Many Americans who support the use of alternative energy in the United States believe that subsidizing the cost of producing alternative energy will lead to more alternative energy use.  That may be true in the short run, but in the long run, it might not be the case.  Instead, the subsidies on dirty fossil fuels should be eliminated.

Subsidizing alternative energy use, in the short run, will of course lead to increased use of alternative energy.  If it is more profitable for firms to enter the industry, more firms will enter.  Because subsidizing, all else equal, leads to increased profits for a firm, subsidization of alternative energy will lead to more firms entering the energy sector.  Because more alternative energy firms enter the energy sector, competition will cause prices for alternative energy to drop, so consumers will consume more alternative energy.  The caveat here is that perhaps a subsidy is needed to get a particular industry off the ground.  Well, hasn’t that happened already?  Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power are all supposed to be somewhat competitive cost-wise with coal and oil when you net away the subsidization of coal and oil.

Via Greg Mankiw:

A causal relationship between gasoline prices and obesity is possible through mechanisms of increased exercise and decreased eating in restaurants. I use a fixed effects model to explore whether this theory has empirical support, finding that an additional $1 in real gasoline prices would reduce obesity in the U.S. by 15% after five years, and that 13% of the rise in obesity between 1979 and 2004 can be attributed to falling real gas prices during this period. [link to study]

Always take studies like these with a grain of salt.  However, if it makes sense, there could be some truth here.  The cheaper the gas, the less people walk, and the more they drive to eat out at restaurants.  Thus, the cheaper the gas, the more behavior occurs that could result in increased obesity.

It would be interesting to see some more studies on obesity/gasoline prices.

I drove home from Blacksburg, VA to Arlington, VA this past Monday and averaged 40.75 miles per gallon.  I was pleasantly surprised, as I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry that is rated around 32 mpg highway.

I think the reason for this was drafting off a truck the entire way.  Although drafting off of passenger vehicles is generally not recommended, because if they slam on the brakes, you’re in trouble; drafting behind a truck is significantly safer because trucks take a long time to slow to a stop, so if you see brake lights you’re not necessarily doomed.  In addition, trucks are huge and block a lot of wind.

Anywho, there was a truck driving 75 mph for 200 miles of my journey, so I just sat behind him.  When I filled up upon arriving home, I calculated that I had averaged 40.75 mpg.  My recommendation is if you happen to have a truck driving near you on a highway, it might not be a bad idea to draft off of the truck to save some fuel.

The reason I care about protecting the environment is not because I love trees, or have a penchant for big furry animals.  The reason I care so much is because I believe protecting the environment is what’s best for human beings.

It seems like the anti-environmental crowd often tends to label those who want to protect the environment as overly extreme.  Most environmentalists aren’t tree-huggers, SUV vandalizers, or animal rights activists.  The reason I, and many other environmentalists, advocate things like responsible fishery management is not because I think fish are cute or have equal rights as humans; it’s because I like to eat fish and don’t want to see their population destroyed.

There are certainly environmentalists out there who are extreme.  Some environmentalists do push for broad animal rights.  Some believe we should protect the Earth for the Earth’s sake, rather than humans.  But I am certain this is a miniscule minority view.

Protecting the environment makes sense.  We rely on the Earth for our food, fuel, air, water, and more.  If we ignore the fact that there are limits to our consumption and activities, it will hurt us in the end.

It’s kind of a running joke among my friends to call me out when I do something that is not 100% eco-friendly.  It isn’t because my friends have particular views about the environment.  Rather, it’s just easy to point out when someone who writes an environmentally friendly blog has to drive somewhere, or accidentally leaves a light on.  It’s all in fun, of course, and I take no offense.  In a first-world country it’s practically impossible to have no carbon footprint.

Yet over the past year, anti-environmentalists have tried - at every opportunity - to accuse Al Gore of being a hypocrite.  In addition, they imply that Gore’s supposed hypocrisy is prima facie evidence that climate science is flawed.  I am writing this article to assert two things.  First, Gore’s actions do not show that he is a hypocrite in the sense that anti-environmentalists claim.  Secondly, even if Gore were a hypocrite, his actions do not prove nor disprove climate science.

The second assertion is relatively self-explanatory.  No principle of climate change has anything to do with Al Gore.  Al Gore could decide climate change doesn’t matter anymore, and this would not change climate science at all.