald published this article on pumping CO2 into bedrock instead of releasing emissions into the stratosphere. Here is the article:

Japan hopes to slash greenhouse gas emissions by pumping carbon dioxide into underground storage reservoirs instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. A proposal to bury 200 million tons of carbon dioxide a year by 2020 - cutting the country's emissions by one-sixth - is under study, Masahiro Nishio, an official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, said on Monday.

The underground storage of carbon dioxide underlines the urgency felt by industrialised countries trying to rein in the effects of global warming. By capturing carbon dioxide from factory emissions and pressurising it into liquid form, scientists can inject it into underground aquifers, gas fields or gaps between rock strata. Scientists have been studying the process for years, and an experimental project began in Canada last year. Japan has no commercial underground carbon dioxide storage operations, Mr Nishio said. But the proposal would dwarf similar operations in Norway, Canada and Algeria, each of which pump about a million tonnes a year.

Tackling carbon dioxide is a priority for Japan, the world's second-largest economy. It expels 1.3 billion tonnes a year, making it one of the world's top offenders, despite being a key driver behind the Kyoto Protocol. Underground storage could begin as early as 2010, but there are still many hurdles to overcome, Mr Nishio said.

Capturing carbon dioxide and injecting it underground is prohibitively expensive, costing up to $70 a tonne, Mr Nishio said. The ministry aims to halve that cost by 2020. Safety concerns must also be addressed to ensure that earthquakes or rock fissures do not allow a sudden release of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says 99 per cent of the carbon dioxide can remain stable for up to 1000 years. Long-term plans call for capturing emissions from steel mills, power plants and chemical factories. But the beginning stages will target natural gas fields, where large amounts of carbon dioxide are a by-product of gas extraction, Mr Nishio said.

Bolton vs. Gore

The issue of finite resource allocation to the cause with the highest priority is extremely important in trying to make the world a better place. But what the highest priority is depends on who you ask. Here is the article from this weeks The Economist:

A question of priorities: hunger and disease or climate change?

Two years ago, a Danish environmentalist called Bjorn Lomborg had an idea. We all want to make the world a better place but, given finite resources, we should look for the most cost-effective ways of doing so. He persuaded a bunch of economists, including three Nobel laureates, to draw up a list of priorities. They found that efforts to fight malnutrition and disease would save many lives at modest expense, whereas fighting global warming would cost a colossal amount and yield distant and uncertain rewards.

That conclusion upset a lot of environmentalists. This week, another man who upsets a lot of people embraced it. John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said that Mr Lomborg's “Copenhagen Consensus” (see articles) provided a useful way for the world body to get its priorities straight. Too often at the UN, said Mr Bolton, “everything is a priority”. The secretary-general is charged with carrying out 9,000 mandates, he said, and when you have 9,000 priorities you have none.

So, over the weekend, Mr Bolton sat down with UN diplomats from seven other countries, including China and India but no Europeans, to rank 40 ways of tackling ten global crises. The problems addressed were climate change, communicable diseases, war, education, financial instability, governance, malnutrition, migration, clean water and trade barriers.

Given a notional $50 billion, how would the ambassadors spend it to make the world a better place? Their conclusions were strikingly similar to the Copenhagen Consensus. After hearing presentations from experts on each problem, they drew up a list of priorities. The top four were basic health care, better water and sanitation, more schools and better nutrition for children. Averting climate change came last.

The ambassadors thought it wiser to spend money on things they knew would work. Promoting breast-feeding, for example, costs very little and is proven to save lives. It also helps infants grow up stronger and more intelligent, which means they will earn more as adults. Vitamin A supplements cost as little as $1, save lives and stop people from going blind. And so on.

For climate change, the trouble is that though few dispute that it is occurring, no one knows how severe it will be or what damage it will cause. And the proposed solutions are staggeringly expensive. Mr Lomborg reckons that the benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol would probably outweigh the costs, but not until 2100. This calculation will not please Al Gore. Nipped at the post by George Bush in 2000, Mr Gore calls global warming an “onrushing catastrophe” and argues vigorously that curbing it is the most urgent moral challenge facing mankind.

Mr Lomborg demurs. “We need to realise that there are many inconvenient truths,” he says. But whether he and Mr Bolton can persuade the UN of this remains to be seen. Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's deputy secretary-general, said on June 6th that: “there is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the US supports must have a secret agenda...and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether [it makes] sense or not.”

Should EPA Regulate CO2?

On June 26th 2006, Nick Miles wrote this article for the BBC News on government regulation of CO2 emissions in the U.S.A. Here is the article:

The US Supreme Court is to consider whether to force the government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from energy producers and cars.

A dozen states and environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a lower court ruled against them. They argue the onus should be on the government's environmental protection agency to limit CO2 emissions. They say CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas causing a warming of the Earth and so should be categorised a pollutant.

The US government says that CO2 is not a pollutant under federal laws and that even if it was, it would have discretion over whether or not to regulate it. A federal appeals court recently sided with the government.

If the Supreme Court disagrees when it makes its ruling later this year, it could have a profound impact on American life. It could pave the way, for example, for car manufacturers to be forced to improve fuel efficiency as a way of reducing CO2 emissions. That would be bitterly opposed by US President George W Bush. When he first ran for office, he expressed support for regulating CO2 but since then, he has favoured voluntary steps to reduce emissions. Anything else, he argues, would harm business and cost jobs.

Seeds of Hope

In this weeks edition of The Economist, an article enititled 'Seeds of hope' discusses "An international seed bank being set up in the Arctic". Here is the article:

If catastrophe were to befall humanity—be it plague, nuclear war or an asteroid striking the Earth—what provision could be made for the survivors? This week work began on a project to re-establish agriculture should such a calamity occur. On a remote Arctic island, a vault is being dug to house the seeds of up to 3m different crops, as part of plans to protect food supplies across the world.

The Svalbard International Seed Vault, as the facility is called, will cost the Norwegian government, which is paying for it, about $3m. Eventually it will contain samples of every known crop variety that can be grown from seed, from the tropics to the highest latitudes.

Svalbard was chosen because it is cold and remote. The island is expected to remain frozen for the next hundred years, despite changes in the world's climate, and the vault is being carved out of the ice and rock. Seeds deposited in the bank will be preserved by the cold, certainly for hundreds and perhaps even thousands of years. The freezing conditions, not to mention polar bears, should put off any unwelcome visitors. Just in case they do not, the bank will be 70 metres (230 feet) underground, inside concrete walls more than a metre thick and behind a strong security door and a perimeter fence.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust, a charity involved in the creation of the vault, estimates that there are now some 1,400 gene banks for crops, scattered on every inhabited continent. It is developing plans to conserve every important crop on the planet. Some do not have seeds and so cannot be stored on Svalbard. Bananas, for example, are estimated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to be the world's fourth most consumed food (after wheat, rice and maize) and form the staple diets of some 400m people in the tropics. Bananas can only be conserved as cuttings, and these must be cut back and replanted every few months. Work is under way to develop better ways of preserving such crops.

Many of the gene banks are in countries where the crop is not native, to make it more likely that the species will survive a disaster. (The banana bank is in Belgium.) The Svalbard vault fulfils this criterion for any seed you can think of. Whether anyone will be able to reach it if catastrophe strikes is another question.

Low-E Windows

On June 24th 2006, IfEnergy posted an interesting article on Low-E Windows that are energy efficient and protect interior furnishings against harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Low-E windows are the way to go if you're building a home and can afford the asset. Even if your remodeling your existing home Low-E is still the way to go.

What is a Low-E window? Well a Low-E window is a double paned specialty glass window filled with usually with argon as an insulating gas.

What does Argon do for you:

Cooler in Summer - The total solar energy transmitted through Low-E windows is almost 50% less than standard insulating windows.

Warmer in Winter - The insulating value reduces heat loss and heating costs in cold winter climates.

Reduces Ultraviolet Energy - Low-E windows help protect interior furnishings, fabrics and carpets from ultraviolet damage.

Transmits Visible Light - About 88% of desirable visible light transmitted through this glass allows the exterior appearance to be similar to clear glass while providing glare control in bright, sunny climates.

Argon is nontoxic, clear, and odorless gas that provides extra insulation. Since argon is heavier than air rather than being in continuous motion like air, it greatly reduces the transference of heat and cold through glass window panes.

R.I.P. Harriet the Tortoise

On June 23rd 2006 "Harriet the tortoise, one of the world's oldest known living creatures, died in Australia aged about 175." Here is the article from BBC News:

Senior vet Dr John Hangar told Australia's ABC that Harriet, a Giant Galapagos tortoise, had died of heart failure after a short illness. "She had a very fairly acute heart attack and thankfully passed away quietly overnight," Dr Hangar said.

Last year staff at Australia Zoo, where Harriet had lived for 17 years, held a party to celebrate her 175th birthday. Some people believe that Harriet was studied by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin took several young Giant Galapagos tortoises back to London after his epic voyage on board HMS Beagle.

DNA testing has suggested the giant creature was born around 1830, a few years before Darwin visited the Galapagos archipelago in 1835. However, Harriet belonged to a sub-species of tortoise only found on an island that Darwin never visited.

At the time of her 175th birthday party, Harriet weighed 150kg (23 stone) and was roughly the size of a dinner table. She was the star attraction at the Australia Zoo on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. Her keepers put her longevity down to a stress-free life.

World Population & U.S. Debt

The current human population as of 3:12am on June 24th 2006 is 6,524,066,453
The current U.S. National Debt as of 3:12am on June 24th 2006 is $8,396,542,448,379.04

Iran Halts Petrol Imports

On June 23rd 2006, BBC News published this article entitled 'Iran calls halt to petrol imports'. Here is the article:

Iran is to stop importing petrol in September and instead start rationing the fuel, its oil minister has said. The move comes as Tehran seeks to reduce the billions of dollars it spends each year on petrol imports due to a shortage of domestic refineries.

While Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer, it currently can only produce 57% of the country's daily petrol consumption. The news comes as Iran continues its nuclear stand-off with the West. Petrol imports are an expensive problem for the Iranian government because it heavily subsidies its domestic petrol prices. A litre of regular petrol in Iran currently costs just 800 rials (9 cents; 5p).

This problem has intensified for Tehran due to an upsurge in petrol demand caused by a big rise in car ownership, and increased petrol consumption to Iran's neighbours, where prices are far higher. Iran's oil minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said the decision to start rationing petrol was preferable to rising prices.

The country's ongoing nuclear row with the West centres on Iran's attempts to build its first nuclear power station. While Tehran insists its ambitions are solely power generation, the US and Europe fear Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons.

Minimum Wage Rage

On June 22nd 2006, The Economist wrote an article entitled 'Wage Rage' discussing the current minimum wage debate in Washington D.C. "Both politics and economics lie behind Democrats' calls for a higher minimum wage". Here is the article:

With unemployment as low as 4.6%, America’s labour market might be expected to be painfully tight. In fact there seems to be some slack in it. Labour force participation is relatively low, by the standard of recent years. Real hourly earnings have barely budged since 2001. Perhaps that is why many Americans tell pollsters that they are not happy with the state of the economy.

Naturally, Democrats hope to profit from this in November’s congressional elections. This week Republicans in Congress fought Democratic efforts—led by Edward Kennedy—to put through a hefty hike in the Federal minimum wage to $7.25, up from $5.15 where it was fixed in 1997. The measure was defeated in the Senate on procedural grounds, even though 52 senators voted for it (including eight Republicans). The House has it locked up in committee. An alternative bill that paired a more moderate increase to $6.25 with some changes in work regulations also died after drawing Democratic opposition.

Mr Kennedy and other Democrats are not ready to give up. Although they have little chance of getting a bill passed this year, and despite the fact that some 20 states have increased their own minimum wages in the past few years, Democrats are hoping to make the issue prominent before the November poll. The goal is to attract disgruntled voters who feel they have missed out in the current economic boom.

To this end, Democrats are busy painting a stark picture of life on the minimum wage. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time worker earns less than $10,300 a year, barely above the poverty line for a single person and well under it if the wage-earner supports a child. The real value of the wage is down to its lowest level since 1955. In the late 1960s, the wage was more than half of average hourly earnings for a (low level) production worker. Now it is less than a third.

However, the number of people earning the minimum wage has also declined. In 1980, over 15% of workers received it (or even a lower wage—there are broad exemptions for various classes of workers). That figure is now just 2.5%. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think-tank, estimates that lifting the wage to $7.25 would affect only 4.4% of workers, giving them an average increase of $0.79 an hour.

This would yield an extra $1,580 a year for full-time workers, enough to get a mother and child within shouting distance of the poverty line. But most such workers aren’t in a full-time job. Of the roughly 1.6m low-wage workers who do regular hours, nearly 1m are part-timers, most of them doing fewer than 25 hours a week. This is ammunition for opponents of an increase, who also point out that few such workers support families, or even themselves. They are mostly young (more than half of them are under 25), and according to testimony before Congress from the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2004, only 15% of workers making less than $6.65 an hour live in poverty. Many of them have family incomes well above the poverty line.

Given all this, a minimum wage increase seems like a blunt instrument for attacking poverty. The Earned Income Tax Credit, which already gives a annual bonus to the working poor, targets poverty more directly and effectively. Nor will fiddling with the minimum wage do much to placate the anxious middle class. Raising the wage, say critics, may even hurt the people who are supposed to be helped. Businesses say that higher wages could force them to reduce staff (though economic studies appear to show that is unlikely). More worrying is that unskilled workers may be kept out of the labour market if they are unable to claim jobs with higher minimum wages.

But for Mr Kennedy and his fellow, all this may be beside the point. Minimum wage workers are sympathetic figures, working boring jobs for paltry pay. Most Americans say they support an increase. While that may not get the wage up, it could help put Republicans on the defensive.

Destabilizing the Earth

On June 22nd 2006, CNN posted this report that was written by the Associated Press and addresses doubts expressed by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas last year. Here is part of the article entitled 'Earth likely hottest in 2,000 years'.

It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century. This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat. Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them. Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

...
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments. For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps. Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850. The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

Concrete Jungle

Richard Black recently wrote a very informative article for BBC News on the need for green space in urban environments and the paradoxical nature of cities. "Apart from a few lower members of the animal kingdom, no-one other than human beings build cities." Here are some excerpts from 'Finding green In the concrete jungle'

They are totally artificial constructs and in them we live artificial lives. We travel differently, eat different food, receive water and energy through pipes and wires, live in different kinds of buildings, do different jobs.

All of these things come with an environmental price-tag. Given that the world's urban population is expanding at such a rate, it is worth asking what are the numbers on that price-tag, and whether they are higher or lower than the environmental cost of living a rural life.

Does a person produce more or less carbon dioxide on moving from the countryside to the city? If the answer is "less", how should that be offset against a bigger contribution to urban smog? Is trash piling up on a street corner better or worse than excess fertiliser running from farmland into the water supply? How far does a city's environmental footprint extend beyond its boundaries - to the natural resources which feed it with water and food, or to the other side of the planet which feels its greenhouse gas emissions?

There is no simple answer.

"What is needed is research that focuses on the large-scale, long-term environmental changes, not just on the immediate impact of cities," concludes the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), a global research alliance.

...
In 2002, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) focused much of its Human Development Report on China. "Rural residents consume less than 40% of the commercial energy used by their urban counterparts," it concluded. "However, if biomass [principally wood-burning] is included, the average person in the countryside uses nearly one-third more energy than a city dweller." So the rural resident apparently contributes more to global climate change than the urban citizen - but the equation hinges on how the energy is produced.

...
In any case, talk of a "city environment" brings a basic question - which city? In London and Tokyo, air quality has improved over the last 50 years. In Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur, it has gone down, though there are signs of improvement elsewhere in the developing world.

...
"But there's a paradigm question here - whether cities are being urged to move away from the traditional 'grow first and clean up later paradigm' to a 'sustainable growth paradigm'." The "sustainable city" is a concept which has received a lot of academic attention in recent times. An Australian group, the Halifax EcoCity Project, has developed what it calls an "ecological measuring stick". Essential elements of sustainable urban development include, it says:

-- extensive use of vegetation to filter pollution, prevent the "heat island" effect and capture carbon dioxide
-- purification and recycling of all water and waste
-- 100% supply of renewable energy
-- a sustainable food supply which does not deplete nearby lands and grow as much as possible with city limits

The EcoCity concept, says Bert Metz, would have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions. "How cities are planned definitely has an impact. Are there many trees planted, which reduces the need for cooling? How are houses built - that has a huge effect on greenhouse gas emissions." But by the Halifax yardstick, virtually every city in the developed as well as the developing world would fail the sustainability test. Planning cities to allow for green spaces, wildlife, trees and watercourses can have a huge benefit on people as well as on the natural environment, says David Goode, a visiting professor at University College London and former director of the London Ecology Centre.

There's a lot of evidence that both physical and mental wellbeing increases with access to nature and green spaces
David Goode, University College London. "When you've got more than half the world's population living in urban areas, it's crucial they have access to some kind of ecological area within a stone's throw of where they live," he argues. "There's a lot of evidence that both physical and mental wellbeing increases with access to nature and green spaces."

Since the big clean-up began half a century ago, many British cities have become home to the fox, while birds such as the black redstart have become "urban specialists". But is it real nature, or just a designed and planned imitation? "It is different," says Dr Goode, "but you can encapsulate a lot of the features of natural habitat within a city environment."

In any case, much of the world's countryside is far from "natural", shaped as it has been by centuries of human agriculture, in some cases producing vast prairies of monoculture monotony where hardly a bird is heard. But fundamentally people are not flocking to the vast cities of Asia and South America with nature and green spaces in mind. They are coming for jobs, to improve their economic and social prospects. It may be sobering then to consider the UNDP's judgement on China's urbanisation and its concomitant rising toll of pollution and waste: "Environmental factors are likely to constrain, or even reverse, social and economic progress." It is the same old message: societies neglect environmental progress at their economic peril.

Hybrid Tax Credit

On June 21st 2006, David Leonhardt of The New York Times wrote an article on the end of tax credits for popular hybrid vehicles entitled 'U.S. Hybrids Get More Miles Per Congress'. Here are some snippets:

The point of a tax policy like this — the point of a lot of tax policy, in fact — is to give people an incentive to change their behavior, and persuading Americans to use less oil certainly sounds like one of Washington's priorities these days.

Yet, astoundingly, many of the tax credits are about to be taken away. So if you are thinking of buying a Prius or Camry Hybrid, do it soon, as in this month or maybe next. And if you are wondering whether policy makers mean it when they say they're serious about changing our energy policy, join the crowd.

The first thing to understand about the hybrid tax credit is that it was never really intended to reduce oil imports from the Middle East or slow the effects of global warming. The credit was created to prop up Detroit while giving conservation a nod.

Last summer, when Congress was completing an energy bill, Toyota's and Honda's hybrids were already winning people over in the marketplace, and it was clear that any tax credit would go overwhelmingly to buyers of Japanese cars. So members of Congress, with help from Detroit's lobbyists, came up with an ingenious solution. They created a cap, a maximum number of hybrids that any single manufacturer could sell — 60,000 — before a clock started ticking, causing the credits for that carmaker to begin disappearing two quarters later.

The idea, Mark Kemmer, a G.M. lobbyist, told Automotive News, was to keep any one company from getting "a runaway benefit."

Toyota hit the 60,000 mark last month, less than five months after the Jan. 1 start of the program, and the credits for its hybrid buyers will be cut in half on Oct. 1. On April 1, 2007, the credits will be cut in half again. On Oct. 1, 2007, they will vanish. Honda, for its part, will probably hit the cap next year.

And the Big Three? Combined, they have sold fewer than 15,000 eligible vehicles so far, all by Ford, largely because their hybrids have not impressed buyers. Rather than building highly efficient hybrids like the Prius, Detroit has tinkered with gas guzzlers like the Chevrolet Silverado, adding hybrid technology to them so that they get slightly better mileage.

Come next year, then, the government will pay you to buy a Silverado hybrid (which gets about 16 miles per gallon) or a Ford Escape Hybrid (which gets about 26, according to Consumer Reports), but not a Prius (44) or a nonhybrid Corolla (29).

The obvious answer to this bizarre situation is to remove the caps. To their credit, Mr. Bush and a few members of Congress have called for precisely that, although it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

...
What the government can do that nobody else can, however, is set up a simple system of rewards and penalties — with the single goal of reducing oil use, regardless of the means — and then let the marketplace work it out. Economists tend to prefer a gas tax, but it's not the only option.

There is already a gas-guzzler tax written into the law that raises the price of inefficient cars, but not of sport utility vehicles or light trucks, notes Therese Langer of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Making the tax universal would have a far bigger effect than a narrow policy aimed at hybrids, and it could be balanced by tax credits for efficient vehicles of any kind. Google has a nice template: it gives $5,000 to employees who buy a car that gets at least 45 m.p.g. in the government's ratings, a threshold that only the Prius and two Honda hybrids now meet.

World's Largest Solar Cell Factory

On June 21st 2006, Reuters wrote this article announcing plans to build the largest solar cell factory in the world! Here is the article:

Nanosolar Inc., a privately held solar energy company, said Wednesday it plans to build what it called the world's largest factory to produce solar cells, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The plant would manufacture about 200 million solar cells a year with a total energy capacity of 430 megawatts, or enough to power more than 300,000 homes, Nanosolar said in a release.

The company -- which got early stage financing from Google Inc .co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and is based in Palo Alto, California -- also plans to build a solar panel fabrication plant in Berlin, Germany. The company said it arranged a $100 million financing package for the projects, including $75 million of preferred stock. Nanosolar and other private solar companies such as Miasole and Heliovolt use a thin-film technology that requires only a fraction of the amount of silicon needed in conventional solar cells.

Solar power and other renewable energies such as wind, biomass, and geothermal comprise the fastest-growing energy sector. Global sales of green sources of energy more than doubled in 2005 to $39.9 billion, according to California research and publishing firm Clean Edge. Sales could grow to $167.2 billion by 2015, according to Clean Edge.

California is pushing a $2.9 billion program to make the state one of the world's largest producers of solar power. The "California Solar Initiative" aims to add 3,000 megawatts of solar energy over 11 years through the installation of 1 million solar energy systems at homes, businesses, farms, schools and public buildings. The state currently generates about 100 megawatts of solar electricity, enough to power about 80,000 homes.

Brown Goes Green

On June 21st 2006, the "EPA and UPS partnered to develop a UPS truck that uses EPA-patented hydraulic hybrid technology that can achieve fuel efficiency by 60-70 percent in urban driving and lower greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent." Here is the press release:

Your normal UPS delivery truck will not be the same as EPA unveils the world's most fuel-efficient and cost-effective delivery vehicle. The first of its kind, EPA and UPS partnered to develop a UPS truck that uses EPA-patented hydraulic hybrid technology that can achieve fuel efficiency by 60-70 percent in urban driving and lower greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent.

"EPA and our partners are not just delivering packages with this UPS truck – we are delivering environmental benefits to the American people," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "President Bush is moving technology breakthroughs from the labs to the streets. We are doing what is good for our environment, good for our economy, and good for our nation's energy security."

Laboratory tests show that this hybrid technology has the potential to dramatically improve the fuel economy for package delivery vehicles, shuttle and transit buses, and refuse pickup. More than 1,000 gallons of fuel each year could be saved per vehicle. EPA estimates that upfront costs for the hybrid components could be recouped in fewer than three years for a typical delivery vehicle. The net savings over the vehicle's lifespan could exceed $50,000, assuming current fuel prices.

The vehicle features a full hydraulic hybrid powertrain and a unique hydraulic hybrid propulsion system integrated with the drive axle. Hydraulic motors and hydraulic tanks are used to store energy, in contrast to electric motors and batteries used in electric hybrid vehicles. Like other hybrid systems, energy saved when applying the brakes is reused to help accelerate the vehicle. Following a road tour of EPA Regional offices, the vehicle will be delivering UPS packages across Michigan this summer.

This partnership is occurring through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, which Congress established to facilitate technology transfer of patented inventions from national laboratories to industry and the marketplace. Partners on the project are Eaton Corp., UPS, International Truck and Engine Corp., U.S. Army – National Automotive Center, and Morgan-Olson. Major technical support was provided by FEV Engine Technology Inc. and Southwest Research Institute.

OECD Denounces Protectionism

On June 21st 2006, BBC News posted an article entitled 'OECD members pay $283bn farm aid'. Here is the article in it's entirety:

Developed nations spent $283bn (£154bn) on agricultural support in 2005, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said. The total was responsible for 29% of farm earnings, the OECD said, and 59% of the support was directed at boosting the prices of agricultural products. It said subsidies and tariffs were distorting production and trade. The OECD believes eliminating such protectionism will provide a big boost to the world economy.

In a study of agricultural policies among its 30 member countries the OECD found wide variations in the level of government support. In Australia it represented just 5% of farm receipts, and 16% in the US. Across the European Union the figure was 32%, down from 33% in 2004. The country with the largest proportion of government support for farmers was Switzerland, where it was responsible for 68% of farm income.

However, the OECD noted that support for farmers as a percentage of their incomes had fallen since 1988. It added that, over the same period, OECD members had been cutting their levels of price support for farm products. In 1988, the average OECD domestic price for farmed goods was 57% higher than the world price, a gap that had fallen to just 27% by 2005.

But these reductions had been replaced by an increase in agricultural payments based on the area or number of animals being farmed.

India's Forgotten Farmers

On June 20th 2006, Karishma Vaswani wrote an article entitled 'India's Forgotten Farmers Await Monsoon' for BBC News. Here are some excerpts:

Across much of India, the rains that should have come with the annual four-month monsoon have been lighter than usual - so suicide rates among India's 700 million farmers, many burdened with drought-related debt, are high. Hundreds of farmers have killed themselves in the Vidharba region in the last year because of drought-related debt.

It's a vicious cycle. Farmers borrow money to buy seeds in the hopes of a good monsoon. But erratic rains, and lack of information about when the rains are coming, make for a poor harvest. They cannot pay back their debts and are forced into more debt for the following year. Suicide seems like the only alternative.

But some farmers have decided to find another route. In Dhorli village, farmers have decided that rather than taking their own lives, they will take matters into their own hands. Dhorli village is one of four villages in India to put itself up for sale. It has put banners up across the village, saying that livestock, homes, property here are all up for sale.

Farmers in this village say they feel neglected by the government. They are so fed up with farming that they want to move to the cities in the hopes of a better life. Village elders told us they had no other choice but to sell their land to repay their debts. When we asked them about braving the life in the cities - where they would surely live in one of Mumbai or Delhi's many slums - they said they would rather put up with a life in the slums where they could earn a living, rather than stay in the village starving.

With few irrigation facilities, Indian farmers have little choice but to depend on rains for their livelihoods. Sixty percent of India's land is not irrigated. A bad monsoon means a bad harvest - and more debt for these farmers. "We have an abundance of land here," says Dharampal Jharundhe, the village elder. "You can see that all 53 of us farmers have land to till. "But we have no water. We are at the mercy of nature. We don't get good harvests - we have nothing to eat here. Tell me, what are we to do? How are we to feed our families - pay back our debts? "We'd rather move to the cities, and set up small tea-shops, or clean footpaths - something to keep our stomachs fed."

But the Indian government is making attempts to help these farmers out. It has set up village resource centres around the country, where young children of farmers are trained to access satellite images showing when the rains are due. This can help farmers plan their harvests better, so that precious seeds are not wasted while waiting for the rains. It's a measure that has not come soon enough.

Farming makes up just a fifth of India's $665bn economy, but it feeds two-thirds of the population. A bad monsoon can spell life or death for millions of India's forgotten farmers.

Africa: Investing in Conservation

On June 20th 2006, CNN wrote this article on sustainable development throughout Africa.

"People who think that development and conservation cannot go hand-in-hand are wrong," President Marc Ravalomanana said Tuesday at the opening of a major international symposium on Africa in the capital of Madagascar, Antananarivo. Organized by Conservation International, a Washington-based environmental group, the five-day conference of more than 400 delegates will examine how to use Africa's unmatched biodiversity to ease poverty and lay a foundation for sustainable development.

"In Africa and elsewhere, let us all put an end to the exploitation of natural resources for one-time payoffs, and instead develop strategies for using them sustainably, in ways that will benefit all people," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement before the conference.

Oil-rich Equatorial Guinea announced Tuesday that it was creating a new national forest of more than 1.2 million acres and establishing a $15 million conservation trust fund. Fortunato Ofa Mbo, the former Spanish colony's minister of fisheries and the environment, told the conference the new national forest would increase Equatorial Guinea's total protected territory to 37 percent of the tiny country nestled between Cameroon and Gabon on Africa's western coast. That is one of the highest percentages of any country in the world.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf also appeared in a videotaped statement to announce her government would make forest conservation a key component of development policies after years of ruinous civil war. Johnson-Sirleaf said new regulations would seek a balance between the development benefits from logging, including job creation and foreign exchange, and the benefits from conserving forests that provide clean air and water, food and other vital resources. "My government is committed to protecting these benefits," she said, announcing that legislation is being prepared to create a $30 million conservation trust fund that will finance the creation and maintenance of new protected areas. "We need to invest in the future of our people."

Protecting nature means safeguarding the cheapest and most effective source of clean water, food, natural resources and other benefits of ecosystem services, said Conservation International President Russell Mittermeier. "The challenge is how to maximize these benefits in a sustainable way through biodiversity conservation, so that they exist in perpetuity," Mittermeier said. "That is exactly what the Madagascar symposium will be tackling."

One strategy is branding, in which developing nations such as Madagascar market their unmatched nature as ecotourism destinations. Such policies signal stability and control of natural resources to the international community, attracting increased foreign investment, said Juan Carlos Bonilla, head of Conservation International's Central Africa program. "It's something we've seen happening in places like Costa Rica and Belize," he said. "They have progressive environmental policies and they also have liberal economic frameworks. While unrelated, the two have worked well to attract both investment and eco-tourists." Madagascar has dozens of species of lemurs along with colorful birds and frogs, huge bats known as Madagascar flying foxes, giant plants and flowers found nowhere else on Earth. Many are threatened with extinction. By protecting their habitat, Madagascar invests in its nature as a commodity that cannot be matched by even the most powerful nations.

In Mitsinjo, Madagascar, they are growing seedlings of native tree species to plant as new forests that will ingest fossil fuel emissions in the atmosphere, mostly from industrialized nations. The carbon-consuming role of the forests will be sold as carbon credits on the global market under a system given impetus by the Kyoto Protocol that limits fossil fuel emissions in member countries, said Rainer Dolch of Mitsinjo, a private initiative specializing in conservation and ecotourism.

Impoverished local communities also benefit from re-established forests that provide traditional resources such as fruits, medicines, fibers and housing materials, as well as higher yields in their subsistence farming of native species, Dolch said. Persuading subsistence farmers to take part in the planting expected to begin in January has been challenging, due to the abstract concept of a forest having economic value. "They wondered how they can get money for nothing," Dolch said.

Home Efficiency Rating

On June 14th 2006, BBC News wrote this article on a new energy efficiency rating system for homes. Instead of remodeling the kitchen to increase value, maybe people will choose to improve the energy efficiency of their home!

Every house sold in England and Wales will be given an energy efficiency rating like those found on electrical goods, the government will announce. The Energy Performance Certificate will be part of the new Home Information Packs being introduced next June. The reports, prepared by an independent inspector, will give houses an A to G rating, with A being the best. They will show energy efficiency and the impact of a house on the environment in terms of carbon dioxide.

Homes use about a third of the UK's total energy requirements and scientists say that must be reduced significantly to help avoid climate change.

Housing minister Yvette Cooper said that, as well as helping buyers and sellers to cut carbon emissions, it would also help them to cut bills. "Given the growing challenge from climate change and rising energy costs, I think people should be entitled to this kind of information about the home they buy," she said. "You can get this kind of consumer information on fridges and washing machines so why not on a home where the emissions - and the savings - are so much greater?"

Giant Panda Scat Survey

On June 20th 2006, Helen Briggs wrote this encouraging article for the BBC on a recent survey of Giant Pandas.

Fears that the giant panda is on the brink of extinction may be unjustified, research suggests.

Scientists believe populations have been underestimated in past surveys and there may be as many as 3,000 pandas left in the wild. Numbers in reserves could be restored if conservation efforts continue, they write in Current Biology. The panda once inhabited much of China but is now found only in the forested mountain areas of the country. Its survival has become a cause celebre of the conservation movement, attracting worldwide attention. The giant panda has long suffered at the hands of poachers and loggers, and was hit by the large-scale die-off of bamboo in the 1980s. Numbers in the wild have been put at about 1,000 but the animal's elusive and wary nature has made it difficult to conduct accurate censuses.

Previous surveys have used conventional techniques which estimate how many pandas there are based on the amount of droppings found in a given area. However, researchers in China and the UK tried out a new hi-tech method based on analysing DNA recovered from panda droppings. This enables individuals to be identified and tracked across a wide area, giving information on their age and sex.

The study also provides evidence that pandas in the most important habitat of its kind have not suffered genetically over this period - there is no evidence of the sort of inbreeding or low genetic diversity that might threaten the species' long-term survival. "DNA profiling in pandas can give us much more precision in identifying individuals and hence population numbers," said study co-author Prof Michael Bruford of Cardiff University, UK.

The results suggest that about 66 pandas live in the Wanglang Nature Reserve in Sichuan Province, more than twice as many as were estimated in a survey conducted in 1998. "If that were to be repeated across the range there could be as many as 2-3,000 pandas in the wild but a very important point is that this work needs to be replicated in other reserves," he added.

Conservationist groups stress that moves to protect the panda through bans on poaching and deforestation must be maintained. Half of the panda's mountainous bamboo habitat was lost between 1974 and 1988. There are now 40 panda reserves in China compared to 13 two decades ago. "Whilst this is potentially exciting and promising news, it also reinforces the fact that giant panda numbers are still dangerously low," said Mark Wright, Conservation Science Advisor at WWF-UK. "It looks like we are moving in the right direction but we must continue with our efforts to conserve this species and the threats to its habitat if it is going to survive in the long-term."

Rachel Carson Meets Adam Smith

On April 21st 2005, The Economist published an article entitled 'Rescuing Environmentalism'. Here are some snippets from this great article:

Market forces could prove the environment's best friend—if only greens could learn to love them.

The environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest.” Those damning words come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. They are drawn from “The Death of Environmentalism”, an influential essay published recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. They claim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch.

...
Consider, for example, their invocation of the woolly “precautionary principle” to demonise any complex technology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or genetically modified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensible green analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economic costs and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit of generating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.

...
Yesterday's failed hopes, today's heavy costs and tomorrow's demanding ambitions have been driving public policy quietly towards market-based approaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over “commons”, such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong at once to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have been issued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions trading is also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxide trading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide trading with the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climate change.

These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing are efforts to value previously ignored “ecological services”, both basic ones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries such as preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmental science are making those valuation studies more accurate. Market mechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowest cost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea are investigating ways to price nature in this way (see article).

If this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things must happen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. The best way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case of emissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goal is achieved is up to the traders.

A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the second goal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a “free good” must be tempered with an understanding of what it does for humanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the World Bank's annual “Little Green Data Book” (released this week), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks to technologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet, green accounting is getting cheaper and easier.

Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefit analysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reduces nature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some things in nature are irreplaceable—literally priceless. Even so, it is essential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all green problems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a given pollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%: for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable.

If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition and co-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocating data-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to “save the planet”, the green movement could overcome the scepticism of the ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics to the middle ground where most voters reside.

Whether the big environmental groups join or not, the next green revolution is already under way. Rachel Carson, the crusading journalist who inspired greens in the 1950s and 60s, is joining hands with Adam Smith, the hero of free-marketeers. The world may yet leapfrog from the dark ages of clumsy, costly, command-and-control regulations to an enlightened age of informed, innovative, incentive-based greenery.

The Origin of Tree-Sitters

On June 18th 2006, Henry Fountain wrote a New York Times article entitled, 'Rising Above the Environmental Debate'. Here is a brief history of tree-sitting:

When and where did tree-sitting originate? It began, by most accounts, in a grove of old-growth Douglas firs in the Willamette National Forest in western Oregon in the spring of 1985. Members of two environmental groups, Earth First and the Cathedral Forest Action Group, were trying to block logging in the forest and were frustrated that their tactics, including blockades and sit-ins on cartons of explosives used to blast roads, were not having much effect.

Mikal Jakubal, one of the protesters, recalled that at a campfire meeting one night, the subject of putting people in the trees came up. No logger, the thinking went, would cut down a tree with a person in it. But an old-growth fir, which has no branches for the first 50 or 60 feet, is not an easy tree to climb. Mr. Jakubal, who now lives in Redway, Calif., was a rock climber who had climbed El Capitan in Yosemite the year before. "I said, 'Well, I could get up in one of those old-growth trees no problem.' " Two mornings later, on May 20, Mr. Jakubal climbed the tree, hammering nails into the trunk every few feet to hang his climbing gear. When he got about 60 feet up, he spread out a portaledge — a platform used by rock climbers — and set up shop.

Since his climb, hundreds of people have taken up residence high in trees, usually to protest clear-cutting. The most famous tree-sitter, Julia Butterfly Hill, lived 180 feet up in a California redwood for 738 days, coming down in 1999 after a lumber company agreed to spare her tree, which she named Luna, and others in a three-acre tract. Tree-sitting was seen by some as a nonviolent alternative to "monkeywrenching," or environmental sabotage like tree spiking and vandalizing of equipment. "People thought if you were going to break the law, you should do it in a way that puts your own body on the line," Mr. Hirt said. The tactic was useful in getting news coverage. "Tree-sitting had a real interesting social order," he said. "There were the people who would climb the trees, and a whole support crew on the ground, including people who brought media people to the tree."

Loggers responded by trying to scare sitters — felling trees near them or occasionally cutting part of the way through an occupied tree. When that didn't work the companies opted for "extraction," most often accomplished by sending a crew up the tree.

Mr. Jakubal came down on his own, at the end of the first day. Loggers had cut down all the trees around him and he wanted to inspect the damage. "It was my first direct action," he said. "I was very naïve. The police were waiting in the bushes."

Mr. Jakubal was arrested, and the tree was cut down the next morning.

Tim Flannery & Peter Singer

'The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change' is Tim Flannery's newest book that clearly states the current dilemma of global climate change. Peter Singer writes:

This is the book the world has been waiting for – and needing – for decades. At last, a book that sets out, for the general public, the irrefutable evidence that climate change is already happening, and we need to become very serious about it – fast.

Click here to listen to an interview with Tim Flannery.

Herman E. Daly & Joshua Farley

I recently purchased 'Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications' (2004) by Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley published by Island Press. Thus far, I have thoroughly enjoyed it; I thought I would share some quotes from the introduction.

French and British university students have formed a Society for Post-Autistic Economics. Their implicit diagnosis is apt, since autism, like conventional economics, is characterized by 'abnormal subjectivity; an acceptance of fantasy rather than reality.' Ecological economics seeks to ground economic thinking in the dual realities and constraints of our biophysical and moral environments. Current 'canonical assumptions' of insatiable wants and infinite resources, leading to growth forever, are simply not founded in reality. Their dire consequences are evident. And that truly is something new under the sun.

...
Ecological economics views the economy as a part of a larger finite system. This means that the traditional goal of macroeconomic policy--unlimited economic growth in the physical dimension--is impossible. Thus, in ecological economics, optimal scale replaces growth as a goal, followed by fair distribution and efficient allocation, in that order. Scale and distribution are basically macroeconomic issues. Hence, in addition to the fiscal and monetary policy tools that dominate the discussion in traditional texts, we will introduce policies that can help the economy reach an optimal scale.

Too Much Blubber?

In the June 15th issue of The Economist, auctioning whale-hunting rights is proposed as a solution to the current debate between environmentalists and the International Whaling Commision.

The idea of charismatic megafauna hardly existed in 1948. There needs to be an honest debate about how humanity should treat whales. Both sides muddy the waters. Conservationists protest about the methods used to kill whales, saying they are cruel. They might be, but that is not the point, unless there really is a lobby that would accept the humane killing of whales. On the other side, the Japanese and their Icelandic allies hunt minke whales, which are still reasonably abundant, under the guise of scientific research. In practice, this is commercial fishing with a side order of science.

Should whales be treated like any other type of animal which some humans want to hunt, namely protected when rare, but hunted when common? Or is there something special about them that means that they should never be hunted? Biologists have come to recognise that great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and so on) have mental faculties of self-awareness and consciousness that they share with humans but that neither shares with, say, monkeys. A few other big-brained social mammals, such as elephants, are thought by some to have evolved similar capacities. Whales may be among these species. Some places—Spain, for example—are discussing changing the law to recognise this distinction in apes. But on whales, there are no data.

In the absence of data, the commission should stick to its brief. But here is a suggestion: put the whole thing on a proper economic basis. The Japanese fleet is heavily subsidised. Without government cash, there would be less enthusiasm to hunt a creature ever fewer Japanese want to eat. Sadly the commission has no remit over that; but, if it does vote to resume commercial whaling (as it has the right to do), it should not create a system of quotas allocated by country. Instead, it should put whale-hunting rights up for auction, allowing both killers and conservationists to bid. The chances are that those who prefer whales to swim free would be able to outbid the few remaining humans who like eating them.

Lester R. Brown

Lester R. Brown is one of those few people who understands complex issues before his contemporaries and can then clearly explain his thoughts to enlighten the rest of us. Here is an excerpt from pg. 5-6 in my favorite book, 'Eco-Economy' by Lester R. Brown (2001):

The gap between economists and ecologists in their perception of the world as the new century begins could not be wider. Economists look at the unprecedented growth of the global economy and of international trade and investment and see a promising future with more of the same. They vote with justifiable pride that the global economy has expanded sevenfold since 1950, raising output from $6 trillion of goods and services to $43 trillion in 2000, boosting living standards to levels not dreamed of before. Ecologists look at this same growth and realize that it is the product of burning vast quantities of artificially cheap fossil fuels, a process that is destabilizing the climate. They look ahead and see more intense heat waves, more destructive storms, melting ice caps, and a rising sea level that will shrink the land area even as population continues to grow. While economists see booming economic indicators, ecologists see an economy that is altering the climate with consequences that no one can foresee.

As the new century gets under way, economists look at grain markets and see the lowest grain prices in two decades--a sure sign that production capacity is outrunning effective demand, that supply constraints are not likely to be an issue for the foreseeable future. Ecologists, meanwhile, see water tables falling key food producing countries, and know that 480 million of the world's 6.1 billion people (now 6.5 billion) are being fed with grain produced by over pumping aquifers. They are worried about the effect of eventual aquifers depletion on food production.

Economists rely on the market to guide their decision-making. They respect the market because it can allocate resources with an efficiency that a central planner can never match (as the Soviets learned at great expense). Ecologists view the market with less reverence because they see a market that is not telling the truth. For example, when buying a gallon of gasoline, customers in effect pay to get the oil out of the ground, refine it into gasoline, and deliver it to the local service station. But they do not pay the health care costs of treating respiratory illness from air pollution or the costs of climate disruption.

Ecologists see the record economic growth of recent decades, but they also see an economy that is increasingly in conflict with its support systems, one that is fast depleting the earth's natural capital, moving the global economy onto an environmental path that will inevitably lead to economic decline. They see the need for a wholesale restructuring of the economy so that it meshes with the ecosystem. They know that a stable relationship between the economy and the earth's ecosystem is essential if economic progress is to be sustained.

We have created an economy that cannot sustain economic progress, an economy that cannot take us where we want to go. Just as Copernicus had to formulate a new astronomical worldview after several decades of celestial observations and mathematical calculations, we too must formulate a new economic worldview based on several decades of environmental observations and analyses.

Although the idea that economics must be integrated into ecology may seem radical to many, evidence is mounting that it is the only approach that reflects reality. When observations no longer support theory, it is time to change the theory--what science historian Thomas Kuhn calls a paradigm shift. If the economy is a subset of the earth's ecosystem, as this book contends, the only formulation of economic policy that will succeed is one that respects the principles of ecology.

The good news is that economists are becoming more ecologically aware, recognizing the inherent dependence of the economy on the earth’s ecosystem. For example, some 2,500 economists--including eight Nobel laureates--have endorsed the introduction of a carbon tax to stabilize climate. More and more economists are looking for ways to get the market to tell the ecological truth. This spreading awareness is evident in the rapid growth of the International Society of Ecological Economics, which has 1,200 members and chapters in Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia, China, and throughout Europe. Its goal is to integrate the thinking of ecologists and economists into a transdiscipline aimed at building a sustainable world.

CAFE vs. Pigou

An interesting issue brief written by the Congressional Budget Office was brought to my attention by the great Harvard economist, Greg Mankiw. This article compares the costs and benefits of both CAFE standards and Pigovian taxes.

This issue brief focuses on the economic costs of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and compares them with the costs of a gasoline tax that would reduce gasoline consumption by the same amount. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a 10 percent reduction in gasoline consumption could be achieved at a lower cost by an increase in the gasoline tax than by an increase in CAFE standards. Furthermore, an increase in the gasoline tax would reduce driving, leading to less traffic congestion and fewer accidents. This analysis stops short of estimating the value of less congestion and fewer accidents and, therefore, does not draw any conclusions about whether an increase in the gasoline tax would be warranted. However, CBO does find that, given current estimates of the value of decreasing dependence on oil and reducing carbon emissions, increasing CAFE standards would not pass a benefit-cost test.