Category: Economics

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[500] Of from the plain to the marshes

So, the bid to remove the ANWR provision from the budget has predictably failed by a small margin. The Senate voted 51-49 to reject the amendment. With this, the probability of seeing ANWR being drilled is higher than any other time the drilling idea has reached the floor. The shroud of the dark side has fallen, begun the clone wars has. Er, I mean, er, – actually this ANWR scuffle has been dubbed the first political battle of the year. And Star Wars latest trailer is goddamn sexy though was out a week ago.

And the left is losing badly though the vote will be slim. (Cough) But it’s not so bad. Looking at history, the left loves losing actually.

Official result can be read from the Senate website. Creek Running North has a short entry on who voted what.

Half way around the world, the New York Times has reported earlier last week that progress is being made by conservationist in the Tigris-Eupharates marshes that were devastated by Saddam Hussein. I’m unable to provide the link since it has been archived. However, and fortunately, Google provides an excellent search. For background on the story, read some of my earlier entry and also the enlightening Laputan Logic.

In Malaysia, the ones that are responsible for the environmental destruction near a nature reserve – the ones in the government – has gotten away. Instead, some of the the developers, are being charged. While it’s good to see action is being taken, sadly, the target should be the ones that approved the irresponsble projects, not the ones that conducted the project. But then, again, in Malaysia, priority means nothing. Hey, we will have the biggest courthouse in the world but not the best judiciary system in the world.

p/s – update on Coke campaign. Some student entity from outside Michigan and other schools (Canada… eh?) has contacted the people in Michigan about solidarity and cooperation when Coke is concerned. And some has somewhat called for a North America anti-Coke coalition.

Plus, the College Democrats has jumped onto the bandwagon. The Republicans, I’d imagine, would love to be on the other side. And the official color for this campaign should be green instead of red. Red looks like too commie.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[499] Of losing the battle

John Kerry offers to strip the drilling proposal from the budget (via). I don’t think Kerry’s suggestion will work, unfortunately.

The Republicans are shrewd to attach the drilling proposal along with the budget. Because of such arrangement, it would only take a simple majority to pass the drilling bill. At the same time, the Republicans are controlling the House.

Alternative Hippopotamus aptly describes the situation for ANWR. The real quote however is:

It would take a miracle to get you out of Casablanca and the Germans have outlawed miracles.

The hippo is right; it would take a miracle to prevent drilling and time to resist is running out. ANWR’s only hope to be left undisturbed is the word no from rational Republican representatives that understand that, as John Kerry has stated during the 2004 Presidential campaign, we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis.

After more than two decades of fighting, it all comes down to here and now. And the future looks grim.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[497] Of ANWR in the second term

Here we go again.

He said drilling in ANWR should be part of an overall energy bill that would promote conservation, increase domestic energy production and modernize infrastructure such as power grids and pipelines.

Yes, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would indeed promote conservation. What a wonderful logic!

Somehow, it is consistent with the idea of ‘saving the forest by cutting the trees down’. Ooo, I love the forest. Wait, what is this tree doing here? Cut it down! It’s blocking my view of the forest!

Bullshit.

The last time the bill was brought to the floor, it was killed. It was not easy but it was taken by its throat and thrown off into the drain nonetheless. This time around, with record price at $54 per barrel, with Bush on his second term and a Republicans-filled House, killing the bill should be harder. Way harder.

p/s – for the past few days, tension has been running high between Malaysia and Indonesia. Though war is unlikely, some Indonesians have attacked Malaysian government websites. Counterattacks have been done against Indonesian property on the net. Screenshots has more.

It’s quite weird however seeing the local Malaysian dailies being unexcited about the current development at Ambalat in east Borneo. Indonesian press on the contrary is going balistic.

Categories
Economics Environment Photography

[496] Of (maybe) green food

Some days ago, a report was published by the Food Policy journal. An archive of the journal can be found at ScienceDirect. According to BBC, the authors of the paper argue that buying food locally is “greener than organic”. I’ve heard the idea of ‘buying locally grown food is better than buying imported food’ a long time ago but never really gave it a thought.

The rationale behind this is externality – some cost of food distribution is not internalized into the price and thus, the food price doesn’t reflect the true cost of the food. According to one of the authors:

“The price of food is disguising externalised costs – damage to the environment, damage to climate, damage to infrastructure and the cost of transporting food on roads,” Professor Lang told the BBC News website.

One problem I have about the concept of buying food locally is the idea of opportunity cost and comparative advantage. The cost of growing food locally might be higher than the cost of growing food abroad. To describe this, borrowing the rose example from Krugman’s International Economics text:

He took the occasion to make a speech denouncing the growing imports of flowers into the United States, which he claimed were putting American flowers growers out of business.The case of winter roses offers an excellent example of the reasons why international trade can be beneficial. Consider first how hard it is to supply American sweethearts with fresh roses in February. The flowers must be grown in heated greenhouses, at great expense in terms of energy, capital investment, and other scarce resources.

He, in the example refers to 1996 Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan.

Now, replace roses with some food that can’t be grown during wintertime without the help of greenhouses. The same idea still applies and hence, again, the cost of growing food locally might be higher than the cost of growing food abroad.

Moreover, I do believe, if, hypothetically, we were to buy food locally, prices would differ across areas. Different places do have differing supply and demand and thus, differing prices. Difference in prices would later lead to arbitraging opportunity. Arbitrage leads to trade and thus, the exportation and the importation of food, all over again. It’s merry-go-round. Unless of course, if some entity were to standardized the prices, than it would not be a problem. However, standardizing the prices doesn’t sound like a bright idea.

Before the two issues are resolved, I will not readily accept the idea of buying food locally is necessarily better than buying food originated from somewhere else just because it seems green.

At the same time, it also takes energy to transport food from one place to another. But, if price in town A is lower than price in town B with the cost of transporting the food from town A to town B is higher than the difference in prices, trade wouldn’t happen anyway.

Further:

“It is going to need some sophisticated policy solutions,” Professor Pretty said. “You could say we should internalise those costs in prices, so that it affects people’s behaviour. That might be economically efficient but it lacks on the social justice side because it will affect rich people much less.”

If we could internalize all the costs, the problem would indeed be solved. The greenest and the most efficient way to buy food would be to consume the cheapest one (ceteris paribus, definitely).

However, given the externalities, I really don’t think we know which food is greener than the other, or the cheapest if all cost were to be internalized – the green bean originating from somewhere in the US or the red bean grown somewhere in Latin America. Then again, green bean and red bean are not really substitutes but I suppose you’ll get the idea clearly, one way or another.

Which is greener – the guy with the camera or the veggie?

p/s – been migrating past comments from Haloscan to Blogger. The time stamp will be incoherent but what the hell.

pp/s – NYT (reg. req.) on World of Warcraft. (Via)

Categories
Activism Economics Environment Politics & government

[492] Of Coke resolution

I was there again in MSA Chamber observing the confusing proceeding to pass a resolution against Coke. The victory was confusing too but bottom line is, MSA supports the resolution to call the administration to not renew the University’s contract with Coke.

There were some that voiced their opposition towards the resolution. Coke obviously disagrees with the resolution and sent two representatives into MSA Assembly despite the fact that Coke does not represent the students in Michigan.

College Republicans object the Coke resolution. It seems to me that the Republicans oppose the resolution just because the sponsors of the resolution seem to be on the other side of the spectrum – basically, I see the Republicans objecting without having any real concern for the issue. But whatever the Republicans think, it doesn’t matter. They are the minority here in Michigan. Their opinion hardly influences anything, as proven in MSA.

And another opposition came from, from my perception, a recipient of Coke scholarship, or at least somebody that benefits from Coke’s support to the University. It is my opinion that the opposition expressed from this quarter as the strongest of all. The coalition is somewhat lucky that the system somehow worked against the person that spoke for this one group.

I would say no further until I read the Daily tomorrow.

And also, Channel 4 was in the MSA Chamber too.