http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8792052
Recently the World Bank has released a “Gender Action Plain” in order to mobilize women economically with the assumption that women promote growth in the economy. By oppressing and discriminating against women, nations’ are limiting their human resources to only half the population, which is simply “bad economics”. According to the article, women are more fiscally responsible and fair. When men are in charge of the finances, they are more likely to distribute the money unequally between male and female children and not properly supporting the females. They are also more likely to spend a greater amount of the money on tobacco or alcohol than women are. It’s a commonly known fact that when it comes to decision making, women are always more thoughtful and rational than men. Liberating women is not only good for humanity and the environment but also the economy.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Food vs. Fuel
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/04/26743.aspx
This article explains how increasing ethanol production through corn can be misleading as the answer to America's emissions crisis. The Bush Administration’s “Advanced Energy Initiative” puts millions of dollars into the market to boost production of ethanol. Because the majority of ethanol is produced from corn, demand for corn increases and consequently the price increases. This creates a major problem for consumers buying corn for food rather than fuel. In the U.S., there are usually about 20 million people requiring food stamps each month because their income doesn't cover their food expenses. The demand for corn by ethanol distilleries is projected to increase from 53 million tons to anywhere between 60 and 140 million tons. There is a limited amount of agricultural land and by pushing these limits the farmers are severely harming the environment, which was the original motivation for turning to increased ethanol production. There is also the fact that the energy that goes into producing the ethanol is greater than the energy it yields. Overall, ethanol from corn is not an economical solution to the CO2 emissions from automobiles.
This article explains how increasing ethanol production through corn can be misleading as the answer to America's emissions crisis. The Bush Administration’s “Advanced Energy Initiative” puts millions of dollars into the market to boost production of ethanol. Because the majority of ethanol is produced from corn, demand for corn increases and consequently the price increases. This creates a major problem for consumers buying corn for food rather than fuel. In the U.S., there are usually about 20 million people requiring food stamps each month because their income doesn't cover their food expenses. The demand for corn by ethanol distilleries is projected to increase from 53 million tons to anywhere between 60 and 140 million tons. There is a limited amount of agricultural land and by pushing these limits the farmers are severely harming the environment, which was the original motivation for turning to increased ethanol production. There is also the fact that the energy that goes into producing the ethanol is greater than the energy it yields. Overall, ethanol from corn is not an economical solution to the CO2 emissions from automobiles.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Environmental Economics
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16959623/site/newsweek/
This article explains the incentives for developed countries to reduce their own emissions as well as contribute to establishing sustainable processes in developing countries. Developing countries have the strongest incentive to protect their environment because they are going to be hit the hardest economically by global warming. This is why countries like Brazil and China are setting up a “leapfrog economy”. They are skipping over the decades of high-carbon industrialization and moving straight to modern, low-carbon technologies (ethanol, wind/solar power). The Kyoto Protocol in the European Union gives an incentive in carbon trading for developed countries to fund emission-reduction projects around the world. The emission-reduction commitments taken on by developed countries are being invested in the developing world, which has created a very large international market in carbon finance. The market is projected to be up to $40 billion annually by the end of the decade and could reasonably reach $100 billion annually. This money could be invested in the expensive up-front costs of low-carbon technologies for developing countries, which will end up being beneficial for both their economy and the environment.
This article explains the incentives for developed countries to reduce their own emissions as well as contribute to establishing sustainable processes in developing countries. Developing countries have the strongest incentive to protect their environment because they are going to be hit the hardest economically by global warming. This is why countries like Brazil and China are setting up a “leapfrog economy”. They are skipping over the decades of high-carbon industrialization and moving straight to modern, low-carbon technologies (ethanol, wind/solar power). The Kyoto Protocol in the European Union gives an incentive in carbon trading for developed countries to fund emission-reduction projects around the world. The emission-reduction commitments taken on by developed countries are being invested in the developing world, which has created a very large international market in carbon finance. The market is projected to be up to $40 billion annually by the end of the decade and could reasonably reach $100 billion annually. This money could be invested in the expensive up-front costs of low-carbon technologies for developing countries, which will end up being beneficial for both their economy and the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)