There are some concerned that too much money going into ETFs and not enough active investment will cause issues with price discovery.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/worlds-biggest-pension-fund-wants-to-stop-index-trackers-eating-the-economy-1502974668
Sounds familiar: https://www.wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-the-meat-casino-the-cattle-futures-market-descends-into-chaos-1471475438
There has
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Gates Notes: Sustainable Beef for Developing Smallholder Agriculture
Gates Notes:
"While there are legitimate questions about whether the world can meet its appetite for animal products without destroying the environment, it’s a fact that many poor people rely on cattle for both nutrition and income. I believe they should be able to raise cattle as efficiently as farmers in rich countries do….For them, meat and dairy are a great source of high-quality proteins that help children fully develop mentally and physically. Just 20 grams of animal protein a day can combat malnutrition, which is why our foundation’s nutrition strategy wants to get more meat, dairy, and eggs into the diets of children in Africa. Cattle are also a huge economic driver in some parts of Africa. In Ethiopia alone, cattle account for 45 percent of their agricultural GDP. In addition, livestock can actually contribute to ecosystems by stimulating pasture growth, enhancing biodiversity, and recycling energy and nutrients….As more people in poor countries move into the middle class, they will likely eat more beef and drink more milk. But we can mitigate the impact of that growth on the environment by increasing production from the cows they already have."
Noahpinion: Summing up my thoughts on macroeconomics
Comment from a6z: Macroeconomics
"It's more than commerce. It's the big themes. The rise and fall of civilizations. Freedom versus authority, the one and the many, the center and the periphery. Politics, broadly understood; therefore ethics, at least normatively described. Epistemology, too."
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Agricultural Intensification and the Environment
This story puts blame on the meat industry for largest ever "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
The authors of the original study are advocating reduction or elimination of meat consumption.
Others tend to think focusing more on 'low-input' agriculture is the solution. However this study finds organic farming systems have a 37% higher eutrophication potential. (HT: Breakthrough Blog)
Note also, in the study I cite here low input agriculture is inherently coupled with large scale grain and livestock production.
This paper (using simulation) finds a land sparing and GHG mitigating effect from intensification of livestock production in Brazil.
This paper finds "investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other commonly proposed mitigation strategies. Further yield improvements should therefore be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions."
References:
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice
Michael Clark1,4 and David Tilman2,3
Published 16 June 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 6
To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?
Benjamin Nowak1,2, Thomas Nesme1,2, Christophe David3 and Sylvain Pellerin1,2
Published 5 December 2013 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS June 29, 2010 vol. 107 no. 26 12052-12057
The authors of the original study are advocating reduction or elimination of meat consumption.
Others tend to think focusing more on 'low-input' agriculture is the solution. However this study finds organic farming systems have a 37% higher eutrophication potential. (HT: Breakthrough Blog)
This paper (using simulation) finds a land sparing and GHG mitigating effect from intensification of livestock production in Brazil.
This paper finds "investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other commonly proposed mitigation strategies. Further yield improvements should therefore be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions."
References:
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice
Michael Clark1,4 and David Tilman2,3
Published 16 June 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 6
To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?
Benjamin Nowak1,2, Thomas Nesme1,2, Christophe David3 and Sylvain Pellerin1,2
Published 5 December 2013 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS June 29, 2010 vol. 107 no. 26 12052-12057
Britain to Ban New Gas and Diesel Autos by 2040
Well in GB they plan to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars by 2040. I'd really like to see the cost benefit analysis on that especially as it relates to GHG emissions.
According to this story, about 2.7 million cars were registered in GB in 2016.
Recall, by some estimates GHG reductions associated with planted areas of biotech crops in the U.S. were equivalent to removal of almost 11 million cars!
Could they not just import more corn from the U.S. and call it even?
According to this story, about 2.7 million cars were registered in GB in 2016.
Recall, by some estimates GHG reductions associated with planted areas of biotech crops in the U.S. were equivalent to removal of almost 11 million cars!
Could they not just import more corn from the U.S. and call it even?
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Saturday Evening Post
Kevin Folta has a great way with words discussing the fake news in NYT regarding glyphosate in Ben and Jerry's ice cream:
"There was a time that newspapers published verifiable information, checked facts, and didn’t simply post the intellectually bankrupt messages of activist groups. The New York Times now double dips to a new low, confirming their war on food, war on farmers, war on science, and war on reason. In the days of fake news this takes the cake — al a mode."
Read more....
The Farmer Hayek blog never lets you forget how important theory is....and how useful. A nice point from a recent post:
"It may be tautologous to say that “people prefer their own self interest” where “their own self interest” is whatever they subjectively desire, but it is certainly useful. Focusing on the subjectivity of costs and benefits dramatically increases economists’ ability to understand human behavior. Defining self interest narrowly, such that only objective costs and benefits are considered relevant is actually a step backward, even if it is more consistent with, say, the methods of physicists."
"There was a time that newspapers published verifiable information, checked facts, and didn’t simply post the intellectually bankrupt messages of activist groups. The New York Times now double dips to a new low, confirming their war on food, war on farmers, war on science, and war on reason. In the days of fake news this takes the cake — al a mode."
Read more....
The Farmer Hayek blog never lets you forget how important theory is....and how useful. A nice point from a recent post:
"It may be tautologous to say that “people prefer their own self interest” where “their own self interest” is whatever they subjectively desire, but it is certainly useful. Focusing on the subjectivity of costs and benefits dramatically increases economists’ ability to understand human behavior. Defining self interest narrowly, such that only objective costs and benefits are considered relevant is actually a step backward, even if it is more consistent with, say, the methods of physicists."
Thursday, July 27, 2017
What is the most effective way to mitigate climate change?
Jayson Lusk discusses this article:
The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions
Seth Wynes1,2,3 and Kimberly A Nicholas1
Published 12 July 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 7
One of the top things on the list (#2) was living car free. That reminds me of a post I wrote a couple years back over at Economic Sense: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars. In that post I noted:
"According to research from PG Economics, in 2009 alone, greenhouse gas reductions associated with biotechnology were equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the road."
It would be interesting if we could get data to put this in terms of individual consumer choices. To what extent would changing from an organic GMO free diet to a conventional diet containing GMOs impact our carbon foot print? I'm not sure this is really a practical question, most people probably consume a mix of foods (even Whole Foods shoppers) and on an individual level this may not make a big difference. But there definitely could be an aggregate effect. I have not reviewed the methods in this particular study, but as a conversation piece it brings up a very relevant concern - what would happen if consumer sentiments and the regulatory environment continued to disincentivize the production of genetically engineered foods? (we've seen this with finely textured beef for sure, and rBSt) While other studies might provide different estimates of the effect size of CO2 emissions related to biotech adoption, at least directionally our experience suggests that these technologies make it possible to produce the same or additional levels of output while reducing the toxicity of chemical applications, complementing crop rotation and no till practices that reduce fertilizer runoff and pollution, as well as require less energy moving very heavy equipment across fields (which in turn would reduce CO2 at some level).
In terms of practical policy applications, how much coercion/regulation/taxation/incentivization would be required to convince or force 8 million people to give up their cars? It seems a lot easier for me as a consumer to freely choose to consume a mountain dew with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn than to make a huge change in my lifestyle like going car free. And it seems like a very easy choice for farmers to keep planting biotech.
***UPDATED (July 28, 2017): I just realized there has been an update to this study:
Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot
GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
The updated number of car equivalent levels of CO2 reductions due to area planted to biotech crops is closer to 12 million (11.9).
Reference:
GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2009. Brookes and Barfoot.
The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions
Seth Wynes1,2,3 and Kimberly A Nicholas1
Published 12 July 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 7
One of the top things on the list (#2) was living car free. That reminds me of a post I wrote a couple years back over at Economic Sense: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars. In that post I noted:
"According to research from PG Economics, in 2009 alone, greenhouse gas reductions associated with biotechnology were equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the road."
It would be interesting if we could get data to put this in terms of individual consumer choices. To what extent would changing from an organic GMO free diet to a conventional diet containing GMOs impact our carbon foot print? I'm not sure this is really a practical question, most people probably consume a mix of foods (even Whole Foods shoppers) and on an individual level this may not make a big difference. But there definitely could be an aggregate effect. I have not reviewed the methods in this particular study, but as a conversation piece it brings up a very relevant concern - what would happen if consumer sentiments and the regulatory environment continued to disincentivize the production of genetically engineered foods? (we've seen this with finely textured beef for sure, and rBSt) While other studies might provide different estimates of the effect size of CO2 emissions related to biotech adoption, at least directionally our experience suggests that these technologies make it possible to produce the same or additional levels of output while reducing the toxicity of chemical applications, complementing crop rotation and no till practices that reduce fertilizer runoff and pollution, as well as require less energy moving very heavy equipment across fields (which in turn would reduce CO2 at some level).
In terms of practical policy applications, how much coercion/regulation/taxation/incentivization would be required to convince or force 8 million people to give up their cars? It seems a lot easier for me as a consumer to freely choose to consume a mountain dew with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn than to make a huge change in my lifestyle like going car free. And it seems like a very easy choice for farmers to keep planting biotech.
***UPDATED (July 28, 2017): I just realized there has been an update to this study:
Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot
GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
The updated number of car equivalent levels of CO2 reductions due to area planted to biotech crops is closer to 12 million (11.9).
Reference:
GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2009. Brookes and Barfoot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)