TREEconomist

Great news! The TREEconomist.com site software has been upgraded which will allow for remote, and hopefully more frequent posts. Additionally, look out for more community-oriented features which foster social networking and group discussion (think Facebook or MySpace).

Thanks for reading and stay tuned for more to come!

Cheers,
James Britton

As gasoline prices have hit an ugly milestone average of $4 per gallon in the US, consumers are really starting to feel the pinch, especially in rural areas such as Mississippi where some are spending as much as 13% of their income on fuel. Some employers there have switched to 4 day work weeks to ease the pain from the pump, while some workers have found that it makes more sense quit and stay closer to home. Has the price finally reached a level that is changing behavior?

Charles Krauthammer believes $4 is the magic number where ‘everybody gets rational.’ He has proposed a tax in the past to establish a price floor at that level. If you don’t think it makes sense, consider that driving behavior patterns have shifted as a result of the increased prices, then think again. The government’s opportunity cost of not taxing gasoline, is all that additional revenue piling up at the Exxons and Shells of the world. If a tax was placed on fuel that is high enough to reduce demand (the price floor) then governments could capture that revenue to be ‘recycled back into lower payroll taxes.’

There’s just one glaring problem, TAX. It’s a ‘four-letter’ expletive, especially in a presidential election year, not to mention the high price of oil. Sound economic advice though it may be, a reality it will not. Increased taxes could be used to repair, improve, and expand the US public transit infrastructure, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase productivity with decreased traffic, among other benefits.

Unfortunately for the likes of rural Mississippians, the trickle down effect of improved transit will be just a drip. They’ve got to eat, too. Increasing the gasoline tax could be political suicide, but sometimes the ugly truth must be swallowed.

I was browsing one of my regular news sites, NPR.org and saw an ad for Fiji Water’s fijigreen.com. Huh? Ok, here we go again, more corporate green washing…

Bottled water is one of the cleverest and most successful beverage marketing schemes ever conceived. Something that flows clean and and nearly free from the tap, (in some places of the world anyway, but that’s another issue) has been hyped, packaged and sold as a healthy and exotic refreshment. The trend has been around for several years now with brands such as Evian and Perrier sold in Europe and many smaller companies in the US joining in with spring and mineral waters. Then the expansions: European brands were exported to the US and not to be outdone, Pepsico and Coca-Cola joined with massive efforts of their own with their Aquafina and Dasani brands respectively. But is this water better for you than municipally treated tap water? No, according to the San Francisco Chronicle’s ‘real cost of bottled water’. The US EPA has higher standards for tap water than bottled.

As with many exotic or luxury goods there is a preference simply because they are more expensive, referred to in economics as Veblen goods. Think of expensive cars or designer purses. These goods are in higher demand because they are perceived to be out of reach to many and therefore better and more desirable. Once again, are bottled waters better? Coca-Cola has admitted that its Dasani water is merely municipal tap water.

Fiji has now taken on the task of spin control with it’s latest efforts at fijigreen.com. There is a blog, which surprisingly allows comments both negative and positive, and a section about their promise and progress for the environment. In this section, Fiji has pledged to reduce their carbon footprint, sponsor rainforest conservation efforts on that island, and promote recycling of plastic water bottles. This is very noble of them, but when it comes down to it, their water still travels halfway around the world to your local supermarket or corner shop at a highly profitable price point. A fellow blogger has crunched some numbers to calculate the resource inputs and costs of Fiji water specifically. Presumably due to articles such as this, the aforementioned SFGate article, and others, Fiji has decided to take the the defense witness stand to tout their ‘progress’ with the environment. This is another classic case of green washing, becoming more prevalent from corporate PR departments to satiate consumers’ concerns for greener living.

American’s throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles in the bin per hour, that’s more than 2 billion per year in the US alone. This is one small category of plastic container that is used by the consumer for about an hour then tossed in a landfill to last 700 years or more. (source: Clean Air Council)

Bottled water is expensive, irresponsible, and wasteful. What happened to those municipal deposit programs for glass soda bottles I remember so well as a child? We’d load up the Coke and Pepsi bottles for our next trip to the grocery store to receive $.05-$.10 per bottle. Ireland has a plastic bag tax of €.22 for grocery carrier bags, why not a plastic bottle tax? Better yet, grab a reusable bottle and fill it from the tap. It’s easy and costs 10,000 times less…

Sound off your ideas in the comments below.

As I woke up this morning and walked my son to school, I took notice of the beautiful spring day. The cherry trees flowering, the cool breeze, then the ugly reality of bottles and cans littering the streets brought back focus: I remembered what day it was. Earth Day.

Appropriately, my iPod spilled out Orli Cotel of Sierra Club Radio interviewing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. The topics discussed included Mr. Newsom’s use of the precautionary principle (better safe than sorry), bottled water ban in city hall with the London mayor following suit, San Francisco’s involvement with the Million Solar Roofs initiative to achieve energy independence, alternative fuels for cabs and fleet vehicles, the plastic bag ban inspired by Irish policy. In short: San Francisco and Mayor Newsom intends to lead by example. He urges not just government action, but commercial and individual involvement to change behaviors. Additionally, Mr. Newsom urges the public to voice their concerns to local government officials rather than waiting for federal or state action. If pressure can be placed at the community level, then this will filter up and throughout the world at the grassroots level.

San Francisco has established a plan to double the emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto Protocol and has sidestepped US foreign policy because its citizenry have demanded more change. Carbon taxes and cap and trade systems are synonymous and are here to stay, according to Mayor Newsom. I believe he is right. If big changes are to be made to fight climate change, the only way to accomplish this is seemingly impossible problem is to institute these schemes and act at the community and business level.

Happy Earth Day 2008. Now I’m off to pick up the street litter in front of the house and talk to the city council representative.

We featured the World Future Energy Summit which wraps up today. So now it’s time to head to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum from today through 27 January. Their blog features a conundrum that will certainly not be resolved during this weekend’s forum. The issue at hand is the conflict between both economic growth and sustainability. Can both coexist? I often wonder after living in Ireland for the past year and then visit my Indiana hometown to discover what used to be fertile corn fields lining a country road now ravaged by wildfire development.

Where does it end? How is it that policy allows for unchecked development by big box retailers and large scale road works? It’s easy to understand how sustainability is sacrificed when there is virtually limitless tax increment financing and public money being used for the private, rather than public good. Let me know your thoughts in the comments…

The World Future Energy Summit is taking place this week in Abu Dhabi thanks to some dinosaur oil giant sponsorship. However, one energy company speaking there has caught my attention. Airtricity, an Irish wind energy firm, is presenting a case study about the viability of wind power.

Their economic research on the value of wind shows that it is significantly undervalued particularly when wind energy is included as a sizeable part of a country’s generation portfolio. The value to the country can be twice the price received by the wind generator selling to the market.

There are several other presentations highlighted here during the conference which started yesterday and continues through tomorrow.

I would like to welcome you all to the launch of TREEconomist, a new site analysing environmental policy issues related to climate change. We are proud to be hosting this week’s Carnival of the Green, a roundup of green blog posts by TreeHugger readers. Last week’s host, Inventor Spot, has passed the torch to us to provide you with all of the latest environmental issues flying through the green blogosphere. If your site would like to participate, learn more at TreeHugger. Now… on with the Carnival!

1. Phil for Humanity makes a case for more eco-friendly LED lights in Which Type of Light Bulb is Better for the Environment?
2. Here are Eight Easy Tips To Save Gas in ‘08 posted at Gas Mileage.
3. The Evangelical Ecologist asks, Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian Environmental Ethic?
4. Samuel Bryson discusses a “bizarre” delicacy in Kangaroo Meat – Good For You AND the Environment: posted at Total Wellbeing.
5. Tiffany Washko offers some baby fashion advice: Prefolds are the New Pink posted at Cloth Diaper Blog.
6. Will CFL light bulbs be able to save the polar bears? Read Bears + Bulbs = A Bright Idea to find out at National Geographic’s Intelligent Travel blog.
7. Living in a Material World. Can we save the planet by being more materialistic rather than less? This interpretation of the word “materialism” might surprise you.
8. There’s been a lot of news lately about gender-bending chemicals leeching from popular polycarbonate bottles in our drinking water. So JP asks, Sigg Water Bottles: A Safer Alternative?
9. Fascinated with sea turtles? Then volunteer to help save them at a turtle conservation volunteer program in Malaysia.
10. Emmett Duffy, The Natural Patriot, mostly agrees with The Guardian’s list of 50 er… 49 people who could save the planet.
11. Green Living Online has a big list of the Top Green Stories of 2007
12. The Littlest Guy explains what crude oil is and how it’s harmful.
13. The Jewish holiday of Tu B’Shevat, celebrating the “New Year of the Trees” starts Monday night and continues Tuesday. Celebrate a True Eco Holiday January 20-21.
14. Saving Advice offers some easy tricks that can be done to extend the life of many of your consumables
15. Sadie had ruled out biking across town to work - but then her car broke down. So early Tuesday morning, she pushed the bike out the door into the dark and crunched across the icy lawn…
    but did she make it to work? Via Veggie Revolution.
16. The Expatriate Chef discusses GMOs and sustainable food production on the BBC’s World Have Your Say.
17. Update: Bean Sprouts writer Melanie Rimmer is concerned about the way Freecycle is being run.

That’s all for now. Be sure to check out next week’s Carnival of the Green at Celeb Cause beginning January 28th.

Again, welcome to TREEconomist. Please subscribe to the RSS feed and join the discussion. We hope to see you around often!

-James Britton

TREEconomist is dedicated to the analysis and discussion of environmental economic policy. We are a forum to discuss key environmental issues such as climate change, carbon taxes and permits, international policy and alternative and renewable energy sources.

Feel free to register, or just sit back and see what everyone has to say and subscribe to our feed. Be sure to visit often to enter the discourse.