Tag Archives: sustainability

October 2023 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Israel-Palestine. From the long-term grind of the failure to make peace and respect human rights, to the acute horror causing so much human suffering and death at this moment, to the specter of an Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran. It’s frightening and depressing – but of course it is not my feelings that matter here, but all the people who are suffering and going to suffer horribly because of this. The most positive thing I can think of to say is that when the dust settles, possibly years from now, maybe cooler heads will prevail on all sides. Honorable mention for most frightening story is the 2024 U.S. Presidential election starting to get more real – I am sure I and everyone else will have more to say about this in the coming (exactly one as I write this on November 5, 2023) year!

Most hopeful story: Flesh eating bacteria is becoming slightly more common, but seriously you are not that likely to get it. And this really was the most positive statement I could come up with this month!

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: The generally accepted story of the “green revolution“, that humanity saved itself from widespread famine in the face of population growth by learning to dump massive quantities of fossil fuel-derived fertilizer on farm fields, may not be fully true.

human population

Leave a reply

This video shows the growth in human population throughout history, complete with maps of where the major cities and empires were.

American Museum of Natural History

I think this would be an interesting way to teach a world history class, with both some multicultural street cred (Romans, Chinese, Indians, Mayans) and some practical geography and quantitative critical thinking skills.

The idea that population is going to shrink is interesting. It just doesn’t make sense that this has to represent doomsday. Just by focusing on per-capital wealth and income as a metric, rather than total national wealth and income, we can try to come up with ways to improve the quality of human lives rather than just increasing total money spent, activity, and environmental impact ceaselessly. What would this mean for “markets”? I’m not sure, but if we can accelerate productivity growth, and spread the gains fairly among the shrinking pool of humans, I don’t see why it has to be so bad.

effective altruism

Leave a reply

Here’s a very long article on “effective altruism”. The idea of benchmarking charities based on how much they spend to achieve their stated objectives makes sense to me. However, some objectives are harder to quantify than others and it doesn’t make sense to assume everyone has the same values, or that they should prioritize objectives that are easiest to quantify.

I can see another use for these types of benchmarks. If you are running a charity trying to achieve a particular objective, you can compare your cost-effectiveness to the best charities in your class. If you can’t at least approach their level of performance, you might be better off just donating your money or effort to them rather than running your own charity.

The article morphs into another article talking about existential risk. I’ll talk about that another time.

What’s new with “decoupling”?

Leave a reply

Decoupling is the idea that environmental impact per unit of economic growth is declining. If it were to decline fast enough, in theory, it would be possible for growth the continue indefinitely at the same time absolute impact is declining. This article tries to measure the rate this may or may not be happening, and concludes the long term trend is not even close to being on a path where we could turn the corner and see absolute impact stabilize, let alone decline.

While globally, CO2 emissions per unit of GDP are declining, the decoupling rate from 1995 to 2018 was only -1.8 percent annually. To achieve net zero by 2050, the rate would have to accelerate to -8.7 percent, assuming population and GDP growth projections as given, or by a factor of almost five.

Bruegel.org

This seems about right to me. The idea that we need to choose between “growth” and sustainability in the long term, of course, is logically flawed. If impacts continue to grow, there will come a point where the system breaks and human welfare is no longer able to increase.

There are a few flaws in the decoupling argument. “Growth”, as usually measured by GDP, is a measure of gross economic activity, which includes both benefits and costs to humanity. So in comparing impacts (costs) to GDP (sum of benefits and costs), you have an equation with too many unknowns, unless you can come up with some agreed-upon reasonable measure of costs. If you can do that, you would simply subtract costs from benefits to get net benefits, and figure out whether those are growing or not. They may or may not be growing right now. Even if they are, you need to consider whether they can continue to grow in the future, or whether the underlying system is eventually going to break and no longer be able to support further growth. You also need to consider risks of really bad things happening, as well as the odds of really good things like major technological breakthroughs happening. I would also point out that at the moment we are using carbon emissions as a proxy for sustainability more generally, but there is a lot more that should be considered in a holistic view of a sustainable long-term human-planet system.

2020 Human Development Index Report

Leave a reply

You could spend a lot of time going through any one sprawling UN report like the Human Development Index Report. Then you could spend a lifetime digging into the underlying sources. Here are a few things I gleaned from a light skim and looking at some of the pictures:

  • Amartya Sen says the index was designed as an alternative to be looked at alongside GDP, and the intent is to identify shortcomings of GDP, draw attention using a single aggregate number which doesn’t really mean much, and then hope news media and individuals dig into the underlying information. He thinks this has been reasonably successful.
  • The index crashed in 2020 due to Covid-19.
  • They have made a significant effort to incorporate ecological risks into the index. There are interesting chapters on planetary boundaries and relationships between the overall level of development and ecological risks across countries. Of course, the countries with higher development levels tend to contribute more to the global risks, which then fall on the countries with lower levels of development. So the goal would be to reduce the impact from the more developed countries, while moving the less developed countries up the development ladder without creating even more risk globally. This is hard to do.
  • Chapter 2 summarizes the magnitude of overall human impacts compared to the scale of the planet’s natural systems, the planetary boundaries concept, and the biodiversity collapse. Not a bad introduction if anyone is new to these issues.
  • Food security risks have increased significantly, and not just due to Covid-19 but due to flooding, droughts, heat, and natural disasters clearly driven by climate change. There are a lot of intertwined issues out there, but if we were going to pick only one to pay attention to globally, this would be it. See pp. 56-58. Flashing warning lights here!
  • There is an essay on existential threats to the species and civilization somewhere towards the back. One way to estimate the risk is to look at how long the species has been around, how long some of our ancestral Homo species were around, and then the annual risk of extinction. Interesting, but I wonder how hard it would be to measure/model progress against this metric or the potential impact of any one action. Even if we don’t go extinct, the category of existential threats includes an unrecoverable collapse of civilization or merely a partial collapse to an “unrecoverable dystopia”. Let’s try to avoid any of these.
  • Of course, the UN has to balance all the doom and gloom stuff with an equal word salad of things we could try to do to make it better. There are a lot more facts, figures, and scientific references in the first part, and a lot more anecdotes and case studies in the second part. TLDR, but hopefully there is some stuff in there that could trickle down to actual policies and actions at the national and local level.

even more on the Green New Deal

Leave a reply

I’ve been thinking more about the Green New Deal, because I just can’t help myself. It mentions water, energy, transportation, housing, food and green infrastructure. As your emperor, I will set up an infrastructure bank to fund projects consistent with approved sustainable infrastructure plans produced by metropolitan planning agencies. I will tell you what the minimum goals of your plan have to be. You can add and sub-divide goals if you want, but you can’t subtract them. I will fund generously fund university planning and economics departments and consultants to help you put your plan together if you want. I will match your investments maybe 50 or even 75 cents on the dollar, but not 100% because you have to have some skin in the game or you won’t make good decisions. I will provide some kind of ongoing support for operation, maintenance, repair and retrofit of existing infrastructure, maybe through a trust fund set up for this purpose. My infrastructure bank will be counter-cyclical, opening up the floodgates when the private sector is struggling to employ everyone able to work, and dialing back when the private sector is robust and there are inflation concerns.

States, you can have a voice as stakeholders in the plans put together by metro areas, but money will not pass through you and you will not decide which projects are funded inside metro areas. You can do the planning for areas outside major metro areas. I might let you be an equal partner with the metro areas when it comes to the food and green infrastructure side of things.

I will turn on the taps for massive funding of basic research, into all aspects of energy, climate change, sustainability and resilience yes, but also for a broader focus on innovation and getting as back to the higher productivity growth trajectory of earlier decades. Tax incentives for private R&D are a pet conservative idea that fits well here too.

Along with capital/infrastructure investment, basic research and R&D, education and training are the other key to boosting long-term growth. I will turn on the taps there too, from pre-school to grade school to college to continuing education. Again, incentives for training on the private side will be part of this. If you lose your job to a robot, going back to school or entering a subsidized training program run by a high-value-added industry will be a viable option at no cost to you.

The “federal jobs guarantee” idea surprises me somewhat. Maybe I don’t understand it that well, but it seems like a fairly conservative idea similar to today’s unemployment benefits, but requiring people to work for the federal government to get benefits. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding. If you lose your job and are able to work but lack the education or skills, I’ll pay you to go back to school or enter a training program. If you truly can’t work, you’ll qualify for disability which will be tied to citizenship rather than past employment. I’m not sure just yet whether a universal basic income is the answer, but I’ll fully explore the idea and institute it if it makes sense. If you just want to sit on your ass and watch TV, I’m not going to make you comfortable, but I’ll make sure you don’t starve or die of exposure or a preventable disease.

As far as health care goes, I’ll just do the single payer thing. Everybody else in the world does it and it works fine. If I have to, I’ll figure out what the premium needs to be for people to buy into Medicare, and then give them that option. Tie it to citizenship, not to working for a large employer. Don’t worry about the insurance companies. They will scream, but they will adapt and make money selling “supplemental” plans like they do to rich retirees now.

There are a couple things missing from the Green New Deal. Childcare is one. There is talk of “family leave”, but really supporting working parents the way other advanced countries do means more than that. A lot of people don’t know that the U.S. came within hours of having a comprehensive government childcare system. It was passed by both houses of Congress and Richard Nixon’s pen was hovering inches above, fully primed with ink, when the lobbyists got to him. (Okay, I’m making up the part about the pen, but the part about Congress passing it and lobbyists convincing Nixon to veto it is all true.) What’s good for children is generally good for women, families, the work force and the nation as a whole, so I will do something to give families flexibility to cover that gap between birth and preschool using whatever combination of home care and high-quality government or licensed private care makes sense to them.

Also missing is any concept of a “peace dividend” or taking on the military industrial complex. I’d like to get our security costs down to 2 or 3% of GDP from the current 5%, which is unprecedented in history and unsustainable. A lot of our allies are richer than us at this point and can pay their fair share. Don’t worry about the arms exporters, they will scream but they are going to be really good at building windmills. If I have to ramp up spending quickly to support allies, Congress will have to declare war and there will be war taxes and war bonds and other sacrifices so the public understands what they are giving up to make that happen. Also, I will just get rid of the goddamn nuclear weapons.

Can we afford it, how will I pay for it? I already mentioned the peace dividend. Beyond that, my friends, my plan will pay for itself through a boost in productivity growth. We’ve heard that before, but I will actually do it. Just to be on the safe side, I’ll phase it in gradually and in a counter-cyclical, thoroughly Keynesian manner, so seriously just trust me you are barely going to notice. Oh, and there’s going to be a VAT like all other advanced countries have, and a carbon tax and other taxes on pollution and waste.

what to eat for your own health and the planet

Leave a reply

Walter Willet, Johan Rockstrom, and others have published a long paper on what we should be eating, both for health and sustainability, and how that food ought to be produced.

Scientific targets for a healthy reference diet are based on extensive literature on foods, dietary patterns, and health outcomes. This healthy reference diet largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils, includes a low to moderate amount of seafood and poultry, and includes no or a low quantity of red meat, processed meat, added sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.

fish wars?

Leave a reply

Is it possible that part of the military confrontation over the South China Sea, among other places, is about access to fish? Yes, according to ABC (Australian Broadcast Corporation).

Through his research, Mr Bergenas has identified parallels between oil and fish resources.

“There is a concentrated supply. The Middle East has nearly half the world’s supply of recoverable crude,” says Mr Bergenas.

“Similarly, the central Pacific has 60 per cent of the world’s tuna which is a highly pursued commodity.”

Fishing boats are also sometimes being intentionally used as bait (no pun intended). If a Chinese fishing vessel gets attacked by, say, the Indonesian coast guard (I’m just making this up), China may then send in the navy to respond. In a way, it’s a similar strategy to settlers on the American frontier or the West Bank.

Eco-cities in Japan and China

Leave a reply

Here’s a paper comparing and contrasting two eco-city developments in Japan and China.

Ecological urbanism in East Asia: A comparative assessment of two eco-cities in Japan and China

The growth of projects translating the concept of eco-city into practices has accelerated during the last fifteen years, making the eco-city a global phenomenon. Asia in particular has witnessed notable developments, characterized by strong governmental intervention and national initiatives to create model eco-cities. In Japan, the central government launched an “Eco-Model Cities” program in 2008 and has designated twenty-three model cities. In China, hundreds of municipalities have pursued plans to become an eco- or low-carbon city following the government’s demonstration projects. Across East Asia, the eco-city is promoted as an innovative urban policy capable of advancing the agendas of sustainable urbanization and the realignment of the post-industrial urban economy.

This paper compares the policies and strategies of developing eco-cities in Japan and China using Kitakyushu and Tianjin Eco-city as case studies. It examines these cities’ common and contrasting approaches to ecological urbanism, their respective technological and urban design strategies, the relationship between eco-city building and local economic development, and the roles played by different stakeholders in this effort. The research focuses on their Key Performance Indicator systems and the spatial qualities they anticipate, which reflect fundamentally different ideas about what societal role an eco-city should best play. The comparative method sheds light on debates around important aspects of planning and managing an eco-city––namely, between new town and retrofit development, between top-down directive and bottom-up force, and between the eco-city as technology and as culture. This paper thus offers critical insight into the changing notions of urbanity within Asian society.