Environmental Economics

Why have gas price premiums changed?

Frequent Env-Econ reader and longtime (very longtime) friend, Chuck, called me this morning while idling in Atlanta traffic.  His question:

I have to buy premium gas for my car.  Up until about six weeks ago there was always a fixed $.10 jump in prices between grades: for example, regular unleaded would be $2.05, mid-grade would be $2.15 and premium would be $2.25.  Lately, though, the premiums seem to jump around, ranging anywhere from $.10 to $.25.  What has changed recently to cause gas price premiums between grades to change?

Um, I don't know.  My initial reaction was it has something to do with the switchover from MTBE to ethanol as an additive combined with the relatively more elastic demand for premium gas, but I'm not convinced.

So I turn to the smartest readers in the blogosphere (um, yeah, I'm talking about y'all and hoping flattery helps).  Any ideas why gas pricing strategies on higher grade fuels have changed?  Or any evidence that this is going on in other parts of the country?

The wine of climate change

Go North, Young Grapes:

The prospect of a warmer planet gives these findings broader application. In Europe, England sits atop the current wine belt, poised along with Germany for expanded viticulture as temperatures rise. In North America, major grape-growing regions extend along the West Coast from Southern California more or less to the Canadian border. So, warmer temperatures will improve the wine offerings of British Columbia. As the temperatures rise, the losers will likely be at the warm end of the viticulture scale—vineyards in Spain, southern France, southern Italy, and the Napa Valley.

Hat tip: the dancing carpenter.

Sea squirt

Did I get this from NOAA or The Onion?

For the fourth consecutive year, federal and university researchers have surveyed two areas on Georges Bank where an invasive colonial sea squirt continues to thrive on the gravel bottom. The area of seabed covered by the colonies has doubled at 75 percent of the sites observed in both 2005 and 2006. Greater density of colonies observed during the survey is evidence that the infestation is persistent, and not a short-lived phenomenon. But scientists found no colonies in nearby Canadian waters, indicating they have not spread eastward.

Scientists remain concerned that the infestation could threaten important fisheries in the region. Sea squirt mats could prevent fish from feeding on worms and crustaceans that live in and on the gravel bottom, reduce the shelter required for these species to avoid predators, and limit the space available for settlement of larvae of sea scallops and other species. The invasive squirts are also a nuisance to the aquaculture industry, overgrowing shellfish in New England coastal waters.

Answer: here.

Just so you know that we know

The other day Tim received a newspaper account of an issue related to environmental economics with '[email protected]' in the 'from' header. On the same day, John received the exact same newspaper account of an issue related to environmental economics with '[email protected]' in the 'from' header.

Yes, it is very easy to use an alias to send a news account. Shame on you.

Confessions accepted in the comments box!

Global Warming is Hot Right Now

Yesterday, Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, gave a lengthy speech on the senate floor.  The topic?  “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming.”  In it, he concludes:

The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

Can computers do what humans can't?

Yesterday, I wrote:

Until the evidence [for human induced global warming] is so overwhelming that there is no way the public can deny it--notice the difference in the burden of proof between this and where we currently stand: human induced global warming is plausible--I'm afraid little will be done.

Well, maybe computers can help us sort Global Warming fact from opinion.  From UPI:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is funding a research project designed to teach computers to scan text and then sort opinion from fact.

[...]

The scientists will use machine-learning algorithms to give computers examples of text expressing both fact and opinion and then teach them to tell the difference.

Quote of the day

From the WSJ's Morning Brief:

"The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea levels were estimated to have been 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today," James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, tells The Wall Street Journal, after the agency warned the Earth's temperature is rising at an accelerating pace with readings that imply we are getting close to "dangerous" levels of human pollution.

Over the weekend I saw gas for $2.09/gallon

Here is the graph of gas prices over the past 2.5 years from the EIA:

Climate Skeptics (number three)

John sent me a pointer towards this editorial in Scientific American where Jeffrey Sachs challenges the Wall Street Journal Editorial writers to sit down with climate change scientists and learn the truth.  While wondering why John would possibly think I needed to see this article, I have a couple of reactions.

Undercover Economist: My review (finally)

I read Undercover Economist awhile back and am just now getting around to writing a review because ... heads up to Tim ... I've been so, sniff, busy, sniff.

Here is what I said back in December when I added it to my holiday gift list:

I just sent a head's up to my spouse that I'd like to receive Undercover Economist by Tim Harford as a gift someday (it's late for X-iday but my birth-i-day is coming up). This is in spite of one of the NYTimes reviewer's few complaints (Exposing the economics ...):

... In fact, lively presentation aside, he has written a pretty standard primer, one that defends free markets to a fault and attacks government as the source of just about everything bad.

Predictably, he says that the best way to limit pollution is through free-market incentives; he then goes overboard by suggesting that environmental debates are mere "moral posturing."

I really should read the book before I offer a comment (shouldn't I?), but, here goes ... free market environmentalism doesn't work ALL of the time!

I just sent a head's up to my spouse that I'd like to receive Undercover Economist by Tim Harford as a gift someday (it's late for X-iday but my birth-i-day is coming up). This is in spite of one of the NYTimes reviewer's few complaints (Exposing the economics ...):

... In fact, lively presentation aside, he has written a pretty standard primer, one that defends free markets to a fault and attacks government as the source of just about everything bad.

Predictably, he says that the best way to limit pollution is through free-market incentives; he then goes overboard by suggesting that environmental debates are mere "moral posturing."

I really should read the book before I offer a comment (shouldn't I?), but, here goes ... free market environmentalism doesn't work ALL of the time!