Environmental Economics

Taking economics bashing to the next level (i.e., economics bashing on crack)

From Scientific American (The Economist Has No Clothes, Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts to solve environmental problems):

Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems.
...

Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet.

Huh? Much of the environmental economics research of the past 40+ years is focused on measuring the costs of environmental problems. And on the teaching side, millions of introductory microeconomics students are told the best example of a negative externality problem is environmental pollution.

The critics wear leisure suits. And I'm offended by the naked economist picture.

Update below.

My name is John and I'm here to help

If you are teaching environmental economics and don't receive the Microeconomics Weekly Review from the WSJ, why the heck not? It's free and you can always find the WSJ articles somewhere on campus for free. Are you a total loser? Or are you just not trying hard enough? Don't make me angry.

Economist Strikes Gold In Climate-Change Fight
by Leila Abboud
Mar 13, 2008
Page: A1

TOPICS: Environmental Issues, Environmental Regulation, Supply and Demand

SUMMARY: The planet is getting warmer. Economist Richard Sandor is getting wealthier. His company, Climate Exchange, has carved out a key role in Europe's booming trade in "carbon permits." Now, as carbon trading draws intense interest from rivals, he gears up for the next big battlefield: The U.S.

I'm screwed out of $125

After the Georgia Dome tornado the SEC fiddled around about how to minimize their losses. They knew they'd have to refund some tickets or there would be an uproar. They decided to screw those who purchased tickets in the secondary market (including me):

Fans who bought tickets to the Southeastern Conference Men’s Basketball Tournament through the league, the Georgia Dome or one of the 12 member schools are eligible for a refund, the SEC announced today.

Games from the last three sessions of the tournament – held March 14-16 in Atlanta – were moved to Georgia Tech’s Alexander Memorial Coliseum after a tornado struck the Georgia Dome.

Fans holding tickets to sessions 4, 5 and 6 are eligible for if they bought those tickets through the league’s ticket office, the Georgia Dome or an SEC school.

...

The original ticket holder is the only person who will receive a refund on tickets. Fans who purchased tickets through the secondary market – from a ticket broker, for example – are not eligible for refunds.

More charitably, maybe it is much easier to refund money for tickets purchased with a credit card. I could send my unused tickets in but they'd need to cut a check to refund the money.

Anyway, next time I think about going to a major sporting event I'll determine my willingness to pay as the option price under supply uncertainty and factor in the probability of a natural hazard event.

Lots of development in a city best known as the place of my birth

In 25 years, county's green could disappear:

Mecklenburg County is on pace to have all of its available land developed within 25 years, according to a new UNC Charlotte study.

The 24-county project on new urban growth, released Tuesday, paints the clearest picture yet of how population increases and commercial development are changing the region.

The study area, which ran from the Blue Ridge Mountains to Rockingham, lost more than 100 acres daily to development from 1976 through 2006, the study found. That amounts to an area of about 75 football fields each day.

The article does not mention efforts to preserve the Whitehead homestead.

My bad (with comments)

From the inbox comes a verbal thrashing which has caused me to:

1. edit the original post
2. become more circumspect
3. stand behind my previous conclusions

I may be secondary at the WSJ but I'm primary here

I'm delighted to report that we have made what I think is our first appearance at the WSJ's Real Time Economics blog (in the daily Secondary Sources post):

Climate Change & Recreation: On Environmental Economics, John Whitehead continues with his exploration of climate change and outdoor recreation, “The idea, not mine (see part 1), is to obtain an estimate of the effect of climate on participation across the U.S. and use this relationship to forecast changes in behavior as climate changes,” he writes.

I'm even more delighted to point out that Tim Haab is not the name in bold. Yes, we're childish that way. For example, I hate it when Tim grabs the computer away from me when we're doing collaborative research, makes a face at me while I'm giving a seminar presentation and pushes me down at conferences (he's bigger than I am).

Just for fun and to double our page hits: Click the "Secondary Sources" link above and then click the "On Environmental Economics" link to bring yourself back here.

Clark Howard says Political Calculations is not perfect

We provide links to only the most tasteful videos:

CLARK HOWARD: Should You Trade That Gas Guzzler? on WSB-TV (Atlanta).

And here is the link to WSB-TV* which links to the Political Calculations blog where Ironman asserts that the imperfection was fixed and now the calculator is perfect.

*Note: no way do I want to refer env-econ readers to "itical Calcula."

Hat tip: Ironman.

Sociologists nibble on the rational choice bait but just won't take the hook

A professor of sociology was doing really well in a NYTimes editorial, arguing that carbon tax revenues should be not used to subsidize business (a terrible idea), reduce income taxes (most economists like it) or increase (general) government spending (awful idea which leads to government addiction to the revenue source [e.g., state gas taxes]), and instead plow the money into clean energy R&D, until ...

I want my (fuel) efficiency

From the WSJ Morning Brief:

With the price of a fill-up hovering at record highs, gas mileage has become the number one consideration for American consumers in choosing a new vehicle, even topping which automaker produces the car or truck, according to a AAA survey that studied consumers' attitudes toward fuel prices. The survey, released this week, also suggests that car shoppers continue to want tougher government regulations on fuel efficiency.

Is this an example of the fuzzy "changes in tastes and preferences" from principles of micro or the effect of a change in the price of complements?

Climate change and outdoor recreation: Part 2

In Part 1 I reviewed the scant U.S. literature (another two papers have been sent to me since then, thanks!) and in Part 2 I'm looking at the effects of temperature and precipitation on recreation participation in three sectors: boating, freshwater fishing and hunting.