I am predicting William J. Baumol, possibly with William G. Bowen, for work on the cost-disease. As you probably know, this hypothesis suggested that the costs of education and health care would continue to rise in relative terms, thereby creating significant economic problems. Not a bad prediction for 1966, and of course it has become a truly important issue. ...
... Baumol has numerous other contributions, including contestability, operations research and economics, entrepreneurship, externalities and Pigouvian taxes ...
Baumol, William J. "On the increasing role of economic research in management of resources and protection of the environment." Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2, no. 1 (2010): 1-11.
Abstract: This paper follows precedent in mixing substantive matters related to resource and environmental economics with an autobiographical framework. Unavoidably, this pushes the contents toward my own contributions to the field—especially those that, in my belief, have not received the attention they merit. After following precedent and beginning with some words on my origins and my subsequent affiliations, I focus on several examples showing how economic analysis has helped to illuminate this subject that is so critical for the general welfare. I begin with the origins of our understanding of externalities and their increasing role in the literature on the subjects under discussion here. Second, I turn to the issue of effective policy measures and the political obstacles that impede their adoption. As part of this, I discuss markets in emission permits as a way to make the Pigouvian taxation approach more palatable. I show that these two are basically equivalent, but the same is not true of the carrot and the stick approaches—i.e., taxes on emissions and subsidy rewards for reducing such environmental damage. Third, I use a Leontief approach to show how the benefits of the use of substitutes for scarce resources are commonly exaggerated and can inadvertently hasten depletion of a scarce resource, despite appearing to contribute to preservation. Finally, I turn to as-yet-unpublished material, which shows that the cost disease model I have used to account for the persistent, cumulative, and rapid rise in the real cost of activities such as health care, education, and the performing arts also describes and explains the pecuniary source of much of the threat that currently besets the environment—paradoxically doing so through the decreasing real costs of other products that are an inescapable companion to the rising costs that beset other economic activities.
1. Popular music: The Everly Brothers, I recommend this song. There is also Loretta Lynn and Dwight Yoakum and Merle Travis, I like this video. In jazz there is Lionel Hampton.
2. Visual artist: Edgar Tolson, that image is not fully safe for work. John James Audobon worked in the state quite a bit.
3. Movie, set in: Goldfinger, though of course immobilizing that stock would not affect the world price of gold very much. And keep in mind the nominal price of gold was pegged back then under Bretton Woods — should we really have expected a lot of goods and services deflation, just because some nutcase set off a bomb? I don’t think so.
4. Monk: Thomas Merton. He was an excellent writer, as a monk I cannot judge.
5. Author: Hmm…I don’t really like either Robert Penn Warren or Hunter S. Thompson. So Thomas Merton wins a second category, try The Seven Storey Mountain.
7. Movie director: I believe John Carpenter grew up there, he has several excellent films, including The Thing, Starman, Dark Star, and Escape from New York. I don’t actually enjoy the D.W. Griffith movies.
6. NBA player: Darrell Griffith (I was never a fan of King Rex). I was in high school when UofL, led by “Dr. Dunkenstein,” won their first NCAA championship. The next year they had one of their scrimmages at our high school gym.
7. Movie director: According to Wikipedia John Carpenter was born in Bowling Green and went to WKU. But should this even be a category? I would have made it movie stars and gone with Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen! Duh). Even inflation adjusted, she is the highest grossing action heroine.
8. Poet and impresario: I also can't quibble with Muhammad Ali.
Predictive Validity of Stated Preference Data: Evidence from Mountain Bike Park Visits Before and After Trail System Expansion
Kevin Atkinson and John C. Whitehead (firstname.lastname@example.org)
No 14-09, Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University
Abstract: This paper investigates the validity of stated preference data for use in recreation demand estimation. We use stated preference and revealed preference data from users of a mountain bike park collected before and after an expansion of the trail system. The ex-ante stated preference data elicited before the change exhibits hypothetical bias, but, it would provide useful information for demand prediction.
Arguably, our adherence to the free-market model of economics has been among the major factors that have contributed to environmental deterioration. This is because environmental benefits are treated as public goods and are hence underpriced and undervalued. This work introduces readers to some of the factors that have caused that economic model to fail, some of the most prevalent solutions to address these failures, the challenges of these solutions, and some of their successes. Government regulation has traditionally been used to safeguard the interests of those not represented in the economic transaction. More recently, economists have tried to use corrective mechanisms to account for environmental costs. The result has been not only greater government regulation but also publicity campaigns to raise consumer awareness. This has led to international agreements (albeit applied unevenly) that consider the environment.
The entries in this book highlight areas where market-based economic models are inadequate and need to be supplemented to protect our natural resources. An introductory essay summarizes key economic concepts, environmental concerns, and some of the methods used to address these concerns. Entries related to basic economic concepts (specifically market failure and contemporary movements to correct for these failures) are well written. Entries that address valuation models require additional resources for readers who want a working background in these methods. Other entries profile the work of prominent environmental economists, events, and environmental policies. The work is well suited as a supplemental reference for introductory college-level environmental-economics courses.
Scientists announced Monday that human-caused climate change contributed to and/or amplified nine of 2013's most extreme weather events, making one of the most definitive statements yet on the direct link between individual weather extremes and human-induced climate change.
In a new report released in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) and organized by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 20 different groups of scientists studied how 16 extreme weather events came to fruition in 2013. In their analyses, the different groups conducted independent peer-reviewed scientific studies on the same events with the hope of sorting out human influences from natural variation in climate and weather.
The report found strong evidence that human-caused climate change -- particularly the burning of fossil fuels -- amplified temperature related events, including five heat waves across the globe. Less compelling evidence linked humans to the drought in California. On the other hand, the report found no link between humans and Winter Storm Atlas, which dumped up to 55 inches of snow on South Dakota last October, heavy rain in Colorado that flooded more than a dozen cities in and around the Denver metro area and heavy rain and flooding events in Europe.
The scientists hope that the report will help bridge the gap between the public, which sometimes incorrectly correlates weather events with climate change, and the science community, which looks to provide a scientific foundation to the link between the two.
Stephen Heard once wrote a paper about how pollen spreads among the flowers of a certain endangered plant. In it he speculated that the wind might play a role by shaking loose the pollen. To support his point, he cited "Hall et al., 1957"—a reference to the songwriters of the Jerry Lee Lewis hit "Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On." But a reviewer nixed Heard’s little joke. "Although I appreciated the levity of the reference," he wrote, "I think it is not appropriate for a scientific publication."
So is levity ever appropriate in a scientific publication? Mr. Heard, a professor of biology at the University of New Brunswick, thinks so, and inan essay titled "On whimsy, jokes, and beauty: can scientific writing be enjoyed?"—published in the always hilarious Ideas in Ecology and Evolution—he bemoans the buttoned-up super-seriousness of most published research, noting that amusing moments in the literature are "unusual enough that finding one is like sighting a glow-throated hummingbird or a Salt Creek tiger beetle: beautiful, but rare, tiny, and glimpsed in passing."
That is unfortunate, Mr. Heard believes, not because research papers can or should be laugh-a-minute, but because moments of lightness remind readers that this paper, like all papers, was written by an actual person, or several actual people, attempting to communicate an idea to other people. ...
I asked editors at several prominent journals what they thought of Mr. Heard’s thesis and whether there were any examples from their own fields. "The record is very sad," wrote Andrew Abbott, editor of theAmerican Journal of Sociology, via email. "Sociology is a largely humorless field, unfortunately." ...
You might imagine there'd be more humor in the humanities, but it's not so, according to Robert Caserio, an editor at the Journal of Modern Literature. "There aren't enough Mark Twains among us," Mr. Caserio complained.
I also contacted Penny Goldberg, a professor of economics at Yale University and editor of the American Economic Review, to ask if she could think of any joke, any tiny moment of amusement, one solitary witticism that has passed across her desk. Anything, even if it was rejected.
Could it have hurt Dr. Goldberg to point out Economic Inquiry (maybe no one at Yale knows the journal exists?)? Here is the comment that I left:
The well-respected Economic Inquiry journal has a "miscellany" section: "A 'Miscellany' section is available in Economic Inquiry and intended for humor and curiosities. Economic Inquiry has a venerable tradition in humor, dating at least to the publication of Axel Leijonhufvud’s 1973 “Life Among the Econ.” At most one paper per journal issue will be devoted to this section; please indicate on the pdf and in the cover letter when a submission is intended for this section."
President Obama stood in the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly last week and urged the world to follow his example and fight global warming. But a major new declaration calling for a global price on carbon — signed by 74 countries and more than 1,000 businesses and investors — is missing a key signatory: the United States.
The declaration, released by the World Bank the day before Mr. Obama’s speech at the United Nations Climate Summit, has been signed by China, Shell, Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola. It calls on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for the carbon emissions that scientists say are the leading cause of global warming. ...
Although the nonbinding World Bank declaration is meant largely as a show of resolve ahead of a 2015 climate summit in Paris, it signals the broadest, most explicit effort to date of world leaders and financial institutions to push all nations to enact new taxes on old forms of energy. The declaration notes that governments can either directly tax carbon pollution or create market-based cap-and-trade systems, which force companies to buy government-issued pollution permits. ...
In order to avoid more opposition from conservatives, Mr. Obama and other top administration officials no longer call publicly for a national price on carbon. But they have nonetheless signaled their support for international and state efforts. ... The Obama administration has also enacted a policy signaling its readiness to price carbon should the politics of Congress ever shift: a metric it calls “the social cost of carbon,” designed to account for the cost of one ton of carbon dioxide pollution. Mr. Obama’s economists have determined the cost to be $37 a ton. Secretary of State John Kerry, a longtime advocate of government policy to fight climate change — and the chief author of the failed 2010 cap-and-trade bill in the Senate — last week told a meeting of the Major Economies Forum that “when it comes to climate change, we know exactly what it takes to get the job done.”
“On carbon pricing, there’s a perfect storm taking place,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard. “There is increasing recognition that approaches that have been taken in the past haven’t worked, and that the only way one can affect the hundreds of millions of decisions is through price signals.”
"This blog aims to look at more of the microeconomic ideas that can be used toward environmental ends. Bringing to bear a large quantity of external sources and articles, this blog presents a clear vision of what economic environmentalism can be."
Don't believe what they're saying
And allow me a quick moment to gush: ... The env-econ.net blog was more or less a lifeline in that period of my life, as it was one of the few ways I stayed plugged into the env. econ scene. -- Anonymous
... the Environmental Economics blog ... is now the default homepage on my browser (but then again, I guess I am a wonk -- a word I learned on the E.E. blog). That is a very nice service to the profession. -- Anonymous
"... I try and read the blog everyday and have pointed it out to other faculty who have their students read it for class. It is truly one of the best things in the blogosphere." -- Anonymous