Climate Change...The REAL Tradegy of the Commons

The root cause of any tragedy of the commons is that when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire social cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual benefit, he or she will place the burden of an external cost onto others. In common with many other environmental problems, human-induced climate change is at its most basic level a negative externality. Those who produce greenhouse-gas emissions are bringing about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and future generations, but they do not face directly, neither through markets nor in other ways, the full consequences of the costs of their actions. It differs from other externalities in that it is global in its causes and consequences and its impacts are long term and persistent. The impacts of climate change are very broad ranging and interact with economic dynamics, giving rise to many complex policy problems.

Although the cause of climate change is debated, most people would agree that it exists. In today's struggling economy, how big of an issue will climate change policy be in the upcoming presidential election? By then, could we be facing doubled or tripled electric bills with gas prices at $5 a gallon? Just how unpleasant are people willing to be to prevent climate change?

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy today. Should we just let China's and India's "Industrial Revolution" continue with uncontrollable carbon emissions? What is their alternatives? I've seen no evidence that the Chinese or Indians plan to do much of anything to reduce their emissions in the near future. For economic reasons, I don't blame them - I'd be less than enthusiastic about a bunch of rich countries telling me that I wasn't allowed to get rich too, because that would be bad for the planet.

Since climate change is tied to economics, our best hope is that policy will lead to innovations which make alternatives to carbon super cheap. This would beneficial to everyone, and the transition from an oil based economy to a carbon alternative economy would not be as economically unpleasant. Climate change is global in its causes and consequences; therefore, should be global in its policy and solutions. No doubt that complex policy challenges will be involved in managing the transition to a low carbon economy and to ensure that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=U-VmIrGGZgAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=deny+climate+change&ots=9cpU6wmtsa&sig=7oJODHHWKo04CG5iS8pQ9l0fb2Y#v=onepage&q=deny%20climate%20change&f=false

Too Much of Anything Is a Bad Thing

For a while it was talked about. There was a worldwide population control movement that was active throughout the 1960's and 70's, driving many reproductive health and family planning programs. In the 80's, tension grew between population control advocates and women's heath activists who advanced women's reproductive rights as part of a human rights based approach. Soon there was a growing opposition to the narrow population control focus which led to a significant change in population control policies in the early 90's.

With the populations of China and India over the one billion mark, and dwindling populations such as Germany and Russian giving government incentives to reproduce, the time for such coyness is long past. With several generations of population growth, are we now heading toward a Malthusian catastrophe? In 1798, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he wrote:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world".

Despite what many people say, food production is not the main problem resulting from too many people. The real problem is the utilisation of the world's finite resources - metals, fuels and so forth. Conserving our food and natural resources will not only require changes in the techniques of natural resource management but a change in the way human values and mortality are perceived. Both task are daunting. In addition to the natural systems, natural resource management also has to manage various stakeholders and their interests, policies, politics, geographical boundaries, economic implications and the list goes on. It is very difficult to satisfy all aspects at the same time. This results in conflicting situations. Controlling people's personal decisions on how many children they want to have is a complicated and touchy issue as well. Educating young girls is extremely important. Tim Wirth, the president of the United Nations Foundation, says that when women in the poorest countries are given increase access to educational opportunities, birth rates decline. Improved assess to birth control more family planning programs could help also.

Ultimately, unless mankind starts to control its population, the world's resources will be unable to sustain that population. The best way too take action for population control is to bring attention to the problem.  Enough attention can lay the ground work for a long lasting population control movement.
The time to start talking and debating and planning is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

"Top Down" In the Rain

The golden years for conservation and environmental protection seemed to be in the 70's and 80's. Led by Aldo Leopold, a science based conservation movement swept through this country that led to the Endangered Species Act and brought a tremendous increase in the number of agencies and groups devoted to the conservation of all species. By the 80's, wildlife conservation seemed to peak and was gaining an incredible amount of attention. This attention ultimately led to its downfall. Wildlife conservation agencies and groups quickly became politicised, pushing policy and action plans backed by political pressures instead of actual science. Even though scientific management is one of the seven sisters of the North American Conservation model, we seem to be taking a top-down management approach to conservation. Top-down management basically means you take a running system and look at it "top-down", in its entirety, and develop policy based on that perspective. The problem with this approach is that the ones at the top are at an increased rick to be swayed by political pressures.

"Where once professional managers determined the direction and content of agency policy and action,  now they are virtually powerless and the control of management rests with career politicians and administration professionals whose primary interest is to ensure the people in the field take top-down direction regardless of the science."

Is the top-down approach being implemented in South Carolina? The director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) is being forced into retirement, by a board, most of whose members were selected by Gov. Nikki Haley last year. One might recall the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) resigned a short time ago after a new Haley picked board took control of that agency. Haley has stated publicly that she had nothing to do with the retirement of either Frampton or DHEC chief Earl Hunter, but she was aware that the members of the board were ready for the agency to go in a different direction. South Carolina has now chosen its law enforcement chief Alvin Taylor to take over SCDNR operations. Alvin Taylor has an extensive law enforcement background and has consistently risen through the ranks, but how much does he know about actual conservation? Following Frampton's questionable retirement, its going to be interesting to see the direction Taylor plans to take. Will Taylor push policy backed by science or will he give into the political pressures of the board? Conservation needs to be driven by the people who know best how to deliver it. Taylor needs to bring with him a bottom-up approach to conservation and management. He needs to empower the individuals who are actually in the field doing the "dirty" work.  With enough science on his side, he has the power to transform conservation even in the most politically complicated conditions.

http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/tag/wildlife-policy