https://wiki.ubc.ca/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=SamHowe&feedformat=atomUBC Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T12:00:28ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Article_8_:_Rena_spill:_%27Tomorrow_much_worse%27&diff=123235Article 8 : Rena spill: 'Tomorrow much worse'2011-11-23T01:25:15Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>=== [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10758195 Rena spill: 'Tomorrow much worse'] ===<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Oil.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Oil Spills are huge environmental disasters no matter how little or large the spill may be. New Zealand has just been burdened with a massive oil spill, by a ship of the name Rena, off the coast of Tauranga after it grounded on the Astrolabe Reef. People around the area have been coming together and registering with the authorities to help volunteer for what will be an ongoing effort to clean the beaches. The tanker has been said to have leaked out 130 to 350 tonnes of oil from its main hull, making this spill New Zealand’s worst environmental disaster ever. <br />
<br />
There will be many costs involved in this incident such as the clean up and the impact it has had on the biodiversity in the ocean. The owners of the tanker will cover the majority of the costs from the spill, but the Government will also have to pay their part and especially in the long run. The oil spill has not only damaged the wildlife in the ocean it is also effecting humans physically with rashes and sickness due to the fumes of the oil. We must find and regulate better ways to transport our oil so disasters like this one can be prevented. Our ecosystem is much to fragile to allow mistakes like this happen.<br />
<br />
== Analysis ==<br />
<br />
== Prof's comment ==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_7_:_Great_Plains_river_basins_threatened_by_Pumping_of_Aquafiers&diff=123171Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 7 : Great Plains river basins threatened by Pumping of Aquafiers2011-11-22T19:37:37Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118151416.htm<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
[[File:pond.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The Great Plains river basin is home to many animals and plants that create a large portion of the biodiversity in the area. Unfortunately, this once sustainable habitat is being depleted by aquifers, which are sucking the rivers in the area dry. Once the water has been taken out there is no replacing it as melting glaciers created the streams and since there is a lack of precipitation it is not an infinite resource.<br />
<br />
These rivers are loosing their refuge pool habitats at a rapid rate, creating the wildlife in them to dry up. A scientist of the name Falke has discovered that in the next 35 years roughly 50 to 60 percent of the refuge pools in the Arikaree River will disappear and many other rivers are much similar. The aquifers must reduce there pumping by so much in order to stop the destruction of the rivers that it is not economically possibly to reach. This is due to a rise in the demand for goods such as wheat, which the aquifers are being used almost entirely for such agricultural purposes. We must find a way to sustain these valuable rivers before it is to late.<br />
<br />
==Analysis== <br />
<br />
==Profs Comments==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_7_:_Great_Plains_river_basins_threatened_by_Pumping_of_Aquafiers&diff=123170Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 7 : Great Plains river basins threatened by Pumping of Aquafiers2011-11-22T19:37:03Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118151416.htm<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
[[File:pond.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The Great Plains river basin is home to many animals and plants that create a large portion of the biodiversity in the area. Unfortunately, this once sustainable habitat is being depleted by aquifers, which are sucking the rivers in the area dry. Once the water has been taken out there is no replacing it as melting glaciers created the streams and since there is a lack of precipitation it is not an infinite resource.<br />
<br />
These rivers are loosing their refuge pool habitats at a rapid rate, creating the wildlife in them to dry up. A scientist of the name Falke has discovered that in the next 35 years roughly 50 to 60 percent of the refuge pools in the Arikaree River will disappear and many other rivers are much similar. The aquifers must reduce there pumping by so much in order to stop the destruction of the rivers that it is not economically possibly to reach. This is due to a rise in the demand for goods such as wheat, which the aquifers are being used almost entirely for such agricultural purposes. We must find a way to sustain these valuable rivers before it is to late.<br />
<br />
==Analysis== <br />
<br />
==Profs Comments==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_6_:_Birds_%26_The_Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch&diff=122527Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch2011-11-16T18:59:48Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43504<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
[[File:birdie.jpg]]<br />
<br />
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, and is growing at a rapid rate, polluting the ecosystem with harmful trash. The debris are causing a huge problem for birds, making them die rapidly because they mistake the garbage for food and choke, become poisoned, or have a fatal blockage from consuming these plastics. The birds have been seen and photographed with their stomachs full of waste such as plastic bags, bottles and other types of human produced 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.<br />
<br />
==Analysis==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_6_:_Birds_%26_The_Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch&diff=121931Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch2011-11-10T22:32:32Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43504<br />
<br />
==Summary==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_6_:_Birds_%26_The_Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch&diff=121929Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch2011-11-10T22:31:04Z<p>SamHowe: Created page with "http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43504 --Summary--"</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43504<br />
<br />
--Summary--</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=121928Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-11-10T22:30:33Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 6 : Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch]]</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=121927Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-11-10T22:29:51Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 4 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 5 : Polar Bears Die as Ice Caps Melt]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 6: Birds & The Great Pacific Garbage Patch]]</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:_Bringing_The_Gulf_Back_to_Life&diff=120154Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life2011-10-28T18:02:42Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29944&section=37&topic=23<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Analysis==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:_Bringing_The_Gulf_Back_to_Life&diff=120143Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life2011-10-28T17:29:49Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29944&section=37&topic=23<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:_Bringing_The_Gulf_Back_to_Life&diff=120142Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life2011-10-28T17:28:29Z<p>SamHowe: Created page with "==Summary== ==Analysis=="</p>
<hr />
<div>==Summary==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=120141Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-10-28T17:26:40Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 :The effects of Soya ]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=120140Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-10-28T17:25:12Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 : The effects of Soya ]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 3 : Bringing The Gulf Back to Life]]</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:The_effects_of_Soya&diff=119212Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya2011-10-22T17:20:43Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:The_effects_of_Soya&diff=119211Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya2011-10-22T17:18:26Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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.</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:The_effects_of_Soya&diff=119210Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya2011-10-22T17:17:46Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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 as of 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.</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_3_:The_effects_of_Soya&diff=119209Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 3 :The effects of Soya2011-10-22T17:17:07Z<p>SamHowe: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29854&section=34&topic=23<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
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 as of 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.</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_2_:_The_Great_Lakes&diff=118675Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes2011-10-19T19:02:51Z<p>SamHowe: /* Analysis */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-greatlakes-idUSTRE7937CY20111004<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
[[File:Econ 371.jpg]]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Analysis==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
It is also being discussed that the farmers should leave a larger buffer zone from their farms to waterways. A way the government could enforce this new rule is by taxing the farmers who are based closer to the waterways more heavily then the farmers who have buffered them self’s farther away from the waterways. This may seem unfair to the farmers who are being taxed more then their competition just because of where they decided to build their farm. Individual standards would be much more appealing then uniform standards in this case for the firms who did leave a buffer zone between their farm and the waterways.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Great lakes are being destroyed by runoffs from farmers that are based along the waterways to the lakes. The cause of the algae blooms is said to be the phosphorous from the fertilizer the farmers use, creating runoffs of this unwanted chemical into the lakes. It is very difficult to tax the farmers for the destruction of the lakes because this is a nonpoint source pollutant, making the phosphorous hard to measure. It is possible though to go beyond trying to tax the farmers and instead go directly to the source, the fertilizer. The government could tax the fertilizer, creating the price of fertilizer to rise. The farmers would then purchase less of this product and try and find a more environmentally friendly substitute. Also, it would give the farmers a reason to use the fertilizer more carefully and try to create less waste when using this product.<br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
<br />
The cost for cleaning up the lake has an estimate of 7 billion dollars. However, that only captures a portion of the cost. For each day this algae is not cleared up, the opportunity cost will increase because eventually, this lake will have to be either removed or restored.<br />
In addition, the lake is somewhat a public good but now this lake generates little benefits since it is polluted. The polluted lake will also generate externalities that will affect many 3rd party users; such as people living near the lake.<br />
Thus, it is logical to enforce a blockade for the water runoff from the argriculture farmlands. And since, the runoffs are easily located, it would temporarily decrease the aglae from growing. Therefore, the cost to enforce the blockade first, is generally cheaper and unlike the clean up cost, affordable.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
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. <br />
<br />
==Profs Comments==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_2_:_The_Great_Lakes&diff=117014Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes2011-10-13T18:43:31Z<p>SamHowe: /* Analysis */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-greatlakes-idUSTRE7937CY20111004<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Analysis==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
It is also being discussed that the farmers should leave a larger buffer zone from their farms to waterways. A way the government could enforce this new rule is by taxing the farmers who are based closer to the waterways more heavily then the farmers who have buffered them self’s farther away from the waterways. This may seem unfair to the farmers who are being taxed more then their competition just because of where they decided to build their farm. Individual standards would be much more appealing then uniform standards in this case for the firms who did leave a buffer zone between their farm and the waterways.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Great lakes are being destroyed by runoffs from farmers that are based along the waterways to the lakes. The cause of the algae blooms is said to be the phosphorous from the fertilizer the farmer use, creating runoffs of this unwanted chemical into the lakes. It is very difficult to tax the farmers for the destruction of the lakes because this is a nonpoint source pollutant, making the phosphorous hard to measure. It is possible though to go beyond trying to tax the farmers and instead go directly to the source, the fertilizer. The government could tax the fertilizer, creating the price of fertilizer to rise. The farmers would then purchase less of this product and try and find a more environmentally friendly substitute. Also, it would give the farmers a reason to use the fertilizer more carefully and try to create less waste when using this product.<br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
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. <br />
<br />
==Profs Comments==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_2_:_The_Great_Lakes&diff=117010Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes2011-10-13T18:26:46Z<p>SamHowe: /* Analysis */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-greatlakes-idUSTRE7937CY20111004<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Analysis==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The Great lakes are being destroyed by runoffs from farmers that are based along the waterways to the lakes. The cause of the algae blooms is said to be the phosphorous from the fertilizer the farmer use, creating runoffs of this unwanted chemical into the lakes. It is very difficult to tax the farmers for the destruction of the lakes because this is a nonpoint source pollutant, making the phosphorous hard to measure. It is possible though to go beyond trying to tax the farmers and instead go directly to the source, the fertilizer. The government could tax the fertilizer, creating the price of fertilizer to rise. The farmers would then purchase less of this product and try and find a more environmentally friendly substitute. Also, it would give the farmers a reason to use the fertilizer more carefully and try to create less waste when using this product.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
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. <br />
<br />
==Profs Comments==</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article_2_:_The_Great_Lakes&diff=116585Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2/Article 2 : The Great Lakes2011-10-11T16:21:57Z<p>SamHowe: Created page with "http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354"</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/43354</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=116584Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-10-11T16:21:38Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
[[Article 2 : The Great Lakes]]</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=116583Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-10-11T16:21:06Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
<br />
Article 2 : The Great Lakes</div>SamHowehttps://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP2&diff=116582Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP22011-10-11T16:20:02Z<p>SamHowe: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Article 1 : The extinction of coral reefs]]<br />
[[Article 2]]</div>SamHowe