Environmental Economics

My Christmas post, only two days late

Modo on Dickens:

In October 1843, he had the idea for “A Christmas Carol.” As Claire Tomalin writes in another new book, “Charles Dickens: A Life,” he told a friend “he had composed it in his head, weeping and laughing and weeping again” as he walked around London at night.

He had visited one of the “ragged schools,” set up in poor parts of London by volunteer teachers to educate homeless, starving and disabled pupils, and the novella, published that December, was his screed about the indifference of the rich toward those less fortunate.

Scrooge gets redeemed from an alternate life as a misanthrope, and Tiny Tim is saved from death. But two “wolfish” children, a boy named Ignorance and a girl named Want, are not rescued, but rather left to haunt readers’ consciences.

We watched the George C. Scott version last week. There was lots of explaining to do about ignorance and want to 7 and 9 year olds. Also last week, we went to the Biltmore for the first time. Again, lots of explaining to do.

I'm going where there's no depression

The No Depression Community's 50 Favorite Albums of 2011:

Below you'll find the final tally of our 2011 community poll, where we asked you - the No Depression community - to vote for your ten favorite albums of 2011. More than 500 albums received votes this year, across about 200 submitted lists. ... Each vote was weighted based on where it fell in the person's list. For example, albums voted in the number one position received ten points; albums voted in the number 10 position received only one point. Albums listed "in no particular order" each received 5.5 points. ...

THE NO DEPRESSION COMMUNITY'S 50 FAVORITE ALBUMS OF 2011

1. Gillian Welch - The Harrow & the Harvest
2. The Decemberists - The King Is dead
3. Wilco - The Whole Love
4. Lucinda Williams - Blessed
5. Steve Cropper - Dedicated
6. Tom Waits - Bad as Me
7. Dave Alvin - Eleven Eleven
8. Zoe Muth & The Lost High Rollers - Starlight Hotel
9. Jason Isbell - Here We Rest
10. Ryan Adams - Ashes & Fire
11. ...

via www.nodepression.com

Here is the link to the list I submitted (now I remember my other honorable mention: Tara Nevins - Wood and Stone. I listened to it driving home last night and it should have made my top 10). Five of my ten made the top 50 and I've never heard of more than half of the artists. I'm slipping.

Here is my favorite comment on the blog:

So Steve Earle's album didn't make the community top 50.   It didn't make my top ten or my honorable mentions, but I definitely liked it.  I'm somewhat surprised he didn't get enough votes,  given his higher profile and I think he put out a pretty good album.  Just a curious observation.

In other words: "I'm really surprised that people didn't like Steve Earle's album more than I did. What's wrong with you people? Just a curious observation."

 

Something good from Krugman this morning

Without the politics:

Here’s what I wanted for Christmas: something that would make us both healthier and richer. And since I was just making a wish, why not ask that Americans get smarter, too? ...

Surprise: I got my wish, in the form of new Environmental Protection Agency standards on mercury and air toxics for power plants. These rules are long overdue: we were supposed to start regulating mercury more than 20 years ago. But the rules are finally here, and will deliver huge benefits at only modest cost. ...

As far as I can tell, even opponents of environmental regulation admit that mercury is nasty stuff. It’s a potent neurotoxicant: the expression “mad as a hatter” emerged in the 19th century because hat makers of the time treated fur with mercury compounds, and often suffered nerve and mental damage as a result.

Hat makers no longer use mercury (and who wears hats these days?), but a lot of mercury gets into the atmosphere from old coal-burning power plants that lack modern pollution controls. From there it gets into the water, where microbes turn it into methylmercury, which builds up in fish. And what happens then? The E.P.A. explains: “Methylmercury exposure is a particular concern for women of childbearing age, unborn babies and young children, because studies have linked high levels of methylmercury to damage to the developing nervous system, which can impair children’s ability to think and learn.”

That sort of sounds like something we should regulate, doesn’t it?

The new rules would also have the effect of reducing fine particle pollution, which is a known source of many health problems, from asthma to heart attacks. In fact, the benefits of reduced fine particle pollution account for most of the quantifiable gains from the new rules. The key word here is “quantifiable”: E.P.A.’s cost-benefit analysis only considers one benefit of mercury regulation, the reduced loss in future wages for children whose I.Q.’s are damaged by eating fish caught by freshwater anglers. There are without doubt many other benefits to cutting mercury emissions, but at this point the agency doesn’t know how to put a dollar figure on those benefits.

Even so, the payoff to the new rules is huge: up to $90 billion a year in benefits compared with around $10 billion a year of costs in the form of slightly higher electricity prices. This is, as David Roberts of Grist says, a very big deal.

via www.nytimes.com

Unintended consequences

I don't think this is what Yoram was hoping for with his NYTimes piece:

For background on this, see here and note that my 2nd comment was deleted. I have attempted to “revise and resubmit” my comment, but I am also reposting my original comment here, as well as the “revise and resubmit” comment.

via www.standupeconomist.com

I've read all of the comments on the Econlib post and the Steve Landsburg post. I generally agree with the criticism, that the two charities weren't necessarily the best ones to test whether economics students are selfish (i.e., make donations with less frequency than non-economics students). One of the charities is "left-leaning" while the other lobbies for reduced tuition. Economics students may be less inclined to donate to the first charity if they are less likely to favor left-leaning policy and less likely to donate to the second if they are less likely to favor income redistribution to themselves and their parents. It may not have anything to do with being Grinches (I tried to make this point in my first post, but got lazy and deleted what I was unable to adequately say).

However, the commentors assume these ant-left preferences by the U of Washington students. Bu it seems their preferences is the missing piece of the research. This is especially true given (a) Washington is a liberal state and (b) the evidence concerning economist and economics student "selfish" behavior that Yoram describes (note that I haven't read any of these papers). Yoram's research seems to be a contribution to this area that raises further issues -- much like most other economics research articles -- and not "idiotic" as described by Landsburg (although, the descriptor might be intended for attaching to the NYTimes piece and not the JEBO article).

One thing that troubles me is the unnecessary harshness of the commenters (which adds meaning to Landsburg's post title). Yoram's deleted comment doesn't come close to some of the anti-Yoram remarks. Also, most of that stuff is from anonymous tough guys. I'm not a fan of harsh comments from anonymous tough guys (or gals, but the pseudonyms are masculine).

But what most troubles me is that someone calling themselves JohnW says this as, I can only imagine, an ignorant putdown:

What is an “environmental economist” anyway?

I'm wondering who is this JohnW anyway? Please be sure that it is not me since I don't leave anonymous comments.

More infuriating, the anonymous cosmologist says this:

Maybe the problem is that Yoram Bauman is described in the NYT as “an environmental economist”. That sounds a bit like an astrological astronomer, or a homeopathic doctor.

Someone calling themselves the "anonymous cosmologist" is dogging environmental economists?

Finally, someone who bravely comments with first name, last name and link to homepage comes to the rescue:

Anon cosmoslogist et al: Its nothing to do with being an environmental economist! I’m an “environmental economist” (i.e. an economist interested in the environment, among other things*) and I agree with Steve (though I haven’t read the original paper) – indeed, I tweeted much the same thing days back.

Just when you thought it might be safe to go to the Outer Banks

Here is some background. If what the coastal retreat advocates predict comes true, this could be a mess:

But at the suggestion of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist, the group agreed to consider a new idea: a seven-mile-long bridge that would veer west from N.C. 12 just north of a new inlet created in August by Hurricane Irene, curving across Pamlico Sound and hooking back into the highway in the village of Rodanthe. ...

Julie Youngman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said environmental regulators had rejected DOT's options for N.C. 12 a few years ago, when they were broached in connection with a contract to replace the Oregon Inlet bridge, which was awarded in July.

The proposed bridges for vulnerable sections of the road will effectively move N.C. 12 into the ocean in coming decades, as the barrier island migrates in the other direction, she said. ...

Stanley R. Riggs, a coastal geologist who published a book this year on North Carolina's barrier islands, said the bridges would stabilize parts of N.C. 12 for a few years, but at a high cost. Other sections of the island also are vulnerable to heavy storm damage, he said.

"The question comes up as to whether a road-and-bridge system can even begin to survive for the time they're talking about, without breaking the state," said Riggs, an East Carolina University professor. "The feds don't have enough money to keep that road in place.

"You spend all that money on two bridges - and then an inlet opens up just a few miles down, where you don't have bridges. The shoreline continues to move west. You do not want a bridge in the surf zone, and it will be in the surf zone."

via www.newsobserver.com

Green vs green

From an article titled "Doubts fly over wind farm." Get it? Doubts fly? It's like birds can, like, literally, fly but in this case it is doubts about the net benefits of a wind farm:

The study is intended to determine the risk of erecting wind turbines, measuring nearly 500 feet tall, to visiting tundra swans and other migrating waterfowl that fly in the area to forage during the winter.

Duke University ecology professor Dan Richter, who also attended Tuesday's meeting, expressed skepticism that a study can resolve anything. Richter doubts the independence and reliability of bird counts financed by a company with a vested interest in the outcome.

Richter said the raw numbers of a bird count won't predict whether migrating birds would fly into the whirling blades, or whether they would avoid the turbines and fly elsewhere in search of food. Richter, along with some state and federal wildlife officials, say the unknowns involved in putting wind turbines near the Pocosin Lakes Wildlife Refuge don't justify the benefits of a wind farm's emissions-free electricity.

I teach my students that we should conduct benefit-cost analysis, not benefit-unknown analysis. In addition to counting the birds, I recommend valuation of those counts.

My posts are about to become temporarily sporadic(er)

I know my posts have been sporadic lately.  More concerning, they have been unenvironmental, uneconomic, unalcoholic and unfunny.  I'm hoping that's about to change.  I'm going to be on vacation field assignment until the New Year.  I'm hoping to recharge my blogging senses and regain the funny that The Academy has beaten from me over the past year. If something strikes me as post-worthy while I'm away, I will be sure to post. 

If not, it will be just like any other recent week.

Happy holidays to all, and to all a goodnight.

 

 

We heart math

In a year when much of the criticism directed towards the economics profession was that it is too quantitative ...

The American Economic Association, in a report released just ahead of its annual meeting next month, says the total number of jobs for economics Ph.D.’s is almost the same this year as it was in 2010. However, jobs in academe make up a greater share of available openings than the year before. In 2011 the association listed 2,836 jobs—a decline of only six positions from 2010. The number of academic positions, which make up 69 percent of the jobs listed with the association, increased to 1,948 in 2011, from 1,884 in 2010. Nonacademic positions fell 7 percent, to 888, in 2011. The most popular field: mathematical and quantitative methods.

Source: chronicle.com

Economists Are Grinches?

The Stand-up Economist at the NY Times*:

My recent research with the economist Elaina Rose, published in August in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, has looked at a real-life public goods situation faced by students at the University of Washington. During our study period (1999 to 2002), when students went online to register for classes each quarter, they were asked if they wanted to donate $3 to support WashPIRG, a left-leaning activist group. Students were also asked if they wanted to donate $3 to Affordable Tuition Now (ATN), a group that lobbied for “sensible tuition rates, quality financial aid and adequate funding.”

You may question whether these groups actually serve the common good, but that’s mostly beside the point. Regardless of the groups’ actual social value, a purely self-interested individual would choose to free-ride rather than contribute; after all, a single $3 donation is not going to make a noticeable difference in tuition rates. ...

Yoram goes on to explain their findings: economics students are less likely to donate (after disentangling the nature versus nurture complication -- click the SUE link above for more substantive comments). And concludes:

Our research suggests that economics education could do a better job of providing balance. Learning about the shortcomings as well as the successes of free markets is at the heart of any good economics education, and students — especially those who are not destined to major in the field — deserve to hear both sides of the story.

This is something that has been puzzling me. Do rank and file economists really overlook market failure when teaching micro principles? I certainty don't (obviously, given the title of this blog), and I don't know anyone who does (my favorite line is "the invisible hand works really well ... except when it doesn't"). Why does this seem to be a problem with economics education these days? And please don't cite Inside Job, because that is a completely different problem.

*I didn't think Yoram's piece was very funny.

There is an environmental economics lesson in here somewhere

The Comics Curmudgeon:

Just beneath the corny wackiness of Beetle Bailey is of course a constant undercurrent of brutal violence, but I’ve never seen it quite so explicit as it is today. We see Camp Swampy as a set of mutually hostile fiefdoms, whose simmering resentment towards each other could escalate to open carnage based on the most minor of disputes, with little that the camp commanders can do to restrain their nominal underlings. The final panel is particularly harrowing: Sarge, still so keyed up that he probably can’t even feel those visible bruises yet, stalking off wide-eyed from the mangled corpse of his rival, which he’s left among the strewn garbage and its stink lines.

Something about common property resources, I think.