Environmental Economics

Desk Rejection #2

From the inbox:

Dear Dr. [pathetic loser],

I regret to inform you that I must reject your paper for publication in "(second tier) Journal of [You'll Never, Ever Publish a Paper Here]".  I enjoyed reading it, and I certainly found the topic very interesting.  "(First tier) Journal of [You'll Never, Ever Publish a Paper Here]" has published some excellent work regarding [your stupid topic].  However, I believe that your paper is more focused on [a topic only an idiot would spend a significant amount of time on], which gives it a narrower potential audience.  In its current form, I think the paper may be a better fit for [a couple of journals off the top of my head that I don't think will send your paper out for review either].

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Note: I enjoyed a desk rejection from (First tier) Journal of [You'll Never, Ever Publish a Paper Here] exactly two weeks ago!

Stavins on CAFE

From The Energy Collective:

These new Federal [CAFE] standards proposed by the Obama administration can therefore be one small step along the path to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. That’s the good news. But it’s also true that the new standards are greatly inferior to other possible approaches.

I believe the children are our future

What do I have on the menu for today?  A 2.5 hour introduction to economics class on the U.S. tax system (Chapter 12 in Mankiw), then a PhD dissertation defense (I'm the advisor--student will join the faculty at Mississippi State University in August) then a Master's thesis defense (I'm a committee member even though I haven't read the thing yet), then head coach of a 12 and under softball double-header (first games of the season--unsolicited updates forthcoming). 

In case you're curious as to the type of work Master's and PhD students in Environmental Economics are doing, abstracts are included below the jump.

Picture of the (Memorial) Day (Weekend)

Then and Now ... and into the Future?

From Mankiw's Blog (Then and Now):

From a Obama-Biden campaign position paper:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all large corporate polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away for free to coal and oil companies.

From today's newspaper:

Under the House bill, only 15% of the emission permits will be auctioned initially. The rest of the permits will be given away -- 2% to oil refiners, 5% to free-standing "merchant" coal plants, 9% to regulated natural-gas distributors, and so on.

So, Mr President, the bill now being considered in Congress is in direct contradiction to your campaign pledge. Will you now please stand up for principle and issue a veto threat?

The key word in the second excerpt is "initially." If we are hoping that the 15% is a good start, and the percentage of permits auctioned rises over time, why would President Obama veto?

Where I'll be drinking beer this weekend

We're headed out for our annual Memorial Day weekend trip to Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.  Let's hope fo no repeats of last year's 'incident.'

Q&A with John Whitehead

From the inbox:

Quick question: Of all the economists who want the government to do something about GHG emissions, is it true to say that most prefer a carbon tax to cap & trade, putting aside political feasibility? I.e. if they were dictators would they impose a carbon tax or cap & trade?

From the sent items folder:

Stavins is a prominent economist who would go with cap-and-trade. There are likely others, especially among not-so-prominent economists (including myself), given that cap-and-trade is capable of hitting the emissions target without perfect information about abatement costs.

Also, this might make for a good survey amongst environmental economists ...

I've gotten this question twice in the past few weeks. I think I'll get busy on the survey part. If you would like to help me design the survey (i.e., do my work for me) submit potential questions in the comments section.

Urban Dictionary Word of the Day: Self-Qualified Referee

Link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Self%20Qualified%20Referee&defid=3980129

Nobody does it (spam) better

The Re-Launch of Weathervane: A Digital Forum on Climate Policy from RFF

From the inbox:

May 21, 2009

We are pleased to announce that Weathervane, a recognized source of authoritative climate information and data for more than ten years, is re-launching today as an interactive blog.

The restructured site will draw on the expertise and perspective of researchers at Resources for the Future as well as input from other distinguished climate authorities – and links to a voluminous library of RFF climate and energy publications.

Weathervane has long been valued by journalists and policymakers for providing nonpartisan, rigorous, and straightforward analysis of key climate issues. As you will note from the opening page, it will continue to provide insights on a broad gamut of newsworthy issues ...

We invite you to explore the site, borrow freely from its contents, forward to your colleagues, and send us your comments and feedback.