Environmental Economics

"Fishermen Can Make Their Catch Count for Red Snapper Fishery with iSnapper"

From the inbox:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: May 31, 2017

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — With the announcement by federal fisheries officials that this summer’s federal recreational Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper season would be the shortest ever at just three days, fishermen are invited to join the effort to collect more robust catch data with the goal of providing a longer season through better science.

By downloading and using iSnapper, a mobile application created by the Center for Sportfish Science and Conservation (CSSC) at the Harte Research Institute (HRI) for Gulf of Mexico Studies, anglers can take an active role in helping to secure the long-term sustainability of this prized Gulf of Mexico fishery.

“Management is currently hindered by the lack of accurate and timely catch data for the private and for-hire recreational fishery,” said Dr. Greg Stunz, HRI Endowed Chair for Fisheries and Ocean Health and Director of the Center for Sportfish Science and Conservation “iSnapper represents an opportunity to improve data collection and recreational access to this fishery.”

The announcement of the three-day federal season, beginning June 1, troubled anglers and coastal community officials who have seen a recovery in the Red Snapper fishery and don’t understand why seasons keep getting shorter. Challenges with collecting accurate fisheries data during the short seasons is a major part of the problem, and iSnapper, available for iOS and Android, was launched in 2015 to give anglers an easy, secure method of reporting their catch, and provide researchers with access to timely, accurate data about what private recreational anglers are catching. ...

Last year, despite some inclement weather at the beginning of the season, a total of 120 fishing trips were entered using iSnapper, with 1,238 Red Snapper reported harvested during the federal season. More than 600 anglers were reported as having fished for Red Snapper, with other popular species caught including King Mackerel and Cobia. ...

The ability to collect timely and accurate catch data from recreational fishermen is a major challenge to fisheries management, which is designed to keep fish populations stable and prevent overfishing that can diminish a species’ population. Because of these problems, the Red Snapper quota for the recreational sector includes a 20 percent buffer to ensure that quota is not exceeded, which would violate federal laws. With more accurate data sourced directly from fishermen in near-real time, this buffer could be reduced or even eliminated, allowing a greater amount of fish to be harvested.

The CSSC previously launched iSnapper as a pilot project with charter for-hire captains in 2011 to see if app technology could provide a faster and more accurate means of reporting catch. That app was an overwhelming success, and this new version of iSnapper opens the door to a much wider audience of recreational fishermen who want to aid in better fisheries management.

For more information visit iSnapper.org or the CSSC’s website, SportfishCenter.org.

Here is the link to the NMFS funded report: http://sportfishcenter.org/sites/default/files/2015_iSnapper_Results.pdf.

Will someone out the economist(s) who is working on the demand model with these data?

In case you have forgotten how much the Paris climate deal might cost the U.S.

Real Time Economics (i.e., WSJ):

Now that officials from the U.S. and nearly 200 other countries have reached a deal in Paris meant to keep global warming at bay, many citizens back home want to know—how much will it cost us?

No one knows for sure, but one estimate from an environmental think tank in Washington pegs the cost as a $170 billion hit to U.S. gross domestic product in 2030, or about 0.7% of the total economic output that year. ...

The idea behind the Paris talks is that all countries have to participate in a United Nations-organized effort to curb emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. To get everyone on board, each country was allowed to develop its own plan, and countries aren’t compelled to meet their targets, which cover the period after 2020.

Few political leaders are interested in ordering up deep, painful cuts to emissions in ways that could unleash high electricity prices, stunt industrial growth or prevent impoverished citizens from clawing their way into the middle class.

So most countries, under pressure from peers as well as domestic critics, settled on cuts likely to cause small to moderate economic pain in the medium term, with the potential for big benefits in the longer term if all the major economies comply and humankind keeps the effects of climate change at bay.

The U.S. pledge is built around President Barack Obama’s “clean power plan,” which focuses on steep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector—mainly coal. The U.S. government estimates the impact of the power rule—issued by the Environmental Protection Agency—at between $28 billion and $39 billion in 2030, or 0.1% to 0.2% of projected GDP.

If the power-plant rule survives court challenges, it could weigh on coal-related jobs, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s economic model finds no appreciable effect on overall employment.

Besides the power-plant rules, the U.S. pledge in the Paris accord relies on regulations mandating more-efficient automobiles and trucks, plus other efforts to stem greenhouse-gas emissions.

In May, the World Resources Institute constructed an economic model that shows the effect of the overall target that the U.S. submitted in Paris, although without the final details of how it’s achieved.

That projection resulted in the $170 billion hit to GDP in 2030, not considering the potential gains from better public health or an improved climate. ...

via blogs.wsj.com

via www.env-econ.net

Daily Demand and Supply: The Sunny Law of Demand

Law of Demand: Prices go down, quantity consumed goes up (and vice-versa) if nothing else changes.

Caveat:  In the real world, everything changes.  So we either need statistical methods to isolate the price effect, or we need to rely on the preponderance of evidence to anecdotally verify the law of demand...like this:

The cost to install solar has dropped by more than 60% over the last 10 years, leading the industry to expand into new markets and deploy thousands of systems nationwide.

U.S. Solar Market Through 2016: Key Takeaways

• 14.8 GW installed in 2016

  • 97% growth in Photovoltaic (PV) market over 2015
  • Largest year on record, surpassing 2015; Q4 2016 largest quarter on record

• Over 42 GW of total solar capacity now installed

  • CAGR of 59% since 2010
  • Generates enough electricity to power 8.3 million homes

• Solar top source of new electric generating capacity installed in 2016

  • Represented 39% of all new electric capacity added to U.S. grid
  • First time solar ranks first; Natural Gas represented 29% and Wind 26%

• Solar prices dropped 29% from Q4 2015 to Q4 2016

  • Price drop is seen across all market segments, led by reduced hardware costs
  • Prices have dropped 67% since 2011
  • Utility-scale PPAs now signed for $0.03 - $0.05/kWh

• In 2016, a new solar installation was completed every 84 seconds

  • Now 1.3 million installations in the U.S.

"$100 carbon tax by 2030 could save climate, say economists"

Does anyone have a link to the "report published Monday"?

Economists say countries should ramp up the price of carbon emissions to as much as $100 per metric ton by 2030 to stop catastrophic global warming.

Experts including Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern say carbon dioxide should be taxed at $40-$80 per ton by 2020.

They say prices should rise to $50-$100 by 2030 to give businesses and governments an incentive to lower emissions even when fossil fuels are cheap.

In a report published Monday, they suggest poor countries could aim for a lower tax since their economies are more vulnerable.

The Trump administration has rejected calls to introduce a carbon tax in the United States, saying it would cost jobs.

European Union carbon prices stand at just under $6 per ton. 

via www.bostonherald.com

Update: here is the link for the report: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/report-of-the-highlevel-commission-on-carbon-prices/

"Ninety-Five Regulatory Experts Express Concerns about Trump Administration Reforms"

Joshua Linn and Alan Krupnick:

Many economists and other professionals looked on in dismay when President Trump issued executive orders and supporting guidance documents that appear to target regulations for elimination based primarily on their costs rather than a balanced assessment that includes benefits.

Accordingly, we joined 93 economists and lawyers in signing a letter to high-ranking officials of the Trump administration, including Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who issued the orders and guidance and is responsible for monitoring and enforcing them.

The plain wording of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 and the related guidance places an outsized focus on regulatory costs—but we hope, as some have suggested, that is not what the administration intends. The letter explains these concerns and offers constructive suggestions for improving regulatory analysis and implementation. The views expressed by the signatories are their own and should not be their attributed to their respective institutions.

We urge the Trump administration to take this letter seriously and act accordingly.

Read the full letter including signatories [here].

Only 95? I suspect that if they had asked they could have gotten at least 100 to sign. Triple digits, think about it.

Things Indiana Jones and I have in common...

...we're both college professors, and we both hate snakes:

Get ready to update your nightmares.

A scientist from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville has discovered that a species of snake, the Cuban boa, hunts in groups, and through teamwork improve their chances of catching prey.

It's the first time that reptiles have been observed to have been involved in "coordinated hunting," where individual animals take into account the location of others of the same species to maximize their hunting successes.

I may never sleep again.

 

How to fail economics at Harvard (updated)

Professor Emeritus at Harvard, and former chief economist at the World Bank, former Director of the National Economic Council, and former Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers says he might fail the Trump budget team in introductory econ:

Details of President Trump’s first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences of what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies.  My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.

Apparently, the budget forecasts that U.S. economic growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the administration’s policies — largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies.  Fair enough if you believe in tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.

Then the administration asserts that it will propose revenue neutral tax cuts with the revenue neutrality coming in part because the tax cuts stimulate growth! This is an elementary double count.  You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.

Update:  For those of you who don't like Larry Summers because...well..this, here is FiveThirtyEight's take on the budget double counting trick:

The White House budget request released Monday double counts $2 trillion. It argues that the same $2,000,000,000,000 can pay for both a $2,000,000,000,000 tax cut and simultaneously a $2,000,000,000,000 budget balance. Using money twice is frowned upon in financial circles. [NBC News] 

This is one of my criticisms of the Exxon & BP funded CVM critique (i.e., I'm being "incredibly unfair")

George Borjas response to @m_clem critique of his anti-immigration study is incredibly unfair. HT @JustinWolfers pic.twitter.com/DLhFSKzzaX

— William Easterly (@bill_easterly) May 23, 2017

Reviewer rant follow-up

From the inbox today:

Dear John:

It has been three weeks since your scores were due for the manuscript entitled [title]. How is it going? We are looking forward to hearing from you.

My reply:

It is #2 on my list of late papers to review. I should be able to finish the review in the next two weeks. If this is unacceptable and you would like to move on to another referee, please let me know.

 

Selfie with another oil industry funded book critically examining CVM, er, stated preference methods