Jeremy Grantham

A very important analysis by Jeremy Grantham.

Summary of the Summary: The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value. We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.

Link to Article

For Rhode Island folks – the one’s I’ve been badgering about real estate appraisal – I’d suggest we approach real estate values in terms of the broader, data-driven analysis that is Grantham’s bent – research on historical trends in not only real estate, but relevant commodities, transportation, food economies, energy, climate change (sea level rise), and population demographics.

The Agriculture Lobby

It is not unusual for me to read journalistic articles and come away wondering ‘who the h…. are they talking about’. I’ve attached one of those articles from The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504133.html?sub=AR

I also read some polling this morning that says 75 percent of the American public thinks we need to act on climate change legislation and over 50 percent are in favor of the legislation even if it adds $10 per month to their energy bill.

It also seems obvious that lobbying -in the case of the energy bill…. agricultural lobbying – potentially troubles the legislative process. What could be a sincere debate between legislators, between legislators and their constituents (informing the process) becomes a ‘paid’ debate between legislators and ‘constituent representatives’. In the case of the energy bill, we end up with compromises that are not only ineffective but do not even represent ‘the will of the people’.

A Greenpeace Scientist on Forest Carbon Offsets

From the Macau Times:

Including forest protection measures in carbon markets would cause carbon prices to crash, and could undo efforts to rein in global warming, according to a Greenpeace report released earlier in the week.
Prices in a future carbon market would plummet by 75 percent, making it cheaper for industries in rich nations to buy deforestation offsets than reduce their carbon output at home, a study commissioned by the green group found.
It would also starve developing countries of investments for clean and renewable technologies, said the report, released on the margins of climate talks under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change.
“Cheap forest credits sound attractive, but a closer examination shows they are a dangerous option that won’t save the forests or stop runaway climate change,” said Roman Czebiniak, a forest expert at Greenpeace International.
Negotiators from 175 nations have gathered here to hammer out a climate treaty – slated for completion by year’s end – to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012.
Finding a way to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries – an effort known as REDD – has emerged as a key element in the negotiations.
The continuing destruction of tropical forests accounts for 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and it will be virtually impossible to curb global warming unless forests are protected, scientists say.
Brazil and Indonesia each account for about one third of forest-related emissions, making them the world’s top carbon polluters after China and the United States.
“There is broad consensus now that the post-2012 agreement will include some sort of incentives for tropical countries to reduce their deforestation,” said Steve Schwartzman, a forests expert at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group based in Washington D.C.
But sharp differences remain on whether these aims are best achieved primarily through market mechanisms, including a future global carbon market, or varvious forms of public funding and grants.
“Forests are the wild card in these negotiations – it could be used to bring us closer to our goals, or to water them down,” said Czebiniak.
Currently, the largest functioning carbon market operates within the European Union. The market has proven fragile, and has been hit hard by the economic crisis and the drop in oil prices.
The Greenpeace report argues that flooding carbon markets with offsets would devalue carbon even further, and make it too easy for the industrialised world to avoid making necessary energy reductions.
“Of the many options for forest financing currently on the table, this one ranks as the worst,” said Czebiniak.

Corn, Geese, and Flight 1549

Written by Dennis Avery

January 21, 2009

Did global warming dump U.S. Airways flight 1549 into the Hudson River by attracting more geese to New York airports? Time Magazine says yes. Time notes a four-fold increase in airplane bird strikes since 1990, and blames global warming and destruction of wild bird habitat for the increased collisions.

Time reached the wrong conclusion. Research indicates we should blame the prosaic corn harvester—and perhaps our attempt to expand corn production for biofuels. Canada geese numbers have increased five-fold since 1970 for one overwhelming reason —farmers’ expanding use of those big corn picker-shellers. The big bright-colored harvesters now roar across the fields every autumn, picking the ears and shelling the corn kernels. With millions of tons of loose corn, some inevitably trickles to the ground, where the geese cheerfully snack it up.

Canadian researchers found the geese had switched their food supply almost entirely since 1970, from a diet of marsh plant rhizomes in winter and early spring to eating mostly corn and young grass shoots. The marshes aren’t overgrazed, because the extra geese are feeding in fields and pastures.

When I moved to the Shenandoah Valley in the late 1980s, North Carolina goose hunting guides were protesting that northern states had “stolen” their geese. However, the geese that used to travel clear to North Carolina to get marsh grazing were simply staying to pick over Northeastern corn and soybean fields.

The latest trend among the Canadas is not to move at all. Resident geese now make up two-thirds of our goose numbers, up from 18 percent in 1979. These non-migrating geese are a particular problem because they tend to flock and graze around airports (and golf courses).

The modest global warming between from 1976–1998 may have encouraged such sedentary geese. However, the earth has cooled sharply in the past two years, and NASA says the Pacific cool phase now predicts global cooling, perhaps until 2030. Don’t bet that the Canada’s will migrate back to the North with the lower temperatures, however. The winter grain is still free, and the otherwise-annoying dogs are all on leashes.

Meanwhile, farmers have been planting still more corn, on every possible corner of the eastern seaboard, to get their share of those ethanol subsidies. Corn planting expanded about 50 percent in the mid-Atlantic States from 2002–2006, according to Virginia Tech, with comparable increases in New York and Pennsylvania.

This poses an urgent need for more and better bird-strike prevention. Golf courses use trained Border Collies and Shetland Sheep dogs to annoy the Canadas. Thanks to the dogs’ enthusiastic persistence, that works. But we can’t have dogs running loose across the airports. And we can’t hunt in populated areas.

Never mind wailing about global warming, it’s time for more real goose research.