Sustainability - - A Focus On Carbon

The fundamental problem , I think, is that the globe is already above the CO2 concentration that is widely considered to allow for sustainability.  This makes this problem very difficult to solve politically since it requires people to change just to get back on target.  In economics terms, we have a surplus of CO2 and a shortage of carrying capacity.  This is a very different problem than if we'd be starting with a surplus of carrying capacity. Here's an analogy.  Let's say you have a bakery and another bakery is going to open.  Yet, there doesn't seem to be enough people around to support both bakeries.  What to do?  Contrast this with the situation where the same circumstances exist except one - there's demand for baked goods that's been going unmet.  Ah, very different problem.  Right now, the situation we're in with Co2 is closer to the former situation.  Whose willing to make changes in order to share the carrying capacity?  Where's the contracti

As an economist, I'm interested in exploring the possibility that economics can guide policy on climate change.  Though, I'm skeptical that it's up to that challenge. Climate change is perhaps the ultimate common-pool resource problem.  As you might imagine, I'm not the only one who has looked at these issues - sustainability and climate change - as a common-pool resource problem.  Click here for a paper on this topic. I'm not sure that economics can handle this problem.  I'm darn sure it can't handle it it's own.  Though, the problem is a classic common-pool resource problem. It falls into that group of problems since the earth's ability to sustain life is determined by how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.  Therefore, there's a maximum amount of that stuff that can be sloshing around and life as we know it can be sustained.  Another character of the problem is no one person or country 'owns' the right to that carrying capacity.  If

Climate Interactive has a mode l they use to assess the impact of various climate change proposals.  They're analysis is quite sobering, indicating that the 'agreement' reached at the recent Climate Change conference, the earth's temperature would increase 7 degrees F (4 degrees C) by the year 2100.  This is substantially higher than the goal for temperature rise this century is 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). This link  will take you to Climate Interactive's blog.  That blog provides some additional background to the agreed goals for temperature rise, and current efforts to limit it.  The New York Times had a fairly good overview article on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference agreement. A CBS news report contains the following chilling news: " Reducing carbon dioxide levels to 350 would mean reversing the trend of the past couple of centuries. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for as long as 100 years. And the emissions cuts currently being ple

I also had this question.  Here's a link I found very helpful.

Here is a news story I came across that helps put the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference in perspective. "Depending on what hour you listen to the news bulletin, the UN climate negotiations have "come off the rails" or are "back on track" or have "stalled" or are "moving swiftly". Which is why the only people who really understand what's going on may be a small crew of folks from a group of computer jockeys called Climate Interactive . Their software speaks numbers, not spin – and in the end it's the numbers that count.  First number to know: 350 . It's what scientists have been saying for two years is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide we can safely have in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. Those scientists have been joined by an unprecedented outpouring from civil society: in late October, activists put on what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history,"

I grappling with the role of sustainability post-Copenhagen.  It just strikes me as so much fiddling while Rome literally burns.  While Obama put a happy face on agreements reached there, I can't imagine how people can see it as anything but a dismal failure. A recent editorial  does a good job of capturing some key issues, though it paints a picture that's a bit too rosy for my taste. The IPCC  is a key scientific group established to provide decision-makers with accurate scientific information.  By the way, you won't find any information here from climate change skeptics.  That's a waste of time and crucial energy that you can go and research yourself if you so choose. China and the U.S. haggle over crumbs that take on a 'he said she said' quality which is utterly short-term.  While the U.S. has its hands bloody in this argument, China again once again rings the sovereignty bell arguing that climate change limitations mess with their sovereignty.  How ti

One key aspect of a sustainability focus is explicitly recognizing that decisions are driven by three somewhat competing objectives: Profit - People - Planet .  Another way to say this is choices are determined by examining their impact on the business, society, and the natural environment.  A term coined to describe this tripartite is The Triple Bottom Line .   A picture of The Triple bottom Line (T-B-L) appears here.  What I find critically important is in the overlap between any two and all three goals.  This is interesting to me since it will be the rare circumstance when all three goals - environmental, social, and economic - sustainability can equally be met. One implication of the T-B-L is that choice is no longer driven by economics alone.  The profitability of a particular decision is no longer the driving force behind the choice.  In one way. this is not path breaking news to real-world decision-makers.  For years now future leaders have been trained in multi-attribute dec

To some extent, this term suffers from the same problems as does the term - natural, or, better yet, "Green."  What is natural versus what isn't natural?  It's not defined in law, and as a result, to a large extent, what it means is in the eye of the beholder.  Here are some takes on it's meaning. The project in Sustainable Management of the Presidio Graduate School starts by stating the obvious "There are many ways to measure or define sustainability."  One particularly inciteful definition is "the property of being sustainable."  The AFSC defines it thus: "Sustainability: Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."   Scripps Colleg e for Women takes a similar approach - "Sustainability: Sustainability seeks to provide the best outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite future."  The NADA also takes this approach

Hi!  This blog will focus on various matters relating to the topic - sustainability.  Mostly, I'll be focusing on issues of resource sustainability, like water, energy, and so forth.  There's a veritable plethora of information on sustainability, as you likely know.  As my blog takes shape, I'll probably re-visit this description.  Come back and watch it morph.