Environmental Economics

Ecosystem Marketplace website

A link to the Ecosystem Marketplace website has been added to our ENV-links list:

The Ecosystem Marketplace seeks to become the world’s leading source of information on markets and payment schemes for ecosystem services; services such as water quality, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. We believe that by providing solid and trust-worthy information on prices, regulation, science, and other market-relevant issues, markets for ecosystem services will one day become a fundamental part of our economic and environmental system, helping give value to environmental services that have, for too long, been taken for granted.

The site contains stock market-style information on prices and transactions, news, and a free e-newsletter.

Thanks to env-econ reader Greg Claxton for the pointer.

CAFE: States vs Fed

The cynic wonders: why new CAFE standards now? after the energy bill rejected them?

From today's NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...) we learn that the proposed CAFE standards are weaker than those sought by California and other (blue) states. The state standards would hurt GM and Ford more than the fed standards and are strongly opposed by GM and Ford:

But the plan conflicts with air quality rules passed by California. The administration supports legal efforts by automakers to turn back the rules, which sharply curb tailpipe emissions of global-warming gases.

The view on proposed CAFE standards from the Gristmill

From the Daily Grist:

The Bush administration surveyed the landscape -- gas prices rising, fears of oil dependence spreading -- and concluded that bold leadership was required. So it invaded an oil-rich country. Heh, well ... on to Plan B! Yesterday, the administration proposed a new set of auto fuel-economy rules. Tightening the standard for passenger cars? Uh, no, that would stay at an average of 27.5 miles per gallon. Finally imposing some requirements on mega-SUVs like the Hummer H2? Wrong again. Instead, most SUVs, pickups, and minivans would be divided into six categories based on size, each with its own fuel-economy requirements. The administration says the plan would increase the average mileage of these vehicles a whopping 2.8 mpg by 2011, to 24 mpg. Amazing but true! Despite the obvious logic of the plan, it has critics, some of whom point out that it would actually provide an incentive for auto manufacturers to make their light trucks larger, so they'd be bumped into categories with lower mileage standards. [emphasis added] "The proposal is almost embarrassing in terms of its effect on fuel consumption," said Eric Haxthausen of Environmental Defense.

An excellent point, and an excellent example of the types of obvious things I miss everyday.

Update (8/25): An example from the NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...):

For instance, Ford could add less than an inch to the dimensions of its Explorer Sport Trac and move it from a class with a fuel target of 24.5 m.p.g. to one with 23.3 in 2011 models.

More green vs green

More negative externalities from wind (see A Might Wind), this time it is black bears and birds (Vermont could see ...):

The evergreen trees of the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont could soon be dwarfed by 370-foot-tall wind turbines.

...

Environmental groups have strongly opposed moves to open more federal lands to people who want to extract energy from them, whether oil, natural gas or coal. But wind energy, a relatively benign and pollution-free way to make electricity, is a different story.

"We're not against wind power. We think that renewable energy is a promising and useful thing," said Richard Andrews of the group Green Mountain Forest Watch. But he said his group has yet to take a position on the proposal.

There are other concerns, including whether the project will disrupt the habitat of black bears or migratory birds in the forest.

Where/when will the madness end?

Mercury trading in PA ... or not

From the Outdoors page of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette (Fishing: mercury ...):

Pennsylvania has been given the green light from an oversight panel to develop its own regulations for power plant mercury emissions, while it sues the federal government over pollution standards* it believes fail to adequately address the public health risk.

...

While the move has been hailed by conservation and outdoors groups, which have been pressing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] to do something about mercury, some air quality experts question the economic and environmental benefits of a state-specific approach in the face of a global problem.

Who's right?

More climate federalism Mo'

From today's NYTimes (9 States ...), the states put more pressure on the feds to do something serious about climate change and domestic air quality:

Officials in New York and eight other Northeastern states have come to a preliminary agreement to freeze power plant emissions at their current levels and then reduce them by 10 percent by 2020, according to a confidential draft proposal.

Wow, that sounds big.

Read on for more pithy comments!

Big World, Small Pond

I’m not a marine biologist, and unlike George Costanza I don’t play one on TV.  But real marine biologists, like those in this report from The Washington Post, are worried about ocean conditions and the possibility of substantial loss of marine life:

Wave of Marine Species Extinctions Feared, by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post:  The bulldozers … pressed forward into a patch of dense mangrove trees that buckled and splintered like twigs. … Sitting in a small motorboat a few hundred yards offshore … Samuel H. Gruber -- a University of Miami professor who has devoted more than two decades to studying the lemon sharks that breed here …[said].... The mangroves being ripped up to build a new resort provide food and protection that the sharks can't get in the open ocean, and Gruber fears the worst. …

New CAFE standards

From the WSJ's Evening Wrap:

The U.S. Transportation Department imposed new fuel-economy standards on trucks, minivans and some SUVs, a move it said would cut consumers' gasoline bills, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said new calculation methods -- representing the biggest change to the fuel-efficiency regime in decades -- would encourage auto makers to build heavier vehicles, improving highway safety. But the new standards don't apply to cars or the biggest SUVs, such as the Hummer. And environmentalists said they were too lax to significantly cut gasoline costs or reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Despite what we think of CAFE standards, this is welcome news.

Update (8/25): My knee jerk reaction was that any fuel efficiency proposal must be a good thing. I'm a bit embarrassed now. Instead, let me say this: We don't like CAFE standards. More reasons why are here and here and here.

We wuz scooped by DoL

Hard to believe we're posting this via Division of Labour, damnit:

Today's WSJ has an article on environmental economics. Unfortunately, there is no mention of property rights, PERC, or even moderate enviro think tanks like Resources for the Future.

The focus is on environmental groups that are beginning to figure out how to use environmental valuation methods and economic incentive policies in their advocacy work:

But frustrated by their slow progress and turning increasingly pragmatic, environmental groups are finding economics a powerful tool. As state and federal governments face pressure to rein in spending, officials are weighing environmental measures against other priorities such as welfare and health care, and environmentalists are realizing that their policies have to be cost-effective to be feasible.

An update on climate federalism

About a month ago I pooh-poohed the efforts of individual states to deal with climate change (see Climate Federalism). But, what if every, i.e., all 50, state(s) imposed climate change regs? Well, then, I guess climate federalism might work in an OK way. It might even be better than the current what difference can I make? approach.

Here is a CNN story from the west coast that suggests some momentum to climate federalism (NW States ...):

Despite an effort by auto industry lobbyists to kill the move, two Pacific Northwest states -- Oregon and Washington -- are getting ready to adopt California's new vehicle emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases.