Shale Gas: A Brief History of Supply & Demand

By Nicole Behler

For years and years, coal has been the resource that has literally fueled the United States and many other countries around the globe. As a millennial, I don’t remember a time where natural gas wasn’t our main source of energy. Being born in the later part of the 90’s, I was witnessing the rise of shale gas in the United States without even knowing it.

coal vs shale

According to the article “The Conventional Wisdom on Oil is Always Wrong”, experts were in unanimous agreement that US oil production was in permanent decline; well, the consensus was wrong as production has increased more than 50 percent since 2008 making it an all time high in the past three decades (Casselmen). Experts did not expect the impact of what is called the “Shale Boom” for a number of reasons: 1. they didn’t think natural gas could be produced from shale, 2. they thought shale couldn’t reverse the decline in US production, and 3. they thought rising US oil production would not be enough to affect global gas prices. The price of oil is hard to predict even by expects because there are so many variables that affect price such as geopolitics and technology (Casselmen).

Another reason experts’ predictions were wrong is because of the assumption that slow drilling equals so production; although the US is drilling half as many gas wells as we were five years ago, we are producing a third more gas than we previously were because even after a well has been drilled it can keep producing for decades to come (Casselmen).

Before the rise of shale gas, there were no price controls on coal but because of the shortage of natural gas a price control was placed. In the 1990’s the price control was lifted, shifting the supply curve outward. In the early 2000’s, the US experiences a push to develop domestic oil sources; both the Bush and Obama administrations increase strategic oil reserves. In 2001, when the devastating 9/11 attack occurred, energy portfolios were impacted and oil extraction from the Middle East created a conversation about National Security.

In 2005, after the United States invades Iraq, the price of global oil increases from the previously lower prices of 2000. Because of the shift in the supply curve to the left, the price of a barrel of oil increased as quantities decreased. The US wanted to increase its domestic oil supply, and because of increasing technology we are able to now extract shale gas from tar sands. Prior to this, it was thought that the extraction process of oil from tar sands was too expensive. In order to extract the oil, hot water is injected into the sands to separate the oil and refine it. After this technology is discovered, we see a dramatic increase in development and domestic oil production. As technology improves over time, marginal extraction cost decreases. When marginal extraction costs are low, firms will usually decide to extract large amounts of the product to keep in reserves. OPEC is a prime example of a company that holds off on their supply in order to control the price of oil.

coal vs shale pt 2

In 2008-2009, the recession causes oil demand to plummet. Technology further reduces the demand for oil over the long run as more Americans stop driving large SUVs and make the switch to hybrid cars. Since the demand is so low, the price of oil decreases. Post-recession, prices start to rebound back to similar prices as in 2000. At this point, the price of oil is so low that it doesn’t make economic sense to keep developing tar sands.

The decreasing development of tar sands is a good thing environmentally speaking because the process of developing tar sands and fracking cause many negative externalities specifically on water resources. Hydraulic fracturing uses significant amounts of water and generate large wastewater streams (Manson). Recent studies also suggest that there is a high correlation between fracking and earthquakes. Conca says:

There is a connection between fracking and earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. But the earthquakes are not a result of fracking itself. They mostly result from the injection of fracking wastewater and other waste and production water, even from non-fracking wells, at depths well-below the fracking horizon. The larger the volumes of water injected into the subsurface, the larger the earthquakes can be.

All in all, shale gas has had a long and continuing history all around the world. Although shale gas does have positive externalities like lowering CO2 emissions in the switch from coal, we should also consider that displaced coal could be exported and used elsewhere which would cause global greenhouse gas implications; and previously un-economic oil supplies have been unlocked by modern hydraulic fracturing, lowering global gas prices, and increasing demand in transportation and other sectors causing negative implications for climate change. Shale gas is a better alternative to coal, but hopefully in the future we will continue to increase our use of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar.

 

Works Cited

Casselmen, Ben. “The Conventional Wisdom On Oil Is Always Wrong.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 18 Dec. 2014, fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-conventional-wisdom-on-oil-is-always-wrong/.

Conca, James. “Thanks To Fracking, Earthquake Hazards In Parts Of Oklahoma Now Comparable To California.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 7 Sept. 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/09/07/the-connection-between-earthquakes-and-fracking/#2fe825e6d68e.

Mason, Charles F., Lucija A. Muehlenbachs, and Sheila M. Olmstead. The Economics of Shale as development Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7.1 (2015): 269-289.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Natural gas expected to surpass coal in mix of fuel used for U.S. power generation in 2016 – Today in Energy – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 16 Mar. 2016, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392.

Advertisements

Animal Brutality in Florida

By: Peter Baghdadlian

 

The state of Florida is one of a kind compared to both neighboring states as well as non-neighboring states. Some say it is the closest state to the Caribbean world, and some say it is the gateway to the world of crime and drugs. While both of these statements are true, I find Florida to be the basement of the United States. It is a damp and moist area, as well as filled with insects found nowhere else and filled with deadly alligators. The biodiversity in Florida is indeed unique and the ecosystems located within these states are only found only in a handful of places in South America. One of the most beloved and rare animals found in Florida is the Manatee, or as it is more commonly known as the Sea Cow. The Manatee used to be on the verge of becoming endangered specie in Florida as many were brutally killed either on purpose or by mistake in 1991. But as the State of Florida began making efforts to reduce the death rates of the Manatee and since then the population has increased by almost five hundred percent today. However, there is new specie that is on the states horizon to preserve, but the situation is not as dire as the Manatee situation; the Bull shark. The Bull shark is one of the three major subspecies sharks found in Florida waters. This past week, three Florida citizens are charged with animal brutality after a notorious video surfaced all across the media world. Three men were video taping dragging a bull shark through the waters with their speedboat at incredible speeds. The state typically does not prosecute animal cruelty even though it is a common crime against Mother Nature omitted on a large scale. But after several hurricanes hit Florida and not only damaged the ecosystems but also took the lives of many species, the State began to “crack down” on animal cruelty. This case of animal cruelty even reached the Governors office, which inspired him to create new laws to prevent such aggravated animal cruelty. The important thing to keep in mind however is that these three citizens were not born as animal torturers; instead it was the society they were raised in that failed to teach them the human-animal relationship and responsibility we share. First and foremost humankind has for centuries had this ideology that animals and non human species are inferior to human beings. Humankind must come to the conclusion that the only reason why we think we are superior to all other species and organisms is because we try to evaluate them and try to see if any of them have any human qualities. As it is known no animal on the planet is as unique and rational as human beings. The truth is that human beings are no better than the high soaring eagle or the small caterpillar slowly eating its way through a leaf. Once human beings understand that we are just important in the world of the environment as any other organism, human beings will begin to see the true value of all living organisms within an ecosystem. For centuries human beings have thought that ecosystems simply exist to solely benefit human beings both economically and socially. But in reality ecosystems exist so that we may preserve it for future generations of all species and promote it to ensure the continuous biodiversity. But if humankind continues to abuse and exploit the natural world simply for our benefits, we will cease to see any promotion of the biodiversity that is embedded with in our own genes. This type of idea might sound ecocentric, but nonetheless it is the true relationship humankind has with the natural world. While ecocentrism has been implemented in handful of countries, mostly in Europe, it is the only solution to prevent the same tragedy that fell on the flightless auk, and so many species that are no longer available for the current human eyes to see. To quote one of my favorite hippie songs, The River Jordan, “There is only one river, there is only one sea. And it flows through you, and it flows through me”. So we must show the same respect and appreciation we do towards our brothers and sisters and apply it to all types of living organisms. At four and a half months into a pregnancy, a human fetus has a reptiles tail; a remnant of our evolution. The truth is that you can fight a lot of wars and survive, but if you fight your biology and Mother Nature, you will always lose. That is the secret to survival. Never go to war, especially with yourself. Therefore, the actions committed by these three Florida men are only crimes committed against themselves and makes any brutality and cruelness brought onto any animal is irrational.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article189456164.html

 

Coal in your Stocking?

By Alex Gonzalez

Above is some woke Holiday cheer if you’re looking for it, but the moment particularly entertaining in beginning this blog on energy is at 1:57 in the video and written below:

Santa: Careful there, Jessica, or you might get some coal in your stocking!

Jessica: From where? We both know coal is a dying industry!


The conversation on coal has, as of late, become much less about energy efficiency and much more about job security. The president ran on a campaign that promised to bring job security and stability back to the “forgotten” men and women of this country through the practice of making “America great again” even if that means the dismantling of the current laws and regulations that keep us and our planet safe. Taking steps backwards, whether it is done by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, repealing the Clean Power Plan (an Obama-era policy that “limiting carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants”), or cutting red tape in front of a stack of paperwork that is supposed to represent a bunch of 1960s regulation the Trump team is getting rid of (???) it is clear the current administration holds a contempt for the environment and/or science.

Screen Shot 2017-12-17 at 8.55.23 PM.png

We understand part of the reason that the president loves coal is for political gain. Many Americans do believe that their jobs are being taken from them whether that is by an immigrant or by the government, these men and women are convinced there is a leftist agenda to hurt and neglect them. According to J.D. Vance, a young man from Appalachia, in his book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, “we talk about the value of hard work but tell ourselves that the reason we’re not working is some perceived unfairness: Obama shut down the coal mines, or all the jobs went to the Chinese. These are the lies we tell ourselves to solve the cognitive dissonance—the broken connection between the world we see and the values we preach.” That being said, coal country voted for Donald Trump overwhelmingly so, but economists and other scholars speculate as to whether or not the administration will be able to change the course of the energy progress cascade by removing regulations from the industry.

Screen Shot 2017-12-17 at 8.41.55 PM.png

As we can observe from the graph above, coal production has been on it’s way down since the late 90s with a significant trade-off coming after 2008 between decreasing coal use and increasing reliance on natural gas. Thus, we see a relative false connection made between Obama and the decline in coal jobs that the Trump admin would like us to internalize because coal was on decline a decade before the senator entered office. As a confirmation of the above information provided by a graph from NPR, below is a chart generated by the US Energy and Information Administration that includes projections for electricity generation in the years 2017 and 2018 as well.

Screen Shot 2017-12-17 at 8.56.25 PM.png

 

Works Cited: 

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/01/507693919/coal-country-picked-trump-now-they-want-him-to-keep-his promises

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/trumps-love-affair-with-coal-215710

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.cfm

Human Induced Climate Change and Natural Disasters

It has already been proven that climate change is the cause of the recent surge of natural disasters. There are climate models that are used to predict the trend of natural disasters based on the rate of climate change in the past years (earthobservatory.nasa.gov). Each model does not agree on every detail, but do predict similar trends among them. The increasing emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the temperature globally. Effects and changes will vary from region to region though. Some possibilities are an increased risk in droughts, increase intensity of storms, tropical windstorms with higher speed, wetter Asian monsoons, and more intense mid latitude storms. One very recent and extremely destructive natural disaster are the wildfires in California. Across the United States this year, 58,000 wildfires have burned more than 9.2 million acres this year. 2017 is only second to 2015 as the worst wildfire season (Vox.com). In California alone, 1 Million acres and 10,000 structures have burned and 42 people have died. The Thomas Fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties has burned an area larger than New York City. Six of the ten largest wildfires occurred in California in the past decade. All of this damage has been caused by human induced climate change. Climate change can also have different effects on the wild life and plants that live in areas suffering from climate change. One example is the Pine Beetle found in California. They say the Pine Beetle has been kept in check due to harsh winters, but global warming has caused them to go on a rampage. This means that they start to destroy trees which causes more flammable material due to the higher abundance of dead trees (latimes.com). Sea levels are also on the rise as a negative effect of global warming. This increase in sea level also increases the risk in storm surges. Our two recent hurricanes Harvey and Irma were most likely a result of this. There is an interesting article that talks about the indirect costs of these natural disasters and the economic definition of resilience. The author says that “The welfare impact of a disaster does not depend only on the physical characteristics of the event or its direct impacts in terms of lost lives and assets. Depending on the ability of the economy to cope, recover, and reconstruct, the reconstruction will be more or less difficult, and the welfare effects smaller or larger. This ability, which can be referred to as the macroeconomic resilience of the economy to natural disasters, is an important parameter to estimate the overall vulnerability of a population.” (Documents.wordbank.org). They say that resilience can be broken down into two components; instantaneous resilience and dynamic resilience. Instantaneous resilience is the ability to limit the magnitude of the immediate loss of income for a given amount of capital losses. Dynamic resilience is the ability to reconstruct and recover quickly. The paper also proposes a way to estimate macroeconomic resilience based on the interest rate, reconstruction duration, and a ripple-effect factor that increases or decreases immediate losses. I think this is a very interesting way to define and calculate resilience through economic concepts. It also makes sense as the article uses reconstruction duration and includes factors that can increase and decrease immediate losses. Based on these results, a risk management strategy can be devised to reduce impacts and indirect impacts. An article that was just written 6 days ago says that the next climate change meeting in Paris, the One Planet Summit, will focus on the economics of climate change(independent.co.uk). This is very beneficial because topics like resilience and the negative externalities associated with climate change such as the increased surges of natural disasters may be huge discussion points. The article also shows that Soenke Kreft, leader of the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative at the United Nations University, also agrees that the recent surges of natural disasters are heavily linked to climate change. He said “understanding the links between natural disasters and climate change was important, as it can play a role in convincing policymakers and citizens of the threat posed by climate change and encouraging them to take action”. Climate change is a very serious threat that affects all humans worldwide. It may not have extremely harmful direct effects on us, but the indirect effects of climate change can be very deadly to humans. This is why humans should take the initiative to reduce climate change and be more mindful of the effects we are having on the environment.

Sources used:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/12/16762120/los-angeles-california-fire-climate-change

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-natural-disasters-20170907-htmlstory.html

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-natural-disasters-link-increase-global-warming-report-warning-a8103556.html

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/186631467998501319/The-indirect-cost-of-natural-disasters-and-an-economic-definition-of-macroeconomic-resilience

 

 

How the tobacco industry is causing pollution 

According to the World Health Organization, in 2012 967 milion daily smokers consumed approximately 6.25 trillion cigarettes and each year 7 milion people die because of tobacco. Not only smoking has bad consequences for the health of smokers, it also has effects on the health of non-smokers with passive smoking as many people already know. However, the tobacco industry has also negative effects on the environment : it contributes to deforestation, which is one of the leading cause of climate change : one tree is destroyed for every 300 cigarettes; it produces enormous amounts of waste and it is also a major cause of pollution, that is what we are going to focus on in this article.

Capture d_écran 2017-12-17 à 18.21.44
Advertising for Camel cigarettes

First of all, let’s talk about the pollution created during the production and manufacturing process of cigarettes, as well as pollution created during the transportation of tobacco products, since it is the one of the greatest source of environmental damage caused by tobacco according to the WHO. Tobacco is a fragile plant and it is often a monocrop, therefore the plants and the soil are « weak in natural defenses and require larger amounts of chemicals for growth and protection from pests » (CNN). Indeed, lots of chemical pesticides as well as « petroleum based fertilizer » ( Action on Smoking and Health) is used for the production of tobacco : these products contribute to air pollution and most of them deplete the ozone layer. When those chemicals used for the production of tobacco get into the soil or into groundwater, they are dangerous for the wildlife and they can pollute water that is going to be consumed. Furthermore, a lot of energy (coal and gas mostly) is used during the manufacturing process of tobacco, especially to shred and assemble tobacco, as well as during the transportation of tobacco products : these sources of energy are pollutant and harmful for humans and the environment, since they contribute to global warming by releasing Co2. Once the tobacco products are made and distributed around the world, another source of pollution is created : when smokers consume cigarettes. The smoke produced by the consumption of tobacco releases 6,000 metric tonnes of formaldelhyde and 47,000 metric tonnes of nicotine : these components are harmful for human health as well as for the environment. Furthermore, tobacco smoke contains 4,000 chemicals, among these 250 are harmful, and it also contains Co2 and methane, which are greenhouse gases (CNN). Not only the smoke that is exhaled by smokers is pollutant and dangerous for both humans and the environment, there is a thing called third-hand smoke : it is a long-lasting residue resulting from the smoke exhaled by smokers. Third-hand smoke accumulates in dust, on objects and surfaces where tobacco has been smoked, and it can end up in landfills and waste (when those objects are thrown out for instance) : when third-hand smoke react with other compounds in the environment, it can lead to a degradation of the air quality; it can also end up in waterways through the air, which causes water contamination. Many children die because of third-hand smoke that accumulated in indoors spaces, since their immune system is not that developped they are more vulnerable to air pollution. Furthermore, the smoke released by smokers can highly contribute to air pollution in cities, by creating high concentrations of pollution. Pollution caused by the tobacco industry does not stop with the consumption of cigarettes however. Indeed, a lot of cigarette butts are thrown on the ground, and many end up in rivers or lakes even : these cigarette butts contain toxins. When they end up in some kind of water, they are dangerous for the living organisms but also dangerous for humans since, even water treatments can’t completely eliminate these compounds sometimes : therefore, toxins can be found in the water we consume. And when cigarette butts are actually thrown away in trash cans and they end up in landfills, it releases chemicals : when tobacco waste is mixed with all other kind of waste, it leads to air pollution and ozone depletion even. The tobacco industry is the cause of the waste of a lot of plastic as well, since it’s used for the packaging of cigarettes packs, yet plastic is extremely pollutant and takes a lot of time to decompose.

The pollution caused by the tobacco industry has economic effects as well and it is a negative externality. Indeed, the tobacco industry is responsible for a lot of pollution, which then results into health and environmental damages, yet the tobacco industry does not really bear the costs, and neither do the consumers of tobacco. According to a report by the UN environmental program, the tobacco industry would not be profitable if it paid for the environmental damages caused by its manufacturing. One economic solution to the pollution caused by the tobacco industry would be to increase taxes on tobacco and those taxes would be used to do prevention and to respond to the pollution caused by the tobacco industry : this way, producers and consumers of tobacco would bear the costs of the pollution they are causing, and it might lead them to consider quitting smoking (for consumers) or being more careful, at least with the waste they produce (for producers). Furthermore, many firms that produce tobacco are outsourcing their production to countries with less stringent environmental standards, so that they can continue their production without making it less pollutant or without paying the consequences of it : therefore, the WHO proposes to have harmonized standards around the world, so that « companies have nowhere to run ».

As a conclusion, let’s reflect on a saying by Dr. Armando Peruga from the WHO : « tobacco not only produces lung cancer in people, but it is a cancer to the lungs of the earth ».

 

By Alissia Leclerc

 

Sources :

Food Waste: Why We Should Care

Even though one in every eight Americans struggles to put food on the table, forty percent of the food in the United States is never eaten in the first place. This has significant consequences for the environment as well; for instance, producing all this extra food also causes excessive greenhouse gasses that contribute large amounts of CO2 up to the atmosphere. Sadly, the problem is expected to continue growing. In the year 2007 alone, the world emitted around 3.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to produce all this extra food. That same year, over 1.6 billion tons of food were wasted.  This could be avoided if we were not making more food than that that is going to be consumed. This topic causes me to think about the Malthusian theory of population growth: will humans outnumber our resources? In order to examine future food demand, we must have a good understanding of food waste first. By managing food efficiently, we will be able to reduce our carbon footprint and ensure a healthier environment for humans to exist in, in general.

Food waste happens at various point along the supply chain, however, there is a big problem in food production. Technological advances and better resource allocation will allow for more efficient production. For instance, better preservation methods for meats, fruits, and vegetables will be a great advancement, as these go bad quickly if not properly stored. These technologies should be green, meaning that they should be, for example, solar powered. There are solar powered technologies, such as solar dryers, that increase the lifetime of several foods in storage. This kind of technology benefits both the supplier and the consumer; the supplier gets greater economic profit because the product has a longer shelf life, and the consumer has more time to eat a certain food before it goes bad.

A good way to tackle this issue from the consumer’s end is composting. By composting, we are adding nutrients back to the soil. This is good for cultivation, as it acts as a natural fertilizer; consequently, composting reduces greenhouse emissions related to fertilizer and pesticide production. Because the soil is healthier in general, there is less fuel usage for tilling the soil. Also, by reducing methane emissions, composting lowers our carbon footprint.

compost_methods_food_scraps.jpg

Food waste is the third biggest producer of greenhouse emissions in the world, preceded by the USA and China. These wastes end up in landfills, which then produce a large amount of methane. This gas is more powerful than CO2. An excess of this gas is what absorbs infrared radiation and heats up the earth’s atmosphere. The effects of this are palpable today: global warming and climate change.

Other than these effects, food waste has other negative effects that are not as perceptible, such as water waste. By wasting food that needed water to be produced, we are taking advantage of the world’s natural water resources and, essentially, throwing them away. The amount of water used to produce food that is not eaten is around three times the volume of Lake Geneva.  To put things in perspective, throwing away 1 kg of beef is like throwing away 50,000 liters of water. Essentially, food waste is slowly depleting the Earth’s freshwater and ground water resources. If cautionary methods are not taken in order to decelerate this process, we may see the need to ration water, which will translate to dryer lands and a sudden drop in food production.

Education is a big part of resolving the problem. States such as California have proposed bills in order to change the wording related to expiration dates used on packaging. This will prevent consumers from throwing out products that are still good to eat. The bill proposed writing “best by -”, followed by the date in which the food is at its highest quality, and an “expires on -” followed by the date in which it becomes unsafe to consume that particular food.  Grocery stores are also taking initiatives to prompt shoppers to consider buying fruits and vegetables that do not look as “nice” as others, but that are still perfectly good to eat or cook with.

Date-Label-836.jpg

If there is a big enough drive to wanting to preserve food availability, it is possible to aid food waste issues through simple tasks such as composting. However, many are skeptical about beginning to do so because they are not aware of the severity of the problem, or simply do not know enough about it and its benefits, to begin doing so.  Regardless, if there is not a world-wide effort to reduce food waste, the negative effects of emissions from landfills and water waste might catch up to the world when it least expects it.

By: Fabiola Aquino

“Composting At Home.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 20 Mar. 2017, www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home#benefits.

Harvey, Chelsea. “The Enormous Carbon Footprint of Food That We Never Even Eat.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Mar. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/28/the-enormous-carbon-footprint-of-the-food-we-never-eat/?utm_term=.da6364a0f70d.

“How Are Greenhouse Gases Bad for the Earth?” Sciencing, sciencing.com/greenhouse-gases-bad-earth-23688.html.

June 16, 2016 Jillian Mackenzie. “Composting Is Way Easier Than You Think.” NRDC, 16 Nov. 2017, www.nrdc.org/stories/composting-way-easier-you-think.

“The Environmental Impact of Food Waste.” Move For Hunger, 19 Aug. 2016, www.moveforhunger.org/the-environmental-impact-of-food-waste/.

To Adapt or Not to Adapt?

 

Recently there had been a several hazardous fires within the California.

Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 9.06.32 PM

(Source: “Los Angeles, Cal.: Pollution of Streams.”)

This, however, is not the start of California’s everlasting clash with pollution effects.

 

Backtracking to the summer of 1943, an acrid cloud settled over downtown Los Angeles. On the streets below, cars collided as “lacrimous fumes” blinded drivers. City officials received letter after letter complaining that the smoke destroyed the community, “depressed … [the] spirits,” interfered with vital war production and the pursuit of happiness, and threatened the public health.l A municipal judge found conditions so unbearable that he considered adjourning court until the fumes lifted, while the tuberculosis ward at General Hospital reported increased hemorrhages and death (“Los Angeles, Cal.: Pollution of Streams.”).

Since 1970, California has been trying to enact a law to stop the emission of greenhouses. The California Environmental Quality Act, was supposed to create an environment review and minimize the effect of pollution There has been an influx of major problems. The Senate recently stated that “California communities have to be redesigned to make it easier for people to walk, bike, or take transit” (Board). Under the CEQA rules, a project in particular has created more negative externalities than thought of before. The project views roads in Los Angeles through a dependent on speed. The project in totality was geared on getting cars to move faster. This is counteractive to the entire project as this pushes for the opposite of the objective. Prioritizing cars to go faster, pushes the increase of greenhouse gases.  

Under current CEQA rules, a project has a negative environmental impact if it would slow the speed of traffic or add to congestion. There are several major problems with this approach.

Now, the method of operation it to disincentivize people to use cars and to rely on other sources of transportation. Though L.A. does have their own underground transportation, a reinvestment in such a project is more feasible to ensure the sustainability of air control in the city.

Despite the negatives of the act, the positive and beneficial regulations include the stipulations of the Los Angeles river. Under the “Pollution of Streams” clause, it is unlawful for any person, corporation to deposit or to cause permit to be deposited, in any reservoir or aqueduct, or in any pipe” (Sage Productions  2207). That effort to push sustainability thought the effort was initial.

All the contaminants that smog, pollutants, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons, articulates, nitric acid, and cyclic concentration pattern with maxima in the winter” ( Mosher et al  576).  In 1971, the mean squared for residuals for the model with carbon monoxide is 192.0, a reduction of 36 percent from since 1970.

Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 9.06.24 PM

(Source: “Los Angeles, Cal.: Pollution of Streams.”)

Most recently the had been fires in Los Angeles this year that destroyed hundred of homes and moved thousands of people. This massive inferno occurred in Ventura county and had been increasing the threat to Santa Barbara, and other coastal communities. The fire had headed to Santa Ynez Mountains. The methods to stopping the fire was not an efficient solution either.

There needs to more attention toward intergenerational equity. By the applying this, it will prioritize every depletable resource within the confines of cultivated land. It also prevents the increasing rate of negative externalities from occuring. This minimizes not only pollution but the chance of cities having to use a bandaid solution towards the violation of the environment.

These occurrences highlight the need of more incentivization. All in all, there also needs to be more education involving such practices so people can humanize the potential casualties that can result from environmental haphazardness.

Consumers must take heed to the climate change and its impacts to the environment. Adapting had been done in areas Texas, Atlanta, normally hot places that have been exposed to colder climates. California’s extension of pollution which only contribute to the speed of the climate transformation. Actively producing such harmful chemicals in the air–black carbon, and other greenhouse gases–will push California to act in a speed they are not ready for. They could not adapt to the rampant fires plaguing to the city due to environmental barriers, but their behavior progresses such and creates a quick sand of climate changing actions.

  Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 9.06.16 PM

(Source: Balbus)

 

The recent droughts in California are only one of the repercussions. Efficiency has to be in the state’s trajectory or there will be no quick enough and adaptable way to maintain human life there.

There also needs to be a prioritization of sufficiency. With this, comes the incentivization of using more environmentally sound practices. The easiest and most efficient way of getting people to follow such a movement is to consistently remind them of the repercussions of not doing so.

Potential incentives is adding or expanding bike lanes and minimizing travel for those with motor vehicles (CEQA’s problems). For example, cities like New York City, New York; housing the highest disincentives of driving and more of an influx on underground transportation. Adding more fees to curb those from all income who drive is crucial in fortifying this eco-friendly bandwagon. This method is not only optimizing but in some respects, maximizing in that train carts fill up due to other people’s incentive to get to their destination. Showcasing method such as the aforementioned help in deterring people from.

     Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 9.06.01 PM

Understanding the limitations of the environment we in also helps in instilling that supply and net benefit increases when operation at perfect competition is actualized. There is also an increase in marginal net benefit when the policies works towards efficiency.  It reaches new zeniths and promises a equity for the present and future. The “rates of loss of animal and plant species, arable land, water quality, tropical forests and cultural heritage are especially serious” (“Intergenerational Equity.”).

Another incentivizing method that enforces is installing more deposit-return systems. The revenue would come from  

This rudimentary practice would increase the narrative in remaining and sustaining eco-friendly systems. Increasing the importance of such for every individual will exponentially multiply the impact.

Hopefully the movements and adjustment California makes move towards less negative externalities, and forward economic growth.

 

Priscilla Omisore
*Proper Format*

Works Cited

 

Balbus, J., et al. “Ch. 1: Introduction: Climate Change and Human Health.” The Impacts of

Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, 4 Apr.

2016, health2016.globalchange.gov/climate-change-and-human-health.

 

Board, The Times Editorial. “If California is serious about climate change, the car can’t be king

of our roads.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 14 Dec. 2017, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ceqa-vmt-20171216-story.html.

 

Mosher, John C., et al. “Air Pollution in Los Angeles.” Science, vol. 173, no. 3997, 1971, pp.

576–580. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1731708.

 

Serna, Joseph, et al. “’This fire is a beast’: Massive inferno keeps growing despite all-out battle.”

Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 14 Dec. 2017,

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-thomas-fire-ledeall-20171214-story.html.

 

“Intergenerational Equity.” Equity – Intergenerational Equity, Sharon Beder,

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/equity/meaning/integen.html.

 

“Los Angeles, Cal.: Pollution of Streams.” Public Health Reports (1896-1970), vol. 27, no. 52,

1912, pp. 2207–2208. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4569115.