2009年から2年間、大学院で環境関連学を専攻するため、イギリスにやって来た私達の話 This blog is about us(U&I) coming to UK in 2009 for Environmental Study at master level for 2 years
by uk-env

skin by excite
カテゴリ:大学(York Uni)
  • 論文の日本語訳
    [ 2011-11-23 11:43 ]
  • Dissertation on Global Carbon Pricing
    [ 2011-10-03 08:21 ]
  • How seriously should we tackle climate change?
    [ 2011-07-14 17:20 ]
  • どれ位、真剣に温暖化対策って進める必要があるの?
    [ 2011-07-05 03:38 ]
  • 【アンケート】温暖化対策に関する調査 [Need your help] Survey on Global Carbon Pricing
    [ 2011-06-22 00:10 ]
  • LSEとヨーク大学の勉強教材一覧 Whole study materials from LSE&York
    [ 2011-06-05 16:59 ]
  • 環境経済学コースの総括 The summation of Environmental Economics
    [ 2011-06-02 12:43 ]
  • 春のエッセー Lovely Spring Essays
    [ 2011-05-09 19:46 ]
  • 4つの課題 Four environmental assignments
    [ 2011-03-22 07:45 ]
  • ヨークでの被災募金活動 Earthquake donations in York
    [ 2011-03-20 16:32 ]

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-11-23 11:43 | 大学(York Uni)
Dissertation on Global Carbon Pricing

Since my returning to Japan 2 month ago, I have finally submitted my thesis to UK - here you are.





Likelihood of Global Carbon Pricing
-International pilot study on carbon tax, social cost of carbon and revenue use-


In the current situations of the difficulty in agreeing on the legally-binding greenhouse gasses reduction target while the necessity for adaptation in developing nations, a carbon tax should be under the spotlight to implement globally to raise funds for vulnerable countries to climate change. Hence I conducted an online survey on carbon tax, social cost of carbon and revenue use. According to the answers from more than 1000 respondents:
(1)Over 70% agree with ongoing anthropogenic climate change, enough scientific certainty for political decision, and global cooperation for resolving climate change while almost 60% accept the necessity of the international compensation for climate change.
(2)Renewable energy policy is the most popular while nuclear and geo-engineering policies are not that much. A carbon tax on industry is the most preferable MBIs followed by an emission trading scheme and a carbon tax on individuals.
(3)A carbon tax may be acceptable around the world, and consensus on a certain tax rate of no more than 50US$/t-CO2 can be made domestically. However, there is little chance in the agreement on an international carbon tax.
(4)The expected value of Social Cost of Carbon was more than 100US$/t-CO2 and far more than the above willingness to pay answers.
(5)Several factors may positively influence on WTP for a carbon tax while the other factors have negative effects.
I will propose a plausible design and feasible strategy for a carbon tax based on those findings.

※ 全文は、ココからダウンロードできます。 The full version is downloadable from here

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-10-03 08:21 | 大学(York Uni)
How seriously should we tackle climate change?
I have been asking anyone to participate in my survey on global climate policy for my dissertation. (See here )

My dissertation will tackle the core argument on that “how seriously developed countries like Japan and EU should deal with climate change issue” from the view point of economic efficiency.
To be more concrete, this research will look into the following sub-questions by highlighting the likelihood of emerging international carbon tax, its tax rate and revenue use:
- To what extent are people over the world willing to accept the compensation for harming “far-distanced” victims by their pollutions as a form of “polluter pays responsibility”?
-How can climate economics contribute to this global consensus making?

Here comes the idea on the introductory part of my dissertation.

The first is my awareness of the issues.

Looking at Japan, the momentum for the current domestic climate policy has been derived from the ratification of Kyoto Protocol which requires industrialised nations to take a responsibility against climate change and Japan to reduce Green House Gasses (GHG) by 6% below the 1990 level by 2012. It is said that This national target is likely to be achieved thanks to the economic recession and the recent mega earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

On the other hand, climate change is regarded as a long-term issue (over 50 years). Thus, in order to keep climate policy ahead, global agreement on climate policy after 2012 (that is “Post-Kyoto protocol”). However, we have yet to reach a consensus on how strongly to take mitigation actions, as well as who to take a responsibility for accelerating climate change and how much to “support” the victims of climate change.

In this context, by focusing on social cost of carbon - internationally identical barometer, I would like to highlight to what extent people from different sectors such as academia, governments, NGOs, and the public over the world understand and approve international carbon tax as a global policy, comparing different opinions and suggesting policy implications in global climate policy arena.

The next is background.

Climate change is typical externality problem (Stern 2007). If so, the measure internalising the externalities of carbon emissions, comparing that internalised cost with abatement cost (i.e. CO2 reduction cost) and, choosing the cheaper one can achieve the most economic-efficient state. To be more precise, by comparing “marginal abatement cost of CO2 reduction by 1t” with “marginal damage cost by 1t CO2 emission”, we can decide which is more economically preferable. The equilibrium in both curves should optimise the social welfare and find the value (per 1t CO2) called social cost of carbon.

The externalities in this context are the damages derived from climate change. Those are caused by flood, drought, tsunami, tidal wave, typhoon, sea level rise causing loss of land, change in temperature and precipitation leading to negative effect on agriculture and ecosystems, the spread of infections, and increase in refugees and conflict so on. Also, it is said that developing countries, those more dependant on the nature, especially Sub-Sahara and small islands nations are more likely to suffer the severe damages by climate change (IPCC 2007).

If these “economic” damages are clarified, we can weigh the marginal damages against marginal abatement costs for the optimisation. But it may be difficult in reality due to the characteristics of climate change – globally scaled and long-lasting.
First of all, the source of greenhouse gases and the damages of climate change are likely to be segregated each other both geographically and temporarily. Second, the damages of climate change appear wide-ranging from within the current market values to the values of ecosystem services, the price of heath and life, and the damages of social disorders by conflict, refugees and wars etc. Thus, capturing all the market and non-market values associated with the climate damages should be challenging especially in developing nations where the capacity building for research is relatively required.

Furthermore, the economic damages of climate change depends on the degrees of occurrence of climate change such as rise in temperature. Actually we have various estimate of occurrence of climate change (e.g. rise in temperature from less than 1°C to up to 10°C) even under the current emission level. But it is uncertain how much GHG are emitted into the air in the future as being affected by economic development and climate mitigation efforts which are not for sure. In other words, there is a small possibility that catastrophic destruction is raised in the future by climate change. So the problem is to what extent we should take into account of such risk (potential gigantic economic damages) for our decision-making.

From the temporal perspective, the long period of climate change may call for discount rate in economic analysis on the damages of climate change, which is really controversial. There are different concepts different economists primarily focus on – one guy likes actual market interest rate the most, another social discount rate, declining discount rate, and social equity between the current and future generations.

On the other hand, there is a limitation of estimating the marginal abatement cost. Firstly, it is needed to cover all the abatement measures with certain technology. Secondly, to calculate the cost of those measures in the long run, we need to project the degree of technological development and the expansion of such markets which strongly affect the cost.

Under those constraints, several research projects have estimate the damage costs and marginal abatement costs associated with GHG emissions. In addition, the current research has revealed that the damage costs will be diminished if adaptation measures are applied. Based on those figures, scientists such as IPCC and Stern review have estimated the carbon price (social cost of carbon) at the global scale.

If the carbon price imposes on carbon consumptions through namely carbon tax or emission trading systems, GHG emissions can be more or less reduced. However, it is needed to bear in mind that even after carbon pricing, the damage of climate change should emerge. Because CO2 emissions should not be stopped by internalising the externalities, resulting in deteriorating climate change.

Therefore, it may be required to redistribute the revenues raised by carbon pricing to the victims of climate change: this is the idea that, even though the damages occur, they are compensated for by cash. Based on this idea, United Nations (2010) has proposed that the world government especially an industrialised nation should introduce a carbon tax globally, financing for adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries that are likely to incur the climate damages by its tax revenue.

By the way, there is no domestic and international scheme to rule the compensation for climate damages. So, one may claim that people who cause climate change do not necessarily compensate victims of climate change. In this context, there are several legal actions launched in the US, demanding large emitting industries to stop GHG emissions and indemnify damages in accordance with their responsibilities. Soon or later the judicial decisions will be made but the fact that carbon dioxide has been identified as pollutant by the Federal Court would be enormous push for the win. On the other hand, the backlash against the lawsuits should be the fact that the momentum of tackling climate change has decreased as the Democratic party lost the last election – such legal judgement is highly political.

At the international level, it may be needed to look into the precedent of a legal scheme that coordinates a request for indemnity from a nation which suffers pollutions caused by the other nation. If not, it also may be necessary to consider the possibility to establish such scheme from a legal perspective. If so, we may need to look at what kind of complaint-resolution entity should adjust a case for the indemnity.

Also, the world politics should be changed drastically – e.g. the expansion of the summit from G8 to G20, the downhill of US and dollars as key currency, emerging BRICS, the projection that Indonesia will pass Japanese economy soon or later. Africa should become more affluent. Under the current UN’s consensus rule, how is international adjustment made regarding climate change where developing countries have relatively “disadvantages”? What is the likelihood of obliging emitting countries to make a monetary payment to suffering countries in accordance with their GHG emissions? How about the surge of environmental NGOs supporting this idea under the name of “ climate debt” in international political arena?

If there is a high risk of the occurrence, we may want to consider how and when to raise finance for such payment. For instance, if it is quite likely that such payment is obliged 20 years later, one idea would be to collect required amount of resources 20 years later by taxation or levy. However, this idea may be criticised as unfair between generations because such payment results from 20-year emissions from now on. On the other hand, the potential problem in raising compensation fund now for the future payment should be efficiency and opportunity cost – i.e. how to manage those financial resources for the next 20 years: how to get enough return by its investment, how to minimise the opportunity cost etc.

It seems that those factors are what we have to take into account when making a decision on climate policy from the view point of economic efficiency. From this perspective, climate policy should be stuck if…
1)Climate damage costs are tiny while abatement costs are huge,
2)The damage costs are huge in the future but those present values are small as a result of a discount rate, or
3)The present values of the damage costs are huge but it is not always necessary to care about those costs when emitting CO2, because there is (will be) no legal obligation to compensate to the victims.
These may be the main reasons why climate policy has not shown significant progress for a while.

Let me think of Japan’s case. The damage costs in Japan are relatively small. On the contrary, the abatement costs are regarded as the most expensive in the world. Thus, from the economic perspective, it may be better to take “moderate” climate actions domestically or contribute to cheaper climate actions abroad. The pledge to reduce GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 might be a “political suicide”.

This means that if one would like to take climate actions against regardless of economic efficiency, such momentum should be derived from the other sounds. One possibility is moral – some cannot stand with the fact that they pollute and harm poverty and ecosystems. Another is diplomatic strategy to show one’s presence – some nation’s contribution to the international community in climate change agenda can be achieved by its own pledge: that is to set up high domestic national target, and promise financial supports and technology transfer to poorer nations.

It can be thought that the other motivation is to create investment opportunities so as to stimulate the economic development. Especially for developed nations, there are already plentiful goods and services so development projects are relatively scarce compared to emerging countries namely China. Thus, it may be effective to transit to low carbon economy / green economy in order to create new demands . It is said that a large amount of money has been seeking for safe and highly profitable investment projects around the world.

The point here is whether climate investment is attractive rather than the other investment opportunities in this regard. That is, to stimulate the economy, high value-added monetary circulation is required but if there exist more profitable investment projects, investment on climate projects may yield the loss of opportunity. This matter is comparative so we need to look into the profitability of both climate investment and the any other investment around the world both at the present and in the future.

In addition, the matter of international competitiveness may come arise. Many claim that restricting CO2 emissions on industry, especially heave industry like utility, iron and cement which cannot help but consume CO2, should undermine the nation’s industrial competitiveness against the other countries’.

The matter of international carbon tax may be related to all the those issues thus should be really controversial. But understanding the perception of the people around the world on this should provide an important suggestion for how to tackle climate change globally. Now is the time when we need to argue above board and decide climate policy, based on such findings. Because climate change is buth only the international issue but also the domestic issue where we deal with.
■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-07-14 17:20 | 大学(York Uni)










気候変動問題は「典型的な外部性の問題」(スターン2007年)と言われています。とすると、その対策は外部化している負のコストを内部化し、それと対策コスト(CO2の削減)を比較し、安い方を選択することが社会全体では、最も経済効率的となります。すなわち、「追加的な1トン当たりCO2の削減コスト」 vs 「追加的な1トン当たりCO2排出に伴う被害(外部化費用)」を考え、どちらが経済的により望ましいかを考えます。この2つのコストの均衡点が最も経済効率的とされ、この価格(1トン当たりCO2)のことを炭素の社会的費用と言います。










また、現在から今後にかけて世界の政治力学(パワーポリティックス)も、大きく変化しそうです。G8からG20への拡大、アメリカ・機軸通貨ドルの衰退、BRICSの台頭、インドネシアが日本を経済規模で抜くという話もあります。アフリカも相対的には今より豊かになっていくはずです。国連の全会一致方式を前提とした場合、途上国に不利な気候変動問題の国家間調整はどのようにして成されていくでしょうか。排出国がこれまでの排出量に応じて被害国への金銭支払いを義務づけられる可能性(リスク)はどれほどあるでしょうか。これを「気候負債(climate debt)」という名で求める環境NGOの隆盛も気になります。










■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-07-05 03:38 | 大学(York Uni)
【アンケート】温暖化対策に関する調査 [Need your help] Survey on Global Carbon Pricing

Here comes the Wimbledon season in 2011!

I am currently conducting an online survey as part of my dissertation so if you have 10 minutes to fill in, I would be extremely happy!


※ 本アンケートは、1800名を超える科学者、政策担当者、環境NGO、そして一般の方々を対象に行われるもので、地球温暖化対策のうち炭素価格政策に関する国際的な合意の可能性や今後の国内地球温暖化対策の方向性を指し示す上で、極めて重要な調査です。ご理解とご協力をお願い申し上げます。

I am writing you to ask for your help with the online survey on Global Carbon Pricing.

This survey attempts to assemble more than 1800 voices from environmental researchers, policy-makers, representatives of environmental NGOs, or the public around the world.

The survey is important and may provide useful information for domestic climate policies and insights on areas of global agreement regarding carbon pricing.

To access the survey, you can click on the link.

This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us very much by taking 10 minutes to complete this survey. If you have any questions about this study, I would be happy to supply you with any further information you may need.

All information in this survey will be aggregated for analysis. This will mean that it is impossible to identify any individual.

Thank you for considering your help for this important survey.

Yours sincerely,
■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-06-22 00:10 | 大学(York Uni)
LSEとヨーク大学の勉強教材一覧 Whole study materials from LSE&York

I’ve uploaded all the study materials handed out in my master courses at LSE and York thus you can take a look at them from the following links - Just for your information.

1. LSE: MSc in Environmental Policy and Regulation 2009/2010

※コースの概要については、コチラを参照。You can see the course summary from here.

2. ヨーク大学(York Uni): MSc in Environmental Economics and Environmental Management 2010/2011

※コースの概要については、コチラを参照。You can see the course summary from here.

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-06-05 16:59 | 大学(York Uni)
環境経済学コースの総括 The summation of Environmental Economics

The course contents of Environmental Economics course of York University was mentioned briefly before (here), but since the spring term is over, here comes the summation of the whole modules.

コース名(Course title):
Environmental Economics and Environmental Management (EEEM)
(シラバスはこちら。You can see the syllabus

[I 経済系コース(Environmental Economics)]

1. Environmental Economics (autumn)

・主催者(Convener): Murray Rudd & Melf Ehlers
・内容(Contents):コチラを参照。You can see here.
・評価(Assessment):期末エッセーと試験。Term Paper and Exam.

2. Environmental Valuation (spring)

・主催者(Convener): Murray Rudd
Ranging from the theory of environmental valuation (e.g. Random Utility Theory) to practical evaluation methods (how to use online survey tool, travel cost method, contingent valuation, choice experiment, hedonic method, benefit transfer etc) with computer labs.

Three essays. The one was about hedonic price. Another was ecosystem valuation.

3. Resource Economics and Management (spring)

・主催者(Convener): Melf Ehlers
Learned modelling techniques for the most economic efficient resource uses in the short and long term in marine fishery, forestry, non-renewable resources and water resource fields. To apply for conservation, environmental values are built in the models, changing the optimal use level and promoting resource reserves。The examples for this are Individual Transferable Quota for sustainable fishery and REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) for sustainable forestry management.

Essay and Exam. The report was about forestry management taking into account of environmental value and the suggestion for appropriate modelling of REDD mechanism (here).

4. Statistics and Quantitative Methods (autumn & spring)

・主催者(Convener): Andy Marshall
・内容(Contents): 詳しくはコチラ。You can see from here.
・評価(Assessment):レポートのみ。An Essay only.

[II 環境管理系(Environmental Management)]

5. Tools for Environmental Assessment (autumn)

・主催者(Convener): Colin Brown
特色は多様性. 環境経済、環境サイエンス、CSRビジネスなど多彩なコースから集まる学生でグループワークを行います。テーマは多彩で、(1)ヨーク大学が予定する緑の回廊を破壊する拡張工事に関する環境アセスメント、(2)英国の2050年までのエネルギーミックスに関する政策アセスメント、(3)マーカーペン会社を対象としたライフサイクル分析、そして(4)同会社を対象にした周辺環境汚染に関するリスク影響評価分析です。
The remarkable point is diversity. The group works has been taken with students from various departments and the variety of majors such as environmental economics, environmental science and CSR business. Also, those themes were very wide ranging from (1) environmental assessment on the expansion constructions planned by University of York which is supposed to destroy the “green belt”, (2) Policy assessment on the UK energy mix in 2050, (3) Life cycle analysis on the marking pens company and (4) Risk analysis on the same company with regards to the surrounding contaminants.

Group works and Term paper. The theme was to make an environmental report with LCA and Risk assessment for the marking pens company as an environmental manager of them. (You can see from here)

6. Environmental Law and Policy (spring)

・主催者(Convener): Piran White
(1)環境規制に際して考慮すべき6つの原則や、(2) 住民参加の政策立案(Participatory GIS)、(3) 大気環境(大気汚染物質から気候変動)、(4) 水質・水環境、(5) 野生生物保護、(6) 生物多様性、(7) 海洋保全(海洋保護区)の分野での法政策を学びました。
Learned (1) the six principle considered in the environmental regulation policy, (2) citizens participation in the policymaking (e.g. participatory GIS), legislative policies on (3) air quality (from air pollution to climate change), (4) water quality and environment, (5) wildlife conservation, (6) biodiversity, and (7) marine protection (marine protected areas).

Term paper only which was about principles in marine conservation policy to be considered (you can see from here).

7. Climate Change: Science and Management (spring)

・主催者(Convener): Mike Ashmore
This module taught us from the scientific mechanism of climate change to the law cases requesting to stop CO2 emissions in the US, policy workshops for EU-ETS and analytical way of UK carbon footprint with some software. Especially for EU-ETS workshop, we actually measured CO2 emissions from University of York, reported these to the authority, and traded emission credits among us as a market trading simulation, which was so practical.

Two reports (Mid-term Essay and Term Essay). The mid-term essay was about the adaptation strategy of the UK insurance industry to climate change, while the term paper was about the potential reduction in UK carbon footprint from food consumption.

8. Biodiversity and Conservation Biology (spring)

・主催者(Convener): Bryce Beukers-Stewart
Learned from the types of biodiversity, the current extinctions and the causes, conservation and public awareness, and the future biodiversity conservation. In particular, the exciting topics were if the current extinction is sixth mass extinctions in the earth’s history, and how human being has historically accelerated the species’ extinctions. Besides, we had the field trips to investigate the biodiversity of a UK coastal area, and visit the aquarium to evaluate the awareness enhancement measures.

Term paper and Exam. The assignment was to write up an article to enhance the public awareness on biodiversity conservation (you can see from here).

[III 経済学部主宰 (Produced by Economics department)]

9. Applied Microeconomics (autumn)

As a fundamental theory of microeconomics, we learned consumer theory, firm theory, general equilibrium, monopoly and oligopoly, asymmetric information and so on.

10. Management Decision Analysis (autumn)

Management Science, often called Operation Research for profit maximisations and cost minimisations under certain time and resource constraints. The major topics are simplex method for a linear programming problem and Hungarian method for an assignment problem. These methods can be used only under digitised situations however at the same time these ideas can make us more intuitive.

11. Project Management (autumn)

This module is to learn how to succeed cooperative or public projects which requires huge amount of finance. To be exact, we learned (1) project cycle management, (2) the failure of project, (3) financial validation and planning, (4) team work and task allocations, (5) critical path analysis and network analysis, (6) quality control, (7) project contraction, (8) Joint venture, and (9) social and environmental assessment.

To sum up, this EEEM course allows a students to take many interdisciplinary and practical modules. Next time, I want compare between LSE and York.

以上です。That’s all for today.

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-06-02 12:43 | 大学(York Uni)
春のエッセー Lovely Spring Essays

It has been ages to update my blog as I have just been up to the elbow in the following three essay works despite the spring vacation…

1. 生態系の経済評価 (Economic valuation on ecosystem)

This essay was a term paper of Environmental Valuation module and the theme was “to what extent has the valuations on the world ecosystem been conducted? How should we move forward?”. Among many ecosystem categories, I was designated to tackle “temperate grasslands, savannas and shrublands”. The value of the nature has been estimated since Costanza and his colleagues firstly estimated the global value in 1997, and last year new study on economics of biodiversity by world researchers was released at the global conference for biodiversity conservation in Nagoya (COP10).

However, this research field is under development and my ecosystem category has hardly been monetised so far – estimation has been done mainly by using the old data. I feel this is because (1) grasslands are so vast with a handful of population, (2) there are few direct use materials such as timber, fuels, and food, and (3) the effect of carbon storage and the recreation value are modest compared to other ecosystems. As a result, the value of temperate grasslands, savannas and shrublands per hectare is extremely lower than that of marine ecosystems and tropical forests.

Several implications may be thus needed in consideration of its priority among all the ecosystems: 1) to conduct practical valuation studies on recreation values of safari tours for international tourists, enabling to adopt this result into the tour fees; 2) to continue natural scientific research on the biological and physical functions of grasslands for monetary values (e.g. cattle productivity per ha; carbon storage by grass species) in order to transfer those results to the other areas for economic-efficient valuations over the world; and 3) to raise pubic awareness on conservation for this ecosystem through showing its monetary value. (See my submitted paper from here

2.海洋保全のプリンシプル (Principles on marine conservation)

This term essay is for Environmental Law and Policy module, arguing what principles are considered in legislative approaches for marine protection with examples of different governances and implications, highlighting challenges to achieve those principles. My paper discussed to what extent the two different mechanisms, 1) top-down based MPA (Marine Protected Area) and 2) co-management based ITQ (Individual Transferable Quota), could meet the six principles for marine conservation (1.sustainability; 2.Polluter Pays; 3.Precaution; 4.Equity; 5.Human rights; 6.Particpation).

In conclusion, regardless of adopting either approach, several implications are needed to assure those principles: (1) evidence-based decision making on the boundary of the protected area or the amount of harvestable fishes, based on scientific knowledge and its uncertainty; (2) acceleration of economic valuations on marine ecosystem to deploy socially equitable polluter pay principle; (3) raising public awareness on marine conservation and pushing them to join decision making boards in order to prevent the control by only special interest groups and encourage trust among stakeholders; (4) consideration of policy-mix as no perfect single instrument existing. (See my submitted paper from here

3. 英国カーボンフットプリント (Carbon foot print in the UK)

This report was written for Climate Change and Management module with a discussion about simulation of reducing carbon footprint by changing food habits in UK and to what extent this would contribute to UK 2020 CO2 mitigation target. I used a free software “REAP” to simulate the future food scenario with the data regarding UK carbon footprint per capita in 2006 by region. This report assumes the change of food habits would occur in the three dimensions: (1) reduction in food waste; (2) improvement to healthier diet proportion; and (3) choosing more domestic food.

As a result of my simulation, if UK residents achieved those three habitat changes in ideal ways, the amount of expected CO2 emissions reductions would account for 10%, 20%, 10% of the total required reductions from households by 2020 respectively, and if combining those three scenarios with substantial deployment of renewable energy sources, the total reduced CO2 emissions would be still just less than 50% of required emissions reductions level. This tells us that how demanding UK 2020 mitigation target for households is! Moreover, the foregoing food habitat changes are far from straightforward: (1) just only a few percentage of ideally avoidable waste have been reduced; (2) Food balance has not changed so drastically for the last decades; (3) UK food self-sufficient rate is far below 100% so that drastic increase in production from UK agriculture is needed by 2020.

Therefore, to achieve those goals, we need an effective advertisement about how those changes are beneficial for UK people in respect of cost saving, health, and local economy. Besides, global cooperated carbon tax is also recommended to incentivise CO2 reduction. On the other hand, carbon footprint simulation itself should be elaborated more to distinguish domestic and overseas emissions because the national mitigation target only captures the former. (See my submitted paper from here

That’s all. As many exams take place in this May and June plus dissertation should be tackled before my return to Japan in the end of July, I will keep to do my best…

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-05-09 19:46 | 大学(York Uni)
4つの課題 Four environmental assignments

今日を以て今期の課題はすべて提出して春休みを迎えることができました。 I have submitted all the four assignments to my department to today, so now I can say "welcome the Easter vacation."

先週と今週に提出した課題は、以下の4つです。The following four assignments are those handed in either last and this week.

(1) 資源経済学 (Resource Economics and Management)

This assignment focused on economic balance between use and conservatation of natural forestry, set up an economic model comparing old trees generating amenity values such as biodiversity benefits, with timer harvest and agriculture yielding timbers and crops benefits, finally optimising the allocations to achieve maximum profits. This model can be applied to PES and REDD+ but the challenges in reality should be uncertainty about data and price, difficulty of valuing biodiversity, and priority of non-market values. (See my submitted paper from here

(2) 環境評価 (Environmental Valuation)

This task to critically evaluate the academic paper estimating environmental value associated with hazardous waste sites by hedonic price model. The biggest mistake of this paper would be statistically unreliable process of analysis and if we re-evaluate it, it seems quite unlikely to show any reliable results. (See my submitted paper from here

(3) 生物多様性 (Biodiversity and Conservation Biology)

This task is to make a web article in order to raise public awareness of biodiversity conservation. I wrote the paper, called "Do you like sushi? Steak? Or mushed potatoes?" This argues that marine species are gonna be endangered, but substitute fish, beef and vegetarianism are not plausible options so that long-term and step-by-step approach would be preferable. (See my submitted paper from here

(4) 気候変動 (Climate Change: Science and Management)

In order to consider the future climate impacts and plausible adaptation strategy in the UK, this assignment was focused on one sector, for me UK insurance sector. The climate impact on insurance industry should be surprisingly huge and UK insurers would suffer from increased losses by flooding so on. Adaptation strategies for them would be estimation of the climate risk at local level, incentivizing risk-reducing behaviours by changing premiums in accordance with adaptations implemented, and consulting or advising services as risk experts. However, those actions are so far limited thus further developments are needed in the UK. (See my submitted paper from here

The other three environmental assignments are supposed to be handed in just one month later so that I am keeping on study even in the Easter vacation in order to complete such three tasks on time.

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-03-22 07:45 | 大学(York Uni)
ヨークでの被災募金活動 Earthquake donations in York

The uni finally finished at the end of last week when I not only rushed in assignment work (quite often stayed overnight in my department...) but also engaged in fund-raising activities with the other members of Japan community in the university.

・The online-donation site set up in the University of York: from here

・The online-fund raising site set up by the Japanese students across the UK universities: from here

On a side note, yesterday we joined the charity event held by Japanese community liviing in York city, making Origami together, teaching how to wear Kimono, and writing English names by Kanji in brushstrokes, along with the demonstrations of "Kendo" (Japanese art of fencing), "Sado"(Japanese tea ceremony), and "Shiatsu" (finger massage). There were many many people coming!

As a raise-for-donation compaign shoud not be temporary but last for a long time as the same as turnaround management by suffers, I will also commit in similar activities in the city, auction, charity events and so on, telling what happended and what is going on.

■  [PR]
by uk-env | 2011-03-20 16:32 | 大学(York Uni)