Final Blog

Learning about clean energy development paths was likely the most mind blowing thing to me because it seems like that would be one of the number one reasons to switch to clean energy since it has great long-term benefits. I feel that starting developing countries on a clean development path would be a more talked about topic since they are the biggest co2 emitters right now. However, there are some that believe clean technology would be more expensive than its long run benefits, but they are not taking into account the fact that ripple-effect benefits of switching to clean technology. 

After taking this class I am dumbfounded as to how nothing has been done about climate change. Even when it is evident that it is occurring and the solutions aren't as expensive as they once were. I am also unsure how some can just toss away scientific evidence and say there is not climate change at all. It seems to me that the people who are willing to turn a blind eye are the biggest obstructors of actually doing anything about climate change. 

It made me happy to see that there is some movement, policy wise, towards clean energy development. Before, I was not very optimistic that anything of substance would get done anytime soon, but now there is at least some hope.

The Case of Solyndra and Why the Government Should Continue to Invest in Clean Energy Companies

Solyndra was a major controversy in the United States because the government gave them a loan in hopes that it would help make a breakthrough towards more accessible clean energy. Anyways, Solyndra went under and it was displayed as the main reason why the government should not be involved in the market because it makes mistakes with their investment decisions. However, they also seem to forget that private companies also make bad investment decisions, which is why they normally diversify their investments so that one bad investment does not ruin the profitability of the group. The government did do this and the recent news that the program turned a profit proved the the government is able to make smart investment decisions. 

The government should be involved in investing in clean energy technology because it cannot wait for the free market to decide to move away from fossil fuels. The government needs to set the path towards clean energy and away from fossil fuels in order for the market to seamlessly switch over. Starting a path towards clean energy is what the government should do and it should be lauded by the people because it helps advance technology and will likely lead to a quicker reduction co2 emissions than what would have resulted under the free market. 

I have a problem with how the Solyndra incident down because it was very public that this company that received a government loan, which made a lot of people mad, but I doubt the success of the program overall will even come close to the amount of coverage the Solyndra scandal received. The government should do what it can in order to give the success as much publicity as possible in order to show people that the government can make smart investments and show clean energy is making its way into our lives. 

Money and Lobbying Ruin the Political Process

Corporate lobbying and corporate money in campaigning is the bane of our democratic process. Corporations can hire lobbyist in order to argue for or against bills on their behalf. This muddies up the democratic process because corporations hold a lot of wealth and can influence congresspeople to vote one way or the other. Congresspeople are responsible to their constituents, but because corporations have the ability to lobby and have their money spread across many congresspeople they are able to influence important votes. This is not how the democratic process should be done and it is probably one of the main reason for the amazing inability to get things done that has plagued our congress for the past six years. 

This problem is highlighted when you look at the issue of global warming. 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man made, but no solution has been able to pass through the legislative process because of the lobbying abilities of the fossil fuel industry, such as the Koch Brothers. It is not a good sign that a single industry can influence the legislative process to minimize the impact of potential regulation. Especially since science is not on their side and their influence in the regulation process is holding up in progress we might have made in improving our environment. 

Other lobbying should not be ignored either, environmental groups also has a big budget when it comes to lobbying. I am arguing against lobbying of congress and getting private money out of campaigning. There should be absolutely no campaign donations and campaigns should be financed with public money with strict oversight. Getting rid of lobbying all together is tricky, but I believe it should be replaced with a panel who are well versed in their particular fields and they would put together a report on how a particular piece of legislation will affect certain areas of our economy or how it would affect certain industries. They would provide congresspeople with the information and the congresspeople would use this to make informed decisions. This would be quite costly, but since the payoff would be a well functioning democracy, it seems like it would be worth it. 

Open Space in Fort Collins

Open space is an important issue now because their is a ballot measure to preserve open space in Fort Collins. Open space provides many benefits to the community, but the issue is that these benefits are hard to place a value on. There are ways that these benefits can be measured, but none of these options are perfect. Contingent valuation asks people what they would be willing to pay to keep open space. This can run into problems since people could overstate how much they would actually be willing to pay since they may not actually have to pay that amount. However, this is probably the best valuation method for this problem since contingent valuation is the only way to measure passive value, which is the value one may get even if they don't use the resource. It is very important to measure the passive value of open space since it comes with a lot of benefits for those who do not use the spaces. Hedonic regression is another way to measure the value, but it is flawed because it bases it off of property values in the surrounding area. Many things can change property value and the value that we would actually receive from open spaces is a lit more than what changes in property value would say that the value is. One could also use travel costs which measures how much people are willing to pay to travel to the open space, but again this comes with issues because it does not measure passive value. 

Fort Collins voters should vote for this measure because even if one does not think that open space benefits them, it most likely does. There are many passive use values that come with open space areas. Preserving open space is the easiest way to preserve the environment for that area. Development cant take place on these lands, which keeps those lands out of private entities that would likely not think of the environment first. If open spaces were taken away, property values around the former open space would deteriorate. That is only one part of the equation, open spaces benefit everyone who lives in the city because it would attract business since people like open space, which would mean business’s would like to move there since that is where the working population is located. It also prevents the high costs of unplanned development because business’s would not be able to develop in these spaces, which would lead to more sustainable growth.

So please, Fort Collins voters vote to preserve open spaces, even if you dont believe that it has a direct impact on you because it does. Open space will have an exponentially better impact on the city economically than allowing businesses to develop where they please. 

India's Pollution Problem

India is a developing country that has faced criticism for the great amounts of pollution that it has produced due to industrializing. The World Health Organization declared New Delhi the most polluted city in the world. The income per capita of India was $1,503 in 2012. As we learned in class, pollution control wont likely become a real issue until their income per capita is raised significantly. When income per capita increase, people are more likely to demand  pollution control because they are able to handle it better. India also deals with river degradation and mass deforestation. 

I believe India has every right to go through the industrialization faze of their development. Pollution control should be left to richer countries to handle because they can do more about and rich countries are not innocent. They went through the same process of industrialization, but since climate change was not a problem then there was no one to ask them to cut their emissions. Rich countries want these developing countries to deal with pollution control for the benefit of the rest of the world, but since developing nations ask why the west doesn't do anything about it since they are only going through the same process that those countries did, but only a couple of hundred years later. However, they need to limit river contamination and deforestation. Much like Norway did in Madagascar, other rich countries could pay India to not cut down their trees. The Ganges is very polluted and that needs to be dealt with by India. They need to realize the long term health of the river is in jeopardy. They should enact anti-pollution laws in the river and have firms deal with their waste in a more environmentally friendly way. 

India has a right to develop because developing will life a lot of people out of poverty, especially since they are the second most populated country on the planet. Hundreds of millions of people should not be subject to poverty because they cant develop as a country. Once they get more income per capita they will start worrying about environmental issues more, but that wont likely happen without industrialization. The rich countries have to recognize this and realize that they should help these countries along in their industrialization process in the cleanest way possible. Providing them with cheap clean energy such as solar and wind power, especially wind since Monsoon season would be great for wind power production. The rich countries need to take the lead on dealing with climate change issues because they are the only group that is capable of dealing with it effectively. 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/09/27/environment/india-incredible-pollution-problem/#.VD_8CL58u04

http://qz.com/281251/here-is-why-india-has-no-clue-how-bad-its-air-pollution-problem-is/

Government Investment Has Made Renewable Energy Competitive

The government should be involved in investing in research for the development of renewable energy resources because it is the only viable way to ensure that this sector is getting enough investment since we will need renewable energy to take over for nonrenewable energy at some point in the future. Let alone the fact that climate change means that we should move to clean energy in all areas possible. The government investing in clean renewable energy is important because private sector investment on its own is not enough to fulfill the needs of this growing sector.

Some believe the free market will fix the issue itself and if the private sector is not investing in clean energy it is because clean renewables are not competitive with fossil fuels. However, the free market has trouble with dealing with green house gas pollution. Investing in clean energy does not benefit them because there are better options for energy right not. I believe that it is absolutely necessary for the government to be involved in the investment for clean renewable energy because it is important for these energy sources to be available in order to curb climate change. The quicker clean renewables are developed the quicker the United States gains energy independence as well as a guarantee of a clean energy future much faster than the market would. 

Solar technology has made major advancements in the last six years and no doubt the investment from the government played a major role. Solar has grown exponentially because of decreasing prices and advancements in technology. Solar panel prices have dropped 75% since 2008 and that has helped the spread of solar technology to many people who weren't able to afford it before. As the prices of renewables continue to drop and advances are made in other renewable technology to make them more competitive with fossil fuels, investment from the private sector will make government invest unnecessary. However, it was necessary for government investment to get renewable energy to the competitive position it is in now. 

http://theenergycollective.com/danliggett/1530306/making-solar-powers-future-even-brighter

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/10/02/US-funds-advanced-solar-energy-research/5701412241351/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5855

Present Value of Climate Change Effects

Many are not willing to pay to reduce the effects of climate change because the effects really only effect future generations and the present value of reducing the effects to the current generation is close to nothing. However, with the news of 35,000 Walruses swarming a beach in Alaska because of the lack of sea ice to rest on, the effects are most likely closer than we thought. If people and politicians realize that the effects are close and that they could effect current generations, they might be willing to foot some of the bill.

If we want to get anything done in regards to reducing the effects of climate change, there needs to be a wholesale effort to show how the effects of climate change are affecting us now. If people can see that they are being affected, they would likely be more willing to help out than they would be if the effects only affected future generations. Some might say they 35,000 Walruses washing up on a beach does not affect us. I would argue that it does because it shows that the effects of climate change are much closer than we thought they were. If we ignored everything before it directly effected us, there would be little chance to reduce the effects of climate change. The climate change movement is stronger than it ever has been before, but nothing will likely get done on a federal level if politicians don’t know the current effects. 

http://news.yahoo.com/35-000-walrus-come-ashore-northwest-alaska-221314416.html