Airlie Gardens is a pretty amazing place and likely worth millions in terms of potential (private) land rents. Its preservation surely generates massive rents to the public at large (via recreation, education and aesthetics). Environmental rents are a public good, and as such those rents will not likely be provided by markets. Preservation may indeed be what's best for society, but without government intervention of some sort, it won't happen.
Because of tough economic times we're experiencing, the opportunity cost of Airlie preservation (lost revenues from sale) made its way into budgetary discussions by the county. The need to safeguard Airlie is therefore getting some attention.
Read the story here at the StarNewsOnline
Read an editorial comment here
What do you think about the easement?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
An interesting read
"What the Green Movement Got Wrong" from Charles Moore of The Telegraph, presents an interesting perspective on solutions to environmental issues. He's referring to a program that aired on BBC. I haven't seen it yet, but will search for a link.
There are a few issues here that I agree with. First, trying to change human nature is a losing battle. Human nature is just nature after all, and people, like all animals, will always pursue their own best interest. Sustainable solutions can be achieved using human nature as an ally rather than trying to stop it. Incentives work because incentives are how people make decisions. Which leads to a second point, the idea that claiming you have the moral highground because you favor conservation overlooks the very simple idea that traditional environmental conservation is not at all compatible with the alleviation of human poverty. I listened to a lecture a few weeks back (David, what was that guy's name?), and he said something like "the romantic environmentalist is dead", because true conservation of nature (in the sense of limits to extraction) often means that people die. Not exactly a morally superior argument, is it? Finally, and obviously related to the first two points, is the idea that a lot of what we've attempted has failed miserably. Top-down, draconian, command-and-control via standards most often does not achieve anything close to sustainable outcomes. Here's a link to a great paper by Jon Sutinen regarding the efficacy (or lack thereof) of CAC approaches to fisheries managment.
Obviously there's more, and of course a series of articles could be written on what the environmental movement has done right, but I'll leave that up to the discussion.
There are a few issues here that I agree with. First, trying to change human nature is a losing battle. Human nature is just nature after all, and people, like all animals, will always pursue their own best interest. Sustainable solutions can be achieved using human nature as an ally rather than trying to stop it. Incentives work because incentives are how people make decisions. Which leads to a second point, the idea that claiming you have the moral highground because you favor conservation overlooks the very simple idea that traditional environmental conservation is not at all compatible with the alleviation of human poverty. I listened to a lecture a few weeks back (David, what was that guy's name?), and he said something like "the romantic environmentalist is dead", because true conservation of nature (in the sense of limits to extraction) often means that people die. Not exactly a morally superior argument, is it? Finally, and obviously related to the first two points, is the idea that a lot of what we've attempted has failed miserably. Top-down, draconian, command-and-control via standards most often does not achieve anything close to sustainable outcomes. Here's a link to a great paper by Jon Sutinen regarding the efficacy (or lack thereof) of CAC approaches to fisheries managment.
Obviously there's more, and of course a series of articles could be written on what the environmental movement has done right, but I'll leave that up to the discussion.
Monday, November 8, 2010
What kind of values are being estimated here?
From Conservation Magazine (yes, shameless self promotion).
Sunday, October 31, 2010
the Nagoya Protocol
United Nations member states agreed to a set of provisions - dubbed the Nagoya Protocol - aimed at reducing species loss. Read about it here at the NY Times or here at the Guardian.
A critical aspect of the negotiations relates to the property rights associated with goods and services derived from plants and animals. Suppose country A discovers genetic information from a species in country B, and then uses that information (coupled with other inputs, lots of R&D, etc..) to produce and sell a good that earns $X in revenue.
How does requiring A to provide B with a share of X address the basic economic cause of the extinction problem? Lots of topics from our course can be considered: discount rates, common property resources, the importance of property rights (Coase), negative and positive externalities, the distribution of costs and benefits and how that affects individual incentives.
There's some other interesting stuff here, including the requirement of payment for genetic info discovered in the past, the lack of an agreement on how to finance such payments, and the importance of biodiversity for economic growth.
A critical aspect of the negotiations relates to the property rights associated with goods and services derived from plants and animals. Suppose country A discovers genetic information from a species in country B, and then uses that information (coupled with other inputs, lots of R&D, etc..) to produce and sell a good that earns $X in revenue.
How does requiring A to provide B with a share of X address the basic economic cause of the extinction problem? Lots of topics from our course can be considered: discount rates, common property resources, the importance of property rights (Coase), negative and positive externalities, the distribution of costs and benefits and how that affects individual incentives.
There's some other interesting stuff here, including the requirement of payment for genetic info discovered in the past, the lack of an agreement on how to finance such payments, and the importance of biodiversity for economic growth.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Valuation in the Gulf
From USA Today
Note the distinction between monetary compensation and compensatory restoration.
I've done some work on the NRDA process and damages to fisheries from small spills. Obviously, the Gulf spill falls under "type B".
Note the distinction between monetary compensation and compensatory restoration.
I've done some work on the NRDA process and damages to fisheries from small spills. Obviously, the Gulf spill falls under "type B".
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
National Petrolium Reserve
The National Petroleum Reserve (near ANWR) doesn't appear as useful for extraction as previously believed. Read about it here at CNN. Related story here (note the last paragraph). History here.
Implications for land rent?
Implications for conservation?
Implications for extraction from other areas?
Will this affect petroleum prices?
Implications for renewable energy policy?
Implications for land rent?
Implications for conservation?
Implications for extraction from other areas?
Will this affect petroleum prices?
Implications for renewable energy policy?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The double-edged sword of tourism
People come to see the natural resources, economy grows, external effects are not internalized, natural resource suffers. Read a recent example in the news here. What kinds of policies might be useful to remedy these types of situations? What types of research questions should be answered first? Are economic growth and nature-based tourism compatible?
Trees are good
A version of this story appeared in today's local paper.
Trees do a great job cleaning up the air.
What are the implications for policy?
Trees do a great job cleaning up the air.
What are the implications for policy?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A cement plant, a cruise ship port, an airport, or something else?
There's an interesting development vs. conservation issue on the horizon in St. Lucy, Barbados. Read about it here at the Barbados Advocate. The Arawak cement plant is currently located in the relatively undeveloped northwest region of the island, near Maycock's Bay. The plant is located right on the coast, and if you swim in the area you see a film of particulate matter on the surface of the sea. In addition to this air pollution, the plant is also quite noisy. The combination of air, noise and water pollution no doubt creates a host of negative external effects for nearby residents. The site apparently looks appealing for a new cruise ship port, or perhaps a new airport. Of course, the land could also be set aside for conservation, or developed for residential uses.
What can we say about how land rents for the area will depend on alternative uses? What kind of research questions might we consider before going forward? Does anyone have an indication as to how this might play out?
What can we say about how land rents for the area will depend on alternative uses? What kind of research questions might we consider before going forward? Does anyone have an indication as to how this might play out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)