Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

When the fundamental structure of American environmental law was put into place in the 1970s and 1980s, protecting the environment was a consensus, a nonpartisan goal supported by over two-thirds of the American public. Support was so widespread that the 1972 Clean Water Act was enacted over then President Richard Nixons veto. There was a real debate about how to best protect the environment, and Congress knew how to compromise. The deal that led to the Superfund toxic waste clean-up bill in 1980 was a compromise between conservative Senator Jesse Helms and liberal then-Representative (later New Jersey Governor) Jim Florio. The political attack on environmental regulation from the right began with Ronald Reagan as an attack on big government regulation, not on the goal of protecting the environment. Since that time, the environment has become a more partisan issue. Huge majorities of Democrats and Independents support environmental regulation, and while Republican support often exceeds 50 percent, it is lukewarm at best. The problem remains, how do you keep the environment from being polluted without laws making pollution illegal?

The answer is you cant prevent pollution without rules, and because all air pollution crosses state boundaries and many water pollution problems also cross state borders, some of the rules must be set by the federal government. In the case of climate change, greenhouse gas pollution crosses both state and national boundaries. Still, many environmental issues are local and state specific. In these cases, state and local rules can be very effective in maintaining environmental quality. Additionally, over the past several decades, a central strategy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been to delegate federal regulatory authority to the states. EPA did this, in part, due to federal resource constraints, and in part due to a belief that environmental rules needed to be adjusted to the specific needs of Americas diverse local conditions. Each community has its own economic, social, political, cultural and ecological environment and what works in Portland, Oregon, might not work in Portland, Maine.

Today we have an EPA Administrator who is willfully and aggressively deregulating elements of environmental protection. He is not trying to repeal environmental laws, since he knows he will lose those battles. Instead he is focusing his attention on regulations, starting with rolling back rules issued under the Obama Administration. He is revising rules without the advice of long-time EPA professionals and instead consulting with outside think tanks, industry representatives, and conservative advocates to redraft rules. While this means that many Obama-era rules will not be implemented, it does not mean that the new weaker rules will automatically be put into effect. Courts will be reviewing these changes, and some will be rejected due to an inadequate process of public participation prior to revision, while others will be rejected because they do not fulfill the intended mandates of the law. Regardless of federal action, states may well continue their own more stringent rules. We are in uncharted territory with a determined, anti-environmental EPA Administrator. The only point that is certain is that environmental lawyers will be fully employed during Scott Pruitts shameful term as EPA Administrator.

One of the key arguments for national environmental standards nearly half a century ago was the fear that states and localities would use lower environmental standards to compete for industry. However, in the last several decades the connection between pollution and health became widely understood, and the desire to protect housing values and a communitys way of life led to the development of NIMBY the not in my backyard syndrome. Local opposition to new factories, waste treatment facilities, power plants, and, in some cases, any construction at all has resulted in local anti-development politics that can be quite powerful. When development is permitted it is often only allowed once developers commit to specific measures designed to limit pollution, traffic, and other factors that impact local quality of life. This local and state level political force was not widespread when EPA was established in 1970. It is not universal since there are communities that will accept any kind of development they can get, but NIMBY is a major political force in a majority of American communities.

Another change since 1970 has been the growth of environmental liability law and the development of internal practices of sustainability management in many large corporations. Companies are more careful about their environmental impacts because they fear being sued by those who suffer damages due to those impacts. They are also more careful about their use of energy, water and other materials due to the rising costs of those resources.

I mention these factors not to argue that EPA is unimportant, because the agency is very important, but because EPA is not the only institution available to protect the environment. Its no longer the 1970s or 80s. Environmental protection is hardwired into Americas governmental, nonprofit and private institutions. It can be weakened, and unscrupulous businesses may take advantage of Trumps approach and could start drilling soon on public lands and in fragile ocean environments. But when the first leak, spill or environmental disaster takes place, these folks will come to learn that Americans do not want to see their beaches or national parks damaged or destroyed. Most people really like to breathe and they expect government to ensure that their air, water and land is free of poisons.

The starting point for opposing environmental deregulation is the recognition that the U.S. federal government is not all powerful. The founders designed a political structure of checks and balances and shared sovereignty. States, cities, corporations and large nonprofits have enormous power and resources. While it would be helpful for the federal government to do its fair share of the heavy lifting in protecting the environment, it is not essential. Federal deregulation should and will be fought in the courts. States will be suing, as will environmental interest groups. The environmental groups will need private money to battle the federal government. But in addition to fighting weakened rules, we should focus our attention and creativity on state, local and private institutions. Lets not be defined by opposition. Lets not be overly engaged with stopping foolish federal policies and instead look to develop more creative and positive approaches that ignore and bypass the federal government.

Weve been used to a dysfunctional and deadlocked federal government for decades. What weve not seen since the days of Anne Gorsuch in the early Reagan years is an effort to attack and dismantle fundamental environmental rules. As in those years, it is not clear how successful Pruitt will be in modifying his corner of the administrative state. After two years of noise, President Reagans political advisors convinced him to cut loose his Interior Secretary and EPA Administrator, after which Reagan brought back the first EPA Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, a serious and creative environmentalist. It is far from clear that anything like that could ever happen under Trumps very strange decision-making process.

But just as Trump and his attention-getting antics are a distraction from the difficult work of governance, Pruitts moves at deregulation must be countered, but not obsessed over. The long and difficult transition from a finite resource to a renewable resource based economy was never going to originate in Washington anyway. The main engine of change will be communities, businesses, nonprofits and cities. So, while we resist federal cutbacks in environmental protection policies and programs, we need to continue to keep our eye on the daily, operational tasks of creating sustainable homes, businesses, cities and communities. We need to build the public-private partnerships that will transform the way we live. We need to counter the effort of state-level electric utilities that want to destroy the household solar industry. And we should remember to offer Scott Pruitt a discount when he stops by in a few years, finally in the market for a used Tesla.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Link:

Resisting The Deregulation Of Environmental Protection - HuffPost

July 9th, 2017 Editor News 0 comments

Minister of Science and Technology, Ogbonnaya Onu, has commended Unilever for its long-standing service and commitment to the growth of the Nigerian economy. The minister, who made this commendation during a courtesy visit and factory tour to the manufacturing giant at the weekend, also reaffirmed governments commitment to supporting Unilever in its operation. Welcoming the minister, Siddharth Ramaswamy, Unilever West Africas vice president, Supply Chain, reiterated the companys commitment to the growth of the Nigerian economy through plans to increase its investment portfolio in the country and enhance local manufacturing. According to Ramaswamy, the company, which has been operating in Nigeria for almost 100 years, would continue to invest in the country despite the prevailing economic challenges. Nigeria is strategic to our business operations. This is why we remain committed to the countrys socio-economic development. We currently operate two manufacturing hubs in Nigeria, and we are already taking actions to increase our local manufacturing capacity, Ramaswamy said. There are ongoing investments which will not only provide additional employment opportunities for Nigerians, but will deliver further economic value through the development of a sustainable supply chain structure consisting of local manufacturers, he said. In his response, Onu said the government was working hard to move the nations economy from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy and was looking to partner with organisations such as Unilever to achieve this through synergy with several research institutions under the Ministry of Science and Technology. Visits such as this, he said, were to create an avenue to see how the government could assist organisations like Unilever to overcome challenges by providing enabling environment to grow their business either through incentives or enabling legal framework. We want companies to use more of local raw materials in production processes because when this happens, new jobs will be created, and our GDP will grow, thereby reducing poverty. This can only happen if we work with you and other responsible companies, he said. The minister encouraged Unilever to show more interest in local research in order to improve its production process, while also charging the company to work more closely with FIIRO and other research centres under the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Here is the original post:

Minister commends Unilever Nigeria's commitment to growth of ... - BusinessDay (satire) (press release) (registration) (blog)

Innovating ways to inspire and motivate the workforce and leveraging technology to make informed decisions on managing talent will be on the agenda at the upcoming GOV HR Summit in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

The 5th annual Human Resource platform will open its doors to HR leaders from top government, semi government and state owned entities across the GCC, on October 30, under the theme Turning the biggest challenges into the greatest opportunities.

With an impressive line-up of influential and intellectual international and regional leaders in human resources, the summit will kick off with a powerful keynote presentation by Ray Jefferson, global leadership practitioner, consultant, speaker and former Senate confirmed US Assistant Secretary General for Veterans Employment & Training, under former US President Barrack Obama.

In my opinion, the best government administrations in the world are led by committed, servant-leaders. Great leaders lead by example, innovate and persevere to create an impact, effectively communicate & connect with their PEOPLE and believe in the Power of Being ONE TEAM, Jefferson said.

Ackash Jain, director at event organiser QnA Global, said: Leaders across the region are working to implement a National Agenda with the primary objective of economic diversification to build a sustainable knowledge-based economy with human resources as its backbone. Supporting the vision of the most prudent leaders of the region, the fifth edition of the GOV HR Summit will serve as a high-level, knowledge-sharing platform, bringing together top government leaders and decision makers from across the GCC to share, discuss and showcase their organizations innovative human capital strategy.

Summit speaker Lubna Qassim executive vice president, Group Chief General Counsel at Emirates NBD said, When it comes to empowering women on a professional level in the UAE, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Ruler of Dubai has been a bold game changer. When it comes to education and joining the workforce, women continue to excel. However, one challenge that we face is not having an adequate number of women in the C-suite and as members of the board.

Mahmood Al Hameli, senior vice president, Business Support at Senaat, said: As a leader within the UAEs industrial sector, the development of our human capital is of great importance to Senaat and its portfolio companies. Our on-going investment in the training and development of young Emiratis is a vital component of this endeavour, in order to attract and retain the best talent for our group. Senaat is committed to cultivating a workforce armed with the necessary skills to succeed in the ever-changing modern business climate. As such, we are contributing significantly to the long-term vision and economic diversification of Abu Dhabi and the UAE.

The summit will feature powerful keynote presentations, panel discussions and round table sessions examining such crucial topics as reinventing Human Capital management; developing compensation strategies to meet the demands of today's competitive workforce; sharing successful implementation of nationalization initiatives and re-calibrating company culture to support business goals.

The two day conference will end with the regions most prestigious award ceremony, The GCC GOV HR Awards 2017 that recognizes, promotes and rewards excellence, professionalism and outstanding achievement of governments, business organizations and individuals who have raised the benchmark of people performance across the region. TradeArabia News Service

View post:

GOV HR Summit aims to develop national talent - Trade Arabia

Islamabad

Science and technology minister Rana Tanveer Hussain on Saturday called for scientific and technological advancements, saying they are imperative for development of a knowledge-based economy.

Addressing a meeting of the Pakistan-China Science and Technology Committee here, the minister said the multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project would help further promote Sino-Pak cooperation in science and technology. He said Pakistan and China had excellent relations and the CPEC project would further boost them besides contributing to the development of the former.

The minister said the government had increased budgetary allocations for research activities as part of efforts to promote science and technology in the country. He said the building of local industries and development of human resource was imperative in light of the establishment of industrial zones under the CPEC project.

The minister said the corridor project had necessitated the strengthening of linkages between academia and industries for which universities were being revitalised to serve as the breeding grounds for innovative ideas in scientific and industrial technology.

Read the original:

Advancement of S&T stressed for knowledge-based economy - The News International

The following is a press release from Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS:

The beautiful Netarts Bay is a unique ecosystem home to great marine life and birds. It also holds countless stories shared through its landscape and waters. Exploration of the area hints at how this bay formed to how it has been used by people throughout time. Discover these stories and more during any of a number of FREE events offered by the Friends of Netarts Bay - Watershed, Estuary, Beach and Sea (WEBS) this month!

A number of these events are also part of the Explore Nature series of hikes, walks, paddles and outdoor adventures. Explore Nature events are hosted by a consortium of volunteer community and non-profit organizations, and are meaningful nature-based experiences highlight the unique beauty of Tillamook County and the work being done to preserve and conserve the areas natural resources and natural resource-based economy. Learn more at http://www.explorenaturetillamookcoast.com./

WEBS is a local non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining the Netarts Bay area through education and stewardship. Learn more at http://www.netartsbaytoday.org.

Hike Netarts July 19

Netarts Bay is housed between two capes, a part of the natural landscape that shapes the area. Join WEBS to explore Cape Meares. Octopus trees, giant Sitka spruce trees, and dramatic ocean views will not disappoint on this easy to moderate hike along the cape.

When: July 19 from 1 4:30 p.m.

Where: Netarts Bay area. Sign up for specific location.

Registration: Registration is required. Please register online at EventBrite.Com. More information and registration details are also available at http://www.explorenaturetillamookcounty.com.

The Art of Growing Oysters July 22

Do you enjoy Pacific Northwest oysters? Have you ever wondered about where the oysters come from? The oyster industry is an important part of Tillamook County and includes a number of farms, like JAndy Oyster Company and Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery on Netarts Bay. The tour is a rare opportunity to learn about the industry, the state of the art scientific research going on at the hatchery, and the issues faced by the shellfish along the Pacific Northwest.

When: July 22, 10 a.m. 2 p.m.

Where: Netarts Bay area. Sign up for specific location.

Details: Please be prepared to walk on uneven, wet, and/or muddy surfaces.

Registration: Registration is required. Please register online at EventBrite.Com. More information and registration details are also available on the Friends of Netarts Bay Facebook page.

Geology of Netarts Bay July 23

Join the Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS on an amazing and free Geologic tour around Netarts Bay. You will see landslide areas, fossil deposits on Cape Meares, Happy Camp, bay overlooks and tsunami layers from the Big One in 1700. The walk will be led by Tom Horning, a Seaside native, and Registered Geologist. Horning has been a featured speaker at the Listening to the Land series hosted by the North Coast Land Conservancy and a central figure in the new book The Next Tsunami: Living On A Restless Coast by Bonnie Henderson.

When: July 23, 8:30 a.m. noon

Where: Netarts Bay area. Sign up for specific location.

Details: Weather on the Oregon Coast is unpredictable and change quickly. Please dress accordingly. Please be prepared to walk on uneven, wet, and/or muddy surfaces. Transportation around the bay will be provided.

Registration: Registration is required. Please register online at EventBrite.Com. More information and registration details are also available on the Friends of Netarts Bay Facebook page.

Tidepool Discovery Day July 25

What amazing creatures are lurking at the waters edge? Come out to Oceanside and see! Friends of Netarts Bay Watershed Estuary Beach and Sea (WEBS) staff and volunteers will be onsite in the tide pools helping visitors understand what is living along the coastal edge. Learn about anemone clone wars, how a sea star eats, or how hermit crabs steal shell homes from other crabs! From seaweeds to sculpin fish, there is a new world to discover. Come out and enjoy! Look for our WEBS t-shirts and let us guide you through the tide pools.

WEBS is a local non-profit organization working to sustain the Netarts Bay area through education and stewardship. Learn more at http://www.netartsbaytoday.org.

When: July 25, 8:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m.

Where: Oceanside Recreation Area

Details: Where boots or bring a change of shoes. Flip flops are never ideal for exploring tide pools. Be prepared for Oregon coast weather.

Registration: Let us know you are coming by registering! For a link, please visit Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS Eventbrite site or Facebook page. We expect people to come and go, we have no limit on size at this time. We will help as many people as possible and lend resources for you to make your own discoveries.

Read the original post:

Free Netarts Bay events set for July | Community ... - Tillamook Headlight-Herald

The deer heads mounted on the walls of Eric Johnsons church office are testament to his passion for hunting, a lifestyle enjoyed by many in the northernmost reaches of California but one thatJohnson says surprises people he meets on his travels around America and abroad.

When people see youre from California, they instantly think of Baywatch,saysJohnson, the associate pastor of Bethel Redding, a megachurch in this small city a three-and-a-half-hour drive north of San Francisco. Its very different here from the rest of California.

Johnson lives in what might be described as Californias Great Red North, a bloc of 13 counties that voted for President Trump in November and that make up more than a fifth of the states land mass but only 3 per cent of its population.

From Hollywood to Silicon Valley, California projects an image as an economically thriving, politically liberal, sun-kissed El Dorado. It is a multiethnic experiment with a rising population, where the proportion of white people has fallen to 38 per cent.

Californias Great Red North is the opposite, a vast, rural, mountainous tract of pine forests with a political ethos that bears more resemblance to Texas than to Los Angeles. Two-thirds of the north is white, the population is shrinking and the region struggles economically, with median household incomes at $45,000, less than half that of San Francisco.

Jim Cook, former supervisor of Siskiyou County, which includes cattle ranches and the majestic slopes of Mount Shasta, calls it the forgotten part of California.

In the same state that is developing self-driving cars, theres the rugged landscape of Trinity County, where a large share of residents heat their homes with wood, plaques commemorate stagecoach routes and the county seat, Weaverville, is an old gold-mining town with a lone blinking stop-and-go traffic light.

The residents of this region argue that their political voice is drowned out in a system that has only one state senator for every million residents.

This sentiment resonates in other traditionally conservative parts of California, including large swaths of the Central Valley, which runs down the state, and it mirrors red and blue tensions felt in areas across the country. But perhaps nowhere else in California is the alienation felt more keenly than in the far north, an arresting panorama of fields filled with wildflowers and depopulated one-street towns that have never recovered from the gold rush.

People up here for a very long time have felt a sense that we dont matter, saysJames Gallagher, a state assemblyman for the Third District, which is a shorter drive from the forests of Mount Hood in Oregon than from the beaches of San Diego. We run this state like its one size fits all. You cant do that.

Many liberals in California describe themselves as the resistance to Trump. Residents of the north say they are the resistance to the resistance, politically invisible to the Democratic Governor and legislature. Californias strict regulations on the environment, gun control and hunting impinge on a rural lifestyle, they say, that urban politicians do not understand.

The states stringent air quality and climate change regulations may be appropriate for technology workers, Gallagher says, but they are onerous for people living in rural areas.

In the rural parts of the state we drive more miles, we drive older cars, our economy is an agriculture- and resource-based economy that relies on tractors and trucks, Gallagher says. You cant move an 80,000-pound load in an electric truck.

Northern California is predominantly white, conservative and rural

A recently passed gas tax, pushed through by the Democratic majority, will disproportionately hurt rural voters, he says.

Taxation and hunting are two issues northerners are quick to seize upon when criticising laws they feel are unfairly imposed by the state. But there are also more fundamental issues related to incomes and job opportunities that split California into a two-speed economy.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, unemployment rates hover around 3 per cent. In the far north, where many timber mills have shut down in recent years, unemployment is as high as 6 per cent in Shasta County and 16.2 per cent in Colusa County.

Despite a go-it-alone ethos, residents of the 13 counties in the northern bloc are much more likely to receive government medical assistance than those in the Bay Area. In the north, 31 per cent take part in Medi-Cal, the California Medicaid program, while the Bay Area rate is 19 per cent, and Californias overall figure 28 per cent.

United States Representative Doug LaMalfa, a Republican representing Northern Californias First District, blames regulations that have shut down industries for the economic disparities.

Theyve devastated ag jobs, timber jobs, mining jobs with their environmental regulations, so, yes, we have a harder time sustaining the economy, and therefore theres more people that are in a poorer situation.

Because incomes are significantly lower than the state average and the region is so thinly populated, tax revenue from the far north is a fraction of what urban areas contribute. In 2014, the 13 northern counties had a combined state income tax assessment of $1bn (776m), compared with $4bn from San Francisco County.

Resentment toward the rest of California has a long history here there have been numerous efforts to split the state since its founding in 1850. After the presidential election, a proposal to secede from the union, driven by liberals and known as Calexit, gained attention.

Residents here have long backed a different proposal for a separate state, one that would be carved out of Northern California and the southern reaches of Oregon. Flags of the so-called State of Jefferson, which was first proposed in the 19th century, fly on farms and ranches around the region.

Jefferson, named after the President who once envisioned establishing an independent nation in the western section of North America, is more a state of mind than a practicable proposal. Many see it as unrealistic for a region that has plenty of water and timber but perhaps not enough wealth to wean itself away from engines of the California economy.

However, two recent initiatives have channelled the deep feeling of underrepresentation.

In May, a loose coalition of northern activists and residents, including an Indian tribe and the small northern city of Fort Jones, joined forces to file a federal lawsuit arguing that Californias legislative system is unconstitutional because the Legislature has not expanded with the population.

The suit, filed against the California secretary of state, Alex Padilla, who oversees election laws in California, calls for an increase in the membership of the bicameral Legislature, which since 1862 has capped the number of lawmakers at 120.

The lawsuit argues that California now has the least representative system of any state in the nation. Each State Assembly member represents nearly 500,000 people and each state senator twice that.

This arbitrary cap has created an oligarchy, the lawsuit says.

By contrast, each member of the New York State Assembly represents on average 130,000 people; in New Hampshire, its 3,330 people for each representative.

Mark Baird, one of the plaintiffs, says residents of Californias far north feel as though they are being governed by an urbanised elite.

I wake up in the morning and think, What is California going to do to me today? says Baird, a former airline pilot who owns a ranch about an hours drive from the Oregon border. In a grass valley framed by low-lying hills, Bairds pastures are filled with his small herd of buffalo and a few pens of horses and donkeys.

Baird complains of restrictions on the types of guns he can own. Its tyranny by the majority, he says. The majority should never be able to deprive the minority of their inalienable rights.

Scott Wiener, a state senator representing San Francisco, says he has sympathy for the concerns of rural voters but rejects the proposal for a larger legislative body.

When you have a state as big and diverse as California, decisions are made that we dont all agree with, he says.

The second initiative is a proposed amendment to Californias Constitution that would change the method for dividing districts of the Legislatures upper house, the Senate. Instead of being based on population as they are now, Senate seats would be tied to regions, giving a larger voice to rural areas in the same way the federal Senate does.

I am asking the people with power to give up some of their power in order to allow all the voices in the state to have a little bit more strength than they do right now, says Gallagher, the assemblyman.

Northern Californians point out that the United States House of Representatives and Senate are based on the compromise between population and geography.

What I cant get over is that a court can rule that its not good for the state but it stands up at the federal level, says LaMalfa, the congressman. We wouldnt have a union if we hadnt come up with that compromise.

LaMalfa, who lives on a farm, says Californias urban denizens think of the rural areas as their park, and deplores what he describes as trophy legislation to protect animal species.

You have idealists from the cities who say, Wouldnt it be great to reintroduce wolves to rural California? LaMalfa says. He has a half-serious counterproposal: Lets introduce some wolves into Golden Gate Park and the Santa Monica Pier.

New York Times

Read the rest here:

California's far north deplores 'tyranny' of the urban majority - The Independent

There are a variety of approaches we could take to boost the economy of Oregons rural counties. We can look back, and try to recapture a fragment of Oregons old economy based on resource extraction, or we can look forward to more stable and sustainable opportunities.

Organic agriculture and commerce is one such opportunity; however, the clean air, water, and soil needed for this industry to flourish are threatened by Oregons weakest in the West environmental rules. New research shows why Oregon should embrace organics and ensure that organic farming can be a big part of our states future.

Unfortunately, the rear-view mirror vision often presented by Oregons industry and policy leaders overlooks diverse, vibrant and modern economic drivers, such as organic farming and the organic trade. Instead, the focus is often on a return to industrial forestry and mass clear-cutting practices whose harm outstrips the potential economic benefits.

A recent Environmental Protection Agency report shows that one-half of Oregons 10 biggest polluters are in the wood products industry. According to the director of Oregons Office of Economic Analysis, even if we went back to peak harvest of the 70s, wed only have one-third of the workers in the mill as we did in previous years, due to technology alone.

The organic industry provides a stunning contrast. Nationwide, organic food sales in 2015 jumped by 11 percent to almost $40 billion, far outpacing the 3 percent growth rate for the overall food market. Oregon companies such as Mountain Rose Herbs, Organically Grown Co., and Hummingbird Wholesale are just a few clear examples of how organic businesses can benefit local economies, while supporting high-quality jobs in organic agriculture.

Research published by the Organic Trade Association in May 2016, from Penn State agricultural economist Dr. Edward Jaenicke, shows that supporting the growth of organic businesses can be a major boon to rural economies. Jaenickes research links economic health at the county level to organic agriculture, and shows that organic food and crop production and the business activities accompanying organic agriculture creates real and long-lasting regional economic opportunities.

Most importantly: Counties within organic hot spots have lower poverty rates and higher median annual household incomes. On average, poverty rates drop by 1.3 percentage points and median income rises by more than $2,000 in these counties. The same benefits are not found in general agricultural hot spots.

Clearly, organics can and do benefit Oregons economy, but the organic trade relies on organic agriculture, and organic agriculture depends on clean water and air.

Industrial clear-cutting practices, such as aerial herbicide spraying, threaten both the economic potential of organics and the health of our state. Herbicides that drift onto neighboring properties during routine timberland aerial spraying are a direct threat to small organic farms and businesses.

Many would-be organic farmers simply cannot afford to risk their farm becoming contaminated with Atrazine or Glyphosate by neighboring corporate landowners, which may necessitate the loss of their crop and the associated investments and income.

Protecting the environment has benefits far beyond nurturing a successful organic industry. People want to live, work and grow in places with drinkable water, breathable air and a sustainable future. Lawmakers in Oregon should take meaningful steps to protect people, farms, and drinking water. Gov. Kate Brown deserves recognition for committing to working hard for rural Oregons economies; lets also talk more about empowering communities with innovative organic ideas supported by data and science, in line with modern values.

After all, what could be better for Oregon than growing more good clean food, and protecting clean, pure water for us all?

Stacy Kraker chairs the Oregon Organic Coalition and is director of communications and marketing for Organically Grown Company in Eugene.

More Guest Viewpoint articles

Read the original post:

Organic farming best option for rural economies - The Register-Guard

A newly released communiqu from the National Energy Board highlights Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario as standouts among mediocre performers aiming for Canadas greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. In particular, the two Atlantic provinces are hailed for already achieving a 30 per cent drop in GHG emissions within their borders compared to 2005 levels, but accompanying federal sustainability indicators accentuate that more populous and economically productive areas of the country are well off that pace.

Nationwide, Canadas annual GHG output fell from 738 (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to 722 Mt CO2e over the first 10 years of its commitment period under the Paris Agreement. This leaves a substantial gap still to close to reach the targeted 523 Mt CO2e by 2030.

Canada must reduce its GHG emissions by 28 per cent within the next 14 years, the National Energy Board release affirms.

Differing populations, economic drivers and sources of electricity generation are easily discernible in the provincial/territorial breakdown of emissions statistics. Together, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia accounted for just 4.2 per cent of national emissions in 2015. However, even before their impressive curtailment, they contributed less than 6 per cent of national emissions in 2005.

A move away from coal-fired electricity generation underpins much of the improved performance in the three provinces receiving kudos. Ontario registered the largest volumetric decline in emissions, which fell from 204.4 Mt CO2e in 2005 to 166.2 Mt CO2e in 2015. Across Canada, emissions from coal-fired electricity generation dropped from 95 to 61 Mt CO2e in the same period, with 21 Mt of that decrease occurring within Ontario.

Economic malaise and restructuring fill in the rest of the GHG reduction story, with decreased manufacturing activity, shut-down of the Dartmouth refinery and Ontarios declining emissions from heavy industry credited.

British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec all enjoy a low-carbon hydroelectric-based electricity supply, but had somewhat disparate emissions tallies, as Quebec registered a 10 per cent decrease, B.C. saw a 5 per cent drop and Manitoba edged slightly above its 2005 emissions output with a 0.9 per cent increase. Saskatchewan the lone provincial/territorial holdout onthe Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change recorded a more significant jump, with emissions growing to 75 Mt CO2e in 2015 from 69.5 in 2005.

Meanwhile, Alberta hits the GHG trifecta with a resource-based economy, surging population growth and a carbon-intensive electricity grid. The oil and gas sector is the single greatest national source for GHG emissions, representing 26 per cent of the 2015 national tally, and it has also become more carbon-intensive as the industry expands in Albertas oil sands. The provincial population rose by 26 per cent between 2005 and 2015 surpassing the 11 per cent national average and adding to the emissions output of both the transportation and electricity sectors. Annual GHG emissions rose nearly 18 per cent over the 10-year period, from 233.8 to 274.1 Mt CO2e by 2015.

Pulling the lens out 25 years, the sustainability indicators report further outlines the Ontario-Alberta GHG divide. In 1990, Ontarios GHG emissions were higher than those from other provinces because of its large manufacturing industry. Albertas emissions subsequently surpassed Ontarios, increasing 56 per cent since 1990, primarily due to the increase in the oil and gas sector for export markets, it explains.

Nevertheless, they have simply traded places in the big-two rankings of provincial/territorial emitters. In 2015, the combined emissions from Alberta and Ontario represented 61 per cent (38 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively) of the national total, the report notes.

Visit link:

Alberta hits the trifecta for GHG emissions - REMI Network - REMI Network - Real Estate Management Industry Network

Foreign currency mortgage borrowers rallied against banks in Moscow in 2014, holding balloons reading Mortgage.

As President Vladimir Putin of Russia meets President Trump this week at the G-20 summit, it will hardly be from a position of economic strength. Despite the steep drop in oil prices that began three years ago, Russia has managed to escape a deep financial crisis. But while the economy is enjoying a modest rebound after two years of deep recession, the future no longer seems as promising as its leadership thought just five years ago. Barring serious economic and political reform, that bodes ill for Putins ability to realize his strategic ambitions for Russia.

Back in 2012, when Putin appeared onstage with the Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman at a Moscow bank conference, Russias 1998 economic crisis seemed a distant memory. With oil prices well over a $100 a barrel, the governments coffers were bursting. So Putin could proudly contrast Russias government budget surplus with large recession-driven deficits across the West. He surely delighted in having Russian audiences hear Krugmans view that Western democracies had come up badly short in handling the global financial crisis.

Advertisement

In a different session, Russian academic economist Sergei Guriev (who later had to flee the country) argued that there was no hope for diversification of Russias resource-based economy as long as institutions such as courts were so weak. Too many key decisions rested with one man. Speaking in the same session, I emphasized that without fundamental reforms, a sharp drop in global energy prices would create profound problems.

Inevitably, that drop came, with prices plummeting from $119 in February 2012 (for Brent crude oil in Europe) to $27 in 2016. Even the current level (under $50 at the start of July 2017), is less than half the 2011-2012 peak. For a country that depends on oil and natural gas for the lions share of export revenue, the price collapse has been a massive blow, rippling through the economy.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The fact that Russia has avoided a financial crisis is remarkable and largely due to the efforts of the Central Bank of Russia. But the burden of adjustment has largely fallen on consumers, owing to a roughly 50 percent drop in the rubles value relative to the dollar; real wages and consumption both fell sharply.

The attorney general gave a vote of confidence to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation.

The shock to the real economy has been severe, with Russia suffering a decline in output in 2015 and 2016 comparable to what the United States experienced during its 2008-2009 financial crisis, with the contraction in GDP totaling about 4 percent. Many firms went bankrupt, and in 2016 the International Monetary Fund estimated that almost 10 percent of all bank loans were nonperforming (a figure that surely understates the severity of the situation).

In many cases, banks chose to relend funds rather than take losses onto their books or force politically connected firms into bankruptcy. At the same time, though, the Central Bank moved aggressively to force smaller banks to raise capital and write down bad loans. And, in the face of intense lobbying by powerful oligarchs, the Central Bank kept interest rates up to tame inflation, which had reached more than 15 percent but has since fallen to close to 4 percent.

Advertisement

Of course, Western sanctions, particularly restrictions on banks, have exacerbated the situation. But the media tend to over-emphasize this aspect of Russias economic woes. All countries that rely heavily on energy exports have suffered, especially those, like Russia, that have failed to diversify their economies.

In a Western democracy, an economic collapse on the scale experienced by Russia would have been extremely difficult to digest politically, as the global surge in populism demonstrates. Yet Putin has been able to remain firmly in control and, in all likelihood, will easily be able to engineer another landslide victory in the presidential election due in March 2018.

Russias state-owned media juggernaut has been able to turn Western sanctions into a scapegoat for the governments own failures, and to whip up support for foreign adventurism including the seizure of the Crimea, military intervention in Syria, and meddling in US elections. Most Russians, constantly manipulated by their countrys schools and media, are convinced that conditions are much worse in the West (a hyperbolic claim even in the era of fake news).

Unfortunately, such disinformation is hardly a recipe for generating reform. And, without reform, there is little reason to be optimistic about Russias long-run growth trend, given its poor demographic profile, weak institutions, and abject failure to diversify its economy, despite having an enormously talented and creative population.

Where will future growth come from? If the world continues to move toward a low-carbon future, Russia will confront an inevitable choice: Launch economic and political reforms, or face continuing marginalization, with or without Western sanctions. No meeting between the US and Russian presidents can change this reality.

The rest is here:

Putin's weak economic hand - The Boston Globe

Petrorubles If the world continues to move toward a low-carbon future, Russia will confront an inevitable choice, with or without western sanctions. Photograph: Yuri Kadobnov/AFP/Getty Images

When the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, meets his US counterpart, Donald Trump, at this weeks G20 summit in Hamburg, he will not be doing so from a position of economic strength. To be sure, despite the steep drop in oil prices that began three years ago, Russia has managed to escape a deep financial crisis. But while the economy is enjoying a modest rebound after two years of deep recession, the future no longer seems as promising as its leadership thought just five years ago. Barring serious economic and political reform, that bodes ill for Putins ability to realise his strategic ambitions for Russia.

Back in 2012, when Putin appeared onstage with the Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman at a Moscow bank conference, Russias 1998 economic crisis seemed a distant memory. With oil prices well over $100 a barrel, the governments coffers were bursting. So Putin could proudly contrast Russias government budget surplus with the large recession-driven deficits across the west. He surely delighted in having Russian audiences hear Krugmans view that western democracies had come up badly short in handling the global financial crisis.

In a different session, Russian academic economist Sergei Guriev (who later had to flee the country) argued there was no hope for diversification of Russias resource-based economy as long as institutions such as courts were so weak. Too many key decisions rested with one man. Speaking in the same session, I emphasised that without fundamental reforms, a sharp drop in global energy prices would create profound problems.

Inevitably, that drop came, with prices plummeting from $119 in February 2012 (for Brent crude oil in Europe) to $27 in 2016. Even the current level (under $50 in early July 2017), is less than half the 2011-2012 peak. For a country that depends on oil and natural gas for the lions share of export revenue, the price collapse has been a massive blow rippling through the economy.

The fact Russia has avoided a financial crisis is remarkable and largely due to the efforts of the Central Bank of Russia. Indeed, Elvira Nabiullina, the CBRs governor, has twice won international central banker of the year awards.

But the burden of adjustment has largely fallen on consumers, owing to a roughly 50% drop in the rubles value relative to the dollar; real wages and consumption both fell sharply. As one Russian put it to me, he used to take 1,000 rubles to the supermarket and come home with two bags; now he comes home with one.

The shock to the real economy has been severe, with Russia suffering a decline in output in 2015 and 2016 comparable to what the United States experienced during its 2008-2009 financial crisis, with the contraction in GDP totalling about 4%. Many firms went bankrupt, and in 2016 the International Monetary Fund estimated that almost 10% of all bank loans were non-performing (a figure that surely understates the severity of the situation).

In many cases, banks chose to re-lend funds rather than take losses on to their books or force politically connected firms into bankruptcy. At the same time, though, the CBR moved aggressively to force smaller banks to raise capital and write down bad loans (something European policymakers have taken forever to do). And, in the face of intense lobbying by powerful oligarchs, the CBR kept interest rates up to tame inflation, which had reached more than 15% but has since fallen to close to 4%.

Of course, western sanctions particularly restrictions on banks have exacerbated the situation. But the media tend to over-emphasise this aspect of Russias economic woes. All countries that rely heavily on energy exports have suffered, especially those, like Russia, that have failed to diversify their economies.

In a western democracy, an economic collapse on the scale experienced by Russia would have been extremely difficult to digest politically, as the global surge in populism demonstrates. Yet Putin has been able to remain firmly in control and, in all likelihood, will easily be able to engineer another landslide victory in the presidential election due in March 2018.

Russias state-owned media juggernaut has been able to turn western sanctions into a scapegoat for the governments own failures, and to whip up support for foreign adventurism including the seizure of the Crimea, military intervention in Syria, and meddling in US elections. Most Russians, constantly manipulated by their countrys schools and media, are convinced that conditions are much worse in the west (a hyperbolic claim even in the era of fake news).

Unfortunately, such disinformation is hardly a recipe for generating reform. And, without reform, there is little reason to be optimistic about Russias long-run growth trend, given its poor demographic profile, weak institutions and abject failure to diversify its economy, despite having an enormously talented and creative population.

Where will future growth come from? If the world continues to move toward a low-carbon future, Russia will confront an inevitable choice: launch economic and political reforms or face continuing marginalisation, with or without western sanctions. No meeting between the US and Russian presidents can change that reality.

Kenneth Rogoff is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics.

Project Syndicate

Follow this link:

Russia's future looks bleak without economic and political reform ... - The Guardian