The Ring Nebula's distinctive shape makes it a popular illustration for astronomy books. But new observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope of the glowing gas shroud around an old, dying, sun-like star reveal a new twist.
"The nebula is not like a bagel, but rather, it's like a jelly doughnut, because it's filled with material in the middle," said C. Robert O'Dell of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He leads a research team that used Hubble and several ground-based telescopes to obtain the best view yet of the iconic nebula. The images show a more complex structure than astronomers once thought and have allowed them to construct the most precise 3-D model of the nebula.
"With Hubble's detail, we see a completely different shape than what's been thought about historically for this classic nebula," O'Dell said. "The new Hubble observations show the nebula in much clearer detail, and we see things are not as simple as we previously thought."
The Ring Nebula is about 2,000 light-years from Earth and measures roughly 1 light-year across. Located in the constellation Lyra, the nebula is a popular target for amateur astronomers.
Previous observations by several telescopes had detected the gaseous material in the ring's central region. But the new view by Hubble's sharp-eyed Wide Field Camera 3 shows the nebula's structure in more detail. O'Dell's team suggests the ring wraps around a blue, football-shaped structure. Each end of the structure protrudes out of opposite sides of the ring.
The nebula is tilted toward Earth so that astronomers see the ring face-on. In the Hubble image, the blue structure is the glow of helium. Radiation from the white dwarf star, the white dot in the center of the ring, is exciting the helium to glow. The white dwarf is the stellar remnant of a sun-like star that has exhausted its hydrogen fuel and has shed its outer layers of gas to gravitationally collapse to a compact object.
O'Dell's team was surprised at the detailed Hubble views of the dark, irregular knots of dense gas embedded along the inner rim of the ring, which look like spokes in a bicycle wheel. These gaseous tentacles formed when expanding hot gas pushed into cool gas ejected previously by the doomed star. The knots are more resistant to erosion by the wave of ultraviolet light unleashed by the star. The Hubble images have allowed the team to match up the knots with the spikes of light around the bright, main ring, which are a shadow effect. Astronomers have found similar knots in other planetary nebulae.
All of this gas was expelled by the central star about 4,000 years ago. The original star was several times more massive than our sun. After billions of years converting hydrogen to helium in its core, the star began to run out of fuel. It then ballooned in size, becoming a red giant. During this phase, the star shed its outer gaseous layers into space and began to collapse as fusion reactions began to die out. A gusher of ultraviolet light from the dying star energized the gas, making it glow.
The outer rings were formed when faster-moving gas slammed into slower-moving material. The nebula is expanding at more than 43,000 miles an hour, but the center is moving faster than the expansion of the main ring. O'Dell's team measured the nebula's expansion by comparing the new Hubble observations with Hubble studies made in 1998.
The Ring Nebula will continue to expand for another 10,000 years, a short phase in the lifetime of the star. The nebula will become fainter and fainter until it merges with the interstellar medium.
Studying the Ring Nebula's fate will provide insight into the sun's demise in another 6 billion years. The sun is less massive than the Ring Nebula's progenitor star, so it will not have an opulent ending.
"When the sun becomes a white dwarf, it will heat more slowly after it ejects its outer gaseous layers," O'Dell said. "The material will be farther away once it becomes hot enough to illuminate the gas. This larger distance means the sun's nebula will be fainter because it is more extended."
In the analysis, the research team also obtained images from the Large Binocular Telescope at the Mount Graham International Observatory in Arizona and spectroscopic data from the San Pedro Martir Observatory in Baja California, Mexico.
###
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center: http://www.nasa.gov/goddard
Thanks to NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center for this article.
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
As if the Sydney Opera House wasn't already striking to behold, a group of Australian artists called "The Spinifex Group" have made it even wilder. As part of Sydney's "Vivid" festival?which started on Friday?the Opera House will be home to a crazy projected light-show for the next several weeks. And it's awesome.
The Spinifex Group aren't new to the crazy-projection-light-show game; they were also responsible for the crazy lights from the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Likewise, the practice of turning the opera house into a huge screen for light-up craziness?"Lighting the Sails"?isn't new either. But the two have come together for a really fantastic outing this year based on the concept of "Play," and it's awesome to watch even on the Internet. It must be insane in person.
The show utilizes 17 carefully-synced large scale projectors will show the 15-minute loop of animated footage every night between 6PM and midnight until June 10th. The accompanying music you hear isn't blaring though; if you want to hear that you'll have to tune into an old-fashioned radio. It's a pretty incredible installation. Too bad we can't all see it in real life. You can read more about the nitty-gritty details over at Gizmodo Australia.
PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his crackdown on illegal immigration, a federal judge found on Friday, and ordered him to stop using race as a factor in law enforcement decisions.
The ruling against the Maricopa County sheriff came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers that tested whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.
U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the sheriff's policies violated the drivers' constitutional rights and ordered Arpaio's office to cease using race or ancestry as a grounds to stop, detain or hold occupants of vehicles - some of them in crime sweeps dubbed "saturation patrols."
"The great weight of the evidence is that all types of saturation patrols at issue in this case incorporated race as a consideration into their operations," Snow said in a written ruling.
He added that race had factored into which vehicles the deputies decided to stop, and into who they decided to investigate for immigration violations.
The lawsuit contended that Arpaio, who styles himself "America's toughest sheriff," and his officers violated the constitutional rights of both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants alike in their zeal to crack down on people they believe to be in the country illegally.
The ruling came days after a U.S. Senate panel approved a landmark comprehensive immigration legislation that would usher in the biggest changes in immigration policy in a generation if passed by Congress.
The bill would put 11 million immigrants without legal status on a 13-year path to citizenship while further strengthening security along the porous southwestern border with Mexico.
Arpaio declined comment on the ruling. A sheriff's spokesman referred a request for comment to attorney Tim Casey, who said he was reading the ruling and had no immediate comment.
'ILLEGAL AND PLAIN UN-AMERICAN'
Cecillia Wang, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project and plaintiffs' counsel, called the judge's ruling "an important victory that will resound far beyond Maricopa County."
"Singling people out for traffic stops and detentions simply because they're Latino is illegal and just plain un-American," Wang said after the ruling was made public.
"Let this be a warning to anyone who hides behind a badge to wage their own private campaign against Latinos or immigrants that there is no exception in the Constitution for violating people's rights in immigration enforcement."
During testimony in the non-jury trial last year, Arpaio said he was against racial profiling and denied his office arrested people because of the color of their skin.
The sheriff, who won re-election to a sixth term in November, has been a lightning rod for controversy over his aggressive enforcement of immigration laws in the state, which borders Mexico, as well as an investigation into the validity of President Barack Obama's U.S. birth certificate.
The lawsuit was brought against Arpaio and his office on behalf of five Hispanic drivers who said they had been stopped by deputies because of their ethnicity.
The plaintiffs, which include the Somos America immigrants' rights coalition and all Latino drivers stopped by the sheriff's office since 2007, were seeking corrective action but not monetary damages.
Arpaio has been the subject of other probes and lawsuits. In August, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona said it had closed a criminal investigation into accusations of financial misconduct by Arpaio, and it declined to bring charges.
A separate U.S. Justice Department investigation and lawsuit relating to accusations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio's office is ongoing.
Arizona has been at the heart of a bitter national debate over immigration since Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed a 2010 crackdown on illegal immigration.
The federal government challenged the crackdown in court and said the U.S. Constitution gives it sole authority over immigration policy. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has allowed to stand the part of the law permitting police to question people they stop about their immigration status.
Snow scheduled a hearing in the case for June 14 at 9:30 a.m. at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse in Phoenix.
(Reporting by Tim Gaynor and David Schwartz; Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Eric Walsh, Toni Reinhold)
Car video constructings seasonedvides nice and journey for the drive. The vast principality of us each and each geneexpense automotives and vans or voyage withwithwisokay inny the m. The voyage could most seasonedfessionalbably be unconpartworkworkworkworkworkworkworkration-seizebing and lacokay luster if tseasonedper correct most suidesk the comply withing is not any seasonedfessionalfessional imaginative and prescient for leioptimistic, partworkworkworkworkworkworkicularly as quickly as the voyage is seasonedfessionalfessional sizeyed and we dedicate an ask your selfful curemploy extra time in journeyling. Hearing to entertaining audio tracokay s and toiletokay ating video could even be one in each and each of nicely valued aty wseasonedper correct most suidesk the comply withingasoline processology to create our journeys fascinating and that conpartworkworkworkworkworkworkworkration-seizebing .
An impressionive automotive video processology could give us advertditional absteady audio tracokay s regardmuch less of the truth that we?re wisokay inny your vehiyacle. The benematch to proudly exclusive individual aling the gadvertget wisokay inny your automotive could even be to retawithwithwisokay inny the youthfulersters quiet wisokay inny your bacokay . Typinamey the autos arrive using the stocokay judgemalests automotive video merchandise whiyach would seasonedfessionalbably very seasonedfessionalperly be earlier thanhand create wisokay inny your automotive withwithwisokay inny the manutruth urer: by no implysthemuch less loadvertisedevelopnup malests of exclusive individual s decide upon the distinct exclusive individualalized madverte merchandise whiyach would seasonedfessionalbably very seasonedfessionalperly be condecide upond as each and each the proprietor&#three9;s difratemploy . You need to purchase the stexpensegy from comprehensively difratemploy retailers or on-line retailers. An alaleven iftl curemploy newerly the tconclude ency of placing in video avid avid avid recreationrs and visual display kinds wisokay inny your automotives and vans has arrived to be giganticspbe taught. People decide upon to timepiece video and audio tracokay s video regardmuch less of the truth that they?re journeyling seasonedfessionalfessional sizeyed distances. The avid avid avid recreationrs with each and each comprehensively difratemploy with fluid crystal curemploy visual display kinds are used wisokay inny your automotive to accumulate the identical leioptimistic. These visual display kinds could most seasonedfessionalbably be matchted each and each above the rear timepiece mirror or ancomprehensively difratemploy alaleven iftl stempo wisokay inny your auto. But bear in cas quickly aspts it is not that pacey to relaxationore a alaleven iftl difratemploy as a consequence of the extent of extreme extreme extraive caliber and seasonedfessionalfessional viding nicely valued aty wailing show up for getting convincing with each and each and each and each and each and each designal curemploy ed on on-line retailers.
It is terribly very very esdespatchedial whiyach you just cas quickly asntexpense in your funds. Enoptimistic you absolutely cas quickly asntexpense for the spconclude ing funds you have acquireed acquireedten acquireed with you asizeypartworkworkworkworkworkworkworkpartworkworkworkworkworkworkwork using the options you presume your video processology need to absolutely have. Enoptimistic you absolutely qualification for getting acquainted with comprehensively difratemploy deindicators and seasonedfessionalfessional ducers enattemptible wisokay inny your marokay et. Also, maokay e optimistic you absolutely cas quickly asntexpense for the okay ind of video deindicators that wailing curemploy you advertditional absteady extent of benematchs and as a penalties of thiyas truth assist one to defend out a clever search. Only a tiny little of gsphericalworokay is steadyly assembleive. as seasonedfessionalperly as you most most seasonedfessionalbably can reseeokay for the video processology that wailing defend out most suidesk ly using the movie sort ats you are supposed to maokay e use of. Also defend benematch from the GPS trconclude y advertelevisionances that wailing maokay e it user-pallyr to in uncovering map and seasonedfessionalfessional vide you some very assembleive seasonedfessionalfessional ducing packages . It is steadyly advertelevisionisin a place to create a checokay doc of options you anticipate wisokay inny your automotive movie mannequin.
Tseasonedper correct most suidesk the comply withing is little doubt how the gadvertget has massive benematch in that it seasonedfessionalfessional vides you using the sokay sick ed bcapability to get your hands on out the flexibility in your curemploy wisokay inny of the comfort of your automotive. Car video merchandise could even be one in each and each of nicely valued aty wseasonedper correct most suidesk the comply withingasoline stexpensegies of preserving your do it your self when be taughty wisokay inny your automotive for any exclusive individual or withwithwisokay inny the event you uncover your self stucokay in webweb web web site web web site web site guests for shut to ly any seasonedfessionalfessional sizeyed time. It could most seasonedfessionalbably be mounted for the dashboard or for the ceiling from the automotive and wsick most seasonedfessionalbably be condecide upond in line withbattled exclusive individual&#three9;s requiremalests. The processology integexpensed with each and each comprehensively difratemploy purchaseively with your mobile mobile telecelltelecellphone by way of wi-fi wailing on the spotly mute for the stexpensegy when a name up arrives in. exclusive individual s with iPod integration can defend out the audio.
Thhard the undifficult introduction I ijournaline whiyach you just have albe taughty acquireed a steady apprehconclude ing. More okay inds of Car video constructings sale all in fmheroes.org, withwithwisokay inny the event you want purchase a one you most most seasonedfessionalbably can come seasonedper correct most suidesk the comply withing and telecelltelecellphone with us.
This entry was posted in Automotive. Bookmark the permalink.
Earlier this week, Vikings defensive end Jared Allen said that he and the Vikings ?haven?t talked one iota? about a new contract, but you can?t say the same about his conversations with the media.
Allen told Dan Wiederer of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that he has ?absolutely no idea? where he will wind up playing in 2014 after his contract, which will pay him more than $14 million in 2013, with the Vikings expires. He?s seen veteran teammates like Matt Birk and Antoine Winfield wind up heading elsewhere and knows that this might be it for him in Minnesota, something that he admits would not be the case in his best-case scenario.
?Best-case scenario would have been that we would have never gotten to this point. Best-case scenario would have been the organization would have gotten something done a few years back,? Allen said. ?Well ya know what? That?s not the case. And I understand it. ? I?m just happy I?m in a spot where both sides are honoring the contract.?
As Wiederer points out, the Vikings and Allen could split up no matter how this year plays out. If Allen plays well, he?ll likely be too expensive for the Vikings to keep. If he doesn?t, they might feel like it is time to move on to a younger and cheaper player at defensive end. Allen isn?t overly concerned about either scenario.
?I kind of feel like I hold all the cards in that aspect,? Allen said. ?And if it doesn?t work out with the Vikings, I?m not too worried that I won?t be able to find a job, ya know??
The lack of dialogue on an extension, which would make Allen?s cap hit significantly lower, suggests that the Vikings are just as willing to let the chips fall where they may after the 2013 season. And that makes it a lot likelier that this is Allen?s final year in purple.
The ideas which are here expressed so laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds. John Maynard Keynes
Of all the critiques of mainstream economics, Third World, feminist, Austrian, radical, Georgist, Marxist and others, the one our grandkids would have us heed most is the ecological critique. The ecological critique says that mainstream economics has ignored some extremely important scientific principles that are especially relevant to economic growth in the 21st century. These principles, taken together, make it abundantly clear that there are limits to population growth and to the production and consumption of goods and services, no matter how efficiently we try to produce and consume. In other words, these principles make it clear that there is a limit to economic growth. Therefore, a full world in pursuit of economic growth finds itself in violation of the laws of nature and is penalized accordingly. As they say, ?Nature bats last.? Unfortunately, the penalties will be most severe for the grandkids, and this will be supremely unfair because the grandkids will have had no say in the formulation of our economic goals.
The ecological critique of mainstream economics is so strong and compelling that a large and growing academic movement has formed around it. This movement is called ?ecological economics,? no less, and is more or less embodied in the International Society for Ecological Economics, or ISEE.1
There are ISEE chapters representing the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, and India.
As with most movements, there are various views on how ecological economics originated. However, at least three couplings of people and their thought-provoking writings would be prominent in any discussion of ecological economics history. One is the controversial book by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers called Limits to Growth, published in 1972. Another is the highly theoretical work of the Romanian professor Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, summarized in his book The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). The third would be the profound but down-to-earth work of Herman Daly on the steady state economy, featured in books such as Valuing the Earth (1993), For the Common Good (1994) and Beyond Growth (1997).
Limits to Growth was a cornerstone of the American environmental movement and was eventually translated into 30 languages.
The authors, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) and commissioned by the Club of Rome, developed a computer model demonstrating how economic growth was leading to natural resource depletion and environmental degradation. Two of the computer scenarios, including a ?business as usual? scenario and a dramatic technological progress scenario, predicted a disastrous collapse of the economy during the 21st century. The third scenario was essentially the steady state economy and assumed concerted efforts to stabilize the system. The book and its authors suffered a politically debilitating attack in the decades following its publication. At first, economists in academia chipped away at details, but soon pro-growth, free-market organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute piled on with an overarching accusation of ?pessimism.? Such criticism was similar to the 19th-century criticism of Malthus?s Essay on Population and is hard to read without countering: ?Don?t throw the baby out with the bathwater.? Perhaps Meadows and her colleagues weren?t spot-on with every detail, but the principles they laid out were undeniable and the scenarios were rigorously constructed. Decades later analysts are documenting how prescient the authors of Limits to Growth were, especially with the business as usual scenario.2
In contrast to Limits to Growth, Georgescu-Roegen?s masterpiece went mostly unnoticed in academia and was entirely ignored in public dialog. It?s effect has been like the hands of time, tick-tocking perpetual growth notions into the dustbin of yesteryear?s fantasies. The slow but sure ticking is apropos, given that The Entropy Law and the Economic Process is all about ?time?s arrow,? or the entropy law.
The entropy law is a foundational concept in physics: the second law of thermodynamics no less. Perhaps the quickest, easiest way to describe it is that energy inevitably, invariably dissipates.
Things that are hotter than their environment cool off. Of the billions of cups of coffee poured in the broad sweep of history, not one has warmed up of its own accord, not for an instant. The entropy process is as consistent and irreversible as Father Time; you can tell whether it?s earlier or later based on the warmth of your coffee. Einstein said of the entropy law, ?It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced . . . will never be overthrown.? Einstein was also impressed by the entropy law?s ?range of applicability.?3
And apply it Georgescu-Roegen did, unto 457 pages! The main application, in a nutshell, is that absolute efficiency in the economic production process cannot be achieved. Nor can recycling be 100 percent efficient. Pollution is inevitable, and all else equal, more economic production means more pollution. These findings may seem like no-brainers to many, yet neoclassical growth theory has led to wild-eyed optimism regarding ?green growth? and ?closing the loop? by turning all waste into capital. Such fantasia cannot be soundly refuted without invoking the entropy law.
The Entropy Law and the Economic Process moves across a huge swath of philosophical and scientific terrain. As with most wide-ranging and intellectually adventurous books, The Entropy Law can and has been challenged. Most of its arguments and the counterarguments are philosophical and not amenable to scientific proof or disproof. But the tremendous value of The Entropy Law is that it unequivocally established the profound relevance of thermodynamics to economic affairs. Unlike neoclassical economics, ecological economics embraces this relevance, putting ecological economics into a better position for enlightening real world affairs.
With regard to real world affairs, though, The Entropy Law as a book was not as useful as the entropy law itself. It was abstruse enough to appear esoteric, and Georgescu-Roegen?s interests in economic affairs tended to be exceedingly long-term. While neoclassical economists pushed a perpetually growing economy, Georgescu-Roegen emphasized a perpetually eroding economy and indeed a perpetually eroding universe, all the way out to the ?heat death? necessitated by infinity. This emphasis had the ironic effect of retarding the application of The Entropy Law and the Economic Process to the economic process itself.
Fortunately for ecological economics, one of Georgescu- Roegen?s students at Vanderbilt University was Herman Daly. A devout Christian, Daly too had an eye toward the longest of long terms, but he also had one eye focused on the wellbeing of present and upcoming generations. This tapestry of long- and short-term interests can be sensed throughout Daly?s writings. Daly took the entropy law, emphasized its short-term relevance while acknowledging its long-term implications, and used it as part of a well-grounded macroeconomic framework. He called this framework ?steady state economics,? which served as the catalyst for the ecological economics movement. Much of the remainder of this book is a natural progression from Daly?s steady state economics.
Figure 6.1. Herman Daly (top left) and Donella ?Dana? Meadows (top right), founders of ecological economics. Daly and colleagues clarified the relationship between the economy and earth with a diagram (above) that was simple but powerful for illustrating limits to growth. Credits: (top left) Herman Daly; (top right) Donella Meadows institute; (above) From Ecological Economics, Herman e. Daly and Joshua Farley, ?2004 Herman e. Daly and Joshua Farley. reproduced by permission of island Press.
With the passing of Georgescu-Roegen (1906?1994) and Donella Meadows (1941?2001), of the three only Daly, a professor emeritus with the University of Maryland, remains a major figure in ecological economics.4
For the Common Good (co-authored with the theologian John Cobb) received the prestigious Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. Daly was also the recipient of the Honorary Right Livelihood Award (Sweden?s alternative to the Nobel Prize) and the Heineken Prize for Environmental Science from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Daly is no ivory-tower academic, either, having spent six years as a senior economist at the World Bank. The National Council for Science and the Environment presented Daly with its Lifetime Achievement Award in 2010. The tremendous respect for Daly is displayed in a festschrift authored by colleagues, students and admirers.5
Of course, it is somewhat arbitrary to classify these relatively recent efforts as the ?roots? of ecological economics. We saw in Chapter 3 that the classical economists, most notably Malthus, recognized limits to economic growth. John Stuart Mill went further and elaborated on the ?stationary state.? Daly?s steady state economy is essentially the resurrection of Mill?s stationary state, supplemented with a rigor gleaned from the natural sciences, an economic mastery honed in academia and first-hand experience with economic growth policy as implemented by the World Bank. After six years at the Bank, Daly left in disgust, noting the blind faith in neoclassical economics among the Bank?s highest-ranking economists.6
He offered the hopeful observation, however, that the Bank was becoming ?more environmentally sensitive and literate.?7
Daly was modest, for the newfound environmental sensitivity wasn?t foisted onto the Bank by Wall Street or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In fact, we have the likes of Daly himself and a noteworthy colleague at the bank, Robert Goodland, to thank.
With that brief historical account as background, the remainder of this chapter will comprise an overview of ecological economics, with an emphasis on how ecological economics treats the subject of economic growth. As with conventional economics, ecological economics can be broken down into micro- and macroeconomics.
Ecological economics is founded upon different principles, micro and macro, which lead to distinct conclusions and policy implications. These principles stem from the natural sciences (physical and biological) that are largely ignored in conventional or neoclassical economics.
While we keep the micro-macro distinction in mind, it will also be useful to think of three themes: allocation, distribution and scale. ?Allocation? refers to the way the factors of production are devoted to different producers for different purposes. For example, land may be allocated among farming, forestry, recreational and other uses. Labor and capital may be allocated likewise. At a finer level, timber from a forest may be allocated among furniture-making, construction, boat-building, etc. Labor at the construction site may be allocated among carpentry, masonry and plumbing.
Capital at an automobile plant may be allocated among the chassis, drive-train and circuitry floors. The efficiency of an economy depends to a great extent upon a well-balanced allocation among and within the factors of production.
?Distribution? refers to the distribution of income, wealth or general welfare. This is the economic subject most often discussed by non-economists. Indeed, politics is mostly about distribution, which explains the classic definition of politics: ?Who gets what, when, and how.?8
Bill Clinton could have elaborated, ?It?s the political economy, stupid!?
?Scale? refers to the size of the human economy relative to the ecosystem. This, of course, is our focus here, and it provides the primary distinction between neoclassical and ecological economics. Neoclassical economics deals almost exclusively with allocation and, to a much lesser extent, distribution. Why? Because neoclassical economics doesn?t recognize environmental limits to economic growth. With no limit to growth, the concept of scale is superfluous, there is no conflict between growth and the environment, and the cure for social ills including maldistribution of wealth is always more growth. ?A rising tide lifts all boats,? as they say.
Ecological economics deals with allocation and distribution, but its emphasis is on scale, especially among the scholars and policy activists we might call ?Dalyists.? Scale deals with whole economies, usually national or global, so ecological economics is geared especially to replace conventional macroeconomics while accepting and incorporating some of the fundamentals of conventional (neoclassical) microeconomics. Before we delve into scale, however, let us briefly consider allocation and distribution from the perspective of ecological economics.
Ecological economists acknowledge that the market that ubiquitous place where goods and services are exchanged is reasonably efficient at allocating resources. The market is especially efficient when property rights are easily established and readily enforced. This is not the same as saying prices are a good indicator of absolute or long-run scarcity. For example, even if the market price of petroleum is far too low for the sake of the grandkids, allowing us to pull the carpet from under their future, the market will do a reasonably good job of allocating petroleum among today?s power plants, airlines and trucking companies. For example, there won?t be a huge surplus of petroleum at the power plant if the trucker down the road is desperate for gas. The fact that the invisible hand can handle this allocation problem is good indeed. Today?s consumers will not only have electricity from the power plant, but goods hauled in by the trucker.
Adam Smith described this process in detail but also noted several problems, including monopolies and misinformed consumers. Such problems prevent the market from performing properly.
Few have argued that point, and economists of all stripes talk about ?market failure? and how to correct it. Nevertheless, neoclassical economists place a notorious amount of faith in the market. The invisible hand, they say, ensures that microeconomic behavior produces a desirable macroeconomic outcome. Supply and demand establish prices that send appropriate signals to producers and consumers, leading to economic activity that serves society?s interests. For example, as a natural resource becomes scarcer, the price of it rises, resulting in more vigorous efforts to supply the resource.
Theoretically, this will take care of the grandkids as well as today?s consumers. Richard Norgaard, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and past president of the ISEE, points out the fallacy inherent to the neoclassical theory of prices.9 The theory implies that she who sells the resource knows whether the resource is scarce or not. Otherwise, how would she know where to set the price? Yet how was she supposed to know how scarce the resource was, if price was supposed to tell her? It?s a catch-22.
This is an important critique, because economists often argue that natural resources are actually becoming more plentiful just because prices are declining. (Not that many prices are declining today.) The late Julian Simon (1932?1998) famously peddled such pap, spawning disciples who found Simon?s argument conducive to increasing their own money supplies. After all, their ?theory? feeds straight into the hands of corporations that benefit from the resulting, pro-growth mindset of consumers and policy makers. The corporate community loves these disciples of Simon, and the new darling is the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. Praise has been heaped upon Lomborg by the likes of the Competitive Enterprise Institute for his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist(see Chapter 4).
Yet for ecologists, ecological economists and sustainability thinkers, The Skeptical Environmentalist is riddled with fallacies, straw men and shoddy scholarship. I agree with them, having carefully reviewed the book for the journal Conservation Biology,10 and websites have been devoted to exposing Lomborg?s misinformation.
Yet we saw in Chapter 4 how such books can be paraded by Big Money. In the process, their popularity may eclipse their notoriety, especially among the uninitiated, the gullible or those desperately wanting to believe that all is well, after all, in the environment. George Will comes to mind.11
But back to Norgaard, whose observation on the fallacy of pricing theory helps explain the confusion of economics students when they encounter the subject of supply and demand in introductory ?micro.? First they learn that prices are determined by supply and demand. Then they learn that the quantities supplied and demanded are determined by. . . prices. There happens to be no lurking inconsistency here. But there?s no magic trick to dazzle us either. It?s just a matter of semantics. Supply is not the same as ?quantities supplied? and demand is not the same as ?quantities demanded.? But these semantics do open the door for shenanigans.
The supply (per se) of raw diamonds, for example, is determined primarily by how many diamonds are in the ground and the technology available for mining them. Supply clearly does influence price; diamonds are expensive partly because they are so hard to find and extract. On the other hand, the ?quantity supplied? is what is brought to the market by diamond sellers. Price clearly does influence the quantity supplied; the higher the price, the higher the quantity supplied, all else equal.
So the relationships among supply, price and quantity supplied are really not so mysterious, at least not until a linguistically reckless or unscrupulous growthman wades in to muddy up the waters. The late Julian Simon has plenty of living counterparts. Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, believes that ?natural resources originate from the mind, not from the ground, and therefore are not depletable. Thus, energy can be best understood as a bottomless pyramid of increasing substitutability and supply.12?
In other words, innovators supply the world with natural resources, including energy, from their minds. Therefore, the supply of such resources is no problem.
Clearly such a theory inculcates a healthy supply of manipulative political rhetoric, in which the word ?supply? is quickly corrupted. It?s a game anyone can play, so let?s take a turn. Consider the supply of clean air at a party in an apartment. Smokers suck in the clean air and gradually replace it with secondary smoke. Their lungs are like pumps in an oilfield, systematically extracting the resource, replacing it with airborne sludge. As more smokers arrive, the supply of clean air noticeably dwindles, and non-smokers start to leave. Eventually even the smokers start leaving, beginning with the lighter smokers who don?t like heavy smoke. So at first, more smokers means a lower supply of clean air, yet eventually after enough smokers have polluted the place and many have left the supply of clean air stabilizes. In fact the supply of clean air starts to increase a bit as the secondary smoke is absorbed in the curtains and carpeting, and fresh air wafts in through fissures in the walls(assuming smokers weren?t crowding the hallways outside). Next, we conveniently overlook the fact that it took a major reduction of clean air to make all this happen; too complicated to consider all that. So in a squirrelly sort of way we can now say that more smoking (that is, extraction of clean air) led to increasing supplies of clean air, and indoor air pollution due to smoking is a self-correcting problem. If we generalize a bit, moving out of the confines of this particular party, we can say that the key to less smoking in society is more smoking!
This ludicrous example mirrors the claim that the invisible hand of the market will ?fix? any resource shortages that might arise. It?s smoke-and-mirrors.
We?ve all been downwind of cigarette smoke. Certainly we have the right to poke a little fun, especially at the ?Seven Dwarves,? the CEOs of America?s largest tobacco companies, who perjured themselves before a US House of Representatives Subcommittee: ?I believe that nicotine is not addictive.?13 The resulting news broadcast was unforgettable to many Americans, who learned a lot about Big Money that day. We fully expected the Seven Dwarves to announce, as an encore, the Tooth Fairy?s engagement to Santa Claus.
So Americans know quite well how Big Money pollutes the truth. Can we expect the mother of all money-making theories, neoclassical growth theory along with all its crazy correlates to come to us on wings of truth? Sure, sure, higher prices stemming from lowered supplies actually ?increase? supplies because they provide an incentive to ?supply? even more. And more smoke makes the air ?cleaner? by providing an incentive for smokers to increase the supply of clean air. More traffic increases the supply of open road. More noise actually leads to a greater supply of quietness. Less of a good thing leads to more of it! More of a bad thing leads to less of it! Or, if you prefer, less of a good thing leads to less of a bad thing, and more of a bad thing leads to more of a good thing!
So if the Competitive Enterprise Institute, neoclassical economists and growthmen at large want to claim that oil supplies, for example, are actually increasing, not decreasing, as evidenced by the occasional downturn in price, let them play with the word ?supply? like the Seven Dwarves play with ?addictive.? Let them use ?supply? to mean more, less, a harmless mess, anybody?s guess . . . whatever. But may the rest of us not be dolts. Supply is how much there is, and as you use more, less remains.
Meanwhile, expecting the market to maintain our supplies is like expecting the political arena to maintain our ethics, the library to maintain our ideas or the sewage plant to maintain our intestinal tracts. Each of these pairings represents a relationship between two variables, but in no case is the relationship straightforward or dependable, much less positively reinforcing. Thus it is with market prices and supplies. The bottom line is that markets are all about the consumption of resources. No matter how efficiently they allocate resources today, bigger markets mean more consumption and less resources tomorrow.
Now we turn to the distribution of wealth. Many neoclassical economists view the distribution of wealth as a final stage or special case of allocation and therefore ?covered? by the market. Others think of distribution as a matter for politics, ethics or religion and not even within the purview of economics. Ecological economists, on the other hand, emphasize that an equitable distribution of wealth is necessary for the long-term economic security of rich and poor alike, and is therefore a central issue for economic study and policy. In fact, distribution of wealth generally takes a higher priority than allocation in ecological economics. Ecological economists also emphasize the distinction between allocation and distribution. Just because a consumer purchases something when he thinks the transaction will benefit him doesn?t make the market equitable at distributing wealth. In fact, the market has little to do with the distribution of wealth. Wealth (in the economic sense) is the means to purchase and affects the amount that may be purchased. Wealth may be legitimately worked for and even invested in, so that labor markets and stock markets are conduits for wealth, but large portions of wealth are distributed via charity, inheritance, marriage, luck and shades of crime ranging from shoplifting to Enron. A whole subfield of ecological economics has sprung up around the distribution of wealth as distinct from the allocation of resources.
In considering the distribution of wealth, a good starting point is human behavior. Remember from Chapter 2 the neoclassical notion of self-interested, utility-maximizing Homo economicus, whereby utility is expressed in terms of consumption? This materialistic model of mankind is roundly condemned by assorted critics, often with Marxist or Georgist leanings, and more often with common sense. Ecological economics offers an additional, unique and original critique in which humans are viewed as having evolved in a variety of ecosystems, each of which posed unique constraints on economic behavior and resulted in unique cultural norms. As such, humans are subject to diverse, complicated, and even mysterious motives not satisfied by simply maximizing their consumption of goods and services. This way of thinking is called ?evolutionary economics? in some circles.
Don?t worry, this book is not about to turn into a Luddite manifesto for turning back the clock to caveman days. But it?s worth thinking about human nature, the deeply rooted, promising aspects of human nature with economic growth at the crossroads. We know that people the world over have cultural, tribal roots and urges, exposed most obviously in outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing and camping. Is there something deeper? Surely there is, especially traits, behaviors and attitudes that would have contributed to individual and tribal survival. We should at least attempt to identify some of the ways human evolution has affected our economic behavior today, rather than settling for a model that makes us look like pigs at a trough?
This is an excerpt from Chapter 6 of ?Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution? by Brian Czech, published by New Society. The Chapter is also available for download. We will be publishing Part 2 of this excerpt shortly.
How much would you pay to sit next to Leonardo DiCaprio? Now, how much would you pay to do it ... in space?
Apparently $1.5 million is the going rate for a trip to the stars with a star, because that's what some lucky bidder ponied up at the amFAR Cinema Against AIDS Charity Thursday night at Cannes, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
The high bidder has paid a price worthy of Jay Gatsby to be seated next to the Oscar nominee and will have a place on Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic space flight. The "Oscars experience" was listed in the auction booklet for the event as a "once-in-a-lifetime trip to space with a mystery guest." There's no indication whether the bidder knew ahead of time who he or she would be sitting next to.
Another pair of seats on the same flight went to a second bidder for $2.3 million moments later.
Weinstein Co. founder Harvey Weinstein appears to have had something to do with the big bid to be DiCaprio's seatmate; he told the Hollywoood Reporter before bidding began, "We're going to get someone to bid on a seat next to him."
Another package featuring DiCaprio -- which includes tickets to the premiere and after-party of his new film "Wolf on Wall Street," along with a room at the Beverly Hills Hotel, a Chopard watch and tickets to some high-profile Oscar parties and Heidi Klum as the winner's date -- went for $1.94 million.
Other items auctioned off included Adrien Brody's Bulgari watch -- which he was wearing ($116,613) and a private in-home performance with Duran Duran ($518,000). AmFAR reported it had raised $25 million from the event, up from $11 million in 2012.
