Environmental Economics

I strongly support the bike tax

Jodi Beggs on Virginia's hybrid tax:

In this particular case, the tax revenue would be used to maintain roads, so taxing hybrid owners to make up for them not paying the gas tax is in line with the benefits principle of taxation, but it fails a basic reasonableness criterion of “tax things you want less of and subsidize things you want more of.” ...  I was hoping that this would be an isolated “oops” sort of incident, but apparently North Carolina is looking to follow Virginia’s lead:

Dear North Carolina: You’re doing it wrong. Economically speaking, both Virginia and North Carolina are saying that they want at least some of their residents to switch back from purchasing hybrid cars to purchasing regular gas guzzlers. The most frustrating part is that this makes perfect sense from a self-interest perspective- the state legislature certainly feels a lot more pain from having an increasing budget shortfall than it does from producing some more pollution that everyone else who doesn’t write stupid policy has to deal with. In essence, the externality problem exists not only at the level of individual production and consumption but also at the state regulatory level. 

Go to about 2:17 of the video to get to Colbert's "tip of the hat" to the NC state legislature.

Quote of the day

“Pardon me, Mr. President, but the Constitution says I can emit as much carbon as I want.”

via www.theonion.com

You had me at hello

This is what is going out in Journal of Environmental Management (and some other Elsevier journals) acceptance letters:

When your paper is published on ScienceDirect, you want to make sure it gets the attention it deserves. To help you get your message across, Elsevier has developed a new, free service called AudioSlides: brief, webcast-style presentations that are shown (publicly available) next to your published article. This format gives you the opportunity to explain your research in your own words and attract interest. You will receive an invitation email to create an AudioSlides presentation shortly. For more information and examples, please visit http://www.elsevier.com/audioslides.

This is another attempt by Elsevier to provide something instead of the abstract to get readers attention (did the videos come and go?). It seems gimmicky to me, but maybe I'm getting old and grumpy. I'm not sure if I would ever listen to a five minute summary of the research in the author's droning voice when I can read the abstract (or the annoying* research highlights) in much less time to decide if I need to (try to) read the paper.

Besides, I have Deadspin or Funny or Die videos running on my second monitor nonstop during the workday (does the Pope Center read this blog? ... if so, please note that when I say "workday" I'm referring to the 3+ month period over the spring and summer months when I am technically not under my 9 month contract). 

*Isn't the last thing you want to do when it is time to submit a paper is rewrite the abstract in 3-5 bullet points? And then Elsevier tells you that you can't cut and paste sentences from your abstract. 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

"We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat."

via www.telegraph.co.uk

The quote comes from a Telegraph story explaining that students at a high performing high school in China are claiming it is unfair that they are strictly monitored on their college entrance exams when everyone else in the country is allowed to cheat. 

The title comes from Animal Farm which I just (re)read.  I forgot to go to the library last week and when I finished reading Michael Crichton's Timeline I had no new reading material in the house.  So I picked up my 9th grader's version of Animal Farm.

Poor Boxer.

Prisoner's dilemma?

Nathan Richardson:

Though President Obama is apparently set for a major address on climate tomorrow, US policy faces an uncertain future. EPA is moving haltingly ahead with regulations under the Clean Air Act (and may redouble its efforts after the speech), but some in Congress are pushing to revoke its authority. Others in Congress support new legislation setting a price on carbon (with most recent attention focused on a revenue-neutral carbon tax). While the near future is in EPA’s hands, Congress will—by action or inaction—determine the longer term path for US policy. That path hinges on two decisions. First, will Congress pass new comprehensive legislation, like a carbon tax? And second, will Congress preempt EPA’s authority? These are independent decisions, so there are four possible outcomes:

	EPA authority mostly/wholly preempted	EPA authority mostly left intact
No new climate legislation	1. No U.S. climate policy	2. EPA regulates under the CAA (status quo)
New climate legislation	3. Carbon price supplants EPA regulation	4. Parallel EPA regulation and carbon price

Preemption is a real possibility. Any new climate legislation appears (to us) likely to preempt at least some EPA authority, as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would have done. Removing EPA’s authority without any new policy is also possible, but less likely given the President’s veto. That means two options – the Clean Air Act status quo and a new policy replacing it – appear the most likely outcomes.

In a new paper, Comparing the Clean Air Act and a Carbon Price, we try to evaluate these two pathways. ...

Read the rest at Common Resources.

War is never the answer...proper pricing is

“Everybody is waiting for action,” [Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment] said. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

via www.weeklystandard.com

Phrasing this as a war on coal just puts people on the defensive and creates political backlash.  The issue is not the evils of coal and the maliciousness of those who developed the coal industry over the past 150 years, but rather despite the obvious benefits, the failure to recognize the full social costs of using coal as an energy source, and the inability of markets to incorporate those social costs once they were recognized.  Carbon, sulfur and other emissions from coal burning are classic externalities.  The benefactors (coal industry and consumers of underpriced energy) have no economic incentives to incorporate some of the costs (those borne by others) into their decisions.  Sure you can argue that the coal industry should 'do the right thing' and incorporate those costs, but reality--and rationality--dictate otherwise; without proper incentives, people will act in their own self interests. If you don't believe me, ask yourself if you paid the full social cost of your driving this morning.   The solution here is to recognize, calculate/estimate and develop instruments/policies to incorporate the full social costs of coal and ensure that the market price of coal fully reflects those full social costs. Once that happens, markets will take care of the rest.

 

Pictures of the weekend: part 3 (smells like money)

It must be camp week if I'm driving through Canton, NC and taking a picture of "one of the oldest paper mills in the U.S."

Pictures of the weekend: part 2 (scenic view)

On Saturday I volunteered at the Blood Sweat and Gears rest stop #1. It was at the Grandview Overlook (MP 285) on the Blue Ridge Parkway, 25 miles worth of the 100 mile ride. Later that day we went for a "grueling" 18 mile ride.

Photo credit: Boone Area Cyclists facebook page

Pictures of the weekend: part 1 (law of demand)

Will someone please explain to the CITGO across the street that if the Wilco Charges $3.43/gal then if you change $3.50/gal (click on the picture and you can barely see the higher price), no one is going to buy your gas. Except me ... I was traveling right to left along this road on Friday night and got $10 worth on my way home. I was running on fumes and didn't want to make two left turns on this four lane highway during rush hour. This picture was taken later that weekend when I filled the tank up. 

I just found four more legit comments in spam

So I think I'll try moderated comments for awhile. I don't think you'll need to sign in to comment. If there are any problems please let me know.