I read a great article in the WSJ about a "housing first" plan that can both improve the lives of the homeless, particularly those that are chronically ill, and save taxpayer money at the same time. You can have it both ways! The article highlighted the results of a four-year study conducted in Chicago that looked at homeless people with chronic medical problems. The study compared two groups. The control group received "usual care", which was basically just a piecemeal system of emergency shelters and family and recovery programs. The study group, by comparison, received housing and intensive follow-up by a case manager. The wonderful result of the study was that the group that received housing and follow-up spent half as many days in hospitals and nursing homes and went to emergency rooms half as often as the usual-care group did over an 18 month period. The reduced medical care easily made up for the $12,000 cost of the housing and case-work that was provided ... and those participants are much better off in life as a result. Great result and a great model to follow in other cities.
Read an interesting article a couple weeks back in the WSJ on how biofuels may actually increase carbon emissions in the medium to long-term. Apprently the shifts in land-use necessary to support the production of bio-materials like soybeans, corn, or palm could in fact release more carbon emissions. The time it takes to get carbon-neutral on some of these projects is pretty crazy - 319 years for soybean biodiesel from Brazil (assuming you're clearing rainforest), 93 years for corn ethanol from the U.S. (assuming you're clearing grasslands), 86 years for palm biodiesel from Indonesia (assuming you're clearing rainforest). I suppose biofuels really aren't meant to reduce carbon emissions, but just crazy that they potentially exacerbate the problem so much.
Comments