27 March 2013

Speed blogging

  1. Self-inflicted destruction in Florida: The government's $800 million bailout of welfare queen sugar farmers and a good New Yorker story of how groundwater mismanagement creates monster sinkholes and pollutes springs in Florida.

  2. Last week, I gave a talk on success and failure in groundwater governance (PDF slides and 15 min mp3) at a conference on the same topic.*

  3. Small town "declares war" on high water rates. Fine by me if they kick out the water provider (paying for assets of course), since some towns may be able to supply their water at cheaper prices. Others may not.

  4. Another press release on a new desalination technology. Sounds good, now bring it to market. Oh, and don't think that cheap filters are going to bring abundance.You still need to pay for infrastructure AND pump that water to customers in dry places.

  5. Investors want to profit by adapting to climate change. No shit. Said. That. Before.
Three H/Ts to DL

* In the Q&A Gabriel Eckstein asked if "all subsidies are bad" as I had claimed. I clarified that subsidies to private goods (e.g., tap water, food or gasoline) are bad because they distort prices and thus decisions. Subsidies to public and club goods (e.g., environment, some education, etc.) are defensible if they align private decisions with social (welfare) outcomes.

3 comments:

  1. Can't get past the Obama Derangement syndrome at Zero Hedge. Their libruls are bad lens is tiresome and clouds their work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I attended the same Regional Consultation on Groundwater Governance and did not leave with the same message that you apparently did regarding a plea for more research funding. I heard that it was time for the academies to rethink what it meant to teach students about management rather than emphasizing the need for new transboundary aquifer maps. I also heard about the need to integrate the private sector into groundwater governance.

    I guess jet lag clouded my vision and hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon -- I agree that there was a call for more private participation and better teaching, BUT the conference (and 4 others) were -- to me -- about improving groundwater governance, which implied that, first, there would be discussions with the PEOPLE WHO GOVERNED groundwater on the problems they faced. The private sector is a USER, not a manager of g/w, but the organizers wanted to "partner" with them (this was widely interpreted as money partners). More education is fine, but many people pointed out the need to have NON academic and/or interdisciplinary teaching. My complaint, in other words, was that speakers were in their roles (academics) instead of the role og g/w manager or users...

    ReplyDelete

Spam will be deleted. Comments on older posts must be approved.
If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me