Environmental Economics

Mercury control costs drop

From Environmental Science and Technology Online (Mercury control costs drop):

The cost of controlling mercury from coal-fired power plants can be up to 50% less than the 1999 baseline estimates, according to an economic analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The new report, published today on ES&T’s Research ASAP website (DOI: 10.1021/es0617340), focuses on a well-known technology, activated carbon injection (ACI), and has sparked interest from electric utilities and environmental advocates who sparred over EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) when it was released in 2005.

My lawsuits against the EPA

The WSJ's Numbers Guy on EPA's mileage estimates:

This fall, car buyers may suffer from a new kind of sticker shock: Mileage estimates for 2008 model-year cars will show figures much lower than in previous years. Some drops may be as high as 30%.

The cars themselves aren't changing. Instead, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued new rules for fuel-economy testing that attempt to better mirror the experiences drivers have on the road.

Is 'Drive Less!' making a comeback?

Like John, I forewent the State of the Union clapfest and chose to spend quality time with my kids*.  So I'm wondering if the President gave us credit for the 'Drive Less!' campaign?  It seems he hinted at it:

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Come on G-dub, give Env-Econ some love!

*Really I watched the NHL skills challenge instead, but hey, my kids were in the room for part of it.

My reaction to the State of the Union

Well, it's not really my reaction since I didn't watch it (i.e., too cool for school). I much prefer the State of the Union review. Here is the environmental econ-relevant part from the WSJ's Morning Brief:

The president asked Congress to join him in finding a way to "reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20% in the next 10 years." But his aides explain to the Washington Post that the goal isn't 20% off today's levels but 20% off projected annual gas use. The Wall Street Journal notes that achievement of Mr. Bush's goals "rests on the uncertainty of technological breakthroughs, and the administration is promising relatively little money to subsidize what would be a major redirection in the country's energy markets." And while he wants to "reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars," he still rejects the idea of legislation that would mandate specific higher fuel standards. ...

Enthusiasm for more environmentalist energy policy in his administration -- which long insisted the country's energy problems could be solved with more domestic wells -- may also have been undercut by Vice President Dick Cheney's reaction during the speech. Mr. Cheney rose to applaud many times during the nearly 50-minute address. But, as the Post reports, when Mr. Bush called for saving "up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017," Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many others leapt to their feet, while Mr. Cheney remained where he was.

In short, don't get excited.

Breaking News: We're Doomed!

Here's the news:

Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

[...]

The future is bleak, scientists said.

If it's that bad, maybe I'll take up smoking.  Oh wait, I voted to ban that.  Promiscuity?  Nope, I'm happily married and highly risk averse (that is, I'm afraid of her).  Any suggestions of vices I can take up as the end of the world nears?

Scare tactics and policy recommendations

I'm working with a colleague here, Brian Roe, on trying to understand the physical (neurological, genetic,...) foundations for the way people make decisions under risk.  There's really some interesting work being performed by economists trying to test the basic foundations of economic models.  For the most part, economic models are holding up under scrutiny (at least in my opinion), but there are a few cases where science is calling into question the economic underpinnings.  Let me talk about one.

Economic impact of winter sports

Warm weather in Boone, NC (until this past week) has been hurting the ski trails. The rental cabins in my neighborhood are full up with Baptist youth groups but they don't know what to do in 60 degree weather. And it's happening other places too:

Snowmobile clubs and the businesses that cater to them are having their second bad year in a row in many parts of New England, as warm weather has turned flakes to wet blobs and left trails a grassy, rocky mess.

.... snowmobiling brought $553 million annually to Vermont, according to the association’s last economic impact study.

With a state GDP of $23 billion or so, the snowmobiling industry is about 2.5% of the Vermont economy. Is the industry really that big? Or is this another example of overblown impacts?

Cooling on Hotspots

Protection of a small number of "biodiversity hotspots" may not be sufficient to preserve threatened species:

New study questions 'biodiversity hotspot' approach to wildlife conservation, by Mark Shwartz, Stanford Report: In recent years, major international conservation groups have focused their limited resources on protecting a small number of "biodiversity hotspots"—threatened habitats that are home to many of the world's rarest plants and animals.

But a handful of protected areas will not be sufficient to save the countless species of plants and animals facing extinction worldwide, according to a new study by scientists from Stanford University and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Writing in the Dec. 15 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers say that it's time for ecologists to reconsider the hotspot approach to conservation.

Should We Factor In The Cost Of Assisted Migration?

This new article in the NYT describes the debate over whether to help species migrate in the face of climate change. I've been discussing this mitigation strategy for years and think it warrants serious consideration, especially since wildlife corridors across continents would have so many other benefits as well. Thoughts?

EDF's Climate Action Announcement

Can be found here: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=5828

Environmental Defense is one of three founding members of a group of high-level corporate and environmental leaders that made a groundbreaking announcement today in Washington, D.C. The group called for a cap-and-trade system to combat climate change. Their historic proposal, "A Call to Action," urges the federal government to set limits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to create market-based incentives and, most of all, to act swiftly and thoughtfully.

Right on, but not because of any benefit cost analysis that doesn't discount costs 200 years from now.