fbpx
01 / 05
Small Technologies Can Solve the Planet’s Biggest Problems | Podcast Highlights

Blog Post | Science & Technology

Small Technologies Can Solve the Planet’s Biggest Problems | Podcast Highlights

Todd Myers, a director at the Washington Policy Center, joins Chelsea Follett to discuss how technology empowers individuals to protect the environment without the need for top-down government programs.

Listen to the full podcast episode, in which Chelsea Follett interviews Todd Myers, here.
Below is an abridged transcript featuring some highlights from the interview.

What gave you the idea for this book? 

I’ve worked in environmental policy in Washington State for over two decades. During that time, I saw the government’s limitations and how politicians’ incentives were aligned with making themselves look good rather than helping the environment. They often fall for environmental fads that feel good but don’t work. What’s worse, politicians are disincentivized from acknowledging failure, so when their policies don’t work, they just double down. My new book, Time to Think Small, is about the alternative: shifting power from politicians to people.

Why do you believe small technology and private sector initiatives are the future of environmental stewardship? 

When people want to solve an environmental problem, their minds tend to go to the 1970s, to the creation of the EPA and the Clean Air Act. Those might not have been the optimal approaches, but they worked, and at the time, there were few alternatives to government intervention. But things have changed, not only in terms of technology but also the nature of the problems.

Environmental problems today are distributed. Rather than large, single-point sources like big smokestacks, today’s environmental problems come from many little inputs and require distributed solutions. Technologies like smartphones and the internet enable those solutions by breaking down traditional barriers like transaction and information costs. They allow us to coordinate more efficiently and align financial incentives with the environment.

Take Ocean plastic. It’s a big problem, and it comes from all over the world, mostly developing countries. How do you address it? Well, a group called Plastic Bank hired people to collect plastic that could wash into the water. Because most people now have phones, they can geo-locate the plastic, turn it into collection centers, and get paid on their phones. Plastic Bank then sells the plastic to SC Johnson, and it ends up in your Windex bottle. The technology involved is nothing very special, but because the costs of collaboration have fallen so low, they have been able to collect 3.1 billion plastic bottles that would have washed into the ocean and more than 150 million pounds of plastic.

SC Johnson benefits because they get a market advantage. We saw the same thing with tuna. All tuna cans now have the dolphin-safe label because having that label improves your marketing, and in wealthy countries, consumers have the money and the motivation to pay a little extra for the environment.

That’s a great example. Are there any other examples of private sector innovation you’d like to highlight? 

My current favorite is eWATERservices, a program that provides water pumps to rural African villages. Previously, an NGO, the UN, or a government program would install the pump, but when these pumps eventually broke down, they would sit broken for months since there was no incentive to fix them.

To solve this problem, eWATERservices created internet-connected water pumps. Since over 90% of people in developing countries now have a phone, locals could load an account on their phone with some money and use a key fob to access the pump, which measures the water, creating a financial incentive to conserve. When the pump breaks, eWATERservices is notified immediately and sends a worker to fix it. Pumps that sat broken for months are now fixed within a day. And this is not only good for people, but also for the environment. Without a pump, you have to get water from a river and boil it. One of the major drivers of deforestation in Africa is cutting down trees to boil water and cook food. So, if you have access to clean water, you reduce the pressure on the forests.

Why do you write that transparency in the blockchain can make fish better? 

There is a TV show called Portlandia about the crazy things people in Portland do. There’s one sketch where people order chicken at a restaurant and ask, “Is this organic? Is this Oregon organic? Is it Portland organic?” And the waitress comes back with the papers for the chicken, and she says, “Here’s the chicken, here’s how he was raised. And his name is Colin.” It’s a joke, but we can now do that. And we can actually do more than that.

The blockchain is just a fancy name for a transparent ledger. It is hard to falsify, so when you want to know that your chicken was free range and had a nice life, the blockchain is a good way to do that. In the case of fish, you want to make sure that the fish you’re purchasing wasn’t caught where stocks are low, and now you can follow that fish from the minute they bait the hook and see, yes, the fish that I purchased was caught sustainably.

How can technology enhance our connection with nature? 

So, I’m not a botanist. I’m very bad at identifying plants. But now there are technologies that do that. iNaturalist is an app that identifies organisms using your phone camera and an artificial intelligence trained with other pictures people have taken. So, when I take a picture of a plant when I’m hiking, it’ll say, “This is Oregon grape.” It’s incredible. So that has allowed me to connect with nature in a deeper way than just hiking and enjoying its beauty. And this technology is not just a tool to connect to the environment, but it also provides opportunities for conservation. iNaturalist has created a gigantic database of wildlife sightings that has enabled numerous scientific studies.

eBird is another app that identifies birds. Thanks to birders using eBird, there are now millions of recorded bird sightings. In California, The Nature Conservancy wanted to create habitat for migratory seabirds, so they used this data to find the specific parcels of land that migratory seabirds passed through. They asked the landowners, “How much would we have to pay you to flood your fields for these seabirds?” They negotiated a price, flooded their fields, and created the habitat.

The way the Endangered Species Act currently works is if you have good habitat or you have species on your land, the government comes in and says, “You can’t use your land in the way you want.” That means endangered species are a liability. eBird and The Nature Conservancy are turning endangered species into an asset.

Bees are another good example of the market helping protect species. There’s a lot of concern about honeybees dying out, and we do see higher hive mortality than in the past. It used to be about 15% to 20% of hives died each year. Now it can be 40% or 50%.

However, the highest rates of hive mortality are among hobbyists, people like me, who are not that experienced and don’t have much money to spend keeping their bees healthy. The lowest rates of hive mortality, about 20%, very close to typical, are among commercial beekeepers. Why? Because they have a strong financial incentive to keep their hives safe. And in fact, the number of hives in the United States is now close to a 20-year high precisely because commercial beekeepers have the financial incentive to keep their hives safe and to replace them when they die.

What do you mean by democratizing environmentalism? 

Democratizing environmentalism means giving people the information they need to make better decisions for themselves and the environment. When we outsource the environment to politicians, we lose that connection to the environment and to results. In one of the sequels to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, there’s a funny example where they found that it was too difficult to make something invisible, but what they could do was make something somebody else’s problem. And by making it somebody else’s problem, it was as good as invisible.

That is what we have done with a lot of environmental issues. We have said that politicians will solve this, so I don’t have to worry about it. By doing that, we’ve made those problems invisible to ourselves without achieving the desired results.

Authors

  • Todd Myers is a member of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and a former member of the executive team at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. With more than two decades in environmental policy, his experience includes work on a range of environmental issues, including climate policy, forest health, old-growth forests, and salmon recovery.

  • Chelsea Follett is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org, a policy analyst in the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, and author of the book Centers of Progress: 40 Cities That Changed the World (2023).

Bloomberg | Conservation & Biodiversity

Billionaire-Backed Nonprofit Begins Relocating Key Rhino Herd

“A billionaire-backed nonprofit has begun relocating captive-bred southern white rhinos to protected wild areas after the purchase of the world’s biggest privately-owned herd of the animals last year.

African Parks, whose backers include the charitable foundations of Howard Buffett and the Walton Family, said it donated 40 of the 2,000 rhinos it acquired along with the distressed operation in central South Africa to the community-owned Munywana Conservancy in the southeast of the country. The translocation is the first step in a plan to relocate 15% of the global population of the pachyderms.”

From Bloomberg.

Blog Post | Economic Growth

The Human Meaning of Economic Growth

Misunderstandings of the relationship between wealth and flourishing have obscured the anti-​human implications of slowing growth rates.

Summary: Economic growth has been a driving force behind the dramatic improvements in human wellbeing over the past few centuries. This growth has resulted from the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. Criticisms of growth stem in large part from misunderstandings of the relationship between economics and human values.


Why is the world as prosperous a place as it is? And why isn’t it much more prosperous? These questions are broad enough to admit countless answers, but as good an answer as any is the economic growth rate.

You might have heard that economic growth is overrated, that it’s a fine idea, but unsustainable, or even that it’s entirely counterproductive because it puts profits above people and the economy above the planet. These narratives have been widespread in recent years. They’re also based on a fundamental misconception of the nature of wealth and what a growing economy means for humanity.

Properly conceived, wealth is the actualization of human values in the real world. Economic growth is the upward trajectory of human achievement. The forms of prosperity that most of humanity strives for, such as health, knowledge, pleasure, safety, professional and personal freedom, and so many others, were vastly scarcer throughout most of human history—and would be orders of magnitude more abundant today if economic policies had been slightly different. That is the power of economic growth, and it is within our power to influence the world of future generations for better or worse.

The History of Economic Growth

Virtually everywhere and always throughout human history, economic growth was nonexistent. While pockets of momentary economic progress took place in certain instances, the overall trend was one of perpetual stagnation. But just a few hundred years ago, with the advent of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and capitalism, that all began to change.

When the conceptual tools of science became widely applied to create the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution, they brought an unprecedented optimism about the capacity for investment in new discoveries and inventions to reliably uncover useful knowledge of the natural world. This change inspired the broad transformation of mere wealth (resources hidden away in vaults and treasure chests) into capital (resources invested in new inventions and discoveries).

By the time Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx wrote their Communist Manifesto in 1848, the optimism of investment had already transformed Western Europe. As Engels and Marx saw it, “The bourgeoisie [capitalist class], during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-​navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?”

Marx and Engels misunderstand the complex reasons for increased productivity (attributing it to untapped “social labour”) but the quotation is significant because, despite their sympathy for state centralization of the economy, they could not ignore the success of capitalism.

While no year before 1700 saw a gross world product of more than $643 billion (in international inflation-​adjusted 2011 dollars), by 1820 global GDP reached 1 trillion. By 1940 the number had passed 7 trillion, and by 2015 it had passed 108 trillion.

Contrary to the popular misconception that capitalism has made the rich richer and the poor poorer, this new wealth contributed to growing the economies of every world region while outpacing population growth. While the world’s extreme poor have become wealthier so too have all other economic classes.

What’s So Great about Growth?

A growing economy isn’t about stacks of paper money getting taller, or digits being added to the spreadsheets of bank ledgers. These things may be indicators of growth, but the growth itself is composed of goods and services becoming more abundant. Farms and factories producing more and better consumption goods; engineers creating better machines and materials; clean water reaching more communities; sick people receiving better healthcare; scientists running more experiments, poets writing more poems, education becoming more broadly accessible; and for whatever other forms of value people choose to exchange their savings and labor.

Gross domestic product or GDP (called gross world product or world GDP when applied at the global level) is an imperfect but useful and widely employed measure of economic growth, and its reflection in the real world takes such forms as rising life expectancy, nutrition, literacy, safety from natural disaster, and virtually every other measure of human flourishing. This is because, at the most fundamental level, “economic growth” means the transformation and rearrangement of the physical environment into more useful forms that people value more.

Before the year 1820, human life expectancy had always been approximately 30-35 years. But with the great decline in poverty and rise of capital investment in technology and medicine, global life expectancy has roughly doubled in every geographic region in the last century. Similar trends have occurred in global nourishmentinfant survivalliteracy, access to clean water, and countless other crucial indicators of wellbeing. While these trends are bound to take the occasional momentary downturn because of life’s uncertainties and hardships, the unidirectional accumulation of technological and scientific knowledge since the Age of Enlightenment gives the forward march of progress an asymmetric advantage. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns resulted in a brief and tragic decline in life expectancy, but the number has since risen to an all-​time high of 73.36 years as of 2023.

What is the direct causal connection between economic growth and these improvements to human wellbeing? Consider the example of deaths by natural disaster, which have fallen in the last century from about 26.5 per 100,000 people to 0.51 per 100,000 people. More wealth means buildings can be constructed from stronger materials and better climate controls. And when those protections aren’t enough, a wealthier community can afford better infrastructure such as roads and vehicles to efficiently get sick or injured people to the hospital. When those injured end up in the hospital, a wealthier society’s medical facilities will be equipped with more advanced equipment, cleaner sanitation, and better-​trained doctors that will provide higher quality medical attention. These are just a few examples of how wealth allows humans to transform their world into a more hospitable place to live and face the inevitable challenges of life.

The benefits of economic growth go far beyond the maximization of health and safety for their own sake. If what you value in life is the contemplation of great art, the exaltation of your favorite deity, or time spent with your loved ones, wealth is what awards you the freedom to sustainably pursue those values rather tilling the fields for 16 hours per day and dying in your 30s. Wealth is what provides you access to an ever-​improving share of the world’s culture by increasing the abundance and accessibility of printed, recorded, and digital materials. Wealth is what provides you with the leisure time and transportation technology to travel the world and experience distant wonders, remote holy sites, and people whose personal or professional significance to you would otherwise dwell beyond your reach.

As the Harvard University cognitive scientist Steven Pinker demonstrates in his popular book Enlightenment Now, “Though it’s easy to sneer at national income as a shallow and materialistic measure, it correlates with every indicator of human flourishing, as we will repeatedly see in the chapters to come.”

The Long-​Term Future of Growth

Human psychology is ill-​equipped to comprehend large numbers, especially as they relate to the profound numerical implications of exponentiation. If it sounds insignificant when politicians and journalists refer to a 1 percent or 2 percent increase or decrease in the annual growth rate, then like most people, you’re being deceived by a quirk of human intuition. While small changes to the economic growth rate may not have noticeable effects in the short term, their long- term implications are absolutely astonishing.

Economist Tyler Cowen has pointed out in a Foreign Affairs article, “In the medium to long term, even small changes in growth rates have significant consequences for living standards. An economy that grows at one percent doubles its average income approximately every 70 years, whereas an economy that grows at three percent doubles its average income about every 23 years—which, over time, makes a big difference in people’s lives.” In his book Stubborn Attachments, Cowen offers a thought experiment to illustrate the real-​world implications of such “small changes” to the growth rate: “Redo U.S. history, but assume the country’s economy had grown one percentage point less each year between 1870 and 1990. In that scenario, the United States of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990.”

Cowen gave the negative scenario in which the growth rate was 1 percent slower. US Citizens would have drastically shorter lifespans, less education, less healthcare, less safety from violence, more susceptibility to disease and natural disaster, fewer career choices, and so on. Now imagine the opposite scenario, in which US economic policy had just 1 additional percentage point of growth each year. The average American today would in all probability be living much longer, having much nicer housing, choosing from far more career opportunities, and enjoying more advanced technology.

Just imagine your income doubling, and what you could do for yourself, your family, or the charity of your choice with all that extra wealth. Something along those lines could have happened to most Americans. But instead, growth has been significantly slowed in the United States because taxes and regulations have constantly disincentivized and disallowed new innovations.

At the margins, many dying of preventable diseases could have been cured, many who spiraled into homelessness could have accessed the employment opportunities or mental health treatment they needed, and so on. While economic fortune seems like a luxury to those who already enjoy material comfort, there are always many at the margin for whom the health of the economy is the difference between life and death.

These are among the reasons that Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw concludes in his commonly used college textbook Macroeconomics that, “Long-​run economic growth is the single most important determinant of the economic well-​being of a nation’s citizens. Everything else that macroeconomists study — unemployment, inflation, trade deficits, and so on — pales in comparison.”

When we think of the future our children or grandchildren will live in, depending on our choices between even slightly more or less restrictive economic policies today, we could be plausibly looking at a future of widespread and affordable space travel, life-​changing education and remote work opportunities in the metaverse, new sustainable energy innovations, a biotechnological revolution in the human capacity for medical and psychological flourishing, genome projects and conservation investments to revive extinct and protect endangered species, and countless other improvements to the human condition. Or we could be looking at a drawn-​out stagnation in poverty alleviation, technological advancement, and environmental progress. The difference may well hinge on what looks today like a tiny change in the rate of compounding growth.

At the broadest level, more wealth in the hands of the human species represents a greater capacity of humans to chart their course through life and into the future in accordance with their values. Like all profound and far-​reaching forms of change, economic growth has a wide range of consequences, some intended and others unintended, many desirable and many others undesirable. But it is not a random process. It is directed by the choices of individuals, and allocated by their drive to devote more resources and more investment into those things they view as worthwhile. Ever since the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution, the investment in human values has been on balance a positive sum game, in which one group’s gains do not have to come in the form of another group’s losses. This is demonstrated by the upward trends in human flourishing since the global rise in exponential economic growth. Indeed, it is intrinsic to the fundamental difference between a growing and a shrinking or stagnant economy: In a growing economy, everyone can win.

This article was published at Libertarianism.org on 11/17/2023.

Institute of Marine Research | Conservation & Biodiversity

Fin Whales Making Strong Comeback in the Southern Ocean

“For a long time, there has been great uncertainty about whether the fin whale has managed to recover after the industrial whaling in the Southern Ocean in the first half of the 20th century.

Now marine scientists can confirm the ‘comeback’ of fin whales in a key region of the Southern Ocean. Whale counts that have recently been presented in a scientific article show a record number of fin whales in the Scotia Sea in the Southwest Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean.

– It is simply sensational. The results show over 50,000 fin whales in the Scotia Sea alone. That is more than three times higher than previously estimated for the entire Southern Ocean, says marine scientist Martin Biuw.”

From Institute of Marine Research.

Mongabay | Conservation & Biodiversity

In Bangladesh, Olive Ridley Turtles Have Huge Egg Increase

“Nature Conservation Management found 12,425 eggs in five turtle hatcheries — Pachar Island, Shilkali Island, Shahpari Island, Matharbunia, and Shonadia Island in Cox’s Bazar district — through April 17 this year.

The number of eggs has increased by almost 53% compared with the previous year, from 8,096 to 12,425. Those tallies represent a significant jump from the 4,713 eggs recorded in 2020-2021 and 5,763 in 2022-23.”

From Mongabay.