Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Of cap and trade

Brad DeLong thinks about the real world differences between carbon taxes and cap and trade. He clearly has in mind the caps that are in some way subsidized: given away or sold at below market clearing prices.


While carbon taxes and cap and trade ARE theoretically identical if the caps are auctioned by government, they have vastly different equity (but not efficiency) properties when given way. Economists need to be very clear about this.

I would say that to first order cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are the same,
that there are five first-order[second-order?] differences:

Cap-and-trade involves less redistribution because the losses of the
losers are partially offset by their initial awards of tradeable permits.

Cap-and-trade runs the risk that the cap will be set at the wrong place and
so the price will go damagingly above its social optimum value.

Carbon taxes run the risk that the tax will be set too low and so the quantity
emitted will go damagingly above its social optimum value.

Carbon taxes have the advantage that the government gets money that it can use for
good--either to cut existing taxes that have large deadweight losses or to
expand underfunded programs that have large social benefits.

Carbon taxes have the disadvantage that the government gets money that it can use
for ill, and that the recipients and beneficiaries of that ill-used money will then dig in and defend their rent-seeking gains beyond death itself.

and that there are two third-order
differences:

It's easier to get not-too-bright Republicans to vote against something that is actually in their long-run interest if you can demagogue it by calling it a tax.
It's easier to get not-too-bright Democrats to vote for something that actually is not in their long-run interest if you can demagogue it by claiming that it's just a restriction on the behavior
of corporations and not something that directly impacts people.

I don't have a dog in this fight: I think second- and third-order pluses and minuses roughly
offset each other. But the substantive case for action seems very clear--and the
fact that oil has risen above $100 a barrel without killing the economy just
makes it more painful to think of what a hideous waste of opportunity our
failure to take Al Gore's advice back in 1993 and put on a carbon tax that
IIRC was going to max out at $10/barrel...

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Chasing your tail

Today's NYT piece on water use in southern Spain points out the problem with many backstops: they are themselves reliant to some degree on the primary resource.

The hundreds of thousands of wells — most of them illegal — that have in
the past provided a temporary reprieve from thirst have depleted underground
water to the point of no return. Water from northern Spain that was once
transferred here has also slowed to a trickle, as wetter northern provinces are
drying up, too.


This suggests that whether modeling alternative energy resources, or water
backstops, a degree of endogeneity is called for. As an example, the cost of
photovoltaics might be given by:

where k, a, and b are constants, N is the installed capacity (learning by doing assumed), t is time (proxy for technical change) and p is the price of oil (because of embedded energy use in manufacturing and installation of PV systems).

Monday, June 2, 2008

Sustainable campus design


A pretty picture ... wonder how it might work in practice.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Monday, May 5, 2008

ECON 340/ENVA 300: Final Exam notes

Here's everything remaining about the end of the semester:

The properly formatted document is on the public folders.

1. Final Exam is in the ARC: Sat., May 10, 8:30 – 10:30am
OR Mon., May 12, 11:00 – 1:00pm

2. There is an in-class part of the final exam, and a take home portion (see opposite side). The take home portion must be presented when you take the in-class exam, and must be submitted to Bb before that time. (50 points total)
3. In-Class final exam: closed book, but do bring a calculator. (50 points total).
4. Office hours: Tues, May 6, 3:30 - 5:00 pm
Wed., May 7, noon - 2pm (Econ Barbecue!!), and then until 3pm.
Thursday, May 8, 1pm - 2:30 pm
Friday, May 9, 10:00 - 11:45 am
========================
Review questions: The final is all about using specific economic and scientific knowledge you’ve gained in the course (or elsewhere). In particular, your job is to separate sense from nonsense, and explain the difference. I will ask questions about the following:

A lead article for Earth Day in the local Times Union (April 21, 2008, p. C1) states:
By 2069, if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, New York’s climate will resemble Georgia’s.... Even if New York is successful at reining in its emissions by switching to clean technologies, we can still expect gradual warming that will make the weather here similar to Virginia’s ....

The April 28, 2008 issue of Time is labeled a "Special Environment Issue" and the lead article is "How to Win the War on Global Warming." Here is the key excerpt:
The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it....
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it..... Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will.... No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming.
First, Price the Sky
The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. As long as the sky is free, renewable energy will never beat fossil fuels. But put a price on carbon, and suddenly the alternatives look a lot better. The most feasible way to do this is through a cap-and-trade system .... The effect is that overall carbon levels fall, and there is even money to be made by being greener than the next guy.
National Geographic has a special issue out titled "Changing Climate." The Table of Contents lists the three major articles: Signs of Change
The Science is In, and
Solutions.
Here’s the description of "Solutions":
From wind farms to solar farms, electric cars to light-emitting diodes, the latest green revolution has already begun, what communities are doing to cut their collective emissions, and why a carbon-neutral world might just be healthier, happier, and more profitable for all.

And, a calculation like this: A new wastewater reclamation plant in Orange County (near Los Angeles) has just been completed. Here are the benefits and costs of running it this year and each of the next four years. Should it be operated?
Benefits: $10 million each year.
Costs: $ 8, 9, 10, 11, and $15 million in year’s 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Evaluate using a 5% discount rate.
==========================================================
Final Exam: Take home part
The work presented must be entirely your own, and submitted to Blackboard before you take the in-class final. The hard copy of your responses are due at the in-class final exam. Please omit exam questions in your file, as it complicates checking for the originality of your writing.

There have been heated discussions regarding eliminating much of the existing tax on gasoline for the summer "driving season." Evaluate a proposal to reduce gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon for three months, clearly distinguishing equity and efficiency impacts.
Use the technical economic concepts from the course, using appropriate language and organization. Most good responses will include appropriate graphs. You may consult written material on the current controversy, but it must be fully and appropriately cited.

List the benefits and costs from one class project, in a manner consistent with what we learned about benefits and costs in class. Clearly identify the author and subject matter.
(a) Define strong sustainability.
(b) Identify a project which evaluates impacts through the perspective of strong sustainability. Explain how this strong sustainability relates (or should relate) to the author’s evaluation of their policy alternative.

4. (a) Define weak sustainability.
(b) Identify a project which evaluates impacts through the perspective of weak sustainability. Explain how this weak sustainability relates (or should relate) to the author’s evaluation of their policy alternative.

Monday, April 14, 2008

The Park is closed (1st edition)


Foiled. I just wanted to walk on the Hudson.


Away from the traffic.


But one of my favorite agencies, NYSOPRHP, thinks I shouldn't do this after work. CLOSED


Happily, I found a better place. Or open at least.


And this is supposed to be a developed country we live in.


Thursday, April 10, 2008

ECON 340/ENVA 300: Exam 2 Review

Exam 2 Review

The exam will be closed book, but do bring a calculator. There will be lots of emphasis on DOING the various examples we've worked on in class. The exam focuses on material since the first exam: see both the original and revised course outline for specifics.
Here is my outline for the exam:
1. Climate footprint: work through a problem on how a change in behavior changes carbon emissions.
2. Why do environmental problems occur? Use the idea of externalities.
3. Discount a stream of future benefits.
4. Complete a simple benefit cost example.
5. Summarize the basic conclusion of the Stern Review of Climate, "mainstream" conclusions in the economics literature on addressing climate change, and Weitzman's critique of the Stern Review.
6. Outline Lomborg's basic argument and rhetorical approach (McKibben helps understand this) that we should not commit to costly policies to reduce climate impacts, at least at this time.
7. Illustrate the idea of increasing abatement costs on a graph.
8. What does the equimarginal principle mean? Illustrate on a graph.
9. What is the basic idea of an emission standard?
10. What is the basic idea of how pollution taxes work?
11. How does cap and trade work?
12. Which policy is not consistent with the equimarginal principle? Consequence?
13. Show behavior under each of these policies given a numerical example (i.e. given an abatement cost schedule for two firms.)
14. Show consequences: cost-effectiveness/efficiency and equity.
15. What do weak and strong sustainability mean? Implications for climate?