UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?

2011-12-06T21:12:49Z

CynthiaMennear:

==Article==

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2011/Gulf-Coast-Revival-After-Oil-Spill.aspx

==Summary==

[[File:Pollution.jpg]]

Currently the gulf coast is under major restoration efforts after the large oil spill causing catastrophic damage to the surrounding ecosystems. This includes the destruction of the largest wetland habitat in the United States. These wetlands are an incredibly important ecosystem, being the habitat of many species, including 70% of wintering ducks in North America. These wetlands also contribute to a third of the fishing industry and is an integral part of the entire US economy. Due to the oil spill much of the gulf wetlands have already been completely destroyed with many chain islands no longer existent. Not only are these chain islands valuable ecosystems they also serve as protection to the mainland for storms leaving large parts of the gulf more vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. This problem is made worse by man made techniques to avoid flooding from hurricanes such as levies which change the flow of the water leading the islands to be washed away in the excessive water flows. Part of the now underwater land used to be crop land further harming the regions economy.

"Bird Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 2,079 • Dead: 6,104"

"Marine Mammal Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 9 • Dead: 100"

"Sea Turtle Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 535 • Dead: 609"

==Analysis==

The oil spill in the gulf is an example of an episodic form of pollution. Before the oil company would have started up in the area they would have done a cost benefit analysis using the expected values of their venture. The company would have analyzed the risk of an oil spill and the cost of such an event if it should happen. This would then be contrasted with the amount of income that could be received if no spill occurs factored by the probability of no event. This value would be the expected payoff for the company. When BP was making this decision they must have placed the risk of the spill at a low enough value for this to have been a fair venture, however now they must face this large negative externality and the backlash on their company for several years to come.

(Potential earnings)*(1-probability of spill)
(probability of a spill)*(cost of spill)

To find the value of the costs of an oil spill the company would have to take in the many negative externalities it would have. First of all the large environmental factors would need to be measured. The impacts on wildlife would be difficult to measure however because of the large fishing industry in the area there would be an effective way to monetize the lives of the fish counting the economical loss from the destruction of the local fishing area. The other organisms in the area that do not have a significant role in the economy are more difficult to measure and would need to be determined through contingent valuation. A company would most likely do a willingness to pay analysis opposed to a willingness to accept analysis because it is normally a significantly lower value which would support completing the project. There is also a large recreation value of several areas in the gulf and a spill would reduce the tourism, causing more economic loss. This loss could be measured directly by the amount people spend to travel and enjoy the areas that could potentially be destroyed by a spill. There is also the simple value of the oil spilled and the equipment damaged which is quite simple to compute.

A difficulty in analysing the environmental spill is the uncertainty of the spread and distribution of the oil and where it will eventually end up. Weather patterns at the times could have substantially different effects resulting in different areas being damaged or more or less damage. The speed reaction to a spill can also greatly differ the overall costs with more spread occurring potentially very rapidly. The speed of clean up would depend on the location of the spill, the availability of workers and the surrounding conditions.

There is a problem with this theory due to the way corporations are structured. Large companies such as this have designed themselves to avoid large liabilities such as this and if such catastrophic events occur they can move their funds to shareholders and declare bankruptcy. This lack of liability can enable companies to take larger risks and only have their reputation to be concerned with. It also leaves large costs that should be that of the companies to have no one to pay them. These types of structures and loopholes make the Pareto optimality realistically unattainable.

Furthermore damage will occur for many years after the initial episodic pollution spill. Due to the furture damage an appropriate discount rate will be required to find the actual present value of the damage. A discount rate is very difficult to determine and an incorrect selection can have very drastic effects, for example if a very high discount rate is chosen the damage will be close to nothing and therefore the analysis will most likely be favorable; however if a discount rate close to zero is chosen the project will have high costs and should not be completed.

==Conclusion==

Due to the many negative externalities and high risk oil drilling is a controversial subject but due to the large potential profit it continues and spills will inevitably happen. To prevent future spills and decrease the damage money could be put into the research and development of methods to reduce the risk of spills, the speed and efficiency of spill clean-up, and the spills general negative effects. As long as there is a demand for oil and such a large profit margin drilling and spills will continue and damages will continue unless society does something to prevent these damages and even despite these negative externalities it is socially efficient to continue drilling because the benefits exceed the costs.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?

2011-12-06T21:09:03Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?

2011-12-06T20:48:03Z

CynthiaMennear:

==Article==

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2011/Gulf-Coast-Revival-After-Oil-Spill.aspx

==Summary==

[[File:Pollution.jpg]]

Currently the gulf coast is under major restoration efforts after the large oil spill causing catastrophic damage to the surrounding ecosystems. This includes the destruction of the largest wetland habitat in the United States. These wetlands are an incredibly important ecosystem, being the habitat of many species, including 70% of wintering ducks in North America. These wetlands also contribute to a third of the fishing industry and is an integral part of the entire US economy. Due to the oil spill much of the gulf wetlands have already been completely destroyed with many chain islands no longer existent. Not only are these chain islands valuable ecosystems they also serve as protection to the mainland for storms leaving large parts of the gulf more vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. This problem is made worse by man made techniques to avoid flooding from hurricanes such as levies which change the flow of the water leading the islands to be washed away in the excessive water flows. Part of the now underwater land used to be crop land further harming the regions economy.

"Bird Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 2,079 • Dead: 6,104"

"Marine Mammal Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 9 • Dead: 100"

"Sea Turtle Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 535 • Dead: 609"

==Analysis==

The oil spill in the gulf is an example of an episodic form of pollution. Before the oil company would have started up in the area they would have done a cost benefit analysis using the expected values of their venture. The company would have analyzed the risk of an oil spill and the cost of such an event if it should happen. This would then be contrasted with the amount of income that could be received if no spill occurs factored by the probability of no event. This value would be the expected payoff for the company. When BP was making this decision they must have placed the risk of the spill at a low enough value for this to have been a fair venture, however now they must face this large negative externality and the backlash on their company for several years to come.

(Potential earnings)*(1-probability of spill)
(probability of a spill)*(cost of spill)

To find the value of the costs of an oil spill the company would have to take in the many negative externalities it would have. First of all the large environmental factors would need to be measured. The impacts on wildlife would be difficult to measure however because of the large fishing industry in the area there would be an effective way to monetize the lives of the fish counting the economical loss from the destruction of the local fishing area. The other organisms in the area that do not have a significant role in the economy are more difficult to measure and would need to be determined through contingent valuation. A company would most likely do a willingness to pay analysis opposed to a willingness to accept analysis because it is normally a significantly lower value which would support completing the project. There is also a large recreation value of several areas in the gulf and a spill would reduce the tourism, causing more economic loss. This loss could be measured directly by the amount people spend to travel and enjoy the areas that could potentially be destroyed by a spill. There is also the simple value of the oil spilled and the equipment damaged which is quite simple to compute.

A difficulty in analysing the environmental spill is the uncertainty of the spread and distribution of the oil and where it will eventually end up. Weather patterns at the times could have substantially different effects resulting in different areas being damaged or more or less damage. The speed reaction to a spill can also greatly differ the overall costs with more spread occuring potentially very rapidly. The speed of clean up would depend on the location of the spill, the availabity of workers and the surrounding conditions.

There is a problem with this theory due to the way corporations are structured. Large companies such as this have designed themselves to avoid large liabilities such as this and if such catastrophic events occur they can move their funds to shareholders and declare bankruptcy. This lack of liability can enable companies to take larger risks and only have their reputation to be concerned with. It also leaves large costs that should be that of the companies to have no one to pay them. These types of structures and loopholes make the Pareto optimality realistically unattainable.

Furthermore damage will occur for many years after the initial episodic pollution spill. Due to the furture damage an appropriate discount rate will be required to find the actual present value of the damage. A discount rate is very difficult to determine and an incorrect selection can have very drastic effects, for example if a very high discount rate is chosen the damage will be close to nothing and therefore the analysis will most likely be favorable; however if a discount rate close to zero is chosen the project will have high costs and should not be completed.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?

2011-11-30T22:58:41Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Analysis */

==Article==

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2011/Gulf-Coast-Revival-After-Oil-Spill.aspx

==Summary==

[[File:Pollution.jpg]]

Currently the gulf coast is under major restoration efforts after the large oil spill causing catastrophic damage to the surrounding ecosystems. This includes the destruction of the largest wetland habitat in the United States. These wetlands are an incredibly important ecosystem, being the habitat of many species, including 70% of wintering ducks in North America. These wetlands also contribute to a third of the fishing industry and is an integral part of the entire US economy. Due to the oil spill much of the gulf wetlands have already been completely destroyed with many chain islands no longer existent. Not only are these chain islands valuable ecosystems they also serve as protection to the mainland for storms leaving large parts of the gulf more vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. This problem is made worse by man made techniques to avoid flooding from hurricanes such as levies which change the flow of the water leading the islands to be washed away in the excessive water flows. Part of the now underwater land used to be crop land further harming the regions economy.

"Bird Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 2,079 • Dead: 6,104"

"Marine Mammal Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 9 • Dead: 100"

"Sea Turtle Deaths and Injuries—Collected Live: 535 • Dead: 609"

==Analysis==

The oil spill in the gulf is an example of an episodic form of pollution. Before the oil company would have started up in the area they would have done a cost benefit analysis using the expected values of their venture. The company would have analyzed the risk of an oil spill and the cost of such an event if it should happen. This would then be contrasted with the amount of income that could be received if no spill occurs factored by the probability of no event. This value would be the expected payoff for the company. When BP was making this decision they must have placed the risk of the spill at a low enough value for this to have been a fair venture, however now they must face this large negative externality and the backlash on their company for several years to come.

(Potential earnings)*(1-probability of spill)
(probability of a spill)*(cost of spill)

To find the value of the costs of an oil spill the company would have to take in the many negative externalities it would have. First of all the large environmental factors would need to be measured. The impacts on wildlife would be difficult to measure however because of the large fishing industry in the area there would be an effective way to monetize the lives of the fish counting the economical loss from the destruction of the local fishing area. The other organisms in the area that do not have a significant role in the economy are more difficult to measure and would need to be determined through contingent valuation. A company would most likely do a willingness to pay analysis opposed to a willingness to accept analysis because it is normally a significantly lower value which would support completing the project. There is also a large recreation value of several areas in the gulf and a spill would reduce the tourism, causing more economic loss. This loss could be measured directly by the amount people spend to travel and enjoy the areas that could potentially be destroyed by a spill. There is also the simple value of the oil spilled and the equipment damaged which is quite simple to compute.

A difficulty in analysing the environmental spill is the uncertainty of the spread and distribution of the oil and where it will eventually end up. Weather patterns at the times could have substantially different effects resulting in different areas being damaged or more or less damage. The speed reaction to a spill can also greatly differ the overall costs with more spread occuring potentially very rapidly. The speed of clean up would depend on the location of the spill, the availabity of workers and the surrounding conditions.

There is a problem with this theory due to the way corporations are structured. Large companies such as this have designed themselves to avoid large liabilities such as this and if such catastrophic events occur they can move their funds to shareholders and declare bankruptcy. This lack of liability can enable companies to take larger risks and only have their reputation to be concerned with. It also leaves large costs that should be that of the companies to have no one to pay them. These types of structures and loopholes make the Pareto optimality realistically unattainable.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?

2011-11-25T22:23:52Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "==Article== http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2011/Gulf-Coast-Revival-After-Oil-Spill.aspx ==Summary== Currently the gulf coast is under..."

==Article==

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2011/Gulf-Coast-Revival-After-Oil-Spill.aspx

==Summary==

Currently the gulf coast is under major resoration efforts after the large oil spill causing catostrophic damage to the sorrounding ecosystems. This inlcudes the destruction of the largest wetland habitat in the United States. These wetlands are an incredibly important ecosystem, being the habitat of many species, including 70% of wintering ducks in North America. These wetlands also contribute to a third of the fishing industry and is an intergral part of the entire US economy. Due to the oil spill much of the gulf wetlands have already been completely destroyed with many chain islands no longer existant. Not only are these chain islands valuable ecosystems they also serve as protection to the mainland for storms leaving large parts of the gulf more vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. This problem is made worse by man made techniques to avoid flooding from hurricanes such as levies which change the flow of the water leading the islands to be washed away in the excessive water flows. Part of the now underwater land used to be crop land further harming the regions economy.

==Analysis==

The oil spill in the gulf is an example of an episodic form of pollution. Before the oil company would have started up in the area they would have done a cost benefit analysis using the expected values of their venture. The company would have analysed the risk of an oil spill and the cost of such an event if it should happen. This would then be contrasted with the amount of income that could be recieved if no spill occurs factored by the probability of no event. This value would be the expected payoff for the company. When BP was making this decision they must have placed the risk of the spill at a low enough value for this to have been a fair venture, however now they must face this large negative externality and the backlash on their company for several years to come.

(Potential earnings)*(1-probability of spill)
(probability of a spill)*(cost of spill)

There is a problem with this theory due to the way coorporations are structured. Large companies such as this have designed themselves to avoid large liabilities such as this and if such catosrophic events occur they can move their funds to shareholders and declare bankruptcy. This lack of liability can enable companies to take larger risks and only have their reputation to be concerned with. It also leaves large costs that should be that of the companies to have no one to pay them. These types of sturctures and loopholes make the pareto optimality realistically unattainable.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-11-25T21:48:33Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]

[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]

[[Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]

[[Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt]]

[[Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch]]

[[Article 7 : Great Plains river basins threatened by Pumping of Aquafiers]]

[[Article 8 : Revival of the Gulf?]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 7 : Great Plains river basins threatened by Pumping of Aquafiers

2011-11-20T23:19:13Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Summary */

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118151416.htm

==Summary==
Regional aquifers that were supplied from waters in the ice age and are not replensished are being depleted by pumping. This is a very limited resource and because it is not being replenished it will soon be completely used up. These aquafiers lead into streams and other water sources that are important habitat for several species of fish.

==Analysis==

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Alaska Considers Aerial Wolf Kills in Tourist Area

2011-11-20T23:04:40Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Summary */

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/12/us-wolf-kills-alaska-idUSTRE7AB00Z20111112

==Summary==

The Alaskan Board of Game is debating the shooting of aerial wolves in order to control the population of wolves to preserve the number of moose. The number of moose is at an alarming low level of only 5000 in the area. They are trying to increase the population of moose so there will be enough moose for hunting purposes so there will be enough moose meat for residents. This is a highly debated issue because it is considered inhumane and not biologically sound.

==Analysis==

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 8 : Alaska Considers Aerial Wolf Kills in Tourist Area

2011-11-20T22:40:59Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/12/us-wolf-kills-alaska-idUSTRE7AB00Z20111112 ==Summary== ==Analysis== ==Profs Comments=="

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/12/us-wolf-kills-alaska-idUSTRE7AB00Z20111112

==Summary==

==Analysis==

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 7 : Great Plains river basins threatened by Pumping of Aquafiers

2011-11-20T22:39:11Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118151416.htm ==Summary== ==Analysis== ==Profs Comments=="

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118151416.htm

==Summary==

==Analysis==

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-11-20T22:37:22Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-11-20T22:26:57Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

2011-11-15T20:16:02Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43504

==Summary==

Garbage debris in the pacific ocean have converged in one point in the pacific ocean to create what is referred to as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”. This garbage patch stretches for hundreds of miles polluting the ecosystem with harmful trash. The debris are causing a huge problem for birds dying rapidly because they mistake the garbage for food and choke, are poisoned, or have fatal blockages from consuming the plastics. The birds have been seen with stomachs full of garbage. Another of these garbage patches has also been spotted in the Atlantic Ocean and the scope and damage of these patches is not yet known.

==Analysis==

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is causing environmental concerns and direct damages to organisms in the ecosystem. Determining the amount of damage and the size of the patch is quite difficult however because of the distribution of the debris. The garbage is slightly under the surface of the water making it unobservable from surface of on satellites. This lack of visibility makes it necessary to do expensive and time consuming sampling to monitor the site which is less accurate. The lack of visibility also begs the question if more of these patches exist that we are not yet aware of especially because of the recent discovery of another patch in the Atlantic Ocean. The path of the debris is also unknown because most of the travel occurs below the surface in currents that are not traceable. With such little information about the impacts and size of these patches it is much more difficult to decide an efficient level of regulation and reduction.

The garbage patch has no clear source of emissions because of the way the garbage flows to get to the patches making directly controlling abatement impossible. To control the amount of garbage in the patch the direct emissions would need to be monitored and regulated. Controlling these levels opposed to direct abatement may be less efficient and may not directly correlate with the patches. These difficulties make choosing and approving programs very difficult and would face more industry objection because their emissions may not actually be contributing to the problem, creating inefficiency and dead weight loss.

If more information were available and a direct cost measurement of the reduction of litter to the ocean could be measured it would cause even more difficulty effectively measuring the benefits of pollution reduction. There would be a problem in the benefit side of monetary valuation because placing worth on ocean cleanliness is very difficult with much room for variation. If they were to use contingent the values would be most likely higher than the actual because it is difficult for people to conceptualize a cost they would not have to pay for. If hedonic valuation was used it would in turn be very low because the damages are not directly to people so they are most likely not currently paying to avoid the damages and they would likely be willing to pay more to avoid it. There will not be a substantial loss to biodiversity so the individual value of the deaths of several birds that are not at a significant risk of complete extinction is hard to measure. Items like this contribute to the debate of the legitimacy of monetization as a calculation of an items worth because you cannot really put a money value on the suffering and dying of birds into the ocean that does not directly effect another industry.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

2011-11-15T19:55:33Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

2011-11-15T19:52:51Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt

2011-11-07T04:46:13Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Analysis */

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-climate-polarbears-idUSTRE76H4ZG20110718

==Summary==

The endangered polar bears are dying rapidally due to increased temperatures in the artic melting the ice caps. Increased green house gas emissions are resulting in a global warming increasing the distance between ice caps making polar bears have to swim great distances to find food and habitat. This is mainly a problem for polar bear cubs, with a 45% mortality rate for these long swims.

==Analysis==

Determining the damage caused by this decrease in habitat is very difficult to do. The loss of polar bears has no significant economical use. Due to this lack of monetary value it is hard to approve and generate programs to protect the bears and analysize a cost effective approach. The only way to value polar bears is through the use of contingent valuation. Asking people how much they are willing to pay to save the species of polar bears is most likely going to be an unaccurate number, being higher than the actual. The costs of reducing green house gas emissions can be easily measured, and is currently being tracked because of the multiple serious problems being caused by their contributions to global warming and decreasing air quality. The cost benefit curve of this could be aggregated with all of the positive effects of reducing emissions creating a much larger incentive to reduce emissions on a greater scale.

Economically biodiversity is a challenging concept and brings objection to the concept of adding monetary values to everything to determine its worth. Many things are similar to biodiversity in the fact that they are difficult to add a monetary value to.

The artic caps and the dying polar bears are directly related to Canada considering Canada contains most of the polar bears habitat. This would seem to imply that Canada should be especially concerned with reducing green house gas emissions and impose harsh regulations. This is difficult to do in Canada because of the power of each individual province and the federal governments inability to provide nationwide regulations. This results in an inability to even establish protected lands for the polar bears or slack guidelines to mildly reduce the emissions of green house gases.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt

2011-11-07T04:29:15Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-climate-polarbears-idUSTRE76H4ZG20110718

==Summary==

The endangered polar bears are dying rapidally due to increased temperatures in the artic melting the ice caps. Increased green house gas emissions are resulting in a global warming increasing the distance between ice caps making polar bears have to swim great distances to find food and habitat. This is mainly a problem for polar bear cubs, with a 45% mortality rate for these long swims.

==Analysis==

Determining the damage caused by this decrease in habitat is very difficult to do. The loss of polar bears has no significant economical use. Due to this lack of monetary value it is hard to approve and generate programs to protect the bears and analysize a cost effective approach. The only way to value polar bears is through the use of contingent valuation. Asking people how much they are willing to pay to save the species of polar bears is most likely going to be an unaccurate number, being higher than the actual. The costs of reducing green house gas emissions can be easily measured, and is currently being tracked because of the multiple serious problems being caused by their contributions to global warming and decreasing air quality. The cost benefit curve of this could be aggregated with all of the positive effects of reducing emissions creating a much larger incentive to reduce emissions on a greater scale.

Economically biodiversity is a challenging concept and brings many objections to the whole idea of adding monetary values to everything to determine its worth.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt

2011-11-04T03:58:43Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-climate-polarbears-idUSTRE76H4ZG20110718"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-climate-polarbears-idUSTRE76H4ZG20110718

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-11-04T03:58:09Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life

2011-11-01T19:03:46Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29944&section=37&topic=23

==Summary==

[[File:Sea.jpg]]

In the Gulf of Mexico the dead zone is already the size of New Jersey and is still growing. The dead zone is an area where the water has been depleted of its oxygen and is no longer capable of sustaining marine life. This is caused by the runoff, fueled with nitrogen and phosphorus, from the Mississippi River. These Chemicals are being discharged from fertilizer, sewage and polluted city runoffs in to the river, which ends up in the Gulf. There has recently been a petition to try and clean up the growing dead zone in the Gulf, unfortunately the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) denied this clean up. This comes as a huge loss to many industries that depend on the Gulf for there business; an example would be the fishing industry. In the past EPA has tried to set regulation limits to every state along the river, but every state has ignored these limits. For the Gulf to survive there must be strict enforcement and compliance from the EPA to accept responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

==Analysis==
The pollution from farming in the gulf coast is causing major environmental damage and greatly effecting the fishing industry in the area. To deal with the problem of this expanding dead zone a petition was created proposing an abatement standard on the amount of pollution emitted into the gulf that feeds the dead zone. The EPA denied this petition however and decided not to create a policy to regulate the abatement. Due to the federal power in the states the EPA would have the power to place in a policy throughout the multiple states contributing to the pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency decided to not create a policy because of political resistance, stating that they did not want to be responsible for implemeting the policy. This is an example of how politics can interfere with achieving economic efficiency and socially optimal output. Politics plays a key role in environmental policies and leads to many inefficient situations causing deadweight loss for society because of pressures from firms or residents.

The deadweight loss can be measured in the present value and future value. The current problem is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico has affected mostly the fishing industry. The supply for the fishing industry has decreased which will drive the price of fish up. The increased cost of fish and the loss of profit with the decreased quantity of fish is the cost of the policy. Either accept the petition to clean the ocean floor or reject the petition, which will result the price of fish to go up. However, with supplies decreasing, labor force in the fishing industry will begin to shift to somewhere more productive. In the short run, unemployment will rise, prices of fish will increase, and supplies of fish will decrease.

The future value of the dead weight loss will be the continued expansion of the dead zone in the Gulf Mexico, which measures the cost of millions of species killed that could have been prevented, and the labor movement to different industry. Because the government rejected the petition, the deadweight loss which could have been avoided is now adding additional cost to the equation. The loss of the gulf species causes a greater loss to global biodiversity which is an important factor in the marginal damage that can only be measured using contingent valuation. The standards suggested by the petition would result in less runoff into the gulf which causes detrimental losses to the economy in the gulf already. The nitrogen runoff causes algae blooms killing fish reducing one of the gulfs most prominent industries.

To truly pick an appropriate policy to deal with the increasing size of the dead zone a cost benefit analysis could be done. For this scenario the cost of the loss in the fishing industry can be directly contrasted with the costs of farming firms abating. These costs and benefits can both be measured directly making the analysis cheap and effective.This analysis gives the marginal abatement costs and the marginal damage costs and can show the most efficient policy. A uniform ambient standard would probably be inefficient because the firms most likely do not have equal abatement costs, therefore the equimarginal principle would not be satisfied. A tax or tradable permit system would probably be more efficient as long as Coase theorem was able to be satisfied because firms would adjust their abatement costs to all be equal minimizing total cost and creating economic efficiency.

Therefore, the decision to reject the petition for an ambient standard may have been correct with instead another type of policy seeming more economically efficient after analysis. However; with absolutely no policy at all there will certainly be dead weight loss to society and damage beyond the efficient level will continue until firms are given an incentive to reduce abatement.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life

2011-10-29T06:32:12Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29944&section=37&topic=23

==Summary==

In the Gulf of Mexico the dead zone is already the size of New Jersey and is still growing. The dead zone is an area where the water has been depleted of its oxygen and is no longer capable of sustaining marine life. This is caused by the runoff, fueled with nitrogen and phosphorus, from the Mississippi River. These Chemicals are being discharged from fertilizer, sewage and polluted city runoffs in to the river, which ends up in the Gulf. There has recently been a petition to try and clean up the growing dead zone in the Gulf, unfortunately the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) denied this clean up. This comes as a huge loss to many industries that depend on the Gulf for there business; an example would be the fishing industry. In the past EPA has tried to set regulation limits to every state along the river, but every state has ignored these limits. For the Gulf to survive there must be strict enforcement and compliance from the EPA to accept responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

==Analysis==
To deal with the problem of this expanding dead zone a petition to create an abatement standard on the amount of pollution emitted into the gulf that feeds the dead zone. However this petition was declined and no policies are going to be put in place. The petition was denied by the EPA because they did not want to be the ones to place the regulation. This is an example of how even if a policy is economically efficient it may be denied because of political reasons. Politics plays a key role in environmental policies and leads to many inefficient situations causing deadweight loss for society because of pressures from firms or residents.

The standards suggested by the petition would result in less runoff into the gulf which causes detrimental losses to the economy in the gulf already. The nitrogen runoff causes algae blooms killing fish reducing one of the gulfs most prominent industries.

To truly pick an appropriate policy to deal with the increasing size of the dead zone a cost benefit analysis could be done. For this scenario the cost of the loss in the fishing industry can be directly contrasted with the costs of farming firms abating. These costs and benefits can both be measured directly making the analysis cheap and effective.This analysis gives the marginal abatement costs and the marginal damage costs and can show the most efficient policy. A uniform ambient standard would probably be inefficient because the firms most likely do not have equal abatement costs, therefore the equimarginal principle would not be satisfied. A tax or tradable permit system would probably be more efficient as long as Coase theorem was able to be satisfied because firms would adjust their abatement costs to all be equal minimizing total cost and creating economic efficiency.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life

2011-10-29T05:48:59Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life

2011-10-28T19:34:44Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29944&section=37&topic=23 ==Summary== In the Gulf of Mexico the dead zone is already the size of New Jersey and is still growing. The dead z..."

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-28T19:33:49Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]

[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]

[[Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya

2011-10-24T05:04:31Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23

==Summary==
[[File:Soy bean.jpg]]

The demand for soya beans has doubled over the past decade creating the production to double as well. Soya is being used for food such as vegetable oil, meat, and feeding cattle it also is being used for biofuel. The U.S. has been the largest exporter of this product over the years and the largest importer has been China, but as of recently this agricultural good has been expanding in South America, to be more specific in areas such as Brazil. The production of Soya unfortunately does come with a cost. That cost being the destruction of the world’s natural habitat and it so happens to be that Brazil is responsible for 5 per cent of the biodiversity on earth. The deforestation that is going on to create farmland for soy is creating a massive amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Society has noticed these issues and is now just addressing them to minimize the effects of soy farming on the ecosystem. We have managed to create the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) this will help manage the deforestation that is happening in Brazil and around the world by enforcing standards in which soya is produced so is meets the efficient environmental standard.

==Analysis==
This article discusses a broad effect of expanding the plantation of soya beans. Because medication and standards of living has become better, the death rates are declining. Birth rates are increasing on average; therefore, the demand for food, such as soya beans, has increased over the past decade.

Based on the article, soya bean is a major compliment for agriculture. In order to raise farm animals, soya beans are their source of nutrients and because meat is on a higher demand as well, compliments such as soya beans, will inevitably increase. Thus, there is an increase in the price of soya beans on a supply and demand curve. As demand shift right or outwards, the price increases. But as the price increases, more suppliers are willing to shift their production into soya beans because of the increase in price and therefore, a chance for more profit, which is why South American countries had a boom in agricultural goods. Now the supply also shifted outwards to lower the price back to its original equilibrium, but the quantity increased that is if demand and supply shifted equally.

This however, generated another cost. By planting more soya beans, deforestation is required. Such process will decrease oxygen in the atmosphere, while the plantation of soya bean generates carbon dioxide in its growth process. The benefits of soya bean plantation are the chances of making revenue by selling soya beans and the woods chopped down. However, most people overlook a big external cost of such process; the excess carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere which will cause the Earth to warm up. The cost of cleaning the atmosphere is a number much greater than the revenue of all soya beans sold. Another cost is the deforestation that will reduce the size of the ecosystem which is abundant in wildlife. Some animals and/or organism are also endangered species. This ecosystem contains 5% of the total world biodiversity and losing it would be significant. To figure out the cost of the loss in biodiversity a willingness to accept analysis would probably be the most effective technique.

Even though the UK implemented the Round Table for Responsible Soy as a regulation to protect the forest in South America, but based on the article, it proves to be ineffective, which is logical. Food is a necessity to survive. Therefore, most people would not give up their lives to protect the forest. For this regulation to become more effective people will need actual incentives to change their dietary choices. A tax on soy products would be an effective way for people to choose different products and reduce the quantity of soya needed to be farmed and therefore the emissions and loss of habitat from deforestation.

Another effective technique to reduce this environmental damage could be to introduce a standard of which soy farms have to follow regarding amount of forest available to farm in or protect certain areas. By limiting the area for farming the biodiversity in the ecosystem would be sustained for future generations.

The use of soy to develop new biofuels is a perfect example of a project designed to better the environment with a large negative externality. The increase in soy farming for the use of the development of this fuel is emitting CO2 emissions which it was trying to reduce. If this fueling source was to be continued a cost benefit analysis should be done to see if the cost of reducing the biodiversity and the emissions from the farming of soy is less than the benefit from creating the new fuel.

With the increase of the population more food will continually be needed so more efficent farming methods are needed to increase the quantity of food without destroying more valuable habitat. By putting money into research and development and implementing standards for the most economically acheivable and efficent technologies this may be able to be achieved.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya

2011-10-24T04:29:57Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23

==Summary==
[[File:Soy bean.jpg]]

The demand for soya beans has doubled over the past decade creating the production to double as well. Soya is being used for food such as vegetable oil, meat, and feeding cattle it also is being used for biofuel. The U.S. has been the largest exporter of this product over the years and the largest importer has been China, but as of recently this agricultural good has been expanding in South America, to be more specific in areas such as Brazil. The production of Soya unfortunately does come with a cost. That cost being the destruction of the world’s natural habitat and it so happens to be that Brazil is responsible for 5 per cent of the biodiversity on earth. The deforestation that is going on to create farmland for soy is creating a massive amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Society has noticed these issues and is now just addressing them to minimize the effects of soy farming on the ecosystem. We have managed to create the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) this will help manage the deforestation that is happening in Brazil and around the world by enforcing standards in which soya is produced so is meets the efficient environmental standard.

==Analysis==
This article discusses a broad effect of expanding the plantation of soya beans. Because medication and standards of living has become better, the death rates are declining. Birth rates are increasing on average; therefore, the demand for food, such as soya beans, has increased over the past decade.

Based on the article, soya bean is a major compliment for agriculture. In order to raise farm animals, soya beans are their source of nutrients and because meat is on a higher demand as well, compliments such as soya beans, will inevitably increase. Thus, there is an increase in the price of soya beans on a supply and demand curve. As demand shift right or outwards, the price increases. But as the price increases, more suppliers are willing to shift their production into soya beans because of the increase in price and therefore, a chance for more profit, which is why South American countries had a boom in agricultural goods. Now the supply also shifted outwards to lower the price back to its original equilibrium, but the quantity increased that is if demand and supply shifted equally.

This however, generated another cost. By planting more soya beans, deforestation is required. Such process will decrease oxygen in the atmosphere, while the plantation of soya bean generates carbon dioxide in its growth process. The benefits of soya bean plantation are the chances of making revenue by selling soya beans and the woods chopped down. However, most people overlook a big external cost of such process; the excess carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere which will cause the Earth to warm up. The cost of cleaning the atmosphere is a number much greater than the revenue of all soya beans sold. Another cost is the deforestation that will reduce the size of the ecosystem which is abundant in wildlife. Some animals and/or organism are also endangered species. This ecosystem contains 5% of the total world biodiversity and losing it would be significant. To figure out the cost of the loss in biodiversity a willingness to accept analysis would probably be the most effective technique.

Even though the UK implemented the Round Table for Responsible Soy as a regulation to protect the forest in South America, but based on the article, it proves to be ineffective, which is logical. Food is a necessity to survive. Therefore, most people would not give up their lives to protect the forest. For this regulation to become more effective people will need actual incentives to change their dietary choices. A tax on soy products would be an effective way for people to choose different products and reduce the quantity of soya needed to be farmed and therefore the emissions and loss of habitat from deforestation.

Population growth is an issue that requires more attention from the public because population growth is the cause of most shifts in demand. Therefore, more regulations should be spent on birth rates, instead of implementing regulations because that cannot solve the issue. Rather it can only temporarily remedy the situation, but unless if the cause is changed, the issue will repeat itself.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya

2011-10-19T00:49:07Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23 ==Summary=="

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23

==Summary==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-19T00:39:42Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]

[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-18T22:26:49Z

CynthiaMennear:

==Article==

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/

== Summary ==
Due to overfishing, carbon emissions acidify the ocean water, and climate change scientists are predicting that the coral reefs will be extinct by the end of the century. The climate change has caused coral bleaching by increasing the surface temperatures of the ocean which puts certain reef species under a significant amount of stress. Ocean acidification makes reef organisms unable to build their skeletons because they cannot retrieve the materials needed. The combination of this is leading to the extinction of reef species. This would be the first time an entire ecosystem would become extinct and would cause a substantial decrease in biodiversity, especially marine biodiversity. One quarter of all marine life is found in the coral reef ecosystem and many of the species in the coral reefs contain unique chemical compounds, several of which are believed to be useful for medicinal reasons. In addition the fishing and tourism industry in the coral reef will suffer a substantial loss. The coral reefs also provide shoreline protection. Twenty percent of coral reefs have already been lost mainly due to human causes. However, not all of the damage is due to humans. Significant damage has also been done to coral reefs from natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes which have been on the rise in severity recently due to climate change. These events cause the reefs to slide off into the ocean. The loss of coral reefs would be an environmental tragedy and it is very important to continue local conservation efforts but also create a larger long term plan that will reduce climate change and stop the acidification of the oceans.

== Analysis ==
The loss of the coral reef ecosystem is very difficult to analyze economically because it is hard to place a monetary value on biodiversity and the loss of these unique species. The loss of tourism and fishing is much easier to do a cost benefit analysis of. To get the true value of the economic loss a willingness to pay analysis for the tourism, not the market price would probably be more effective because there are a large number of people willing to pay higher than market price for the tourist attractions. WTP would also be useful to value the biodiversity of the reef ecosystem by seeing hwo much people would be willing to pay to sustain it. To stop the loss of the coral reefs CO2 emissions would need to go down substantially enough to stop making the ocean more acidic and causing a climate change. The effects of CO2 emissions do not only affect the coral reefs but also cause other significant environmental damage and if the total benefit of the positive externalities of lowering the carbon emissions were measured against the cost there would be a much lower level of efficent emissions. This type of analysis would be probably be more accurate and useful in this analysis, however extremely complex. If this were looked at from a local stand point a local analysis of emissions could be calculated and local regulations could be put in place to stop the direct acidification of the lake. This would have a lower cost but also lower benefits because you are not counting the global benefit of lower emmissions on the environment. These issues of standing create difficulty in pinpoint the efficent level.

Another significant factor in the coral reef disappearance is the overfishing of the reefs. Simply by reducing the overfishing the reefs could be sustain for a future generations. This would allow the tourism industry to continue to bring in revenue for several more years and be able to keep moderate fishing for several more years. This cost benefit anaylsis would be much less complicated and the total cost of reducing the fishing would be substaintally less than that of lowering the CO2 emmissions globally.

The coral reefs are just one part of a much larger global issue of acid rain and climate change, however they are showing the effects early and would be a signifcant loss that many people care a great deal about and cause significant economic damage as well. Globally an efficent standard of CO2 emmissions needs to be set so the problem can be stopped and the ecosystem can be sustained for many generations.

==Profs Comments==

You could have discussed how bleaching is part of the external cost of using fossil fuels, and ways to measure that cost. Travel cost by visitors to reefs, contingent valuation, ...

5/10

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-18T22:26:32Z

CynthiaMennear:

==Article==

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/
[[File:http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/f/f4/Picture.jpg]]
== Summary ==
Due to overfishing, carbon emissions acidify the ocean water, and climate change scientists are predicting that the coral reefs will be extinct by the end of the century. The climate change has caused coral bleaching by increasing the surface temperatures of the ocean which puts certain reef species under a significant amount of stress. Ocean acidification makes reef organisms unable to build their skeletons because they cannot retrieve the materials needed. The combination of this is leading to the extinction of reef species. This would be the first time an entire ecosystem would become extinct and would cause a substantial decrease in biodiversity, especially marine biodiversity. One quarter of all marine life is found in the coral reef ecosystem and many of the species in the coral reefs contain unique chemical compounds, several of which are believed to be useful for medicinal reasons. In addition the fishing and tourism industry in the coral reef will suffer a substantial loss. The coral reefs also provide shoreline protection. Twenty percent of coral reefs have already been lost mainly due to human causes. However, not all of the damage is due to humans. Significant damage has also been done to coral reefs from natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes which have been on the rise in severity recently due to climate change. These events cause the reefs to slide off into the ocean. The loss of coral reefs would be an environmental tragedy and it is very important to continue local conservation efforts but also create a larger long term plan that will reduce climate change and stop the acidification of the oceans.

== Analysis ==
The loss of the coral reef ecosystem is very difficult to analyze economically because it is hard to place a monetary value on biodiversity and the loss of these unique species. The loss of tourism and fishing is much easier to do a cost benefit analysis of. To get the true value of the economic loss a willingness to pay analysis for the tourism, not the market price would probably be more effective because there are a large number of people willing to pay higher than market price for the tourist attractions. WTP would also be useful to value the biodiversity of the reef ecosystem by seeing hwo much people would be willing to pay to sustain it. To stop the loss of the coral reefs CO2 emissions would need to go down substantially enough to stop making the ocean more acidic and causing a climate change. The effects of CO2 emissions do not only affect the coral reefs but also cause other significant environmental damage and if the total benefit of the positive externalities of lowering the carbon emissions were measured against the cost there would be a much lower level of efficent emissions. This type of analysis would be probably be more accurate and useful in this analysis, however extremely complex. If this were looked at from a local stand point a local analysis of emissions could be calculated and local regulations could be put in place to stop the direct acidification of the lake. This would have a lower cost but also lower benefits because you are not counting the global benefit of lower emmissions on the environment. These issues of standing create difficulty in pinpoint the efficent level.

Another significant factor in the coral reef disappearance is the overfishing of the reefs. Simply by reducing the overfishing the reefs could be sustain for a future generations. This would allow the tourism industry to continue to bring in revenue for several more years and be able to keep moderate fishing for several more years. This cost benefit anaylsis would be much less complicated and the total cost of reducing the fishing would be substaintally less than that of lowering the CO2 emmissions globally.

The coral reefs are just one part of a much larger global issue of acid rain and climate change, however they are showing the effects early and would be a signifcant loss that many people care a great deal about and cause significant economic damage as well. Globally an efficent standard of CO2 emmissions needs to be set so the problem can be stopped and the ecosystem can be sustained for many generations.

==Profs Comments==

You could have discussed how bleaching is part of the external cost of using fossil fuels, and ways to measure that cost. Travel cost by visitors to reefs, contingent valuation, ...

5/10

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-18T22:21:23Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]

[[Article 3 : ]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-13T16:21:46Z

CynthiaMennear:

==Article==

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/
[[img:http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/f/f4/Picture.jpg]]
== Summary ==
Due to overfishing, carbon emissions acidify the ocean water, and climate change scientists are predicting that the coral reefs will be extinct by the end of the century. The climate change has caused coral bleaching by increasing the surface temperatures of the ocean which puts certain reef species under a significant amount of stress. Ocean acidification makes reef organisms unable to build their skeletons because they cannot retrieve the materials needed. The combination of this is leading to the extinction of reef species. This would be the first time an entire ecosystem would become extinct and would cause a substantial decrease in biodiversity, especially marine biodiversity. One quarter of all marine life is found in the coral reef ecosystem and many of the species in the coral reefs contain unique chemical compounds, several of which are believed to be useful for medicinal reasons. In addition the fishing and tourism industry in the coral reef will suffer a substantial loss. The coral reefs also provide shoreline protection. Twenty percent of coral reefs have already been lost mainly due to human causes. However, not all of the damage is due to humans. Significant damage has also been done to coral reefs from natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes which have been on the rise in severity recently due to climate change. These events cause the reefs to slide off into the ocean. The loss of coral reefs would be an environmental tragedy and it is very important to continue local conservation efforts but also create a larger long term plan that will reduce climate change and stop the acidification of the oceans.

== Analysis ==
The loss of the coral reef ecosystem is very difficult to analyze economically because it is hard to place a monetary value on biodiversity and the loss of these unique species. The loss of tourism and fishing is much easier to do a cost benefit analysis of. To get the true value of the economic loss a willingness to pay analysis for the tourism, not the market price would probably be more effective because there are a large number of people willing to pay higher than market price for the tourist attractions. WTP would also be useful to value the biodiversity of the reef ecosystem by seeing hwo much people would be willing to pay to sustain it. To stop the loss of the coral reefs CO2 emissions would need to go down substantially enough to stop making the ocean more acidic and causing a climate change. The effects of CO2 emissions do not only affect the coral reefs but also cause other significant environmental damage and if the total benefit of the positive externalities of lowering the carbon emissions were measured against the cost there would be a much lower level of efficent emissions. This type of analysis would be probably be more accurate and useful in this analysis, however extremely complex. If this were looked at from a local stand point a local analysis of emissions could be calculated and local regulations could be put in place to stop the direct acidification of the lake. This would have a lower cost but also lower benefits because you are not counting the global benefit of lower emmissions on the environment. These issues of standing create difficulty in pinpoint the efficent level.

Another significant factor in the coral reef disappearance is the overfishing of the reefs. Simply by reducing the overfishing the reefs could be sustain for a future generations. This would allow the tourism industry to continue to bring in revenue for several more years and be able to keep moderate fishing for several more years. This cost benefit anaylsis would be much less complicated and the total cost of reducing the fishing would be substaintally less than that of lowering the CO2 emmissions globally.

The coral reefs are just one part of a much larger global issue of acid rain and climate change, however they are showing the effects early and would be a signifcant loss that many people care a great deal about and cause significant economic damage as well. Globally an efficent standard of CO2 emmissions needs to be set so the problem can be stopped and the ecosystem can be sustained for many generations.

==Profs Comments==

You could have discussed how bleaching is part of the external cost of using fossil fuels, and ways to measure that cost. Travel cost by visitors to reefs, contingent valuation, ...

5/10

File:Picture.jpg

2011-10-13T16:21:01Z

CynthiaMennear:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-13T16:13:58Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-13T16:13:25Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/

== Summary ==
Due to overfishing, carbon emissions acidify the ocean water, and climate change scientists are predicting that the coral reefs will be extinct by the end of the century. The climate change has caused coral bleaching by increasing the surface temperatures of the ocean which puts certain reef species under a significant amount of stress. Ocean acidification makes reef organisms unable to build their skeletons because they cannot retrieve the materials needed. The combination of this is leading to the extinction of reef species. This would be the first time an entire ecosystem would become extinct and would cause a substantial decrease in biodiversity, especially marine biodiversity. One quarter of all marine life is found in the coral reef ecosystem and many of the species in the coral reefs contain unique chemical compounds, several of which are believed to be useful for medicinal reasons. In addition the fishing and tourism industry in the coral reef will suffer a substantial loss. The coral reefs also provide shoreline protection. Twenty percent of coral reefs have already been lost mainly due to human causes. However, not all of the damage is due to humans. Significant damage has also been done to coral reefs from natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes which have been on the rise in severity recently due to climate change. These events cause the reefs to slide off into the ocean. The loss of coral reefs would be an environmental tragedy and it is very important to continue local conservation efforts but also create a larger long term plan that will reduce climate change and stop the acidification of the oceans.

== Analysis ==
The loss of the coral reef ecosystem is very difficult to analyze economically because it is hard to place a monetary value on biodiversity and the loss of these unique species. The loss of tourism and fishing is much easier to do a cost benefit analysis of. To get the true value of the economic loss a willingness to pay analysis for the tourism, not the market price would probably be more effective because there are a large number of people willing to pay higher than market price for the tourist attractions. WTP would also be useful to value the biodiversity of the reef ecosystem by seeing hwo much people would be willing to pay to sustain it. To stop the loss of the coral reefs CO2 emissions would need to go down substantially enough to stop making the ocean more acidic and causing a climate change. The effects of CO2 emissions do not only affect the coral reefs but also cause other significant environmental damage and if the total benefit of the positive externalities of lowering the carbon emissions were measured against the cost there would be a much lower level of efficent emissions. This type of analysis would be probably be more accurate and useful in this analysis, however extremely complex. If this were looked at from a local stand point a local analysis of emissions could be calculated and local regulations could be put in place to stop the direct acidification of the lake. This would have a lower cost but also lower benefits because you are not counting the global benefit of lower emmissions on the environment. These issues of standing create difficulty in pinpoint the efficent level.

Another significant factor in the coral reef disappearance is the overfishing of the reefs. Simply by reducing the overfishing the reefs could be sustain for a future generations. This would allow the tourism industry to continue to bring in revenue for several more years and be able to keep moderate fishing for several more years. This cost benefit anaylsis would be much less complicated and the total cost of reducing the fishing would be substaintally less than that of lowering the CO2 emmissions globally.

The coral reefs are just one part of a much larger global issue of acid rain and climate change, however they are showing the effects early and would be a signifcant loss that many people care a great deal about and cause significant economic damage as well. Globally an efficent standard of CO2 emmissions needs to be set so the problem can be stopped and the ecosystem can be sustained for many generations.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-13T15:38:42Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-greatlakes-idUSTRE7937CY20111004

== Summary ==

Due to extensive pollution in the great lakes a large ecosystem imbalance is occurring putting many of the lake species at risk. In Lake Huron there has already been a 95% loss in fish biomass over the past 15 years and a 94% decrease in freshwater shrimp in Lake Michigan which are a huge contributor to the local fishing economy. These fish are dying out because of a large influx of the Prolific Quagga mussel population which coats the bottoms of lakes killing off plankton. Plankton are a key member of the lakes food web, being right at the bottom first causing smaller fish to die off and then leading to the starvation of larger fish such as freshwater salmon. The mussels causing this significant damage are not native species but were brought in on the ships coming in from overseas. Another major cause of the dying fish population is the explosion of toxic algae blooms, especially in Lake Erie. These algae blooms cause an oxygen depleted dead zone killing off fish and the other organisms in the lakes. The major cause of the rapid increase of the algae population is an excess of food due to fertilizer runoff from farming drastically increasing the phosphorous content of the water. The Great Lakes are a major fishing and water source in the world and currently this fragile ecosystem is close to shutting down completely due to human interference.

==Analysis==

Environmentalists are recommending a policy in where land surrounding the lakes would not be used for farming as a barrier to keep out phosphorous. Stopping this leeching of phosphorus into the water supply would stop the formation of massive algae blooms in the lakes and the formation of oxygen depleted dead zones. This would allow the fish population to begin to flourish adding valuable biodiversity and fishing industry causing a large benefit. The cost of this would be the loss of farming value in the land surrounding the lakes. This approach is a standard by which all farms are set to conduct their business at.

Another way of cleaning the algae blooms out of the lakes is through the use of water purification. This process is fairly simple, however it has an external cost of an unpleasant odor that surrounding residents complain about making it a less desirable option.

The lakes also have a large problem with an excessive supply of the foreign mussel species which is destroying the plankton and as result all the other organisms in the lake that are higher on the food web. The cost of loosing this fish is made up by the loss of fishing industry from fish such as large water salmon and as a loss in biodiversity. To remove this problem one solution would be to introduce a mussel eating fish to keep the population of fish in check. This comes with many concerns about how the new species will interact with the already existing organisms in the lake, especially since the current problem started with the introduction of a new species. The new species would most certainly decrease the mussel population however it may interfere with the existing species and have a lurking negative externality.
The fishing industry in the lakes is valued at 7 billion dollars so if the ecosystem were permanently destroyed there would be a detrimental economic loss.

==Conclusion==
There has already been significant damage from the interaction of humans to these lakes which already may not be able to be reversed and will cost a great deal to try and sustain the ecosystem. From this article we can see that ecosystems are a very delicate system that can be destroyed from very simple seemingly harmless activities and should be handled with great care and thought as to not cause these large problems again and so they can be sustained for the use of future generations.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-13T15:36:26Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354

== Summary ==

Due to extensive pollution in the great lakes a large ecosystem imbalance is occurring putting many of the lake species at risk. In Lake Huron there has already been a 95% loss in fish biomass over the past 15 years and a 94% decrease in freshwater shrimp in Lake Michigan which are a huge contributor to the local fishing economy. These fish are dying out because of a large influx of the Prolific Quagga mussel population which coats the bottoms of lakes killing off plankton. Plankton are a key member of the lakes food web, being right at the bottom first causing smaller fish to die off and then leading to the starvation of larger fish such as freshwater salmon. The mussels causing this significant damage are not native species but were brought in on the ships coming in from overseas. Another major cause of the dying fish population is the explosion of toxic algae blooms, especially in Lake Erie. These algae blooms cause an oxygen depleted dead zone killing off fish and the other organisms in the lakes. The major cause of the rapid increase of the algae population is an excess of food due to fertilizer runoff from farming drastically increasing the phosphorous content of the water. The Great Lakes are a major fishing and water source in the world and currently this fragile ecosystem is close to shutting down completely due to human interference.

==Analysis==

Environmentalists are recommending a policy in where land surrounding the lakes would not be used for farming as a barrier to keep out phosphorous. Stopping this leeching of phosphorus into the water supply would stop the formation of massive algae blooms in the lakes and the formation of oxygen depleted dead zones. This would allow the fish population to begin to flourish adding valuable biodiversity and fishing industry causing a large benefit. The cost of this would be the loss of farming value in the land surrounding the lakes. This approach is a standard by which all farms are set to conduct their business at.

Another way of cleaning the algae blooms out of the lakes is through the use of water purification. This process is fairly simple, however it has an external cost of an unpleasant odor that surrounding residents complain about making it a less desirable option.

The lakes also have a large problem with an excessive supply of the foreign mussel species which is destroying the plankton and as result all the other organisms in the lake that are higher on the food web. The cost of loosing this fish is made up by the loss of fishing industry from fish such as large water salmon and as a loss in biodiversity. To remove this problem one solution would be to introduce a mussel eating fish to keep the population of fish in check. This comes with many concerns about how the new species will interact with the already existing organisms in the lake, especially since the current problem started with the introduction of a new species. The new species would most certainly decrease the mussel population however it may interfere with the existing species and have a lurking negative externality.
The fishing industry in the lakes is valued at 7 billion dollars so if the ecosystem were permanently destroyed there would be a detrimental economic loss.

==Conclusion==
There has already been significant damage from the interaction of humans to these lakes which already may not be able to be reversed and will cost a great deal to try and sustain the ecosystem. From this article we can see that ecosystems are a very delicate system that can be destroyed from very simple seemingly harmless activities and should be handled with great care and thought as to not cause these large problems again and so they can be sustained for the use of future generations.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-13T15:35:37Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354

== Summary ==

Due to extensive pollution in the great lakes a large ecosystem imbalance is occurring putting many of the lake species at risk. In Lake Huron there has already been a 95% loss in fish biomass over the past 15 years and a 94% decrease in freshwater shrimp in Lake Michigan which are a huge contributor to the local fishing economy. These fish are dying out because of a large influx of the Prolific Quagga mussel population which coats the bottoms of lakes killing off plankton. Plankton are a key member of the lakes food web, being right at the bottom first causing smaller fish to die off and then leading to the starvation of larger fish such as freshwater salmon. The mussels causing this significant damage are not native species but were brought in on the ships coming in from overseas. Another major cause of the dying fish population is the explosion of toxic algae blooms, especially in Lake Erie. These algae blooms cause an oxygen depleted dead zone killing off fish and the other organisms in the lakes. The major cause of the rapid increase of the algae population is an excess of food due to fertilizer runoff from farming drastically increasing the phosphorous content of the water. The Great Lakes are a major fishing and water source in the world and currently this fragile ecosystem is close to shutting down completely due to human interference.

==Analysis==

Environmentalists are recommending a policy in where land surrounding the lakes would not be used for farming as a barrier to keep out phosphorous. Stopping this leeching of phosphorus into the water supply would stop the formation of massive algae blooms in the lakes and the formation of oxygen depleted dead zones. This would allow the fish population to begin to flourish adding valuable biodiversity and fishing industry causing a large benefit. The cost of this would be the loss of farming value in the land surrounding the lakes. This approach is a standard by which all farms are set to conduct their business at.
Another way of cleaning the algae blooms out of the lakes is through the use of water purification. This process is fairly simple, however it has an external cost of an unpleasant odor that surrounding residents complain about making it a less desirable option.
The lakes also have a large problem with an excessive supply of the foreign mussel species which is destroying the plankton and as result all the other organisms in the lake that are higher on the food web. The cost of loosing this fish is made up by the loss of fishing industry from fish such as large water salmon and as a loss in biodiversity. To remove this problem one solution would be to introduce a mussel eating fish to keep the population of fish in check. This comes with many concerns about how the new species will interact with the already existing organisms in the lake, especially since the current problem started with the introduction of a new species. The new species would most certainly decrease the mussel population however it may interfere with the existing species and have a lurking negative externality.
The fishing industry in the lakes is valued at 7 billion dollars so if the ecosystem were permanently destroyed there would be a detrimental economic loss.

==Conclusion==
There has already been significant damage from the interaction of humans to these lakes which already may not be able to be reversed and will cost a great deal to try and sustain the ecosystem. From this article we can see that ecosystems are a very delicate system that can be destroyed from very simple seemingly harmless activities and should be handled with great care and thought as to not cause these large problems again and so they can be sustained for the use of future generations.

==Profs Comments==

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-13T15:31:36Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-12T20:56:20Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-12T20:32:57Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes

2011-10-12T20:32:44Z

CynthiaMennear:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354

[[File:http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20111004&t=2&i=511037026&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-10-04T221728Z_01_BTRE7931PX600_RTROPTP_0_BUFFALO]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/

2011-10-12T20:31:28Z

CynthiaMennear: /* Group Wiki Pages */

You are visiting the course Wiki page for Economics 371 at UBC Okanagan, for the 2010 fall term. This is the root page for the group project component of this course.

The purpose of this project is to use your knowledge of economics to analyze news stories that you find. Each of you are part of a group, and your group will have a theme which should link together all the stories you comment on. Your comments must have three parts: (1) a link to the news story you are commenting on, (2) a short (one or two paragraph) summary of the news item, and (3) an analysis. The analysis can be broken down into further sections, and you can provide links to other material you find interesting.

The reason for using a Wiki is that it facilitates collaboration. The Wiki pages that your group creates can be edited by anyone in the group at any time. Thus, you do not need to meet to work together. Meeting is still valuable for getting to know each other, brainstorming ideas, etc. However, once you have started, you can each make your contributions from where ever you happen to be.

===Group Wiki Pages===

* Group 1: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP1|Agribusiness]]
* Group 2: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2|The effects of Pollution on Wildlife]]
* Group 3: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP3|Mining in North America]]
* Group 4: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP4|Ecosystem Services]]
* Group 5: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP5|Off Shore Drilling]]
* Group 6: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP6|The Environmental Impact of Hydroelectric Dams]]
* Group 7: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP7|#7]]
* Group 8: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8| Alberta Oil Sands]]

===What's Expected===

There are a few basic elements that should be part of each analysis you do. First is the link to the article. Second is a brief summary of the article. This should be a paragraph or two. Third, your analysis. Your analysis should draw on the economics you learn in this course, and elsewhere. Early in the course, a good discussion of the economic issues in the article, using concepts from principles, is sufficient. However, as the course develops, I expect you to use concepts from the class. If you end up discussing articles with a lot of overlap, I expect you to to offer some comparison between the articles.

Remember that this is Environmental Economics, not Natural Resource Economics. The topic you choose, and the articles you review, should relate to the impacts of economic activities on the environment, rather than the impact of resource availability on the economy. Thus, while the impact of pollution on fish stocks fits into this course, the impact of overfishing on the sustainability of a fishery fits better in Natural Resource Economics.

Some questions you may want to consider are:

- Is the situation described in the article economically efficient? Why or why not? If not, what would be efficient?
- If it is not efficient, why not? Who would gain and who would loose by a move towards efficiency? Are things changing? Why or why not?

These are suggestions, and the core issues in the articles you are looking at will be unique to those articles. I will be marking less on length and more on content, so that simply using these questions as a template when they are not appropriate will not earn you full marks. Rather, I'm looking to see if your analysis makes good use of the concepts we have used in class, with an analysis that is reasonable for the situation described in the article.

For a bit more guidance, see last year's work, at [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/|Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/]]

===Finding Articles===

There are a range of sources for news items related to the environment. Many newspapers will have an environment section, particularly in their on-line versions. Some news sources that are specific to the environment are:

* [http://www.enn.com/ Environmental News Network]
* [http://www.grist.org/ Grist]
* [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ Environmental News Service]
* [http://www.emagazine.com/ The Environmental Magazine]
* [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/ People and Planet]

===Important===

Keep in mind that your personal mark on this project is a scaled version of the group mark, where the scaling depends on how the other members in your group assess you. You will learn a lot more by reading and discussing each other's analysis than if you adopt a rotation schedule to divide up the work. You may want to rotate the responsibility for selecting an article, but beyond that I strongly encourage you to work together.

===HELP===

The best page to start your search for help on editing pages is the root page of this website. It is at [http://wiki.ubc.ca wiki.ubc.ca].
[[Category:Economics]][[Category:ECON]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-10T20:43:31Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-10T20:43:09Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]
[[Article 2 :]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-08T23:04:05Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-07T05:07:40Z

CynthiaMennear:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs

2011-10-07T04:00:49Z

CynthiaMennear: Created page with "http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/"

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/09/coral-reefs-likely-to-disappear-within-a-century/

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-07T03:59:09Z

CynthiaMennear:

[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2

2011-10-07T02:35:21Z

CynthiaMennear:

<dpl>
titlematch={{PAGENAME}}/%
namespace={{NAMESPACE}}
shownamespace=false
</dpl>
http://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/CoralReefsRiskofExtinction