Stationary Bandit

After 25 Years of "Save the Bay"...

"Bay Is a Threat To Humans, Too"

The same pollution problems that afflict the Chesapeake Bay's fish and crabs -- high levels of mercury in fish, neon-colored algae blooms and voracious bacteria -- can also threaten the health of people who fish, boat and swim in the estuary, according to a new report.

Of course global warming is one cause (it causes just about everything).  But are there lessons for the current environmental debates?  Are complex environmental systems robust to public policy and preference changes?  Did policy makers apply the wrong model to change the situation?  After 25 years, has the "Save the bay" campaign passed a cost-benefit test?

Cleaner Air Increases Global Warming?

Some scientists in Europe suggest it does.

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.  Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.  Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than believed.

Story here.

Are There too Many Elephants in South Africa?

Maybe.  Scientists are arguing about the optimal populations.

Leading South African scientists have advised the government against culling elephants, saying there is no reason to lift a 10-year ban.  The government has been considering an end to the ban, amid fears that a rapid increase in the elephant population is threatening the ecological balance.  But a panel of 10 experts told the environment minister it was not clear the elephant population was too large.  They said that mass culling was in any case not a perfect solution.

Story here.  The interesting question is what explains the growth in elephant population?  Property rights in the elephants appears to be the primary factor rather than political factors (see here).

Global Warming on Mars

The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago just as the Earth experienced its own Ice Ages. Malin said scientists had no explanation yet as to why Mars might be warming.

Story here.  I assume that Malin does not offer an explanation because his preferred theory for global warming does not fit with the Mars experience.  Could it be that the explanation for global warming on earth is wrong?

Clear Skies Cause Global Warming

I kid you not.  Here is the story.  Here is the part I found most interesting.

Our planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

This boggles my mind.  I thought that industrial emissions cause global warming.  So we reduce emissions and this causes global warming.  How can it be both ways?   

I have always been suspect of the claims made by global warming scientists.  They do not appear to have a clear theory to justify their statements.  For example, the meaning global warming varies depending on the studies.  Sometimes its means that the average temperature rises and sometimes its about the variance of the temperature.  Furthermore, it appears that anything and everything causes global warming.  Does anyone recall the claim that dandruff causes global warming?  I suspect that this probably stems from confusing correlation and causation.   But simple mistakes like this cast doubt on the claims.  Until the science becomes less hokey, I will remain skeptical of their claims.

Earth Day Celebration

President Bush canceled an Earth Day visit to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on Friday because of bad weather.

Huh.  I guess bad weather is as good an excuse as any.  Here is the story.

Where Should I Buy My Food?

The BBC reports

Local food is usually more "green" than organic food, according to a report published in the journal Food Policy.

The authors say organic farming is also valuable, but people can help the environment even more by buying food from within a 20km (12-mile) radius.

The team calculated a shopping basket's hidden costs, which mount up as produce is transported over big distances. The study found "road miles" account for proportionately more environmental damage than "air miles".

Therefore, the researchers' message to consumers is this: it is not good enough to buy food from within the UK- it is better if it comes from within your area, too.

If the findings are correct, then I guess shopping at the local produce stand is environmentally  friendly.  Who knew?

Grocery Bags and the Environment

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that

Getting consumers to cut down on grocery bags is a noble goal, but is charging them 17 cents apiece the best way to achieve it?

Today, the San Francisco Commission on the Environment is expected to adopt a resolution urging the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance requiring supermarkets in the city to charge 17 cents for every plastic or paper bag "to reduce the proliferation of unnecessary bags and provide funds to mitigate the negative impacts caused by them."

One must always ask the following question when a proposal like the above appears: does the policy affect the incentives of the consumers to as to engage in behavior that leads to the desired outcome?  I do not think that paying for grocery bags will lead to an improved environmental outcome.  For example

Under the grocery bag proposal, there would be no refunds for shoppers who return bags and thus no motivation for people to paw through trash bins plucking bags out of the waste stream.

"There is no incentive on the back end," says Margaret Walls, a resident scholar and economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit think tank in Washington.

I would like to raise another issue: the effect on gas consumption. If I have to pay for grocery bags, I reduce the amount of goods that I purchase when I go to the grocery story.  For example, I may purchase only enough for one bag and what I can carry.  As a result, assuming I still consume the same amount per week, I will drive to the store more often.  If I go several times a week and I carry some goods each time, I will save on the grocery bags but increase the amount of emission from my truck.  If this is true, is the grocery bag proposal environmentally friendly?

Environmental Regulation and Economic Growth

Consider the experience of one visitor to the tsunami devastated area of Phi Phi Island.

Greg Ferrando glistened with sweat and sea water as he went for a barefoot jog up the immaculate white sand beach, where the tsunami has wiped away almost all signs of humanity.

"This whole area was littered with commercialism," said the 43-year-old from Maui, Hawaii. "There were hundreds of beach chairs out here. I prefer the sand."

Here is the whole story.  If one prefers the sand to commercialism, then why doesn't he or she purchase the land with their own money and preserve the region?  One reason is that there is often an alternative approach that will not cost Mr. Ferrando nearly as much: government intervention.   

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said the tsunami swept away unplanned and possible illegal building, creating an opportunity to regulate growth.

"I have sent a team to collect information on damaged buildings, including hotels, resources and guest houses," he said. "We need the quick restoration of the tourist facilities there, but we also have to establish restrictions for building."

Regulate growth?  If that were possible, then why don't places all places grow?  If one could regulate growth, then poverty would not exist to the extent that it does in the developing world, such as in the Philippines.   Regulating growth is probably nothing more than an attempt by public officials to extract some resources from the investors.  I suspect that savvy public officials are using the tragedy to benefit themselves and environmental groups will use the event to pursue their agenda.

Food for Thought (and Protection)

Achieving a balanced coexistence in southern Africa's Mid-Zambezi Valley between subsistence farmers and wild animals can be tricky.

During the last 20 years elephants have been hemmed in by the increasing number of people moving into the area in search of arable land. As a result, the animals  increasingly destroy crops as they roam and search for food.

Traditional methods such as driving the elephants away with fire, drum beating or hunting are temporary solutions that don't protect the crops from future raids. These methods are also ecologically unsound; the long-term impact on the elephant population is not known.

So what is to be done?

The Elephant Pepper Development Trust (EPDT) is now introducing a natural way to keep the animals away from the farms - by cultivating chili peppers that serve as a natural deterrent to elephant incursions.

With a grant from World Bank's Development Marketplace, EPDT is introducing chili cultivation in the region. When rubbed on a fence, the chili oil becomes an ecologically friendly barrier. Chilies are also a lucrative cash crop that can help raise farmers' incomes.

Here is the whole story.  The use of peppers as an elephant deterrent illustrates one of the many ingenious ways that individuals solve problems without technocratic interventions.  Some problems require new approaches to solve.  In contrast, technocratic approaches stifle new solutions and problems persist.  Throughout history, humans have devised clever ways to solve numerous problems without the aid of an "expert."  For example, the water temples in Bali coordinated the water supply for many individuals without the aid of a technocracy.  Unfortunately, the Green Revolution, with its emphasis on expertise and technocratic reforms, undermined the system and devastated the Balinese economy.  Let's hope that no such thing occurs with the peppers as donor agencies get involved.