Environmental Economics

"Poll: Voters would support 10-cent gas tax hike"

The Hill:

A majority of voters would support a 10-cent increase in the federal gas tax if the money is used for specific transportation improvements, according to a new poll released on Wednesday. 

The poll, which was conducted by the San Jose, Calif. Mineta Transportation Institute, found that 71 percent of voters would be willing to pay a dime more than the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax if the money is spent on “projects to maintain streets, roads, and highways.” 

Another 64 percent would support a 10-cent gas tax hike if the money is spent on “projects to reduce accidents and improve safety,” while 59 percent said they would approve of the increase if it was used to pay for “projects to add modern, technological systems.” 

By contrast, the poll found only 31 percent would support a 10-cent gas tax with no additional qualifiers. 

The director of the study said the findings show voters are willing to support a gas tax increase if they can be assured the money will be used to pay for transportation projects. 

via thehill.com

For every 10,000 miles in a 20 mpg car you buy 500 gallons of gas. If $0.09 per gallon is passed on to consumers then the total cost would be about $45.

Quote of the Day: I think John needs to measure the economic impact

Jose Abreu yells "I got it'' and not "yo lo tengo'' when there's a popup. We now know that for certain

via espn.go.com

The Baltimore Orioles are currently playing a game in front of no one.

"California Governor Orders New Target for Emissions Cuts"

One feature of economic incentive-based environmental policy is that it is possible to achieve (1) a given amount of emissions reductions at lower cost and/or (2) additional emissions reductions at the same cost relative to environmental standards (i.e., command and control regulation):

Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order Wednesday dramatically ramping up this state’s already ambitious program aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was critical to address what he called “an ever-growing threat” posed by global warming to the state’s economy and well-being.

Under Mr. Brown’s order, emissions would have to be reduced by 40 percent over 1990 levels by 2030. Under existing state law, emissions are supposed to be cut back by 80 percent over 1990 levels by 2050, and Mr. Brown said this tough new interim target was essential to helping the state make investment and regulatory decisions that will assure that goal is reached.

Mr. Brown’s order marks an aggressive turn in what had already been among the toughest programs in the nation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the law put into place by Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state was required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 on the way to reach the 2050 target; California is already well on its way to meeting the 2020 goal, and may exceed it, officials said Wednesday.

Unless I'm told otherwise, I'm attributing California's ability achieve additional emissions reductions to cap-and-trade. 

New journal rankings from RESECON

From the RESECON listserv:

Dear Colleagues:

Attached please find a table of the informal (and unscientific) survey I conducted of RESECON members asking them to rank professional journals in natural resource and environmental economics. 

In the spirit of importance-significance analysis, I asked for journals to be ranked based on both the significance of the journal and the importance of the articles published.  For the purposes of the survey, the "significance" of a journal was defined as the professional prestige of the journal.  The "importance" of a journal was defined as the practical value to society of articles published.  Thus, based on these definitions, a journal could have a high significance level (e.g., professionals consider the journal highly prestigious) but have a low importance level (e.g., professionals consider the articles published to have low practical value), and vice-versa.

Here is the survey question:

Based on the significance and importance of the journal as defined above and where you can weight these two factors however you deem best, please provide your ranking from 1 to 5 (where 1 is the best) of what you consider to be the five (5) top-tier professional journals in the natural resource and environmental economics field: 

To summarize the results of the survey, journals receiving the most first place votes included, in descending order: 1) JEEM; 2) JAERE; 3) Ecol Econ; 4) Environ and Res Econ (ERE); and 5) Marine Policy. 

I also assigned points for #1 through #5 votes (see table) and calculated total points for each journal.  Journals with the most total points included, in descending order: 1) JEEM; 2) JAERE; 3) Environ and Res Econ (ERE); 4) Land Econ; and 5) AJAE. 

Thank you very much for supporting the survey and I hope you find the results interesting and useful.

Best,  John Bergstrom.

Here is the list that I sent to John B. (my explanation is here):

1. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
2. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
3. Environmental and Resource Economics
4. Land Economics
5. Resource and Energy Economics

Here are the top 12 environmental and resource economics journals from RESECON:

Comments:

1. My top 4 are RESECON's top 4. I like REE better than AJAE and Ecol Econ.
2. I would rank MRE ahead of JEM (I've been associate editor at both).
3. Who ranked the Australian JARE #2? I'm more than happy to read a paper from that journal but it is third tier for environmental and resource economics journals, not #2.
4. I deleted Marine Policy and Energy Journal, which I don't consider to be economics journals. I would have also deleted JEM except for #2 on my comments list.
5. Everything else got very few votes or I dropped it because it is not an economics journal.

John B.'s full list is here: Download RESOURCE ECON Journal Ranking Survey.

Andy Keeler: A modest proposal for the extension of nonmarket valuation methods

From the miscellany section of Economic Inquiry:

Welfare economics must adapt to the growing consensus over the assignment of rights to animals. We extend nonmarket valuation techniques to the study and measurement of the preferences of Chinook salmon regarding their aquatic habitat and the value of their existence. We find that these techniques are as valid for fish as they are for humans. Our applied study indicates that opportunities exist for Pareto-improving trades between salmon and California agricultural and hydropower interests. (JEL Q510)

via onlinelibrary.wiley.com

A read this awhile back and am off-campus right now so I can't pull up the PDF. If I remember correctly, this is a travel cost (or hedonic) analysis of salmon behavior.

I expect that it will make an appearance on many graduate level reading lists.

The New York Times should not be allowed to corrupt the mind of high schoolers

Second Oldest Daughter of Env-Econ sent me a text informing me that Env-Econ is blocked by her high school's internet-tubes filter.  She thinks it is probably because of headlines like this*.  That was taken from a quote in the New York Times.  Does the high school censor the New York Times too?

*It might also have something to do with Friday Beer Posts.

Word of the day: 'Catastro-f***'

The IPCC expects a 5-degree world to be characterized by "major extinctions around the globe" and a "reconfiguration of coastlines worldwide." Just beyond that, at 6 degrees, we're looking a "catastro-f***" that would be almost "infinitely costly," said [Gernot Wagner], the Environmental Defense Fund economist [and sporadic contributor to Env-Econ]. "It's akin to killing the planet, basically. Or society on the planet."

via www.cnn.com

PhD Comics: How to write an e-mail to your instructor or T.A.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1795

An interview with an environmental economist

What got you interested in environmental economics?

• As an undergraduate I had an interest in both economics and environmentalism. The field of environmental economics seemed to merge the two interests. 

What specific training did it require?

• I did four years of graduate school to get a PhD in economics. This included 2.5 years of course work and 1.5 years of dissertation work. 

What was the most difficult part of your training? How did you get through it?

• The coursework was rigorous and writing the dissertation was a challenge. A dissertation requires an original idea and a lot of work.

How long have you been in the field?

• 26 years

What role does writing play in the field? What kinds of writing do you do?

• Writing is very important for an academic economist. I write a blog (www.env-econ.net), research papers and tons of emails that readers need to be able to understand. 

How do you communicate with your coworkers?

• Mostly by email. 

How much do you enjoy writing in your field?

• I enjoy writing very much, especially the blog.

How do you keep up with the latest studies in your field?

• In the old days I browsed journals in the library and photocopied the relevant articles. This took a long time and I still missed a lot of important work. These days, I search Google Scholar and the most relevant research papers are available on my desktop computer in a few minutes. 

What texts influenced you or that you consider important in your field?

• These three books were important in graduate school and they are still on my shelf. 
• Nicholson, Walter. Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions, 1985.
• Smith, V. Kerry. Environmental policy under Reagan's executive order: The role of benefit-cost analysis. 1984.
• Cummings, Ronald G., David S. Brookshire, and William D. Schulze. Valuing public goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method." 1986.

What kind of hardships have you encountered in your job?

• It took me a long time to learn how to teach (somewhat) effectively. Also, I’ve been department chair at a UNC system institution during (a) the Great Recession (slow wage growth and reduced department budgets) and (b) a philosophical change about higher education in NC. Both of these have caused low morale amongst UNC system faculty. 
• Working towards getting tenure was not always a pleasant experience. The phrase “publish or perish” is no joke. 

What do you love about your job? What do you dislike about it?

• I love working with students, especially when they are doing research or when they exhibit something other than a strong dislike of economics. I love doing my own research, especially when one of my papers “hits” a good journal. I dislike the paperwork and daily avalanche of email that comes with being department chair. 

What are the misconceptions people have about your field?

• One misconception about environmental economists is from the Wall Street Journal: "The right wing always suspects you of being a tree-hugging environmentalist and the left wing accuses you of being a money-grubbing capitalist." Source: Abboud, Leila, “Economist Strikes Gold In Climate-Change Fight,” Wall Street Journal

Take me through a typical day, week, project.

• Monday: Scramble to get ready for class. Teach from 11-12. Get ready for the rest of the classes that week.
• Tuesday: Get to work excited about doing research. Answer emails, go to meetings, talk to students. End up not working on research.
• Wednesday: Scramble to get ready for class. Teach from 11-12. Work on research. 
• Thursday: Get to work excited about doing research. Answer emails, go to meetings, talk to students. End up not working on research.
• Friday: Get to work excited about doing research. Work on research. Teach from 11-12. Attend our department seminar from 2-3:30. Go to the Boone Saloon with the speaker. 

Who would you consider a mentor for you? Who influenced or inspired you?

• My professor and dissertation advisor: Glenn Blomquist, Department of Economics, University of Kentucky. 

How did you choose the specialization of environmental economics?

• I had an interest in both economics and environmentalism. The field of environmental economics seemed to merge the two interests. Luckily, the methods of analysis fit my abilities and I was able to find a niche in this specialized field. 

Do you feel the need is growing for environmental economists? If so, how should we cater to this need?

• The need for environmental economists is growing with population growth and other factors that put pressure on the environment. The labor market for environmental economists likely has provided the correct signals to encourage people to go into the field.

TBT: The second Earth Day post at this blog (9 years ago today)

Mark Thoma (who is now relatively famous for his Economist's View blog)

The House Resources Committee celebrates Earth Day:

On Earth Day website, House Republican Committee seeks to 'dispel environmental myths', by John Byrne, Raw Story: On a little-noticed inside page of the House Resources Committee website, the Republican majority staff have prepared a folio celebrating Earth Day. The focus of the site ... is aimed at dispelling the "'sky is falling' sensationalism of environmental activists [that] lead people to falsely believe that our environment is getting worse when it's actually getting better."

The site is cleanly designed and professional, conveying the "soft" aesthetic that has become a hallmark of the environmental movement. It begins in a nonpartisan fashion: "Earth Day is an opportunity for all Americans to educate themselves on the state of our environment, and to pitch-in in their local communities to make them better."

But from there it becomes clearly partisan, ... attacking those who would have Americans believe anything is wrong with the environment in the United States. There is no mention of global warming or climate change anywhere on the site.

A section titled "big business" -- which some might mistakenly imagine detailing the role of big business in environmental change, or even praising big business' role in helping the environment -- is instead dedicated to detailing the budgets of the largest environmental organizations and accusing them of spending money on themselves rather than on the environment. ...

The House Resources' Committee website also includes a page which breaks down "environmental myths."

The top five myths are 1) "Economic growth harms the environment," 2) "Emissions are devastating America's air quality," 3) "The evils of oil can easily be replaced with renewable energy," 4) "Humans will die of thirst, in the future we will have no more freshwater [sic]," 5) "America is losing its last pristine forest lands," 6) "40,000 species go extinct every year."

The facts?

• "The more wealth a nation has, the better its environmental performance."
• "Air quality has improved dramatically and is getting better all the time."
• "Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy."
• "We have plenty of freshwater, the issue is access to it."
• "Forest acreage is increasing."
• (On species extinction) "This is a 'hazarded guess' not based on fact."

...House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has long been in the crosshairs of the environmental movement. Critics accusePombo of weakening the Endangered Species Act, seeking to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer U.S. continental shelf to oil drilling, selling off national parks, and modifying mining laws to allow public lands to be transfered to private companies. Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have targeted his California congressional race in November.

The full taxpayer-funded site can be found here.

via www.env-econ.net

The House Resources Committee celebrates Earth Day:

On Earth Day website, House Republican Committee seeks to 'dispel environmental myths', by John Byrne, Raw Story: On a little-noticed inside page of the House Resources Committee website, the Republican majority staff have prepared a folio celebrating Earth Day. The focus of the site ... is aimed at dispelling the "'sky is falling' sensationalism of environmental activists [that] lead people to falsely believe that our environment is getting worse when it's actually getting better."

The site is cleanly designed and professional, conveying the "soft" aesthetic that has become a hallmark of the environmental movement. It begins in a nonpartisan fashion: "Earth Day is an opportunity for all Americans to educate themselves on the state of our environment, and to pitch-in in their local communities to make them better."

But from there it becomes clearly partisan, ... attacking those who would have Americans believe anything is wrong with the environment in the United States. There is no mention of global warming or climate change anywhere on the site.

A section titled "big business" -- which some might mistakenly imagine detailing the role of big business in environmental change, or even praising big business' role in helping the environment -- is instead dedicated to detailing the budgets of the largest environmental organizations and accusing them of spending money on themselves rather than on the environment. ...

The House Resources' Committee website also includes a page which breaks down "environmental myths."

The top five myths are 1) "Economic growth harms the environment," 2) "Emissions are devastating America's air quality," 3) "The evils of oil can easily be replaced with renewable energy," 4) "Humans will die of thirst, in the future we will have no more freshwater [sic]," 5) "America is losing its last pristine forest lands," 6) "40,000 species go extinct every year."

The facts?

• "The more wealth a nation has, the better its environmental performance."
• "Air quality has improved dramatically and is getting better all the time."
• "Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy."
• "We have plenty of freshwater, the issue is access to it."
• "Forest acreage is increasing."
• (On species extinction) "This is a 'hazarded guess' not based on fact."

...House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has long been in the crosshairs of the environmental movement. Critics accusePombo of weakening the Endangered Species Act, seeking to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer U.S. continental shelf to oil drilling, selling off national parks, and modifying mining laws to allow public lands to be transfered to private companies. Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have targeted his California congressional race in November.

The full taxpayer-funded site can be found here.