Environmental Economics

Urban Dictionary Word of the Day: Friendly Review

From the inbox, edited for this blog:

August 20: friendly review

A positive review you give to a movie, book, TV series or CD research paper or book that you don't like but which a friend has recommended to you written, usually because you don't want to hurt their feelings.

John: I watched read that movie econometrics book last night year which Tim wrote.
Kenneth: What did you think?
John: I hated it.
Joseph: Oh boy, he loves that movie is very proud of that book. What did you tell him?
John: I told him it was great.
Paul: You gave it a friendly review, huh?
John: Yeah, you know what he's like.

Economics departments better keep their majors numbers up, or convince administrators that they do something else well enough to be kept around

From Inside Higher Ed (cruel irony):

Amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the University of Southern Mississippi is poised to eliminate -- of all things -- its economics department, faculty were informed this week.

The elimination of economics, along with five tenured and four tenure-track faculty positions, is part of a plan to reduce spending by $11 to $12 million, universitywide, within a year. While university officials stress the plan isn't yet final, they are slated to decide by September 1 whether to go forward with the proposed cuts, according to a news release.

The layoff news is bad enough, but the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" stuff is driving me crazy. I don't get how people keep forgetting about the early 80s recession. In 1982, GDP fell by 1.9%, inflation ran above 10% from 1979-81, and the unemployment rate was almost 10% in for two years (1982-83). All of those numbers are worse than during the current recession.

Hat tip: MS

Does a (cardboard) bear s*** in the woods?

At what point did local news stations decide that The Onion is a good model to follow for real news?

 

Like a freshly cut lawn

A new working paper that attempts to estimate the value of alternative reconstruction scenarios for New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina:

Weathering the Storm: Measuring Household Willingness-to-Pay for Risk-Reduction in Post-Katrina New Orleans

Craig E. Landry, Paul Hindsley, Okmyung Bin, Jamie B. Kruse, John C. Whitehead and Kenneth R. Wilson

No 09-18, Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

Abstract: The city of New Orleans suffered extensive damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Katrina overwhelmed the natural and built environment, inundating the city. As rebuilding proceeds, decisions on investment in protective measures will include the choice of lines of defense and the storm severity that design criteria should meet. An exhaustive list of protective measures has been studied in planning documents such as the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Technical Report (2009), with public comment solicited in town hall meetings. In this study we employ a different approach to examine public sentiment towards the selection and investment in protective measures. Our study utilizes a stated choice experiment with a stratified sample to investigate individuals’ willingness-to-pay for rebuilding New Orleans’ man-made storm defenses, restoring natural storm protection, and improving evacuation options through a modernized transportation system. We target residents of the New Orleans metropolitan area as well as other US citizens. Our results indicate that individuals are willing-to-pay for increased storm protection for New Orleans, but the allocation of these resources differs among residents of the New Orleans metro area and other US citizens.

Key Words: storm surge mitigation, conjoint analysis, willingness to pay, Hurricane Katrina, flood control, stated choice, rebuilding New Orleans, recovery

Let's see: 6 authors and I'm listed #5. Not alphabetical, so it must be in order of contribution. When it gets past 3 or 4 authors you gotta wonder, did the guy do anything on this paper? Answer: yes, but I earned by #5.

Great reasons to post your working papers online

From the RePEc blog:

RePEc carries research in various formats. While journal articles are unique (with very few exceptions), working papers, as they are pre-prints, may be duplicates of listed articles, and they may even appear in different versions, either because they are published in different series, or because there may be updates within a series. We believe that is important to carry all versions, not just the last one, for the following reasons.

1. Time-stamps: A working paper allows to establish when some research was conducted and thus determines preeminence of research ideas. Given publication delays in Economics, this can be important.
   
2. Open access: Many journal articles have gated access. Such restrictions can be bypassed by reading working papers, which are mostly open access.
   
3. Link to published version: It is still preferred to use published versions in citations, especially once a paper is accepted in a journal. The originally cited working paper is often linked to its published version.
   
4. Visibility: Working papers are much more read than journal articles, both because they are more current and they are freely available. In addition, working papers are disseminated through NEP.

Appstate working papers can be found here: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/aplwpaper/.

Pig poop economics*

A lesson from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is that good ideas and the resulting mandates (e.g., use "best available control technology") are expensive. Here is an example from the N&O (Utilities beg ...):

North Carolina's electricity providers say poop-to-power isn't ready for prime time.

Progress Energy, Duke Energy and other providers have asked state regulators to delay and modify a 2007 state law that requires them to generate a minimum amount of energy from pig or chicken waste.

The law, designed to promote renewable energy and efficiency, requires utilities to begin getting some energy from pig and chicken litter by 2012.

The providers are seeking a one-year delay from the N.C. Utilities Commission. They're also asking to cut the minimum energy requirement from poultry waste starting in 2014 by a third.

North Carolina is a leading producer of pork and poultry, but disposing of waste presents major environmental challenges. Turning some of that waste into electricity holds promise, but also has raised worries about cost and pollution.

The utilities have been seeking proposals for waste-to-energy projects, but say they've gotten only limited and expensive bids.

That stinks!

*Note: I'm following the N&O's lead in calling it poop.

No wonder you never see economists serve as experts

Last week, I met with representatives from Repower America about possibly participating (as a panelist) in Repower Ohio's "Made in America" Town Hall Event.  In particular, they were looking for 'experts' to attest that:

Investing $150 billion a year in America's clean energy economy could generate a net increase of 1.7 million jobs. Furthermore, with comprehensive climate and clean energy policies, American households could start seeing savings within just a few years and these savings could reach an average of $900 per year by 2030.

I explained to them that I would be glad to help out and explain that clean energy could produce 1.7 million jobs, but I have an obligation to my own integrity as an economist to point out that these jobs come at a cost to other sectors and the net effect is unclear.  Besides, jobs is not the right measuring stick for the success or failure of energy legislation.

From the inbox (today):

I appreciate you offering to help us for the August 27th event but I feel that we are looking for someone who is more directly supportive of our cause and can speak to their reasons why at the event. If we have other events coming up, I will definitely contact you to see if you can help point us in the right direction.

Oh well, I tried.

Steven Chu only wants fans

What is the point of Facebook if you don't try to maximize your friends count (I have 154)?

From the Grants Resource Center's Twitter Page:

Steven Chu, United States Secretary of Energy, invites all persons interested in energy research to follow and participate in the dialogue on his Facebook page. 

Hat tip: TM

I've missed a few pickup basketball games this summer

From the inbox:

John,

I am assuming that your noticeable absence means that you have joined an elite administrator’s game.  I just want to let you know that despite that fact you are welcome to return and play amongst the paeans peons any time.

[A peon]

My reply:

Paean Peon,

The administrator’s pickup game is outstanding. What is even better is the skills camp led by several former NBA hoopsters. As a result I’ve developed several new ankle breaking moves that I can’t wait to use in the paean game. Also, I’ve gotten taller. Make sure you are there next Wednesday. You’ll know I’m about ready to take the floor when you hear the theme song from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

John W.

Never let them see you sweat.

Check out our new off-topic (e.g., personal) category!*

Yesterday I renewed my statin prescription with a generic substitute (partially explaining why there was no post from me yesterday). The pregeneric price was $100/month. The generic price is $4/month. There is something in here about the monopolistic vs competitive price.

*Note: Beware when the off-topic category is combined with the "puerile humor" category. And, by the way, env-econ.net comes up first when I google puerile humor.