UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 7

2010-11-23T15:57:49Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
* [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1115-ecotourism_meyers_ucsc.html '''Ecotourism Brings Home the Bacon in the Peruvian Amazon'''] ==

== Summary ==
The article details that in the Peruvian southern region of Tambopata, there has been a positive economic influx from eco-tourism, as an alternative for employing the land for cattle-ranching and logging purposes. A study conducted for the journal PLoS ONE. The study considers the effect of a piece of legislature that was effected in 2002 by the Peruvian government which enables the usage of the region for tourism purposes, in the hopes of encouraging the preservation of the area as part of the tourist attraction.

Some critics of the movement were hesitant about eco-tourism's effectivity in comparison to other (more destructive) activities, according to the article, which prompted the authors of the study to calculate revenues for the different usages of land and comparing them. The report found that eco-tourism was second only to "non-sustainable timber harvesting."
Eco-tourism is economically tractable, according to one of the authors of the study, Douglas Yu of the University of East Anglia. Even ignoring the benefits of carbon sequestration and the preservation of biodiversity, maintaining the Tambopata region as an eco-tourist zone makes sense, as it does garner some revenue, and can be linked to other tourist activities such as the Inca Trail in the neighbouring city of Cusco. This creates an attractive portfolio of activities that exploit the land without really damaging it.

Yu did warn that the eco-tourist places have to be sensibly placed– anything near a coral reef is bound to create more damage than it abates. The authors of the study believe that it is one of the first studies to analyse the profitability of tourism as an incentive to protect regional biodiversity, and to compare the economic gains from this activity in comparison to less sustainable ones such as logging.

http://photos.mongabay.com/10/1115ecotour.jpg
[Photo by Chris Kirkby]

== Analysis ==
The article makes reference to a method for assessing costs and benefits for particular activities, specific to regions. In this case, assessing the market value of the Amazon rainforest has been done by employing a combination of direct and indirect method approaches. Actual revenues for eco-tourism are taken into consideration, as well as the surrogate market approach, where an area is worth at least however much individuals are willing to pay to visit it. Aggregating this to the previous method derives a demand curve that can be readily compared to demand curves of other activities that employ the same amount of land- like ranching, logging, or planting soy beans for biofuel.

The study points to the effectiveness of eco-tourism in the region as the source of income. it indicates that, after harvesting for logging, eco-tourism garners the most profit in terms of efficiency and gross revenue. If these were the only two factors, it would seem that the socially efficient activity would be to engage in logging- even if the costs incurred are high. However, the study is not blind to the benefits accrued by the tourism approach. Aside from the revenue that is is capable of generating (by the tourists flocking into the region and using the resources) there are some added benefits to the practise. These include services by the region, not exploited for their minerals of trees, such as carbon sequestration and the preservation of biodiversity. If these things are given a market value (proportional to the travel costs that people are willing to incur for visiting the region, as well as decreases in abatement costs) a nice demand curve can be generated and compared to other activities that would be substitutes to eco-tourism. In other words, the study assesses not only the direct economic impacts of eco-tourism, but also takes into consideration the positive externalities that the activity generates. A set of demand curves- or better put, willingness to pay, with the added externalities in the light pink region, is shown below.

[[File:Demand_Curve.png]]

This is, of course, an over-simplified model, but it does not mean that the model is not effective at describing the industry's gains. In an intertemporal setting, where future gains are discounted and some externalities are made evident, the situation would still hold. Presuming that the goal is to both incur some revenue from the practises of exploiting the Amazon region and, at the same time, preserving the rainforest (or we can think of the situation as decreasing depreciation across the entire Amazon) this alternative does seem tractable. It is region-sensitive, just as geothermal energy exploitation is, but it does preserve the land and is growing more as a credible and viable alternative to logging the Amazon flat.
Governments can further this commitment to the environment by making the activity seem attractive to investors and to tourists. A multitude of tools are in their service: they can insert some sort of tax break for firms willing to invest in eco-tourism and land preservation- such as regional travel agencies that make the land available for eco-tourism. Governments can declare certain areas as eco-tourist areas only, and/or make it really expensive for other activities to take place by heavily taxing other practises. The tax level would be set at least where marginal abatement costs (for society) would equal marginal damages. The last approach is a very centralised method of inducing policy, but it would probably work best (granted that the government is not in shambles and is actually able to enforce the policy.) By declaring a region as designed only for eco-tourism, the areas are preserved and there is less depreciation of the capital stock- The Amazon in our case- at extremely low emission levels.

== Conclusion ==
This is one of the rare cases where using surrogate markets is actually relatively easy for assessing market values of abstract assets, such as the rainforest. The study presents us with a positive picture of eco-tourism, which allows for some relatively straightforward assessment of revenues at low costs. In addition, the externalities (granted, hard to measure) seem to be mostly on the positive side, and increase the market value of the asset. Taking into consideration that eco-tourism is region-sensitive, governments should look into this alternative, as the study does present a good case for it in comparison to other activities which generate a lot more emissions and degenerate the rainforest. A centralised approach of altogether banning the active exploitation of the rainforest in these tourist-worthy areas would help achieve more efficiently a social equilibrium of costs and benefits, while at the same time show some serious commitment with the environment.

File:Demand Curve.png

2010-11-23T15:16:33Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 7

2010-11-23T15:16:17Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 7

2010-11-23T15:09:16Z

JaimeCuberos: Created page with 'Back to: * [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page] == [http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1115-ecotourism_meyers_ucsc.html '''Ecotourism Brings Home …'

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 6

2010-11-16T10:02:45Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
* [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0208-amazon_biofuels.html''' Amazon Rainforest Will Bear Cost of Biofuel Policies in Brazil''']==

== Summary ==
The article discusses the biofuel expansion targets for 2020 and the negative impacts this will ensue for Brazil’s Amazon rainforest. The recent paper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), suggests that the costs of the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels undermines the emissions savings of the conversion altogether. David M. Lapola of the University of Kassel (Germany), found that the change to biofuel although directly requires little land, it will generate a huge indirect impact on large areas of the rainforest. Lapola suggests this will occur through displacement of cattle ranching, the current dominant land use, pushing rangeland to expand by an estimated 167,970 sq km into the frontier of the forested areas and other native habitats.

The findings propose the integration of Soy biodiesel as a biofuel, will incur a carbon payback time for direct impact emissions of 35 years, but when including the indirect impact emissions, the payback time leaps to 211 years.

The evidence in the article concludes that oil palm fulfils Brazils biofuel demands with much less land use and carbon debt than soy biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol. Lapola also suggests that reinstating the use of disposed rangelands instead of venturing into native lands would reduce the potential damage caused by the indirect emissions. To overcome these problems the article heavily suggests ‘an increased interconnection between land-use sectors’, ensuring cooperation’s between the two sides and guaranteeing that emissions are minimised.

== Analysis ==
This article introduces some basic ideas of sustainable biofuels, but when an incorrect approach is used, R&D improvement may lead to a flawed result. Compared with fossil fuels, the new promotion in Brazil of using biofuel such as soybean and sugarcane can, at a first glance, reduce the green house gas emission. What's more, the new development of biofuel can lighten the reliance on fossil fuel energy,and it appears the carbon payback time for biofuels is far less that that of fossil fuels, 4 years for sugarcane and 35 years for soybean. However, when we think deeper into the indirect land use effect, the story changes dramatically. Due to the forced expansion of biofuel cropland and rangeland, a large area of forest is destroyed. Referring to the graph, one can see that the shift of the Marginal Damages Curve, even taking into consideration the reduced effect of innovation of technology, actually decreases the amount of emissions reduced at the equilibrium point, under the Marginal Cost Curve 1. This is actually an ambiguous movement, as we have no reason to believe that the Marginal Cost Curve stays the same (innovation would likely make the abatement costs slightly cheaper.) For simplicity, the change is deemed negligible, and the levels stay the same. Adopting the Soy Bean Biofuel, once externalities (such as direct deforestation) are considered, turns out to be more damaging in comparison to other alternatives. In other words, adopting that technology causes further deforestation.

In the article, David M. Lapola from the University of Kassel offers an alternative solution for this. He suggests that planting oil palm instead of soybean for stockfeed for the biofuel quota. Although planting oil palm incurs a higher level of direct deforestation,its high yield per square kilometre as well as the carbon payback time, in the long run oil palm, actually incurs in a less severe tree loss than using soybean cultivates. It is more effective at meeting the quota, as evidenced by the graph. The new Marginal Cost Curve, #2, corresponds to the adoption of this technology. For simplicity, the new MD curve will be the same as the curve for Soybean (though it admittedly is ''not'' the same, for the tree loss is not equivalent.) The MAC curve is where it is, on the basis of a much diminished Carbon Payback time in comparison to the Soybean MAC. One can see that under this technology, emission decrease (in the form of less trees being felled) is actually greater under equilibrium.

[[File:fghj.jpg]]

== Conclusion ==
If the information reported on the article is to be believed, oil palm is undoubtedly the better alternative. One possible way for the government of Brazil to go along this line of thought is to apply a system of transferable discharge permit, or possibly tax incentives on select technologies on the different biofuel producers. Under this policy, producers that are using the land use would have a strong incentive to innovate, by planting the high-yield oil palm.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 6

2010-11-16T10:01:54Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
* [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0208-amazon_biofuels.html''' Amazon Rainforest Will Bear Cost of Biofuel Policies in Brazil''']==

== Summary ==
The article discusses the biofuel expansion targets for 2020 and the negative impacts this will ensue for Brazil’s Amazon rainforest. The recent paper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), suggests that the costs of the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels undermines the emissions savings of the conversion altogether. David M. Lapola of the University of Kassel (Germany), found that the change to biofuel although directly requires little land, it will generate a huge indirect impact on large areas of the rainforest. Lapola suggests this will occur through displacement of cattle ranching, the current dominant land use, pushing rangeland to expand by an estimated 167,970 sq km into the frontier of the forested areas and other native habitats.

The findings propose the integration of Soy biodiesel as a biofuel, will incur a carbon payback time for direct impact emissions of 35 years, but when including the indirect impact emissions, the payback time leaps to 211 years.

The evidence in the article concludes that oil palm fulfils Brazils biofuel demands with much less land use and carbon debt than soy biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol. Lapola also suggests that reinstating the use of disposed rangelands instead of venturing into native lands would reduce the potential damage caused by the indirect emissions. To overcome these problems the article heavily suggests ‘an increased interconnection between land-use sectors’, ensuring cooperation’s between the two sides and guaranteeing that emissions are minimised.

== Analysis ==
This article introduces some basic ideas of sustainable biofuels, but when an incorrect approach is used, R&D improvement may lead to a flawed result. Compared with fossil fuels, the new promotion in Brazil of using biofuel such as soybean and sugarcane can, at a first glance, reduce the green house gas emission. What's more, the new development of biofuel can lighten the reliance on fossil fuel energy,and it appears the carbon payback time for biofuels is far less that that of fossil fuels, 4 years for sugarcane and 35 years for soybean. However, when we think deeper into the indirect land use effect, the story changes dramatically. Due to the forced expansion of biofuel cropland and rangeland, a large area of forest is destroyed. Referring to the graph, one can see that the shift of the Marginal Damages Curve, even taking into consideration the reduced effect of innovation of technology, actually decreases the amount of emissions reduced at the equilibrium point, under the Marginal Cost Curve 1. This is actually an ambiguous movement, as we have no reason to believe that the Marginal Cost Curve stays the same (innovation would likely make the abatement costs slightly cheaper.) For simplicity, the change is deemed negligible, and the levels stay the same. Adopting the Soy Bean Biofuel, once externalities (such as direct deforestation) are considered, turns out to be more damaging in comparison to other alternatives. In other words, adopting that technology causes further deforestation.

In the article, David M. Lapola from the University of Kassel offers an alternative solution for this. He suggests that planting oil palm instead of soybean for stockfeed for the biofuel quota. Although planting oil palm incurs a higher level of direct deforestation,its high yield per square kilometre as well as the carbon payback time, in the long run oil palm, actually incurs in a less severe tree loss than using soybean cultivates. It is more effective at meeting the quota, as evidenced by the graph. The new Marginal Cost Curve, #2, corresponds to the adoption of this technology. For simplicity, the new MD curve will be the same as the curve for Soybean (though it admittedly is ''not'' the same, for the tree loss is not equivalent.) The MAC curve is where it is, on the basis of a much diminished Carbon Payback time in comparison to the Soybean MAC. One can see that under this technology, emission decrease (in the form of less trees being felled) is actually greater under equilibrium.
[[File:fghj.jpg]]

== Conclusion ==
If the information reported on the article is to be believed, oil palm is undoubtedly the better alternative. One possible way for the government of Brazil to go along this line of thought is to apply a system of transferable discharge permit, or possibly tax incentives on select technologies on the different biofuel producers. Under this policy, producers that are using the land use would have a strong incentive to innovate, by planting the high-yield oil palm.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 6

2010-11-16T00:29:57Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5

2010-11-04T06:31:43Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=28680&topic=23&section=45 '''Climate Changes Could Destroy Much of the Amazon'''] ==

== Summary ==
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released in 2007 a report at the Bali Climate Conference a report that predicted great damages done to the Amazon, product of climate change. It grimly foresees as much as 60 percent of the forest cover vanishing by 2030, and the release of around 55.5 to 96.9 billion tonnes of CO2.
The destruction of such a large cover of trees would be harmful for the equilibrium of climatic patterns, and according to one of the authors of the report, Dan Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, could be detrimental to freshwater supply and temperature cooling. The report details that agricultural practises and livestock expansion, fires and logging, and other human-induced factors are liable to destroy 55% of the forest cover in the Amazon by 2030. Compounded with a decline in rainfall–estimated at around -10%– nearly 60% of the Amazon would be in jeopardy.The levels of Carbon emission from the Amazon rainforest were around 0.2 to 0.3 billion tonnes per year. During drought-fire season, the rates easily double. With a decreased forest cover by an index of 60%, the figure skyrockets off the chart.
The head of forests at the WWF in the UK, Beatrix Richards, stated that developed nations have a duty to throw a lifeline to forests around the world. It is important, she adds, that such nations help create a strategy to reduce emissions and help break the cycle of deforestation.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/AmazonFireRise/images/amazon_fires.jpg
Photograph © 2003, Greenpeace/Daniel Beltrá
== Analysis ==
This article portrays a problem where nobody in particular is liable for the damages being done or the future of the Amazon rainforest. Each individual adding to the destruction of the forest seems to be looking at their personal gain and not viewing or taking responsibility for the negative externalities occurring. The amazon at this point resembles an open access resource; at present there is somewhat uncontrolled access. Therefore no one has the desire to protect its resources as they reap no particular benefits from doing it. To keep things fresh and in perspective, here's the usual graph we employ in making the comparison:

[[File:graph- amazon.jpg]]

A cost-benefit analysis done in a single period will obviously suggest that the costs of cutting back production– needed to decrease deforestation- far outweigh the perceived benefits of doing so. However, in an intertemporal approach it is quite clear that the costs would not decrease, and the production function would suffer as a result of decreased capital stock: scientific findings and projections estimate massive releases of CO2 into the atmosphere at current production levels, which would in turn decrease the yield of the production function at current inputs. An intertemporal model for maximising benefit, given our resource constraint (financial capital, infrastructure, and the forest which is renewable to a certain extent, subject to constant depreciation) would indicate that for the planet to keep on producing at current levels and generating so much pollution (captured in the model perhaps as a drastic decrease in capital and resources as periods advance) we must be discounting the future at a very high rate, each period probably even higher. The cost-benefit analysis would yield that, aggregated over infinite periods, the costs are far too great than the benefits we incur, in order to justify production (unless we truly do discount the future that much.) Taking the world as a big closed economy, the cost-benefit analysis can be analysed in a pretty straightforward fashion: current production levels will incur extremely high costs later on, far outweighing the benefits garnered in the present period, if the scientific findings are to be believed.

Protected areas and de-centralised approaches would show promise here, such as liability laws or property rights. Taking Liability laws as a possible solution, those creating the pollution will be held liable for producing it, they will ultimately have to compensate those being damaged by what they are causing. This is supposed to then encourage those who are polluting to internalize the otherwise would be ignored external effects and encourage them to seek an equilibrium in order to avoid the extra costs of compensation.

Looking back at the figure above, when no liability laws exist, the polluter will not willingly incur any abatement costs and will discharge the maximum at Eo, which is probably some production level close to reality. However, with liability provides the incentive for the polluter to reduce its emissions to E* (the socially efficient equilibrium).

The article is also suggesting that there is not enough aid from the global stage in order to protect the rainforest effectively. However, in such circumstances, when the problems and consequences are only being estimated, those who aren’t being directly affected have no desire to help and those who are have no power to change it. The developed countries outside the region of the Amazon have as of yet felt very little negative externalities, thus are unmotivated to contribute time and money to finding a strategy. But if the findings of the report are to be believed, a 60% decrease in the Amazon forest cover will feel very much real to their respective economies.

== Conclusion ==
It is clear that we as a society are not polluting at the efficient levels, for the costs keep skyrocketing and the benefits decrease. If the findings are to be believed, or some measure of them rings true, then it is important to address the issue with some urgency, ere the damage becomes unavoidable and the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses flock the atmosphere- to the detriment of all. De-centralised approaches would show some promise, if they can be enforced. Nations such as the US would do well in showing some initiative to abate the damages and motion towards breaking the "let's-log-'er-clean" cycle the Amazon finds itself subject to, especially when the findings can be inferred to suggest a negative cost-benefit analysis yield at current production levels.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5

2010-11-04T02:25:29Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5

2010-11-04T02:19:57Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/ Group Pages ]]
== Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest ==
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg
----
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article_1:_Amazon_May_Be_Headed_For_Another_Bad_Drought|Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2|Article 2: Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3|Article 3: Legal Opinion: Brazil's Amazon Tribes Own Carbon Trading Rights]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 4|Article 4: Ecuador Agrees to Keep Amazon Eco-Treasure Free of Oil Drilling
]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5|Article 5: Climate Changes Could Destroy Much of the Amazon]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 6|Article 6]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 7|Article 7]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 8|Article 8]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5

2010-11-04T02:17:37Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5

2010-10-21T05:20:28Z

JaimeCuberos: Created page with 'Back to *[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page] == [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10861415 '''Ecuador pledges no oil drilling i…'

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10861415 '''Ecuador pledges no oil drilling in Amazon reserve'''] ==

== Summary ==
The government of Ecuador has agreed this past August to leave the Yasuni reserve fields under its borders intact and free from any oil tapping, in exchange for a big sum of money, equal to US$3.6 billion. The fields consist of approximately 10,000 square kilometres, and contain an estimated 846 million barrels. Were Ecuador to exploit this resource, it would accrue profits that would double the amount agreed in the deal. The United Nations Development Programme has set up a trust fund, and developed nations such as Germany, Italy, Norway, etc. are interested in forming part of the project. Ecuador's Heritage Minister María Espinoza hailed it as "Ecuador's contribution towards combatting climate change," for it is estimated that preventing the use of the oil would spare the Earth around 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The United Nations Development Programme hopes to replicate the initiative in other countries, including Guatemala and Vietnam, among others.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 4

2010-10-21T05:15:58Z

JaimeCuberos: /* Summary */

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-04-02.html''' Ecuador Agrees to Keep Amazon Eco-Treasure Free of Oil Drilling] ==

== Summary ==
In order to protect Yasuni National Park in Ecuador, the government of Ecuador and the United Nations Development Programme have agreed to establish a trust fund, which collects payments to Ecuador government, in compensation for its forgone revenue from drilling the oil under the 10,000 hectares. It is also estimated that about 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be spared from entering the atmosphere, something that Ecuador's Heritage Minister María Espinoza calls, "Ecuador's contribution" toward reducing averse climate change. In addition, under this agreement, the biodiversity in the Yasuni region, which contains thousands of rare and endangered species, will be safe from the destructive practises of oil drilling and clear cutting, as well as maintain the moisture that the region provides. However, there's some concern on this agreement, as conservation groups fear the government may turn to old places other than the Yasuni for oil drilling- transferring the damage. Overall, the agreement is hailed as a victory for Ecuador, and the United Nations Development Programme, in charge of brokering the deal, hopes to replicate it in other regions of the world.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 4

2010-10-21T04:18:28Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-04-02.html''' Ecuador Agrees to Keep Amazon Eco-Treasure Free of Oil Drilling] ==

== Summary ==
The government of Ecuador has agreed this past August to leave the Yasuni reserve fields under its borders intact and free from any oil tapping, in exchange for a big sum of money, equal to US$3.6 billion. The fields consist of approximately 10,000 square kilometres, and contain an estimated 846 million barrels. Were Ecuador to exploit this resource, it would accrue profits that would double the amount of

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 4

2010-10-21T03:58:26Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3

2010-10-14T06:36:59Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]]

== [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-14-03.html '''Legal Opinion: Brazil's Amazon Tribes Own Carbon Trading Rights'''] ==

== Summary ==
The article discusses the legality of carbon trading rights in reference to the Brazilian Amazon tribes. It refers to the findings of the international law firm Baker & McKenzie, commissioned by Forest Trends, which were presented at Copenhagen on 2009 (ENS). After years of eroded rights by the numerous international agreements on climate change, the indigenous groups of the Brazilian Amazon have ‘the right to the carbon in their standing forests’. This inference is based on the actual Brazilian Constitution and legislation, which "reserves to the Brazilian Indians.. the exclusive use and sustainable administration of the demarcated lands as well as the economic benefits that this sustainable use can generate."

This finding was thought to not only prevent deforestation, in turn maintaining one of the world’s critical carbon reservoirs, but also to promote the rights of the indigenous people and safeguard the existence of the Surui tribe population, which has dropped from nearing 5,000 to 1,200 members.

However, during the Copenhagen climate summit, the REDD (''Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation'') text removed several numeric targets for reducing current deforestation levels and weakened safeguard language by moving it from operational text into the preamble to the REDD section. This, as stated by Alistair Graham of Humane Society International, “weakens the agreement and deprives it of any assurance of compliance".

All in all, suggesting that although there is a general agreement that the world’s rainforests require protection, there seems to be very little action upon doing so.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3863339-Early_morning_in_the_Amazon_Rainforest-Brazil.jpg

== Analysis ==
This article has liability issues at the heart of the issue. The Native Surui population have the intent of seizing their property rights in relation to the emission of carbon in their government-assigned territory, which amount to a sizeable 600,000 acres, and turning a profit. The issue has many faces. On one hand, it finally recognises that the lands are actually the property of the native populations, who are responsible for their keeping and rightfully deserve to reap the benefits of its exploitation, to whichever degree. For the sake of comparison, let us assume that the collection of firms interested in purchasing carbon rights from the Surui are represented by a single firm, and that the entire carbon rights belong solely to the Surui. Holding externalities at zero (assuming everyone knows everything that is going to happen in the world at period t.) Suppose, finally, that the firm is to compensate the Surui at the level of abatement cost for total carbon emissions per month. Refer to the diagram below:

[[File:Costs and damages Surui.png]]

The Surui would accept a level of emissions of carbon equal to the equilibrium emissions, E*, and be recompensed at a price of P* at that level. The firm would accept this level of emissions, if it were seeking to minimise costs, as any more emissions beyond E* that would not interest the Surui, and any emissions beneath E*'s level would incur a higher cost than a benefit. The net benefit the firm would incur would be the area denoted by a, which corresponds to the monetary value that the firm accrues for activity at that level of pollution. It does not incur the whole benefit, as it must recompense the Surui areas b and c- the damages and property rights that belong to them. Likewise, the Surui would accrue a net benefit b, as they sustain damages equal to the area c, and are recompensed a total of area b+c. Illustrated in pretty colours, in terms of deforestation, is the diagram below:

[[File:pop.jpg]]

As we can see, the total amount paid by the firms, b+c, is always bigger than the total damage c caused. Deforestation in their acres is reduced to a socailly efficient level. At this level, it might even be the case that the practise is sustainable due to trees' reproduction. This social efficient level can also be achieved by letting firms purchase the rights to emit carbon- indigeous people are not paying for the destruction of the rainforest but the firms are. This is more ethical in this particular case, since the indigeous people may not have the money to pay the cost and drive to the efficient point.

This is a highly idealised case. In reality, externalities are not truly ever known or inexistent- in particular with pollution and large portions of the land. Moreover, it is oft the case that the amount firms pay for carbon emission rights undermine the true costs of deforestation, which are long termed and usually overreaching in their effects. In addition to the uncertainty associated with any policy, the framework wherein the natives' rights are enforced is being weakened by the very organisations who sought to institute the protection of the rainforest— namely, the REDD text during the last climate meeting. This means that enforcing the natives' rights to their property becomes more difficult, and the real cost curve would most likely alter slope and be located in an outward shift of the MAC.

== Conclusion ==
It is a recurrent theme with environmental policy that things are not always what they seem. The issuing of property rights to the Amazon Surui tribe is certainly a step towards social equality and efficiency- recognised even in the geo-political legislature of the region. Despite this, as noted in earlier articles, the issuing of carbon rights and subsequent selling of them to firms for pollution rights—even at the socially-efficient level of emissions and recompense (unlikely on its own) does not constitute a sufficient, "radical" decrease in emissions, which is what the Amazon truly needs. It is a start towards social equity, though one salient with political setbacks from the start.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3

2010-10-14T06:31:12Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3

2010-10-14T05:37:02Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]]

== [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-14-03.html '''Legal Opinion: Brazil's Amazon Tribes Own Carbon Trading Rights'''] ==

== Summary ==
The article discusses the legality of carbon trading rights in reference to the Brazilian Amazon tribes. It refers to the findings of the international law firm Baker & McKenzie, commissioned by Forest Trends, which were presented at Copenhagen on 2009 (ENS). After years of eroded rights by the numerous international agreements on climate change, the indigenous groups of the Brazilian Amazon have ‘the right to the carbon in their standing forests’. This inference is based on the actual Brazilian Constitution and legislation, which "reserves to the Brazilian Indians.. the exclusive use and sustainable administration of the demarcated lands as well as the economic benefits that this sustainable use can generate."

This finding was thought to not only prevent deforestation, in turn maintaining one of the world’s critical carbon reservoirs, but also to promote the rights of the indigenous people and safeguard the existence of the Surui tribe population, which has dropped from nearing 5,000 to 1,200 members.

However, during the Copenhagen climate summit, the REDD (''Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation'') text removed several numeric targets for reducing current deforestation levels and weakened safeguard language by moving it from operational text into the preamble to the REDD section. This, as stated by Alistair Graham of Humane Society International, “weakens the agreement and deprives it of any assurance of compliance".

All in all, suggesting that although there is a general agreement that the world’s rainforests require protection, there seems to be very little action upon doing so.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3863339-Early_morning_in_the_Amazon_Rainforest-Brazil.jpg

== Analysis ==
This article has liability issues at the heart of the issue. The Native Surui population have the intent of seizing their property rights in relation to the emission of carbon in their government-assigned territory, which amount to a sizeable 600,000 acres, and turning a profit. The issue has many faces. On one hand, it finally recognises that the lands are actually the property of the native populations, who are responsible for their keeping and rightfully deserve to reap the benefits of its exploitation, to whichever degree. For the sake of comparison, let us assume that the collection of firms interested in purchasing carbon rights from the Surui are represented by a single firm, and that the entire carbon rights belong solely to the Surui. Holding externalities at zero (assuming everyone knows everything that is going to happen in the world at period t.) Suppose, finally, that the firm is to compensate the Surui at the level of abatement cost for total carbon emissions per month. Refer to the diagram below:

[[File:Costs and damages Surui.png]]

The Surui would accept a level of emissions of carbon equal to the equilibrium emissions, E*, and be recompensed at a price of P* at that level. The firm would accept this level of emissions, if it were seeking to minimise costs, as any more emissions beyond E* that would not interest the Surui, and any emissions beneath E*'s level would incur a higher cost than a benefit. The net benefit the firm would incur would be the area denoted by a, which corresponds to the monetary value that the firm accrues for activity at that level of pollution. It does not incur the whole benefit, as it must recompense the Surui areas b and c- the damages and property rights that belong to them. Likewise, the Surui would accrue a net benefit b, as they sustain damages equal to the area c, and are recompensed a total of area b+c.

[[File:pop.jpg]]

so, as any companies who wants to cut off trees from amazon, they need to pay the indigenous a certain amount to compensate their economic loss at the efficient level, and as we can see, this total amount paid(b+c) is always bigger than the total damage(c) that has caused. And indigeous people are getting part b. Therefore, as the indigeous people are owning the property right of using the forest resource, the total deforestration amount is reduced to a socailly efficient level. At this level, the sustainable use is achieved because of tree's reproduction. Even though this social efficient can also be achieved by letting firms to have the right of carbon, indigeous people are not paying for the destruction of the rainforest but instead the firms are. This is more ethical in this perticular case since the indigeous people may not have the money to pay the cost and drive to the efficient point. Moreover, the places being destroy is the indigeous people's home, having themselves owning the carbon right fits better on the criteria of assigning responsibility to those who created pollution to clearing it up.

File:Costs and damages Surui.png

2010-10-14T05:36:42Z

JaimeCuberos: uploaded a new version of "File:Costs and damages Surui.png"

File:Costs and damages Surui.png

2010-10-14T05:34:40Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3

2010-10-13T06:44:59Z

JaimeCuberos: Created page with 'Back to: *http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page == [http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-14-03.html '''Legal Opinion: Brazil's Am…'

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5

2010-10-07T07:46:56Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/ Group Pages ]]
== Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest ==
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg
----
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article_1:_Amazon_May_Be_Headed_For_Another_Bad_Drought|Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2|Article 2: Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 3|Article 3]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 4|Article 4]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 5|Article 5]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 6|Article 6]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 7|Article 7]]
*[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 8|Article 8]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2

2010-10-07T07:37:59Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm '''Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air'''] ==

== Summary ==
This article poses the question: Is cleaner air always better? The article refers to a large study conducted in a joint effort by the University of Exeter, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Met Office Hadley Centre, and Brazilian National Institute for Space Studies, which suggests that our actions to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal might increase the risk of drought in the Amazon basin. This is because sulphate particles in the atmosphere have partially reduced global warming by reflecting some of the sunlight back to space, the study posits. This has acted as a boundary, primordially at the tropical North Atlantic, and thus kept those areas cooler and wetter. WIth the reduction of the sulphate emissions, the ocean temperatures would rise and move the clouds that keep the tropical North Atlantic at current levels of humidity, and so increase the risk of drought.

Dr Matthew Colins, a co-author of this study explains that the Amazon rainforest is facing many pressures like direct deforestation and climate change. Compounded, all these weaken the "self-resilience of the rainforest." To sum up, all these findings show the complexity of climate change. To improve air quality it is necessary to reduce atmospheric pollution, but as the lead author of the study, Prof. Peter Cox, states, this must be done through drastic cabon dioxide emissions to prevent further damages to the Amazon rainforest

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507133259.jpg

== Analysis ==
The results of the study display some important economic concepts regarding environmental policy. The first important concept at work here is the complexity of calculating abatement costs and damages across a single pollutant - it is not easy to measure the marginal abatement cost and damage for certain behaviours. In this instance, when policy was made to address sulphate emissions in the developed nations (mostly located around the northern hemisphere, such as Canada, the EU, etc.) a certain abatement cost and damage was calculated as efficient, probably per the equi-marginal principle of holding these two together. As sulphate aerosol particles emissions are abated, there is undoubtedly some decrease in pollution damage. It is evident, however, that either the data collected was insufficient, or this is just another case of a negative externality, as engaging in this particular behaviour - cleanup and emission reduction- has averse consequences for the Amazon basin. When the calibration is performed, we can see that damages are greater than what the theory/model predicted.

Some model employed might have yielded an optimal (or nearly optimal) level of emissions. Assuming that we are in that optimal level, marginal damages and marginal abatement costs are equal. However, when collecting data, we can clearly see that there were some unaccounted-for damages. That means that at the current level of emission output, the benefit from abatement is actually less than the one calculated- the area under the marginal damage cost curve is less than our predicted one. In the diagram below, the new marginal damages curve, MD2, yields a lower benefit under the new optimal level of emissions, and the reduction is equal to the area "a", between the two MD curves.

[[File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 12.07.34 AM.png]]

Another important aspect to keep in mind is the concept of fairness. Whilst in strict terms economics considers efficiency over equality, society does put a certain value - even to some extent, a monetary value - to equality. Abatement in the developed nations generates some net benefit for the planet, but the brunt costs are accrued by the populations that live near the Amazon rainforest, such as Peru, who historically has suffered greatly on account of draughts (see [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article_1:_Amazon_May_Be_Headed_For_Another_Bad_Drought Article 1].) Consumer surplus in these regions is actually diminished, as the damages and costs are greater by the reduction in sulphates at the atmospheric level. This seems counter-intuitive, but as a society we place value on fairness. It goes to show that policy for environmental protection is not a simple matter.

== Conclusion: ==
The research suggests the many folds and dimensions of environmental change across the globe. It allows us to infere how difficult it is to design a truly perfect and effective environmental policy, where the net gains outweigh the costs. Even with a seemingly optimal emission output, the costs are not equally distributed across the population, and might not accurately represent the real costs and damages.
It seems that, in order to truly see some results, the planet will have to undergo some drastic reduction in carbon dioxide, as an effective abatement method. Otherwise, most policies will be riddled with cases such as the one the study presents.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2

2010-10-07T07:35:42Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm '''Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air'''] ==

== Summary ==
This article poses the question: Is cleaner air always better? The article refers to a large study conducted in a joint effort by the University of Exeter, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Met Office Hadley Centre, and Brazilian National Institute for Space Studies, which suggests that our actions to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal might increase the risk of drought in the Amazon basin. This is because sulphate particles in the atmosphere have partially reduced global warming by reflecting some of the sunlight back to space, the study posits. This has acted as a boundary, primordially at the tropical North Atlantic, and thus kept those areas cooler and wetter. WIth the reduction of the sulphate emissions, the ocean temperatures would rise and move the clouds that keep the tropical North Atlantic at current levels of humidity, and so increase the risk of drought.

Dr Matthew Colins, a co-author of this study explains that the Amazon rainforest is facing many pressures like direct deforestation and climate change. Compounded, all these weaken the "self-resilience of the rainforest." To sum up, all these findings show the complexity of climate change. To improve air quality it is necessary to reduce atmospheric pollution, but as the lead author of the study, Prof. Peter Cox, states, this must be done through drastic cabon dioxide emissions to prevent further damages to the Amazon rainforest

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507133259.jpg

== Analysis ==
The results of the study display some important economic concepts regarding environmental policy. The first important concept at work here is the complexity of calculating abatement costs and damages across a single pollutant - it is not easy to measure the marginal abatement cost and damage for certain behaviours. In this instance, when policy was made to address sulphate emissions in the developed nations (mostly located around the northern hemisphere, such as Canada, the EU, etc.) a certain abatement cost and damage was calculated as efficient, probably per the equi-marginal principle of holding these two together. As sulphate aerosol particles emissions are abated, there is undoubtedly some decrease in pollution damage. It is evident, however, that either the data collected was insufficient, or this is just another case of a negative externality, as engaging in this particular behaviour - cleanup and emission reduction- has averse consequences for the Amazon basin. When the calibration is performed, we can see that damages are greater than what the theory/model predicted.

Some model employed might have yielded an optimal (or nearly optimal) level of emissions. Assuming that we are in that optimal level, marginal damages and marginal abatement costs are equal. However, when collecting data, we can clearly see that there were some unaccounted-for damages. That means that at the current level of emission output, the benefit from abatement is actually less than the one calculated- the area under the marginal damage cost curve is less than our predicted one. In the diagram below, the new marginal damages curve, MD2, yields a lower benefit under the new optimal level of emissions, and the reduction is equal to the area "a", between the two MD curves.

[[File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 12.07.34 AM.png]]

Another important aspect to keep in mind is the concept of fairness. Whilst in strict terms economics considers efficiency over equality, society does put a certain value - even to some extent, a monetary value - to equality. Abatement in the developed nations generates some net benefit for the planet, but the brunt costs are accrued by the populations that live near the Amazon rainforest, such as Peru, who historically has suffered greatly on account of draughts (see article 1.) Consumer surplus in these regions is actually diminished, as the damages and costs are greater by the reduction in sulphates at the atmospheric level. This seems counter-intuitive, but as a society we place value on fairness. It goes to show that policy for environmental protection is not a simple matter.

== Conclusion: ==
The research suggests the many folds and dimensions of environmental change across the globe. It allows us to infere how difficult it is to design a truly perfect and effective environmental policy, where the net gains outweigh the costs. Even with a seemingly optimal emission output, the costs are not equally distributed across the population, and might not accurately represent the real costs and damages.
It seems that, in order to truly see some results, the planet will have to undergo some drastic reduction in carbon dioxide, as an effective abatement method. Otherwise, most policies will be riddled with cases such as the one the study presents.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2

2010-10-07T07:34:51Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]]

== [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm '''Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air'''] ==

== Summary ==
This article poses the question: Is cleaner air always better? The article refers to a large study conducted in a joint effort by the University of Exeter, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Met Office Hadley Centre, and Brazilian National Institute for Space Studies, which suggests that our actions to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal might increase the risk of drought in the Amazon basin. This is because sulphate particles in the atmosphere have partially reduced global warming by reflecting some of the sunlight back to space, the study posits. This has acted as a boundary, primordially at the tropical North Atlantic, and thus kept those areas cooler and wetter. WIth the reduction of the sulphate emissions, the ocean temperatures would rise and move the clouds that keep the tropical North Atlantic at current levels of humidity, and so increase the risk of drought.

Dr Matthew Colins, a co-author of this study explains that the Amazon rainforest is facing many pressures like direct deforestation and climate change. Compounded, all these weaken the "self-resilience of the rainforest." To sum up, all these findings show the complexity of climate change. To improve air quality it is necessary to reduce atmospheric pollution, but as the lead author of the study, Prof. Peter Cox, states, this must be done through drastic cabon dioxide emissions to prevent further damages to the Amazon rainforest

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507133259.jpg

== Analysis ==
The results of the study display some important economic concepts regarding environmental policy. The first important concept at work here is the complexity of calculating abatement costs and damages across a single pollutant - it is not easy to measure the marginal abatement cost and damage for certain behaviours. In this instance, when policy was made to address sulphate emissions in the developed nations (mostly located around the northern hemisphere, such as Canada, the EU, etc.) a certain abatement cost and damage was calculated as efficient, probably per the equi-marginal principle of holding these two together. As sulphate aerosol particles emissions are abated, there is undoubtedly some decrease in pollution damage. It is evident, however, that either the data collected was insufficient, or this is just another case of a negative externality, as engaging in this particular behaviour - cleanup and emission reduction- has averse consequences for the Amazon basin. When the calibration is performed, we can see that damages are greater than what the theory/model predicted.

Some model employed might have yielded an optimal (or nearly optimal) level of emissions. Assuming that we are in that optimal level, marginal damages and marginal abatement costs are equal. However, when collecting data, we can clearly see that there were some unaccounted-for damages. That means that at the current level of emission output, the benefit from abatement is actually less than the one calculated- the area under the marginal damage cost curve is less than our predicted one. In the diagram below, the new marginal damages curve, MD2, yields a lower benefit under the new optimal level of emissions, and the reduction is equal to the area "a", between the two MD curves.

[[File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 12.07.34 AM.png]]

Another important aspect to keep in mind is the concept of fairness. Whilst in strict terms economics considers efficiency over equality, society does put a certain value - even to some extent, a monetary value - to equality. Abatement in the developed nations generates some net benefit for the planet, but the brunt costs are accrued by the populations that live near the Amazon rainforest, such as Peru, who historically has suffered greatly on account of draughts (see article 1.) Consumer surplus in these regions is actually diminished, as the damages and costs are greater by the reduction in sulphates at the atmospheric level. This seems counter-intuitive, but as a society we place value on fairness. It goes to show that policy for environmental protection is not a simple matter.

== Conclusion: ==
The research suggests the many folds and dimensions of environmental change across the globe. It allows us to infere how difficult it is to design a truly perfect and effective environmental policy, where the net gains outweigh the costs. Even with a seemingly optimal emission output, the costs are not equally distributed across the population, and might not accurately represent the real costs and damages.
It seems that, in order to truly see some results, the planet will have to undergo some drastic reduction in carbon dioxide, as an effective abatement method. Otherwise, most policies will be riddled with cases such as the one the study presents.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2

2010-10-07T07:12:36Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]]

== [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm '''Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air'''] ==

== Summary ==
This article poses the question: Is cleaner air always better? The article refers to a large study conducted in a joint effort by the University of Exeter, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Met Office Hadley Centre, and Brazilian National Institute for Space Studies, which suggests that our actions to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal might increase the risk of drought in the Amazon basin. This is because sulphate particles in the atmosphere have partially reduced global warming by reflecting some of the sunlight back to space, the study posits. This has acted as a boundary, primordially at the tropical North Atlantic, and thus kept those areas cooler and wetter. WIth the reduction of the sulphate emissions, the ocean temperatures would rise and move the clouds that keep the tropical North Atlantic at current levels of humidity, and so increase the risk of drought.

Dr Matthew Colins, a co-author of this study explains that the Amazon rainforest is facing many pressures like direct deforestation and climate change. Compounded, all these weaken the "self-resilience of the rainforest." To sum up, all these findings show the complexity of climate change. To improve air quality it is necessary to reduce atmospheric pollution, but as the lead author of the study, Prof. Peter Cox, states, this must be done through drastic cabon dioxide emissions to prevent further damages to the Amazon rainforest

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507133259.jpg

== Analysis ==
The results of the study display some important economic concepts regarding environmental policy. The first important concept at work here is the complexity of calculating abatement costs and damages across a single pollutant - it is not easy to measure the marginal abatement cost and damage for certain behaviours. In this instance, when policy was made to address sulphate emissions in the developed nations (mostly located around the northern hemisphere, such as Canada, the EU, etc.) a certain abatement cost and damage was calculated as efficient, probably per the equi-marginal principle of holding these two together. As sulphate aerosol particles emissions are abated, there is undoubtedly some decrease in pollution damage. It is evident, however, that either the data collected was insufficient, or this is just another case of a negative externality, as engaging in this particular behaviour - cleanup and emission reduction- has averse consequences for the Amazon basin.

Some model employed might have yielded an optimal (or nearly optimal) level of emissions. Assuming that we are in that optimal level, marginal damages and marginal abatement costs are equal. However, when collecting data, we can clearly see that there were some unaccounted-for damages. That means that at the current level of emission output, the benefit from abatement is actually less than the one calculated- the area under the marginal damage cost curve is less than our predicted one.

[[File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 12.07.34 AM.png]]

However, this action increases the risk of having more severe drought in the amazon basin.Therefore, the maginal damage is bigger than what we measured in the past. This shifts up the MD curve. On the other hand, if we want to reduce emission accompany by not harming the rainforest, we need to reduce the carbon dioxide emission at the same time. This would shift up the MAC curve. This will lead to an increase in cost and decrease in the quantity of emission being cleaned up in the efficient point. The net benefit is bigger as well.

Another point to bring forward is North America is putting effort on reducing sulphur emission and people in North America would benefit most from that. But this is causing drought in South America that need to pay by local people. Considering about fairness, people in South America may have a lower willingness to pay for reducing sulphur emission.

As a result of drought, the supply curve would shift to the left resulting in higher price and less quantity of goods supply. The consumer surplus and producer surplus shrink together.

----

== Conclusion: ==

This research shows that depending on different circumstance, lower emission deoen't promise to be better for our whole society. Climate change is a complex global issue that need lots of cooperation across nations.

File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 12.07.34 AM.png

2010-10-07T07:11:19Z

JaimeCuberos:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 2

2010-10-07T04:00:55Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]]

== http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm '''Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air''' ==

----

== Summary ==
Is cleaner air always better? This article gives people a different perspective. Our action on reducing sulphur dioxide from burning coal has increased the risk of drought in amazon basin.

Amazon rainforest is so important in our ecosystem that any deforestation or drought would lead to a big impact on the global climate system.

By using the climate-cabon model, researchers simulate the impact of climate change on amazon. The result shows that a big scale of drought would happen every other year by 2025, and by 2060 it would happen almost every year.

Dr Matthew Colins from this study explains that amazon rainforest is facing many pressure like the direct deforestation and climate change, all these would weaken the self-resilience of the rainforest.

Another shocking finding is that sulphate aerosol particles emission from coal burning have trapped more humidity in amazon in the past 30 years. By reducing sulphur emission, rain band will move northward and therefore increasing the risk of drought in amazon.

To sum up, all these findings show complexity of climate change. To improve social well-being, cabon dioxide emission should be reduced at the same time.

----

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5

2010-09-30T07:29:27Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to
*[[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/ Group Pages ]]
== Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest ==
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg
----
*[[Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought]]
*[[Article 2]]
*[[Article 3]]
*[[Article 4]]
*[[Article 5]]
*[[Article 6]]
*[[Article 7]]
*[[Article 8]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought

2010-09-30T07:26:44Z

JaimeCuberos:

Back to:
* [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page]

== [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6825EU20100903 '''Amazon May Be Headed for Another Bad Drought''']==

== Summary ==
Peru's Amazon River has lowered to record-breaking levels, after a pronounced dry spell. The drought has damaged other areas of the Amazon rainforest, as the humidity is sucked from the rainforest to the Atlantic.
The head of Peru's meteorological service, Marco Paredes, believes it is due to the formation of hurricanes- ones that promise to be particularly nasty- which drain the humidity off the Amazon area of Peru.

He states that there is an "inverse relationship" between the formation of Hurricanes and rain. When there are hurricanes, there is less rain, according to his formula. Paredes expects the water level to drop 20 to 30 centimetres two weeks from early September.
Roberto Falcón of Peru's Civil Defence Agency says that people are rather worried. The situation is bound to repeat and possibly worsen, as scientists al-ready say that intense hurricane formation will become more frequent due to climate change.

Aside from deterioration of the rainforest, communication canals are severed, as the river dries up and cannot bear any craft past certain areas.
If precedent is to be believed, the intensity of the drought will be marked by the intensity of the hurricane, as the harsh drought of 2005 was borne from the formation of the storms which lead to hurricane Katrina.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/amazon_drought_z.jpg
(Photo: Reuters)
== Analysis ==
This is a paragon of an event riddled with negative externalities. For starters, communications between little settlements scattered along the Amazon River in Peru have been shut down, or at least made more difficult with the water nearly gone in wide stretches. This has adverse effects for both consumers and producers, who did not directly cause the damage. At a micro-level, the supply of products like fish (who have certainly perished) and other goods that might have been traded in those markets will necessarily decrease, as the prices of production rise and capital decreases for each individual producer.

On a wider scale, the environmental impact is a huge negative externality- one that is not easily measured. On one hand, there is the loss of trees and nutrients, associated with the destruction of a riparian system; furthermore, the draught will destroy a portion of a unique habitat that is renowned for containing 1 out of 5 species in this Earth. The biodiversity loss is a damage not easily measured but nonetheless intuitively grave.

Another important factor is the apparent positive feedback loop that the draught has created. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claims that several storms have been identified, and some hurricanes have started to form or are suspect of forming in the near future, as detailed in the article. This means that the draught will persist, as rainfall is not bound to happen in a few more weeks. The positive feedback loop has the effect of a multiplier, further shifting the supply curve of each individual producer to the left, and increasing costs for every industry dependent on the riparian system of the Amazon in the area.

One last noteworthy point to bring forth is the abatement cost involved with the draught. As the rainfall is delayed further and the rivers dry more and more, the cost of abatement increases: cracked and dry river basins, dead fish scattered across the river, boats not being used and deteriorating, etc. compound into one big cleanup and repair bill. More importantly, the price of abatement on a larger scale would involve decreasing pollution emissions and cleaning up the atmosphere, and at this point would likely be astronomical.

== Conclusion ==
The draught has brought about several negative externalities which include, but are not limited to, increases in production prices, hindrances in communication, reduction of capital, destruction of the system, loss of biodiversity, among others. The associated cost of cleanup and abatement is difficult to measure, but likely be very big and multiplying as periods advance. The crafting of policy to address the issue is bound to be tricky, as the costs are not easily identified, and would require not only the co-operation of those immediately involved but of polluters world-wide. There are existing policies in place, such as the Kyoto Protocol which seek to reduce emissions. However, it is clear that this is not enough to avert the negative externalities.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5/Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought

2010-09-30T05:55:41Z

JaimeCuberos: Created page with 'Back to: * [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5 Group 5 Main Page] == [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6825EU20100903 '''Amazon May Be Headed for Another …'

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5

2010-09-30T05:54:02Z

JaimeCuberos:

== Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest ==
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg
----
*[[Article 1: Amazon May Be Headed For Another Bad Drought]]
*[[Article 2]]
*[[Article 3]]
*[[Article 4]]
*[[Article 5]]
*[[Article 6]]
*[[Article 7]]
*[[Article 8]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/

2010-09-30T04:44:56Z

JaimeCuberos:

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/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP1|Oil Spills]]
* Group 2: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP2|The Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Extraction]]
* Group 3: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP3|Offshore Oil Drilling in North America]]
* Group 4: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP4|Vehicle Emissions]]
* Group 5: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5|The Environmental Impacts of Climate Change in Amazon Rainforest]]
* Group 6: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP6|Air Pollution in China]]
* Group 7: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP7|Alternative Fuel Vehicles]]
* Group 8: [[Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8|Renewable Energy]]

===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/UBCO2009WT1/|Course:ECON371/UBCO2009WT1/]]

===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/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP5

2010-09-30T04:32:44Z

JaimeCuberos: Created page with ' == Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest == http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg ---- *Article 1: Amazon may be headed for another bad drought *[[Art…'

== Group 5: Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest ==
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/rainforest.jpg
----
*[[Article 1: Amazon may be headed for another bad drought]]
*[[Article 2]]
*[[Article 3]]
*[[Article 4]]
*[[Article 5]]
*[[Article 6]]
*[[Article 7]]
*[[Article 8]]