Environmental Economics

Is Hotelling's switch point on the horizon?

Here is the intro to a long WSJ article on the economics of wind, solar and biofuels, The new math of alternative energy ($):

The numbers are starting to look promising.

For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas.

Even though the fuel was often free -- such as wind or the sun's rays -- alternative-energy producers had to plow lots of money into finding the best way to capture that energy and convert it into electricity. Fossil-fuel producers, on the other hand, could draw on billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and decades of know-how.

Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest.

Alternative energy still can't compete with fossil fuels on price. But the margins are narrowing, particularly since oil and gas prices have been rising. The math looks even more favorable if you consider the environmental cost of fossil fuels -- which most purely economic calculations don't.

As the WSJ says: "Easily Integrate These Wall Street Journal Articles in Your Class." The summary and discussion questions from James Deardon are below the fold.

Making the WSJ's Energy Roundup's daily Blogroll post

Click on this link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/02/20/blog-roll/

Shock and awe-shucks!

UK Environmental Economics Conference

EnvEcon UK reader Ece Ozdemiroglu writes:

Those of you who are in the UK and interested in attending the annual Applied Environmental Economics Conference (envecon) organised by the UK Network of Environmental Economists (UKNEE) may be pleased to note that the agenda is now announced and registration is open.

Details are on www.uknee.org.uk and the conference is in London on 23rd March 2007.

Those who cannot attend the conference are encouraged to visit the website as all papers / presentations from previous conferences and more frequent seminars are there.

UKNEE aims to share experiences and bring together those who provide environmental economics research and those who use it.

Stern vs Nordhaus et al. at Yale

How can you not read an article that starts like this?

There is an unofficial code of conduct that dictates how intellectuals should behave when they’re jousting with each other, a sort of Geneva Convention for the ivory tower.

Lights Out

Following up on my post last week on my recent foray into compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL's), here's a video from CNN on Australia's attempts to phase out incandescents by 2009. 

In the first post I said "On first observation, it seems the first 13W bulb we installed is significantly dimmer than the 60W incandescent bulb it replaced."  We now have 2 bulbs in place--we're waiting for the old one's to burn out, out of sentimentality--and I get a slight moment of distress each time I turn them on because they take a second to kick in.  Other than that, I've gotten used to them. 

Hmmmm...maybe there's an environmentalist in me after-all.  Now I'm going to get in my big honking SUV to drive to the store to get more CFL's.

Woohoo, gas prices are going up

Some of our biggest vistor numbers came when U.S. gas prices went up to $3 a gallon and people were suggesting all sorts of ridiculous reasons and solutions.  So forgive me if I got a little excited when I read this:

The steady climb to higher spring gasoline prices is under way and a repeat of last year's $3 a gallon is a strong possibility.

What's the solution?

Everybody all together now:  DRIVE LESS!

New WSJ Energy Blog

From an e-mail:

Hi. I'm a regular reader and thought you might be interested in knowing that the WSJ.com has recently launched a new energy-news blog.

Won't be much analysis in it at first -- mostly just news aggregation -- but we will link to other blogs (including yours) from time to time.

Best regards,

Mark Gongloff
Markets Editor
Wall Street Journal Online

Awesome! You can find Mr. Freebie* at http://blogs.wsj.com/energy. The first post is below the fold.

*Translation: This is a free resource from the Wall Street Journal.

It's midterm time

I'm currently teaching a graduate level Environmental and Resource Economics course--shocking eh?  I thought you might like to see what the midterm looks like.  The course has both Master's and PhD students in Ag Econ, Econ and Public Policy.  If you want, take a shot at answering a question or two--although I fully expect any comments to be void of answers and instead critical of the questions. 

Why is it everything I like causes externalities?

We haven't heard from J.S. for a while so I thought I would stoke the fire:

American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

I know that reducing meat consumption will reduce flatulent emissions from livestock, but won't a vegetable based diet increase flatulent emissions from humans? 

Plants store carbon.  We eat plants.  We emit carbon.  What am I missing?

Just when you thought you had figured out the MRFSS

From NOAA's Fishnews:

On February 12, NOAA Fisheries unveiled a strategy to address the most critical questions facing recreational fisheries data collection and analysis, and ultimately to support the management decisions affecting our nation's fisheries. This Development Plan incorporates key suggestions and concerns expressed by the nearly 100 scientists, managers, and members of the sportfishing community who have already participated in this process. This document is the first step in what the agency anticipates will be a dynamic and iterative process. It contains detailed information on the specific tasks assigned to the various teams and working groups, which must work simultaneously for the agency to meet its mandated deadline of January 2009. Over the next few weeks, NOAA Fisheries will be making public announcements of upcoming meetings and activities.

More information is available online.

The MRFSS is the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey -- a creel survey with enough economic questions every 4-5 years to estimate the demand for fishing trips. Apparently, it has its problems as a creel survey (and as an economics survey). I guess I welcome an upgrade, but damnit, I really have pretty much figured out the MRFSS (it only takes 10 years or so)!