Environmental Economics

"Marty Weitzman, In Memoriam"

Gernot Wagner:

Weitzman the scholar will be remembered for many towering intellectual achievements. Marty the teacher, colleague, and friend will live on in our hearts, as generous with his time and devoted to making life better for all. Marty Weitzman the person would have loved nothing more than for his insights to rattle the status quo and to spark debates that will undoubtedly continue for years to come.

via www.resourcesmag.org

Martin Weitzman: 1942 - 2019

Here is his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Weitzman.

And here is Rob Stavins on twitter:

It is painful for me to convey the sad news that my Harvard colleague, mentor, and friend, Marty Weitzman, died unexpectedly yesterday. Many tributes will be forthcoming, but as a memory for now, here is a related essay I wrote last year: https://t.co/mdfXvCi7tN

— Robert N. Stavins (@RobertStavins) August 28, 2019

Here are a few old posts:

1. EconTalk Podcast: Martin Weitzman on Climate Change 
2. Weitzman on climate change
3. Two economists walk into a bar

He is the top-ranked author in the field of environmental economics: https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.env.html#authors

What is the effect of self-citations on the rankings of economists?

From the inbox (Data is Plural 2019.08.28 edition):

Citations and self-citations. A team led by meta-research pioneer John Ioannidis has developed a dataset of citation metrics for science’s 100,000 most-cited authors. The dataset includes each author’s name, institutional affiliation, number of publications, total citations, “h-index,” and more. For each citation metric, there’s a second version that excludes self-citations. Related: “Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database” (Nature).

So, of course, I went down that rabbit hole and haven't gotten much else done today. The Nature article begins like this:

The world’s most-cited researchers, according to newly released data, are a curiously eclectic bunch. Nobel laureates and eminent polymaths rub shoulders with less familiar names, such as Sundarapandian Vaidyanathan from Chennai in India. What leaps out about Vaidyanathan and hundreds of other researchers is that many of the citations to their work come from their own papers, or from those of their co-authors.

First, I wondered if there were any economists is these data. The answer is yes. Ioannidis et al. (2016) use Scopus and have the researchers categorized in 176 fields. These fields include 'agricultural economics & policy', 'econometrics', 'economics' and 'economic theory'. There are field ('name1') and subfield ('name2') columns in the data. In the Ioannidis et al. (2019) data there are n=949 scientists that include one of these key words in name1 and n=802 include one of these key words in name2. There are n=1401 scientists researchers in the full data (n=105,000 in the 2018 spreadsheet) who have economics in name1 or name2 (this is my broad definition of economist -- some are obviously not really economists but I've left them in the data). Of these 1401 economists, 350 have one of these key words in both name1 and name2. 

The Tukey's Hinges on 'self-citation percentage' are 2.35% (25^th percentile) and 8.06% (75^th percentile). The top five self-citers have percentages of 28%, 28%, 35%, 46% and a whopping 79%. Here is the box and whisker plot (click the image for a larger version):

Here is another visual aid with 'self-citation percentage' on the vertical axis (click the image for a larger version):

 

Considering the rankings (from the 2019 article): 

Here, we used Scopus data to compile a database of the 100,000 most-cited authors across all scientific fields based on their ranking of a composite indicator that considers six citation metrics (total citations; Hirsch h-index; coauthorship-adjusted Schreiber hm-index; number of citations to papers as single author; number of citations to papers as single or first author; and number of citations to papers as single, first, or last author)

The top 10 economists in these data are:

1. Ostrom, Elinor
2. Acemoglu, Daron
3. Teece, David J.
4. Fama, Eugene F.
5. Heckman, James J.
6. Porter, Michael E.
7. Shleifer, Andrei
8. Stiglitz, Joseph E.
9. Camerer, Colin F.
10. Folke, Carl

None of these folks have self-citation percentages outside of the Tukey's Hinges. 

There is a 98% correlation between the economist rankings with and without self-citations within the sample of n=1401. But, it is still possible to increase your ranking with self-citations. For example, the economist with 79% self-citations is ranked 702^nd including self-citations but last (1401^st) once self-citations are taken out. The top 5 economists who have influenced their rankings with self-citations have moved up 334, 334, 427, 699 and 787 spots. Tukey's Hinges for the gain in ranking are -37 (25^th percentile) and 18 (75^th percentile). The 90^th percentile is 74 and the 95^th percentile is a 130 unit gain in rankings. Here is the histogram (click the image for a larger version): 

A regression of the ranking excluding self-citations on rankings including self-citations has a slope of 0.98 (see the correlation above) with a standard error of 0.005. The 90% confidence interval does not include 1. The constant is 11 with a 90% confidence interval of 4.84, 15.7. This is the estimate of (something like) the mean of the gain in rankings from self-citations. 

Here is the graph (click on the image for a larger version):

The variable on the vertical axis is the ranking without self-citations. The variable on the horizontal axis is the ranking with self-citations. All of the dots above the line are economists that have increased their ranking with self-citations. Of course, some of these increased rankings are trivial (especially considering that all self-citations aren't flagrant, e.g., when your n+1^st paper builds on your n^th paper). The standardized residual ranges from -1.64 to 10.9 so there are statistical outliers in the dots above the line. I count 27 cases with a standardized residual greater than 3. These economists might be my list of the most egregious self-citers. Their average rank without self-citations is 1189 (out of 1401). With self-citations their ranking is 880. Note that 8 of these 27 do not have a field of economics (economics, ag econ, metrics and theory) in name1 and only 8 have a field of economics in both name1 and name2. In other words, there may be more non-economists in this list of egregious self-citers than at first glance/a. 

a/Some other day I might take a closer look at the sample. 

References

Ioannidis, John P.A. ; Baas, Jeroen; Klavans, Richard; Boyack, Kevin (2019), “Supplementary data tables for "A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field" (PLoS Biology 2019)”, Mendeley Data, v1
http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.1

Ioannidis JPA, Baas J, Klavans R, Boyack KW (2019) A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLOS Biology 17(8): e3000384.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384

Ioannidis JP, Klavans R, Boyack KW (2016) Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines. PLOS Biology 14(7): e1002501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501

AAA: "National gas price average for Labor Day on track to be cheapest in three years.

Something good is coming out of the trade war (if you think lower gas prices that might lead to more driving is a good thing):

At $2.59, the national gas price average is poised to be potentially the cheapest Labor Day weekend average in three years. Today’s average is already nearly a quarter cheaper than during last year’s holiday ($2.83) and four cents cheaper than 2017’s Labor Day ($2.63).

...

At the close of Friday’s formal trading session on the NYMEX, WTI decreased by $1.15 to settle at $54.17. Crude prices strengthened after the EIA revealed that total domestic crude inventories fell by 2.7 million bbl. Then on Friday, crude oil prices took a downward turn as a result of continued trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Reuters reported that oil prices fell more than 2% on Friday after China unveiled retaliatory tariffs against $75 billion worth of U.S. goods. In response, President Trump tweeted that he would raise tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods from 25 to 30 percent on October 1. He also added that a tariff announced earlier this year and scheduled to go into effect on September 1 would now be raised to 15 percent. Market watchers will keep a close eye on U.S.-China trade talks and the impact increasing tariff costs could have on global crude oil demand. If the trade tension between the countries continues, crude prices will likely decline further.

via gasprices.aaa.com

Cathy Kling: Polluting Farmers Should Pay

The subtitle is "Fertilizer runoff is making us sick. States can step in to regulate farmers." It's interesting that we're hoping states, not the federal government, will do the dirty work of telling farmers that they are making people sick. 

Here is the end of the article: 

Differential treatment of agricultural polluters cannot continue. Requiring polluters to pay has been the backbone of substantial and persistent water quality gains in other sectors. Yes, such measures will raise the cost of meat, dairy and grain products, they will result in lost exports (though fewer than in our current trade war), and they will affect some farmers’ bottom lines. But without them, costs will continue to fall on families returning from a day at the beach with stomach aches, on households whose members unknowingly drink contaminated water, on pet owners whose animals suffer the effects of toxic water and on consumers who must pay for bottled drinking water.

Voluntary adoption is a flawed policy. To achieve swimmable and fishable water for all Americans, we must go beyond it.

This is the basic message from the theory of the negative externality that is ((I hope) covered in every sophomore level principles of micro course ever taught. One way to make farmers pay is a pollution tax and another is water quality trading (cap-and-trade). Farms have been involved with water quality trading for a long time as a low cost alternative to point source dischargers. For example, a regulated factory would be encouraged to purchase a pollution permit from a farmer who reduces pollution in lower cost ways. All it would take to expand this sort of program would be to cap nonpoint source pollution (i.e., agriculture).

Follow the bouncing ball of ethanol policy

I'm just going to leave this here. I have no idea where to start...

 POET announced today it will idle production at its bioprocessing facility in Cloverdale, IN due to recent decisions by the Administration regarding SREs. The process to idle the plant will take several weeks, after which the plant will cease processing of over 30 million bushels of corn annually and hundreds of local jobs will be impacted.

POET has reduced production at half of its biorefineries, with the largest drops taking place in Iowa and Ohio. As a result, numerous jobs will be consolidated across POET’s 28 biorefineries and corn processing will drop by an additional 100 million bushels across Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Missouri.

“The Renewable Fuel Standard was designed to increase the use of clean, renewable biofuels and generate grain demand for farmers. Our industry invested billions of dollars based on the belief that oil could not restrict access to the market and EPA would stand behind the intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Unfortunately, the oil industry is manipulating the EPA and is now using the RFS to destroy demand for biofuels, reducing the price of commodities and gutting rural economies in the process,” said POET Chairman and CEO, Jeff Broin.

The RFS authorizes small refinery exemptions for refiners that (1) process less than 75,000 barrels of petroleum a day and (2) demonstrate “disproportionate economic hardship.” Over the past two years, the EPA has issued waivers to refineries owned by ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other large oil companies—none of which are small and none of which have economic hardship. 

EPA’s mismanagement of SREs has created an artificial cap on domestic demand for ethanol and driven RIN values to near-zero, which weakens the incentive for retailers to offer higher blends. Oil is making billions of dollars, yet still using EPA to stop biofuels growth by handing out hardship waivers to some of the wealthiest companies in the world, in contradiction with President Trump’s public comments. So far, the EPA has cut biofuels demand by 4 billion gallons and reduced demand for corn by 1.4 billion bushels, causing severe damage in rural America. 

“POET made strategic decisions to support President Trump’s goal of boosting the farm economy. However, these goals are contradicted by bailouts to oil companies. The result is pain for Midwest farmers and the reduction of hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity across Indiana.” said POET President and COO, Jeff Lautt

The recent announcement of 31 new waivers comes in steep contrast to the President’s roll out of year-round E15 earlier this summer. The SREs are wiping out any near-term growth potential for year-round E15 and challenging the President’s promises made to family farmers and rural communities. The President now has the opportunity to show his leadership on this issue and turnaround the rural economy. 

“My long term fear isn’t for the biofuels industry, it’s for rural America. POET can continue to produce ethanol with cheap grain, but we don’t want to lose our family farmers. The EPA has robbed rural America, and it’s time for farmers across the Heartland to fight for their future” said POET Chairman and CEO Jeff Broin.

"Here's what it could cost for America to buy Greenland"

If history is any guide, the autonomous Danish territory is worth at least $1 billion. In 1946, the United States offered Denmark $100 million in gold to buy Greenland, according to documents in the US National Archives. That's equivalent to $1.3 billion today, taking inflation into account.

via www.cnn.com

Virtue signaling

Today's "Moment of Happiness"

This is a good one for the beginning of the semester:

“The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading, and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires.”

-- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

From: "Gretchen Rubin" <[email protected]>

Quote of the day: Trump’s Rollback of Auto Pollution Rules Shows Signs of Disarray

“You get to a point where, if enough companies are with California, then what the Trump administration is doing is moot,” said Alan Krupnick, an economist with Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy and environment research organization.

via www.nytimes.com