Established in 1996, Audubon International’s mission is to work with others to deliver high-quality environmental education and to facilitate the sustainable management of land, water, wildlife and other natural resources in all places people live, work and play. The Poole Golf Course is one of only two university-owned golf courses to earn the certification and among more than 90 projects that have received the certification.

The N.C. State golf course, located on N.C. State’s Centennial Campus, meets Audubon International qualifications due to careful planning to fit managed turfgrass seamlessly into the surrounding environment. The golf course also serves as a living lab for sustainable turfgrass management and environmental stewardship.

Dr. Danesha Seth Carley, sustainability program coordinator for the N.C. State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, was integrally involved with the planning and construction of the golf course. Carley said that Audubon International certification was always the goal.

“The success of the golf course industry transition towards sustainability will depend, ultimately, on changing the awareness of sustainability issues within the industry and its clientele,” Seth Carley said. “Everyone must understand the relationship between their everyday lives and the resources on which they depend. This course is specifically designed to uphold these sustainability elements.”

Photo by Becky Kirkland

Dr. Danesha Seth Carley, blue shirt, leads a turfgrass class from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the Lonnie Poole Golf Course.

Dr. Charles Peacock, a professor in N.C. State’s crop science department, emphasized that the Signature Program is an elite Audubon International category. Peacock, who has worked for the past 15 years with close to 200 different Signature projects worldwide, said that only new locations are considered for Signature Program membership, making the certification particularly notable. There are only 92 other signature sanctuaries.

“It’s in a whole separate category, and it’s a very selective category,” Peacock said.

Extensive, undisturbed vegetative buffer areas are among the Poole golf course’s distinguishing features. These buffers include mixtures of fine fescue and native warm-season grasses, loblolly pines, American beautyberry and butterfly weed. It is not uncommon for golfers to see deer, beaver and even foxes during a round of golf.

“These buffers were integral to the design and were a big part of what allowed us easy Audubon International certification,” Seth Carley said.

Dr. Tom Rufty, professor of crop science at N.C. State, helped lead the initial push for Audubon International certification during Poole Golf Course construction in 2007. Rufty said the golf course maintenance staff, led by superintendent Brian Green, was key in the installation of the adapted plants and overall turf maintenance.

“The staff are aware of the importance of environmental protection and the distinction of the Audubon program,” Rufty said.

Another winning feature is the surrounding constructed wetlands.

“Wetlands are natural water filters,” Seth Carley said, citing research from N.C. State that the constructed wetlands provide many ecological benefits. “The biological, chemical and physical conditions within wetlands create ideal conditions for removing many pollutants from water.”

The Poole Golf Course not only fulfills a recreational and athletics role but also provides the university with a functioning laboratory for research and teaching. Turfgrass Management, Professional Golf Management, Crop Science, Horticulture, Entomology and Plant Pathology programs as well as College of Agriculture and Life Sciences sustainability students all use the golf course in their studies and research.

Within the golf course, programs involving wildlife conservation, habitat enhancement and environmental issues are balanced with the economics, operations and practicalities of running a golf course. In addition, the nearby Centennial Middle School uses the facilities for sustainability lessons in their science curriculum.

“The deficit is the annual amount the federal government borrows. It’s not the debt. That’s the total amount that’s been borrowed. The deficit is the annual amount. And the federal government has been borrowing over a trillion dollars a year to meet its spending. That is to say that they’ve had to borrow over a trillion dollars a year because revenues were falling short by that amount to meet what the federal government wants to spend.

Now with the improving economy, what we are seeing is that tax revenues have taken a big jump. Federal spending certainly is still going up and going up at a much slower pace. And so the expectation is that we’re now seeing those deficit projections cut from about a trillion dollars a year to about a little more than half of that, about $600 billion a year.

Now it still means the federal government is borrowing, but as a percent of the economy, they’re borrowing much less. At the peak of the recession, the federal government borrowed the equivalent of eight percent of gross domestic product, eight percent of all income generated in the economy. And now it’s going to be down to about four percent. So, it’s been cut in half.

And interestingly, some economists — and it depends on your perspective — some economists are worried about this. They’re saying, ‘hey the federal government is actually pulling back too fast.  We need this sort of deficit spending to stimulate things.’

I would think they’re in a minority, but there is still that viewpoint. So we are in a better situation regarding the deficit. We’re certainly not in a situation where the federal government is not borrowing. Many think that this may be the precursor maybe to a budget deal, which would solidify in some sense the improvements that we’ve seen in the deficit.”

“Well, the pivot would be to move from their policies that are focused on stimulating the economy to policies that would be more concerned with keeping inflation low. And right now, and really for the last five years, the Federal Reserve has been very, very aggressive at trying to stimulate the economy.  They’ve done that two ways.

They’ve kept interest rates very low. Short rates are close to zero percent. And they, quite frankly, have been creating a lot of money, increasing the credit supply, trying to get more credit into the economy.

Now everyone knows — every economist knows, and I think an average person if they thought about it would know — that this can’t go on forever. For one reason, there is a concern that inflation would eventually kick up either in terms of the prices for things that you and I buy or in terms of asset values.

So at some point, the Fed is going to have to turn away, with the economic recovery now into its fourth year — with many economists thinking that we’re at least growing and there’s no sign, imminent signs, of a new recession. And in fact, some economists think that growth may accelerate. There is an expectation that at some point, we will see this change in the Fed. That’s why every time Chairman Bernanke makes a presentation before Congress or the public all of his words are parsed to see if there are some indications, some inkling, that the Fed is getting ready to change policy. If they do — if and when they do — that will affect everyone. People will see it in interest rates. People will see it in terms of the availability of credit.”

“Of course, what people worry about is the housing boom that we had from 1997 to 2006, which made a lot of money for a lot of homeowners. But on the other hand, they lost a lot of it when we had the housing crash.

So people are worried about the boom turning into a bust. But I don’t think we’re in that territory right now. Now, we are seeing housing prices go up fairly significantly – seven, maybe in some markets, 10 or more percent on an annualized basis.

But you have to remember this is from a very low base. The average house lost a third of its value from 2006 to 2011. But also we’re not seeing big gains in supply right now. Obviously during the housing bust, we didn’t have a lot of building going on, and we lost a lot of builders. We lost a lot of construction workers, and we’ve not gotten those folks back. So right now, we’re sort of in the sweet spot, if you will, for prices.

We have people getting back in the market to buy, and we don’t have a lot of additional supply. Now, that supply will come back. We will start to see more building. We will start to see more houses on the market for sale. And I think eventually what we’re going to end up with is housing prices going up at the traditional three to four percent a year.”

“It’s GDP, gross domestic product. We’ve talked about this many times on our program. This is the broadest measure of the economy. Think of it as aggregate output in the economy.

And of course what comprises the economy changes over time. We have new products, new technologies, new ways of people earning money. So, what was measured as GDP even 10 years ago is not up to date today.

And so periodically the government and their statisticians and economists have to go through and revise GDP, revise the category, revise what they’re measuring. And that’s really what they’re up to. And they will do that, and they will go back and revise previous numbers.

And so we’re going to get perhaps a whole new look at the economy. Now, I should point out that some people are suspicious of this. Some people when they hear that the government’s going to revise the economic numbers think that it’s done for perhaps non-economic reasons to make the economy look better.

I can assure that is not the case. These revisions are all done by professional economists and statisticians, and people like me rely on these numbers to really know what’s going on in the economy.  So this is really a good thing.”

The Pack Pullers’ tractor also won the “Best Appearance” award, and the team earned sixth place in vehicle maneuverability and seventh place in team presentation competitions.

Eleven of the team’s 15 student members traveled to Peoria, Ill., for the competition: Jordan Boyette, Clay Campbell, Spencer Davis, Ed Godfrey, Randall Godfrey, Steven Hall, Daniel Myers, John Norwood, Kevin Schachter, Jermayne Smallwood and TiEra Worsley.

Dr. Grant Ellington, assistant professor of biological and agricultural engineering, advised the team. He said he was very pleased with the work done by the students and others who gave support for the team.

All of the students who competed in the competition spent the 2012-2013 academic year designing and building their tractors. Each team is supplied one 31-horsepower Briggs & Stratton Vanguard Big Block Engine, with the option to run two 16-horespower Briggs & Stratton engines and a set of Titan tires. Each team is responsible for acquiring all other components of their machines. All tractors run on a 10 percent ethanol fuel blend.

The International ¼-Scale Tractor Competition is unique among student engineering-design contests in that it provides a realistic “360-degree” workplace experience, according to Ellington. Industry experts judge each design for innovation, manufacturability, serviceability, maneuverability, safety, sound level and ergonomics.

Teams also submit a written design report in advance of the competition, and onsite they must “sell” their design in a formal presentation to judges playing the role of a corporate management team. Finally, machines are put to the test in a performance demonstration comprising four tractor pulls.

- S. Stanard

“Well, there’s a new book that’s been written by a Nobel Prize winning economist, Ronald Coats, who actually documents this. China basically did three things. And this all happened in the late 1970s, 1980s, and ‘90s.

First of all, they created incentives for workers and entrepreneurs. They essentially said, ‘Hey, if you’re a business and you find a market and you can sell things and make a profit, you get to keep those profits.’

And obviously that motivated a lot of people to really start businesses and expand. Secondly, China moved away from the state controlling prices to letting the marketplace — letting supply and demand — set prices. And what this did, many economists would argue, was that it encouraged innovation. It also encouraged frugality, and it made sure that inputs were used in a most efficient way.

And then lastly China moved away from state run monopolies. Really, prior to these changes, the state set up companies, and the companies are the ones that made things and sold things. They moved away from that model to a model like we have, where, really, businesses run by small firms, medium size firms, they’re out there competing. They’re out there looking for customers. Now politically of course China is not in a competitive situation, but economically China really now is a capitalist country.”

“Well, this is a plan. People should not say that this is going to happen, because we don’t know. It’s going to have to go through the legislative process, but if it did go through as presented, it would be a big change in how the state collects taxes.

Mainly the shift would be from taxing and collecting revenues on people and businesses’ income to taxing and collecting revenues on what people and businesses spend. In fact, the percent of state revenues derived from the sales tax would go from 25 percent to over 40 percent. And this would primarily be done by expanding the sales tax to include spending on many services.

The individual income tax rates would drop, and many other deductions would also go away. So, there are two big questions here.

One, what would this do to economic growth in the state? Supporters say it would increase it. Others say maybe not so much. The studies are actually all over the board on this. And then the second big issue is what we call equity. What would this do to taxes paid particularly by households of different income levels?

Some preliminary focus suggests that people at the lower income level would perhaps pay more. Those at the upper end of the income level would pay less. So, we’re going to hear this plan debated a lot over the coming weeks. People should pay attention.”

“This is the debate about the reduction in the so-called labor force participation rate. It is an issue.

Number one, you can clearly see it in the data, and it is a big source in the debate among economists. Some people say that, ‘Hey, the unemployment rate would be a lot higher if we were counting these folks who aren’t in the labor market as part of the unemployed.’ So, one appropriate question is, Why, why has the labor force participation rate gone down?

There are several factors here. One clearly is that people are staying in school longer. For example, it used to be if a large number of kids who came out of high school, they’d immediately go into the work force. Now, most of them are going on to college. So, that’s a factor.

Another big factor is the growth of retirees; the percentage of people over age 65 is growing. Many of those are now retiring. So, that’s bringing down the labor force participation rate. We’ve also had an increase in people who are officially categorized as disabled, receiving disability payments from social security.

So those three factors do account for a lot of this reduction in labor force participation, but there are folks out there who in the new economy simply don’t have the right skills to match up with jobs. Those, I think, are the folks that we really need to worry about. Those are the folks I think that policy needs to focus on.”

By Dr. Mike Walden
North Carolina Cooperative Extension

My late mother-in-law loved gadgets. As soon as she could afford it, she had to buy the latest kitchen appliance, hi-fi (remember those?) and TV. Indeed, her family was one of the first to have a color TV. My wife, who was a small girl then, watched an entire baseball game just to see the green grass. She hasn’t sat through nine-innings of baseball since.

Of course, today, we are spoiled by gadgets, especially computers, tablets and cell phones. Most of my college students can’t imagine living without them, and they wonder how their professor (me) survived the pre-tech era.

But the impact of gadgets — or technology, to use a more formal term — goes well beyond entertaining us with music and games and keeping us connected to friends and family. Economists believe that technology along with the skills and knowledge workers acquire really drive the economy and determine our standard of living. Indeed, historians have shown that it wasn’t until the technological developments of the Industrial Revolution in the 18^th and 19^th centuries that living standards and human well-being began to dramatically improve.

And so too will new technology help shape our future. The gadgets — to use my late mother-in-law’s term — that are invented and used will have a lot to do with how — and how well — we live.

So what can we expect out of the next inventor’s garage or lab? That’s a good question to which there are no sure answers. But there can be some fairly good educated guesses. Fortunately, the smart people at the McKinsey Global Institute, one of the leading consulting and business management firms in the world, recently released a detailed report giving their forecasts for the next wave of gadgets.

The report is comprehensive and detailed, so I can only hit the highlights here. McKinsey sees tech advances in five broad areas: information management and utilization, robotics, genomics, manufacturing and materials, and energy.

In information management and utilization, smartphones will get smarter, data storage will become bigger and cheaper and monitoring of machines, processes and people will be easier and more widespread. These improvements will help farmers monitor the weather, doctors track our vital signs, engineers keep track of road and bridge safety and businesses better predict both what and how much to produce.

Robotics might be the biggest visible change in our future world. Robots have been around for a while, but the next generation will be more agile, flexible, adaptable and probably able to learn and interact with humans. These characteristics will significantly expand their use in the workplace and everyday life. We will see increased use of these modern robots in factories, hospitals, stores and the home.

One big spin-off of the robotic technology would be “autonomous” vehicles — that is, cars and trucks that can drive themselves with no direct human operator. Futurists see big benefits from reduced accidents to better traffic coordination and saved driving time.

Genomics might be the most controversial of the new technologies because it deals with applying scientific methods and technologies to modifying living organisms, both plant and animal, including humans. Applications like DNA sequencing, synthetic biology and genetic decoding are part of genomics.

Genomics has enormous potential in anticipating and fighting disease, repairing the body from injuries and accidents and improving agricultural productivity. Of course, questions have been raised about the appropriateness and possible consequences of intervening with nature.

Advances in manufacturing and materials include 3D production, where a customized product can be built virtually anywhere using a layering technique, and nanomaterials, which are a class of materials of very small scale. Some think 3D production will revolutionize manufacturing by making products more adaptive and specific for tasks and thereby more useful. Molecular-sized nanomaterials have widespread applications in medical devices and electronics.

McKinsey sees two future advances in energy. One is in the storage of energy. For example, improved battery capacity will allow electric vehicles to have longer ranges, and this will significantly increase their usefulness and appeal. Also, electric generating plants today only store 3 to 4 percent of their electricity. Significantly increasing this rate will reduce the need for expensive and sometimes controversial power plants to be built.

McKinsey also sees big advances in techniques for safely accessing non-renewable energy (oil, natural gas) and developing cost-competitive renewable energy sources like solar and wind power.

While these expected technological advances are beyond most of our comprehension (including yours truly), they do have the potential to impact our everyday lives in many ways. The big question is, how? Unfortunately, it will likely be many years down the road before we can decide.

- end -

Dr. Mike Walden is a William Neal Reynolds Professor and North Carolina Cooperative Extension economist in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of N.C. State University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He teaches and writes on personal finance, economic outlook and public policy. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences communications unit provides his You Decide column every two weeks. Previous columns are available at http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/news-center/tag/you-decide

Related audio files are at http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/news-center/category/economic-perspective/