Environmental Economics

Merry Christmas! You're ruining the environment.

I've been saving this for almost a year.  Sometime after Christmas last year I came across this report that claims to calculate the hidden environmental costs of our--OK, not really us, but those in Oz--conspicuous Christmas consumption.  The Australian Conservation Foundation summarizes some of the findings thusly...

The Human Fund: Part Dous

If you don't know what to get for your green sister-in-law, or, you do know what to get that Exxon lawyer-in-law and you'd rather piss him/her off (i.e., the real spirit of X-mas), retire some SO2 in their name!

With a small donation, the Acid Rain Retirement Fund will do it for you:

The Acid Rain Retirement Fund was founded to prevent air pollution by buying it right out of the sky. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues pollution allowances or permits that enable companies to emit sulfur dioxide (SO2). These permits are auctioned off to the public and a permit for one ton of sulphur dioxide was recently about $130 [sic]. The Acid Rain Retirement Fund raises funds and bids alongside polluters for as many pollution allowances as our funds can buy. We then retire that pollution credit permanently.

With each donation you'll receive a handsome certificate, suitable for framing and pissing off that special in-law.

Winter Solstice

Is any one else going to a Winter Solstice Celebration tonight? I'm imagining some bizarre pagan rituals but it will probably be closer to some blend of Norse-Wicca-Yule and Christmas celebrations. Yet, I'm hoping the idea is firmly rooted in the winter solstice festival:

... the last feast celebration, if it could be managed, before deep winter began.

I've always been able to handle a feast.

Please note: We've added a "weather" category to the blog so this post falls firmly within the domain of environmental economics.

Hot! Hot! Hot!

Did that headline get Tim's attention (he's gonna love this post)? From Stephen Dubner at the Freakonomics Blog (make sure you read both links in Dubner's posts!):

I wrote the other day that my undergrad alma mater, Appalachian State University, just won its second consecutive football championship. Today, A.S.U. won something else: a year-end award from Yahoo’s “The 9” webcast. Their achievement? The best university recruitment video ever. (Hint: Not!) As an alum, I had the great honor of accepting this dubious achievement award for A.S.U. You can see it here on The 9’s daily broadcast.

And yes, I'm getting into the holiday spirit by posting off-topic (my gift to patient env-econ readers). In fact, I'm currently in negotiations about expanding the breadth of the Environmental Economics blog to include the occassional off-topic post without apology* (reader comments on this contentious issue are most welcome).

By the way, I bought a yellow championship hoodie yesterday!

*Note: "without apology" is a hipster-doofus econ reference to the famous Willig paper.

Water Quality Trading in the Classroom

Just opened my mail from the past week (who sends stuff in the mail anymore?) and had a brochure for new water quality trading market simulator partially produced by our very own--we'll call him occassional--contributor Rich Woodward.  Unfortunately you have to be a student in a class for which the instructor has signed up to use the software, but the front material on the site is worth a quick look.  Here's the link: http://edu.nutrientnet.org.

An opportunity for you to affect policy

From env-econ reader Connor Anderson:

I've been a longtime reader and occasional contributor to the blog. I'm working with our local Chamber of Commerce here in Clinton, Iowa to prepare some policy proposals to the legislature as it prepares to go into session in early January.

One somewhat wild-ass idea I have is in regards to net meetering and avoided generation costs for independent operators. At the risk of telling you what you already know, let me outline the background briefly.

Read on for your chance to give Connor your opinions on his wild-ass idea.

The Human Fund: Part Uno

If you don't know what to get for your green sister-in-law, or, you do know what to get that Exxon lawyer-in-law and you'd rather piss him/her off, ... , then offset their carbon!

http://www.driveneutral.org

A bonus: env-econ gets $4 from each carbon offset that originates from this blog. In other words, you get to help pay my Typepad bill!

We are not alone ...

Nope, not aliens. just another negative response to the Stern Review from the Globalization and Environment blog:

David Maddison has now finished writing his commentary on the Stern Review. Many of his observations echo earlier remarks made by Richard Tol, William Nordhaus and Partha Dasgupta. You can download his comments by visiting his personal webpage.

Problems With Emissions Trading

I've long been an advocate of rich nations paying poor nations to reduce their emissions, even though in the back of my mind I've always worried about the unitended consequences. This new article in the NYT brings them to light in a very disturbing way. In international nature conservation there is always the potential for poor nations to blackmail rich nations with the "if you don't pay us $X (where X is much greater than the true value of the resource) we'll destroy this resource" and now I'm thinking that this perverse incentive structure may be at work with all sorts of green development mechanisms regarding emissions. More and more I'm thinking a carbon tax and lots of investment in R&D in energy efficiency that is then put freely into the public domain may be a better course. I'm still not sure. Climate change is a serious challenge. Thoughts?

Brad DeLong argues for taxing the rich to deal with climate change

Grasping reality ...

An SUV going ten miles in the city and burning a gallon of gasoline pumps about 3 kilograms--6.5 pounds--of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Should the extra tax on this--and on all carbon emissions--appropriate for global warming be on the order of five cents a gallon, fifty cents a gallon, or a dollar fifty a gallon? Our views will change as we learn more, but at the moment whether the tax should be five or fifty cents a gallon hinges on a question of moral philosophy: how much do we believe that we owe our distant descendents?

And, of course, the first comment always is about the political inpracticality of energy taxes. 

Serenity Now!