Titled: Why Environmental Economists should love Exxon, here is how it ends (after a long-ass chase scene):
... Exxon worked really hard and paid consultants alot of money to make my, and many others, research agenda look like junk science. This usually sends a chill down my back but I’ve recently realized that it was a good thing, research-wise. With Exxon as a common enemy, funding studies that disputed CVM, journal pages were eating up papers dealing with both sides of the issue. Who would have wanted to publish my papers without an oil spill and Exxon claiming junk science was being used to value Prince William Sound resources?
By the way, Exxon lost the junk science debate. While CVM is still controversial it is the most widely used method to value the environment for benefit-cost analysis.
