Group items tagged

Using market forces to force change on an environmental problem. Some background on the problem: http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/Threats-Water-pollution/ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/threats-health/

At different public meetings in Kansas and Texas, the proposed oil pipeline that would run from Canada to the US received very different responses. The meeting in Texas was met with widespread support, mostly due to the number of jobs it would create as well as helping to decrease the United States' dependence on foreign oil, while the meeting in Kansas was met with harsh criticism, due to the potential for environmental devastation. This article shows an interesting contrast between the priorities of the two states, and how some are willing to look the other way when it comes to creating jobs.

So, our worst fears about GMOs have come true.  But should we still be afraid?  This article starts by saying "This might not even be a problem at all," then describes how genetically engineered canola is sprouting up all along roadsides in North Dakota.  As it turns out, "These genetically engineered canola plants have been found growing along roads in Canada, where canola is widely grown, and in Japan, which imports the crop."  Doesn't this mean lots of other crops will soon follow suit?  One scientist offers in conclusion that plants like corn and soybeans, also preponderantly GMO-based, are "super-domesticated and they just don't really like to go wild." So maybe we'll get used to only certain GMOs alongside our roads?

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

Although the article is mostly about the creation of new currency, the idea of the new currency is what I found most relevant--the currency is suppose to encourage "local" support.