Some notes on An Economist Gets Lunch and response to it
Story, Study Lesson example (see later post)
Tyler Cowen's book <a type="amzn"> Cowen</a> is clearly not a literary masterpiece and, like most contemporary books, an essay or monograph would have worked better. But, looking beyond the actual package that the argument comes in, I was both turned off and drawn into Cowen's chapters where he actually seems to be offering suggestions about how to eat "better" if by better we mean more economically sound over the long haul (taking in things like externalities and not just monetary cost). I was reassured to see a footnote section (not well marked in the text and irritating to flip back too, but there nonetheless), but I was less reassured to see how little information is given in that section, given the claims he makes: like paper silverware products are actually much worse for the environment than plastic; plastic bags are better than paper (cloth is the best but only if you use it 117 times); eating locally is actually worse for the environment (unless you are eating food that comes by plane); boycotts are bad because they only work when a company is already weak, otherwise they just shift goods elsewhere; and Monsanto must actually be a good company because otherwise there would be a larger record of their products doing harm. I don't know if any of that is true but much of it sounds fishy so I want some significant evidence. None is forthcoming in the book.
How does one go about figuring this stuff out? I could do what Cowen does and simply find someone who disagrees with Cowen (like a really shoddy review in the NYT with no real critical/factual proof that Cowen is wrong, see A Contrarian Chowhound Weighs in, Dwight Garner, April 10, 2012, just rails at his tone and states his claims seem fishy). But that proves nothing. It does make it very difficult to decide which side is more accurate.
I went to KQED and found an article that agrees (mostly) with Cowen about the plastic vs. paper--see http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/08/29/are-paper-bags-really-that-much-better-than-plastic/. Seemed like the best place to find the criticism is from somewhere that is not invested in the side they've taken.
I tried to find the dishwasher vs. handwashing at energy star but the site was down. SF gate offered this contrary view to Cowen (Jan 2, 2011)
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Hand-washing-vs-the-dishwasher-2462691.php#ixzz2Rthrab71
An extensive and well documented argument for the use of flatware and not paper (again contrary to Cowen) is provided by Stanford magazine http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=28827
The Monsanto issue seems far too huge to resolve in a quick web search--I found articles for and against and some doing both depending on what aspect of the very large company it was discussing.
Again, referencing Stanford they disagree with Cowan about boycotts. Arguing that they do work.http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/stratman_leslie_boycotts.shtml
Overall, it seems like Cowen's work is either sloppy, too emotionally driven, or just controversial because controversy sells books.
What's more interesting though then the book or whether it is accurate or not is the plethora of books and articles that make largely substantiated claims and the ignorant public (of which I include myself) who is not prepared to evaluate these claims without reading a whole myriad of other books. I would like to find a list of people who make good, supported arguments and then I can just read them. The first person I would put on my list is Ronald Dworkin (unfortunately he died in Feb) but at least he left a lot of work behind. None of which, however, addresses Monsanto but primarily moral questions.
I think I will search the web for one: a list that tells you what is "well" written and two a book on Monsanto. Of course, finding a book on Monsanto that is not simply a one-sided diatribe is going to be difficult.
Tyler Cowen's book <a type="amzn"> Cowen</a> is clearly not a literary masterpiece and, like most contemporary books, an essay or monograph would have worked better. But, looking beyond the actual package that the argument comes in, I was both turned off and drawn into Cowen's chapters where he actually seems to be offering suggestions about how to eat "better" if by better we mean more economically sound over the long haul (taking in things like externalities and not just monetary cost). I was reassured to see a footnote section (not well marked in the text and irritating to flip back too, but there nonetheless), but I was less reassured to see how little information is given in that section, given the claims he makes: like paper silverware products are actually much worse for the environment than plastic; plastic bags are better than paper (cloth is the best but only if you use it 117 times); eating locally is actually worse for the environment (unless you are eating food that comes by plane); boycotts are bad because they only work when a company is already weak, otherwise they just shift goods elsewhere; and Monsanto must actually be a good company because otherwise there would be a larger record of their products doing harm. I don't know if any of that is true but much of it sounds fishy so I want some significant evidence. None is forthcoming in the book.
How does one go about figuring this stuff out? I could do what Cowen does and simply find someone who disagrees with Cowen (like a really shoddy review in the NYT with no real critical/factual proof that Cowen is wrong, see A Contrarian Chowhound Weighs in, Dwight Garner, April 10, 2012, just rails at his tone and states his claims seem fishy). But that proves nothing. It does make it very difficult to decide which side is more accurate.
I went to KQED and found an article that agrees (mostly) with Cowen about the plastic vs. paper--see http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/08/29/are-paper-bags-really-that-much-better-than-plastic/. Seemed like the best place to find the criticism is from somewhere that is not invested in the side they've taken.
I tried to find the dishwasher vs. handwashing at energy star but the site was down. SF gate offered this contrary view to Cowen (Jan 2, 2011)
Experts say: Noah Horowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council: Few people are aware that the average home actually contributes more to global warming pollution each year than the average car," highlighting the value of energy-efficient appliances in reducing environment impacts.
Horowitz says, "An average new dishwasher only uses 6 gallons per load and an Energy Star-qualified model will use only 4 gallons. Compare that to your kitchen faucet that uses 2 gallons of water per minute. Unless you can clean a whole load of dishes in less than three minutes, which would be miraculous, you are much better off simply scraping off the big chunks and putting the dishes in the dishwasher."
Regarding the energy question, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says: "About 60 percent of the energy used by a dishwasher goes toward heating the water." So models that use less water also consume less energy.
Verdict: You'd have to be a very quick and efficient hand washer to be as efficient as an Energy Star-rated dishwasher, but it's not impossible. If you go that route, be sure to turn off water while you lather up the dishes, and don't rinse them for too long. To make the dishwasher route work best, run it only when it's full, scrape (don't rinse) dishes prior to loading, run it on the "light" cycle, and opt against heated drying.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Hand-washing-vs-the-dishwasher-2462691.php#ixzz2Rthrab71
An extensive and well documented argument for the use of flatware and not paper (again contrary to Cowen) is provided by Stanford magazine http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=28827
The Monsanto issue seems far too huge to resolve in a quick web search--I found articles for and against and some doing both depending on what aspect of the very large company it was discussing.
Again, referencing Stanford they disagree with Cowan about boycotts. Arguing that they do work.http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/stratman_leslie_boycotts.shtml
Overall, it seems like Cowen's work is either sloppy, too emotionally driven, or just controversial because controversy sells books.
What's more interesting though then the book or whether it is accurate or not is the plethora of books and articles that make largely substantiated claims and the ignorant public (of which I include myself) who is not prepared to evaluate these claims without reading a whole myriad of other books. I would like to find a list of people who make good, supported arguments and then I can just read them. The first person I would put on my list is Ronald Dworkin (unfortunately he died in Feb) but at least he left a lot of work behind. None of which, however, addresses Monsanto but primarily moral questions.
I think I will search the web for one: a list that tells you what is "well" written and two a book on Monsanto. Of course, finding a book on Monsanto that is not simply a one-sided diatribe is going to be difficult.
Comments
Post a Comment