From ENN: "EU fishing policy not working"
Uncertian property rights lead to a "race to fish", excess fleet capacity and diminished stocks.
A system of transferrable quotas might be the answer... wow, who would've thought it?
Why is it taking so long for everyone to figure this out?
Options:
1. Make hard choices now that will upset some current fishers, but allow society to enjoy fish forever
2. Follow business as usual so that fishers are not upset in the short term; destroy fisheries in the long term
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Friedman prefers carbon tax to cap & trade
Here's his piece from yesterday's New York Times.
Theoretically, the efficiency and outcomes of a carbon tax and a cap & trade system should be the same. Practically, the tax requires us to "get the price right" while the trade system requires us to "get the quantity right".
Friedman seems to be arguing for the tax on the grounds of political acceptance, which is usually the opposite of what we hear. One of the main arguments against a carbon tax is that it contains the word "tax", which will immediately turn people off. Considering the recent debacles in the financial world, the black box mystery of cap & trade might indeed be more of a turn off.
He also argues for having the discussion of carbon policy be framed in terms of national security rather than in terms of climate change. I agree with this, though I'd add saving money at the household level to that thought. Those that don't believe that humans are affecting the climate aren't going to change their minds very easily, so telling them that the tax will help a problem that they don't believe exists is a waste of time. If however, you can argue that the same actions will make us better off as a nation for other reasons and save them money, then you're more likely to get buy-in.
Friedman handles the macro concerns nicely. For the micro, driving a fuel efficient vehicle, re-using plastics, composting veggie waste in your garden, eating less meat and using less water will save you lots of money. No one can argue against that, no matter what they believe about climate change.
Thoughts?
Theoretically, the efficiency and outcomes of a carbon tax and a cap & trade system should be the same. Practically, the tax requires us to "get the price right" while the trade system requires us to "get the quantity right".
Friedman seems to be arguing for the tax on the grounds of political acceptance, which is usually the opposite of what we hear. One of the main arguments against a carbon tax is that it contains the word "tax", which will immediately turn people off. Considering the recent debacles in the financial world, the black box mystery of cap & trade might indeed be more of a turn off.
He also argues for having the discussion of carbon policy be framed in terms of national security rather than in terms of climate change. I agree with this, though I'd add saving money at the household level to that thought. Those that don't believe that humans are affecting the climate aren't going to change their minds very easily, so telling them that the tax will help a problem that they don't believe exists is a waste of time. If however, you can argue that the same actions will make us better off as a nation for other reasons and save them money, then you're more likely to get buy-in.
Friedman handles the macro concerns nicely. For the micro, driving a fuel efficient vehicle, re-using plastics, composting veggie waste in your garden, eating less meat and using less water will save you lots of money. No one can argue against that, no matter what they believe about climate change.
Thoughts?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Venezuela bans trawl-fishing, seizes vessels
Short article over at Caribbean Net News.
Well, that's one way to stop destructive fishing practices.
Does anyone have more info about this?
Well, that's one way to stop destructive fishing practices.
Does anyone have more info about this?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Iceland: Banks & fish
Here's a great article from Vanity Fair's Micheal Lewis about the rise and fall of Iceland's financial industry.
It is a long article, but well worth the read.
It is a long article, but well worth the read.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ban and Gore on greening the stimulus
UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and former U.S. vice president Al Gore have an opinion piece in today's Financial Times.
Key issue here: Should policy try to "kill two birds with one stone"? Or should we have separate economic policy and environmental policy?
Key issue here: Should policy try to "kill two birds with one stone"? Or should we have separate economic policy and environmental policy?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reward system to solve free rider problem
Here is an interesting article from ENN that describes a competition for the development of by-catch reducing fishing gear.
I think this is a great idea. Here's why...
Inventing fishing gear that is more environmentally safe sounds like a great idea, but when you think about it, there's little incentive for an individual to undertake such efforts. Once invented, the "smart gear" will generate positive externalities (benefits that accrue to society at large) through the reduction of incedental catch that cannot be captured by the inventor. Hence, the inventor incurs a great deal of R&D expenses, but shares the gains with society. With open-access or common property fisheries, fishers have no incentive to invent or adopt new technology unless their profits increase or they are forced to do via a technology standard mandate.
By creating a monetary prize, we are in effect subsidizing a positve externality generating good (R&D to reduce by-catch).
Question: is this competition enough, or do we need an additional policy to go along with it?
I think this is a great idea. Here's why...
Inventing fishing gear that is more environmentally safe sounds like a great idea, but when you think about it, there's little incentive for an individual to undertake such efforts. Once invented, the "smart gear" will generate positive externalities (benefits that accrue to society at large) through the reduction of incedental catch that cannot be captured by the inventor. Hence, the inventor incurs a great deal of R&D expenses, but shares the gains with society. With open-access or common property fisheries, fishers have no incentive to invent or adopt new technology unless their profits increase or they are forced to do via a technology standard mandate.
By creating a monetary prize, we are in effect subsidizing a positve externality generating good (R&D to reduce by-catch).
Question: is this competition enough, or do we need an additional policy to go along with it?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Ecosystem markets
Here is an interesting article from ENN about markets for ecosystem services (biodiversity, water, carbon, etc).
I loved the quote near the end by the Director of USDA's Office of Ecosystem Markets and Services, who was at first skeptical about whether or not market mechanisms would work to enhance conservation. Regarding the standard (CAC) approach she says: "The regulatory framework that is so critical was driving people to do just the bare minimum"...
In other words, CAC mechanisms result in inefficiency as once you are in compliance, there is no incentive to do more.
Here is the press release from USDA.
I loved the quote near the end by the Director of USDA's Office of Ecosystem Markets and Services, who was at first skeptical about whether or not market mechanisms would work to enhance conservation. Regarding the standard (CAC) approach she says: "The regulatory framework that is so critical was driving people to do just the bare minimum"...
In other words, CAC mechanisms result in inefficiency as once you are in compliance, there is no incentive to do more.
Here is the press release from USDA.
Monday, January 5, 2009
How to know when a fish species is doomed
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Are "green firms" really green?
Interesting analysis of firms claims to be "carbon neutral" over at the Wall Street Journal. Firms claim to be environmentally safe in order to stimulate demand. But those claims may be bogus, especially when it comes to the purchase of carbon offsets - supporting emissions reduction that would have taken place anyway.
Click here for the article.
Click here for the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)