In process: Google spreadsheet commodity market terms

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlJYCo1juh__dDc0TzdnZ05nUjNqa004alh6VEJCS2c&output=html


 

Originally published by Maureen Flynn-Burhoe, on 8 June 8, 2011 on my social histories timelines that I will be eventually deleting. 

“Coal remains a key component of Canada’s diverse energy supply picture, accounting for as much as 20% of electricity generation. Six of Canada’s provinces rely to some degree on coal to supply electrical power, with three (Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta) almost fully reliant (NRCAN 2010).”

Coal-fired power stations are major emitters of CO2, the most important greenhouse gas (GHG). Brown coal emits 3 times as much CO2 as natural gas, black coal emits twice as much CO2 per unit of electric energy. “Emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) have traditionally been the main concern. Proven technologies, such as flue gas desulphurisation, selective catalytic reactors, low NOxburners and fluidized bed combustion, are available – albeit at a cost – to reduce these emissions. Recently, pending legislation on air toxics, especially mercury, on fine particulates, and on GHG emissions has emerged as a more formidable challenge. Canada’s GHG emissions from electricity generation in 2004 were 130 Mt. The overwhelming proportion, about 75%, was from the use of coal (NRCAN 2010).”

The world’s power demands are expected to rise 60% by 2030.[5] With the worldwide total of active coal plants over 50,000 and rising,[6] the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the energy market by 2030.[5]

The five largest power plant sources of NOx in Canada are coal plants in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan. The large emitters in Canada are mainly coal plants located in central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, southern Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Newfoundland also have one oil-fired plant each with large SO2 emissions. The 60 highest mercury-emitting power plants in the United States (or 18 percent of the those listed in Table 3.9) produced 50 percent of the total annual emissions from such facilities. Fourteen facilities produced 90 percent of the power plant mercury emissions in Canada, with annual emissions ranging from 275 kilograms to 1.0 kilogramIn Canada, the highest emitting facility produced 14 percent of the total annual emissions from the Canadian electricity sector (CEC 2004).

Mercury is a toxic substance that accumulates in the environment. Mercury emissions from power generation result from the combustion of coal, which
contains mercury. These emissions can be deposited locally and transported throughout the globe. Canada deposits 9 T of mercury but receives 100 T of emissions. Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in North America are generally unregulated, although efforts are underway in Canada and the
United States to develop control programs. For example, Alberta adopted a reduction target of 50 percent from 2003 power plant mercury emissions
by the end of 2009.

“Mercury control technology is highly efficient and available for all coal types. Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) is the primary technology being used to reduce mercury emissions from new and existing coal plants. Data from power plants shows that the tested boilers achieved, on average, reductions in mercury emissions of about 90 percent. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).”

Who’s Who

Canada

  • Carbon Management Canada (CMC)

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America (SO2, NOx, mercury, CO2) “Consortia of companies, like the Canadian Clean Power Coalition or the Clean Energy Group in the United States, are coming together to promote the production and use of alternate or renewable energy sources. Other companies are partnering with counterparts in developing countries to create Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) that will help to address the looming threat of global warming. In a similar vein, several states and provinces have set in place or are contemplating firm commitments to significantly reduce mercury emissions at coal power plants in the next several years (e.g., Alberta, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin).” This report includes lists of power plants and their emissions (2002 statistics).

Alberta

The Canadian Centre for Clean Coal/Carbon and Mineral Processing Technologies (C5MPT)  is a “research and education centre that supports sustainable and responsible energy and mineral development. The first Centre of its kind in Canada, C5MPT is a partnership of industry, government, and academia and is also a model of collaborative vision among leading researchers.” University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Alberta Environment Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy for Alberta.

Integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework (IMERF)

Cumulative Effects Management System (CEMS)

The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) was established in March 1994 as a new way to manage air quality in Alberta. CASA is a multi-stakeholder partnership. It is composed of representatives selected by industry, government and non-government organizations. Every partner is committed to a comprehensive air quality management system for Alberta.

A timeline of selected events related to the social history of high-emitting coal-fired plants

2025 33 of 51 of Canada’s coal-fired plants will reach the end of their economic lives.

2011-06-08. “Coal Comfort: EPA Cracks Down on the U.S.’s Dirtiest Mercury-Emitting Power Plants” Scientific American. “Twenty of the top 25 mercury-emitting coal-fired utilities in the U. S. are located within 80 to 160 kilometers of some of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation.”

2011 Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice had promised to firm up new standards to force electricity producers to phase out older, high-emitting coal-fired plants and require newer facilities to match the emissions of gas fired plants.

2011-04-26 The Saskatchewan government through SaskPower is moving ahead with their Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) project into $1.2-billion retrofit of Boundary Dam generating station. The $1.2-billion project will rebuild one of its old coal power plants to pump its greenhouse gas emissions underground. The new CCS clean coal power plant is the first of its kind and size anywhere in the world. The project is located at the Boundary Dam Power Station, Estevan and it will be completed in 2013 – 2014 (Leader Post).”

The project will be the world’s first commercial CCS system and it will capture an estimated 1 million tons of CO2 emission per year. That is equivalent to taking 200,000 vehicles off the road.

2011-05-23/27. McLinden’s “An overview of ∧ air quality activities at Environment Canada.”.

2011-03-22 The Government of Canada contributed an additional $899,000 in funds to a Carbon Management Canada (CMC) gasification project in Regina, Saskatchewan (Carbon Management Canada).

2011-03 Coal-fired power plants are the primary source of toxic mercury air emissions in the U.S. Mercury pollution contaminates our land and waters, causing serious human health impacts… [T]he top emitters of mercury in the U.S. (25 coal-fired plants) contribute nearly a third of all mercury emissions from the electric sector while only providing 8% of U.S. electricity. Nearly half of all U.S. river-miles and lake-acres were under water contamination advisories. This includes 100% of Great Lakes Coastal Waters Lake Acres. Eighty percent of all water contamination advisories in the U. S. were issued because of mercury contamination. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

2010-06-23 Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice promised to phase out older coal-fired power plants to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, moving toward gas fired plants. According to Prentice: “Our regulation will be very clear. When each coal-burning unit reaches the end of its economic life, it will have to meet the new standards or close down. No trading, no offsets, no credits.” The measure is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the country by 15 megatonnes. Along with the proposed regulations, Prentice also announced the government would contribute C$400 million ($384 million) for its share of a fund set up under the Copenhagen accord to help impoverished countries cope with climate change.

2010-10-14 “Coal remains a key component of Canada’s diverse energy supply picture, accounting for as much as 20% of electricity generation. Six of Canada’s provinces rely to some degree on coal to supply electrical power, with three (Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta) almost fully reliant (NRCAN).”

2009 “Since 1999, mercury air emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants have decreased by almost 27 percent: from over 48 tons in 1999 to 35 tons in 2009 (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).”

2009-09-09. Valupadasa, Prasad. 2009-09-09. “Alberta mercury regulation for coal-fired power plants.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1339-1342

Abstract: “Alberta stakeholders, through the Province’s Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA), identified mercury as the pollutant of highest priority for control from coal-fired power plants. Working with CASA, the Province finalized a new Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation [Mercury Emissions From Coal-fired Power Plants Regulation, March 2006, Alberta Regulation 34/2006, Alberta Queen's Printer, Regulation may be found at http://www.gov.ab.ca/qp.%5D [1]. The regulation places the province at the forefront of controlling mercury emissions from the sector on a global level by driving actions to reduce mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants in the province by at least 50% by 2010. Requirements also include continuous improvement provisions for further mercury reductions beyond 2010 based on technology advancement over the next 10 years. This paper summarises the regulation, the work the province undertook at the provincial and national level in its development, and status of implementation actions.”

2009 Alberta electricity companies, “TransAlta, ATCO, and EPCOR, teamed with GE Energy to conducted full-scale evaluation of sorbent injection in Sundance Unit 5 operated by TransAlta. Sundance Unit 5 fires a Western Canadian sub-bituminous coal and is equipped with cold-side ESP for PM control. Goals of the program were to evaluate: (1) the ability of achieving 70% or greater mercury reduction using activated carbon injection in long-term tests (30 days), (2) the effect of sorbent injection on ESP performance and opacity in long-term testing, and (3) the effects of combustion conditions on “natural” mercury removal in fly ash. DARCO Hg-LH was injected upstream of ESP at average injection rate of 2.1 lb/MMacf and achieved an average mercury removal of 80%. During the test, the sorbent injection rate was varied from 0.55 lb/MMacf to 8 lb/MMacf with mercury removals from 65% to > 95%. The continuous 30-day DARCO Hg-LH injection testing demonstrated that 70% mercury removal could be achieved at DARCO Hg-LH injection rate of 1.2 lb/MMacf. Tests were conducted to optimize combustion conditions to improve “native” mercury capture in the fly ash. Testing demonstrated that combustion conditions that resulted in reduction of NOx emissions also corresponded to reduced mercury emission. Mercury emissions were reduced by up to 50% and NOx emissions by up to 35% from baseline levels as a result of changes in the way Unit 5 operated. Integration of sorbent injection with combustion conditions reduced requirements for sorbent injection by 20–30%. Testing has demonstrated that sorbent injection did not have an effect on opacity and ESP performance. Keywords: Mercury; Sub-bituminous coal; Activated carbon; Sundance 5; Cold ESPs.”First full-scale demonstration of mercury control in Alberta.”

2008 Collectively, power plants were responsible for 72 percent of mercury air emissions in the U.S. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

2008-08-21 Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) studied a Clean Coal Project. The intention would be to build a coal-fired plant that would effectively capture all carbon dioxide emissions. The cost of such a plant was so high that SaskPower decided to not construct such a plant until later. Instead the required capacity will be obtained from power plants fuelled by natural gas. It would have been The first coal-fueled plant capable of capturing and burying carbon dioxide. Canada, had committed C$1.4 billion ($1.34 billion) on the plant planned to incorporate oil recovery in the plans to offset costs, a different approach than the U.S., which canceled a similar plant in 2007 (Whitten:Canada to Move Ahead on `Clean-Coal’ Plant After U.S.’s Fails.)”

2006. Alberta: “Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation.”

Valupadas, Prasad. 2006-03 “The New Fired Power from Coal Plants Regulation.” Excellent summary, easy to read graphics and clear mapping of issues.

2005-12 In Alberta these high-emitting coal-fired power plants had subsisting approvals governing them: 1 Battle River* 1512-02-00; 2 Sundance** 9830-01-00; 3 Sheerness 123-02-00; 4 Genesee 773-02-00; 5 H.R. Milner 9814-01-00; 6 Wabamun 10323-02-00; 7 Keephills 10324-01-00″ Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation.”

2004 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America. North American Power Plant Air Emissions

2004 Canada’s GHG emissions from electricity generation in 2004 were 130 Mt. The overwhelming proportion, about 75%, was from the use of coal (NRCAN 2010).”

1996 The World Bank launched its Clean Coal Initiative.

Webliography and Bibliography

Whitten, David. 2008-08-21. “Canada to Move Ahead on `Clean-Coal’ Plant After U.S.’s Fails.” Bloomberg.

Brown, Terry. Lissianskib, Vitali. 2009-09-17. “First full-scale demonstration of mercury control in Alberta.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1412-1418.

McLinden, Chris. 2011-05-23-27. “An overview of ∧ air quality activities at Environment Canada.” Air Quality Research Division. Environment Canada
MACC Conference on Monitoring and Forecasting Atmospheric Composition. 23-27 May 2011

Valupadasa, Prasad. 2009-09-09. “Alberta mercury regulation for coal-fired power plants.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1339-1342

Abstract: “Alberta stakeholders, through the Province’s Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA), identified mercury as the pollutant of highest priority for control from coal-fired power plants. Working with CASA, the Province finalized a new Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation [Mercury Emissions From Coal-fired Power Plants Regulation, March 2006, Alberta Regulation 34/2006, Alberta Queen's Printer, Regulation may be found at http://www.gov.ab.ca/qp.%5D [1]. The regulation places the province at the forefront of controlling mercury emissions from the sector on a global level by driving actions to reduce mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants in the province by at least 50% by 2010. Requirements also include continuous improvement provisions for further mercury reductions beyond 2010 based on technology advancement over the next 10 years. This paper summarises the regulation, the work the province undertook at the provincial and national level in its development, and status of implementation actions.”

Emissions from coal-fired plants in general

Fact sheet

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for almost three-quarters (35 tons) of all mercury air emissions in the U.S. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2011-03. (Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

pings:
http://www.edf.org/documents/11661_mercury-alert-cleaning-up-coal-plants.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382009002343
http://www.casahome.org
http://www.cec.org/Storage/56/4876_PowerPlant_AirEmission_en.pdf
http://www.environmentconference.alberta.ca/docs/Session-28_presentation-A.pdf
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_034.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=av7cb8ehp7ZU&refer=canada
http://www.cmc-nce.ca/media-releases/2011/03/22/government-of-canada-backs-cmc-clean-coal-power-generation-project/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cleaning-up-the-dirtiest-coal-fired-plants
http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/Clean%20coal%20plan%20global%20first/4674413/story.html
http://www.cmc-nce.ca/media-releases/2011/03/22/government-of-canada-backs-cmc-clean-coal-power-generation-project

categories: environment, GHG, emissions,

tags: Ecology, Environment, Social History Timelines, Activated carbon, Air pollution, Air Quality, alberta, Canada, Carbon Management Canada (CMC), clean coal technology, CO2, Combustion, Fly ash, Greenhouse Gases, Mercury, mercury-emitting, mercury-emitting coal-fired utilities, Nitrogen oxide, NOx, Particulate Matter, Performance, SO2, SO3, Sorbent, Subbituminous coal, Trace Elements


This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


text

Via Flickr:
The National Gallery of Canada gradually became morphed into my memory palace, a mnemonic device where social histories began to reveal themselves as one perspective merged into another. Renaissance perspective was too linear, too Hegelian for the way in which I wanted to revisit communal memories. I began to see the gallery spaces through an Escherian perspective where each art work opened into a panorama, a vista of social histories.


Along with vast improvements in material conditions capitalism’s dark side has created insatiable appetites, limitless monetization of contemporary life through privatization for-profit (hospitals, schools, prisons…) commodification and commercialization. Harvard political philosopher, Michael Sandel claims we have gone too far and calls for an informed public debate, a robust conversation on the moral limits of markets? Sandel argues that the left and right, the Democrats and Republicans have abandoned civic virtue, and have impoverished views of citizenship and community. Sandel does not suggest precise limits but invites discussions. Things that were once considered repugnant as marketable commodities, have become or are gradually becoming normalized: paying people to give an organ or blood or to submit to risky drug tests; the sale of naming rights in classrooms, for sports stadiums, etc; paying school children to read more or get good grades; the right of corporations to pollute the atmosphere; hiring mercenaries to fight wars or using private corporations in the U.S. military presence in Iraq; selling citizenship to immigrants; selling admission to elite universities.

Selected Timeline of Related Events in the Social History of Moral Limits of Markets

Barely begun, work in process. Please note that efforts are made to acknowledge sources but this is a blog post not an academic paper and there might be unintentional omissions. See webliography and bibliography.

2012-10-15 Roth received a Nobel Prize for his innovative exchange concept applied to kidney transplants. In a 2007 article he noted that his exchange concept may have been repugnant to some as it created a grey area in benefits from organ donations. Economists Alvin E. Roth of Harvard University and Lloyd S. Shapley of the University of California at Los Angeles whose work has led to nearly 2,000 kidney transplants across the United States have received 2012 Nobel Prize for economics Monday at a news conference in Stockholm, Sweden.  Roth and Shapley were honored for “the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design.” (Smith 2012-10-15 ”  Nobel economists’ big impact: Kidney transplants ). See also Roth, Alvin E. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Summer: 21:3. pp. 37–58.

2012-07-12 In a book review entitled “Money and the markets: Insatiable longing,” The Economist examined limits of capitalism.

2012-04-24 Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets was published. Sandel asks, “Should we pay children to read books or to get good grades? Should we allow corporations to pay for the right to pollute the atmosphere? What about hiring mercenaries to fight our wars? Auctioning admission to elite universities? Selling citizenship to immigrants willing to pay? (Amazon)”

2007 “The laws against buying or selling kidneys reflect a reasonably widespread repugnance, and this repugnance may make it difficult for arguments that focus only on the gains from trade to make headway in changing these laws. That does not mean that no gains from exchange can be realized; in fact some gains are beginning to be realized in the kidney exchange programs that Tayfun So¨nmez, UtkuU¨ nver, and I helped to design in New England and elsewhere. In the simplest form of kidney exchange, a patient with a willing donor who has an incompatible blood type (or who is incompatible for another reason) can exchange a kidney with another such incompatible patient–donor pair. (That is, the pairs are matched so that the donor from one pair is compatible with the patient from the other, and each patient receives a kidney from the other patient’s donor.) This sort of “in kind” exchange has gained acceptance in the transplant community (Roth, Alvin E. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Summer: 21:3. pp. 37–58.).1″

2005-02-09 Michael J. Sandel presented his paper entitled the “The Moral Limits of Markets” in which he raised these questions: “Are there some things that should not be bought and sold, and, if so, why? The proliferation of markets in recent years makes this issue difficult to avoid. Consider, for example, recent proposals to establish markets in organs for transplantation, the race among medical entrepreneurs to patent human genes and other life forms, the aggressive marketing of drugs as consumer goods, and the proliferation of for-profit schools, hospitals, and prisons. The rampant commodification, commercialization, and privatization of contemporary life give us reason to reconsider the moral limits of markets: Are there some things that money should not buy?” (Hoffmann and Sandel 2005-02-09).

2003-07 [T]he U.S. Department of Defense included terrorist attacks or terrorism futures market in a speculative list of  predictive markets. Public repugnance forced the Pentagon to hastily cancel the program (wiki).

1996  Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled Democracy’s Discontent was published.  In it Sandel called for a rejuvenation of civic life and civic voice in the United States. He argued that the vision of citizenship and community shared by both Democrats and Republicans was impoverished ( Amazon).

1990 “[T]he Clean Air Act was amended to allow trading of rights to pollute through tradable emissions entitlements (Roth 2007).”

1980s Alvin E. Roth of Harvard University’s market design experiments based on Shapley’s 1960s work were used for such matches as students with schools and organ donors with patients who need a transplant  (Smith 2012-10-15 ”  Nobel economists’ big impact: Kidney transplants ). See also Roth, Alvin E. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Summer: 21:3. pp. 37–58.

1960s Economist Lloyd S. Shapley co-developed a mathematical theory on resource allocation as applied to the job market (Smith 2012-10-15 ”  Nobel economists’ big impact: Kidney transplants ). See also Roth, Alvin E. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Summer: 21:3. pp. 37–58.

1907 George Simmel’s book on economic sociology entitled The Philosophy of Money  was published. Simmel investigated the consequences as money penetrated everyday life. “Hannes Böhringer has argued, “Money…objectifies the ‘style of life’, forces metropolitan people into ‘objectivity’, ‘indifference’, ‘intellectuality’, ‘lack of character’, ‘lack of quality’. Money socializes human beings as strangers…money also transforms human beings into res absolutae, into objects. Simmel’s student, Georg Lukács, correctly noticed that this objectification (in his words: reification and alienation) did not remain external, cannot, as Simmel maintained, be the ‘gatekeeper of the innermost elements’, but rather itself becomes internalized (H.Böhringer, ‘Die “Philosophie des Geldes” als ästhetische Theorie’, in H.J.Dahme and O.Rammstedt (eds), Georg Simmel und die Moderne, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1984, pp. 178–82, esp. p. 182. cited in Simmel, Georg. 2004 [1907]. The Philosophy of Money. Third enlarged edition. Ed. David Frisby. Trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby from a first draft by Kaethe Mengelberg. London and New York.)” Roth ( 2007) cited Simmel (1907 as a starting point in sociology literature on “how the introduction of money changes many kinds of social relationships and their meanings.”

Who’s Who?

Michael J. Sandel “is professor of government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences since 1980. He was educated at Brandeis University and received his Ph.D. from Balliol College, Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He is a member of the National Constitution Center Advisory Panel, the Rhodes Scholarship Committee of Selection, the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy, and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has received fellowships from the Ford Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He is the author, most recently, of Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (1996), as well as Liberalism and Its Critics (1984) and Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982) (Tanner Lectures Introduction. 1998-05-11/12. “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets).” While at Balliol College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, Sandel studied under political philosopher Charles Taylor.
[edit]

Selected Webliography and Bibliography

The Economist. 2012-07-12. “Money and the markets: Insatiable longing.” The Economist.

Hoffmann, Stanley; Sandel, Michael J. 2005-02-09. “Markets, Morals, and Civic Life”  Introduction by Stanley Hoffmann. Presented at the 1887th Stated Meeting, held at the House of the Academy. http://www.amacad.org/publications/bulletin/Summer2005/MarketsMoralsCivitLife.pdf

Roth, Alvin E. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Summer: 21:3. pp. 37–58.

Sandel, Michael J. 1996. Democracy’s Discontent.  Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Amazon.

Sandel, Michael J. 1998-05-11/12. “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford.

Sandel, Michael J. 2005. “The Moral Limits of Markets.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Summer: 6–10.

Sandel, Michael J. 2012-04-24. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Simmel, Georg. 1907. The Philosophy of Money. 

Smith, Aaron. 2012-10-15. “Nobel economists’ big impact: Kidney transplants.” CNN Money.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers