Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for money

money

Paying To Combat Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening, that human activities are largely responsible, and are actually willing to put up their own money to help fight it.   Unfortunately, these views diverge sharply along party lines and, as in many other areas these days, the will of the overall majority has little influence on policy.

According to Yale University research, 73% of adults think that global warming in happening and 57% think it is mostly caused by human activities.  Furthermore, only 32% believe it is due to natural forces.

A survey conducted in the U.S. in August found that more than two-thirds of Americans – actually 70% – indicated willingness to donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change.

Breaking that down further, 28% were willing to provide less than 1% of their income, 33% were willing to contribute 1-5% of their income, 6% said they would give 6-10% of their income, and 3% said they would contribute more than 10% of their income.  On the other hand, roughly 30% indicated that they were unwilling to contribute.

The survey also looked at opinions on how the fight against climate change should be paid for.  The majority (59%) chose government incentives for both businesses and consumers.   Three other options each favored by over 40% of those surveyed were taxes, conservation programs, and business investments. 

Another finding of the survey was that 44% are dissatisfied with the job that the federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, 35% are somewhat satisfied, and only 21% are very or completely satisfied with the government’s role.

**********

Web Links

Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2020

Two-thirds of Americans are willing to donate part of their income to fight climate change

Photo, posted April 29, 2017, courtesy of majunznk via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

An Incentive For Carbon Capture | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Convincing industries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions has not been easy.  Many approaches have been debated, including carbon taxes, carbon tax-and-trade schemes, and passing a giant Green New Deal.  Most economists agree that putting a price on carbon is likely to be the most effective approach.

But there is already in place an adjustment to the US tax code that is more of a carrot than a stick.  It is a tax credit that is designed to make capturing CO2 a financial winner for a number of high-emitting industries.  The credit, called 45Q, was enacted in February 2018.

The 45Q credit earns industrial manufacturers $50 per metric ton of CO2 stored permanently or $35 per ton if the CO2 is put to use.  An earlier credit for capturing carbon dioxide was limited to only $20 per metric ton and was capped at 75 million tons.  Some large fossil fuel companies did make use of the earlier credit.

The new version does not have a cap, but to qualify, companies need to start constructing carbon-capture facilities within 7 years and have 12 years to claim their money.

Companies with emission-intensive operations are busy figuring out how to take advantage of the credit.  These include cement makers, steel and power plants, corn ethanol producers, and ammonia plants.

Because the credit mandates that companies start constructing their carbon-capture facilities within seven years, most companies will tend to rely on mature technologies.  But the tax credit should also drive demand for next-generation carbon-capture technologies, of which there are many under development.  Saving lots of money on taxes is likely to lure US companies to capture carbon dioxide.

**********

Web Links

45Q, the tax credit that’s luring US companies to capture CO2

Photo, posted October 2, 2014, courtesy of Sask Power via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Out-Migration And Reforestation

By Leave a Comment

A challenging global trend is that of deforestation in developing countries.  But there are places where the opposite trend is happening.  Nepal is one such place.

According to satellite imaging, in 1992 forest covered 26% of Nepal.  As of 2016, that number was 45%. 

To some extent, the forest regrowth was a result of policy changes from about three decades ago, when the government began removing management authority from bureaucrats and shifting it to local communities across the country.  This local management helped to reduce illegal logging and many local villages undertook tree-planting campaigns.

But perhaps a bigger factor at play is human migration.  In recent decades, millions of Nepalis have left the country to work in the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere.  The out-migrants wire money home and meanwhile, families left behind rely less on forest products or abandon farmland, aiding reforestation.  A 2018 study showed that the areas with the highest out-migration experience, on average, had the most forest recovery.

Globally, migration has important impacts on forests, but not always positive ones.  In many countries, forests seem to recover as people leave rural areas to work elsewhere.  El Salvador, for example, has seen a rebound of its forests as many of its rural residents move to cities or even to the United States. But in Guatemala and Nicaragua, the return of migrants bringing money they have earned overseas has led to an expansion of cattle ranching that has harmed forests.

The global relationship between migration and forests is a complicated one that depends on whether the migration is one-way or “circular” (meaning that the migrants eventually return) and how returning migrants make use of their earnings from abroad.

**********

Web Links

In Nepal, Out-Migration Is Helping Fuel a Forest Resurgence

Photo, posted September 30, 2018, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Which Cities To Save From The Changing Climate

By Leave a Comment

After several years of brutal flooding and hurricanes in the U.S., a distressing debate is emerging:  if there is not enough money available to protect every coastal community from the effects of global warming, how do we decide which ones to save first.

Recent research looked at the costs involved in providing basic storm-surge protection in the form of sea walls for all coastal cities with more than 25,000 residents.  That number was $42 billion.  Expanding the list to include communities smaller than 25,000 people would increase that cost to more than $400 billion.   Realistically, that is just not going to happen.

This particular study only looked at sea walls and no other methods for minimizing flood risk, such as moving homes and businesses away from the most flood-prone areas.   It also didn’t look at additional and costlier actions that will be required even with sea walls, such as revamping sewers, storm water, and drinking water infrastructure.

The facts are that many cities, especially small ones, will not be able to meet the costs facing them.  Those that can’t will depend on federal funding.  But even optimistically large proposals for federal infrastructure spending are likely to fall far short of the vast need.  Ultimately, the money will end up being spent where it can do the most good – even if it means that some places are left out.

But what criteria will be used to direct the money?  Economic value?  Historic significance?  Population?  Political influence?

This is a looming and massive issue whose chief obstacle may be that many officials refuse to acknowledge that it is happening.  This is the next wave of climate denial – denying the costs that we are all facing.

**********

Web Links

With More Storms and Rising Seas, Which U.S. Cities Should Be Saved First?

Photo, posted October 31, 2018, courtesy of Patrick Kinney via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A Powerful Case For Protecting Whales

By Leave a Comment

Efforts to mitigate climate change typically face two major challenges.  One is to find effective ways to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  The other is how to raise enough money to implement climate mitigation strategies. 

Many proposed solutions to climate change, like carbon capture and storage, are complex, expensive, and in some cases, untested.  What if there was a low-tech solution that was effective and economical?

Well, it turns out there is one, and it comes from a surprisingly simple, “no-tech” strategy to capture CO2: increase global whale populations. 

According to a recent analysis by economists with the International Monetary Fund, whales help fight climate change by sequestering CO2 in the ocean. 

Whales sequester carbon in a few ways.  They hoard it in their fat and protein-rich bodies, stockpiling tons of carbon apiece.  When whales die, they turn into literal carbon sinks on the ocean floor.  While alive, whales dive to feed on tiny marine organisms like krill and plankton before surfacing to breathe and excrete. Those latter activities release an enormous plume of nutrients, including nitrogen, iron, and phosphorous, into the water.  These so-called “poo-namis” stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, microscopic marine algae that pull CO2 out of the air and return oxygen to the air via photosynthesis.  Phytoplankton are responsible for every other breath we take, contributing at least 50% of all oxygen to the atmosphere and capturing approximately 40% of all CO2 produced. 

With other economic benefits like ecotourism factored in, economists estimate that each whale is worth $2 million over its lifetime, making the entire global population possibly a one trillion dollar asset to humanity.

*********

Web Links

How much is a whale worth?

Photo, posted June 12, 2013, courtesy of Gregory Smith via Flickr.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Wildlife And The Border Wall

By Leave a Comment

The border between the United States and Mexico is nearly 2,000 miles long, stretching from San Ysidro, California to Brownsville, Texas.  Discontinuous barriers currently cover approximately 650 miles of our southern border. As the particulars of how to better secure the remaining 1,350 miles of border are worked out, one thing is abundantly clear: extending physical barriers would negatively impact wildlife and the environment.

The Trump Administration has called for a 1,000-mile wall, which would cut across land that includes important habitats for wildlife.  According to an article signed by nearly 3,000 scientists, this plan would “threaten some of the continent’s most biologically diverse regions” by inhibiting species movement and triggering flooding. The paper, which was published in the journal Bioscience, highlights how more than 1,500 native animal and plant species would be affected by the wall, including 62 that are listed as endangered or vulnerable.

An extended border wall would not only impede movement of many wildlife species but it would also put pressure on creatures already in peril, such as the Mexican gray wolf and the Sonoran pronghorn.  Other at risk animals include the ocelot, black bear, and desert bighorn sheep. 

According to researchers, extending the border wall could cause problems for low-flying birds and insects. Even plants, including the endangered wildflower Zapata bladderpod and the threatened whiskerbush cactus, are particularly at risk.

According to a 2011 study, bird-watching and other forms of ecotourism in the Lower Rio Grande Valley brought in more than $344 million in economic activity and approximately 4,400 jobs. 

Preserving our natural heritage must be part of this national security discussion. 

**********

Web Links

Nature Divided, Scientists United: US–Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and Binational Conservation

Photo, posted December 14, 2014, courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saved By The Trees

By Leave a Comment

The island of Kokota, part of the Zanzibar Archipelago off the coast of Tanzania, is tiny – only one square kilometer and home to just 500 people.  For centuries, its residents subsisted by harvesting the islet’s natural resources, including its trees.

By the early 21st century, the deforestation had become unsustainable and the islanders faced a crisis.  Fisheries were depleted, and rivers ran dry.  The changing climate brought rising sea levels, more erratic rainfall, and coral bleaching in the surrounding waters.  The situation looked hopeless.

But in recent years, the island has come back from the brink of ruin.  Reforestation efforts began in 2008 on the larger island of Pemba and on Kokota itself, led by a Pemba local and a Canadian tree planter who formed the non-profit Community Forests International.  Since then, nearly 2 million trees have been planted on the two islands.  Enthusiastic volunteers on Kokota usually help plant trees during the rainy season, when water is plentiful.

Community Forests International, along with spearheading the tree planting effort, also built Kokota’s first school, and installed rainwater storage tanks for the community.

The conservation group is now devising ways for Kokota to make more money by diversifying its agriculture with crops that grow well in its climate including spices like cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg.  They are also helping locals to grow more and different vegetables in their gardens.

Small, poor communities are often the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as drought, powerful storms, and depleted fisheries.  Tiny Kokota provides an example of an environmental comeback.  Fighting climate change requires economic solutions along with environmental solutions.  For this one tiny island, it  appears to have been saved by the trees.

**********

Web Links

This island was on the brink of disaster. Then, they planted thousands of trees.

Photo, posted July 18, 2015, courtesy of Marco Zanferrari via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

New Year’s Resolutions

By 1 Comment

2018 is just around the corner.  Popular resolutions for the New Year always seem to include things like improving health, traveling more, spending less money, and so on.  But one resolution that isn’t as popular but could collectively have a major impact is committing to living a cleaner and greener life. 

[Read more…] about New Year’s Resolutions

Are Electric Cars Worth The Price?

By

Pretty much every discussion of electric cars, plug-in hybrids and ordinary hybrids starts and ends up with the question of whether they are worth the money.  If the reason for buying such a vehicle is strictly economic, then this is the right question to ask.  But the naysayers who say such a purchase is foolish may be barking up the wrong tree.

[Read more…] about Are Electric Cars Worth The Price?

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)