Posts Tagged ‘Environmentalism’

The Lesson of Avatar

February 15, 2010 1 comment

Rev. James Cameron: How do I best speak out against the evil and excesses of big bad American Capitalism and Imperialism?

Answer: By making the most  expensive and technologically advanced symbol of excess ever: the blockbuster movie, distributing it worldwide and reaping enormous profits from said endeavor.

Profound bit of irony, Rev. Cameron.

I love the cross-promotion at the NBA All-Star game though……(Can somebody please get a picture of Chris Bosh riding a Toruk? he’d look badass)

B’osh (the Omiticaya basketball star)

Categories: Politics Tags: ,

Grow a tree! Print more paper!

January 21, 2010 3 comments

A recent feel-good trend has bothered the cynic in me. A few churches I’ve been to, including Redeemer in NYC have decided to go “green”, by offering the option of paperless mail to its more “progressive” congregants. I just hope this is a cost-saving move cuz its a rather terrible “green” one.

A lot of corporate e-mails including those of my former employer include a line like this:

“Save a tree. Simplify your life. Get your statements online instead of in the mail.” or

“Please consider the environment before printing out this e-mail” or even….

“Every time you use the printer, you mercilessly club a baby seal in front of its mother” I kid….

Of course, this makes me furious. You ask, “But why are you such a soulless human?” Its because….get this…wait for it:

Using more paper = More trees!

This is not my own profound insight, economists like Steven Landsburg and Edward Glaeser as well as writer John Tierney have all written about this. But its maddening to see bs like this propagated:

Every day we use paper — to communicate, to create, to clean. Paper use has a direct connection with global warming because paper comes from trees, and most paper in the United States today comes directly from wood, rather than recycled sources. Every tree that goes into paper is one less tree capturing carbon and providing habitat for wildlife. (Source: National Wildlife Federation)

Nope. Every time you decide to strain your eyes a bit more to read a document instead of printing it out, you are indirectly causing a tree to not be planted. It’s simple economics really.

  1. Plant Trees
  2. Cut trees
  3. Make paper from trees
  4. Sell paper
  5. Anticipate future paper demand from sales
  6. Plant Trees according to new demand  (Step 1)

The key is, when we use paper, the trees we get them from are specifically grown for the purpose of paper. Besides perhaps a bad Steven Seagal flick or Al Gore documentary, no paper company in their right mind would go into a national park to just cut down trees. Those of you who think I am insane, should look at the populations of chickens and cows in the United States. It is precisely because we eat so many chicken parms and juicy steaks that farmers have an incentive to increase the population of these animals. Check out the business model here.

Before you rant at me for being a corporate sell-out (in my boxers and unshaven scrubbiness) I would note its precisely the corporations that are falling for this farce. I would think this idea would be embraced by those who consider themselves more environmentally-inclined. Instead I often get a visceral display of illogical anger; the kind of reaction you’d get from Pat Robertson if you told him there are also Christians in Haiti. Luckily, my environmentalism is of the irreligious variety. “Oh you recycle? Way to NOT plant a future  tree”

Next time you see your buddy eschew printing a document or recycle his pitchbook you should

  1. Chuckle wholeheartedly
  2. Pat him on the back
  3. Smugly say, “I’m a little bit more progressive, I print paper to help offset my carbon footprint.”
  4. Close your eyes and beam your best S#!t-eating grin
Categories: Economics Tags: ,

Natural disasters and economic development

January 20, 2010 3 comments

Great article by Brooks in the NYTimes a couple days back….

I think a couple things I would take further:

1) Aid will never be the solution to any long-term problems.

I am of course not talking about the aid we are giving now to alleviate the immense amount of suffering Haiti is undergoing via charitable intervention both private and government. However, long-term we’ll realize Haiti has had a whole host of problems: massive corruption, little infrastructure, lack of property rights, poor education etc. Why should anyone even think about starting a business? To get a business license takes an average of 218 days, to survive often you need to bribe the right magistrate/policeman/gangster and when there’s little existence of a stable capital market.

After the smoke clears, I think we should look to the problems of Africa and not the rebirth of New Orleans as the appropriate model for long-term solutions. While I am not sure we can simply do nothing; sending money that won’t reach the poorest of poor but will line the pockets of the kleptocrats and their cronies is not compassionate, but morally wrong. Acknowledging these problems requires a solution that is not as easy as texting the G-8 at a rock concert.

2) Global “green” initiatives need to take a back seat to economic development especially in third-world countries.
Brooks notes that one major problem in Haiti results from its lack of development, comparing the devastation to that wrought by the seismically similar 1989 earthquake in SF. The disparity in death tolls is staggering. This is not a unique trend.  The death toll after Hurricane Katrina was roughly 2,500 people; The Indian Ocean Tsunami was over 200,000. Katrina was insanely mismanaged and is its own story of what not to do during a natural disaster. However, this paled in comparison to  the severe underdevelopment in Southeast Asia. Developments in communication, construction and transportation often limits these mass casualties. (See also Bam, Iran). Technology, not mindless self-flagellation is the solution to alleviating this problem.

We’ve spent too much time arguing away the nuances of global warming (2 degrees that, 3 inches less, billions of dollars that), which severely impede the development of poor countries.  Yet, the major issues after the disaster in Southeast Asia were access to clean water, sanitation and simple medical treatments. While we take them for granted in the developed world, in a third world country, they are impossible to find amidst disaster.   Furthermore, due to lack of technological development there was  no ability to detect seismic activity and warn for the tsunami like we have in the US.  Limiting their access to energy  and natural resources only serves to keep these countries without the literal power that can fuel development. There are many examples of “green” groups pressuring banks and corporations from making energy investments in poorer regions.

You look at the massive growth and advancement of China, you’ll also see massive smokestacks fueling this growth. While China can afford to lift its proverbial middle finger at snooty environmentalists, smaller countries are forced to assuage the demands of NGOs insisting upon wind and solar energy. Interestingly enough, it is because of this very sharp economic growth that China can now invest in a plethora of green projects.

Forget the spurious connection made by some that the warming caused the XYZ disaster (unless you are climatologist/seismologist Danny Glover). Natural disasters will and always have been a part of life on Earth. We need to acknowledge this fact and our ability to at least limit our exposure to nature’s harshest strikes. I’ll listen to someone argue that “protecting nature” is more important than economic development, but often I find these very people shielded from nature’s most awful burdens protected by the comforts of Western technology while spouting their nonsense from their wifi notebooks. In no way is this a sufficient contention to address global poverty but I’m all for allowing countries to embrace green on their own terms.

%d bloggers like this: