A US-China Solution to Climate Change & the Trade Deficit

I. Introduction

After reading a recent news article about President Obama meeting with the president of the People’s Republic of China, I was not surprised to discover that, although somewhat amiable, the two presidents and the two countries were still at an impasse regarding both climate change and economic issues. From my understanding, neither country is willing to fully pursue an appropriate climate change policy that may cede any economic ground to the other country. Furthermore, as China looks to quickly modernize or develop its economy, it is in perhaps a weaker position to address climate change than the US. Conversely, as the US is currently in debt to China on the order of approximately $800 billion and has simultaneously been running a trade deficit with China that has grown on average by 17% per year for the past decade[1], it is in a somewhat weaker position to make economic demands. Seeing these two disparities, I questioned whether the two issues could be combined in order to solve both issues while allowing both countries and the world to benefit.

II. Exchange Rate

The key to a solution lies in China’s current policy that fixes exchange rate between the Chinese Yuan (CNY) and the US Dollar (USD), which currently stands at approximately 6.83 CNY to 1 USD. By holding the CNY at this ratio, China is able to make its goods cheaper on international markets and make imports more expensive. This financial tactic is often cited as one of the factors exacerbating the US-China trade deficit.

III. The Proposal

Similar to the dual problem being addressed, my proposal contains two primary components. The first is for China to agree to incrementally lower the value of its currency over the next decade. The second is that in exchange the US agrees to take on some China’s responsibility to address climate change. Specifically, my proposal is that over the next decade the US will agree to offer domestic renewable energy subsidies equivalent to value that it saves on the trade deficit due to the adjusted rate of exchange. This strategy could allow the US to annually offset (or prevent) a significant amount (approximately 1.8x1010 MT between 2010 and 2039) of greenhouse gas emissions compared to the current, combined annual emissions of the US and China.[2]

IV. Rate Adjustment

Just as the USD-CNY exchange rate is the key to the solution, the adjustment rate of the exchange rate is the key to determining the viability and impact of the program. While a variety of models are possible, I have chosen a relatively simple model to calculate my results. The model I am proposing calls for China to decrease the exchange rate by a certain percentage each year over the coming decade. Doing so would result in an exchange rate at the beginning of 2020 that is in the range of 6.18:1 to 4.09:1 (CNY:USD) for adjustment rates of 1% to 5% annually.

V. Potential Costs to China

Without question, this program would cost China money. Table 1 shows the cumulative value of costs (based solely on US-China trade deficit figures) to China over the course of the program (from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019) in billions of 2010USD at different adjustment rates (rows) and discount rates (columns). While the costs listed in Table 1 only reflect the loss in value from US-Chinese trade, China would also incur additional costs in trade with other countries for which I have not yet accounted. However, assuming that this is seen by the international community as the cost of China continuing to grow its economy in the face of the looming climate change impacts, the costs may be justifiable.


Just how much China would be willing to pay may be a matter of negotiation. As such, this program should merely be one of many tools used to solve the issues put forward in the introduction section rather than an all-inclusive set of actions. Further, the scale of these values should be put into perspective. For example, the 2008 annual US-China trade deficit was $268 billion (not discounted) or in other words 16% of the most costly scenario in Table 1 or 250% of the cheapest scenario in Table 1. Another point of reference is that the US’s debt to China as of September 2009 was about $800 billion (not discounted). With these points of reference in mind, all of the potential costs seem fairly reasonable if not negligible.

VI. Hurdles for the US

In order for this program to be as successful as possible, the US must be willing to use truly renewable energies with the highest possible MWh/$ ratio with the greatest potential to rapidly scale-up over the coming decade. As such, my primary suggestion is to fully invest in large-scale (2 MW or greater) wind turbines, which to my knowledge offer the greatest MWh/$ ratio currently available (approximately $1.6 million per MW of installed capacity) for low-GHG emission energy sources.[3] In this scenario, I suspect that the biggest hurdles to overcome would be NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Backyard objections) and ensuring that the utility grid infrastructure can support the variable energy generation provided by wind turbines.

VII. Assumptions

In order to perform calculations, I was forced to make several assumptions and estimations. In this section I will explain many of these assumptions and estimations and justify my reasoning for each of them.

1. Trade Deficit Growth

The first assumption was that although the US-China trade deficit varies greatly from year to year, it has tended to increase by an average of 17% per year over the past decade. Therefore, I assumed that over the next decade it is likely to do the same. Of course, due to the semi-chaotic variability of international markets, this may not be a safe assumption, so I also looked at some practical limitations to this assumption.

Firstly, if the trade deficit grows more rapidly than 17%, then the result will be that more savings will be realized by the US due to a reduction in the exchange rate. Therefore, although economic relations between the US and China may be further strained compared to current conditions, the greenhouse gas emissions program would receive greater funding. As such, so long as the rate of growth does not surpass some critical value that causes the US economy to disintegrate, from an overall benefits perspective this seems to be a neutral outcome. Furthermore, considering the fact that the disparity between the USD and the CNY will be shifting in favor of the US, it seems more likely that the trade-deficit growth will slow rather than accelerate. However, so long as the growth does not slow by more than 13% per year (at which point the US-China trade deficit will be essentially non-existent by 2020), which seems rather unlikely, the program will still be viable. In fact, even if the average trade-deficit growth decreases by 6% annually (meaning that the trade deficit will peak during 2011 and start decreasing during 2012), the benefits of the program are still substantial.

2. Discount Rate

Another matter that needs to be considered in the case of a long-term venture such as this is the discount rate. With no discount rate applied, the program is extremely viable for all proposed adjustment rates. For any of the proposed adjustment rates, a discount rate of up to 2.75% allows for emissions reductions that are about half of those for a 0% discount rate, and a discount rate of up to 5.5% yields emissions reductions that are about one quarter of those for a 0% discount rate.

3. Technology Rate

Due to the nature of renewable energy research and deployment, it is also important to anticipate a decrease in the cost of renewable energies due to advances in technology, which for simplicity’s sake I have termed the technology rate. While the viability of the program would only be increased by a positive technology rate (causing decreasing costs over time) and is therefore not a concern, estimating a reasonable technology rate allows for a more accurate estimate of the total impact of the program and the degree to which the effects of discounting can be offset. I have assumed a technology rate of 3.5%.[4]

One caveat to the technology rate assumption is that an effectively negative technology rate could be experienced if supply could not be scaled up to meet the newly created demand for renewable energies in a timely fashion. However, I believe that an essentially reliable source of funding and demand over the next decade will merely persuade more suppliers to appear and for current suppliers to invest more heavily in scaling up and improving technology to remain competitive. Therefore, if anything, I suspect that this technology rate may be too low.

4. Wind Turbine Limitations

In the particular case of wind turbine deployment, the capacity factor is crucial in determining the amount of energy produced (and the emissions prevented). For all cases I have assumed a capacity factor of 25%, which means that on average each turbine will be producing 25% of its name plate capacity. In other words for each MW of installed generation capacity, 0.25 MWh will be produced each hour on average. Obviously higher capacity factors will yield greater reductions in emissions just as lower capacity factors will yield lesser reductions in emissions. However, predicting such figures exactly is not practical. Therefore, I have chosen to use a reasonable (although arguably low) capacity factor.[5] In addition to capacity factor, the operating lifetime of installed wind turbines will also be a factor in determining the total electricity generated as a result of this program. To be conservative, I have assumed that each wind turbine will have to be decommissioned twenty years after its installation.

VIII. Results

Based on the assumptions stated in the previous section, I calculated a variety of potential outcomes. Figures 1-5 below depict some of the trends in values that can be expected for different currency adjustment rates and a discount rate of 2.75%.

Figure 1 shows the potential wind capacity that could be installed each year during the program. Note that the last year in Figure 1 is 2019 since this would be the last year that China would be obliged to adjust its exchange rate and that the US would be obliged to continue funding the subsidy. While Figure 2 shows the cumulative capacity that would be available as a result of the program. Given the assumption that I have made about wind turbine lifetimes, the direct impact of the program would not exceed the end of 2039.


Figures 3 and 4 show annual electricity generation and annual avoided greenhouse gas emissions respectively. Note that the trends depicted are identical in shape, because I calculated the avoided greenhouse gas emission by simply multiplying the electricity generation by a factor of approximately 0.609 eCO2 per MWh.[6] The generation and avoided emission do not start until 2011, because presumably the turbines would still be under construction during 2010 and not producing substantial amounts of energy. There is also a decline in the trends after 2031 as the first set of turbines are decommissioned. Although, in reality some turbines may fail prior to this date and others may still be useful well past the predicted lifetime, which would mean that the trends would start to decrease sooner but trail off much more slowly. Admittedly, the values in Figure 4 do not take into account for greenhouse gas emissions associated with production and installation of the turbines. However, in reality this impact would only impact the years in which installations occur (2010-2019), and I suspect it would be relatively negligible if it were amortized over the lifetime of the turbines. Furthermore, any emissions associated with maintenance would likely pale in comparison to the emissions associated maintaining and providing fuel for most other generation types.


Figure 5 shows the value (in millions of 2010USD) of annual energy production. This estimate uses an average US electricity rate of 9.5¢/kWh. Unfortunately, I do not know how to predict with any amount of certainty how much this rate will fluctuate over the course of the lifetime of this program. Therefore, I have simply left it constant. These values also do not account for secondary values that may be associated with installation such as Renewable Energy Credits. The trend shown in Figure 5 depicts an increase in value during the installation period (2010-2019), followed by a slight decrease as energy generation remains constant (2020-2031) and the effects of the discount rate dominate, and ends in a sharp decrease after 2031 as the effects of the discount rate combine with the loss of generation capacity as turbines are decommissioned.



IX. Conclusions

If this program is successfully implemented, wind energy could annually generate an amount of electricity equivalent to 4.8% to 36% of the total amount of electricity generated in the US during 2008[7] for the decade of the 2020s. Furthermore, if the renewable energy subsidies required a 2:1 or 3:1 match on the part of investors, the impact of this program could be double or triple the values that I have calculated. Concurrently, the disparity between value of the US Dollar and Chinese Yuan could be lessened, and the “you first” climate change deadlock between the US and China could be resolved. During negotiations, this solution could be taken a few steps further if (1) China agrees to peak its greenhouse gas emissions during the 2020s and (2) the US agrees to start actively reducing its debt to China during the 2020s.

Finally, while this entire proposal may seem like wishful thinking to some, I feel that its scope is realistic and achievable even if the timeline might need to be adjusted one or two years into the future. However, I recognize that for this program to be successfully implemented, it will take a great deal of action in a lot of areas where rhetoric may be a more common response to problems. Therefore, I remain hopeful but unoptimistic.

Footnotes: US-China Solution

Hello Reader,
I have created this post to unclutter my primary post: A US-China Solution to Climate Change & the Trade Deficit.

[1] I calculated this figure by taking the average of the year-to-year growth of the US-China trade deficit from 1998-2008 as reported by the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

[2] According to the US Union of Concerned Scientists, the 2006 CO2 emissions for the US was 5902.75 million MT and for China was 6017.69 million MT. In total this is approximately 1.2x1010 MT. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

[3] Among well-known options: 1) Solar currently has too low of a MWh/$ ratio. 2) “Clean Coal” technologies to my knowledge are not yet proven if they are even feasible, but if the US and/or China are overly insistent some provisions for research funds could be incorporated into a deal. However, it is unrealistic to put too much stock in such technologies in the short-term. 3) Besides the fact that nuclear power stations can take up to a decade to install, they offer a variety of other issues, some of which I have outlined in a blog post: http://seandiamondsustainability.blogspot.com/2009/11/wind-vs-nuclear-power.html.

[4] I have inferred that this is a reasonable rate based on predictions made by the New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability (NEEDS) in their document: Sixth Framework Programme, which can be viewed at http://www.needs-project.org/docs/results/RS1a/Deliverable%20D%203%203%20-%20RS%201a%20(3).pdf.

[5] According to the AWEA, “Although modern utility-scale wind turbines typically operate 65% to 90% of the time, they often run at less than full capacity. Therefore, a capacity factor of 25% to 40% is common, although they may achieve higher capacity factors during windy weeks or months.” http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html#What%20is%20capacity%20factor

[6] I calculated this factor using figures from the 2007 IPCC Report (Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis – Chapter 2, Table 2.14) and from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/e-supdoc.pdf.

[7] According to the US EIA, the net electricity production in the US during 2008 was 4,110,000 MWh. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_5.pdf

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO ORIGINAL POST

High School Football (Wk 8 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

For this week's assignment, we were asked "If you were going to pick a high profile organisation (like Ipswich Town Football Club) to promote sustainable consumption, which organisation would it be? Why would they be a good choice? And what would you do?" For those of you not in class with me, the Ipswich Town Football Club, hosted a public campaign aimed at their fans to make the club carbon neutral. While they achieved their goal a few seasons ago, the impression that I got during the lecture is that since then the idea has not come up again.

----------

In response to this week's prompt, I am going to suggest an answer that I think would be particularly well suited for Central Pennsylvania (where I grew up). My organization(s), though not entirely "high profile", would be high school (American) football teams. I believe that calling upon high school football teams would have a number of advantages over some higher profile organizations. Some advantages relate to the ubiquity of high school football teams, the dynamics of high school social structures, and community ties that teams tend to have.

First, it may be surprising to non-Americans how ubiquitous high school football teams are. Though I do not have hard statistics, it seems that nearly every American high school that has a large enough population of students has a football team. Since public high schools tend to be geographically spread based on the density of the general population, there tends to be at least one public high school per town or community. Thus, the football teams are often a source of entertainment and pride for smaller and rural communities. In fact, taking Central Pennsylvania as an example, local football teams garner enough popularity to warrant regular, Friday night news coverage on local television channels in addition to typically well-attended games. While larger urban centers tend to have professional or college sports teams that overshadow the popularity of high school teams in the general public, the potential impact of high school teams is not necessarily entirely undermined.

Beyond the external popularity of high school football teams, there are certainly some advantages to be gained due to the internal social structures of American high schools where "popular kids" tend to have significant influence. Fortunately, in the case of this scheme, while it is not universal, high school football teams tend to include some if not many "popular kids". Thus, if the football team is seen to be taking the lead on an issue, there is an increased chance that the issue will be addressed by other students. In other words, football players could help to breakdown social norms that might impede changes to a sustainable culture. Additionally, for whatever reason, local rivalries between neighboring high school teams are quite common and could be used appropriately to further promote sustainable consumption causes in the form of "team spirit" similar to the way that Ipswich Town Football Club did.

Finally, since most high school football teams are filled with players from the local community and watched by members of the local community, there is a great potential for community service and public participation in any schemes to promote sustainable consumption.

----------
Although the prompt requests specific actions to undertake, I think that the main issue at hand has been addressed and that the general model could be adapted to meet the needs of individual communities, so I am going to leave it at this. I hope you enjoyed this week's post.

Sensibly,

Sean Diamond

Wind vs. Nuclear Power

Dear Reader,

To divert from the usual flow of assignments, I am posting a response to a discussion on Linked-In in which I have recently taken part. The original post mentioned in the writing below refers to a CNN article entitled "Nuclear renaissance -- not dead yet" that can be found on cnnmoney.com. Please enjoy...

----------

Mr. Whealan,

To return to the topic at hand, I would like to consider the rent issue that you raised initially. In particular, let’s use the figures available in the article indicated in the original post. According to the article, the nuclear power plants in question would cost $10 billion ($10,000,000,000) to construct and would have a capacity of 5400 MW. If we consider that newly constructed nuclear facilities have regulated lifetimes before they need to be decommissioned for safety purposes, we can guess at a ‘rent’ for a nuclear facility. To keep the number simple, I will assume that the new facilities will have a lifetime of 50 year. Therefore, the ‘rent’ can be considered ($10,000,000,000 / 50 years =) $200,000,000 per year.

I realize that economist would argue that the money would be significantly reduced in value by the end of the 50 lifetime of the system due to discounting. However, given the assumption that the initial payment is made in the form of a loan (of some form or another) that will need to be paid with interest by someone (either tax payers in the case of subsidies or rate payers in the case of consumers) it seems reasonable enough to use the $200,000,000 per year figure, so let’s stick with that.

Now, we need to figure out the equivalent ‘rent’ for 5400 MW of wind-generated capacity. While I do not know what the size of the turbines you are referencing is, I will assume that we can use 2 MW turbines (to keep the math simple). This means that we will need (5400 MW / 2 MW =) 2700 wind turbines. Using your suggested rate of $10,000 per acre, and using an assumption of 1 turbine per acre, the cost of rent would be ($10,000 * 2700 =) $27,000,000 per year.

To be fair, we need to also include the construction/installation costs as we did in the nuclear case. According to windustry.org (http://www.windustry.org/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost), an installed 2 MW wind turbine will likely cost about $3.5 million ($3,500,000). So our installation costs would be ($3,500,000 * 2700=) $9,450,000,000 in total. Or using a relatively short lifetime of 20 years, the installation portion of the rent would be about $472,500,000 per year. This means that the total ‘rent’ would be just under $500,000,000 per year.

Thus on the face of the issue, the wind turbine system would cost 2.5 times more per year. However, this disregards maintenance costs, fuel costs (and all cost associated with procuring fuel … none for wind, and substantial costs for nuclear), and decommissioning costs (and all costs associated with disposal … which I believe would actually be negative for wind since most if not all materials could be recycled, and which I believe would be very significant for nuclear if you consider that appropriate technologies for disposal or long-term storage have not really been developed and tested yet).

Thus, in my personal opinion, I believe that it is favorable to implement wind technologies where it is a possibility in place of nuclear technologies. Unfortunately, wind turbines suffer where nuclear power has an advantage in the phrase “out of sight, out of mind” on two levels. The first is that as you point out, wind turbines tend to be very visible, whereas nuclear power stations are much more compact. The second is that the users of the energy must suffer the environmental and financial drawbacks as they use them in the case of wind turbines, or the users may divert them for several generations in the case nuclear power.

In closing, thank you for prompting me to critically analyze the situation rather than simply go with what others have heard. I will be posting some form of this reply on a blog that I have had to create for a sustainable consumption course that I am currently taking. I hope that this has given you something to consider that you find digestible and not elitist. Also, if you find any trouble with my math or assumptions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

(Wk 7 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

For this week's assignment, we were asked to: "Write about a sustainable consumption‐related news story from this week’s media. Are there any unspoken assumptions in the piece, about the causes of unsustainable consumption? What about their assumptions about the ways to tackle it?"

I have decided to use the following article:
Study Analyzes Food Waste in Britain
By Pete Browne
Published in the New York Times
10th November 2009

As usual, I would put a direct link but the New York Times would probably change it soon anyway, so you will have to search for it yourself.

----------
As the title indicates, the article touches on the amount of food that is wasted in the UK. According to the article the amount of food wasted each year is approximately 6.6 million tons, or $20 billion worth of food and beverage, which represents the equivalent of 15 million tons of CO2 emissions from production, storage, and disposal. The article attributes this waste to over-consumption (in the purchasing sense), which leads to more food being prepared than can be eaten and allowing the food to spoil.

The article is fairly straightforward about the obvious suspected causes of unsustainable consumption. It also mentions fairly mainstream approaches to rectifying the issue, such as increasing the landfill tax as a means to discourage food (and presumably other) waste. However, it does not appear to mention or address any of potential root causes.

Just through common observations, I have my suspicions about potential causes. One potential cause is that it is now socially acceptable (and expected) that families will go grocery shopping no more than once a week, which means that foods are pre-portioned and packaged in bulk. This can result in unwanted leftovers that sit in the back of the fridge if they do not go directly into the trash. This social norm (along with other lifestyle choices that accompany it) has other side effects that likely accompany it that do not directly relate to food waste but are still problematic for consumers, such as a decrease in the amount of fresh food and an increase in the number of chemical preservatives in consumers' diets.

Furthermore, though I do not currently have a chance to look for specific research on it, I suspect that the current food system (pulling food out of boxes (and then out of bags and then out of plastic wrappers and then ...well, you get the idea), sticking it in a magic box to cook for 2-3 minutes on high, and then disposing of the extras into a bin that gets emptied early in the morning once a week) creates a physical and mental disconnect between consumers and the amount of effort and energy that goes into growing, preparing, and disposing of food. This subliminal psychological barrier can certainly be playing right into a pattern of unsustainable consumption that will be difficult to break with an increase in landfill taxes. If anyone can point to specific research or studies on this subject, I would appreciate it.

----------

I could go on, but I have had my fill for this post, and I wouldn't want to over do it! I promise I'll compost the leftovers. Catch up with me again next week on another exciting episode of sustainable consumption to find out if our heroes will be able to overcome the plot to make society unsustainable!

Yours in sustainability,

Sean Diamond

My Case Study Topic

Hello Reader,

In case you happen to be interested, as part of the coursework for the Sustainable Consumption course in which I have found myself enrolled, I have chosen to investigate the recent "Cash for Clunkers" program in the US as a case study for sustainable consumption. It is not actually going to be complete for a few weeks, but I'm sure you are very excited nonetheless.

I hope you enjoyed this recent barrage of posts. With any bit of luck, one more may appear relatively soon.

Greenly,

Sean Diamond

Sans Ownership (Wk 6 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

For week 6, we have been asked to once again take a look at our personal lives, and determine "What (infra)structural issues prevent you from consuming sustainably? What do you think could be done about this? By whom and how?" As such, I will be exploring a personal frustration that I have been having for several years as I have tried to be a more sustainable consumer.

----------
The Issue

The primary infrastructural issue that prevents me from consuming sustainably is somewhat complex. My personal issue is living in rental properties. In particular, it is the lack of control of my living space that I experience as a tenant in a rental property.

On the face of the issue, a simple response might be, "Well, then don't." However, for a number of reasons, which I will outline briefly, doing otherwise has simply not be practical or feasible, nor will it ever be given current conditions, for someone in my position. Once it is accepted (or understood) that living in rental properties is necessary, I will propose and discuss a possible solution.

The Constraints

In my position, which I do not believe is particularly unique, and in many other positions it is simply not practical, not feasible, or unrealistic to live in properties that are not rental properties.

The first, and in my mind the most obvious, constraint is financial. As a young adult, both while I was employed full-time and currently as I return to being a student, I have simply not had enough time to build up enough capital to purchase a residential property. Furthermore, even if you will temporarily ignore the recent housing market collapse and mortgage crisis in the US, it is simply not financially prudent for a young adult to take out a mortgage on a property (if they are even qualified for one). This criteria applies not only to young adults in general but to anyone who is (1) unsure where they want to live 3-5 years from now, (2) un- or underemployed, (3) unsure if they want to stay at the same job for an extended period of time, or (4) looking for a relationship. Each of the aforementioned examples as well as many others provide a potential need to move in the not too distant future, which would be thwarted or impeded by holding a mortgage.

The second constraint is more normative than financial in my case. As a young adult there is often the opportunity to live with one's parents or family. In many instances this may come down to a matter of preference. However, in many cases this may be seen as socially unacceptable or otherwise 'not cool' by one's peers. It also may provide obstacles to other areas one's social life such as dating. Thus, at least in my opinion, moving (back) in with my parents would be a last resort, and in any event would likely result in the same or worse lack-of-ownership limitations that occur in the rental property scenario.

The third constraint may relate more directly to students and recent college graduates than to the general population and is perhaps the compounding of the previous two constraints. It is the very trite coming-of-age story that has doubtlessly played out millions if not billions of times throughout human history. Students go to college to learn more about themselves and the world around them and in order to figure out what they want to do with their lives. Some might even say to find meaning in their life (or the meaning of life). Similarly recent college graduates may have occasion to try out several different jobs before settling on a career and/or settling down to raise a family. All of this requires (or is assisted by) the freedom to move around, which is facilitated by the rental property system.

There are a number of other constraints that might lock someone into the rental property system, but the focus of this post is limited to my situation. Please feel free to comment upon additional issues by leaving a comment.

A Solution

The solution I would like to propose would be mutually beneficial for both landlords and tenants, but it relies almost solely on landlords to be enacted. My solution is for landlords to actively upgrade their properties to make them more sustainable. Presumably, such upgrades will allow them to charge more for rent and/or lower their overall operational costs.

For example, with energy consumption it will never be reasonable for a short-term tenant to pay for installing renewable energy on a building. However, if a landlord were to install a solar hot water system on a property, they could certainly charge more for rent with the expectation that utilities will cost less for the tenants. A similar approach would hold true for increased insulation, solar PV installations, composting toilets, low-flow shower heads, and other utility-related projects.

It is also difficult for short-term tenants to create or install things such as compost piles, community gardens, green roofs, and bike racks. Of course, not all of these examples are reasonable for every situation, but the general point still stands that for rental properties to improve, landlords will have to take an active role.

Unfortunately, I have more-or-less resigned myself to waiting to remove these impediments to personal sustainability until I can afford my own house, and I have contented myself with doing what I can with the things that are in my control. However, if things are to shift in the direction of sustainable consumption on a large scale, pressure or incentives will likely need to be put upon or offered to landlords by an outside entity.
---------

Well, I hope you have enjoyed my semi-ranting post about the plight of the modern tenant, and if you are my parents I hope you are not offended by reasoning for living on my own. In any event, I would love to hear what you have to say about this issue. The insights of landlords or other tenants would be greatly appreciated, particularly in offering other solutions.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Adverts (Wk 5 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

I am quite far behind on the assignments for my Sustainable Consumption course, so I am going to try to power through a few in a relatively short span of time. During week 5, we were asked to address the following: "Do you think better advertising will be enough to bring about sustainable consumption? What effect do adverts have on your consumption behaviour?"

Well, my response to this prompt is going to be quite brief, and not because I would like to move on to the next topic. Instead, it is because I have largely answered this during the week 4 assignment post. However, I will elaborate some more to specifically address these questions.
------------
Is it enough?

No! Advertising will not be sufficient to bring about sustainable consumption. There are far too many practical limitations and socio-cultural hurdles to simply advertise our way out of the system of unsustainable consumption in which industrialized societies have entrenched themselves. That is to say that even if a significant portion of the population was convinced by advertising campaigns that something needed to be done and they were provided with appropriate and accurate information about how to accomplish a full switch over to sustainable consumption, they would also need to organize the financial and physical capital necessary to alter the current systems of production, distribution, and consumption. Not to mention that the newly converted would also need to will power and fortitude to alter their personal habits and overcome any social awkwardness that may result from such changes.

Please note that this does not mean that advertising is not necessary (or at least very important) to make the social, financial, and physical changes to effect change. This is, perhaps, especially true with regard to people who get a majority of their news, information, and social cues from television, blogs and/or social networking websites. Such people, from whom I do not necessarily exclude myself to a certain extent, are receiving a significant amount of their information about the world through the filter of commercially sponsored sources that will necessarily have biases toward (or likely not against) the sponsors views of the world. By simply watching a block of television advertisements it is easy to determine what percentage of the sponsors support the current unsustainable consumption paradigm. Therefore, to counter or at least nullify the barrage of unsustainable consumption support, it will be necessary (or at least very useful) to replace or alter the messages being sent out to viewers (or users in the case of websites and readers in the case of magazines and other print media). In doing so, messages of sustainable consumption will at least stand a chance of gaining widespread acceptance.

Me, specifically

In general, I cannot deny that advertising effects my consumption habits either directly or through my friends and family. However, as of late, I have become increasingly cynical of advertisements and commercials. Instead I attempt to reason through any messages that might actually come to me (or at least to the extent that I am cognizant of such messages). Although I do feel as though I am the exception rather than the rule, and I attribute this feeling to my level of education to a certain degree and my field of focus to a greater degree (this course being a case in point).

In fact, it has gotten to the point that very pro-consumption messages will have the opposite effect on me (i.e. making me less inclined to endorse or use the product in question). On the other hand, I am constantly noticing "green-washing" advertisements as well, which promote a product as being very environmentally friendly, when there have likely been little or no substantial improvements. These messages generally make me question the credibility of the company and the product. In essence, I am quite tired of people advertising sustainability, and I would like to see people start acting sustainably!
----------

I apologize for the slight digression away from the topic in question, but I do not feel that there is much more to say on the subject, and there are loads of examples being thrown in your face everyday if you simply take the time to look and recognize what is going on.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

A Valid Option (Wk 4 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

For this week's assignment I will be addressing the question: "What do you think needs to be done to encourage people to consume more sustainably?"

Well, Reader, I think a lot needs to be done to encourage people to start consuming more sustainably. I have purposefully put an emphasis on the word start, because I believe that is where the biggest hurdle lies... in the beginning. This week, I am going to stray a little from academia, and I'm going to rely a little bit on intuition and personal experience. I hope you don't mind too much. If you do, feel free to check back next week for a more comfortable approach.
----------

In the beginning...

I believe that the only real way to start getting people to consume more sustainably is to begin doing it yourself. That's right. Stop looking around, waiting for everyone else, trying to see who's going to make the first move. Just go! Jump in and give it a try. Now, understand that you might need to do a little bit of homework to make it work, and you are definitely going to have to try somethings that might make people look at you funny. In fact you might even have to go out of your way and put in more effort than normal into everyday tasks. However, if you never tried it before, it is hard to make a convincing argument.

To paraphrase of a speaker at a sustainability conference that I attended this past spring (forgive me, I don't remember which speaker expressed the idea, but it was either Steve Schmidt or Paul Marin at the Sustainable Campuses Conference hosted by the Lehigh Valley Association of Independent Colleges). The speaker first asked how many of the audience members had ridden on the local bus service. As I recall, there might have been 3 out of a group of about 30. Then, he suggested that everyone go out and try it at least once. He said something to the effect of, "Try it once. Even if it doesn't go where you need to go, just get on when you have some free time. Take notice of where it does go. Observe what the good points and bad points are. Then ask what can be done to fix these problems."

He then listed a bunch of possible things that a rider might notice, such as: Did the bus arrive when it was supposed to? Are the routes useful? Were the seats comfortable? Was the driver rude or kind? I'm sure there were other examples, but those are the ones that I remember.

His point was generally that nothing about the bus service was going to change if people didn't start using it. And that this is especially true if only the people that have no other options are the only patrons. Whether it is fair or not, it is unlikely that people using the bus out of necessity will formally request a change, and even if they do, it is unlikely to be taken seriously. More over, it is even less likely that the complaints of a non-rider will be taken seriously. Thus, the best way to improve the system is to use it.

While this is one specific example, I expect that this will hold true for most issues of sustainable consumption, especially those that require a specific infrastructure and/or public funding to work realistically.

Spread it on thick...

In most cases, you will probably want to try to be sustainable more than once before yelling from the rooftops about how green you are. Depending on what you are trying, perhaps go for a week or a month, and consciously focus on building up a new habit. Really, it is probably best if you wait until you find yourself doing your sustainable action without thinking about it. Then move onto another action.

Now that you have greened your consumption a little bit, and you've noted the weak points and the benefits of your new way of living, the next step is to talk about it. But how do you talk about it? Well, tip number one is don't brag about it! You're just going to sound like a crazy hippy to anyone that doesn't already agree with you. Otherwise, your approach is going to have to vary with your audience.

If you don't happen to be the Sustainability Coordinator at a college or university, I would recommend practicing on some of your closer friends or family. Maybe even pick some that are already environmentally conscious. Bring it up at an appropriate time, and ask them if they've tried it. If so, compare notes. If not, explain to them what the benefits are (to you and to the environment). Then, vent some of your frustrations if you have any. See where the conversation leads. At the end, if it's not too awkward, ask your friend to try it to, and see what they think. (Feel free to adapt this approach to fit your own personal style. In fact, I recommend it.)

Luke -coo cah- I am your father!

After you've tried the first approach and you are feeling comfortable approaching people about sustainability issues, it is time to try talking to somebody else. Pick someone that is perhaps not as environmentally conscious, or perhaps someone who is even environmentally "unfriendly"...a worthy adversary if you will. Then, to use an Omaba-ism, it is time to have a frank and open discussion.

For me, this person has consistently been my father. Through discussions with him and others, I have found very consistently, that no one is really "anti-environment". They simply have different priorities. Thus, the best way to connect with this person is to figure out what those priorities are. Explain what your point of view is, and try to find a common ground. It might be that the idea that conserving resources and energy also tends to save money. It might be their daily commute is longer and more aggravating than they would like, and they would use the option of public transportation if it were more easily accessible. Or it just might be that they believe that environmental problems ought to be addressed, but that it is somebody else's responsibility.

In any case, try not to take it personally, and try not to be accusatory. Chances are that you don't actually know everything, and you may be wrong on a few points. (To reduce the chance of this, try not to make claims about "facts" that you aren't entirely sure about...or at least be direct about the limits of your knowledge.)

In the end, it may take more than one discussion with the person, and to be perfectly honest, they probably won't agree with everything you say. However, chances are they will think about it again at some point, and hopefully they'll be a little bit more open about the idea next time you or someone else bring it up. Also, you may learn some legitimate reasons why your way of thinking is not quite right. In that case, try to make some adjustments to your habits and start over again.


Outside of the Personal:

Of course, if you are the only one pushing for sustainable consumption, the task would truly be in surmountable. Thus, a little help from the government (or at least your local Parent-Teacher Association) would be useful. Overcoming a culture of unsustainable consumption will likely need to be fulfilled by including the topic in school curricula.

As pointed out in a journal article entitled Human nature, eco-footprints and environmental injustice by William Rees (2008), people have a genetic tendency to become less open to ideas outside of their personal concept of the world as they get older. Therefore, the best way to instill sustainable consumption principles across society is to present it to children as they are learning. I'm not saying that children need to be preached to. In fact, I'm not even saying that they need to have the information presented as the only option (or even the correct option). Instead, children just need to know that it is a legitimate, respectable option.

In this approach, children will be less likely to be resistant to sustainable consumption practices when they are older. There is also an increased chance that the children will have a discussion similar to the one that I prescribed in the previous section, which will get parents thinking. Overall, this is not the most direct or quickest method, but in the long term, I believe that it will prove to be the most valuable.

----------
It looks like, I did end up referring to one academic article, so apologize to any readers that were hoping to avoid such academic entanglements. I also apologize for the inordinate number of ellipses that have cropped up in this post. However, I hope that you have found this post inspiring, insightful, and/or instructional.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

The Book I Am Reviewing

I have chosen to review the book Powerdown: options and actions for a post-carbon world by Richard Heinberg (2004). I chose this book after reading a few pages of the introduction on Google Books. It appears that it will have a strong focus on solutions and possible outcomes with regard to the world transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Also, as a physicist of sorts, I enjoy the focus on energy use as a key component of the author's arguments. My review will highlight whether these expectations are met.

The Burden of the Consumer

Hello Reader,

I have loads of other work to attend to, but I could not pass up writing about this topic: the burden of the consumer. This is based loosely around one of the underlying principles of Adam Smith's invisible hand concept from the Wealth of Nations, and it has just recently been brought to my attention a few times in the past couple of weeks.

The Invisible Hand

I must admit up front that I am not a trained economist, and I have not read the Wealth of Nations. However, the general concept is all that I'm after right now, and it has been brought up in a variety of my courses recently. To summarize, even though no individual person is necessarily acting to promote the best interests of society, each individual will do so by pursuing their own perceived best interests (as though they are being guided by an invisible hand). It is my understanding that this has been construed to apply primarily in an economic system of consumers and producers, and it that it works on the following principles (along with a few others) that: 1) producers will always attempt to maximize their profits within the constraints of their production process, and 2) consumers will always attempt to maximize the utility they receive within the constraints of their budget.

The Slap in the Face

My curiosity lies in the second principle above. That is, the system is built around the expectation that consumers will always demand as much as possible, and not settle for less (or if they do settle for less, they can be persuaded by sufficient marketing). While my guess is that this was not the original intent of Adam Smith, the burden of the consumer to demand more has become common place. In fact it has been so deeply woven into the fabric of economic institutions that it has become an expectation. Two cases in point:

The first case arose during a lecture in my sustainable consumption course. The lecturer was explaining the concept of communities or groups transitioning to sharing common spaces and items. In particular, rather than every house (or family) in England owning a hammer, which may be used a few times per year, it would be beneficial for several families to store tools in a common storage area and only have to buy one hammer total. The example was also extended to other items such as the potential for sharing kitchen space and/or washing machines. However, one of the students raised the point that if every family in England started sharing tools rather than buying new ones, what would happen to the people in the developing countries who were making the tools? The student seemed indignant about the fact that these jobs would no longer be available, as though it were the burden of the consumer to continue consuming for the sake of the producer regardless of whether or not it was to the consumer's benefit.

I can see some limited merit in the fact that some populations in developing countries may have been institutionalized (perhaps forcibly or unwittingly) into relying upon these jobs. As such it would seem cruel and/or immoral to simply abandon them suddenly, leaving them with no job and a likely degraded environment. Yet I have a hard time believing that this could truly be a mainstream view in developing nations. Is it?

This brings me to my second case in point, a recent New York Times article entitled "Saudis Seek Payments for Any Drop in Oil Revenues". The article explains that Saudi Arabia is encouraging other OPEC nations to demand compensation for any planned cuts in greenhouse gas emissions agreed upon at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, as those cuts will certainly impact oil revenues. Essentially, the article points out, that large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions could impact the Saudi Arabian government's budget, which is largely based on revenues raised from selling oil, by 16% over the next couple of decades. The article also offers expert opinions explaining that this is primarily a stalling and disrupting tactic that Saudi Arabia has been using since the 1992 summit in Rio de Janiero.

While at this scale it seems somewhat ludicrous (considering the $23 trillion Saudi Arabia is expected to make in oil revenues over the coming decades regardless of any progress at Copenhagen), it boils down to the same concept as the first case. That is, any reduction in consumption on the part of the consumer will damage the producer. Therefore, it should be considered morally reprehensible and/or require compensation. This premise, of course, flies directly in the face of the invisible hand concept and would not be likely to be accepted by those practicing sustainable consumption.

The Conclusion

Insofar as I have found some agreement between two such oppositional concepts as allowing the invisible hand to guide the markets and the tenants of sustainable consumption, I am confident in asserting that the premise of consumer burden is faulty! However, I must concede that countries (and corporations) who have worked diligently to institutionalize a cheap workforce in developing countries do have some moral obligation to at least ease the burden of transition away from ingrained practices. Lest the developing countries suffer the fate similar to (though much more abruptly than) the residents of Pittsburgh following the decline of the steel industry.

I am extremely curious about this point of view, which I have stumbled upon. Is this a typical reaction despite the expectation that continued or accelerated consumption will have the greatest impact upon developing nations?

Also if you are looking for the article, search for:
Saudis Seek Payments for Any Drop in Oil Revenues

By JAD MOUAWAD and ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: October 13, 2009
In the New York Times
I would post a link, but the New York Times has a tendency to change the links over time, so it would be of little use.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Production Or Happiness (Wk 3 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

This week we were posed the question: "Gross domestic product or gross national happiness? What should governments be striving for, and how?"

To answer the first question, it seems appropriate to define each of the two terms plus a third term. Then, I want to explore purpose of measuring the two indicators. I believe this will make the choice self-evident. Finally, the how will have to be largely based on conjecture. Particularly due to the fact that most of the scholarly papers that I have run across thus far simply define the problem rather than offer solutions.
-----------

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The monetary value of all the goods and services produced by an economy over a specified period. It includes consumption, government purchases, investments, and exports minus imports.
From: Investopedia.com. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gross%20domestic%20product

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is most likely to be familiar to you, and is considered one of the key metrics by which most countries measure economic success. Essentially, the larger the GDP, the more economic activity has occurred (typically over the course of a year or a month) and the more valuable the countries is considered. This particular indicator is critical to the sustainable consumption debate, because it gets to the root of the quote that in the Story of Stuff Annie Leonard attributes to economist Victor Lebow. That is, "Our enormously productive economy...demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction in consumption...we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever accelerating rate." To translate this into GDP terminology, it means that for an economy to be successful, the GDP must grow continuously!


Gross National Happiness (GNH)
An index that represents the overall well being of a nation's population. It is measured using indicators of well being (i.e. life expectancy and life satisfaction).
Summarized from the Happy Planet Index Report

As far as I can tell, there is no strict definition of Gross National Happiness (GNH) anywhere that is readily accessible. However, the essence of the definition is the average life satisfaction of a nation's population multiplied by the average life expectancy of a nation's population. Basically, it amounts to a measure of how happy people tend to be and how long they can expect to enjoy that happiness. For example: if the average person in Country A was extremely satisfied during their life (10 out of 10) but died at about age 25, and if the average person in Country B was moderately satisfied during their life (5 out of 10) but died at about age 50, both Countries A and B would have the same GNH (=250).

Ecological Footprint
"[A] measure of the amount of land required to provide for all [of a nation's] resource requirements plus the amount of vegetated land required to sequester (absorb) all [its] CO2 emissions and the CO2 emissions embodied in the products [it] consume[s]"
From: the Happy Planet Index Website

For my own (brief) elaboration regarding the shortcomings of the Happy Planet Index (HPI) definition of ecological footprint please refer to the first paragraph of the section entitled My Concern on my post entitled Ecological Debts and Rights. Otherwise, I am going to accept their definition as sufficient for discussing this topic.
-----------

What's the Point?

Both GDP and GNH are simply measures of human activity. GDP is a measure of how much economic activity there is. GNH is a measure of how much activity there is that contributes to well being. Of course, both of these measures are simply a representation of (one statistic describing) the real world. In other words, GDP and GNH are models for the real world. This has a few implications for their meanings. The first (and often overlooked part) is that a model is only as accurate as the components which it takes into account, and is thus limited in its usefulness. Furthermore, thanks to the practical limitations caused by chaotic systems, such as human behavior, it is impossible to create a completely accurate model without recreating the entirety of the system...at which point your model is useless, because it is just as complicated as the thing you were trying to understand in the first place. Therefore, all models must be used with caution. However, the second implication is that if your model measures the appropriate attributes of a system to a reasonable degree of accuracy, you can often get at the gist of the information you desire.

In our case, the gist is "What should governments be striving for, and how?", which I have taken to mean "Which metric, GDP or GNH, will more accurately represent a successful government?" And thus, governments will be able to accurately measure how successful current and prospective policies may be. Of course, success in and of itself can be considered subjective. Fortunately, in this case both mainstream economics (from which GDP springs) and alternative economics (from which GNH arises) seem to agree on success to some degree. Going back to the basics of mainstream economics, Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market economy is based on the ideal that markets will inevitably fall in line with the interests of society so long as each individual consumer attempts to maximize their own welfare. Similarly, alternative economics is looking to improve the overall well being of individuals in society, which (unless I'm completely missing the mark) is an attempt to maximize welfare.

As such, both GDP and GNH are an attempt to measure how successfully a country is promoting the welfare of its people! Great, now that we know where we are trying to go, we just need to determine which is the best way to get there (i.e. which model more accurately portrays how many units of welfare a country has).

A Caveat

The reason I added the third term, ecological footprint, to the two main possibilities offered by the question, GDP and GNH, is to add some context. It is all well and good to take either measure, GDP or GNH, on its own and have a little celebration about the fact that my country's GDP or GNH is higher than your country's, but what does this really mean? To me it makes more sense to look at efficiency.

That is, we consider how many inputs (resources) are being used to get one unit of output (welfare) rather than simply how many units are being output. This will give us a more realistic view of how profitable various countries are with respect to GDP and GNH. Otherwise, to put it into an economic perspective, it is like considering the marginal revenue from selling a product without considering the marginal cost to produce the product! If you do this, it will always seem like a great idea to strive to produce and sell additional products without limitation.

All Things Considered

Assuming that a country's GDP and GNH are considered in comparison its ecological footprint, then it makes significantly more sense, at least in theory, for an individual government to strive to maximize its country's GNH rather than its GDP. Because, as discussed before, GNH is a direct measure of how much well being its citizens possess, and is essentially by quantization of the amount of welfare the country possesses. Whereas, GDP is a direct measure of how much economic activity its citizens have participated in, which is used along with a number of other assumptions to infer how much welfare the country possesses. And the more assumptions the user of a model has to make, the less accurate the model tends to be. However, I suspect that the theory falls apart in practice due to a lack of context and standardization.

By context I am referring to the fact that most people (more importantly most policymakers) have no concept of what a good GNH rating would look like if it fell on their desks. However, it seems as though this could be remedied in a scientific manner by taking data and comparing measurements of the same situation using both GDP and GNH for an extended period of time before phasing out GDP in favor of GNH. This practice would likely be accompanied by an analysis of the discrepancies between the two metrics and their practical implications.

By standardization I mean that a metric such as GNH would probably not be able to withstand outside pressure if only one or two countries used it as their sole measure of success. It seems likely that a large number of countries chasing after GDP goals might trample over (either literally by means of physical war or occupation) or undermined (metaphorically by means of cultural diffusion) an individual country following a path laid by GNH. As a result it seems that this practice would need to be agreed upon and enacted simultaneously by several countries at once to have a decent chance at success.

We must also be cognizant that GNH is based on the averages for a nation. This means while a change would be beneficial to society as a whole, it might not be beneficial for all individuals (i.e. those whose social status based solely on high economic activity). Also, there will may be temporary transitional problems that arise for people who are now wholly dependent upon features of the current system of measure. Therefore, it should be expected that such a social change, just like any other, will meet resistance from those who stand to lose out entirely or initially.
------------

I hope you have enjoyed my conjecture. I look forward to feedback and apologize for how long it took me to post this assignment. It seems that the work is already starting to pile up for the semester, so an ungraded blog tends to fall toward the end of the list of priorities. In any event, please look for another posting soon(er than before).

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Ecological Debts and Rights

Hello Reader,

Tonight I was reading about the concept of an ecological footprint on the Happy Planet Index (HPI) website. Where I ran across the following statement:

Dividing this [the total amount of productive hectares available on the planet] by the world’s total population, we can calculate a global [ecological footprint] per capita figure on the basis that everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources.

Now I understand the concept of equity, and I generally agree with it, but I would like to take the time to question this particular concept of equity. Please note that this posting will primarily be my own academic musing, so I would appreciate hearing other arguments for or against anything I may say.

Definitions

Ecological Footprint:"a measure of the amount of land required to provide for all [of an individual's or a nation population's or the world population's] resource requirements plus the amount of vegetated land required to sequester (absorb) all their CO2 emissions and the CO2 emissions embodied in the products they consume." from HPI website

Ecological Debt: "The sum of annual ecological deficits." from Global Footprint Network website

Ecological Debt Day: Assuming that a nation or the world begins using an ecological footprint the size of its geographic footprint on January 1st, it will have used its entire ecological footprint by this day of the year, and it will start accumulating an ecological debt for the remainder of the year. from class notes of my Sustainable Consumption course.


My Concern

First, I must point out that I generally agree with HPI's definition of an ecological footprint; however, I would be inclined to consider all pollution emissions in the portion about land required for sequestration rather than simply minding CO2 emissions. Furthermore, to be particularly rigorous, I think it would also be appropriate to add other effects, such as the water that is embedded in the production of goods and the growth of food (or in the case of bottled water the water in the bottle) since this can significantly deplete aquifers and/or exacerbate drought situations. Of course, their particular definition of ecological footprint is not my primary concern.

My primary concern is the assumption at the end of the quote at the top of this post:

"...everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources."

In basic principle this seems to read essentially as a definition of social equity. But is it? If you are an environmentalist or have picked up the international section of a news paper any time in the last decade or so, there is a decent chance that you may have stumbled upon an article about international climate change policy. If so, there is also a decent chance that you have seen a comment or factoid or tidbit aimed at vilifying the USA for taking more than their fair share of oil or polluting more than they ought to. You have probably also seen a statistic along the lines of the US population only being 5% of the world population but consuming 20-30% (up to 50% really) of this, that or the other thing.

While I completely believe that such vilification is warranted in many cases, I have to ask why is so much emphasis placed on per capita figures? Clearly per capita figures are important, but why does this seem to be the pre-eminent concern? Now, at this point, you may expect me to go on about how China has (or will soon) overtake the US on an overall basis of carbon emissions. However, this is not my concern.

Instead, my interest is in how ecological footprints are calculated. That is, as the term footprint implies, they are based on a measure of geographic region. More specifically, they are based on the "total amount of productive hectares". This focus raises some interesting considerations.


Alternative Accounting

If the ecological footprint is based upon geographic area, shouldn't countries be judged primarily upon their utilization of their geographic footprint (i.e. compare ecological footprint to geographic footprint)? Trained as a physicist, I might even desire to keep my units accurate and choose to only compare the ecological footprint to the "productive" geographic footprint. In either of these cases, the US is still not keeping its ecological footprint within its on borders; however, it is doing a significantly better job than many other countries including Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

One way to measure this sort of comparison is through considering ecological debt days. According to my class notes some examples (I assume from 2008) are:

Japan: March 3rd
United Kingdom: April 16th
Germany: May 29th
United States: June 24th
France: July 27th
World: October 23rd

For a slightly different explanation and current world figures, check out the Global Footprint Network website, but note that it uses the terminology overshoot day rather than ecological debt day.

I am particularly amused by this particular measurement, because the day that this was discussed in class was perhaps one of the first times I saw non-Americans become defensive regarding consumption issues. In particular, the several British MBA students were initially confused by how it would be possible for the UK to have its ecological debt day earlier in the year than the US.

While this does not eliminate the need for the US to take immediate action to address the plethora of environmental issues it is creating, it does raise some questions regarding the brunt of the criticism. Also, it is important to note every country that has an ecological debt date is overconsuming its resources and should not be let off the hook!

Rather than get defensive (or offensive), I would like to think through some of the merits of this alternative method of ecological accounting.


National Stewardship

The main merit that is immediately obvious to me is most evident in a current practice, which I will term national stewardship. That is, given the current political structure of the world (i.e. being primarily divided into sovereign nation-states), it seems reasonable to expect a functioning national government to responsibly care for (be a steward of) the human resources (i.e. population) and the natural resources (i.e. environment) within its own borders. (I am considering current frameworks in an attempt to be pragmatic and avoid dealing with potential global ideological shifts in this post.) Unfortunately, this expectation is not being met by a large number of governments, and the matter is further confounded by oceanic issues and multinational corporations. Thus, the extent to which governments succeed or fail to put national stewardship into practice can be considered a measure of how successful the government is.

Also, it seems reasonable for a nation to fairly trade its resources with another nation without impeding the other nation's sovereignty and for a nation could consume beyond its means for a period of time by going into ecological debt, similar to the way that they do by going into financial debt. Additionally, it should be perceived as hostile to encroach upon another nation's footprint (geographic or ecological) without mutually agreed upon compensation. Finally, it is important to note that nations are currently defined by their geographic boundaries and not by the size of their population.

Since in the national stewardship model the government of one nation, for example the United Kingdom, is not expected to utilize its resources to maintain the resources of another nation, for example the United States, why should the first nation expect to reap the benefits of the resources of the second nation? Thus, if a nation can keep its ecological footprint within the confines of its own geographic footprint (i.e. it's not being 'hostile') by managing its human resources (labor, economy, social structures, etc.), it should be considered sustainable regardless of population size and should thereby be entitled to reap the benefits of its management skills. Of course, in the case where a nation cannot keep its ecological footprint under control, it should be expected to compensate other nations inflicted by the damaged caused by its poor management skills.

Therefore, without radically altering the global political structure, current national stewardship expectations dictate that nations should be judged (primarily, if not solely) upon a comparison of their ecological and geographic footprints. Although I do see that this could almost be as much of an argument against the current global political structure as an argument for national stewardship, I have a feeling that embracing national stewardship would be much less violent process (or at least no more violent than typical global affairs).

Reproductive Responsibility


I understand that people are not able to choose the nation into which they are born any more than they are able to pick the family into which they are born. However, conversely people do have some measure of choice of where they decide to live and how many children they have. (Please note that I am aware of a large number of socio-economic, political, cultural, and feminist reasons why this is choice is limited and/or considered invalid, but just bare with me here for argument's sake, and assume that these issues do not apply to everyone and/or could be overcome/avoided in many cases.) So I must question the assumption that "everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources".

I can only assume that I am only responsible for protecting the environment in which I live and/or has been included in my ecological footprint, a responsibility which would be delegated to the government in the case of national stewardship. I can also only assume that along with all of the other responsibilities of parenthood, parents are also responsible for their child's ecological footprint at least until the child is legally independent. To be plain, would I be considered irresponsible if I, as a potential parent, decide to have a number of children that can be accommodated by the natural resources available in the country or region in which I choose to live (or removing that choice, the country in which I already live)? This would mean that my family would have no ecological debt day! I would argue that this would mean that I am being responsible and sustainable. Conversely, given all of the same assumptions, if I decided to have more children than my nation's ecological footprint allows, am I not acting unsustainably?

Again, while I am not dismissing the issues with over-consumption, I am asking why irresponsible over-populating is being given a free pass by assuming that every person is entitled to the same amount of natural resources when in all practicality, no rational parent should have that expectation. This is especially true for areas or countries that have high population density and/or intense resource scarcity. For example, if I decide to live in the middle of the Sahara Dessert, should I be entitled to the same amount of resources as someone who decides to live close to a river surrounded by land that is suitable for cultivating crops? All of this being considered, it makes me wonder: to what extent is reproduction considered a right? (A tricky subject with a lot of possible implications which I will not go into.)

Well, I have left you with a bit of a bomb shell to consider. I hope you enjoyed my musings, and I look forward to any debate points on this subject. I feel that an entire research paper could be written on this topic (in fact I'm fairly certain several have been already).

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

Serious Business (Wk2 Assignment)

Hello Reader,

This week we were asked the question: "Do you think business has a duty to promote sustainable consumption? If no, why not? If yes, what should they do and how far should the go?"
---

Now, if you are an environmentalist, your answer to this question is almost certainly yes, but before I continue on to the second part of the question I want take some time to think about why and why-not. Before I do any of this, please note that it is my belief that people (and companies) should take responsibilities for their own actions to the extent that their actions are under their own control. Also, I am working under the assumption that it is someone’s duty to promote sustainable consumption. Thus, it is a matter of “who” and not “if”.

Perhaps Not

One important point that I picked up from reading The Role of Business in Sustainable Consumption by Michaelis is that individual businesses are not in control of the business culture as a whole.

Without much extra thought, I might be inclined to let businesses off the hook, but by that logic everyone could make similar claims. Relying on the idea that one person (or in this case one company) cannot make a difference is an acceptable excuse. If you are inclined towards this line of reasoning I encourage you to go watch a large number of after-school specials that were broadcast in the 80's and 90's. Go ahead. This blog will most likely still be here when you get back. Of course, there is more to it than after-school specials, to let's take a look at some of the reasons why.

Perhaps

The business culture consists of many businesses, but as pointed out by Annie Leonard in the Story of Stuff, "people live and work all along this system [of consumption]". That is to say that people are integrally involved in the processes of production and consumption and that companies are not intangible, nebulous entities. On the contrary, successful companies tend to have well defined structures of hierarchical decision-making, which constitute the business culture referred to by Michaelis. Thus, by the transitive property, people make up the business culture.

I take this to imply that the business culture does not exist in a vacuum and is influenced in much the same way that other groups and communities are influenced: by popularity. Similar to school-yard popularity, peer pressure can be a motivator for change in the business culture. Of course this means that the most popular members of the business culture will wield the most influence (and therefore control) over the business culture. However, unlike school-yard popularity, the titans of the business culture are determined primarily by financial success as suggested by Michaelis. This speaks to common sense, as it is the successful companies that are studied by those in business school and used as benchmarks by competitors.

Therefore, it seems the onus falls almost solely upon successful companies to champion sustainable consumption in order that others may follow. However, I would like to push a little further and extend the onus to encompass all companies.

As explained by Leonard Mlodinow in The Drunkard’s Walk (for a particularly good example of how successful business leaders and companies are susceptible to randomness in the market place, I recommend pages 11-16), while the odds of a company’s success are improved by the skill of its staff, the chaotic nature of the market place means it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a poor or mediocre company to suddenly be thrust into the midst of success. In fact it is equally likely that a currently successful business will fall from grace and/or need a good government bail out to stay afloat. Or even that either situation has been occurring for an extended period of time, which means that a fluke may not seem like one at all.

Of course, regardless of whether a company has arrived at success due to premier business practices or a hiccup of randomness, it will more likely than not be held in the same high regard as any other successful company (see pages 177-182 of Mlodinow’s book). The only practical way to avoid success and its associated responsibilities (e.g. championing sustainable consumption) is to not participate in the market place. Thus, I reassert that all companies should assume responsibility for championing sustainable consumption. Also, returning to Annie Leonard’s statement about people working within these companies, the onus of sustainable consumption is necessarily extended to people in charge of companies (and by the same logic as before, all of those attempting to become the people in charge of companies).

Who’s In Charge Around Here?

In a small business, it is very clear who is in charge, typically the owner and/or manager. However, in publicly traded companies, it becomes a bit more nebulous. At first glance, employees (and disgruntled customers) will point to management, but active shareholders may disagree, because they are in fact the owners. This point is further confused by the inclusion of the now common place existence of mutual funds, which exacerbates the disconnection between owners and the decision making process.

While I can see the merits of placing the responsibility upon both the shareholders and the managers, I am going to lean toward the managers. This is primarily based on my understanding that a shareholder is legally removed from liability with regard to a company’s actions. (Please correct me if I do not correctly understand this concept.) That is not to say that extremely active shareholders do not have the ability to monitor and influence the actions of their companies (I hope to address practice in a later post), but rather that as a general practice the shareholders pay the managers to do exactly this.

Thus, assuming that publicly traded companies do not wish to revert back to being private companies, it is the responsibility of the upper-level managers (and all who strive to be them) to promote sustainable consumption in their companies’ decisions and actions. In actuality the most senior business executives of companies have a lot of other concerns in addition to sustainable consumption, so it is reasonable for a responsible company to hire a surrogate (a sustainability officer or consultant or both depending on the size of the company) to act as a sustainability champion to keep itself on track as long as the surrogate has the de facto backing of the other managers in the company.

How Far Is Too Far?

To answer the question of how far managers should go to address issues of sustainable consumption, the scope of their impact must be taken into account, and by almost all accounts their impact is huge. To point to another tidbit of information that is supplied by Annie Leonard: 51 of the world's 100 richest economies are companies. While I have not seen it written explicitly, I can only assume that these companies are primarily based in and/or are being lead by people that went to school in the industrialized world and have operations than span the populated continents of the globe. I can also say with a fair degree of certainty that these companies are directly and indirectly impacting (extracting resources, utilizing labor, dumping waste, transporting goods, etc.) large parts of the globe as well.

Standing by my original belief, managers should go as far as their companies' reach allows. Not astoundingly, it becomes a matter of self-control and self-discipline for managers to ensure they are not reaching beyond their means. A lesson all of society could stand to learn… if only there were some success stories upon which to look.

---
I hope you enjoyed this latest post. As usual, I look forward to any comments. In particular any clarifications regarding shareholder liability, pitfalls in my logic, or suggestions for related materials are appreciated. Later this week please look for my third assignment regarding Gross Domestic Product vs. Gross National Happiness.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

My Interest & Expectation (Wk1 Assignment)

Hello Dear Reader,

For the first week of my course on Sustainable Consumption, I was asked to describe my interest in sustainable consumption as a topic and my expectations for the course.

My Interest

If you explored my background on my LinkedIn profile, you will have discovered that I have an undergraduate degree in Physics. Thus it is probably not surprising to find out that my initial interest in sustainable consumption arose on the basis of energy consumption or (in the case of the US in particular) the overconsumption of energy resources. As I began to delve into the topic on my own, I soon found that the US tends to overconsume all sorts of resources (at least on a per capita basis).

For a very short synopsis of the consumption habits of the US (and many other Western cultures) I recommend The Story of Stuff. It is an online video that is about 20 minutes long, which highlights some of the history and issues of unsustainable consumption. Additionally, after reading Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester Brown among other books, I was reasonably convinced that not only is unsustainable consumption an issue that needs to be addressed but that it is an urgent issue indeed.

My Expectation

I spent the past year working as the Sustainability Coordinator at Dickinson College, which required me to address a wide variety of sustainability issues ranging from "What types of technologies should be implemented in order to achieve optimal energy savings at a minimal cost?" to "What is the best way to get people to turn off lights?" to "Should the college reduce the quantity of meat-based meals offered in the cafeteria?" with a lot of other questions in between.

Therefore, following a year of very broad, generalized research on sustainable consumption, I hope to be able to dig a little bit deeper into the topic and perhaps identify any underlying principles or tendencies. In particular, as a Climate Change MSc student, I hope to uncover many (if not a majority) of the ways in which sustainable consumption (or really, unsustainable consumption) habits are linked to global climate change.

I hope that this post gave you a reasonable estimation of my perspective from the outset of the course and the beginning of this blog. Please do post any comments or additional suggestions for informational material below.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond