Environmental Economics

EPA To Announce Clear Skies and Alternative Proposals Analysis

Heads up from an EPA press release:

(Washington, D.C.-October 26, 2005) Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to announce the results of the most comprehensive legislative analyses ever prepared by the EPA. With this analysis lawmakers can move forward with one of the top environmental priority's of the Bush Administration. Administrator Johnson will provide the analysis to members of Congress and then make the analysis available to the public.

When? 10/27 at 1 pm. The analysis should contain some interesting material. The Clear Skies initiative contains a big new tradeable pollution permit program that is touted by some guys that know a bit about it (When economists dream, they dream of clear skies).

Acid Rain Program Maintains Air Pollution Cuts, EPA Reports

From an EPA press release:

(Washington, D.C.-October 26, 2005) In its 10 years the Acid Rain Program has significantly reduced acid deposition in the United States by cutting sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from power plants, according to the program's annual report. The newly released Acid Rain Program 2004 Progress Report describes the environmental advances and public health, technology, and market-based improvements accomplished by the program. Widely acknowledged as one of the most successful environmental programs in U.S. history, the program serves as a model for a new generation of air pollution control programs, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which will further reduce air pollution over the next decade.

...

A new analysis in the Journal of Environmental Management estimates the value of the program's human health and environmental benefits in the year 2010 to be $122 billion annually. Most of these benefits result from the prevention of health-related impacts, such as premature deaths and illnesses and workdays missed due to illness, but they also include improved visibility in parks and other recreational and ecosystem improvements.

Does anyone have the citation for this paper?

Update: here is a link to the forthcoming paper. The reference and abstract are below.

Hockey sticks

An update on the politics and science of the "hockey stick" debate is in today's WSJ (Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire):

Two global-warming skeptics who questioned an influential climate study and prompted a congressional inquiry are now facing critics of their own, as a pair of new research papers take issue with their results.

The new findings are the latest round in a politically charged dispute over the "hockey stick," a widely publicized graphic showing that temperatures during the late 20th century were likely higher than at any time in the past 1,000 years.

The Environment is Boring

I was watching Boston Legal last night--for our readers that have a real life and don't watch TV, it's a show on ABC--and there was a revealing exchange between two main characters, Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Shore (James Spader).   To set it up, Alan Shore interupted his own date at a swank restaurant to provide the patrons with a public service announcement on the travesty that is farm-raised salmon--that night's special (the PSA was delivered to the tune of 'Right Here in River City' from the Music Man--trust me, it was funny).  Anyway, in a later exchange Denny Crane--the founding partner of the show's law firm, and self-proclaimed sufferer of mad cow's disease--warned Shore (and I paraphrase here because I didn't think to write it down at the time):

Never talk about the environment in public.  The environment is boring.  No one will like you.

Like I said, a revealing exchange...right John?  Remind me again why we are doing this.

UPDATE: Just got back from teaching my undergraduate Environmental Economics class where I shared the above story.  From the back of the room I heard "...and economists talking about the environment are even worse."  Can you feel the love?

What is the "True" Goal of Biodiversity Enhancement?

There are at least two variants of the argument that biodiversity should be increased. The weak goal seeks only to weigh costs against benefits when choosing the level of protection to be given to endangered species. The strong goal requires that every endangered species be protected, regardless of expense.

What if the cost was infinite?

A couple of weeks ago the WSJ reported some results of a recent poll on the environment. The results are interesting in that they don't tell us very much. For example, the headline tells us that "Nearly Half of Americans Cite 'Too Little' Environment Regulation." The other half thinks that there is too much environmental regs!

Green Accounting in China

The Economist has an interesting story this week on China's efforts to incorporate environmental degradation into national income accounts. 

Not in my backyard

It sounds like your trash is coming to NC. One of the economic reasons, economies of scale, is the same that we've earlier discovered:

Tighter federal regulations have made siting and building lined landfills more costly. Private companies have found that larger landfills serving more than one county make sense financially.

Greg Peverall, a project consultant for Waste Management, said that as landfills grew larger and more costly to build, they had to serve larger areas to be financially feasible.

"Before you put the first bag of garbage in the ground, a company or county will have $10 million in the project," he said.

Happy Accident or Innovation?

After I posted a simple statement that global warming MAY have SOME benefits, a lengthy debate ensued (and is still ongoing).  The debate tied into a theme I've tried to forward in a number of places:  Technological progress and human ingenuity can overcome a large number of physical problems--no I don't mean we can usurp the laws of physics, but within the constraints of the physical world, we can learn to use resources efficiently given the proper incentives.  For example, I never imagined we would be talking about replacing the light bulb to save energy.  But...

Changing times in the world's fisheries

Paul Greenberg's article in the New York Times Magazine documents the decline of fish species across the world, focusing primarily on the recent demise of the Chilean Sea Bass fishery.  There's little new in this article for those that have been watching fisheries over time.  But what Greenberg doesn't emphasize sufficiently is the extent to which the very nature of fishing is changing.