TBL 3BL

The topic of measuring the value of ecosystem services was recently raised in class. The context of the discussion was the inability of consumers to make "environmentally friendly" purchase decisions, because there is no clear accounting for the environmental behavior of producers.  Firms can easily present an environmentally friendly appearance in commercials and brochures, but understanding how "green" a firm really is can be a difficult undertaking for the average consumer or investor. Likewise, measures of national, regional or local output most often lack measures of environmental change.


Adding the value of ecosystem goods and services to measures of the bottom line (for a firm, nation, state or municipality) allows for a clearer picture of success, progress and well-being. Likewise, omitting such measures can be misleading. For example, suppose the services of a natural ecosystem such as an estuary are degraded via coastal development. The loss of naturally produced water filtration is not reflected in measures of national output such as GDP.  But if a water treatment plant is constructed to replace the lost ecosystem service, the associated market transactions will be reflected in an increase in national GDP.  Hence, the nation would appear to be better off as a result of replacing a natural ("free") service with a man-made substitute that is most likely inferior. Changes in GDP can therefore be inaccurate measures of changes in net output as well as changes in well being. 

The same is true for firms, though on a different level. Reporting traditional "bottom line" measures like earnings allows investors to make good decisions with regard to financial returns, but some investors also want to support environmental and social progress, and are willing to sacrifice some monetary gains to do so. Similarly, while it is true that all consumers seek to buy products that satisfy their personal wants and needs, some consumers also want to support the greater good, and buy products from firms that are socially and environmentally responsible. How can we measure environmental (and social) outputs so that they can be reported and compared?  Is it even possible to create a set of acceptable measures and common reporting standard for non-monetary outputs? 

A short piece on the triple bottom line here at The Economist.


The state of Maryland uses something called the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which tracks and measures traditional economic measures as well as those related to the environment and people. Thanks to Nikolai for the link.

Food security and sustainability

One of the primary challenges of the day is meeting the growing food needs of our population while minimizing damage to the environment.  Alleviation of poverty requires economic growth and large-scale agriculture, but these things often cause significant environmental damage. Sustainable agricultural practices are available that are less damaging to the environment, but can they effectively feed billions of people? Probably not.

Is poverty reduction vs. environmental sustainability an inescapable tradeoff? I've always considered this to be the case and as such my enthusiasm for sustainable agriculture has remained tempered.  But a new study reveals that there may be hope for seemingly incompatible goals of feeding the planet and preserving critical ecosystem services. Read about it here at Science Daily.  The upshot of the analysis is that yield gaps can be closed with better management of water, land and fertilizer. In other words, it appears to be possible in theory if we can make some changes. These include shifting consumption toward a diet that includes less meat, using less food crops for fuel, using fertilizer more effectively (increasing use in some places and decreasing use in others) and curtailing the burning of tropical forests for low-yield agriculture.

Now the question becomes, can we achieve these goals?  If so, how? Can we rely on the market mechanism to get us there or do we need market intervention via active policy? If the latter, what types of policy interventions might move us in the right direction?

More on the topic here at Scientific American

More here at World Bank

54.5 MPG by 2025?

Achieving such a standard in 12 years seems ambitious given that this is roughly double the average MPG of 2011, but this is what new regulations put forth by the US EPA and Department of Transportation are aiming for. The true average fuel economy will be around 40 MPG because auto manufacturers can earn credits by selling alternative fuel vehicles and the standards only apply to cars, not trucks.

Read about it here at CBS News and here from the NHTSA.

Excellent source of basics on CAFE standards FAQ here from Edmunds. 

Massive detail and analysis here from US EPA. 

The guys at Freakonomics have a nice description of why standards such as these are often less desirable than taxes.  This is a topic that we're going to spend a lot of time with this semester.

CAFE Standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) originated in 1975 in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Here is a brief history of CAFE standards from PEW. 

Here are some basics on CAFE standards from NPR. 


Here is a consideration of unintended consequences of more fuel efficient vehicles.

Like most issues that we'll discuss in class, this one is controversial.

Some argue that the new, higher standards will create jobs (full report here).

Other argue that higher standards will cost jobs.

Final thoughts

What aspects of the course did you find the most interesting?
What are the key lessons that you'll take from the course?

NC House Committee Approves Fracking

Today, the NC House Environmental Committee approved a bill that will lift the current ban on the controversial natural gas drilling method of hydraulic fracturing. State agencies would have a little more than two years to devise regulations, and the make-up of the rule-making commissions is part of the discussion. Opponents suggest that two years is not enough time to study the issue and develop the proper safeguards. Proponents argue that fast-tracking the regulations for fracking and issuing permits sooner rather than later is necessary for economic growth.

Read about it here at the Charlotte Observer and here at CBS news.

Here is a link to reports on fracking by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
(check out the executive summary and recommendations if you don't have time to read the whole report)

One of the main conclusions of the DENR study is that hydro fracking can be done safely if the right safeguards are in place, and that the current ban on fracking should remain in place until proper standards and enforcement mechanisms have been established.

Here is an excellent series from Scholbohm at NCSU:

What N.C. needs to know about Pennsylvania's Energy Experience 

The Cold-Hard Facts about Fracking in North Carolina Part 1

The Cold-Hard Facts about Fracking in North Carolina Part 2

N.C. Senate proposes limits on forecasting of sea level rise

This is a complicated and controversial story that is front page news here at home, and is making headlines all over. A committee of lawmakers in the North Carolina Senate approved a bill that will limit the data that planning agencies are allowed to use in preparing for sea level rise.  Essentially, planners will only be able to base their forecasts on historical increases in sea level rise, which are relatively low compared to the predictions of a state appointed panel of scientists. The bill would allow only the NC Coastal Resources Commission to engage in sea level prediction, and would restrict the data and methodology that can be used.

Here is a link to the bill. The most controversial part is on the second page, part (e) and includes the following language:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

Read more about it here and here at the News and Observer (thanks Paul L.), here from UNCW's Spencer Rogers at NC Sea Grant, and for some comic relief, here is Stephen Colbert's take on the topic.

More on cap & trade

From the New York Times:

Cap & trade leads to lower energy costs for consumers

Cap & trade leads to lower emissions

More on the RGGI program here.

Here is a great article by Tom Tietenberg on cap & trade in the US

Waste to energy at hog farms in NC

Here's an interesting story (from the LA times, oddly enough) about waste-to-energy in NC hog farms.

Same story with more detail here from the Charlotte Observer. 

More here from the Raleigh News and Observer.

US Military leads the way on clean energy

There are a lot of reasons to transition to alternative sources of energy... the environment, the economy and national security. As is the case with many innovations, the United States Military is a leader. Read about it here at Forbes. More here at NPR.

Here is a cool innovation (microgrids) that provides energy to soldiers in the field.

Today is Memorial Day.
Unmeasurable thanks to those who serve and to those who gave it all for our country.

plastic bag bans

Two days ago the city of Los Angeles, CA became the largest city in the US to ban plastic grocery bags, following a host of other locations including San Fransisco (controversial ban imposed in 2007), Portland OR, and North Carolina's Outer Banks (more detail here).

Read about the LA decision here at Reuters News Service.

As we move toward discussing options for pollution control, a general theme that we'll consider is the effectiveness and efficiency of command-and-control alternatives (standards) including such bans relative to incentive-based systems like taxes and subsidies.

A more general question to consider is whether the optimal number of plastic bags is zero or some positive number.

Some places have used taxes/fees (Pigou's solution) to effectively remove most bags. Here are some examples: 
Wales UK

Washington DC
Toronto Canada

Here is a thought-provoking take on the topic from Science and Development Network, basically calling for better management rather than an outright ban. 

Obviously this is a controversial issue. What are the pros and cons of each approach? When is a outright ban a better choice? When might we opt for a tax/fee?  What other pollution problems can be addressed with bans vs. Pigouvian taxes?