Where Does Energy In U.S Come From? [Guest Article]

Looking at the charts beneath, you could see that electricity consumption has grown significantly each 12 months and in 2018, it hit an all-time high. However, you?Ll observe a few changes within the manner we use each energy supply. Coal is the only strength supply below that has suffered a decline and renewable power has these days surpassed nuclear power. As new technologies are advanced, we are finding new approaches to satisfy the accelerated strength call for. The future of power consumption will appearance very unique than it does these days. Where does power in US come from? By no wonder, oil has been the most important and maximum famous source of electricity. Since the 1950s, oil and herbal gasoline were used to warmth houses. Now in 2020, you already know that petroleum is used for plenty different motives and industries, from powering our cars to packaging merchandise in plastic. Although coal became any other famous source of power, it has been on the decline for the previous couple of a long time. It?S much less green than different assets and negatively impacts the environment. To solution that trouble, the U.S. Has been investing in renewable electricity assets. Wind, sun, and panas bumi strength are proving to be wonderful resources for a clean future. Are renewables the future? Although handiest 11% of U.S. Strength manufacturing comes from renewable assets, it's miles anticipated to develop. Solar, wind, and geothermal periode strength are 3 of the pinnacle sources for renewable power. Among those, wind is the quickest developing and judging from the production map, it has wide geographic potential as properly. Geothermal strength, which makes use of underground temperatures to switch power, is turning into a famous opportunity for domestic heating and cooling. Of path, residential solar panels are gaining huge adoption as nicely. As renewable energy alternatives become greater to be had, the power consumption panorama is probable to transport in the direction of a greater sustainable future. This infographic from The Zebra walks through the records of strength use, in which strength is produced, and what the future of energy may additionally appear to be. Author bio: Amanda Tallent is a creator who covers everything from enterprise to life-style. She creates content to help humans live more informed and assured lives. Want to write guest blog for us? See guidelineshere
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

Factors Controlling The Shape Of A River Delta

What is a Delta? A delta is an accumulation of sediments on the mouth of a river which could encompass a community of distributary channels, wetlands, bars, tidal flats, herbal levees and seashores that commonly shift from on location to any other. Delta shape relies of dominant modern conditions where the mouth of the river: tide-, sea wave-, and hurricane-ruled. Lena River Delta, Siberia. Factors that control the shape of a River Delta? River deltas around the world are very exclusive. The form of a river delta is controlled by means of a range of factors which includes: ? The quantity of river discharge. ? The volume of sediment being deposited in a delta place. ? Flowers cover in delta regions capable of trapping sediments. ? Tidal range conditions wherein the river enters the ocean. ? Hurricane-associated weather and oceanographic conditions. ? Coastal geography (mountains or plains) in coastal areas. ? Human interest is now a dominant aspect influencing the form of river deltas. Yellow River Delta, China Nile River Delta, Egypt. River deltas just like the Amazon and Indus Rivers discharge into the sea wherein a high tidal variety affect flow into and out of the mouth of the rivers. Some river delta area are fantastically effected via erosion consequences of storms and excessive wave strength. Infrequent but severe superstorms impact the shape of deltas and shoreline, which includes the effect of hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. Indus River Delta, Pakistan Human hobby is chargeable for the asing form of the Birdfoot Delta on the Mississippi River created by using the constant dredging to keep shipping channels clear. The production of dams and diversion of water out of the Colorado River has basically shut of the supply of water and sediment to the Colorado River Delta inside the Gulf of California. The Mississippi Birdfoot Delta is largely controlled by Human activities Changes to Mississippi River Delta over the last 4000 years ago. A river no more. Very little water makes it to the Colorado River Delta Thanks to Dr. Phil Stoffer for supporting in publishing this text.
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

School Of Sustainability - Barokong

In a few recent posts, I was critical of university endowment practices. Why build up a stock of investment, rather than invest in faculty, research, or other core activities? Why wall that pile of assets from being spent, especially when budgets are cratering in a pandemic? When we see businesses with piles of cash, we infer they don't have any good investment projects, and the piles are ripe for diversion to bad ideas. But universities are non-profits, and one major piece of being a non-profit is that the business is protected from the market for corporate control. If you see a business wasting money on bad investments, buy up the stock, fire management, and run it right. Repurchases were part of an earlier reform effort, to stop management from wasting money on aggrandizing projects. Perhaps restrictions on endowment spending serve a somewhat parallel function for universities. Perhaps I was wrong to criticize so harshly. These thoughts are brought to mind by Stanford's announcement of a new school "focused on climate and sustainability." A "school" is bigger than a center, an institute, a department, a division. Stanford has seven "schools," Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities & Sciences, Law, Medicine, and, yes, Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. Why a new school? It will "amplify our contributions in education, research and impact further by aligning people and resources more effectively. Says university President Tessier-Lavigne. Vice Provost Kathryn Moller will "lead an inclusive process designing the school’s structure....consult with key internal and external stakeholders to develop a school organization that amplifies faculty and student contributions to address the most urgent climate and sustainability challenges." creating an "impact-focused community, with new opportunities to enhance the impact of their work on the issues they deeply care about,” "Impact" and "amplify" repeat quite a few times. Importantly for a university, it will run degree-granting programs for undergraduate and graduate students. It will include a sustainability neighborhood that would provide place-based education and infuse sustainability in the education of all students across campus... "Infuse" is a lovely word. Inculcate might be better. Indoctrinate might not be far off. In a revealing quote, “Living sustainably on our planet requires more than advocacy, we need deep scholarship,” said Sally Benson, co-director of the Precourt Institute for Energy. “The paradigm that’s led us to the world we have today is based on growth that’s not sustainable. ... We need to transition to an economy where more value is created by restoring and preserving Earth’s resources than by activities that degrade and deplete them. This school will provide a home to support the scholarship needed to realize this vision.” "Advocacy" comes first. Scholarship is an addendum to advocacy. The question whether our current paradigm  produces "growth" that is "sustainable" is apparently settled before the institute even gets going on that scholarship. All the other schools are organized around questions. This is is organized around an answer. (Never mind our "paradigm," regulated capitalism, is the only one that produced the environmental movement, and is rapidly transforming all on its own. And just what does "sustainable" mean? Of course nobody wrestles with the definition in any of these documents.  I somehow suspect it is not the dictionary definition of "can growth go on," Jones/Gordon debate over the end of ideas, and and will not include the effect of regulation or other disincentives on idea-driven growth. This is not the sustainable you're looking for. Suppose a scholarly paper finds that markets, property rights, and corporate structure produce the most "sustainable" growth by any metric. Will that result be welcome?) If you get the faint impression that this is an advocacy-based initiative, I would not blame you. I will be curious to see how many climate skeptics, geoengineers, nuclear power plant designers,  GMO foods experts, they hire. Heck, it will be interesting to see if they hire any registered Republicans. Where did this idea come from? A ...committee, ... carried out a campus survey, held five open forums, met with faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders from across the university, and interviewed past and current campus leaders. A consistent message from those conversations was an enthusiasm for the idea that Stanford’s ambition and commitment to climate and sustainability must be as large as the challenge, according to Diffenbaugh. “We heard that sustainability should be a top priority in research, education and impact,” he said. “We also heard that the structure should be inclusive and that sustainability needs to be infused in all aspects of the university .” My emphasis. They surveyed the inmates to find out how to run the asylum. Thank goodness however, that by walling it off in a separate school, "sustainability" will not be "infused" in all aspects of the university, Hoover for example. And be thankful for small things. It's not officially a school for climate, sustainability, social justice, diversity, equity, and so forth. Well, maybe  you are of a different frame of mind, and climate and "sustainability" still rings as your top worries, over war, civil or nuclear, pandemic, crop failure, bio terrorism, or any of the other civilization-ending possibilities out there. (We shall see just how sustainable the school of sustainability will turn out to be.) Perhaps you too think the time for inquiry is over and the time for "advocacy" is now, and we'll all go right back to business as usual post Covid. Still, perhaps you too will think it wise that university presidents can't spend the whole endowment in a year on the Next Big Idea. After all, the next president might survey Hoover, and decide we need a school devoted to "advocating" and achieving "impact" in a School of Freedom, devoted to personal, economic, political and social freedom; constitutional rule of law, relieving global poverty and improving the environment through the only known method, widespread idea-based economic growth. The President might name Dierdre McCloskey to run it. Well, it's not likely, but you get the point. Of course, I should acknowledge the other reality of campus life. When you hear such gobbledygook, search for something deeper. A "school for sustainability and climate," so clearly structured to advocate and inculcate rather than research and debate, is a superb fund-raising tool to attract wealthy tech titans and other non-profit organizations. There are big economies of scale in fundraising, "big" projects raise more money than yet another center, project, initiative, program. That view explains a new "school" very well.  My School of Freedom might raise $12. Viewed this way, our leaders are doing a great job. Update: Actually there is something like a school of freedom at Stanford: Hoover. OK, we're not a "school" by a long shot, but our motto is "ideas defining a free society." And I take a little self-interested pleasure in the new school. Quite a few faithful Stanford alumni donors come our way when they decide the rest of the university has gone nuts. We're still here!
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

Earthquake Precursors: Signs Before Earthquakes

Earthquake prediction is the ultimate goal of seismologists . Being able to predict when and where an earthquake will occur could save thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives, over the years. Even after decades of study, earthquake forecasting remains notoriously difficult, however. So what are the signs which occur before an earthquake – earthquake precursors – and how useful are they? About the author (who writes this article): Nusrat Kamal Siddiqui is one of the leading Geoscientists from Pakistan. He has a diverse professional career of being a Petroleum Geologist, Hydrologist and Engineering Geologist, both in Pakistan and overseas. He recently published a book " Petroleum Geology, Basin Architecture and Stratigraphy of Pakistan". Click here for further details about the book. The Precursors There are some long-term, medium-term and short-term precursors of seismic activity that cause earthquakes. The long-term precursors are based on statistical studies and the prediction is probabilistic. The medium-term precursors help in predicting the location of an earthquake to a sufficient degree of accuracy. The short-term precursors of seismic events are indicated by changes in geomagnetic field , changes in gravity field , rising of subsurface temperature and rise in ground radioactivity . Agriculture institutions record subsurface temperature at 20, 50 and 100 cm depth as it is useful for monitoring crop growth. In earthquake-prone areas the temperature starts rising about 700-900 days before the event. This readily available data can be of help. The short-term precursors are more important as they can be observed by a common man, and happen from a few days before the earthquake to just before it happens. With a reducing lag time these are: rise in water in the wells with increased sediments, sudden increase and decrease in river water flow, disturbance in the reception of radio, television, telephones, water fountains on the high grounds, strange behavior of animals, a sudden jump in the number of deliveries in hospitals and malfunctioning of cell phones. These days cell phones are the most handy and common piece of electronic equipment. A general collapse of this system can be noted by masses, and hence could be a very effective means to take timely mitigation measure. It has been found that about 100 to 150 minutes before the earthquake the cell phones start malfunctioning. However, the humans are very careless by nature and there would be only very few who would be observant enough to note the above precursors. It is certainly believed that animals showcase unusual conduct earlier than an earthquake In the earthquake-prone areas groups of observant and responsible people (including women - they normally haul the water) may be constituted wherein the list of precursors, in local languages, may be distributed and some pembinaan imparted. And this exercise may not be left to the authorities, for obvious reasons! Source: Earthquakes are inevitable, Disasters are not– Mitigation, therefore, is better than Prediction by Nusrat K. Siddiqui Suggested Readings: 1.A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors 2.Earthquakes: prediction, forecasting and mitigation three.Earthquake Prediction, Control and Mitigation
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

Different Shale Distributions In Low Resistivity Log Response.

First, we are able to begin with a small creation approximately the resistivity logs Resistivity log Technique : produce a current in the adjacent formation and measure the response of the formation to that current. Resistivity logs are used to: ? Decide hydrocarbon-bearing as opposed to water bearing zones ? Suggest permeable zones ? Determine porosity By far the most important use of resistivity logs is the determination of hydrocarbon -bearing versus water-bearing zones. Because the rock’s matrix or grains are non-conductive and any hydrocarbons in the pores are also non-conductive, the ability of the rock to transmit a current is almost entirely a function of water in the pores. As the hydrocarbon saturation of the pores increases (as the water saturation decreases), the formation’s resistivity increases. As the salinity of the water in the pores decreases , the rock’s resistivity also increases. Resistivity tools principle : there are two types of resistivity tool , The dual lateral log ( DLL ) and the induction log ( DIL ) both types measures the resistivity in three zones simultaneously. LLD looks deep into reservoir LLS Looks shallow into the reservoir MSFL reads the resistivity close to the wellbore. Low Resistivity response : High deep resistivity means : HCs or Tight streak  low porosity Low deep resistivity means : Shale or wet sand . Shale : Shale is defined as a fine-grained, indurated detrital sedimentary rock formed by the consolidation (by compression or cementation) of clay, silt, or mud. It is characterized through a finely stratified structure of laminae starting from 0.1 to 0.4 mm thick. Shale carries an considerable content of clay minerals or derivatives from clay minerals, with a excessive content of detrital quartz; containing at the least 50% silt, with 35% clay or mica fraction, and 15% chemical or authigenic substances In petrophysical analysis, shale quantity is one of the key answers used later to accurate porosity and water saturation for the results of clay bound water, (CBW). Shale distribution in shaly sand : Shale can be distributed in several different ways, as shown below. Laminated shale is a unique case in petrophysical evaluation. Standard fashions for porosity and saturation do now not paintings. Dispersed shale is usually composed of from clay minerals that shape in region after deposition due to chemical reactions among the rock minerals and the chemicals within the formation water. Structural shale is normally deposited as particles, grains, or clasts in the course of the initial depositional segment. For instance, the flooding of a river valley can deliver dust or shale from surrounding areas. Different shale distributions have different effect on the sand reservoir . In a sand reservoir contain structure shale : it will affect the reservoir porosity In a sand reservoir comprise laminae shale : it'll have an effect on best the net pay of the reservoir In a sand reservoir contain : it will affect the porosity and permeability of the reservoir and also it will lead to a shortcut in the resistivity log response , which may result in a miss lead in the interpretation of the reservoir porosity and saturation  , it could be interpreted as sand bearing water instead of a sand contain dispersed shale. So, the question here is how to distinguish among them and to keep away from this wrong interpretation ?! Let?S anticipate that you have a a hundred% easy sand reservoir. So the full porosity of this reservoir is 30% and the sand grains will represent 70% of the quantity of the reservoir Hint : Porosity of sandstone is 30 % and porosity of shale is 10% Case 1 : In the case of the presence of structure shale , So in this case shale grains will update sand grains ( extent of 70% ) , the shale will convey its 10% porosity with it. In other words , The porosity may be stronger by 10% inside the quantity of 70% of the sand So , the porosity will increase via 70/10 and the entire porosity can be = 37 % Case 2 : In the case of the presence of laminae shale , in this case shale will replace the whole reservoir ( 100 & ) and also will bring its own 10% porosity. In other words , the porosity will be reduced from 30% to 10% Case 3 : In the case of the presence of dispersed shale , in this case shale we will replace the porosity  volume it self ( 30 % ) and as usual it will bring its own porosity. In other words , the porosity will be reduced into 3% ( 30 / 10 )Summarized figure for the different shale distributions  in shaly sand reservoir  and it’s effect on the reservoir porosity. Shale distribution versi proposed by Thomas and Stieber (Tyagi et al . 2009). Here V shale is the volume of shale, φ total is the total porosity, φ max is the maximum porosity, and φ sh is the porosity in shale Conclusion : So, we can differentiate between the three different types of shale distribution and according to the type we can make the right interpretation for the porosity and the saturation of the sand reservoir , also we will avoid the miss leading interpretation in the shortcut in the resistivity log. Photo Credits: Ahmed Adel Originally blog is written by Ahmed Adel
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

State Support For Nuclear Power - Barokong

Tyler Cowen responded with an interesting  post to my query, "I don’t see just why nuclear power needs “state support,” rather than a clear workable set of safety regulations that are not excuses for anyone to stop any project." (Tyler, originally wrote, "State Capacity Libertarians are more likely to have positive views of infrastructure, science subsidies, nuclear power (requires state support!), ...," I interpreted "state support" as  massive subisdies to be added to the massively regulated system we have now, adding nuclear to (say) windmills, rooftop solar, and housing. Tyler had something quite different and interesting in mind: "in general American society has become far more litigious, and it is much harder to build things, and risk-aversion and infrastructure-aversion have risen dramatically....So the odds are that without a Price-Anderson Act [which starkly limits nuclear company's liability exposure] America’s nuclear industry would have shut down some time ago, with no real chance of a return. " A society that allows its lawyers to nearly bankrupt Toyota and Audi over non-existent auto defects, and now is shutting down Bayer over completely unscientific claims that Roundup causes cancer, is obviously going to quickly destroy any nuclear company over harms real and imagined.  If we're going to have nuclear, we need some limitation on this kind of adventurism, along with the legal and regulatory knots that make it almost impossible to build any infrastructure in the US today. I file this in the "lack of state capacity" department. A good (adjective) Libertarian wants clear property rights, and a sensible tort system that pays some vague attention to scientific evidence.  That is part of state infrastructure. When we say "infrastructure" people envision roads, but good courts, laws, regulations, property rights, and so forth are perhaps the most essential state-provided infrastructure. Tyler went on a bit, to comments that made a bit less sense to me: I am not sure which level or kind of liability should be associated with “the free market,” especially when the risks in question are small, arguably ambiguous, but in the negative scenarios involve very very high costs.  Which is then “the market formula”? The free market does involve property rights and payment for actual damages. Airlines, drug companies, car companies, all can function in a free-market property-rights libertarian view (another good adjective!) Of all the problems of nuclear, especially the promising small scale new technolgy nuclear, properly bonding and paying for actual  (as opposed to imagined) harm does not seem impossible. But now we're falling in to another libertarian trap, that of discussion which cloud of libertarian nirvana is better. We're pretty far away from designing tort law for free-market property-rights society.
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

Real Estate Ups And Downs - Barokong

In a delightfully YIMBY "Americans Need More Neighbors" the New York times gets it almost all right. Housing is one area of American life where government really is the problem. The United States is suffering from an acute shortage of affordable places to live, particularly in the urban areas where economic opportunity increasingly is concentrated. And perhaps the most important reason is that local governments are preventing construction. It goes on, even noting flagrant progressive hypocrisy Increasing the supply of urban housing would help to address a number of the problems plaguing the United States. Construction could increase economic growth and create blue-collar jobs. Allowing more people to live in cities could mitigate inequality and reduce carbon emissions. Yet in most places, housing construction remains wildly unpopular. People who think of themselves as progressives, environmentalists and egalitarians fight fiercely against urban development, complaining about traffic and shadows and the sanctity of lawns. It noticed the sordid racial past of zoning restrictions ... many residents said they were surprised to learn that single-family zoning in Minneapolis, as in other cities, had deep roots in efforts to enforce racial segregation. Cities found that banning apartment construction in white neighborhoods was an effective proxy for racial discrimination, and the practice spread after it was validated by the Supreme Court in 1926. Heavens, it even allows for the freedom to spend money, as long as it's not subsidized People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravagance by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land. Usually I would expect the NYT to jump on the opposite bandwagon and prohibit such houses.  The NYT even realizes that more market-rate apartments is the best way to provide more low priced housing OK, the Times being the Times, it has to argue for some vast new subsidy, Governments need to provide subsidized housing for people who cannot afford market-rate housing. But here too, it gets a lot right. The bulk of the long oped is not about repeating the disaster of public housing projects, or more "affordable housing" mandates. It's just about build -- move the supply curve to the right. Berating its own a little more, it recognizes substitution and depreciation ...advocates for affordable housing should be jumping up and down and screaming for the construction of more high-end apartment buildings to ease demand for existing homes. Those new buildings are filled with people who would otherwise be spending Saturdays touring fixer-uppers in neighborhoods newly named something like SoFa, with rapidly dwindling populations of longtime residents. Today’s market-rate apartments will gradually become more affordable, just as new cars become used cars. Meanwhile, in progressive political reality, and lest you get too optimistic, the Wall Street Journal, in a spectacularly mis-titled article, covers New York State's new rent control law. The title is "New York Passes Overhaul of Rent Laws, Buoying Wider Movement to Tackle Housing Crunch"  It's not an overhaul, it's a massive expansion, and it will not tackle the housing crunch, but it will make it spectacularly worse. The New York legislation brings increased power to tenants in roughly one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City. It makes it more difficult for the owners of those apartments to increase rents, while enabling more tenants to sue landlords for rent overcharges. Also, tenants around the state will have more protections against eviction. Proposals to limit rents are advancing in a number of state legislatures, including in California, where a statewide cap on rent passed the California Assembly in May, and in Oregon, which passed the nation’s first statewide rent control in February, limiting annual rent increases to 7% plus local inflation. The times will probably get its way on housing subsidies, already a popular idea here in California. Imagine a subsidy for any house or rent above 30 percent of your income, plus a continued block on new construction. It's interesting that economists spend a lot of attention on the minimum wage, and less on rent control plus housing supply restrictions. I guess nobody has made a big stir with a diff in diff regression claiming that rent control doesn't shrink housing supply. Perhaps someone should, just to ge the outrage going. And, if you're wondering about the wealth tax, it's here. A limit on rents is a pure tax on the landlord's  property, transferring its value to the current renter, but destroying much of that value along the way.
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

On Climate Change - Barokong

David Henderson and I wade in to perilous waters in the July 31 Wall Street Journal. We try to stake out a different and more productive conversation than the usual shouting match between alarmists and deniers. Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. As economists, we both have a healthy skepticism of large computer based forecasting models. The famous 1972 club of Rome forecast that we would run out of resources, and the grand failure of large scale Keynesian models in the late 1970s are two humbling examples. The "climate" models also feature a lot of questionable economics. A crucial question -- how much carbon will the world's economies add on their own, without Paris-accord policies? That's economics, very questionable economics, and not meteorology. That said, however, the point of the oped is to try to shift the debate away from climate science and mixed climate-economic computer models. Stop arguing about climate, and let us instead investigate costs and benefits of policies. That strikes us as a much more fruitful place for discussion. If you are wary of the climate policy  acara, the costs and benefits of those policies are more fertile ground for discussion than the science of carbon emissions and atmospheric warming. If you only argue about the climate, then you implicitly admit that if the models are right about climate, the whole policy acara follows. Do not admit that point. They may be right about climate and wrong about policy. In California, it is seriously suggested that the way to get more water is to build a high speed train, which will save carbon, which will cool the earth, which will... actually, it goes the other way, but never mind. To address an argument like that, you should not get dragged in to whether human-released carbon warms the planet. A simple dollars per ton and tons per inch of water would do. If it is not clear enough, nothing in this piece takes a stand on climate science, either affirming or denying current climate forecasts. I will be interested to see how quickly we are painted as unscientific climate-deniers. Shifting a politicized debate is hard. That is, if anyone pays any attention. A few other choice bits: Global warming is not the only risk our society faces. Even if science tells us that climate change is real and man-made, it does not tell us, as President Obama asserted, that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity. Really? Greater than nuclear explosions, a world war, global pandemics, crop failures and civil chaos? No. Healthy societies do not fall apart over slow, widely predicted, relatively small economic adjustments of the sort painted by climate analysis. Societies do fall apart from war, disease or chaos. Climate policy must compete with other long-term threats for always-scarce resources. As something of a conservative libertarian, I do worry about the end of western civilization and our society falling apart. And I worry about the natural environment as part of that. Still, slow warming in the next two centuries, and a sea level rise (much smaller than the one that happened a mere 10,000 years ago), while a worry, is not obviously the top worry. Global warming is not even the obvious top environmental threat. Dirty water, dirty air and insect-borne diseases are a far greater duduk perkara today for most people world-wide. Habitat loss and human predation are a far greater duduk perkara for most animals. Elephants won’t make it to see a warmer climate. Ask them how they would prefer to spend $1 trillion—subsidizing high-speed trains or a human-free park the size of Montana I'm also something of an environmentalist, with a soft spot for people living in terrible conditions and for the awful permanence of species extinction. Starting with wooly mammoths. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “scientific” recommendations, for example, include “reduced gender inequality & marginalization in other forms,” “provisioning of adequate housing,” “cash transfers” and “awareness raising & integrating into education.” Even if some of these are worthy goals, they are not scientifically valid, cost-benefit-tested policies to cool the planet. When I read the IPCC report, starting on p. 26, I had to check that I was not unintentionally reading The Onion. We cut for space. A longer list (from that p. 26) of the IPCC's policy ideas Reduced gender inequality & marginalization in other forms…. Improved access to & control of local resources; Manipulation of disturbance regimes; Community-based natural resource management…. Provisioning of adequate housing,… Micro finance; Disaster contingency funds; Cash transfers; Public-private partnerships…Patent pools & technology transfer…: Awareness raising & integrating into education; Gender equity in education; Extension services; Sharing indigenous, traditional & local knowledge; Participatory action research & social learning; Knowledge-sharing & learning platforms… behavioural shifts, or institutional & managerial changes that produce substantial shifts in outcomes. (under”practical” subheading) Individual & collective assumptions, beliefs, values & worldviews influencing climate-change responses. Again, you do not have to get deep into cloud modeling and ice melt feedback loops to wonder if all of this list necessarily follows. And, for the record, I have no qualm with lots of this list. Gender equality and equity in education? Improved access to resources? Who can object? But this is supposed to be about effective policies to cool the planet, not a grab bag of things that would be nice. (I do have qualms with a lot of the list, of course. It's a rather Orwellian and statist vision. "Public-private partnerships" characterizes much of contemporary Russia.) I like our last paragraph. Climate policy advocates’ apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable. It follows that the costs of genetically modified foods and terbaru pesticides, which can feed us with less land and lower carbon emissions, might be bearable. It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable. And it follows that symbolic, ineffective, political grab-bag policies should be intolerable. For the record, I favor a uniform carbon tax in place of  all the other direct energy regulations and subsidies. (A neighbor just showed me his electric car, purchased in addition to a regular car, for one reason only: you can ride it solo  in the HOV lane, a right worth thousands in California.) The rate on such a tax can be raised or lowered as politics and science see fit. If we're going to do something, and if the health of the economy is a prime consideration, then we must do something economically efficient. (David disagrees, but he can explain his views in his own blog.) As I favor a uniform VAT in place of the idiotically complex income and corporate tax system. I recognize the essential failure of our political system to enact simple transparent reforms, but that's a question for another day. I do think there is hope however. A while ago I went to a meeting organized by the Niskanen Center bringing together free-market and libertarian types with some large environmental organizations. The environmentalists were concerned about climate change, understand that feel-good policies (like the subsidy for my neighbor's car) aren't going to slow down climate change, and will suck resources away from policies that could. The free marketers were largely a bit skeptical about just how much of a threat climate change is, but appalled at the inefficiency of IPCC style regulations. There is a deal to be had -- we'll do something efficient and effective (say, a carbon tax) in return for eliminating the junk.  We can agree to disagree about the level of that tax. My sense is that environmental groups are not ready to say this in public, for fear of angering allies who want to use the environmental label for a grab bag of policies (see IPCC list!), and the libertarians and free market types don't trust the "get rid of" rather than "in addition to" everything else part of the bargain. But there is a bargain to be made, and strong political leadership could bring it about. (By the way, we didn't choose the figure caption. We know that Rotterdam is not prone to floods. Much of it is below sea level, and Miami is 9 feet above sea level.) Update: Ian Martin and Bob Pindyk have a classy AER paper on the subject of "insurance" and multiple potential catastrophes. They go beyond our point -- if you buy overpriced insurance for each catastrophe you exhaust GDP quickly -- and consider the general equilibrium interactions. Catastrophes affect marginal utility a lot, so when you insure against one you change the state-contingent valuations of another. Evaluating policies in isolation is doubly bad.
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com

Douthat And Feldstein On Euro - Barokong

In case you missed it, this Sunday featured a creditable effort by the NY Times to look out of the groundhog hole. You have likely followed the explosion resulting fromBret Stephens' first column. Likewise,Ross Douthat tried to explain the attraction of Marine LePen.  I'm not a LePen fan, but appreciated his honest effort to explain how the other side say things. I was interested in Douthat's views on the euro: But on the other hand, our periode’s “enlightened” governance has produced an out-of-touch eurozone elite lashed to a destructive common currency,.. There is no American equivalent to the epic disaster of the euro, a form of German imperialism with the struggling parts of Europe as its subjects... And while many of her economic prescriptions are half-baked, her overarching critique of the euro is correct: Her country and her continent would be better off without it. Douthat does not pretend to be an economist, and I have no beef with his expressing such views. Because such views are commonplace conventional wisdom from our policy elite. And if the euro falls apart, they will bear a lot of blame for its passing. Be careful what you write, people might be listening.  No, when Germany sends Porsches to Greece in return for worthless pieces of paper, it is not Germany who got the better of the deal. And while you're at it, get rid of that silly common meter, and restore proper nationalism of weights and measures too. (Of course perhaps my admiration for the euro is wrong. Then they will deserve credit for the wave of prosperity that flows over Europe once it unleashes the shackles of the common currency dragging it down. ) As a concrete example, consider  Martin Feldstein writing in the Il Sole series on the Euro, (I don't mean to pick on Feldstein. He has been a consistent anti-euro voice, arguing the great benefits for Italy and Greece of periodic inflation and devaluation. But he is just a good sober example of the common view in Cambridge-centered economic policy circles.) Topic sentences: Although Italy was an enthusiastic adopter of the euro when the single currency began, the Italian experience of the past decade suggests that was a mistake. ...it seems plausible that Italy’s economy would be in better condition today if Italy, like Britain, had decided to keep its own currency and therefore to be able to manage its own monetary policy and its own exchange rate. Analysis: Advocates of adopting the euro argued at the time that members of the Eurozone would be forced by market pressures to converge to a high common level of productivity and a corresponding level of real wages. That never happened. Instead, Germany powered ahead with rising productivity that has resulted in real per capita income 30% higher than Italy’s, an unemployment rate that is less than half Italy's and a trade surplus that is 8 % of its GDP. Huh? It is a new proposition in monetary economics to me that adopting a common currency forces countries to move to common productivity, any more than adopting the meter forces countries to do so.  Alabama and California share a currency and not productivity. Fresno and Palo Alto share a currency and not productivity.   A common market in products with free movement of capital and labor might force out economic, legal, and regulatory inefficiency, but that would happen regardless of the units of measurement. The most basic proposition in monetary economics: The choice of monetary unit has no effect on long-run productivity or any other aspect of the long-run real economy. Using the euro vs. the lira has no effect on long-run productivity, any more than using the meter forces Italian tailors to cut Norwegian-sized suits, or that using the Kilo forces Italian restaurants to serve bratwurst and beer rather than pizza and wine. The countries that adopted the euro never satisfied the three conditions for a successful currency union: labor mobility, flexibility of real wages, and a common fiscal policy that transfers funds to areas that experience temporary increases in unemployment. This is another repeated truism. In my view the main condition for a currency union was present in the euro and the persoalan was forgetting about it when the time came. In a currency union without fiscal union, bankrupt governments default just like bankrupt companies. Neither labor mobility (which exists in Europe), flexibility of real wages (doubtful in the US) or common fiscal policy (also limited in the US) are necessary. Europe lived under a common currency -- the gold standard -- for hundreds of years. Sovereigns defaulted. I suspect Feldstein means by "common currency" far more than I do. I mean, we agree to use a common currency. I suspect Feldstein means far more than that, including that no government debt may ever default and that the ECB must print money to ensure that fact. Like all disagreements perhaps this one simply reflects a difference in meaning of the words. If so, it would be good to say so. Objections to "the euro" are not objections to a common currency per se, but objections to the rest of the legal, regulatory, banking, fiscal, and policy framework that accompanies the euro. To be fair, there is also a different underlying world view here. In Feldstein's world, national governments and central banks can be relied on to diagnose "shocks," and artfully devalue currencies just enough to "offset shocks" when and only when needed; in the european case likely imposing "capital controls" as well, but to do this rarely enough that investors will still buy government bonds, invest in their countries, and avoid the slide to banana republic inflation, repression, and trade and investment closure. In my world, as I think in the real world of Italy and Greece before the euro, national currencies are not such a happy tool of benevolent dirigisme. The commitment not to devalue, inflate, and grab capital after the fact is good for growth and investment before the fact. A government sober enough to use Feldstein's tools wisely is also sober enough to borrow wisely when offered low rates. A government not sober enough to borrow wisely when offered low rates is not sober enough to artfully devalue, inflate, grab capital "just this once" in response to shocks.
Sumber http://barokongnetwork.blogspot.com