Food for thought

I have recently had the opportunity to read the new book by Alan Weisman, entitled The World Without Us. The book is both an intriguing thought-exercise as well as a subtle warning, and is definitely worth the read.

Weisman ponders the question of what the world would do, would look like, if humans magically disappeared tomorrow? Everything left intact as it stands right now (no nuclear holocaust or such removal) and no more degradation of the environment than we've already started (so not in 100 years with rampant global warming). He just examines how the natural world would respond to our absence. From flooding of New York subways to the destruction of our cherished monuments (and the perseverance of some others), he looks at the world in our wake.

It is at times hopeful as to the restorative nature of, well, nature. Looking analytically at how nature responds to shifts beyond equilibrium (and the amount of human effort used in combating the encroaching wilderness on what we've already built). He seems to indicate that mother nature would eventually bulldoze our creations, even our great skyscrapers, and lay it all down in verdant growth.

He goes on to discuss some of our creations which stand to remain the longest, and these stand as potent reminders of how our evolving technology can impact the environment long after it has left our conscious thought. Plastics, chemicals, radioactive waste, and global warming are all touched on in this human-less future.

It is an engaging book, one that deserves mention for attention to readers. It's conflicting messages, of the resilience of nature, compounded with our own technological advances that nature has no answer to, leave you a bit flustered, but definitely thinking in new directions. I found myself wondering, as I drove past them on the way for some hiking, how long these farms, these car lots, these houses would last under the strain of nature. And also it helps to re-evaluate your impact on the planet. Weisman writes with a dis-arming natural flow, an inviting approach to the subject that is technical without being intimidating, informative without being boring. An enlightening and entertaining read, for sure.

Creating jobs from Smart Energy Policy

Some choice pieces from an opinion piece by Carl Pope.

At the moment, America lacks any real plan for bringing smart energy solutions into the mainstream, and it's missing out on major job opportunities as a result. Consider the manufacturing of wind turbines as just one telling example. Iron ore mined in northern Minnesota gets shipped abroad to make steel. Danish, German, and Spanish companies then use that steel to make wind turbines. These turbines are then shipped back to the United States on boats through the Great Lakes to Duluth, where they are placed on trucks and hauled to Iowa and other states with great wind resources. America provides the raw material and pays for the finished product but gets almost none of the economic benefit, foregoing increasingly dear manufacturing jobs. As if that isn't enough, NASA invented the technology itself.
Hmm, strange how capitalism can come back and bite you in the ass, eh? Free markets can indeed strip the championing nation of its wealth. But if we were to embrace the future of energy rather than hide behind the slick curtain that will prevent us from maintaining our leadership in the world, then we are only to blame.

America does not have a national plan that requires utilities to produce any power with renewable energy, but it could. And there's no reason why the United States couldn't decide to power 10 million homes with solar roofing. To be most effective, such policies ought to be matched with incentives and publicly assisted financing to get domestic manufacturers on their feet. In fact, there are many, many things this country could be doing to create a home-grown, renewable energy economy. It's been too busy giving subsidies to oil companies to do most of them.
I would second the call placed by Carl to generally plan for our nation's energy future. Do so, and invest the money here, in research and development, manufacturing, sales, and maintenance, and you will create a hybrid industry from the energy/engineering/environmental sectors which will have a market niche and room to grow. There are some states that have already started playing this game.

It's no coincidence that California has set a goal of producing 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources, and that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has an ambitious initiative aimed at putting solar power on a million roofs in the Golden State in the next 10 years. The state also makes a point of investing its state pension funds in companies that push the green envelope. Earlier this year, Nanosolar, which has seed money from Google executives, announced that it would build the world's largest solar manufacturing facility near San Francisco, creating several hundred new jobs in the process.
If only the rest of the nation could be on board. As a whole, the federal government could wield a huge power, should they chose to, and spark this green revolution off in a positive direction. Here's hoping the tide turns soon.

Carbon Offset

A disturbing trend is developing in the industrial world: that of the business of carbon offset. In theory, you pay a company a certain amount of money, who then invest it in areas where carbon is conserved (like wind farms, buying forest reserves, supporting solar panel technology). The amount you pay is calculated based on how much "carbon" you waste each year, taking into account the car you drive, your heating and air conditioning bill, and other environmental factors. This is a growing business, according to NPR, who highlighted it on their morning talk show.

However, this brings up several issues regarding our consumption in modern society. Perhaps investing in wind farms helps to offset our SUV driving, but does it really encourage saving and conservation, which should be at the head of any greenhouse gas emission solution? I don't think so. One of the people that Matrin Kaste interviewed for his report hit it right on the head: it is very much akin to the indulgences sold by the Church before the Reformation. The theory goes, "pay up for your sins, and you'll be guaranteed a clean slate." It is easy to pay off $80 or so a year and drive your Ford Excursion like there was no tomorrow. But that is not the point of trying to be a better consumer and global citizen. While it might prompt some people to think about their "eco-footprint," it also has the danger of giving leeway to those who should be thinking about it the most. Being able to pay off your carbon debt, so to speak, could encourage you to be more carless about your consumption patterns, with the expectation that you can just pay it off later and be free and clear. That is dangerous thinking.

And the effect is small, very local. Kaste notes that it would take close to $10billion a year for the US to get to 1990 levels of carbon emissions. People are just not shelling out that amount of money, and there is also a limit to how many forests you can buy and protect, how many wind farms can be created in one year (or over a particular area). And it is one thing to invest in wind farms, but people or businesses also have to sign up to use the greener energy that the farms are producing. Buying into the farm is only half of the equation; without someone using it, it is a futile gesture.

While this is an ingenious way of approaching the problem, and this sort of outside-the-box thinking should be encouraged, it should not delude us from the real goal of this movement: to reduce our consumption in order to ensure a healthier planet for the future. There is no buying our way out of that one, it only comes via hard work.

Good news on Planet: Forestation

There is a spot of bright news on the horizon. A recent report put out by the US National Academy of Sciences mentions that forests are actually being maintained in many parts of the world, if not actually increasing. In the last 15 years, the United States and China have shown the greatest gain in forest coverage. Even moreso, it shows a general trend of countries around the world of transitioning to reforestation rather than deforestation.

Below is a picture from the article. The red line shows a neutral area+density forest volume; countries above that line are gaining forest volume and mass; those below are losing it.


This is definitely positive news. However, i would counsel that there remains an issue with logging large, old-growth forest. These venerable trees form the backbone of an ecosystem; they harbor the most water, possess the greatest surface area for CO2 reductions, and anchor the soil the greatest against erosion and other degredation. These trees still need protection from deforestation.

But, allow yourself a smile at this good news, which is so rare in the arena of environmental protection.

Here is an article at Planet Ark about the report.
Here is the report in its entirety from PNAS.

Green CEOs

Steven Milloy of foxnews.com wants you to believe that being a CEO in favor of green business is bad for business. In his most recent column, he gives three "examples" of how CEOs of major companies, by trying to move in a greener route, have sparked a decline in their own company's future value. He picks the specious cases of Ford, British Petroleum, and the upcoming "crisis" in General Electric. However, if you read what he has to write, he is simply not making any sense.

Ford's choice of CEO may have not been the wisest choice in the world, but the 5-year reign of Bill Ford did not have the disasterous effect that Millor wants you to believe. His reasoning is that, since Bill actively sought to turn his company down a greener road, the 2/3 loss of stock value that the company has endured is his fault. Instead, it was a company's reliance on trucks and SUVS - which consume huge amounts of gas - that dragged them down, and their unwillingness to change. Look at Ford's compatriot, General Motors. A company similarly laden down with the same burdens, has not had an environmentalist at the helm but still has managed to shed the majority of its value. In stark contrast, Toyota got on board the green vehicle bus very early, and is currently reaping in the benefits from it (note: here in California the waiting list for a Prius was, at one point, 7 months... how many cars would you willingly pay for in advance, and then wait 7 months for it to be delivered? not many). Honda is also there, and they have a good corner on the solar panel manufacturring market to bolster them up. So it was not these last 5 years that have doomed Ford, it has been decades of negligence and unwillingness to act or recognize changes down the road.

Negligence reminds me of Milloy's comments about BP's CEO Lord John Browne. Milloy states that, while Browne is trying to turn a new leaf in the company's long and sometimes turbid history, he has neglected "core business needs and has given the company a black-eye." What is evidence for this accusation? "A March 2005 explosion at BP’s Texas City, Texas, refinery complex killed 15 workers and injured many more. Poor maintenance at BP’s Alaskan oil pipeline caused the largest-ever oil spill on the North Slope in March 2006. A BP oil rig damaged by Hurricane Katrina still leaks one year later." Now the pipeline corrosion is a condition that builds up over years, if not decades, making recent decisions by the CEO hardly relevant. Even more important, the pipeline is soon to be back online,by BP's estimates. Explosions and hurricanes, while unfortunate, happen, at great cost to lives, money, and the environment. But these are pitfalls in any company, and freak acts like those do not necessarily reflect upon the CEO in question. Instad, trying to push BP into a new generation of companies working with alternative fuels, helping California's governor work with a new global-warming initiative, and work with partners like Greenpeace are constructive steps that more companies should take.

The truth of the matter is that green companies are starting to turn a profit, and make a lot of sense. Forbes magazine opines, "Evidence is mounting that what is good for the environment is also good for the price of a company's stock. Contrary to the widely accepted belief that environmental regulations are a drain on profitability, research demonstrates that being environmentally effective can add value to a company, and potentially benefit its shareholders. By taking advantage of environmental opportunities, companies can gain a competitive advantage over their peers through cost reductions, quality improvements, increased profitability and access to new and growing markets. Environmentally responsible companies also have less risk of environmental liability, which could have a major impact on future stock prices." And that was two years ago, before a lot of green businesses that exist today are even in place.

According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, "More than 70 percent of the world's largest 500 companies (FT 500) are now addressing climate change in their corporate reporting, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project. In addition, 90 percent of those companies flagged climate change as posing commercial risks and/or opportunities to their business." Toyota's hybrid cars have certainly been a boost for that company, as mentioned above. Portfolio 21's top 10 green companies for 2005 returned anywhere from 52% to 120%, hardly shabby growth by any metric.

Milloy's comments are not merely obtuse, but blatantly misleading. He chooses such abominable examples to base his case around that it could be hardly considered journalism. As I have shown, most of his accusations are not the result of one man's actions, as those take longer to matriculate in a large corporate atmosphere. Instead, CEOs who think green and act green should be encouraged to continue what they are doing, for it will benefit their shareholders, their customers, and society in general. Milloy should stop pandering and slandering and write about something about which he actually understands.

Shame on you GM

What a sham! On the way to work, the news reported that General Motors was offering qualified buyers a cap on the gasoline they buy. The models that are eligible, and must be bought between may 25 and July 5, are some of the largest, most gas-guzzling models GM currently offers. Included in that bunch is the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, the Hummer H2 and H3, the GMC Yukon, and more. The rebates apply only to those buyers in California or Florida and are also contingent on purchasing the OnStar diagnostic system.

Thank you, GM, for continually lowering the bar on helping to rid ourselves of oil dependence and working to preserve the environment. While nearly all other major auto manufacturers have worked to develop cleaner burning, lower emission, higher mileage vehicles, you create this. This is what happens when a stagnant auto maker, seeing the numbers falling on their beloved SUVs as people wisen up to the costs - both social, environmental, and financial - of owning such hulking monstrosities, decides that, rather than adapt to the market and improve their autos, they're going to jam their fingers in the dam and hope to hell that staves off disaster. Ford didn't follow this example; they introduced a hybrid vehicle. VW has improved their diesel offerings. Only you are sitting here pining away on the glory days of SUV bumper crops. It's time to face the facts GM and get with the program. I hope your rebate program goes no where.

How Green is my Basket?

It is too bad that the American people are so oblivious to their own power. Beyond their political voices, which are usually under-represented in the polls every November, Americans are able to “vote with their dollars” to quote the now-trite phrase. And while that concept is thrown around a lot, few understand the power that it can direct towards changing our society, and even our government. The cases where it has been applied we can see positive results emerging, usually in sectors where the government has proven too sterile in effecting the changes that people – judging from their fiscal “voting” – desire. Traditionally, these areas are environmentally-friendly products and/or services and consumption choices that positively augment the position of people around the world.

One of the nice qualities of these movements is they are usually grassroots, which has generally been associated with a popular movement growing up and gaining strength. It shows mass popularity for something to grow from the small end of the spectrum. Smaller businesses are easier to be “green” or “organic” or whatever eco- or social-friendly moniker you desire to ascribe to them. Large businesses have a sort of economic momentum due to their size and corporate culture which imposes barriers to such changes. They are also not inherently socially conscious, focused upon profits and shareholders as opposed to workers or the environment. It is not to say that these companies are inherently evil, it is just their nature within a large capitalist market. Smaller businesses are able to adapt to changing consumer patterns rather quickly, and it is in these small stores and markets that such concepts as fair trade certification, organically grown crops, recycled packaging, shade grown foods, and other socially conscious developments emerge. (Plus, and it is important to note, that these stores have a clientele that is able to afford the higher prices that accompany the initial costs associated with not only developing a product in this manner, but also having it certified by a recognized international oversight organization. This is almost a crucial aspect to the success of such movements, and thus can be best executed in first world nations.)

This is a curious precipitation from strict, traditional capitalism: the people’s will to see and affect a change in the world around them that does not, initially or intuitively, grant them a benefit. And as these movements – based in small stores, farmers markets, co-ops, and other niche retailers – grows, it builds more and more momentum. It is a good reward for those who take the time to adopt such products into their stores, as well as the consumers who choose to consciously make these purchases due to the social and environmental implications they carry. The momentum can carry these new tenets of business practices all the way to the “big boys.” It is heartening to see when big companies adopt these products or practices, a successful apex to each grassroots beginning. And they have been, spurred on by the dollar votes of consumers. The examples are almost limitless:

• Starbucks now supports Fair Trade Certified™, shade grown and certified organic coffees. They also run a selection of programs to help provide for the coffee growers that they depend on.
• Target now offers such products as bamboo-derived sheets, a more eco-friendly alternative to ordinary cotton or flannel.
• Fair trade has become a huge business in the European Union, where sales of Fair Trade Certified™ foods have jumped 49% in the last year. Switzerland alone reports that 47% of bananas, 28% of flowers, and 9% of sugar sold carry the Fair Trade label.
• UC Berkeley’s Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) has sponsored the installation of solar panels atop the Student Union to power the building using clean, renewable energy.
• Behemoth retailer Wal-Mart has joined the throng, offering organic food and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) approved fish products in more than 6,000 stores.

There are numerous debates on how large companies and organizations can still maintain the ideals and spirit of the measures they have adopted, and that is a valid concern. But what is most striking is that these large businesses and organizations even thought along these lines. And all of that translates directly into the power of consumers, whether they are people buying lattes or students paying for an education, to shift the paradigms that rule businesses.

One would think that with this record of success in deploying these initiatives among businesses it would become a more standard procedure to attack problems from a fiscal perspective. However, this is sadly not the case. The overriding reason, I believe, is that implementation of these solutions from the ground-up takes too long to manifest itself; only the most careful of planning and execution can pull off these coups. But victory is possible. And there is no shortage of social ills that one could apply this methodology towards.

I see oil consumption as the next major battle to be waged and won through financial means. The government has regularly shown its incompetence towards achieving a viable solution to the problem of our fossil fuel “addiction” as our President put it. This is not a condemnation of either side of the aisle, but of the government as a whole. Tax rebates, ANWR drilling, protectionist mergers are all as equally useless as they are clouding to the debate. But the people are speaking. Toyota was one of the first to bring an assembly-line hybrid vehicle to the market, a car which provides substantially higher gas mileage than normal cars (55mpg per Toyota’s testing versus 27.5 for the American fleet average). Instantly the demand flew through the roof. There were reports that there existed a 7-month wait period merely to purchase one of these technological wonders. Detroit must have been scratching their heads, wondering why no one would patiently wait seven months for a new Ford or Chevy. And it grew. Honda quickly caught up with their own hybrids, Toyota expanded their line up. Ford got on board by leasing Honda’s technology. Most car manufacturers are set to introduce hybrid vehicles within the next year if they haven’t already. And since transportation still consumes the majority of America’s oil, this is a good place to start. Other solutions include bio-diesel, ethanol (General Motor’s E85 program is growing) and liquid natural gas (LNG) vehicles. This is a much better solution than what Washington is providing, and more effective than the lamely-introduced “boycotts” of oil companies that periodically surface yet never work. The gears are in motion.

Americans need to wake up to the fact that using their buying power wisely and effectively can mean bringing about the changes that we desire to see in our nation. As much as buying power can be used for positive reinforcement (consumers buying from a certain company because they provide the desired products/services), it can also be negative punitive measures when companies do things that the citizens/consumers of this country dislike. Boycotts, when organized effectively, can highlight public awareness, visibly display disapproval of a certain organizations’ actions, and serve to, through financial burdens, and force a change for the better. I wrote of this back in April within the environmental movement , but it can apply to whichever cause you desire to augment with your efforts. That, and a little personal sacrifice which is a whole other issue. In capitalism, the ultimate weapon, ruler, and metric of a people is the dollar. Learning to wield those dollars in wise ways could go far to cut through current problems we face and unveil new and innovative solutions from which all global citizens’ benefit.

Red Scare or Red Herring?

With the energy crisis that is rapidly speeding towards America, indeed the whole world, there is a rush to politicize fossil fuels, as well as mounting international competition for those resources. Energy security and energy politics are the new buzzwords for governments everywhere. Russia was recently accused by Vice President Cheney of using their energy reserves as “tools of manipulation or blackmail.” Evo Morales, Bolivia’s new President, decided to nationalize their natural gas reserves, calling it, “a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of [Bolivia’s] natural resources.” For the United States, however, there is a single, primary competitor in the world of energy resources. The world’s largest fossil fuel user, it seems, is entering a direct confrontation with China, the world’s fastest-growing fossil fuel user. This competition is setting the stage for energy policies for decades to come, and unfortunately there exists a blindness associated with this duel that makes for bad politics, grandstanding, and a deflection from some of the real issues and solutions. Politicians have used China’s recent energy-gathering measures as a kind of new scare of Communist domination, when 1) China is merely playing the US’s game, and winning; and 2) there are more important solutions to be focused upon for our energy issues.

The first salvo fired in the energy wars between the two behemoths occurred last year, when the Chinese firm CNOOC Ltd. put in a bid for an American oil company, Unocal Corp. The bid, in good capitalist fashion, beat out a competitive offer from Chevron Corp. by over $2 billion. However, the deal was squashed. Why? Pressure from American politicians, worrying about the implications that China may be consolidating oil futures for itself, construed the take-over bid as a hostile maneuver against American national security. It drew immediate fire from politicians of all sorts, even prompting a threat of an investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive committee designed to investigate whether or not foreign takeovers and investments constitutes a threat to our national security. This would have been the first time CFIUS would be reviewing a natural resource company. Skeptics wondered about the true threat the bid posed. James Lewis, a technology transfer expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said “From a security perspective, it’s as much of a threat as when the Japanese purchased [New York’s] Rockefeller Center.” There was nothing untoward about the deal from the Chinese company (which was ultimately withdrawn in the face of such pressure). In reality, it was just good capitalism that was squashed by protective political maneuvers. This is not such new news for the United States, as protectivism has been documented in this administration towards the Vietnamese fishing industry, international steel industry, and others.

The rhetoric escalated this past week when Cuba announced that it was opening up a portion of its territory on the Florida Straits to offshore drilling – with China being one of the main bidders to attract the contract. China was not the only country negotiating the leases to drill off of Cuba’s coast; India, Spain, and Canada were also represented in the company’s agreements. This land is thought to hold a fair amount of oil and natural gas, commodities that are undoubtedly important given the instability in the Middle East, decreased American domestic production of oil, and rising demand worldwide. Politicians in the United States were quick to jump on the anti-China protectionist bandwagon. Senator Larry E. Craig, R-ID, even made a compliment which smacks of Cold War fear-mongering, saying “Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our own shores without competition from US industries.” Red China? Excuse me? Are we still stuck in the 70s here?

The rising concerns over energy, its availability and its pricing, has led politicians to use this as a new weapon to attack other governments, especially China. Yet nothing that China is doing is so unlike what other nations, the United States included, has done in the past to secure energy futures. Britain spent decades trying to subvert efforts for Iran to become a free nation with U.S. assistance. The companies of the United States hold oil development land rights across the globe, including Libya (not exactly the most U.S.-friendly nation), Venezuela, Australia, and more. China is asserting itself on the global scale now; they are stepping up and trying to secure their energy to ensure their future development. To use such trite phrases to intimidate them, or to spur anti-competitive action, is childish at best.

No, these observations are inherently counterproductive to developing a cohesive national energy policy. The anti-competitive statements merely prejudice our public and shift their attention away from viable solutions, of which protectivism is not one. Trying to bully China away from drilling in Cuba will not save the US from our energy woes either. Indeed, trying to form some anti-Chinese competition by drilling our own Florida Straits region is an equally undesirable answer. There is not enough oil residing there to last the U.S. more than 15 years, most likely in the range of a dozen; are we willing to allow their political grandstanding to set us back a decade or more in energy development and management, at which time we will have no reserves left and an even larger energy demand?

Fostering these sentiments and creating this antagonism is very easy politically for it requires no major input or sacrifice by the public, merely stirring up protectivist and nationalistic fervor among the public. But it doesn’t solve the underlying issues at hand. To achieve that, America needs to look at the more difficult, but entirely plausible, solutions of alternative fuels, conservation, and higher efficiency. These solutions are available to us; look at the new GM plan of the E85 standard, which uses a blend of 85% ethanol with 15% regular gasoline. Imagine cutting our transportation fuel usage by 85%. The world would be dumbstruck. Or the hybrid line of fuels which is gaining in popularity. Another efficient, gas and cost saving measure. CAFE standards are another option, used by Carter in the 70s to great positive effect, could be resurrected to help force the changes we all want to see. Smarter urban planning which allows for improved public transportation (or even non-motorized transportations, like walking or biking [gasp!]). These options are here for us to utilize, if only the politicians, our leaders, would get behind them and breathe life into them for a truly positive change in this country. The benefits are beyond comprehension. Instead, they seem to be focused merely on blowing a lot of hot air around. I hope there’s a change in the winds soon.

The Rational Environmentalist: Economics as a Tool

sorry for the long post this week...

At first it seems a contradiction in terms. Rational environmentalist. Environmentalists, who for decades have been associated with impassioned speeches and desperate acts of heroism (some would say stupidity) in the name of saving the environment, but very few people would make the leap to call them rational. I think that this irrationality on the part of the environmental movement is a large problem, one that will undermine their future effectiveness as protectors of the natural world. For too long have the public waded through shock therapies designed to jolt us into a compassionate viewpoint of the world, and steel our reserve to do all things necessary to prevent degradation wrought by other groups. However, there are far too many who do not respond with the arduous vigor that was hope, and yet environmentalists continue to bray into the wind. Even the Democratic Party, long a stalwart supporter of the environmental movement, has begun to take steps away from the green fringe. Why? Because they have lost their touch with reality, in numerous ways.

Ask anyone to describe an environmentalist and the response is uncannily similar: a hippie-ish figure opining fervently about some nature issue, or about the evils of an industry, company, or individual. Large, grandiose gestures on the part of the environmentalists have become a major perception of the entire group. Groups like Greenpeace have furthered this image, throwing themselves into admirable yet ultimately futile gestures. Chaining themselves to trees, blockading bulldozers, rafting against oilrigs and tankers, these scenarios have become so banal they now fail to arouse the least bit of curiosity in the general public, let alone a zealous response of indignation. These tactics, while once persuasive, have lost their effectiveness in the face of modern society.

So what recourse do environmentalists have? To where should they turn when the irrational spew they are so accustomed to churning out is lifeless? I would postulate that moving in the other direction would be the best course of action. By rationalizing their pro-environment arguments, they will strengthen their positions as well as widen their own listening base, and in turn raise their own coalition to a new level. For too long has the heated rhetoric isolated those people who are most important to the environment’s cause. Because everyone has the possibility to play a part in this issue. It is not merely a white problem, or an atheistic problem or a rural problem; the health of the environment, and all the trappings that go with it, is everyone’s concern. That is a challenge to environmentalists: to engage all sectors of our society. And loud speeches or futile displays are no longer sufficient. We need to reach them on a level they can relate to and empathize with. And this involvement will open them up; bringing the issues closer to home will establish beyond a shadow of a doubt why the everyman must also champion the environment.

The inevitable question that follows is where do environmentalists find that common language, the means with which they will reach out and rally others to their cause? The answer lies in the language of all modern societies: economics. The very power environmentalists are accused of disrupting could prove to be a powerful ally.

For years, it has been assumed that the environmental movement is counter-economic growth. A common viewpoint is that it is necessary to utilize our natural resources to their fullest extent at the risk of losing out in economic development against the rest of the world. It is apparent even in today's politics, when our president refuses to join the Kyoto Protocol because it would endanger American businesses and would impose too great costs to our federal budget. Ditto for his decision to weaken mercury emission requirements despite EPA reports suggesting otherwise.

In this world, and especially in a capitalist-driven country such as this, a great number of times, the dollar is the bottom line. And it is to this that environmentalists must also address when they are enhancing their communication with other factions of this nation. Environmentalists need to highlight the practical nature of strong green policy; that it makes good economic, as well as social, sense to protect the wilderness. Overly aggressive harvesting of our natural resources is an economically unsound policy that will drain our economy faster than we would like to believe.

A very relevant article appeared in the March 2005 issue of Outside magazine. In this article, it went on to describe several examples of how economics can work to benefit the environment. One such example: when New York State had allocated $8 billion to construct and $300 million annually to maintain a new water purification system. Instead of building an entirely new treatment plant, they decided to spend $2 billion of that improving the health of the Catskills Mountains, a natural watershed for the state. The state found, after this restoration, the watershed alone was purifying the water enough so they did not have to alter any additional existing infrastructure of their urban system. In effect, preserving the Catskill Mountains saved New York State $6 billion plus the annual costs. This, in effect, makes those mountains worth in excess of $6 billion in assets just for water purification. This does not include recreation, possible carbon sinks, quality-of-life improvements, a plethora of other points that healthy ecosystems add to an economy. It is an interesting article to read, and this is just one example they give. Another example is the CAFE standards put in place by Carter in the late 70s. While reducing foreign oil imports by 87% and raising the fuel efficiency of the American fleet by 6mpg, the economy still grew by 27%, greater than 4% a year. And in 1995, the US Forestry Service studied the value of their land holdings and discovered the national forests of this country create nearly $94 billion in recreation-based economic activity annually. In comparison, these lands generated less than $20 billion in timber and mining revenue combined.

Economics is predominant in the minds of Americans, whether the environmental movement wants to believe it or not. One of the greatest issues facing them now is addressing these concerns, and making the general public realize it makes sense, economically as well as environmentally, to preserve the land for long-term use. It will have benefits that are far-reaching. With this new economics coming to bat for us, we have a new weapon we can use to educate and illuminate others to our cause.

The use of economics by the environmental sector is more than an educational tool. While the numbers, figures, and charts can work towards convincing people that the environment matters as much as their pocket books matter, the principles of economics provide the green movement with a new weapon. As money is the blood flow of the world, its constriction or dilation by organizations can prove useful motivation to achieving an end. And by applying this pressure judiciously, wilderness organizations can reap large benefits geared towards achieving their goals. One of these economic tools is an effective boycott.

You must qualify a boycott as effective because it has become another nominal threat from the environmental community. In response to any number of perceived slights, the environmental community jumps into action, calling for “boycotts” of the offending member. Whether these slights are real or not is not the subject of this article; the fact is that they are begun, word is spread to a few similarly-fervent people, and it ends up a 5pm news story at the boycott site. However, it rarely makes any sort of difference to the individual or company or industry that they are trying to impact. Why is this? To investigate what makes an effective boycott, we’ll examine one of the most influential boycotts in American history: the 1955 boycott of the Montgomery bus service after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. What attributes of this boycott made it so prominent in the American psyche, and had such far-reaching effects for the civil rights movement?

The first aspect that becomes apparent of the Montgomery boycott is the size. Contrary to many of the more modern, half-hearted boycotts, the Montgomery bus service witnessed a drop-off in a large number of riders. The scope of the boycott took the bus service, and the country, by surprise. And a boycott requires such a force in order to make itself truly effective. A boycott carried out by a grand total of a few dozen, maybe even a few hundred, is not able to put a dent into the economics of major organizations like the bus service. It needs a mass of people willing to carry out the boycott en masse.

The second noticeable difference that the Montgomery bus boycott possessed compared to modern boycotts is the duration. There have been some people who have called for oil boycotts, to demonstrate the public’s displeasure of the oil industry and their tactics in pricing or environmental stewardship. However, most of these boycotts ask for a measly week’s worth of boycotting. The problem with this is that people will effectively countermand their own boycott by stocking up before or immediately after the week-long boycott. People reason, “I’ll boycott, but I still need to drive, so I will fill up the tank before the boycott starts, then I can participate.” The oil company does not feel it is in any danger, for it knows that fact. Deferred purchases do not make any sort of impact against these mega-corporations. In contrast, the Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. This length brought the bus company to its knees, depriving it of a great source of revenue and eventually forcing it to capitulate to the boycott’s demands. This length serves two purposes. One is to systematically work against the aggressor financially, and the duration is necessary for the company to feel the effects of what you’re trying to achieve. And with the distinct large-ness of modern corporations, it has become a longer timeframe in order to effect these realizations. The second aspect of the time length is to grow the boycott. A week’s boycott is difficult to educate enough people and have enough participants to make it effective. There had actually been bus boycotts before the 1955 one; they lasted from one week to three months, but never had a significant influence in achieving their ultimate goal: desegretation of the bus system. However, as the time goes on, and people become attracted to the cause, they can join and multiply the effects to an even greater magnitude. Yet another reason for an effective boycott to have a long duration is psychological. Being able to abstain, to put the cause above petty personal desires, reflects the deepness of the value which one places in the actions they are espousing. It is easy to pick up a boycott for a week, and then go back to a normal life without a second thought. More difficult, and much more impressive, to maintain a boycott for six months. It proves that this is something cared about ardently enough to sacrifice for long periods of time. It is this which gets attention, and helps drive media frenzy around a boycott to educate even more possible participants and grow the boycott to maximize efficiency.

There is one facet of an effective boycott that makes it impossible to fail: the dedication of the participants. This will be discussed at some length in a later article, but it is necessary to have the boycotters committed to the cause. There is a need for a measure of personal sacrifice on the part of the participants. Boycotts, and making changes, does not come easy, and with the time involved, can impose some hardships on the persons involved. In the continuing example of Montgomery, it resides in the inability for a great number of people to use personal transit in order to get to their jobs, schools, and daily errands. But this was endured, and the results speak for themselves. I seriously doubt any of the boycotters would look back and feel that it was a waste of their time and inconvenience. (In an interesting, ironic twist, the iconographic environmental boycott of refusing to buy gasoline would require people to subsist on public transportation, rather than shunning it.) But this sacrifice, this resolve, is an integral part of a boycott, something without which no action would bear fruit.

There are other aspects of economics that can be utilized to help bring about changes to existing environmental conditions. A lot of these also involve economics’ twin brother, politics. Tax subsidies/penalties, mandatory standards of emissions/quality control (mostly political, but can still have wide-spread economic consequences for the companies involved), even something as simple as a refund for aluminum can recycling has economic implications for the betterment of the environment. These are economic powers that can be positive or negative, depending on the influence one wishes to implement. But they still constitute a broadening region that the environmental movement can make use of to expand their own interests to great effort.

However, the sword that stands to be inherited by environmentalists is double-edged. While it can be used with great possibility to force change in industries that have thus far proved to be beyond governmental control (either by campaign contributions or sheer brute political force), economics also will force the environmentalists to evaluate their own priorities and better focus their efforts. The economics that drives the world brings the priorities of a society into sharp relief. These will invariably be industries that are more or less valuable to the economy, just as these sectors will have varying levels of negative environmental impact. While it is a natural desire to eliminate all of the evils the environment is currently facing, in an economic sense it is not possible to address all issues simultaneously. The environmental movement must prioritize their agendas, though this may seem counter-productive. By using economics they are able to evaluate where their efforts would yield the greatest returns. This article is not about enumerating these choices; rather, it is about the necessity to implement this method of thinking. A lot of environmentalists have unrealistic expectations of large, sudden changes in a given society’s growth and/or consumption patterns. But the truth is these adjustments must always be gradual. Nothing can really be achieved overnight. By looking at all the implications of a particular industry’s errors and the measures necessary to redress the problems, the environmentalists can work towards effective yet also realistic accomplishments. To ignore the other facets of reality leaves the movement as a whole out of touch and ultimately sterile. An example is the forest industry. There are a great number of activists who decry any use of timber in modern society. They would prefer to close down all major forest harvesting projects. The reality is that lumber, paper, and other forest products are vital portions of modern living and consumption. It is impossible to grind all that to a halt immediately. And since there is this high demand for their products, shutting down American forest harvesting will only shift the problem elsewhere in the world, moving to new possible suppliers. Rather, the gradual management and reduction of logging will elicit a greater result, be easier to motivate other citizens to follow, and generate greater acquiescence from industry. Investing their energies in recycled paper products, alternative building technologies/materials, and sustainable harvesting management plans will produce gradual yet continuous positive improvements. This is the way that, thankfully, a lot of environmental organizations have chosen to follow, and I sincerely hope they use this judicious evaluation and attack process towards all of their endeavors. It remains that the fringe needs to get with this program, for it is their unusually harsh and loud voices that are creating detrimental roadblocks for progress.

If this sounds like an MBA talking, that is good. The people environmentalists are most directly working against are business leaders. The public is secondary in this matter. The public always states, in pre-election polls, that the environment is high in their minds and electoral considerations. But when the day actually arrives, more practical concerns take over their minds. The economy, foreign trade, job growth, federal budget and deficit, all preoccupy the citizens’ collective interest when the ballot is cast. For too long has the environment been viewed as antithetical to economic prosperity. For too long have companies and governments used financial statistics to beat down environmental policy. The tide is turning; those same statistics are beginning to prove the point that wilderness and consumption patters matter. And in order to make the argument stronger, iron-clad, environmentalists need to trade the soapbox for the cost-analysis study. By becoming rational environmentalists, we inherit the power to make our most irrational dreams come true.


You can find the Outside magazine article on the internet at http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200503/money-and-the-environment_1.html

Laying this to Rest... finally

For over a year now, ANWR has been cited as being at the top of our President's agenda. He has relentlessly pushed for the drilling in ANWR, and has been echoed by a great number of the conservative side of this nation. However, there is indisputable evidence that the goals he hopes to achieve with the drilling in ANWR are not possible given the size of the oil field that is believed to lie there. In February, 2004, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-CA, and Chairman of the US House Committee on Resources, asked the Energy Information Administration, a government organization, to form a report on the prospects of ANWR drilling. They responded with a report in March of that same year, and here are highlights of the report. If you would like to read the entire report, you can find it at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

* "Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to just 66 percent in the mean resource case. The high and low oil resource cases project a 2025 oil import dependency of 64 and 67 percent, respectively."
MEANING: if we open up ANWR, the best-scenario case illustrates that we will decrease our oil dependency by just 6%.

* "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Are to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013."
MEANING: if we start this now (2004 when the report was written) it would take 9 years to even start to see the oil emerging from these fields.

* "It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected price 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amountl."
MEANING: If we develop oil in ANWR, we will reduce the price of oil by 1.1 to 1.9% per barrel of oil. But that prediction is not final, as OPEC could shift production to keep prices where they are.

* "Expenditures on foreign oil and petroleum products are also projected to be lower in 2025 by $8 billion (2002 dollars) in the mean oil resource case, and by $15 and $6 billion in the high and low oil resource cases, respectively."
MEANING: By 2025, we will spend approximately $200 billion on foreign oil imports. This development would reduce that figure by 4%.

This report was generated by a federal agency under this administration. It also make references to the fact that transportation of the oil, via a pipeline, could run over budget (as the TAPS - Trans-American Pipeline System did in the 70s and 80s when developping Prudhoe bay), and the timing effect of getting the oil to market is approximate... it could be longer or shorter, depending on the actual discoveries and production process.

However, this report demonstrates the fact that it is a waste of energy to try and hold all of our hopes on this solution to the problem. The solutions that need to be sought are increased fuel economy (Carter's CAFE standards of the 70s), new fuel products (biodielsel, electric, hydrogen, etc.), and better city planning (increased usage of public transportation and walking/biking/etc.).

I suggest you write to your Congressman/woman, highlight the facts of this report, and make them aware of the importance of seeking real solutions to this problem. Drilling in ANWR will not solve our energy dilemma, and this report should be the final nail in the coffin of the drilling proposals. Please try to spread the word.