Category: Environment

Categories
Economics Environment History & heritage Politics & government

[392] Of 59 years later

Today is the 59th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Approximately 80 000 people died on that day and many others in later due to deadly radioactivity. It was the finale of the greatest war in human history.

Let us hope that such weapon may never be used again. The first step to ensure that is to urge the US to adhere to ABM Treaty that it signed more than three decades ago. And the only way to do that is to remove Bush from the White House.

Go Ralph Nader!

Heh.

Anyway, I donated a few bucks to the local Green Party earlier. Hopes it is worth it.

p/s – there is a plan in California for a greater expansion of solar energy:

California officials are proposing that half of all new homes in the state be running on solar energy in 10 years, an effort spurred by $100 million in annual incentives paid for by electricity consumers.

Denmark is known for its wind energy, California will be known for its solar energy.

Categories
Environment

[390] Of minor oil slick near Sabah

A few days ago, a pipeline in Sabah, a Malaysian on the northern part of the island of Borneo, ruptured, spilling crude oil into the sea. It was reported that an oil slick with the dimension of 2800 meters by 30 meters was observed. The pipeline was repaired quickly, preventing more spills and I am sure, cutting the owner of the pipeline losses, which happens to be Shell.

Though pipeline was repaired, slick was merely observed on the first day. A report in The Star, a local press has the exact wordings:

“One of our vessels is monitoring the oil slick,” the spokesman said, adding that there were no reports of casualties or immediate threat to people and facilities.

On the second day, Shell monitored again without doing anything. I was already agitated. Shell had this to say:

A Miri-based Shell spokesman said yesterday that the slick was “dispersing and disappearing” with heavy rains over the area while the emergency response team was also carrying out cleaning works.

“It is not a major slick, the amount leaked could have been about three barrels of oil,” he said, adding that the pipelines had been depressurised.

Three barrels. I do not really know how much is that but let say the thickness of the slick is one millimeter. We know the both the length and the width of the slick so, the volume should be 84 meter cube.

On the third day, or maybe it was the fourth:

“The situation is back to normal and the minor oil sheen has dispersed naturally,” according to a statement from Sabah Shell Petroleum Company.

What does that supposed to mean? Naturally dispersed? You have just responsible for tossing almost 100 meter cube of carcinogenic material into the sea and you call that being naturally dispersed?

It would only be natural if the spill were not there at all, you irresponsible dimwit! You should have cleaned your mess!

I wonder if passing the buck to Mother Nature is a culture in Shell Malaysia?

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[388] Of DNC, John Kerry and Howard Dean

I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws

– John Kerry, July 29th 2004, Boston.

Nuff’ said.

Anyway, the Republican convention will be on August the 30th if I am not mistaken. It will be interesting to see how the GOP will react to the Democrats’ call for more positive competition instead of a cynical one.

So far, a lot of Bush’s campaign ads on the TV have been trying to discredit Kerry. Kerry has a few too but Kerry has not spent as much as Bush on negative ads.

And after four days of watching the DNC, I say Barack Obama is the best speaker.

Nevertheless, it is quite hard to see who will win the coming election.

On the other day, on the second day to be exact, Howard Dean gave his speech and he said democrats should not be ashamed of being democrats. People were confused with his words but later in an interview on PBS with Jim Lehrer, Dean explained that statement.

He said, people think Clinton got into office because Clinton was more of a centrist rather than a liberal. When he said that, then the “ah” came.

David Brooks, of who was on the show along with Mark Shields, disagreed and stressed later that Clinton won because Clinton took a sort of centrist position instead of a more liberal one.

Howard Dean is probably one of the true Democrats but I have to agree with Brooks. Clinton won because he took a centrist position.

I agree so because there is sort of case in economics that supports Clinton-was-a-centrist argument. It is something like this.

Imagine a one dimension line that represents a beach. At the same time, there are a lot of people on the beach, the sun is up there, clear sky and there are two ice-cream vendors at both end of the beach. Now, people from the right till the middle would go to the right-positioned ice-cream booth while the left-positioned will be visited by people from the left till the middle; this is based on the assumption that distance is the deciding factor on which booth should be visited and price is the same.

Now, if the right booth moved closer to the left while the left booth stayed left, the owner of the moved booth would get more customers. This is true because more people would be closer to the right booth than the left booth. If the right booth shifted straight to the middle while left stayed left, all the people on the right side would go to the right booth and half of the people on the left side of the beach would visit the right booth; the left booth would get only half of what it would have gotten if both booths had stayed at both end of the spectrum.

This is applicable to political party and certainly true in the case where there are two dominant parties. And this certainly dismisses Dean’s suggestion.

Anyway, I heard Ralph Nader has a good chance of getting into Michigan’s ballot. I would love to see Ralph Nader wins but given the situation, I will have to go with John Kerry.

Categories
Economics Environment

[378] Of to use or not to use

One of my dilemmas of being a green is the usage of plastic bag. Yes, things as small as plastic bag do bother me.

I am a green and therefore, whenever I shop, I will ask for paper bag. The reason is simple; I do not want to encourage the petroleum-based industry too much at the expense of the Earth. Paper bag on the other hand is a recycled product and plus, it is biodegradable; clearly better alternative from my point of view.

Only when it is very inconvenient for me will I accept plastic bag. Even then, I will feel a hint of guilt.

Now, the dilemma – if I do not accept plastic bag and go for paper bag instead, other people will use the plastic product nonetheless. If I use the plastic bag, I can rest assure that I will properly dispose it or even use it as a durable product. If somebody else goes for plastic bag, I do not have the assurance that that somebody would do what I will do. And thus, in comes asymmetric information – the lack of information for one to make an informed decision.

With this realization, my policy of using paper bag is being challenged. The question now, should I use plastic bag so that I could be sure that it will be properly treated or should I not?

Further problem is this – if I go for plastic bag due to the reason stated earlier, and if every green thinks like me, that would signal the firms that nobody would want to use paper bag. Firms will then reduce the number of paper bags or maybe even downright stop supplying it for the consumers. At the same thing, the increase usage plastic bag signals the firms to get more of it for the consumers. Thus, more plastic bag with less of its paper counterpart.

Hamlet would say, to be or not to be, that is the question. I would say, to use or not to use.

Of course, I could easily take both types at the same time; that would certainly solve the dilemma. However, another problem arises – over-consumption.

OMG, I have never thought being a green and taking up economics as a major is tough.

But the only real solution is to get one’s hand on the information on how plastic bag is being used and disposed by the consumers.

Somebody should do a survey.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[366] Of an incinerator in Broga, Malaysia

I am appalled and disgusted by the Malaysian government’s decision to approve the Broga incinerator plant despite the presence of both international and local efforts to stop the project.

Ideally, I would prefer the government to setup recycling plants instead of an incinerator. I do know the incinerator will cost almost USD 400 million – I do not know the cost of setting up a recycling plant and thus I cannot compare the two. However, the pollution produced by any incinerator, is intolerable. Incinerator is after all, a furnace for garbage, whether it is high-tech or not.

But that itself is not my main objection to the project. Concession could be made if the tradeoff between the environment and development is too big. Still, the location of the “another Barisan Nasional government’s project” certainly is not subjected to any compromise; the government-claimed clean incinerator – imagine! The word clean is being used to describe an incinerator! Ridiculous! – is located in a catchment area.

It is a water cache area for God’s sake! The government is supposed to protect any catchment area from pollution but in Malaysia, the government is no doing its supposed job! In fact, it itself is violating its own rules!

Fresh water is important for life. It is important for us for daily usage. It is imperative for us to protect the source of fresh water. Failure to do that will be devastating. Failure to respect the very commodity that life depends on will lead to the extinction of life itself. What is money when the elixir of life itself is being threatened?

The government in Malaysia needs to do it job. The government is supposed to protect its citizens’ property and here, clearly the government fails miserably to protect and secure a valuable source of water for its citizens. If the government fails to do its job, then it will be of an uttermost importance to replace such incompetent bureaucrats with the ones that are capable protecting any crucial strategic resources – may it be fresh water or crude oil – for its citizens.

Here is the middle finger to the Japanese firms benefit from this project, the Japanese government for encouraging this project, the Malaysian Department of the Environment (and the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment) for not standing up for the environment and to the Malaysian government for failing its citizens on many uncounted occasions.

………………..,/”./

………………./…./

…………./'”/’…’/”’`..

………./’/…/…./……./”\

……..(‘(………… .~/’…’)

………\……………..’…../

……….”\…………. _./

…………\…………..(

…………..\………….\

……………\………….\

……………\……………\

…………….\……………\

…………….\……………..\

……………..\……………..\

And I wish, by the time the plant is completed, ELF is ready to give Malaysia a visit.