- This academic paper [pdf] shows that people will use less water if they are outside "peer" norms...
- Terrain magazine has some good stories:
- How Berkeley's horrible bureaucracy prevents backyard farmers from selling to their neighbors.
- Pesticide residue on lawns means that "green waste" clippings contaminate -- and invalidate -- organic compost.
- An interview with Annie Leonard (Story of Stuff) that describes how she translated her passion into words that people get. (The trouble is that her economics are a little shaky.)
- Chinese consumers face higher water prices but do not use less. That's probably because prices are not structured into increasing blocks. They are mad about higher prices because they do not know where the extra money goes. A little transparency would go a long way, but this is China.
- Using sunlight to clean waste water. Cool. Speaking of that, how about a sustainable business model for selling home water purifiers to the poor?
- San Diego apartments will NOW have individual meters.
23 April 2010
Speed Blogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Terrain article is good - there are so many onerous laws that hurt businesses and in turn, us. These laws raise the price of business so much - I visited the Cultured Pickle recently and found out that they are inspected by Local, County, State and Federal health folks, all of which just want a check, according to the proprietor. Its a real disappointment that Berkeleyans can not see the cost that their zoning/business/health codes impose on everyone.
Peer norms work...unless you are a Republican: http://www.slate.com/id/2251658/
The Terrain article is good! I'm not sure it really supports your headline, though, because (1) it points out that many other cities are facing exactly the same issues, and (2) the bureacracy recognizes the problem and agrees their codes need to be changed. In what way is that "horrible?"
Certainly it makes no sense that the exact same activities are legal if done for free but illegal if money changes hands. That is a fundamental problem with the regulatory structure - a question of assumptions - not a particular problem with Berkeley.
If the article showed a way in which the bureacrats could have approved the activity but didn't, then your headline would have been fair. From my experience with such things, I suspect there probably were/are ways that could have been done, so perhaps Berkeley deserves its "horrible bureacracy" rep. And since I am 'market-gardening' myself, I'm deeply sympathetic!
Post a Comment