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.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
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.
****************************************************
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.
Monday, February 20, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
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
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.
**********************************
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.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)