GMO 2.0: mitigation for consumption

Hello Reader,

I realize it's been a while since I've posted anything, so I apologize if you've been waiting patiently for my next post. In any event, I was reading the New York Times online when I came across an Op-Ed piece: "End Animal Pain on Factory Farms" by Adam Shriver, a doctoral student from Washington University.

To briefly summarize some of the key points in the article:

• In the past 35 years, American red-meat consumption per capita has stayed at 100 pounds per year.
• Increased demand for meat has lead to "factory farms" (i.e. animals packed into very tiny areas and fed diets that are not healthy, but cause them to become meat more efficiently).
• The factory farms cause painful conditions and health problems in the farm animals.
• In response to this, neuroscience offers a solution: using genetic modification to farm animals that reduces their ability feel pain.
• The process is considered safe for human consumers because "animals have specific proteins removed, rather than new ones inserted, so there’s no reason to think that their meat would pose more health risks for humans than ordinary meat does."

Given the description of the author at the bottom of the article, I can only presume that this article is written from an academic perspective. As such, I am going to assume that the facts presented are more or less accurate.

Naturally, in the spirit of academic debate, I would like to question a few of these assumptions. I shall start with the last bullet point before discussing the first four in aggregate. As a note to the reader, I am beginning with what I perceive to be the area of my lesser expertise and moving toward that of my greater expertise.


GMO 2.0: the Pain-Resistant Pig

At this point, I have no reason to doubt the quoted text in the last bullet point. That is to say that the text itself does not give me pause. Instead, I am concerned by what is not said.

By drawing attention to the most direct and obvious concern of the average reader, their own health or perhaps that of their friends and family, the author has (perhaps inadvertently) drawn attention away from the other concerns raised by genetic engineering. I am not referring to wild science fiction fantasies of runaway mutations, zombie-esque plagues, or anything of that nature, so do not mistake my meaning in that way. Rather I refer to realistic concerns that have already been raised surrounding genetic engineering.

The issues that spring to my mind most immediately are that of viability and liability. The latter issue, legal liability, has been discussed at length following the Monsanto patent infringement law suits, and is the focus of an article in the Washburn Law Journal (McEowen 2004), so I will not discuss it further here. However, the former issue, viability, is something that I would like to focus on briefly. Ignoring for the moment the animal rights issues, I want to consider the practical issue of a species viability once a pain-resistant strain of DNA has been introduced.

In one paragraph of the article it is stated that the mice, which have been used to test the genetic engineering, "do not avoid situations where they experience such pain". However, the following paragraph states that, using the same methods, in cows and pigs "the sensory dimension of the animals’ pain would be preserved, [so] they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured."

To me this seems contradictory, so I may be missing some crucial information. However, it begs the question, will the pain-resistant farm animals avoid being injured or not? Also, despite the similarities in neural structures, would a translation from mice to pigs produce the same behavioral results? And in the end would engineered pigs, and their offspring that may or may not be interbred with non-engineered pigs, be able to survive in current condition?.

Or just as importantly, would they be able to survive in conditions outside of factory farms where the issue may not be crowding but predators or other dangers? These sorts of issues would become paramount if the US ever decided (or was forced) to shift away from factory farms. They would also become an issue if despite any regulations or obstacles these farm animals would find their way onto farms in undeveloped countries. While I must concede that pain-resistant farm animals may be more robust than my imagination leads me to believe, it seems like a legitimate concern to me.

Mitigation for Consumption

I want to make it clear that my intention is not pick on all of those people who are simply doing they're jobs. I am also not saying that they aren't complicate. Instead I would like to question what the "choices" are. To do this, I am going to focus a little bit more attention on my first four bullet points above.

In the article the increase in meat consumption was offered as an unavoidable situation. Therefore it follows that since the meat consumption (and therefore the factory farm scenario) cannot be avoided, it is logical to try to mitigate the pain of the animals while they are alive and, as alluded to in the article, the unnecessary, premature loss of animals (meat) and the subsequent loss of revenue to the factory farms. If all of these stipulations are assumed conditions (and GMO concerns are more or less irrelevant as indicated by the last bullet point), then I would likely come to the same conclusion as the author.

To summarize this line of thoughts into one, pain-resistant farm animals are an ethical and financial means of mitigation for the current levels of meat consumption in the US (and will be/are for all other countries whose consumption patterns are emulating those of the US).

Thus, I must put it to the reader as to whether this is ethically or financially appropriate. To help with the decision, I'll offer some further clarifications.

Assuming the statistics in the article are true (i.e. red-meat consumption in the US has stayed at about 100 pounds (about 45 kg) per capita per year) and the population has grown from just over 200 million to just over 300 million in the US, the US consumes about 100 billion pounds more red-meat per year than it did in 1975! If these sorts of figures were extrapolated to the rest of the world or even just population growth in the rest of the world, such a figure would be astronomically larger.

Of course, 100 billion pounds is just a really big number, so let us bring this figure into focus. This is not just saying that the average American is eating 100 pounds of red-meat per year (translation: 400 quarter pound burgers per year... or more than one quarter pound burger per day!). The word "average" in the previous sentence means that even considering that many Americans (vegetarians and infants and many others) are not eating multiple portions of red-meat per day in addition to all of the other meats, fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products, and sweets, Americans on aggregate are eating a lot of red-meat. However, I suspect few of them would even think twice about a day where they had red-meat as part of breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Based on the description in the article, it would seem that meeting increased consumption with factory farms is an ugly business, and pain-resistant engineering is an acceptable (or even morally superior) cosmetic fix. Perhaps the author even recognizes this poetic justice in the opening paragraph wherein he refers to a reduction in cosmetics testing on animals over the past 35 years.

I find the implications of this poetic justice particularly intriguing in that it implies that US society takes more issue with mistreating animals by applying cosmetics than it does with altering animal DNA. And even more intriguing in that it is perceived to be more socially acceptable to do this than ask people to question, change, and/or make them aware of their choices in food consumption.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the reader whether it is better to attempt to mitigate the side effects of such consumption patterns or instead alter the perceived need such patterns of consumption. Personally, moderating red-meat consumption does not seem like too much to ask, but then again I am not everybody else.

I hope you have enjoyed my analysis and musings. I look forward to reading yours in the comments below.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Book Review: Powerdown

Hello Reader,

Now that I'm back, I figured I might post a copy of one of my assignments from Sustainable Consumption. The following is book review I wrote for Richard Heinberg's book Powerdown. As part of the assignment, we were asked to write the review targeted at readers of a particular academic journal, so please note that I did not actually write this for Local Environment and that it is in no way affiliated with the journal in any way. Otherwise, I hope this gives you an idea about whether or not the book is worth your while.

------------

Book Review of
Powerdown: Options and actions for a post-carbon world
By Richard Heinberg

I. Introduction

I will be reviewing the Richard Heinberg (2004) book Powerdown: Options and actions for a post-carbon world for Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. Regular readers of Local Environment will likely find the general subject matter of Powerdown familiar; however, the author frames the potential outcomes and options for action available to individuals and society more starkly than the manner in which most environmentalists and policymakers may be accustomed.

As such, I recommend this as a must read for readers who are looking for a unique perspective. However, I must caution readers that some of the political rhetoric contained within certain sections will likely put off those with staunch right-leaning and to some extent left-leaning political beliefs. Since this book was originally written in the lead up to the 2004 US Presidential election, I must urge academic readers to look past the strong partisan and anti-Bush messages and focus more on the issues of sustainable consumption which are well articulated. During the remainder of this review, I will provide further context for the views of the book, summarize and discuss the main arguments of the book, and highlight some of the strengths and weakness of the book.

II. Context

This book was published prior to the release of the 2007 IPCC report on global climate change, which has largely served to indicate that the problem may indeed be more severe and the solutions more complex than was initially portrayed by the author (Jansen et al. 2007). Thus, this book should be read with the understanding that Heinberg’s words were fairly revolutionary in that almost no one else (at least in the US) was saying what he has written. Or perhaps, given that Heinberg refers to a number of authors, institutions, and projects that support his ideas, it is more appropriate to say that almost no one was hearing or reading the sort of ideas put forward in Powerdown.

Beyond the overt anti-Bush messages sprinkled throughout the book, Powerdown must be read with an eye toward the other major events occurring while it was being written and published. Fortunately for the reader, Heinberg highlights many such events in grey sidebar boxes as they relate to the subject matter, which makes the context relatively clear even if some sidebars are politically biased.

Despite the left-leaning political bias of the author, Heinberg tends to make credible points, which are legitimately relevant to the subject matter, through the use of the sidebars. One clear example of this is the sidebar entitled: “WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN George W. Bush’s Speech to the Nation, 9/11/2001” (emphasis and capitalization from original, Heinberg 2004: 76-77) in which the author rephrases President Bush’s speech to contain a message supporting sustainable consumption and shifting away from a dependence on foreign resources that facilitates global inequity and breeds international contempt for the United States. It is seems unlikely that any modern president, let alone President Bush, would have phrased the speech in quite the same way as Heinberg. However, this simply acts to reinforce the author’s message throughout the rest of the book, which is based on the differences between a society and infrastructure that support sustainable consumption and the current system.

III. Summary

Heinberg begins the book by frankly discussing the historical, current, and likely future state of global energy consumption based on trends in the discovery, processing, and consumption of fossil fuels (and other energy sources). Then the author goes on to describe current mainstream policies, cultural norms, and industrial practices which have set the world up for what he describes as the “Last One Standing” scenario. The last one standing, which Heinberg considers the default result, is a scenario where nations compete more fiercely through economic and military means over evermore scarce resources until society collapses or humanity becomes extinct. In response to the last one standing, the author offers an alternative, which he terms the “Powerdown” scenario. The powerdown scenario, which the author frames as possible but extremely unlikely, requires cooperation and self-limitation on individual, community, national, and global scales.

After laying out the two primary scenarios, Heinberg refutes a number of the easy ways out of the looming energy crises, including finding alternative fossil fuel sources and converting to a hydrogen-based economy. The author also emphasizes that the root of the problem lies within the current system of unsustainable consumption that was established during a long period of increasingly available, cheap fossil fuel energy sources, which will not last during the inevitable, impending decline in oil discovery and production. Finally, Heinberg provides examples of options for preserving society, individuals, and local communities beyond the more likely last one standing scenario, and he ends the book by outlining options and limitations that different groups (government and corporate elites, members of the environmental movement, and members of the general public) will face as they attempt to address current unsustainable practices.

IV. Analysis

The main message of Powerdown is clearly that non-mainstream changes to consumption habits will be very difficult but ultimately necessary to avoid the worst results of current consumption patterns; however, given the political context in which it was written, it is important to extract the academic messages from the general message to verify the urgency of action and the magnitude of the issue.

As noted previously, the urgency and stakes called for by the author seems to be codified at least in spirit by the release of the 2007 IPCC report. Although, it is interesting to note that Heinberg (2004: 96) refers to the Kyoto Protocol as “an initial step toward Powerdown: while intended as a solution to global climate change, it effectively also addresses the problem of energy resource depletion.” This view raises some ideas that are not thoroughly explored by the author regarding whether the effects of climate change or resource depletion will first make an impact that could spur a powerdown scenario or if the effects of both occurred simultaneously with more horrific (or offsetting) results than those discussed in the book.

Additionally, in an article in Local Environment Rees (2008) describes biological, psychological, and sociological evidence that is consistent with Heinberg’s assessment of the likelihood of the last one standing scenario and the necessity and difficulty of fulfilling the powerdown scenario. Furthermore, the premise of current consumption and future depletion of available fossil fuel resources upon which Powerdown is based, even if it turns out to be overstated, seems consistent with messages from oil industry professionals, some of whom are sited directly in the book and can be verified on the US Energy Information Administration (2009) website. Thus, it seems reasonable to consider Powerdown as an academically sound book with an important message for those considering environmental, energy, and consumption policies as well as the general public.

V. Strengths

To the author’s credit he makes a number of attempts to highlight the actions of the very policymakers who he is criticizing to confirm that his understanding of the world’s energy situation is not unfounded, nor truly unique. A particularly good example of this is the sidebar entitled: “The CIA’s Interest in Peak Oil” (Heinberg 2004: 40-41), which refers to the US’s strategic attempt to foster the depletion of USSR oil reserves to facilitate its economic collapse. In this sidebar, as in many other examples, specific, verifiable references are given to support his statements and ideas.

Additionally, in the chapter entitled “Waiting for the Magic Elixir: False Hopes, Wishful Thinking, and Denial” Heinberg spends time specifically refuting common ideas that would otherwise indicate that sustainable consumption issues are not urgent or even exist. This is particularly important as it limits the amount of criticisms available to people who wish to disprove or discredit the thesis of the book simply because it is convenient or useful to them. It also forces those working in the sustainability-related fields to question whether or not what they are doing is truly producing the impact that they intend to make.

Finally, the author does a reasonable job of acknowledging where his own knowledge and his predictions are limited. Thus, the reader is reassured that it is unlikely the author is purposefully exaggerating or that certainty is being claimed where it does not exist. This ultimately allows the reader to be more confident in the author’s conclusions.

VI. Weaknesses

The most pervasive weakness in Powerdown is the political overtones throughout the book. Readers that already agree with the author’s actual message are often those that agree with the political messages in the book, so including politics is somewhat superfluous. However, some readers that could potentially agree with or be convinced of the author’s thesis may put off by the political rhetoric and personal attacks on President Bush. Furthermore, the political rhetoric in the book is directly contradictory to the author’s message that cooperation is necessary. With all of this said, Heinberg certainly would have not done his readers any service by completely ignoring the shortcomings of recent and current political leaders; therefore, the extent to which this issue is an actual weakness of the book is limited.

A second weakness arises from the fact that a large portion of Heinberg’s references are to his previous book The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies. In and of itself this is not necessarily a detriment to the casual reader, and it does allow the reader a further option to explore the underlying principles of the author’s thesis. However, the result for an academic reader, particularly those just beginning to familiarize themselves to the topic, is that Powerdown is not necessarily a standalone resource. Concurrently, to retrieve many of the author’s primary sources the reader must read Heinberg’s other book, which is an excellent marketing strategy, but not necessarily conducive to academia.

VII. Conclusion

Though the direct impact of Powerdown is difficult to ascertain, the book sales were apparently successful enough to warrant a reprinting in 2007. Also, according to search results on Google Scholar during the writing of this review, this book has been cited by 77 other sources including academic papers, books, and university websites from across the globe. Furthermore the potential impact of the book is fairly flexible due to the wide audience for which the author has written the book.

If you happen to have the luxury of picking up Powerdown at a bookstore or library, and you are not sure if you want to read through the entire book, I recommend you flip to the grey sidebar entitled: “This is how I feel sometimes” (Heinberg 2004: 11-13). This sidebar should give you an excellent idea of whether or not this book is for you. If you relate to the way that the author feels, this book is definitely for you, and I suspect you will greatly appreciate it. If you feel as though you are represented by one of the other characters the author describes, you could certainly benefit by taking some of the author’s messages to heart, though you may struggle to relate to some of his messages. Finally, if you do not relate to the author and do not feel you are represented by any of the characters, I recommend that you read this book to try to figure out why not.

Citation for book being reviewed:
Heinberg, R. (2004), Powerdown: Options and actions for a post-carbon world. (Clairview Books, Forest Row).

Other References:
Energy Information Administration (2009), “Forecasts & Analyses: analyses and projections of energy information”, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html, last accessed 8th November 2009.

Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba and D. Zhang (2007): Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 466-475.

Rees, W. (2008), “Human Nature, Eco-footprints and Environmental Justice”, Local Environment. 13(8) 685-701.

Back Again and a Recommendation

Hello Reader,

I have returned to my blog after an intense couple of weeks of essay writing, followed by a brief holiday trip home, and week of final exams. Now, as I set out on a new semester at the University of East Anglia, I am hoping to maintain this blog with some degree of respectability. A few housekeeping notes for those of you who have decided to read this blog from start to finish: I'm no longer in the Sustainable Consumption class, so I won't have the weekly prompts any more. Instead I'll be flying solo with my own topics. Even so, I'm hoping to keep up the same type of academic, semi-professional style that I hope you've enjoyed and found useful. Of course, since the other students are no longer expected to be looking after their own blogs and likely not following mine, I will certainly appreciate any comments that let me know you are there. Otherwise, I will just content myself to know at some point my musings may be rediscovered with a note of nostalgia when I am rich and famous. But seriously, I will appreciate any feedback, because more likely than not the ideas I put forward will not have been fully developed to their greatest potential.

Also, in my free time over the break and partially to alleviate my eco-guilt about flying, I read a healthy portion of the Transition Town Handbook by Rob Hopkins. So far it has been a good read and seems like it will be useful for my life after university. As such, I highly recommend finding a copy if you are at all serious about making a local or regional impact related to sustainability.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

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