Environmental Economics

The cromulent economics blog

recent posts

About the authors

  • Climate Change is the Car Alarm of the 2010’s?

    Interesting read in the WSJ on the demise of relevance for climate change as an issue:

    The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out*.

    *I disagree with this analogy.  Car alarms are ignored because they tend to be false alarms.  Climate warnings are ignored because there is no obvious sign of trouble in the immediate future, and the damages are likely to be too far in the future for the current generation of observers to care.  

  • The climes they are a-changin’

    I was talking to my parents last night and they were bemoaning the amount of rain they have had the past month.  These are the same parents who can best be described as climate change skeptics. 

    Really they pay little attention to things like climate change other than my father making an off-hand remark on a bad weather day, like a warm day in January, or snowy in May, 'Must be that climate change thing you're always talking about.'

    I never talk about climate change around my dad.

    Anyways, I decided to take a look at the precipitation totals at BWI airport for a few reasons:

    1. To see if there's a noticeable trend.
    2. To see if I could use data to make a case to my parents that climate change might just be something worth talking about.  It's always good to try to change a 75 year old's mind, right?

    Why BWI to ask?  Well, I grew up, and my parents still live, two miles from BWI as the planes fly (if you draw a straight line from one of the runways, south eastward, you go right through my parents backyard).  Here's proof:

    BWI to My House

    OK, that's not really proof, but you'll just have to trust me, planes fly over that house all day, and all night…all year…nonstop. I blocked out the address to prevent the paparazzi from hounding my parents when the brilliance of this post leaks out.

    Where was I?

    Oh yeah, definitive proof of climate change so I can stick it to my parents. 

    Here's a graph of official annual precipitation readings at BWI from 1951-2017. Here's a link to the data.  The blue dots are rainfall in inches.  The black line is a simple linear regression line to show the trend (we all like simple linear regressions, right)?

    Total Annual Precipitation at BWI 1951-2017There you have it.  Definitive proof that…well..proof of something.  Take that mom and dad!

    I'm not an expert at statistics or anything (ok, maybe I am), but that looks like rainfall totals have been trending upward at BWI since 1951.  

    "But wait!," you say, "it looks like 1999 was screwy and couldn't that be pulling the slope of that fake regression line upward?"

    That's mighty astute of you.  Yes it could.  And not only that, this graph doesn't control for month-to-month variations that may affect annual totals.  I'll bet you didn't think of that, oh-astute-reader, did you? 

    So let's look at the year-over-year monthly trend in rainfall at BWI from 1951-2017:

    Monthly Precipitation by Month at BWI 1951-2017A couple of observations:

    1. The screwy 1999 number seems to be driven by a weird observation in October of 1999–Did BWI really get over 40 inches of rain in October of 1999?  I'll look into that for you.
    2. 75% of the months (9 out of 12) show an upward trend in rainfall totals from 1951-2017.  Three do not (February, March and November).  February isn't a real month so we can throw that out (how do you count an extra day once every 4 years?).  The trends in March and November look pretty flat.

    So there you have it.

    Conclusive proof that my parents need to stop telling their friends that I "Still believe in that climate change hoax."  

     

     

  • Let he who has not reused material cast the first stone

    Nevertheless, from Retraction Watch:

    A former Harvard economist and co-founder of a massive repository of free papers in social sciences has been accused of reusing similar material over multiple papers.

    The three papers share the same title. According to an investigation by one of the journals, two papers by Michael Jensen, now an emeritus faculty member at Harvard, are “close-to-identical,” while another includes a “substantial amount of overlapping content.” None of the three papers cite the others.

    The journal, Business Ethics Quarterly, has added an editorial notice to a 2002 paper by Jensen, noting its similarity to a 2001 paper and another 2001 paper. The notice states an earlier version of the paper was published by Harvard Business School Press. The editor surmises that all three journals were “more or less simultaneously vetting versions of the Jensen article.”

    Jensen is the co-founder of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), a repository of more than 800,000 papers that has been named the “Number 1 Open Access Repository in the World.” SSRN was purchased by Elsevier in 2016.

    We spoke with Jensen briefly by phone; he denied submitting the same paper to three journals simultaneously …

    Read the rest here: Famous Harvard economist reused parts of 2002 paper multiple times, says journal.

    Update: I looked at the three papers and once you get past the exact same titles, they are VERY similar.

  • Another journal has caused me to waste my time

    I was asked to review the paper mid-April and got a reminder in mid-May that the review was due in a week. This is not good:

    Dear [journal editor],

    I have just now completed the review of this paper and went to manuscript central to submit it and got the message:

    ============

    Review Complete
    You have either completed this review or this review is no longer necessary. Please contact the site Administrator if you have any further questions.

    ============

    I'm resisting the urge to use profanity in this email since I hope this message is a mistake since (1) I have not completed the review and (2) I did not receive an email notice that my review was no longer needed.

    I sincerely hope that your journal did not cause me to waste my Friday.

    Sincerely,

    John Whitehead

    This is a different journal than the one that caused me to waste my time earlier this year. I'm receiving incentives to just chuck the paper if I'm not able to complete it within the bull$h1t timeline that the journal thinks is appropriate.

    Update: The editor emailed and apologized for the mistake. I emailed my review which will be ignored because the "mistake" the editor made was to not notify the reviewer who had not submitted a review that his review was no longer needed. It is a radio button in the editorial management systems. 

  • Fish are friends?

    One thing world leaders agree on? Fish are the lowest priority on the United Nations Sustainability Goals.

     

     

    //

  • The value of life as revealed by the media

    From FiveThirtyEight.com:

    On Tuesday, two things happened: A New England Journal of Medicine article by Harvard researchers argued that the death toll from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico was most likely thousands higher than the official number of 64; and Roseanne Barr, the sitcom star, was fired for a racist Twitter rant. According to the watchdog group Media Matters, CNN devoted nearly five hours to discussing Roseanne, and just over 12 minutes to discussing Puerto Rico. The other cable news networks, Fox News and MSNBC, were similarly lopsided, with Fox spending just 48 seconds on the Puerto Rico study.

    Apparently if John wants to make it in this profession he should stop researching hurricanes and start researching Roseanne.

  • Whew! I’m only 6’3″

    I had the pleasure today of attending (and paying for refreshments) for a program titled: Creating Confident Girls, Cultivating Women Who Lead, put on by a local organization called Ruling Our Experiences (Rox)

    Rox' mission "IS TO EQUIP GIRLS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS NECESSARY TO LIVE HEALTHY, INDEPENDENT,PRODUCTIVE AND VIOLENCE-FREE LIVES."

    Being the father of three, two of whom are young women, interested in STEM fields and entering (or soon to be entering) the workforce, this is a subject I am personally interested in.

    During the discussion today, a long-time colleague (and good friend) commented something to the effect "If you look around the University, most of the administration is 6'4" middle-aged white guys."

    Good think I'm only 6'3". 

    I wouldn't want to be part of the problem.

     

  • I’m declaring war on automatic reminders from journals

    Me:

    This review has risen to the top of my review pile. I should have it completed within a week. That would be about 1 month after I agreed to the request and only about a week after the 3 week deadline that I foolishly agreed to.

    Did you know that in the same email you ask me to let you know if there will be further delay AND ask me not to reply?

    In reply to:

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:25 AM, … <EviseSupport@elsevier.com> wrote:

    This message was sent automatically. Please do not reply.

    […]

    Dear Dr. Whitehead,

    You kindly agreed to review the above-referenced manuscript on 07/May/2018. Your completed review was due on 28/May/2018.

    I still value your feedback on this manuscript and would be grateful if you could submit your review as soon as possible at: http://www.evise.com/evise/&#8230; If your review will be further delayed for any reason, kindly let me know when I can expect to receive your comments.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What was I thinking? Agreeing to referee a paper in three weeks when I had a stack to get to after final grades were submitted (and a survey to field)?

  • Climate Change

    Last week (or at least that's when it was covered in the popular press), climate scientist Ed Hawkins put out a simple illustration of changes in global temperatures since 1850.  I used Dr. Hawkins image and had a little fun:

    Change

     

     

     

  • At What Cost? Legislators come up with solutions to Harmful Algal Blooms. Environmental Economists come up with cheaper solutions.

    The Legislature of the State of Ohio is currently considering legislation to reduce Phosphorous loadings into Lake Erie by 40%.  This is a good thing, as reducing Phosphorous going into Lake Erie will reduce the incidence and impact of Harmful Algal Blooms in the Western Lake Erie Basin.  

    The proposed legislation establishes a Clean Lake 2020 plan that includes:

    A significant new Clean Lake Capital Fund that may appropriate up to $100 million per year for five years for both Lake Erie algae reduction, and agricultural best practices.  Funding may include establishing facilities to improve manure application processes, projects to reduce open lake disposal of dredged materials, funds to local governments for water quality-based green infrastructure, water management projects to help reduce nutrient and sediment runoff impacting the lake and other strategies.

    A new Soil and Water Support Fund, with some of the funding provided directly to soil and water conservation districts to assist farmers in soil testing, nutrient management plans, installing edge of field drainage devices, encouraging inserting of nutrients (subsurface placement), and agreed to conservation methods that may include riparian buffers, filter strips and cover crops.

    To the casual observer, this all looks good.  The proposed bill has widespread support among agricultural groups, and local and state authorities. As one of the bill's sponsors notes:

    “These are not brand new ideas, just a greater sense of urgency to implement them,” Arndt said.  “There appears to be widespread agreement with state officials, environmental and agriculture groups, tourism advocates and business leaders that many of these strategies will make a big difference.”

    And he is right, these strategies could make a big difference. 

    But as economists we are trained to ask, 'At what cost?' 

    (more…)