From the inbox:
Sometimes referees make you work really hard. This is one of those. Celebration time!
Note: Dan Phaneuf and Chris Dumas are co-authors (+ 3 more non-economists). Here is a link to an earlier version of the paper: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/aplwpaper/07-17.htm.
In "Another comment on Waxman-Markey", Charles Kolstad (co-editor of the AERE journal, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy) concludes:
Continue reading "Another economist in the Waxman-Markey camp" »
Hat tip: Krugman.
Find out just how BIG an idiot I really am:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on June 26, 2009 to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While, as of this posting, it has yet to pass the Senate, the bill promises an unprecedented and sweeping package of climate legislation, the full ramifications of which are yet to be determined.
But will the bill actually accomplish all of its purported goals? And how? What effects, short and long-term, will the bill actually have on the U.S. economy and the current path of climate change?
The Energy Collective conducted a live, interactive webcast in which energy experts and TEC blogger board members Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University dug into the bill and provided insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas.Listen to a recording of the discussion here:
From the inbox:
Tim and John,
Thank you for your posts on Environmental Economics about the ACES bill.
The Sierra Club has put together this YouTube video that thanks activists, staff and allies for their hard work getting ACES through the House and casts an eye towards the Senate. Please feel free to post on your blog!
Ps vs Qs in Green Inc:
If the nation’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of clean energy, is it easier to do this by managing the price of emissions and renewables, or by fixing the amount by which they are to be reduced (emissions) and produced (renewables)?
“The issue of prices vs. quantities resurfaced with a vengeance in the climate change debate about which control mechanism should be favored,” said Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economics professor, in an e-mail message.
Mr. Weitzman is considered by many economists to have written the seminal paper on this subject in 1974 — a time when, according to Mr. Weitzman, most economists supported a tax on pollution.
“A surprisingly large (to me) number of prominent economists in this area supported a carbon tax, but to no avail,” noted Mr. Weitzman of Harvard, who is also in the carbon tax camp.
From the Energy Collective:
I could have written this sort of post myself but the opportunity costs would have been enormous (National Climate Change Policy):
Like any legislation, the Waxman‑Markey bill has its share of flaws, but its cap-and-trade system has medium and long‑term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are sensible, and the cap‑and‑trade system is — for the most part — well designed. With some exceptions, the bill’s cap‑and‑trade system will achieve meaningful reductions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions at minimal cost to the economy. ...
My comparative advantage is as a cut-and-paster.
The neverending debate over taxing gas or taxing miles drones on:
The idea of shifting [from a gas consumption tax] to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the "best path forward" to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.
The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group's chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission's work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.
The problem with a mileage tax is it provides no incentive for increased fuel efficiency. That's why two years ago I proposed a Fuel Efficiency Payment that provides incentives for higher fuel efficiency AND fewer miles driven. Here's how I said it would work (make sure you read to the end for the surprise ending)...
Just in case you were wondering, here is how I'd go about estimating some benefits of [ -- insert case study here -- ]. Very, very dang pathbreaking.
The event arguably most responsible for launching John's and my careers (even though neither of us had a direct hand in it) may finally be settled (from the Washington Post):
Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. has decided not to appeal hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on punitive damages resulting from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
...
Legal battles over the Exxon Valdez spill have lasted years but now appear to be ending. The only remaining sum in dispute is $70 million in court fees, Cudmore said.
An Anchorage jury in 1994 awarded plaintiffs $5 billion. That was cut in half by the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court in a split decision reduced the total to $507.5 million.
Oesting said the plaintiffs' have "clearly prevailed" in the case, even if the original $5 billion judgment was drastically reduced.
From the Energy Collective:
Ungood news of the day (at least for me) from the Columbus Dispatch:
...Statehouse leaders are expected to further cut higher education to help reduce proposed cuts to libraries, mental-health services and home and community-based services for Medicaid recipients.
From the C-J (Wilco: Wow!):
From the inbox after submission of a revised draft final report, usually a time of joy and relief, (emphasis added):
I'll return to blogging as soon as I finish properly accounting for tax payer funds.
From a North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries News Release:
And high fuel prices don't make it any easier:
Plus, overfishing has robbed all the fish and fishing communities are a thing of the past:
Why do they do what they do?
Note: A copy of the economic analysis can be downloaded ... at http://www.ncdmf.net/download/2009AtlanticOceanReportCrosson.pdf.
Warning: Unbelievable but true sports post ahead.
Channeling her inner Randy Johnson*, official oldest daughter of env-econ and number 1 pitcher for the local 12U travel softball team (that's her on the right, last year) unleashes a 70 mph fastball** in a tournament game this weekend. From my signal calling perch in the first base dugout,*** I am distracted by a faint flutter out of the corner of my eye. A misguided--and ill-fated--bird has launched an aerial attack on the unsuspecting neon-yellow softball. In the ensuing split second battle, physics wins. The 90 mph**** six ounce projectile launched from my daughter's hand slams into the side of the bird halfway to home plate. The bird spins out of control and tumbles to its demise along the third base line. The ball ricochets high in the air but it's 100 mph***** momentum lands the ball softly in the catcher's mitt.
Home plate umpire, clearly stunned and having no idea what to call, calls time out and confers with the field umpire.
Final decision: Ball 3.
Right call?
The assistant coach and I approach the umpire to question the call but quickly realize we have no idea what to argue. So instead, we pick up the limp bird and place it gently under a nearby bush.
Slightly shaken, but still determined, official daughter of env-econ continues on and gets the win.
*For those who don't get the Randy Johnson reference, watch this. For those animal lovers out there...don't watch.
**OK, it's probably more like 50 mph--I haven't clocked her recently.
***An upside down sunflower seed bucket
****50 mph
*****50 mph
Urban Dictionary Word of the Day:
June 27: Hiking in Appalachia
To have an extramarrital affair. Stems from the disappearance and subsequent reappearance of South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford(R). Gov. Sanford was thought to be hiking in Appalachia. In actuality, he was having an affair in the South American country of Argentina.
Girl, I just saw Susie's man hiking in Appalachia.
But, actually, it should be hiking the Appalachian Trail.
I'm not really going to "live blog"* what they are saying in the House of Representatives about Waxman-Markey but I am watching while trying to write up some conclusions, a first for me (the watching, not writing conclusions).
*Except this one: Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-FL, wants to call it the "Let's send jobs to China Act." That sounds fine to me, as long as they keep cap-and-trade (i.e., the national energy tax) in there.
*And this one: Accordigng to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-CA, I'm a "rabid environmentalist" with "twisted desires." If he only knew the extent of my twisted desires!
*And another one: Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX, planted some trees over 30 years ago and wants offset credits. Outrageous!
*I can't help myself: Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA, is wondering where the "explosion of green jobs is"? This is silly. Green jobs don't explode, they are created when government directs money to clean energy and energy efficiency programs. Nevertheless, Rep. McClintock should recognize that jobs really don't take on a hue.
*Several congresspersons (e.g., Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX) can't find a hard copy of the bill and wonders, if the bill passes, could the official hard copy be sent to the Senate? Rep. Mary Fallin, R-OK is shocked and outraged!
*Barton wants to know if they have access to an electronic copy of the bill in the chambers (is that the correct word for the main room?) of the H.R. Don't they have wireless?
*Rep. Tom Price, R-TX, says that it will cost $2 trillion (about 14% of GDP) with no positive effect on the environment. How could anyone support THAT?
*Anyone know where the $2 trillion number comes from?
7:19 pm:
Recent Comments