Read the NYT op-ed, the infamous pop quiz, our Salon feature, or Foreign Affairs and Atlantic essays.
via gwagner.com
Environmental Economics
The cromulent economics blog
recent posts
-
-
… the issues associated with climate change are not that different from the risk issues we deal with in the financial markets every day. We know there’s a risk — we don’t know how big the risk is, we’re not entirely sure about all of the parameters, but we know it’s there. And we know it’s a low-probability, high-impact risk. So what do we do about that in our financial markets? Well, if it’s a nondiversifiable risk, we know that people pay plenty of money to avoid it.
via www.vox.com
-
The American Lung Association wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to lower the
allowable ozone level to 60 parts per billion. That standard has been hotly debated during the past
year, as the U.S. EPA has said it plans to reduce allowable ozone in the air to 65 or 70 parts per
billion.Smog warnings now are issued when ozone levels reach 75 parts per billion or higher. Central
Ohio's three-day average during the 2014 season, which starts in April and ends in October, was
exactly 75 parts per billion, according to the Ohio EPA.Scientists have said that cutting levels to 60 parts per billion would prevent as many as
12,000 premature deaths, 5,300 nonfatal heart attacks, 58,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 2.5
million missed school and work days each year.But the Ohio EPA has said that 60 parts per billion is too low.
via www.dispatch.com
I wonder if that last sentence is an economic statement ("the cost of 60 parts per billion outweigh benefits of 60 parts per billion") or a political statement ("screw those flaming lefties at the American Lung Association. They just want to impose regulations on the good citizens of Ohio")?
I suspect the former but fear the latter.
-
Dan Rigby, Michael Burton and Jayson L. Lusk in AJAE:
Research quality is an increasingly important metric for determining funding allocations, promotion and tenure, and professional prestige. A key metric often used as a proxy for research quality is the ranking of the journal in which a manuscript appears. While citation-based measures of journal quality are commonly used, less is known about other dimensions of journal quality and prestige. We report results from an international study using Best-Worst Scaling to investigate researchers’ journal preferences. Respondents used two criteria to assess journals: the impact a paper in the journal would have on career progression, and the impact beyond academia of papers in the journal. Among the sample of journals studied, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics is ranked at the top for career progression for the aggregate sample, while Science was rated at the top for broader impact. We find no significant correlation between the journal scores based on the two criteria, nor between them and the journals’ impact factors. These results suggest that impact beyond academia is poorly aligned with career incentives and that citation measures reflect poorly, if at all, peers’ esteem of journals. Heteroscedastic scale-adjusted latent class models reveal marked heterogeneity in journal preferences related to researchers’ institutional affiliation and geographic region. We find significant differences in error variance over people and choices: people were less consistent when choosing their least, as opposed to their most, preferred journal. This finding has broader implications given the burgeoning use of best-worst surveys.
The sample is from the "Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES), Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA), Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE), Agricultural Economics Society (AES), European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), and International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE)."
Here are the rankings from the latent class analysis where there are 6 classes of respondents:
- Class 1 (EnvEcon)
- Class 2 (North America, EnvEcon or Econ)
- Class 3 (non North America, non EnvEcon, non Econ)
- Class 4 (non North America, non EnvEcon, non Econ)
- Class 5 (N. America, non EnvEcon)
- Class 6 (non EnvEcon)
I participated in this survey. I like the second column of rankings best and that class fits my profile best (North America, EnvEcon or Econ). My only quibble with the study is that the authors do not include Resource and Energy Economics as part of the choice set. That one is in my second tier of E&R journals along with ERE and Land. And it is interesting how low the "weed and seed" aggies (i.e., non EnvEcon class 6) rank JEEM. It must make for some interesting discussions in ag econ departments.
-
Is it time to rethink the academic conference?
Academic conferences are a habit from the past, embraced by the administrativersity as a way to showcase knowledge and to increase productivity in the form of published conference proceedings. We have been complicit. Until now.
We believe it is time to ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the conference? What has caused us to organize these things year after year without questioning their basis? Is there another way to reformat the conference or do away with it altogether, replacing it with something more intellectually, professionally and socially satisfying for everyone? What are our real motivations for organizing a conference? For attending one? To burnish our résumés? To network? To get a sense of the current work being done in our fields?
If, as many scholars confess in private, it is an easy way to see all of one’s friends conveniently or to meet new colleagues, should the conference then be replaced by a less formalized gathering? What about a three-day long salon philosophique format? Or large working groups? A speed-dating scenario or a hiking retreat? Why should a graduate student pay hundreds of dollars — often from their own pocket — to fly to a conference, get a hotel room, and give a talk to an audience of three, two of those being friends who heard the practice talk the night before in said hotel room? If everyone is content with the conference as a legitimate custom, why do post-conference sentiments typically range from disappointment to total rage, always expressed in hushed tones?
via opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
A few quick reactions:
- While written towards the humanities, many of the same arguments hold for science and social science conferences.
- Legitimate defenses of conferences: a) Makes in-person interviewing for job openings easier, b) seeing big-name speakers you might otherwise not get to see because you can't afford to bring him/her on campus, c) hanging with grad school buddies or former colleagues on taxpayer dime, d) beer lunches, 5) beer dinners, 8) beer.
Administrativersity?While I like occasional travels, the professional usefulness of academic conferences is in my past. That doesn't mean I won't go to a conference. I am just more selective and more strategic in my conference attendance now.
-
I was in fancy-pants-land (Huntersville), NC on Saturday and witnessed my first electric vehicle hook up at the Whole Foods:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.