Environmental Economics

Picture of the Day

Adelaide

Is China a pollution haven?

Just browsing the news this morning.  From the Washington Post NY TImes:

In its rush to re-create the industrial revolution that made the West rich, China has absorbed most of the major industries that once made the West dirty. Spurred by strong state support, Chinese companies have become the dominant makers of steel, coke, aluminum, cement, chemicals, leather, paper and other goods that faced high costs, including tougher environmental rules, in other parts of the world. China has become the world’s factory, but also its smokestack.

This mass shift of polluting industries has blighted China’s economic rise. Double-digit growth rates have done less to improve people’s lives when the damages to the air, land, water and human health are considered, some economists say. Outmoded production equipment will have to be replaced or retrofitted at high cost if the country intends to reduce pollution.

Quote of the Day

"He's got a pretty strong personality, the governor has, and wants to get things done. If the federal government is one of those obstacles, then he'll run that tank he has over it. It's not particularly anything personal, I think."

Joel Fox, former adviser to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Governor's plan to sue to the federal governor for blocking California's plan to exceed the federal standards on greenhouse gas emissions. 

Au Contraire, Mon Frere*

In response to to my post on food prices and ethanol, reader PaulD writes:

Fortunately, the pressure on food prices will be short lived. The energy bill has mandated higher fuel efficiency standards that no doubt will curb demand...

Maybe true on the demand side, but we are forgetting the requirements on alternative fuel production--a fivefold increase by 2020--15 billions gallons of which must be corn-based ethanol.  Corn ethanol production in 2006 was about 5 billion gallons.  No short-lived food price pressure in sight--not that there's anything wrong with that.

*That's French for 'all politicians are idiots', or something like that. 

"Chinese Environmentalism"

From day before yesterday's WSJ Morning Brief (I'm only two days behind!):

Chinese government action on the environment is beginning to catch up with its rhetoric. While the country's environmental controls have long been criticized as ineffective and ignored at the local level, they are "starting to have real economic bite," The Wall Street Journal reports. "This year, officials have rejected billions of dollars of new factories and other investment projects for failing to meet standards. For local companies accustomed to ignoring standards, this could change the financial calculus," the Journal says.

I've been trying to ignore this

From Common Tragedies:

From the Washington Post:

President Bush on Wednesday signed into law legislation meant to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil by raising fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, ordering a massive increase in the use of biofuels and phasing out sales of the ubiquitous incandescent light bulb popularized by Thomas Edison more than a century ago. …

Amen

Mike Moffat chanelling William Polley:

I loved William J. Polley's comments on a silly passage in a CNN/Money article, particularly where he states:

As I try to tell my students, a good or service is not elastic or inelastic--the demand for or the supply of it is. Second, inelastic demand doesn't mean that people will buy it no matter what the cost--budget constraints ensure that eventually the curve slopes back to the left as you go up higher in price. Third, if you want to get really pedantic, it's not a drop in demand, but a drop in the quantity demanded as this is a change induced by higher prices (caused by increased input costs which reduced the supply). Fourth, one should consider short-run vs. long run demand for gasoline since it takes a while for habits to change.

This sounds a great deal like me discussing economics with my non-economist business school colleagues. Particularly the point about demand vs. quantity demanded. They often fail to see the distinction, probably because they did not have EclectEcon teaching them undergraduate microeconomics.

Yeah, I stole the whole post.

Johnny White's

I never skim The Answer Desk, that's Tim's domain, but I was so GD (i.e., lord's name in vain) bored last night that I clicked the link and found a gem from "Aaron":

Will there be an Env-Econ get together in New Orleans at the ASSA meetings? Do you guys have recommended watering holes in NO?

Answer: Johnny White's on Bourbon Street, Friday night, 9 pm. I'll be the rogue-ishly handsome guy in a blue button down collar shirt (nametag in pocket). If you can't find JW's, it's really close to a strip club and a bar with a 1980s cover band.

Seriously, from Canal, walk down Bourbon Street and it is a little spot on the right. Eventually.

Seriously (part deus), the official env-econ.net watering hole has gots to be Jean Lafitte's. This was introduced to a slew of dorks by the new co-author of the Tietenberg texts at the November SEA meetings.

So, OK, we'll meet at Johnny White's at 9 on Friday and then head down to Jean Lafitte's. On the way home we'll stop at Krystals.

I-66 (almost the devil's number)

From my hometown paper, a Christmas X-iday story:

I-66 once was planned as a transcontinental highway, but current plans call for a drastically scaled-back version -- two relatively short segments in Southern and Eastern Kentucky.

And even those have come under fire for being too expensive ($3.5 billion or more for 61 miles of roadway), unlikely to fulfill supporters' claims of an economic-development bonanza and a threat to inflict significant environmental damage.

How much money could 61 miles of roadway save in eastern Kentucky?

Let's say that you can save an hour of time on each trip into the Daniel Boone National Forest. If time is valued at $25/hour, it would take 140 million trips to justify the $3.5 billion price tag.

Snap!

From John F:

Sometimes -- often -- I am really amazed you people are university professors. You certainly don't act like it.

Weird: I've heard this exact same thing from my department chair and dean within the past 2 weeks. Freakishly weird.