Environmental Economics

Friday beer post: another unsolicited beer suggestion from someone who has tasted a beer or two

From the inbox:

Torpedo Extra IPA: tasty

Link: http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/torpedo.html

I can't help a little boast about this one

From the inbox:

Dear Professor John Whitehead,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands", has been accepted for publication in Environmental and Resource Economics.

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.

Another economist in the Waxman-Markey camp

In "Another comment on Waxman-Markey", Charles Kolstad (co-editor of the AERE journal, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy) concludes:

Although the bill has its shortcomings, at its core it is an impressive piece of legislation. If the senate trims some of the glaring defects, then the U.S. will become the world leader in taking global warming and climate change seriously.

WSJ and Real Climate on the fuss at NCEE

This morning’s Wall Street Journal opinion section contains a lot of what one expects to see. There’s an opinion piece making a big fuss over the fake scandal at the EPA.

Hat tip: Krugman.

I'm an idiot

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:

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/43961

Aw, shucks

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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY4jZD8hjPQ&fmt=18

Carbon taxes vs cap-and-trade

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)?

This may sound like an obscure policy distinction, but it is an old debate among environmental economists — and one that has gained new import in the debate over the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives last week.

“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.

“There was almost no discussion about the quantity side, such as cap-and-trade,” he said. ...

“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.

But setting a price target carries the risk that the price will be wrong — too high or too low to achieve the objective — although it can in theory be adjusted over time.

Don't miss this opportunity!

From the Energy Collective:

Tune in Thursday, July 2 at 12:00 EST
 
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While 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 presents 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 will dig into the bill and provide insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas. Participants will have the opportunity to participate and ask questions by following along on twitter with the hashtag #talkaces.
 
Don't miss this opportunity to participate in a live, in-depth discussion with other energy experts and aficionados. Dial in Thursday at 12:00 EST at:

Toll Free Number: 1.800.868.1837
Access Code:  74378755#

And discuss online on twitter with the tag: #talkaces

Stavins on Waxman-Markey

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.

Ad nauseum: Tax gas or tax miles?

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)...

My research proposal template

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.

Is the Exxon Valdez court battle finally over?

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.

If I can get a babysitter

From the Energy Collective:

Tune in Thursday, July 2 at 12:00 EST
 
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While 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 presents 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 will dig into the bill and provide insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas. Participants will have the opportunity to participate and ask questions by following along on twitter with the hashtag #talkaces.
 
Don't miss this opportunity to participate in a live, in-depth discussion with other energy experts and aficionados. Dial in Thursday at 12:00 EST at:

Toll Free Number: 1.800.868.1837
Access Code:  74378755#

And discuss online on twitter with the tag: #talkaces

I want my money for nothin' and my chicks for free

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.

 

Where is my friggin' pre-order?

From the C-J (Wilco: Wow!):

And yet each of Wilco's studio albums has charted higher than the last, with 2007's "Sky Blue Sky" debuting at No. 4 on Billboard's album charts. Wilco's seventh studio album, "Wilco (the album)," was released today, but overeager fans pirated it weeks ago and it will still almost certainly land in the Top 10.How did this happen? Your guess is as good as anyone's, but every once in a while a band finds critical and commercial success despite the odds. This decade has two, Radiohead being the other. The difference between the bands, however, is that you actually want to listen to Wilco as opposed to feeling that you should listen to Radiohead. So if Wilco is the American Radiohead, we got the better of the deal.

A love letter from grants.gov

From the inbox after submission of a revised draft final report, usually a time of joy and relief, (emphasis added):

This is a financial closeout/deobligation notification for Award NA06NMF4330055, which expired 03/31/2009.  This award was made to Appalachian State University.

NOAA is required to report on its stewardship of various assets entrusted to it by Congress through the Chief Financial Officers Audit Act.  The authority to expend Federal funds on grant related activities is one of those assets. Your grant has specific ongoing reporting requirements and closeout requirements that must be met by your organization within 90 days of expiration date of the award: 06/29/2009.

You have not submitted a final SF-269 by the due date, but you have drawn down $[all of the money]for this award.  You are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the award and have not accounted for your expenditures. Therefore all funds must be returned.  Your Grants Specialist will contact you to discuss returning the funds to the Federal Government.

Your cooperation to properly account for tax payer funds is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Grants Online

I'll return to blogging as soon as I finish properly accounting for tax payer funds.

Commercial fishermen don't make much money

From a North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries News Release:

MOREHEAD CITY – Commercial fishermen that work in the Atlantic Ocean tend to make more money and express more optimism about the future of the industry than their estuarine counterparts, according to an economic analysis of a survey by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.

Although 29 percent of the fishermen in this study reported breaking even or losing money in the previous fishing year, 20 percent made more than $30,000.

“While a $30,000 annual income is no fortune in today’s economy, it is higher than was seen in previous surveys of estuarine fisheries in Albemarle, Pamlico and Core sounds,” said Scott Crosson, the division’s Socio-Economics program manager.

A few, 4 percent, reported fishing income in excess of $75,000 per year. ...

And high fuel prices don't make it any easier:

When asked their level of concern on a variety of issues impacting commercial fishermen, the oceangoing sector ranked fuel prices at the top of the list. The same was true for the estuarine fisheries surveyed in the past several years. The survey was administered in the summer of 2008, when fuel prices exceeded $4 per gallon.

Plus, overfishing has robbed all the fish and fishing communities are a thing of the past:

Inability to predict the business future ranked second, followed by development on the coast, weather and loss of working waterfronts.

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.

Sometimes a once in a lifetime event happens twice

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

Hiking in Appalachia

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.

Live blogging C-SPAN

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:

House Approves Bill to Address Threat of Global Warming

The 219-212 vote marked the first time that either house of Congress has approved a bill aimed at curbing the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change, and it could lead to sweeping changes in many sectors of the American economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.