Environmental Economics

The Env-Econ grassroots "Drive Less!" campaign is going global

Here's what they're saying in Finland about the Env-Econ 'Drive Less!*** campaign:

Hiljattain löysin blogin nimeltä Environmental Economics. Jätkät ovat kahden yliopiston taloustieteilijäapulaisprofessoreita. Toinen kirjoittajista kuvailee hauskasti, kuinka hän onnistui pakon edessä tiivistämään koko öljyhintakriisin hyvin yksinkertaiseen muotoon.

Dems propose a holiday

In response to the $100 rebate idea, Tim says:

Now, I've already argued that the evil gas producers can't lower their prices on a whim, but the government could if they wanted to--by reducing the per gallon gas tax.  Now that would be just plain silly--right?

Right, it would be silly plus stupid (i.e., "inefficient" to an economist). But, who cares in an election year (Democrats Propose ...):

Following President Bush's four-point plan outlined today, Democrats proposed legislation that would put a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax for at least 60-days to provide consumers immediate relief at the pump.  But the proposed legislation would also chop oil company tax benefits and burden refineries with unwarranted reporting requirements, making it unable to win enough support in Congress to have even a remote chance of passing.

And here is an article from the Chicago Tribune on the political reaction to gas prices this week.

Peak Oilers Get It

Over at the Oil Drum there's a great description of why gas prices are high and why Big Oil is not to blame...you are.

Read this Quick: Gas Rebate Proposal

GOP senator are proposing a $100 tax credit to "offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline."  I have to post this quickly because there is an economic lesson to be learned, but this thing is likely to be voted down before I can finish typing*.

Measuring Chernobyl deaths

The WSJ's Numbers Guy on Chernobyl deaths (Measuring Chernobyl's Fallout):

How many people died because of the Chernobyl nuclear-reactor explosion, which spewed radiation across northern Europe? Twenty years after the accident, the death toll remains in dispute.

This month, the World Health Organization estimated "up to" 9,000 people died or will die of cancer because of the incident, which unfolded in the early morning hours of April 26, 1986. The number was 6,700 to 38,000 in a recent report published in a peer-reviewed journal, from the Lyon, France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency governed by the WHO and 16 member nations. Greenpeace International, which opposes nuclear power, published its own report, based partly on papers from former Soviet nations. Greenpeace estimates the death toll is between 93,000 and 200,000, including cancer deaths and other illnesses like immunity disorders.

As is his wont (Webster's Dictionary says this means "habitual way of doing"), the Numbers Guy dissects these differences.

The Perfect Storm: What I didn't have time to say on the radio

Alright, I had a second radio interview this morning.  This time for KNX 1070 in L.A. during their morning drive.  I was much more comfortable with this one, as it was 8:45 AM ET rather than 4:30 AM like the NPR interview.  Same topic--would a gas boycott work.  Same answer--nope.  Oh, and they pronounced my name the right-wrong way.

But there are a couple of things I wanted to say in both interviews that time--and perhaps good sense--didn't allow.  So here goes...

Free gas

From cnn.com (Drivers run out ...):

Some California drivers are resorting to desperate measures to beat the surge in gas prices at the pump -- deliberately running dry on the state's freeways and simply waiting for rescue.

Me and the NC Climate Change Commission

I spent yesterday in a hearing room in Raleigh sitting through a meeting of the NC Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. The purpose of my presentation, "the costs of inaction," was to present the way that economists think about the costs of climate change (i.e., the benefits of mitigation). Many on the commission wanted something more ... a great big number that could be used to justify state action. As far as I know the economic research to support such a number for North Carolina has not been conducted.

Offshore drilling in NC update

Gotta bring those gas prices down ...  From the AP:

Four North Carolina members of Congress are co-sponsoring legislation to allow natural gas exploration off the state's coast.

Reps. Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, Sue Myrick and Charles Taylor, all Republicans, signed onto the bill seeking to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling.

"I think that it is not right for us to ignore natural resources that we have that could reduce energy prices," Foxx said.

A provision in the bill would extend the state's boundary from three miles to 20 miles.

And if we put the lead back in it would be even cheaper...

While we're on the subject of gas prices...

Additionally, Bush said he would ask the EPA to temporarily ease clean air regulations that have caused gas shortages in some portions of the Northeast.

Besides having a minimal effect, do we really want to lower gas prices at the expense of the environment?