Is the type of algae bloom generated by excess phosphates non-toxic in terms of humans? If not, is there means (economical ones) to make the algae non-toxic?
The reason for the questions is that maybe the angle we’re not seeing as to the problem is why hasn’t anyone tried to take the side-effect itself and exploit it for something that is useful for humans, but not damaging to open ecologies? Granted, this won’t work on run-off from fertilizers (I remember one bad year in my state, where the algae bloom left a sulfurous stink in the drinking water), but it could deal with sewage sources, which are by their nature concentrated and easily controlled.
Algae is generally a good nutrient rich source for various uses (fertilizer again, as foodstuff when processed for humans and/or other animals, and industrial uses like paints). I hope you see where I’m going with this…
Everyone I talked to about this says that the whole algae bit is wildly overblown. The alleged danger to fish is inconclusive. The contribution of laundry-based phosphate is negligable as compared with farms and their fertilizers. And, in addition, there are other ways to deal with it. Why do they have to attack civilization? It’s the state’s way, because the state hates our market-created conveniences.
Let me add something else. I believe that our desire for cleanliness is more important that the welfare of animals swiming around in the sea, which is giant toilet bowl in any case. If it affects fishing, that’s one thing. There are ways to work this stuff out in private markets. But that’s not what all the fuss is about. There are many people who believe that the standard should be that nature - as a perfect being- must never be disturbed by anything mankind does. This view is very common and frankly evil.
Everyone I talked to about this says that the whole algae bit is wildly overblown.
Who exactly are you talking to? Your recent article on excluding phosphate from detergents mentions “the scientific evidence on the issue of algae’s effect on fish runs in all directions”, but i oddly see no links.
And I would agree that there are much better and more effective ways to deal with this problem (controlling non-point source loading is probably the biggest and most difficult issue). And the process of reaching a solution really already begin. States like North Carolina have pioneered the creation of nutrient credit markets (very neat, but very hard to implement) and in-lieu offset payment programs.
Obviously, you probably would not approve of these solutions as they represent state involvement. And the state hates our market-created conveniences (side thought: if “the state” can have feelings, can those feelings be hurt). So if you believe there are other ways to deal with it. What do you think they are? Specifically, how do you think a voluntary solution can be reached when transaction costs are so high (as Phaedros and I were discussing above)??
Student, I’m with you on hoping that Tucker can provide a link as well. It was a pretty bold statement to make, which I’m not saying he is lying about or whatever, but it would be helpful to have a source to help solidify the position that he has on this issue.
and this is consistent with everything I’ve read since, and I invite you to do the same. It turns out that the cause and effect relationships are extremely complex and I’m not even sure they matter in any case.
The point of this ban was not to save the planet. The point was to feed the resentment of those who hate our prosperity - and that’s why it is consistent with every other thing they are doing to our households from bulbs to toilets. Wise up and stop trusting the central planners.
Because that would put in a realm of intellectualism that I do not wish to be in. Other than my would be empty speculations, I perform no day to day actions to bring down the EPA, there is nothing “real” about anything with me and the EPA. It does not come into my thoughts or conflicts in real life, so it is what I am working with. What else can I, or anyone else who isn’t in action say about it?
And it isn’t just the EPA, it is the plethora of other customs and institutions that I am just not a part of. If it bothers me, and I am in an actual position to do something about it I will, but that is not the case right now.
As much as I love your posts, by your own philosophy all of your speculations are empty, which makes me laugh when you make them, and when called to explain them, you have to remind us (or perhaps yourself) that they are meaningless.
“Jim Correll, of CH2M Hill, the engineering firm hired to build the new plant, explained in 2006 that the state’s requirement was not scientifically possible. “The technology does not yet exist to do anything like what we expect the DOE to require,” he told the Spokane Journal of Business.”
At least the state is good for providing a good laugh every now and then.
Hmm well I don’t really have answer for the moment, besides this would be strayig from the topic on hand - If there are a couple major themes of mine on this forum one of them is the nature of intellectualism and its dangers and its boundries and its limits. This is something that I take very seriously and I always am playing around with and reworking it in my head.
Those have been some of my favorite topics covered by Mises, Hayek, and Schumpeter
and this is consistent with everything I’ve read since, and I invite you to do the same. It turns out that the cause and effect relationships are extremely complex and I’m not even sure they matter in any case.
The point of this ban was not to save the planet. The point was to feed the resentment of those who hate our prosperity - and that’s why it is consistent with every other thing they are doing to our households from bulbs to toilets. Wise up and stop trusting the central planners.
the scientific evidence on the issue of algae’s effect on fish runs in all directions
The unspecified study mentioned in the weekly standard piece:
Last month the University of Washington released a study suggesting that some of the phosphorus being discharged into the Spokane River never actually worked as fertilizer for algae to begin with. Some of the effluents making their way into the river contained phosphorus in complex molecular forms which are not bioavailable. Algae lack the enzymes necessary to break down this phosphorus, meaning it is essentially harmless.
See how the two don’t match? One is about the impact of algae on fish. the other is about the effect of phosphorus on algae. Please tell me I’m not the only one who sees that difference.
And the results of that washington study don’t surprise me. I’ve read various articles in the past about how different species of algae react to nutirents differently. So if your orginal claim was as weak as your current claim of “the cause and effect relationship between nutrients and harmful algae blooms is complex” i would have just said fair enough and moved on (though “complex relationship” does not mean “a total mystery” nor does it mean “a relationship that doesn’t actually exist”).
Honestly, if you just wanted to come up with ANY justification for your op-ed, why didn’t you just google for 2 extra seconds? You would have found this very old article in Science (one of the worlds most cited scientific journals):
The distribution of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus and bioassay experiments both show that nitrogen is the critical limiting factor to algal growth and eutrophication in coastal marine waters. About twice the amount of phosphate as can be used by the algae is normally present. This surplus results from the low nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in terrigenous contributions, including human waste, and from the fact that phosphorus regenerates more quickly than ammonia from decomposing organic matter. Removal of phosphate from detergents is therefore not likely to slow the eutrophication of coastal marine waters, and its replacement with nitrogen-containing nitrilotriacetic acid may worsen the situation.
And on a final note. Tucker, you still haven’t said how you think a voluntary solutuon would arise in the presense of such high transaction costs (not to mention ill defined property rights).
Am I the only person on this board that actually is interested in thinking about that question? I mean, no one around here shys away from explaining how a voluntary agreement can be made in the exchange of goods in a market setting. Why not extend that same analytical perspective to non-market settings? Isn’t understanding the nature of social interactions what got you interested in economics in the first place!?!?!
Or maybe it was just the politics. Its always the politics.
The burden of proof is always on you to prove that intervention is warranted. Always.
I am not interested in defending intervention. I am not an evangelical and have no interest in converting people to my view point (which is actually not all that well defined with regards to politics anyways).
Instead, what I have tried several times on this board to do was start a conversation about how and when environmental problems can be solved through voluntary means. It seems like a very interesting subject to me (environmental econ will be my research focus when i enter phd this fall) and I would think self-identified anarchists would have a few ideas on the subject.
So when I press Jeff or Phaedros for more specific answers than “the market will figure it out”, it is mostly because I myself am curious. It is an interesting intellectual issue (whether such solutions are possible) but it could also have important implications (many forms of pollution cross political boarders, making traditional “tax it or cap it” solutions difficult or impossible to implement).
