Since very few of you took me up on the extra credit opportunity, let's give it a shot here ...
1) What are some common themes that we've discussed throughout the course?
2) What is the role of economics in natural resource policy?
3) Are sustainability and economic growth complements or substitutes?
4) Are the players to blame for the over-use of natural resources, or is it the rules of the game?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Catch shares
Information about catch share programs in fisheries here from EDF.
Good article here from Science Daily.
and another good article here from RFF and here from The Economist.
PERC's Daniel Benjamin has a clearly written piece here (I love the quote in the by-line).
Here's a critique of catch share programs from ESPN's Robert Montgomery. Some good points are made, but the article also has some misleading information and some statements that are downright false. For example, in the second paragraph:
"Some also charge that, at its worst, Catch Shares is a variation of a much discredited cap-and-trade energy policy, in which government limits access and gives away a public resource for commercial profit by a few. "
Catch shares are indeed a variation of cap-and-trade, but cap-and-trade has in no way been discredited (at least not by anyone who knows what they're talking about). Government does indeed limit access, but does not need to "give away" a public resource. Shares can be auctioned or sold in an open market. Besides, the public nature of the resource is the root of the problem to begin with. Montgomery misses that and also seems to completely miss the idea that catch share programs have proven to enhance stocks, which of course will improve recreational opportunities, not diminish them.
No doubt catch shares/ITQs have their problems. All regulations do. And there's no doubt that much more work is needed in perfecting how to implement these systems in ways that balance efficiency, equity and sustainability. But until we come up with something else (?), these systems seem the only way to achieve sustainable harvest.
Good article here from Science Daily.
and another good article here from RFF and here from The Economist.
PERC's Daniel Benjamin has a clearly written piece here (I love the quote in the by-line).
Here's a critique of catch share programs from ESPN's Robert Montgomery. Some good points are made, but the article also has some misleading information and some statements that are downright false. For example, in the second paragraph:
"Some also charge that, at its worst, Catch Shares is a variation of a much discredited cap-and-trade energy policy, in which government limits access and gives away a public resource for commercial profit by a few. "
Catch shares are indeed a variation of cap-and-trade, but cap-and-trade has in no way been discredited (at least not by anyone who knows what they're talking about). Government does indeed limit access, but does not need to "give away" a public resource. Shares can be auctioned or sold in an open market. Besides, the public nature of the resource is the root of the problem to begin with. Montgomery misses that and also seems to completely miss the idea that catch share programs have proven to enhance stocks, which of course will improve recreational opportunities, not diminish them.
No doubt catch shares/ITQs have their problems. All regulations do. And there's no doubt that much more work is needed in perfecting how to implement these systems in ways that balance efficiency, equity and sustainability. But until we come up with something else (?), these systems seem the only way to achieve sustainable harvest.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Land preservation easement in Wilmington
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)