Building a green economy requires industries to resort to non-pollutant sources of energy such as solar, thermal, wind etc. While there are already those solutions, there are still many oil-refining companies whose income solely depends on oil. At the moment, there are special interest groups that protect these certain pollutant type industries and allow operations to continue. The article does mention methods in reducing emissions, such as the Pigovian tax and the cap and trade system. Although they sound plausible, it does not necessarily encourage a green economy. What does only does is gives firms incentives to reduce the amount of pollution it emits by essentially paying a "fee." building a Green economy seems very far off at the moment, until the depletion of oil, we may see signs of improvement. There are too many industries that depend on a Green economy at the moment. While building a green economy is still profitable, the existing companies do not want to disappear, which makes it a difficult situation to realize a green economy.

We can use the buffer tool, explained in GIS to illustrate which regions are highly polluted. The regions that are heavily polluted can be illustrated with different colors by updating the symbology. We can then compare the economic situation of a region that is heavily polluted versus a region that is more green. This should help evaluate whether or not, building a green economy is worthwhile. Hopefully, the decision is based not on the amount of income because no amount of money can save this planet from a natural disaster.

i think it is worthwhile to build a green economy. the future of the world relies on how eco-friendly our(meaning my generation) I feel as though if we are on earth and we are able to be efficient using ec-friendly products that we should use those products all the time. fossil fuels will only last so long, so why not change the future and make a difference and try to come up with say alternative ways to create energy. solar and wind power have been two of the biggest markets in the last ten years and they will begin to grow rapidly in the 10 years as well because i feel this is where the industries are turning in order to try to help the environment. if companies around the world in the next 10 to 20 years changed how they impact the enviornment i believe that our world would be a healthier and cleaner. as stated above you could use the buffer tool to see just where the right spot would be to build a green economy.

It is definitely worthwhile to build a green economy. Like the article says, "If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic." The fact that we have an opportunity to alter global temperatures for future generations means that we now have the responsibility to seize this opportunity. We currently are under the mass usage of fossil fuels, but it is known that; 1. they are detrimental to the the atmosphere and 2. they're eventually going to run out. So our job is to further develop alternative energy such as solar or wind power. An economy that is "green"-based will have multiple barriers-to-entry because of the huge corporations that currently dominate the Energy business. Once green companies take form, the existing corporations will have stiff competition, so they're current goal is to probably hold off the development of alternative energy for as long as it can. A second barrier would be the amount of capital that it takes to develop the technology. Having a green-economy is definitely an expensive ambition.
GIS maps can be used to determine which areas suffer from the greenhouse gases that are emitted from fossil fuels. By determining these areas, we can begin assessing the degree of importance that a green-economy will serve.

I dislike the name "green economy", I think it's misleading. What we want is to see the same progress in material well-being extended to our environment. This does not mean that we'll have production without pollution, that is impossible. Instead what is hoped for is less pollution, at a lower price. Just as we want better cars at lower prices, the "better-ness" could mean less polluting cars. In this sense a "green economy" is a worthy goal. The move to cleaner and cheaper is the same motivation that has always worked, prices. There has to be an incentive for people to economize on a scarce resource, business need a point of competition upon which they can motivate each other to produce the better item at a lower price. Because we are discussing prices in the context of pollution, mapping density area of pollution concentration would be a useful tool in designing Pigouvian taxes that create prices on negative externalities. High pollution areas, are in fact, more costly to polluters. It would be important to monitor these high pollution tax areas to determine whether the higher cost/price was leading to economizing among polluters. GIS can be used to track changes within defined areas, this information would be used to feed-back into the tax structure and lower costs/prices as pollution decreased.
Assess whether it is worthwhile to build a green economy. Explain how tools of GIS discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 could assist you in making your assessment.

I think it is worthwhile to build a green economy. I also think the main problem is about “need” other than “cost”. The science of climate change has already clearly showed to us the necessity of shifting to a green economy to build a sustainable society in the future. Building a green economy also faces lots of difficulties. Something should be done to satisfy the benefit of special-interest groups who generated pollutions such as noise and prevent them from polluting more.
GIS tools can be used to evluate the changes of effect and compare the effect of before- after of the program by making the climate maps with many pollution related features. It also can be used to study the climate changes over different regions. For instance, we can set different types of pollution into different categories and make different types of maps, such as the distribution map of index of water being polluted in limited range of area.

It is definitely worthwhile to build a "green economy." I think that is the way we are headed now, now that everyone seems to be on the green bandwagon. The article said that by the year 2100, average temperatures could rise by 9 degrees. That is a whole lot, and can be damaging to not only humans but everything else. Economics goes hand in hand with the environment and green policies, as stated in the article. By providing mutual benefits, to the end user and manufacturer, we can help offset the negative externalities that are caused by pollution. I think both big business and the general public want to help the environment, so the more people that are willing to pay for green things, the more big business will churn our green products and switch to green production policies. GIS can be used to locate where all of the different industries are, and where the highest levels of pollution are at. By seeing where the high concentrations are, the data can be used to figure out ways to mitigate the pollutions in those areas and the companies that are releasing the pollution.

Building a green economy is not only worthwhile but also, necessary. One of the main factors holding back progress on this issue is uncertainty. Uncertainty surrounding how fast a particular changes should take place, what should be the best method to alter carbon emissions and how far public policy should go with the enforcement. However, there is common ground among politicians regarding the necessity of a plan. In order to keep the negative implications of any plan form damaging our economy we must secure the participation from other large polluting economies. By insuring that we are all conducting business under the same set of rules, it will level the playing field for each countries economy and help keep each stable during the period of change. Scientist can utilizing some the tools discussed in chapters 4 & 5 of our GIS Tutorial textbook. Because a verity of different approaches has been used to solve similar environmental problems here in the U.S., we can accurately map the success rates of the different programs and show the implications they pose on different regions of each economy. Using tools like selecting a location with a distance buffer we can use these map as a form of communication. A way to communicate to our neighbors to success of our plans based upon previous results.

Yes, I believe that it is worthwhile to build a “green Economy.” The business model however is not all about helping the environment. Business people and entrepreneurs understand that there is an economic advantage to the “Green Movement.” This is a great economic incentive for new business to emerge and be developed. Yes, sure there is a climate that we are all concern about but there is not true consensus among scientist that humans are the crucial factor in global warming. We must supply the idea of “eco-friendly” materials and labor to the demands of consumers. This is a phase we are currently in and business must adapt to this new mentality of ecological understanding. If we step back for a moment, there has been significant progress in this area of sustainability and global footprints. Because of such leaps in business approach we can be sure that over the years more and more business will adopt such policies and integrate them in future endeavors. So in a way the question of “whether it is worthwhile to build a green economy” has already been answered.
GIS is able to help us with such tasks by applying different polygons over different areas to create layers upon layers of information. We can create green areas to further show such demands/markets for a green economy.

Building a green economy is possible but depends on the cooperation of the world. There are way too many companies who operate their day to day business on one sole product, such as oil for example. In order for an economy to go green, these big name companies need throw in for their share. Sure they have worked on contributing less to pollution here and there but they need to completely find another alternative. Until these companies find an alternative, economies that depend on these companies will never see the light of a fully green economy. There should also be a set of universal emissions and "green" standards to follow. Help from other countries will greatly impact the persuasion of even more countries to contribute tot he green cycle if they see the "big boy" countries participate. The GIS system as well as other tools can be used to help figure out a solution to building a green economy. This can be began by finding different regions of a selected area that we want to know that have the most pollution. We can then color code these areas a certain color and compare them to other areas with different color codes. Making the whole world comply with green standards is a nearly impossible feat so to make it possible at all, one would need to start with the bottom level and work with countries with the most pollution first. After dealing with these countries, then we can move upwards and work on the ones with mild pollution until everyone is on the same page in terms of pollution standards.

It is worthwhile if economic growth and environmental sustainability are compatible and there is a good chance that the technologies required simultaneously to increase value-added and reduce environmental impacts . One of the cost of green economy is negative effects in economic growth. Reconciling economic growth with environmental sustainability will require the reduction of the environmental impacts of current activity to sustainable levels and then their maintenance at these levels while incomes continue to grow. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in clean energy investments that will jump-start our economy and build the clean energy jobs of tomorrow. The policy protect our nation from the serious economic and strategic risks associated with our reliance on foreign oil and the destabilizing effects of a changing climate. We can believe that policies to advance energy and climate security would promote economic recovery efforts, accelerate job creation, and drive clean energy manufacturing by measures below: investing in the Clean Energy Jobs of the Future; Securing our Energy Future; Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters.
We can use the swipe layer tool in GIS to see how features have changed between areas before building green economy with income growth sustainability and after building it. By comparing their differences between these features, we can recognize whether or not building green economy is worthwhile

I also feel that there is a need for a green economy, but I believe this is something that may not be easily done. Its worthwhile because there’s days during the summer, when you look outside, and the sky looks horribly dirty, with a dirty layer of smog/ toxic looking mist that our great great great great ancestors probably never had seen. I feel that fighting pollution that is a difficult task because for example no matter how green the U.S. economy becomes, there may always be a problem with making sure that everyone else in other countries cooperate as well; but if the planet is indeed warming like the article says, then this is something that defiantly should be taken serious by all countries. I also believe searching and making a more green global economy can possibly kill three birds with one stone. It may produce jobs, help to solve the problem of scarce fossil fuels (by replacement of alternative energy), and in the long run people/ earth itself will be better off. The tools in GIS can be used to help locate clusters of high pollution areas and can also be used to help predict and analyze relationships between two or more variables, which can be of great use in building a green economy.

It is worthwhile to build a green economy in my opinion. I think we are in need of green economy. However there are both positive and negative effects of building a green economy. I agree building a green economy will help our environment and slower the global warming, but to maintain our economy to remain green it will require us to do certain things differently, for instance requiring everyone to drive hybrid cars, so we don’t use our nature oil and control the pollution; not everyone can afford a hybrid car, especially in this economy. I think GREEN ECONOMY is something that needed to be done as soon as possible. We should not wait any longer because if we don’t act now, we’ll get to a point where we won’t be able to control global warming anymore. GIS tools can help us build a design for green economy and illustrate whether it is worthwhile to build a green economy or not. It can also show us the different between current economy and green economy.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a pollution-free world? I am sure everyone would come to a consensus to this. However, very few would want to give up their gas guzzlers or industrial factories would be more incline to cut toxic emission. For a green economy to become a reality, every earthling must participate. Over the years many ideas have been implemented but failed to solve this issue. The article mentioned the government have use the “command and control” to force industries clean up their act. Another is a fee based system use to charged companies every time they over pollute such as the Pigovian Tax and the most recent one, cap-and-trade. These are good steps but it doesn’t really changed that much. Until companies such as GM and Exxon exhausted the world’s natural resources to make money, a green economy will have to wait a bit longer.

The GIS tools can be used to identify and locate industrial areas. In addition, it can track pollution levels and the negative externalities it causes. From this information, we can assess whether a green economy could be achieve or not.

Of courser building a green economy is worthwhile. It will save they planet from disaster and make the world a better place. However companies that contribute more to pollution might find it extremely expensivve to convert to a more green appproach and it won't be worth it to them. But it is important to take a more green approach because of rising temperatures that are slowly destroying the planet and life on it. The way things are going right now can mean bad news in the next couple of years. Many new industries are using a more green approach which is a great practice aiding in making the planet more safe. Old energy factories that have to convert will be really expensive to convert to eliminate or reduce emissions. The Pigovian Tax, and Cap and Trade are get out jail free cards to companies that produce mass emissions. These taxes are a way for companies that produce a lot of emissions permisission to pollute the planet.
From the chapter 4 and 5 GIS tools we are able to look at areas that have a lot of pollution and areas that have a more green approach and compare the amount of income that each obtain compare to amount of emissions are released. This can help because it can maximize efficiency of pollution/income.

It would be worthwhile to build a green economy if the benefits are greater than the cost, including opportunity cost. But, it is difficult to be able to analyze the benefits and costs of building a green economy due to the long term uncertainty and quantifying all benefits to society. But, qualitatively building a green economy may be worthwhile. There are negative externalities because of pollution/green house gases that are not borne by the polluter.A green economy may be able to reduce the negative externalities. But, zero pollution is not the optimal quantity, nor is it feasible. GIS can assist in mapping what industries in a given area are polluting the most. With this information business and governments can locate an industry to focus on. Also, GIS would be able to graphically show where pollution is traveling.

I think that it is worthwhile and necessary to build a green economy. A green economy will help our environment and pollution and slow down the global warming from a dirty layer of smog and gas. If we can afford alternative energy such as solar and hydrate, we can control the pollution and protect environment more than now.
GIS tools can be used to locate the highest pollution areas information and help create green economy.

I think it is necessary to build a green economy and it shouldn't just be an idea-- it needs to be played out. Going green is not going to be easy, it's going to take years and alot of readjusting for industries and the people in general. By heading away from the use of fossil fuel, it will reduce the amount emmissions that go into the atmosphere. The changes of using a substitute is not going to dramatically change things for the better but in the long run, it will pay off compared to the continuous use of oil. I believe that people are not so keen to the idea of going "Green" because of the costs that comes along with it. People are intersted but the cost of replacing or getting "Green" things may not seem like a great idea at a time when some are struggling to make mortgage payments; let alone thinking about being "environmental friendly." If a large amount of people start going "Green", others will gradually follow the trend. The key is to keep the Green's price tag at a level where people will find it more valuable than its actual price. The buffer tool from GIS can help determine which areas are greatly polluated compared to other given areas. It's a good visual aid that allows one to focus on a particular area.

I do believe that its worthwhile to build a green economy, but it will be very tough to do something like this at a large scale without having a public backlash, with people complaining about more and more of their freedoms are getting lost through the decades. The cap and trade idea seems like it can certainly work, but the issue is that it will be fairly expensive to do this in terms of measuring the pollution, and also cutting back pollution in for the firms. This may then reflect in the prices companies charge for there products. The cap and trade will defiantly reduce pollution but at the cost of who? The government, consumer, firms. The cost and benefit of this method will have to research into more depth to truly understand if this method will be beneficial. One method that could defiantly be successful would be if the government continues to give both companies and and customer more incentive for producing or buying more environment friendly products, for example taxes break for hybrid car for both the maker and the buyer, etc. The GIS tools can help us locate areas of high and low pollution and we can possibility model towns to those who have a relatively low pollution in relation to their population and examine what they are doing successful.

With a background of environmental studies and meteorology I was well informed on both issues or climate change, and the environmental economics. The author of this article starts off by saying that some people believe in the negative climate and others looks for small cracks in data to cause disputes about it. I agree that these pollutants and other environmental issues are making our climate change drastically, and that we as the people of this earth can change it. With all the money that companies of this world make on a day-to-day basis the inputs of making factories revamp to increase the efficiency of emissions should be a law. The cost of saving a company a couple hundred thousand dollars is mediocre to the results of not doing anything and letting the temperature continually increase until catastrophe strikes. If there are already laws on household's car emissions, then there should be a either a cap-and-tax, or a emission permit. Either or, there should not be a chance for both of these market ideas to not be acknowledged. When there are a limited amount of options, one has to be chosen. Slowly, and proportionally companies need to begin remodeling their factories and making more environmental friendly work spaces.
The GIS approach makes it easier for the research employees. With the technology it is easier to find, and label areas that would be subject to such flood disasters with the layers application. It allows you to view the space, and the houses, residents, and business that are nearby. If they planned to get a region near a creek to stop dumping debris into it, they could use this tool to get a list of the people near by to contact.

I think that a green economy is worthwhile, but also agree with James when he states that the name "Green Economy" is misleading. Through the use of GIS, mapping clusters of businesses and overlaying buffering of pollution can find which businesses are creating the pollutants and more specifically the types of industries industries. Prices are the motivator that can control the pollution (negative externalities) they subject on others. The Pigovian tax would be a motivator that polluting corporations would not normally put on themselves.

I think it is possible and worthwhile to build a green economy. Restrictions on companies will be the only way to acheive this unfortunately because any company is always trying to produce their product for the lowest price possible. This almost always not the best way for the environment. Therefore, most companies will need incentives in order to make changes that will benefit the environment. It will take time to make the change but would be worthwhile.

Green sounds nice but it comes with price tag. Political decisions by different economy system/ government among countries can result different pollution standard to favor their own economy. Developing countries tend to emit more pollutant because the structure of their own economy. All countries agree on lower the pollution. The problem is how the cost to do so affects GDP. Also, the government's position is being questioned. Could pollution problems be solved without government invention or does government doing too much? First we need to recognize this is a problem that needs to be done as a whole effort not individually. By using the tools, we could locate the area and customize the best solution to lower pollutant level.

Yes it is worthwhile to build a green economy. Assuming that global warming is real and that emissions from human activities are responsible for the warming, it is our responsibility to do something about it. The effects of carbon emissions may not be so obvious now; but if we don’t start building a green economy, they will be soon. The estimated drop in GDP if carbon emissions are left as they are is about 5%, due to changes in temperature, sea levels, and climate. If we adopt green policy the estimated cost is only about 2%. Therefore it is actually more costly to ignore global warming than it is to act on it. Furthermore, analysts say that the costs of going green are probably over-estimates.

The biggest obstacle we face when fighting global warming is the fact that effects are not immediate. Those who suffer as a result of a carbon tax or a cap and trade will not benefit until later this century. This makes legislation difficult because people, representatives, need incentives to go green that carry immediate benefits. Because Global warming is not a common trend, we are uncertain about what will happen, and thus must factor in the chance of absolute catastrophe. Perhaps the possibility of catastrophe will help


If cap and trade policy is adopted, GIS tools can help us by mapping where the current emission permits are. We could map how many permits are within a certain area. We could also use spider diagrams to show how the permits trade. If a carbon tax policy was adopted we could use graduated symbols to map the amount of carbon emission a particular enterprise produces. We could then use buffers to determine determine whether carbon emitters in a particular area tend to produce similar amounts of carbon.

Innovation will be key to building a green economy. The cap and trade policy indirectly rewards innovation in the sense that cleaner faciliities can use their technology/advantage to earn credits, which can be sold and then finance further innovations. Path dependence will eventually start to play a role in the industries, resulting in cleaner firms steadily gaining more market share. However, this encourages innovation only so far as meeting a status quo dictated through legislation or governent agency policy, of which may be welfare enhancing but not welfare maximizing. Will it be "enough?"

GIS tools will help map and quantify. Perhaps the value of a pollution credit should be weighted against proximity to population centers? Maybe track wind patterns of emissions and their effects? Can relevant GIS data be accumulated and processed to quantify? Can the resulting analysis be followed up by welfare enhancing policy?