Environmental Economics

My latest post at the Energy Collective

I call it: Economists Debate Waxman-Markey. Yuck. It begins like this:

Ah! Liberals versus conservatives, economists criticized for their politics … don’t you love the economic debate over … the cap-and-trade part of Waxman-Markey. Did you think I was going to say “economic stimulus” or “health care”?

Paul Krugman, in his September 24^th column (“It’s easy being green”), rips those he disagrees with: “the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies” and “partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.” In the article he is ripping Glenn Beck, but in his blog he points the finger at fellow (well-respected) economist Martin Feldstein.

In the middle I defend Feldstein after carefully reading his June 1 piece in the WaPo ("Cap and Trade: All Cost, No Benefit") and the Krugman interpretations (here and here). I also write a paragraph on my twin policy rant (cap-and-trade plus revenue recycling does not equal cap-and-trade). Then I end like this:

... certain economists should quit calling people liars in their public discourse. Not nice.

My climate policy views are closer to Krugman's than Feldstein's but, jeez, you can clarify someone's argument, point out its limitations and even discover errors without calling someone a "liar" and "intellectually dishonest".

Feel free to do your own bit of name calling (e.g., pinhead) in the comments section!

September 30 Webinar: The ACES Climate Bill in the U.S. Senate

From The Energy Collective (Climate Legislation in the US Senate):

Key U.S. CEOs and world leaders are urging the Obama Administration not to go empty-handed to the UNFCCC Conference in Copenhagen this December. All eyes are on the president, who will address the UN on climate change in New York on September 22 while the Senate considers climate legislation back in DC. But with the President’s focus on passing health care legislation, the climate bill awaiting action in the Senate risks being “back-burnered.”

Todd Stern, the U.S. State Department lead negotiator, has urged Congress to act. How critical is it that the U.S. climate negotiators have a bill this year? Would a strong bilateral China-U.S. agreement before December be sufficient instead? In the Senate, what type of climate and energy bill has the greatest likelihood of passage, and how will it differ from the House version? Do you agree with TEC blogger Joe Romm of climateprogress.org that there could be a “better” climate bill next year?

To explore these issues and to answer your questions about the current legislation, The Energy Collective and several of its members are presenting a live interactive panel discussion on September 30, at 1 pm Eastern. We hope you will join us.

I've registered. I've enjoyed the lull in the environmental economics news that health care reform has provided and I'll need an energy boost before ACES hits the Senate. This might be it.

My latest post at The Energy Collective

Titled: Why Environmental Economists should love Exxon, here is how it ends (after a long-ass chase scene):

... Exxon worked really hard and paid consultants alot of money to make my, and many others, research agenda look like junk science. This usually sends a chill down my back but I’ve recently realized that it was a good thing, research-wise. With Exxon as a common enemy, funding studies that disputed CVM, journal pages were eating up papers dealing with both sides of the issue. Who would have wanted to publish my papers without an oil spill and Exxon claiming junk science was being used to value Prince William Sound resources?

By the way, Exxon lost the junk science debate. While CVM is still controversial it is the most widely used method to value the environment for benefit-cost analysis.

I'm an idiot

Find out just how BIG an idiot I really am:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on June 26, 2009 to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While, as of this posting, it has yet to pass the Senate, the bill promises an unprecedented and sweeping package of climate legislation, the full ramifications of which are yet to be determined.

But will the bill actually accomplish all of its purported goals? And how? What effects, short and long-term, will the bill actually have on the U.S. economy and the current path of climate change?

The Energy Collective conducted a live, interactive webcast in which energy experts and TEC blogger board members Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University dug into the bill and provided insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas.

Listen to a recording of the discussion here:

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/43961

Don't miss this opportunity!

From the Energy Collective:

Tune in Thursday, July 2 at 12:00 EST
 
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While it has yet to pass the Senate, the bill promises an unprecedented and sweeping package of climate legislation, the full ramifications of which are yet to be determined.
 
But will the bill actually accomplish all of its purported goals? And how? What effects, short and long-term, will the bill actually have on the U.S. economy and the current path of climate change?
 
The Energy Collective presents a live, interactive webcast in which energy experts and TEC blogger board members Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University will dig into the bill and provide insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas. Participants will have the opportunity to participate and ask questions by following along on twitter with the hashtag #talkaces.
 
Don't miss this opportunity to participate in a live, in-depth discussion with other energy experts and aficionados. Dial in Thursday at 12:00 EST at:

Toll Free Number: 1.800.868.1837
Access Code:  74378755#

And discuss online on twitter with the tag: #talkaces

If I can get a babysitter

From the Energy Collective:

Tune in Thursday, July 2 at 12:00 EST
 
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey Bill. While it has yet to pass the Senate, the bill promises an unprecedented and sweeping package of climate legislation, the full ramifications of which are yet to be determined.
 
But will the bill actually accomplish all of its purported goals? And how? What effects, short and long-term, will the bill actually have on the U.S. economy and the current path of climate change?
 
The Energy Collective presents a live, interactive webcast in which energy experts and TEC blogger board members Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University will dig into the bill and provide insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas. Participants will have the opportunity to participate and ask questions by following along on twitter with the hashtag #talkaces.
 
Don't miss this opportunity to participate in a live, in-depth discussion with other energy experts and aficionados. Dial in Thursday at 12:00 EST at:

Toll Free Number: 1.800.868.1837
Access Code:  74378755#

And discuss online on twitter with the tag: #talkaces

My latest post at The Energy Collective

Begins like this:

I’m serving on a panel of environmental economists at the September 2009 “Business and Environmental Ethics Conference” hosted by the Walker College of Business at Appalachian State University (here is the link to last years ethics conference [I'm hoping I'm able to post a video afterwards!]). Not knowing anything, at all, about ethics (or ethical behavior [smug wink]), I begin reading, er, skimming the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Environmental Ethics. I learned a number of intrinsically useful things, including the difference between instrumental value and intrinsic value.

“Things,” such as environmental and natural resources, can have instrumental and intrinsic value. Instrumental values are generated from our use of these things. In contrast, things have intrinsic values if they have value in and of themselves. My 10 minute talk in September will focus on environmental ethics and benefit-cost analysis – a tricky subject. ...

Read the whole dang thing here: http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/41517.

My latest post at The Energy Collective

Begins like this:

Environmental policy can, unfortunately, be used to pursue many economic and social goals tangential to the primary aim of improving environmental quality. A recent protectionist example is highlighted in a recent TEC post from the Center for American Progress ...

And ends like this:

The implication of this research is that environmental policy in general and climate change policy in particular should not be used as an excuse to erect trade barriers. Climate change policy should be implemented based on an examination of the environmental benefits and the environmental costs. Other economic and social goals should be pursued outside of the climate change policy arena.

In the middle I make some serious fun of libertarians and marxists.

Here is the link: http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/39263

Environmental Economics?

My first post at The Energy Collective as an Advisory Blogger Board Member begins like this:

This is my first of a series of monthly original posts for The Energy Collective. I’m really looking forward to this gig since I think I’ll be able take a broader view of environmental and energy economics, relative to the day-to-day grind of nimble little blog posts. To kick things off I’d like to do some soul searching and examine one of the puzzles I’ve confronted since I’ve been blogging. Why are environmental economists so wildly unpopular with the public (i.e., blog readers … the only “public” I really know)? Next to financial economists, those goofs who don’t know a bubble when it is about to pop in their faces, environmental economists are likely some of the most disliked economists around. Always taking some sort of middle ground, environmental economists are not green enough for environmentalists and too green for business people. Why is that?

You've got to go to TEC to read the rest. Go there now (you may need to register). And hurry.

I'm an informal ombudsman (Tim: ombudsman has nothing to do with beer)

From The Energy Collective:

Here at The Energy Collective, there are some exciting changes in the works. We have a host of new contributors. We're expanding our podcast series. And now we're thrilled to announce the creation of The Energy Collective Advisory Blogger Board.

We've selected four of our most respected member-bloggers to take on higher-profile roles in the community. Going forward, they'll provide us some exclusive content, participate in our Webinars and podcasts, and serve as informal ombudsmen, helping us to stay focused on the issues most important to our readers.

Our board members are:

• Journalist and blogger Marc Gunther
• Director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute, Jesse "Watthead" Jenkins
• Professor John Whitehead, Environmental Economist at Appalachian State University
• Dan Yurman, journalist, blogger, and consultant on topics nuclear.

There's more on the Board and its members here.

Please join me in congratulating Marc, Jesse, John and Dan. Tell your friends and colleagues about The Energy Collective. And stay tuned for more of the great news, opinion and dialogue that makes our community such an exciting place.

And there's more (read on if you failed to click on here above):

From its inception, The Energy Collective has been something much more than an online magazine. Our vision is to facilitate conversation and debate between all of you--the activists, entrepreneurs, policy makers and academics that animate our community--and to provide a forum for your ideas.

To ensure that we continue to live up to the highest standards, we've asked four of our most respected member-bloggers to serve as an advisory board for the site. They were selected for the outstanding quality of their work, their expertise across the spectrum of disciplines that make up our community, and most of all for their commitment to the ideals that drive us: inclusiveness, balance, reason and civility.

Ahem.