Browsing through the streaming videos available on Amazon Prime last night, I came across a documentary series called "wetheeconomy." I'm probably slow to the party but the series features a series of short (5-10 minute) documentaries introducing basic economic topics like supply and demand, measuring GDP, what is money,... Of particular interest to this blog, one of the documentaries is titled "A Bee's Invoice: The Hidden Value in Nature," which is designed to answer the question: Are natural resources vital to the economy?
The environmental economist in me is excited to see environmental valuation included in Chapter 1 of a series introducing a wide array of economic topics. Maybe, this whole environmental economics thing is gaining some traction.
The jealous, rapidly aging human in me is jealous that the film features appearances by two economists, both of whom have interacted on our blog, and neither of whom is named Whitehead or Haab. Anyway, nice work Gernot Wagner and Jodi Beggs* in promoting the cause. I presume they were chosen because the producers thought John and I were unavailable--either that or they wanted younger faces to attract a different demographic than the epitome of boring middle-class soccer/baseball dads.
*Jodi once called us cool, and Gernot stoops so low as to occasionally contribute to Env-Econ. I'm going to go as far as say we had a part in launching the careers of these two film stars. Hopefully they remember us when the riches start to flow.
Hi all,
John has allowed me to have a stab at blogging here after a long time as a reader and a former life as a economics grad student. I'll give some details regarding myself so you have an idea of my background and my frame of reference.
I was a grad student in the DARE program at Colorado State for my masters degree and then started a PhD in economics at UCSB. I exited the progam and moved up to the San Francisco Bay area to become a data analyst in the tech industry - at a video game company, no less! My area of interest when I was in academia was natural disaster risk modeling, environmental effects on housing prices and externality market dynamics. As a data analyst, I work with "big data" (warning: buzzword) and have an interest in data science methods like machine learning.
I have a desire to stay involved in environmental economics through reading current research and communicating with you, the research/policy/econ-hobbyist community! Hopefully I can give my "Silcon Valley view" on the field with articles about data-driven approaches to environmental economics. I also hope to be challenged, enlightened and occasionally disproved by the community here so that I can hone my arguments and my thinking. If you have any questions or comments for me, feel free to send me an email.
Drew Moxon
At the risk of declaring oneself a public "intellectual" (The Ticker):
Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times riled many scholars with a column in Sunday’s newspaper that laments what he perceives as the disappearance of intellectuals from the national stage.
Mr. Kristof writes that there are some exceptions to his assertion but adds that, “over all, there are, I think, fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.”
“A basic challenge is that Ph.D. programs have fostered a culture that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience,” he argues. “This culture of exclusivity is then transmitted to the next generation through the publish-or-perish tenure process. Rebels are too often crushed or driven away.”
Many observers took to Twitter (see the hashtag #EngagedAcademics) and their blogs to fire back at Mr. Kristof. ...
Read the rest to see some of the outrage ... "hey, we have a blog!" "there are newspaper columns!" But I agree mostly with Kristof. Engaging the public with outreach economics (blogs, community talks) is something only an embarrassingly small fraction of economics professors wants to do*. I disagree when he points to PhD programs and the tenure process as being a large part of the problem. PhD programs don't create automotons who can only speak inbred research gibberish. They generally create articulate researchers who can also teach (I say that with the caveat that I don't know many people at the top progams, they may well be automotons). In terms of the tenure process, this might be old fashioned but an assistant professor should focus on building a vita before s/he turns more of their attention to outreach. The pre-tenure years are only a small chunk of the time one has in a career. The bigger problem is that there is little pecuniary incentive to engage in outreach as part of your job on campus.
In our little corner of outreach we always had hopes that we might be able to attract many more bloggers. We've had a number of guest bloggers over the years but no one has really wanted to make this part of their life's work (for a counter example, see Zetland) or they have their own blog. It can't hurt to make the offer again. If you think you have something to say and might like to become a blogger without incurring all of the fixed costs, think about becoming a regular contributor to the Environmental Economics blog. Shoot me an email if you have any interest and we can set it up. One to two posts a week every other quarter (in GDP terms, not the academic calendar) and we'll be happy to add your name to the left hand column! And, obviously, the posts need not always be all that serious-minded.
*Note: I know 125+ environmental and resource economists who are willing to write for a general audience.
For most of modern American history, the two major political parties in America have largely agreed on the desired long-term environmental outcomes for the country: there was a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that it was a good thing to press for cleaner air and water, less toxins in the environment, biodiversity preservation, and mitigation strategies for clean energy and, mostly recently, climate change.
The disagreements were largely centered around how to achieve these outcomes, and to some extent the pace of change and the absolute targets. Democrats by and large preferred a heavier regulatory approach (i.e. “command and control”) that set specific firm-level emissions limits, prescribed permissible technologies, and set industry-wide energy and fuel efficiency standards. Republicans tended to support more market-oriented policies, with cap and trade foremost among them.Nowadays, the arguments are no longer over the methods to achieve environmental progress, but whether we should support such progress in the first place. This situation is unprecedented. Those who believed that divided government would lead Republicans to take a more moderate and constructive role have so far been proven wrong. It is hard to imagine the situation being much worse for America’s environmental quality, which is directly linked to the quality of life for all Americans.
The modern Republican Party has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda whatsoever, and goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress. Ironically, this extremely reactionary environmental agenda is coming at a time when the ideas that Republicans once championed are now widely accepted as the best ways to structure environmental policy.
The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.
And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.
The Republicans in the House have refused to end the subsidies for oil companies (as these firms continue to rake in record profits), and while they seek to reduce food stamps, they have made it clear that they will not touch the billions in agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit big agribusiness. Adding insult to injury, House Republicans even reintroduced Styrofoam into the House cafeteria after Democrats had removed it during the last Congress.
I have been involved in environmental policy for almost 20 years and have never seen anything like the current Republican assault on the environment. It is truly astounding. To be clear, the Republicans leading this charge against environmental progress are in no way following conservative principles―they are doing the exact opposite. Those who profess to support conservative economics should be leading the charge against subsidies for big business and taking a firm stance in favor of the “polluter pays principle,” which states that those producers and consumers whose actions degrade the environment should pay for the damage. (You know we’re living in an upside down world when the one avowed socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders, has been the most vociferous opponent of oil company handouts.)
There is absolutely nothing “free market” about letting polluters trash the environment for free. In fact, this fits the definition of a market failure, not a well-functioning capitalist system. What the Republicans are currently practicing is crony capitalism of the worst kind: rewarding industry at the expense of the public interest and future generations.
It is the Republican rank and file who should be the most offended by these policies. Public opinion polls consistently show that both Democrats and Republicans care deeply about the environment, and support clean energy policies and strong environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the once proud environmental ethic of the Republican Party has been snuffed out by a small group of radical Tea Party extremists who are deeply confused both about true conservative principles and the proper role of government in society. And once moderate Republicans who supported sensible environmental policies are nowhere to be seen. Until true conservatives retake the Republican Party we will be left doing little more than damage control, and the chances of a new comprehensive affirmative environmental agenda are slim to none.
From the WSJ's Evening Wrap:
General Motors said it would close its Saturn operation after Penske Automotive Group ended its effort to acquire the brand.
Penske said it decided not to purchase Saturn due to concerns about where it would acquire vehicles after GM stopped making them for the dealership chain.
Penske in June agreed to acquire the brand with the exception of its manufacturing operations.
Background: D'oh
From the inbox:
Thanks for contacting TypePad One customer support! We've reviewed your request and have responded to your ticket 'twitter'.
Hi John-
Thanks for your patience. We released an update to TypePad today which now allows Guest Authors to share posts on Twitter, Facebook, and FriendFeed.
The Authors can add their accounts at Account > Other Accounts and select to share their posts. Then, the sharing options will display on the Compose page.
Authors, however, will not have the option to set the sharing options as selected by default.
Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,Jen
I wasn't expeecting that sort of response from Typepad!
“Dr. Whitehead brings a different expertise to the college in terms of his focus on environmental economics,” [business school dean Randy Edwards] said.
Translation: how soon can I can the clown?
What I did today instead of blogging.
Date: 2009 Orientation for New Chairs and Deans, Location: Aug 4 2009 8:15AM
Leader: Hubbard Center Classroom, 1028 Anne Belk Hall
Enjoyment lasted from 8:15 to 4:15 and consisted of 18 administrators giving 15-30 minute presentations concerning the minutiae of department chairdom.
*Note: Bluepill
I sent a text message to Tim Haab on Saturday ...
... a while later I get a response:
Who is this?
I guess I'm not in his My Circle. Sniff.
From the inbox:
My reply: