Is It too Late to Stop the Warming ?

Many believe that Global Warming is the most significant challenge that we, as a specie, face.What are we doing about this challenge? and what is equally important have we already lostthe race to save the world? Please read the following brief but very timely item ( I don't need to remind you that this is directly related to the consumption of fossil fuels in general and oil in particular, arguably one of the most essential non renewable resources).

********************************************

It was the summer of 1988, and strange things were happening: Repeated heat waves hit the eastern seaboard of the United States, while the Midwest was mired in massive drought. In some places, the waters of the Mississippi were so low that barges were stranded. Were these phenomena related? It was hard for scientists to say, but on one sweltering Washington morning, a Senate subcommittee called for testimony from a prominent climatologist named James Hansen. " Earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, in his testimony before the subcommittee. He would later say, "The warming of a few degrees is going to take us to a world that is perhaps as different from today as the last ice age is from today." Hansen set a fire as hot as the summer sun. Many fellow scientists said privately they were glad he had gone public, but they were not prepared to join him. Others doubted that these were "greenhouse signals" that could be separated from the ups and downs of the world's weather. In the years since, many of them have changed their minds. "I used to think part of the changes we were seeing in the Atlantic were cyclical," says Kerry Emanuel of MIT, "but several of my colleagues and I have worked very carefully on the data." Emanuel published a paper in the journal Nature last summer, reporting that as average global temperatures rose in the last half-century, the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes had risen too. "The hurricanes are following the tropical ocean temperature. The tropical ocean temperature is following the Northern Hemisphere. And it's very hard now to believe that there's anything natural about that," Emanuel says. (A quick reminder of climate-change theory: Scientists like Hansen and Emanuel believe that gases such as carbon dioxide, created in part by our burning of coal and oil, trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere. Much of this happens naturally, but the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.)

No Turning Back?
James Hansen, still at NASA, now warns that a deadline of sorts is approaching: In the next 20 years or so, he says, greenhouse warming may cause enough changes that, even if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, some processes would have been set in motion that would continue anyhow. "If we pass a certain point of no return that we're going to get large sea level rise, we will have started a process that we just can't stop," he says. Scientists refer to these as processes as "positive feedbacks," even though they regard the effects as negative. A prime example: decayed vegetation in the Arctic, which contains massive amounts of carbon, used to be protected by the perpetual cold. As the climate warms -- sped along by human beings burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide -- scientists say the vegetation will dry out and break down, releasing even more carbon dioxide. That carbon, escaping into the atmosphere, would cause more greenhouse warming. "I feel very uncomfortable about it. I mean, it's not the way the Arctic should be," says Walter Oechel, a biologist from San Diego State University, as he stood on the tundra of Alaska's North Slope with ABC News' Bill Blakemore. "Humans are putting about 6 [billion] or 7 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere a year, and we're standing on 200 billion tons here," says Oechel. "Any significant portion comes out, that's worse than current human injection into the atmosphere. And once that runaway release occurs, there would be no way to stop it."


Solutions
Of course, scientists, politicians and advocates say they hope new technologies and better ways of using energy will make a major difference. So-called renewable energy sources, which don't burn coal or oil, are a small part of the world's energy diet, but some, such as wind power, are growing in the United States at a rate of 20 percent a year. Australian author and field biologist Tim Flannery, who describes himself as a former doubter of the climate-change problem, writes that if Americans invest in energy-efficient appliances when their current ones wear out, they could cut their energy use by as much as half. Still, the scientists concede, some climate change may not be reversible. "I think as far as environmental threats go over the next hundred years, it is the biggest threat that faces us," says Ronald Prinn of MIT, "and also the most difficult one to do something about."

Market Based Environmentalism

China one of the most polluted countries in the world is about to embark on a new path
that addresses at least some of the complaints raised by environmentalists.
The Chinese Ministry of Finance has revealed a whole slew of initiatives that are to go into effect on April1, 2006. The method chosen by the Chinese in this case is the straight forward simple strategy that personal behaviour is essentially influenced by market incentives. As a result China will attempt to mitigate environmental damage and protect the environment by increasing taxes in some cases and imposing new ones in others.

In order to dissuade use of wood products a 5% tax will be imposed on the use of disposable chopsticks and wood floor panels. This must mean that disposable plastic chopsticks are more environmentally friendly. I did not know that.

Another measure will impose a tax on golf balls and golfing equipment. The Yangtze river will sure become less polluted as a result of making a round of golf more expensive.
And we must not forget that yachts and luxury watches are also to be subjected to higher taxes. I am sure that as a result of these measures Chinese demand for energy will be reduced substantially. It takes a lot of energy to keep a Swiss time piece going.

But then there are a few more sensible measures. One such measure will increase the tax on petrol and another one will impose a 20a5 tax on larger high polluting engines. But even in this case we have to ask whether the owner of a $100,000 car is going to change his/her behaviour because the operating cost of the vehicle have jumped by say $1000.00 a year.

Renewable Oil!!!

We have all become accustomed to all the talk about the energy crisis the world over. Prices of oil have more than doubled in just over a year , there are many theories that dependence on oil is ecologically damaging, hybrid cars have become the new badge of environmental awareness, wind farms for the production of electricity are spouting up all over the globe, solar collectors are being incorporated into new commercial buildings as well as residential ones, tar sands have made the Canadian province of Alberta into a global boom area, shale, nuclear and coal are expecting to experience substantial growth and the Thermal Depolymerization Process has plans to go global.

What’s TDP? It is a process that is too good to be true but all indications so far say that the process can deliver on the hype. Very simply it is a process that mimics nature by transforming hydrocarbons in any product into oil without having to wait the millions of years. Mix the hydrocarbon based waste with water and soil. Heat the mixture under very high pressure and presto waste becomes oil. The experimental plant in Missouri uses as its feed stock pig feet and Turkey innards from a Butterball Turkey plant. Production has been going on for almost three years and the plant has attained the scale whereby it is expected to become profitable later on this year.

This process can solve three major problems: (1) Get rid of waste, any waste.
(2) Produce clean oil
(3)Reduce Global Warming

The first two are obvious but why should it reduce global warming? If the process becomes very widely spread then the oil it produces will not be adding new carbon to the atmosphere since it will in essence be reusing the carbon that is already above the earths surface. It will make oil a renewable commodity.

Does this sound as if it is a phantasy? I think that it is but then I have been wrong before.

Hurricanes R Us

The online version of Science has published a study conducted by a group of scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology in which they conclude that the major reason for the increase in the intensity of hurricanes around the globe is due to the rising ocean temperatures. The authors even dismissed the possible contributions by other factors; humidity in the lower atmosphere and air-circulation patterns; as insignificant.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) is not convinced yet and it has questioned the consistency of the data used by the researchers. Nonetheless the Georgia Tech shows convincingly that the number of intense category 4 and category 5 hurricanes has doubled in all regions of the world. The issue of what is causing the rise in surface ocean temperature is not addressed directly but many are convinced that human activity is the most important contributor.

It is also important to note two other recent developments. The water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico was found last week to be higher than normal (Hurricane season starts in 3 months) and all the insurance companies of Berkshire Hathaway will write less weather related policies but charge much higher premiums because they believe that the rise in weather intensity is here to stay.

What is most ironic , at least to this observer, is that the evidence is increasingly suggesting that the destruction of New Orleans was not providential.

US Army and Peak Oil

“The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly drawing to a close,” according to a recently released US Army strategic report. The report posits that a peak in global oil production looks likely to be imminent, with wide reaching implications for the US Army and society in general.
The report, Energy Trends and their Implications for U.S. Army Installations, was conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers late last year. The authors of the report seem to place very little credibility on the more optimistic oil production forecasts of the international energy agencies. They quote Jean Laherrere on why the US Geological Survey (USGS) future oil availability estimates are clearly overly optimistic:

The USGS estimate implies a five-fold increase in discovery rate and reserve addition, for which no evidence is presented. Such an improvement in performance is in fact utterly implausible, given the great technological achievements of the industry over the past twenty years, the worldwide search, and the deliberate effort to find the largest remaining prospects.

The study goes on to warn that “energy consumption is indispensable to our standard of living and a necessity for the Army to carry out its mission. However, current trends are not sustainable. The impact of excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may undermine the very culture and activities it supports. There is no perfect energy source; all are used at a cost.” This surprisingly "greenish" report is not the kind of a document that is often associated with such an institution such as the US Army. Who said that you cannot teach old dogs new tricks?

Cost of Economic Growth

The environmental regulator of China
announced that Beijing and many other Chinese cities have become the most polluted cities in the world. Actually the incidence of lung cancer in Beijing is the highest in the world. He goes on to warn of impending environmental disasters if no action is taken to correct the current problem of airpollution, water pollution and hazardous waste. Of course all of these issues are relatively new to China, especially their intensity,thanks to the tremendous growth in the level of economic activity. Can the Chinese afford their new found wealth?

Environmental Liability

The state of Rhode Island has scored a victory of sorts for all the children that live in poor homes and as a result might be exposed to poisonous leaded paint.

No other state prior to Rhode Island has won such a case before although some have tried. It is expected that many states will file similar law suits, on behalf of their children. Although the production of paint with lead pigment was stopped by law in the United States in 1978 yet the judge and jury did find in favour of the plaintiffs and have ordered the three paint producers;Sherwin Williams, NL Industries and Millenium Holdings to bear the full cost of the cleanup. On the otherhand the ruling exempted the three companies in question from the need to pay punitive damages because the judge did not think that their acts were willful.

It is estimated that the cost of the clean up will amount to around $330 million but that is only for Rhode Islands' 300,000 affected units. Should the same principle apply nation wide then the cost of sealing all the units affected will easily climb into the tens of billions. I do not believe that this case will become as comprehensive and costly as tobacco since there does not seem to be strong evidence that the paint manufacturers conspired to hide the deleterious effects of lead pigments. Nonetheless this is an impressive victory for the principle that the polluter pays despite the fact that the offensive product was legal when initially produced.

Energy Independence

Ever since the Arab Israeli war on Yom Kippur in 1973 the US must have visited and revisited the idea of Energy Independence at least a dozen times. What is ironic about this plan , that has some very influential supporters, is that the concept has the backing of energy industry executives, conservative republicans, liberal democrats and environmental organizations. Such wide support should be a clue that the idea not well thought out. How else could a plan appeal to all segments of the political and environmental establishments.

Lets be clear, energy independence has never been motivated by ecological concerns. It is an idea that is often floated by politicians for purely patriotic, nationalistic and chauvinistic end. The general appeal for energy independence that Thomas Friedman pushes on the Op-Ed pages of the NYT is based on the unpredictability of supplies from the Middle East and the fear that oil might be used as political weapon. Uncertainty in supplies will hamper the efforts to invest, grow and maintain our hegemony. Ecological concerns are not an issue in this line of thinking.

Environmentalists usually lend their support for the promise that energy independence usually includes additional funding of some renewable energy technologies. That is the carrot whose function is to mislead and obfuscate the real issue. The only goal of these, misguided efforts for energy independence, is to enrich the coffers of major corporations , encourage coal mining and provide the nuclear option a shot in the arm.

It is instructive to note that most of the oil that is currently imported into the US comes from Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria. So what would be the effect of shifting, provided it can be done, all our imports to non Middle Eastern sources? The easy answer is nothing since oil is a fungible commodity. Furthermore replacing dirty oil with dirtier coal or potentially cancerous nuclear waste is nothing short of an immoral, unethical and masochistic enterprise.

What we need to promote is not energy independence that will transform so much of our landscape into open pit mines and many areas into depositories that will pose be a threat for many millennia. We need to adopt policies that would restructure society to decrease its dependence on energy in all fields and in all sectors. A piece meal approach even when well intended is bound to fail. We have to tell Washington that we cannot afford to participate anylonger in their meaningless and destructive games. Energy independence is nothing more than a euphemism for more of the same. What do you think?

The Supremes and CWA

The Supreme court is expected to issue a ruling any day that will affect at least half of the wetlands in the United States.

Two group of Michigan landowners are asking the Supreme court to rule on whether the original Clean Water Act was intended to offer protection to wetlands. The court will have to either maintain the current interpretation that imposes restrictions on the use of wetlands close to navigable waters or will strike out the provision in favour of a patchwork of state rules and regulations.

If the Supreme court finds in favour of the Michigan landowners then most of the wetlands will become available for economic development and urban sprawl. This ruling will be a very significant development in environmental protection and its ramifications could even play a role in the reconstruction of New Orleans.

Its interesting to note that in this case themajor environmental organizations and the federal government are on the same side; against the Michigan land developers.

Humble Economists ?????????

The following should make interesting reading especially due to the fact that we have discussed some of the issues that Ormerod highlights. I decided to copy the article rather than use a link simply because I have found links not to be very reliable.


****************************************************
More Realistic, Humble Economists Can Stop Environmental Ruin

by Paul Ormerod
What do the English, the French, oysters, economics and the environment have in common? A lot, it turns out.
The first three components of this equation form the title of a fascinating book by Robert Nield, former professor of economics at Cambridge, England. Nield has loved oysters all his life. Shortly after he retired, on a long vacation in France, a question occurred to him. Oysters are plentiful in France, with 2 billion a year being produced, yet scarce and expensive in England, which produces just 10 million. Why? Nield knew that this was not always the case – in the mid-nineteenth century oysters had been in such abundance in Britain that they were an important part of the diet of the Victorian poor. Why had that changed?
His research took him deep into the intersection between economics and the environment. He determined that oysters all but disappeared in England because the disastrous laissez faire policies of nineteenth-century British governments allowed them to be harvested almost to extinction. Conversely, in France the extraction and conservation of this valuable natural resource was carefully regulated and controlled.
Nield’s entertaining book – if you really want to know how to open an oyster this is for you – illustrates the usefulness of thoughtful, real world economics when applied to environmental problems. Traditionally, many environmentalists recoil in horror at the very thought of economics. It’s understandable, given the faith-like certainty which many economists attach to pure free-market solutions everywhere and at any time. Indeed, this is why I wrote the Death of Economics just over ten years ago. I wanted to do my bit to help kill off a wholly unrealistic and damaging way of viewing the world.
But at the forefront of the discipline, there is a lot going on to make economics more practical and useful. Granted, many economists themselves haven’t caught up with this trend, and remain stuck in their old ways. Yet environmentalists can profit – if I dare link these two words together – from the direction economics is moving.
The most important point is that the best economists are now designing their theories around the facts. Strange but true! Most economic theory bears no relationship to the evidence, but simply assumes that everyone behaves rationally, exactly like the orthodox theory postulates. Increasingly, at the forefront of economics, this is no longer the case.
Here, for example, is 2001 economics Nobel laureate George Akerlof in his Nobel lecture:“In this new style [of economics], the economic model is customized to describe the salient features of reality that describe the special problem under consideration.” In plain English, the model must be designed to explain the particular problem at hand. Akerlof is saying: we cannot simply presume that a standard, free-market approach is the best. We must take account of the evidence. And here is the current Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, himself a distinguished former academic: “Economics tells you how to think, not what to think. It is not a set of settled conclusions about issues.” King is particularly scathing about models with “optimizing” behavior, the very hallmark of free market theory: “It is vital never to confuse the real world with a model.”
What does this mean for the environment? Well, it means there are economists who can think in sensible ways and who will not insist on text book, free market solutions. And environmentalists can strengthen their case by working with and not against them.
An absolutely vital question is what can be done to prevent the world from running out of natural resources. First of all, an observation which is guaranteed to raise hackles. The prices of most resources have been falling over long periods of time compared to prices of manufactured goods, the current oil scare not withstanding. Economics certainly does suggest that this implies that demand has not been running ahead of supply. Otherwise the prices would rise and not fall.
But here is where the danger of unthinking economics lies. We cannot extrapolate from this and assume that the “market” will solve all our problems. A standard economic line is: “even if we start running out, prices will rise and there will be incentives to discover new supplies, new ways of doing things, so everything will be fine.” The best economics, on its own terms, has shown this is not necessarily true. As long ago as 1979, Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge and Geoff Heal of Columbia proved, in a purely theoretical model of the free market, that we cannot presume in advance that prices will adjust to ensure there are no problems
For their part, environmentalists need to accept that markets and private property can play an important role in policy. And for their’s, economists need to be more humble and realize just how hard it is to come up with the right sort of institutional structure, the right sort of regulation, and the right sort of incentives to produce the elusive mix of policies which stand a reasonable chance of working.
A good example of this pragmatic approach is the congestion charge introduced in 2003 by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In the major global city of London, traffic was becoming a nightmare and pollution was high. Livingstone’s political background is so far to the left he makes Edward Kennedy types seem like evangelical Republicans. Yet in the first instance, he relied upon a market-based policy, and raised the price of driving into London at peak times.
The policy wasn’t based on the assumption that everyone acts “rationally,” still less on the assumption that the free market always produces the best solution. But it has worked. Congestion has eased and pollution is down. The challenge now is to evolve a set of policies for the longer term. A combination of regulation and incentives in the form of better public transport is being evolved to try to wean more people away from the car on a permanent basis. The mayor’s economists are heavily involved in this whole process. No one is talking about the “free market,” “optimal polices” or “rational behavior.” Instead, their models are trying, in Akerlof’s words, to “explain the particular problem at hand.”
Looking at another British example, in April 2002 the UK government brought in a scheme to meet pollution reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Companies can participate in what is known as the emissions trading scheme. Under this, the firm must undertake a binding agreement to reduce its use of energy. In return for this, it receives allowances to produce emissions at the agreed level.
The real innovation is that these permits can be traded. If a company finds that it’s easier to meet its target than it originally thought, it can sell some of its permits. Equally, if a firm miscalculates in the opposite direction, it can buy permits which allow it to produce emissions at a higher level than its original target. The overall target is met, even though individual firms make mistakes.
In reality, even big firms have far from perfect information – quite unlike in the economic textbooks. The scheme recognizes this, and has proved a great success.
Ultimately, the point is that whether we are dealing with oysters or traffic congestion or pollution, the key to our success lies with a realistic, less ideological, more humble economics.Paul Ormerod was for several years Head of the Economic Assessment Unit of The Economist. He currently runs Volterra Consulting and his most recent book is Why Most Things Fail.

Happy Birthday!!!

Kyoto turned one year old on February 16, 2006. The United States and Australia are the only two developed economies that have refused to join the protocol which they claim is not fair and will not be effective. The latest poll on the subject, a non scientifis sample was used, shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports Kyoto as it now stands, warts and all. 61% os those that have bothered to respond were in favour of having the current adminstration join the protocol.Another 13% supported the efforts to join the protocol provided the emmission limits were placed on China and India. Isn't it paradoxical to have over 60% of the electorate in favour of a proposition that is opposed to the beliefs of the political leaders. If they cannot lead then maybe they should either follow or at least get out of the way.

Let us conduct our own poll. Vote by sending a comment in favour of one of the following :

A Yes The US must join Kyoto immediately

B Yes The US must join Kyoto provided India and China are held
accountable.

C No Don't join Kyoto It is too expensive.

D No Don't join Kyoto. Global warming is a farce.

E Don't Know.

What to do about the high profitsin the oil sector?

I believe that it was Winston Churchill who popularised the phrase" We learn from history that we never learn from history". The above observation is tragic but unfortunately true of at least some members of the US congress.

A group of Senators is proposing the adoption of a windfall profits tax reminiscent of the one passed over twent five years ago when Jimmy Carter was the president. The result of that experiment turned out to be a gift to OPEC producers. Why are we determined to have a replay of this failed policy? Could it be that Homo sapien sapien have failed to evolve to the level required to learn from history? Stay tuned.

Mental Games

Many people think that it is rather silly to get involved in a "what if game". I am not sure that I agree with these judgements.Actaually an honest and frank response to hypothetical situations can be very revealing about who we are and what we hold to be dear.

In that spirit of honesty and frankness I would like to pose the following hypothetical situation: Assume that you are given control over say $100 Billion and furthernore you are asked to send all of it on projects that will enhance the well being of the world.How would you allocate said resources and what would be the operative idea that would guide your choices

Costs and Benefits of a Wind Energy project

Please read and comment on the attached summary of the proposal to produce electricity off Nantucket through a wind farm

**********************************
Report sees few drawbacks on wind farm
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values, as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
Cape Wind Associates, of Boston and Yarmouthport, wants to build the nation's first offshore wind farm in a 24-square-mile area in Horseshoe Shoal. The proposal calls for 130 turbines, spaced half a mile to a third of a mile apart. Each turbine would be 260 feet above sea level, with the tips of the rotor blades reaching 420 feet into the air. The project is estimated to cost more than $700 million and take about 27 months to install. According to the developer, the project could produce, at average output, an amount equivalent to about 75 percent of the Cape's average electricity demand and help reduce air pollution from power plants that burn fossil fuels. The draft also found the wind farm would diversify the region's energy mix, reduce the costs of "adverse health impacts" from existing fossil fuel-burning power plants, create nearly 400 full-time jobs and generate an economic national benefit of an estimated $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
Cape Wind has spent more than $13 million in the preparation of the draft and in construction of a data collection tower now functioning in the general area where the turbines would be located. A 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement was produced by the Army Corps of Engineers. The release of the draft, some 34 months in preparation, almost didn't happen at all. Under existing federal laws, the Corps is the only federal agency that has permitting authority for the project. Under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps has authority to issue permits for any structures in navigable waters. After a 60-day public comment period, the Corps will respond to comments, prepare a final environmental impact statement along with state officials, and then decide whether it will issue the permit. Corps officials estimated the final environmental impact statement would not be completed until the middle of next year. The statement must be finished before the Corps can issue its "record of decision on whether or not to issue a permit."
Specifically, the draft says the turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. The project's impact on shellfish and fish populations would probably be felt only during construction.
The report noted that visual impact from the country's first proposed offshore wind farm would be ''adverse" for some historical areas, such as the Kennedy Compound and the Nantucket Historic District.
Federal law requires developers to pay for data collection. Because no federal standards exist on, for example, how many bird deaths are acceptable at a wind farm, the Corps has wide discretion in weighing the costs and benefits that drive its decision.
Among the findings in the executive summary:
Nearby homes' property values are not likely to drop, based on government-funded studies at other wind farms. The area would see economic benefits, according to the report summary, because the wind farm would create jobs and could increase tourism.
Navigation, a concern of the many recreational boaters and commercial fishermen who use the waterway, would not become more hazardous, although boaters would have to take extra care during poor weather navigating near turbine towers spaced more than a quarter-mile apart over the roughly 24-square-mile area. Continued...
The project would improve public health by generating energy without emitting pollutants. The report estimates the public health savings each year at $53 million.
The project would not adversely affect some historic properties, such as the Oak Bluffs Christian Union Chapel and the Martha's Vineyard Campground Historic District. But in addition to affecting the Kennedy compound and Nantucket's district, the wind farm would alter the character and setting of four other historic Cape districts and 10 historic properties.
As part of the environmental review, the Army Corps looked closely at four possible alternative sites for the plant, including a land-based site at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod.
Although other offshore wind farms have been proposed around the country, such as one off Long Island, Cape Cod's is the largest and the first to go through the federal permitting process. Elsewhere in the world, offshore wind farms are becoming more popular, especially as residents fight to exclude wind turbines from scenic mountaintops. The draft is the first official indication of how the project will be received by the federal government.
The project already has weathered opposition from several local and national politicians, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Last month, Virginia senator John Warner was unable to add language to a defense bill that would have delayed the project indefinitely. ''Cape Wind essentially wrote [the draft report], so it is not surprising it is headed toward building the project," said Susan Nickerson, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the main opposition group to the wind farm. ''We will begin our own analysis" once we get a copy of the report, she added.

Econimc Growth: Is It Harmful?

Arguably the most significant issue that separates the current dominant neoclassical paradigm from the proposed ecological one is the view of economic growth. One side contends that economic growth is essential for the alleviation of poverty and squalor while the other side argues that if the specie is to survive then the concept of the desirability of economic growth ought to be abolished. What do you think?

Ronald Coase: Do you agree with him?

No one will argue that markets operate efficiently in the real world all the time because of the long list of market failures. One common recipe for problems arising from spillovers and even open access resources over the last couple of decades has been the application of the ideas presented by Ronald Coase. What do you think of his proposed solutions?