About RFCapalino

RFCapalino

Location:

(USA)

Joined on:

04/22/08

• 3 votes

  Politics

  response to  Max Joseph, Chris Weller, and Danielle Flug's post Campaign Fundraising

  AmericaLoveitorFixit

  This was a fun and informative video, but I think the ending scenes are somewhat misleading. That fund-raising for this year's presidential election will top $1 billion is not in itself sinister; as Dubner and Levitt point out in Freakonomics, Americans spend about $1 billion every year on chewing gum. Presumably election for our highest office should be as valuable to us as our gum.

  This is not to say that the large sums necessary to run for President do not have distortionary or exclusionary effects - just that a dollar figure alone cannot convey these effects. I hope future videos will find an irreverent way to examine some of the laws Congress might enact to make Presidential elections more competitive - more generous public financing, forcing broadcast networks to offer discount air time to candidates, maybe even some spending limit for candidates (obviously raises constitutional questions).

  Lastly, to the extent that our campaign finance system needs fixing, the presdiential election offers perhaps the most eye-popping figures but not the best evidence for reform. Since 1973, we at least have had public financing for Presidential nominees who choose to participate; also, given the importance of Presidential elections, lesser-known/poorer candidates have real opportunities for free air time (witness Ron Paul, Huckabee, Kucinich). It is at the Congressional level where the system is really broken: no public financing, and the ability of better-funded incumbents to totally dominate local media (one reason the re-election rate in the House hovers around 90%). Perhaps make a video about this!

  Comments (0)

  Commented on May 8, 2008 by - RFCapalino

• not yet rated

  Environment

  response to  James Sumner, Lindsay Utz, Morgan Currie, and Danielle Flug's post N*Danger

  Wilson on Costs of Saving Biodiversity

  James,

  The estimates Wilson cites are from a 2000 Conservation International conference entitled "Defying Nature's End." Estimates of the cost of saving global fisheries are in Andrew Bamford et al. "The Worldwide Costs of Marine Protected Areas," Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, USA 101 (2004): 9694-97, and discussed by Henry Nicholls in "Marine Conservation: Sink or Swim," Nature 432 (2004): 12-14

  From pages 97-99 of Wilson's "The Creation" (long quote)

  "The costs of saving most of Earth's flora and fauna would be relatively trivial for the market economy and, of course, immensely profitable for the natural economy. In 2000 Conservation International sponsored a conference of biologists and economists, entitled "Defying Nature's End," to address this matter. They reviewed the many methods available at that time to secure wildland reserves while simultaneously improving local economies, then estimated the cost. They concluded that in order to put a protective umbrella over the twenty-five hottest spots on the land then recognized (nine more have since been added to total 34), plus core areas within the remaining tropical forest wilderness.... would require one payment of about $30 billion. The benefit, if the allotment is joined with wise investment strategy and foregn policy, would be susbstanntial for 70 percent of Earth's land-dwelling fauna and flora... This sinngle outlay (one payment only), or its equivalent spread over a few years, is approximately one part in a thousdand of the annual gross world product, that is, gross domestic product of all countries combined. By coincidence the latter amount, roughly $30 trillion, also happens to be the estimated rate of the ecosystem services given free by Earth's remaining natural environment.
  
  A parallel study, made in 2004 by a second team, estimated the cost of protecting marine areas, the threatened Second Edens of our planet. .. To regulate a reserve network covering 20-30 percent of the ocean surface would cost between $5 billion and $19 billion annually. That outlay could be met by eliminating the current perverse subsidies given to the fishing industry, which fall between $15 and #30 billion annually - and are responsible in the first place for the over-harvesting and falling yield of preferred species."

  Sorry for the long quote!

  Comments (0)

  Commented on April 24, 2008 by - RFCapalino

• 1 vote

  Environment

  response to  James Sumner, Lindsay Utz, Morgan Currie, and Danielle Flug's post N*Danger

  Genius

  The gungggsta appeal for species conservation at least resonates strongly with this viewer.

  Your next project should be an equally thugged out advoacy of how, according to E.O. Wilson and others, we could preserve 95% of biodiversity through measures that would cost only a one-time payment of $30 billion! The species depicted in your video are quite flossy, but saving most of the world's species is absurdly cheap!

  Comments (0)

  Commented on April 22, 2008 by - RFCapalino

• not yet rated

  Technology

  response to  Lindsay Utz, Morgan Currie, Rowland Holmes, Nigel Holmes, E*Rock, and Danielle Flug's post Vampire Energy

  This is an excellent video!

  I hadn't realized that vampire energy accounted for a full 1% of U.S. CO2 emissions. Is the diffusion of flat-screen TVs pushing this amount still higher?

  Comments (0)

  Commented on April 22, 2008 by - RFCapalino