Environmental Economics

The line for lawyers starts over there...just behind Peter Angelos*

From The Independent:

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by   an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid   using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone   industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their   radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet   published of the health risks.

...Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the   past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers –   reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put   the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is   currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

Aren't academic papers supposed to be peer-reviewed before they are covered in the press?  Otherwise, isn't it just a blog post? 

*Peter Angelos is the inept owner of the Baltimore Orioles.  He made his money through asbestos litigation. 

North Carolina vs the Tennessee Valley Authority

North Carolina gets go-ahead in its TVA pollution suit:

The state of North Carolina can proceed with a lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority that demands the utility clean up its power plants and reduce air pollution, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

...

I'm a healthy eater

I know it's not really an environmental story, but any time someone tells me that eating peanut butter, eggs, coffee and mushrooms is healthy--not all at the same time of course--I have to shout it from the rooftops:

Now that scientists are looking beneath the surface at mushrooms, avocados, and peanuts--as well as once-maligned eggs and coffee--redeeming qualities for each of these five foods are coming to light. They have nutritional respect and deserve a place at your table.

Now if we could just replace avacados with cheese, I could die a happy man.  Oh, and it turns out that extra couple of pounds I carry around (BMI-25.6) might not be all that bad (from the NY Times):

Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

Ooh! Ooh!...We'll volunteer for the human trials

From the inbox (Men's Health Daily Dose)--I know it's irrelevant, but it's Friday and I wanted another excuse to post the picture over there --->

We all know that red wine has health benefits. A glass or two a night (no more!) can keep your veins and arteries supple, and provide protection from heart disease.

What about beer? It, too, has benefits. The latest evidence comes from The Journal of Neuroscience, which reports that beer can boost your memory.

Now for the bad news:

Unfortunately, the research was conducted with rats, so its usefulness isn't entirely clear.

Rats? Your telling me the researchers couldn't find volunteers willing to sign waivers?

Price v. Cost revisited

Last Fall I posted a piece on the difference between price and cost with vehicle emissions as the example.  I even had a little fun with Dr. Hobb, ooops! Habb.  This year I am wondering if he is buying toys with high contents of lead, because no one is making him do otherwise.  Enjoy.....  The General

p.s. - Washington and Lee beat F&M 20-0 Saturday!

A new call for a fat tax

Since it appears John is going to be unable to to come down from his giddy high for a few days, it looks like I'm going to have to keep up the semi-economic reputation of the blog until he recovers. 

This from England:

Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.

In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles.

And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards.

Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.

The aim is a shift in the NHS towards preventing disease and ill-health rather than having to treat it.

A couple of comments and questions:

Incentives matter

From the Winston-Salem (where they know something about cigarettes) Journal via the AP:

Fewer cigarettes have been sold in North Carolina since the state raised its tax on smokes, but revenue from the higher tax grew by $157 million, state officials said today.

Cigarette sales dropped by 18.5 percent as tax revenue increased in the first full year since the tax went up in September 2005, according to data from the state Division of Public Health and the Department of Revenue.

...

North Carolina's tax on cigarettes went from five cents to 30 cents on Sept. 1, 2005. It went up an additional five cents, to 35 cents total, on July 1, 2006.

Note: cigarette demand is inelastic so tax revenue will rise even while sales fall.

Discussing a fat tax makes me hungry

It's Friday, must be time for a slightly off topic post.  From Reuters:

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

Before I go on, I should probably mention that I've chosen to lose a few pounds recently--to prevent choosing to lose a lot of pounds later--and I'm a little cranky because of it. 

Anyway, I have a question.

Quiz of the day

Which paragraph contains a mistake?

Brian Webster of New Albany has a few strategies for dealing with the higher cigarette and tobacco taxes that go into effect [July 1] in Indiana. He plans to smoke a little less, use additional filler when he rolls his own cigarettes, and buy more often in neighboring Kentucky, where the tax is considerably less.

...

[The price of a] pack of cigarettes in Indiana is going up 44 cents, bringing the state's total tax to 99.5 cents. That compares with 30 cents a pack in Kentucky.

Source: Higher cigarette tax begins today.

That stuff in your jeans may be stuff in your genes

One more reason you can give the therapist for all that simmering anger towards your parents.

A gene that contributes to obesity has been identified for the first time, promising to explain why some people easily put on weight while others with similar lifestyles stay slim.

People who inherit one version of the gene rather than another are 70 per cent more likely to be obese, British scientists have discovered. One in six people has the most vulnerable genetic make-up and weighs an average 3kg more than those with the lowest risk. They also have 15 per cent more body fat.

The findings provide the first robust link between a common gene and obesity, and could eventually lead to new ways of tackling one of the most significant causes of ill health in the developed world.

Not exactly environmental, but it's Friday and I don't care.