Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
100 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What does formal policy analysis do?
|
• Attempt to account for the social consequences of policies
• Step in making rational decisions: political interests often thrive on ambiguity • Views of the major political parties and split in the environmental community |
|
|
Steps in Benefit-Cost analysis
|
1. Specify regulatory options
2. Determine costs and benefits in physical terms 3. Value and compare benefit costs |
|
|
Net Benefits (NB) =
|
B-C
|
|
|
Benefit Cost ratio
|
B/C
|
|
|
what equations can be used to compare benefits and costs?
|
net benefits and benefit-cost ratio
|
|
|
Benefit Cost Analysis helps to determine:
|
Whether to undertake a program
How to design the program Compare one program with another |
|
|
define: risk assessment and give the steps
|
What is the risk of allowing a certain level of pollution in the environment?
1. Hazard identification 2. Dose-response analysis 3. Exposure analysis 4. Risk characterization |
|
|
Risk analysis composes of what two parts
|
risk assessment and risk management
|
|
|
hazard identification
|
step 1 in risk assessment:
whether a particular chemical or operating practice represents a risk |
|
|
Dose-response analysis: define and the 2 ways that is can be done
|
- relationship between dose (quantity of contaminant) and response (health impact)
1- Laboratory experiments -animals exposed to controlled dose levels -easy to isolate cause and effect are the results valid on humans? dose levels done on the assumption of linear dose-response function 2-Epidemiological studies -human population tested in normal settings statistical analysis to link exposure levels to incidence of disease Difficult to single out the impact of any one factor |
|
|
Exposure Analysis
|
step 3 in risk assessment
how much a given population would be exposed to a particular risk situation? exposure of a large proportion of population to a weakly toxic substance |
|
|
Risk Characterization
|
step 4 in risk assessment
results from the first 3 steps evaluated in combination impact of a new standard in terms of risk reduction compared to the status quo |
|
|
Risk management: 2 things that make it up
|
risk valuation: how much do people value risk reductions? is the cost justified?
risk regulations: it is hard to know how much risk reduction will result from a regulation ex: the ban of pesticide may lead to the use of another chemical |
|
|
What is cost-effectiveness analysis
|
asses the cost of achieving a given objective in alternative ways: you can either
get the greatest possible environmental improvement for a given amount of resources OR least amount of resources for achieving a given level of environmental improvement |
|
|
Environmental Impact Statements
|
expected impacts, alternatives to proposed actions, analysis of irreversible commitments of resources
does NOT prohibit agencies from undertaking actions that will harm the environment |
|
|
what issues are there with policy analysis?
|
ethical objections: "maintaining the quality of environemt is a moral issue that ought to be pursued whatever the cost" ?
Analytical techniques: discounting future values, environmental justice, benefits are much harder to value than costs Politicization of policy analysis |
|
|
Goals of Energy Policy
|
• Affordable energy
• National security • Environmental protection • Equity issues |
|
|
Historical perspectives on energy Policy:
what is the drive for our energy policies today? |
demand driven by the developing world
• Mandates for ethanol production • Loan guarantees for nuclear power • Concern for climate change |
|
|
What is the short to mid-term affect of the concert for climate change on supply and on demand
|
• affect supply: strategic petroleum reserve, allowing high prices to allocate and price scarce energy
• affecting demand: high energy prices due to unfettered market forces or taxation, policies promoting conservation and more energy-efficient choices |
|
|
What is the mid to long term affect of the concert for climate change on supply and on demand
|
• supply: tax incentives to promote production, open new areas to leasing and exploration, research and development, market pricing of energy
• affecting demand: corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFÉ), tax incentives to encourage less, or more efficient consumption, efficiency standards and labeling, research and development in efficiency technologies |
|
|
What important things did the energy Policy Act of 2005 include?
|
• At least 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006; 7.5 billion by 2012
• Production tax credit for nuclear power • Loan guarantee program for renewable energy power plants and fuel production • Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act: caps liability at about $10.7 billion in the event of a commercial reactor accident • Hydrogen and fuel cell program: produce commercial fuel cell vehicles and develop hydrogen infrastructure by 2020 • Defeated provisions • |
|
|
What important things did the energy Independence and Security Act (2007) include?
|
increased fuel economy with tradable credits for exceeding the standard
excludes: renewable portfolio standard, energy subsidies for oil and gas to offset the cost of spporting energy efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives |
|
|
What are two current unsolved issues in Energy policy?
|
Drilling for oil in ANWR
risk: environ damange, not much oil gained, comparable amount of oil could be saved with stricter CAFE standards proponents: advances in exploration and extraction technology would cause little environ damage even small additions to the supply would help control price Off shore Wind energy • |
|
|
Trends in Energy Consumption: US energy consumption
|
doubled since 1959
|
|
|
Trends in Energy Consumption: Sources of energy
|
85 % of our energy comes from fossil fuels, only 15% from 'other'
|
|
|
Trends in Energy Consumption: Petroleum consumption by sector
|
transportation uses the majority of petroleum
|
|
|
Electricity generation by source
|
Coal is the largest, followed by natural gas and nuclear
|
|
|
Motor vehicle efficiency
|
Trucks has stayed relatively the same while SUV’s and cars are slowly rising
|
|
|
Oil and natural gas consumption per dollar of GDP
• Since 1973: |
• Electricity consumption: remained close to 0.45 kWh per constant dollar of GDP
• Number of miles driven by all vehicles: stayed close to 3 miles per constant dollar of GDP • Oil and gas: a remarkable drop in the ratio of consumption to economic activity; rate of economic growth has exceeded the growth rate of oil and gas consumption |
|
|
What will happen in the US due to climate change?
|
most areas will continue to warm; increase precipitation and evaporation
|
|
|
Mitigation for climate change
|
limit the emission of GHGs; carbon sequestration
|
|
|
Adaptation for climate change
|
change lifestyle, economic activities, resource use, cropping patterns, etc.
|
|
|
What are the incentives for Unilateral Mitigation
|
Climate change is a global public bad
• Mitigation of climate change is a global public good |
|
|
Bali Action Plan (2007)
|
The US and other Annex countries solution to the Kyoto Protocol.
• Negotiate new GHG mitigation targets for Annex I parties • “Nationally appropriate mitigation actions” for non-Annex I parties |
|
|
• Copenhagen (Dec. 2009)
• Four ‘political essentials’: |
o − How much are industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions?
o − How much major developing countries are willing to do to limits their emissions? o − Finance to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt o − How is that money going to be managed? |
|
|
• Terms of the Copenhagen Accord
|
o − Hold the increase in temperature below 2 °C
o − Mitigation by both Annex I and non-Annex I parties o − International review of Parties’ mitigation o − REDD-plus o − Developed countries to mobilize finance |
|
|
Copenhagen Accord was a:
|
o − Negotiated between the US, China, Brazil, India, and South Africa
o − Not a legal agreement – others may join (other countries have signed up) o − A joint commitment to “enhance long-term cooperative action” |
|
|
China's total emissions
|
out weigh us, but per capita they are at 4.6 tons while we are 19.8. GDP is 6,700 vs 42,000
|
|
|
• Massachusetts vs. EPA (2007)
|
• CAA directs the EPA Administrator to prescribe by regulation
o − “standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles . . . which, . . . causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” • The Supreme Court: o − GHGs are air pollutants and EPA must exercise the authority granted to it by the CAA to consider regulating these emissions • Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act – |
|
|
2008 GHG ruling
|
• 2008: Senate votes (55-40) that no new mandates on GHGs should be enacted without effectively addressing imports from countries such as China and India
|
|
|
• American Clean Energy and Security Bill (2009)
|
• 2009: House passes the Bill – the Senate is not likely to consider it any time soon
o − A national Renewable Portfolio Standard o − Cap and trade program for CO2 emissions – reduce by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels) |
|
|
• C&C is effective when:
|
• Pollution sources are easy to distinguish
• Damages from pollution are significant • Regulators can identify control technology |
|
|
Incentive-based policies: definition and con
|
incentives to polluters to identify, develop, and adopt cost-effective emission control
• Information asymmetries: the regulated have better information about control options and costs than the regulators |
|
|
• Emission charges in practice plus definition
|
• Polluters pay for one of the nature’s services
• Incentive to chose the most effective method of pollution control • Unit pricing for MSW • Fees for accepting industrial waste at POTWs • Emission charges in Europe and Canada: CO 2 emissions, waterborne emissions; aircraft engine noise! |
|
|
cap and trade: project-based trading vs rate-based trading
|
• Project-based trading:
• Each source is given a baseline quantity of emissions and then allowed to trade • No overall cap or initial permit allocation • Baseline: historical or future emissions? • Rate-based trading: • Standard is set for emission per unit of output; trading is then allowed |
|
|
• Unforeseen consequences of public policies have resulted from:
|
• New technologies encouraged by policies
• Policy makers being misinformed or lacking in resources to assess full impacts • Organizational or institutional factors |
|
|
Perverse consequence of policy
|
• Outcomes that are directly counter to the objectives of a policy: ex- technological solutions are mandated without considering behavioral responses- child proof medicines cause "lulling effect" led to increase of poisonings
|
|
|
Four Problem Areas
• Key focus areas for policy regarding the control of radiation: |
• Spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste
• Large quantities of low-level waste • Contamination from nuclear weapons program (e.g., R&D and production facilities) • Radioactive material from decommissioned nuclear weapons |
|
|
Problems with Yucca Mountain
|
• Concerns about possible contamination of the surrounding region
• Risk of accidents during transportation of SNF to the disposal site • Possibility of earthquakes and human encroachment in the distant future • Lawsuits: (1) whether Congress may constitutionally proceed with laws authorizing the project; and (2) whether EPA erred in using 10,000-year life for planning purposes • Costs and security of onsite dispersed storage operations |
|
|
why have no new LLW disposal sites been constructed yet?
|
o − Public and political opposition to new sites
o − Continued access by almost all the states to ‘legacy’ disposal sites o − Reduction in the quantity of LLW |
|
|
Nuclear weapons program
|
• Largest single environmental cleanup job currently underway in the US
• Rapid growth of nuclear weapons program during the Cold War era without regard to environmental impacts • Office of Environmental Management (OEM) within the DOE has the responsibility to cleanup 114 sites • 37 (smallest and least difficult) sites completed by 2007 |
|
|
What is the difficulty in managing chemical use of hazardous waste?
|
• Extraordinary variety of chemicals
• Vast number of ways that chemicals enter and move throughout the environment |
|
|
What are the categories of Hazardous Waste?
|
• Exposure during production and use
• Emissions during production • Hazardous waste disposal |
|
|
laws for industrial chemicals
|
• New chemicals: Pre-manufacturing notice with known information about the chemical; however, toxicity testing is not required
• Existing chemicals: 60,000 of those when the law was enacted; EPA to compile information on the chemical’s effects • EPA authorized to regulate the use of chemicals (including outright prohibition); must choose the ‘least burdensome means’ |
|
|
• Chemicals in food [FDCA]:
|
• Implemented by the FDA
• EPA establishes tolerance levels for chemicals (e.g. pesticides) in fresh and processed food • Food Quality Protection Act (1996): all pesticide levels are set at a level for which there is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” |
|
|
• Waterborne toxic emissions laws
|
• Best Available Technology (BAT) standard for both direct and indirect dischargers
|
|
|
Toxic Release Inventory laws
|
• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (1986):
o Businesses report quantities of chemicals stored on site, chemical releases to air and water, and transfers to other locations. EPA makes that data available on the TRI. |
|
|
Hazardous waste
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) |
• Pollutants disposed of in air or water may get dissipated or chemically converted
• Pollutants discarded over land may stay in their original form for many years • Criteria used for identifying a hazardous substance: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity • Manifest system: Hazardous waste travels with a form that identifies the quantity, origin, and destination of the material • Applies only to hazardous waste that leaves the point where it is produced • Performance standards and permit system for handlers of hazardous waste |
|
|
• CERCLA (1980): Superfund
|
• RCRA (1976) does not cover hazardous waste generated in the past
• CERCLA (or Superfund) was enacted after the Love Canal incident • Procedure for identifying and remediating sites with substantial risk of damage, fund to support EPA-led cleanup, liability system for past dumpers • Strict, joint, and several liability: burden on polluters to identify one another and share the cost of cleanup; thought to be too punitive • State superfund programs to address sites that are not on the National Priorities List • Liability for natural resource damages due to the release of hazardous materials |
|
|
Standards of Superfund
|
o Negligence
• expected cost of damage x probability of accident (>, <, = ?) cost of preventative measures • Not liable is damage x prob < cost of prev. measures o Strict Liability o Punitive damages |
|
|
direct vs indirect pollutants
|
• Direct pollutants:
• Discharged directly into a water body • Indirect pollutants: • Discharged initially into a POTW |
|
|
• Problems with federal POTW grant program:
|
• Substitution of local and state money with federal funds
• Allocation of limited funds of the program • Distorted local incentives • Below-cost supply of treatment services to developers and businesses |
|
|
why has there been a shift back to an ambient system of water pollution control?
|
Growth of nonpoint sources relative to point sources of pollution
• Technology-based approach is not effective for controlling NPS pollution |
|
|
• Difficulties with the TMDL system:
|
• Specifying the objective (e.g. fishable, swimmable, etc.) criteria for determining whether the
• objective has been attained • Monitoring and data collection • Determining and allocating TMDL |
|
|
problems with a cap-and-trade program for water pollution
|
• Water pollution problems are more localized (compared to air pollution problems); geographical extent of trading networks has to be limited in size
|
|
|
Issues with the SDWA
|
• EPA’s pace of identifying contaminants: 1986 amendment listed 83 substances to be studied by the EPA; 1996 amendment allowed the EPA to set up priorities
• Unfunded mandates: 1996 amendment established a financial program for municipalities • Why should the federal government get involved in a local issue? |
|
|
who is involved in air pollution control
|
• Senate
• House • Regulated industries • EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation • The feds and the states • International dimension |
|
|
Types of Air Pollution and Sources
|
• Criteria pollutants: six major pollutants for which controls were first developed (CO, SO2, NOX, O3, Pb, PM)
• Hazardous air pollutants: • toxic effects on people and the ecosystem (e.g. benzene) • Ozone-Depleting substances • Greenhouse gases • Indoor air pollutants • Radiation • Stationary and mobile sources |
|
|
Congress's different role for mobile/stationary sources of air pollution
|
• Stationary sources: Congress set the criteria and let the EPA determine the exact standard
• Mobile sources: Congress itself set the exact emission limits for new cars |
|
|
• adequate margin of safety
|
achieving a reasonably high level of health protection rather than zero human health consequences
|
|
|
New Source Review under the
Clean Air Act: Ripe for Reform • The New Source Review (NSR) program applies: |
• (1) to new sources whose emissions are high enough, and
• (2) when modifications at existing major sources result in an increase in emissions this created expectation that emissions would fall as old plants are retired and replaced by more efficient plants |
|
|
New Source Review under the
Clean Air Act: Ripe for Reform negative effected of NSR |
• o NSR requirements can impede the adoption of clean and efficient energy technologies,
o e.g. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems • o Perverse incentive to use older (=dirtier) power plants for off-peak requirements • NSR and existing plants: • o No continuous incentive to reduce emissions • o NSR program is viewed as being lengthy and costly; disincentive for improvements, efficiency upgrades, and maintenance at old plants • o Uncertain policy environment with high transaction cost for businesses • o Increased energy efficiency triggers NSR although regional emissions may go down A cap-and-trade system, particularly for NO X, SO2, and mercury, will eliminate the need to regulate new and existing sources differently |
|
|
Economics of improving fuel economy.
• The article asks the following question: “Why have market forces not driven consumers to demand – and manufacturers to produce – more fuel-efficient cars?” What is the answer provided by the author to this question? |
• most technologies that can be used to increase fuel economy can also be used to increase horsepower. consumers have found greater value in cars with higher horsepower, rather than fuel efficiency
|
|
|
Economics of improving fuel economy.
What are the arguments presented to support the suggestion that “consumers and manufacturers are not making good decisions about fuel economy?” How do these arguments justify the use of CAFE standards to improve fuel economy? |
• consumers may not know, understand, or believe there really are differences in fuel economy among vehicles
• they may not rank fuel economy high enough to worry about when shopping for a car; cargo capacity, power, and styling may be more important • even if consumers do consider fuel economy, they may not find that the corresponding net gain of about $50–$500(depending on the payback period) associated with fuel-economy decisions makes a big enough difference to sway their choice • consumers may not properly account for the full value of future fuel savings from a more fuel-efficient car, considering, for example, only the first few years of savings rather than the entire vehicle lifetime |
|
|
Economics of improving fuel economy.
One potential improvement in the existing CAFE standards is “making the program fully tradable.” What does this mean and why would such a change be beneficial? |
• credits earned in any fleet by any manufacturer when they beat the standard can be used to offset obligations in any other fleet of any other manufacturer. This could helping savings with Honda – who could make cars super fuel efficient for cheaper than Ford, therefore saving both companies money
|
|
|
Economics of improving fuel economy.
The article argues that “consumers, manufacturers, labor unions, environmentalists, and security hawks all have an interest in fuel-economy regulation, and their often-opposing positions have been responsible for a nearly 20-year stalemate.” How does the article explain the “often-opposing positions” of the different stakeholders? |
• traditional, undifferentiated fuel-economy regulations have been more burdensome for domestic than foreign manufacturers because domestic manufacturers produce, on average, larger and less fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
• differentiating standards may cause production of smaller cars to move overseas, taking away the domestic jobs of those workers who currently make small American cars. therefore, unions oppose this • California has severe pollution problems and have set higher standards than the national level – currently being contested in court. if they win, other states will follow • Many senators who are worries about energy security are pushing for higher national standards |
|
|
According to this article, what are the advantages of using an ‘oil tax’ instead of CAFE
standards or ‘feebates’ to control air pollution from mobile sources? |
• the cost of fuel economy remains disbursed over future purchases
• the tax redistributes wealth from consumers to government as they pay the tax and, in turn, to whatever use (tax cuts or spending) the government finds for the revenue. • Importantly, an oil tax has an added advantage in terms of efficiently reducing oil use in that it encourages more fuel economy and less driving, whereas CAFE and feebates can stimulate more driving as the cost per mile to consumers will fall. |
|
|
Clean Air–Is the Sky the Limit?
the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting air quality standards |
• The use of cost-benefit analysis in setting air quality standards will help the EPA move away
from the goal of ‘minimizing health effects’ to the goal of ‘maximizing net social benefits’ – could we use the society’s scarce resources (i.e. the expenditure on compliance) in a better way? For example, we could buy a lot of health improvement for that money, but we won’t |
|
|
Unleashing the Clean Water Act: The Promise and Challenge
of the TMDL Approach to Water Quality: • This article describes the TMDL approach to maintaining water quality – this is an ambient- based (as opposed to technology-based) method of dealing with water pollution |
• total maximum daily load (TMDL) will look at the overall quality of waterbodies: it will monitor lake, river, and estuarine water quality, identify the nature and location of polluted waters, trace pollutants to their sources, and impose controls to guarantee the health of various waterbodies
|
|
|
Clean Air–Is the Sky the Limit? Unleashing the Clean Water Act: The Promise and Challenge
of the TMDL Approach to Water Quality • What are the ‘technical hurdles’ in the watershed-level regulation of water pollution needed to implement the TMDL approach? |
• it is the State’s job to list which bodies of water are impaired, which is something that States have had problems with in the past: they must create standards, data to be used, and relevant guidelines necessary to ensure quality of data analysis
• states must create plans for source reductions: but the science to analyze and create adequate plans is relatively undeveloped due to the complexity of all the interacting systems involved (groundwater and surface water interactions, pollutant accumulation and decay, in-stream mixing) • Because of the wide range of pollutant sources, pathways, and factors, source contributions will rarely be known with certainty • The modeling techniques and data required for TMDL implementation will contribute significantly to the costs of implementation. Eventually it will become cheaper as it is practices more, but will always stay relatively expensive because each water segment is unique |
|
|
Clean Air–Is the Sky the Limit? Unleashing the Clean Water Act: The Promise and Challenge
of the TMDL Approach to Water Quality: Why is the TMDL approach more useful for tackling the problem of non-point source pollution? |
• technology based, end-of-pipe approach controlls point sources. TMDL will change the policits, economics, and implementation of water quality regulations by looking at which bodies of water are polluted, and then tracing the pollutants back from there to as many sources are polluting the water
|
|
|
The arsenic rule: A case for decentralized standard
setting? • The article proposes that each water district in the US should be allowed to choose its own Arsenic standard. What are the two arguments put forward by the article in support of this conclusion? |
• arsenic standard is a real-world approximation of a “local public good” because the population at risk is restricted to regular users of the local water system. Drinking water quality is a service shared by a well-defined local group of people
• There are striking variations in the cost of treatment across the US water districts. |
|
|
The arsenic rule: A case for decentralized standard
setting? • Among the water systems of different sizes, what is the pattern of current status of compliance with the new Arsenic standard? What implication does that have for the cost of implementation of the new standard? |
• Most large water districts already meet the standard to 10ppb, while 97% of the areas not in compliance are small systems that serve less than 10,000 people (therefore making the impact primarily on small districts, the ones that would see the most expensive changes)
|
|
|
The arsenic rule: A case for decentralized standard
setting? • According to the article, what role would the EPA and the policy experts play in a scheme that involves decentralized standard setting? |
• The EPA would provide basic information and guidance both for the risk associated with arsenic standards and for the costs of treatment: is would provide a menu of choices
|
|
|
Superfund at 25: What Remains to Be Done
What was the ‘two-pronged approach’ put in place by CERCLA to assure that sites contaminated with hazardous substances would be cleaned up? |
• 1- it created a powerful liability system to get former nd current owners and operators of contaminated sites to pay for and clean up site themselves
• 2- it created a designated trust fund to pay for site stufies and cleanups wehre responsible parties could not, or would not, foot the bill |
|
|
Superfund at 25: What Remains to Be Done
• Identify the ‘huge and important gap’ in any attempt to measure the total costs of the Superfund program. Why is it important to have such information? |
• No one knows the total amount of money paid to clean up NPL sites because the responsible party, who pays on average for 70% of the clean up, does not publicly disclose their costs.
|
|
|
• What does the article suggest about improving transparency in the Superfund program?
|
• The EPA should come clean about the likely pace of cleanup and funding shortfalls
• It should continue to improve the information it provides about contamination, and health and environmental concerns at individual sites • The EPA should reprioritize its budget and allocate funds efficiently. • the Superfund program must do a better job of self-evaluation so that they can improve implementation in the future and assure that funds are being spent in the most efficient and cost-effective fashion |
|
|
• What’s the latest on the Yucca Mountain Repository project? What effect is this decision
likely to have on the growth of the nuclear power industry? |
• Obama stopped the project to prepare Yucca Mountain for the nation’s nuclear waste repository
• It does not have a big impact on the growth of the nuclear power industry. We have ways to store nuclear power for the next few decades, plus nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide → doesn’t lead to climate change |
|
|
yucca mountain:• How did the representatives of environmental interest groups and think tanks and the nuclear
power industry react to this news? |
• enviro interest groups said that we need to find an answer to nuclear waste soon, but Yucca Mountain was NOT a solution anyway. We need to find a solution based on science
• think tanks: Yucca mountain debate has become a “sideshow”, we need concrete answer, Yucca mountain or something like Yucca mountain needs to be done. We need to take into consideration any option we have for dealing with global warming: and nuclear power is one of them • Nuclear power industry: it means that they way things are currently being run will continue. consumers will continue to pay for a nuclear waste fund |
|
|
). Incentive-based groundwater conservation
programs: Perverse consequences? overall conclusion? |
Overall conclusion: “Voluntary, incentive-based water conservation programs for irrigated
agriculture are often billed as policies where everyone gains. However, such policies can have unintended, even perverse, consequences.” |
|
|
). Incentive-based groundwater conservation
programs: Perverse consequences? The two programs studied in this article are: |
• o “The state has been subsidizing a shift toward more efficient irrigation systems”
• o “The Conservation Reserve Program includes payments to landowners to retire, leave fallow, or plant non-irrigated crops on their land. . . Kansas has used the CRP and other more recent programs to retire (at least temporarily) land in areas of the state where the water table has been falling most rapidly.” |
|
|
). Incentive-based groundwater conservation
programs: Perverse consequences? • Two observations about these programs are noteworthy: |
• o “a policy of subsidizing more efficient irrigation technology can induce a shift away from dry-land crops to irrigated crops. They may also induce the planting of more water- intensive crops on already irrigated land, as by definition, more efficient irrigation increases the amount of water the crop receives per unit extracted”
• o “farmers enroll their least productive, least intensively farmed lands in the programs while receiving payments higher than their opportunity costs, thus accruing rents.” |
|
|
). Incentive-based groundwater conservation
programs: Perverse consequences? • The authors summarize the results of the paper as follows: |
• o “The subsidized shift toward more efficient irrigation systems has in fact increased extraction through a shift in cropping patterns. Better irrigation systems allow more water-intensive crops to be produced at a higher marginal profit. The farmer has an incentive to both increase irrigated acreage and produce more water-intensive crops.”
• o “. . we find essentially no effect of land conservation programs on groundwater pumping, which occurs, by definition, on irrigated, and thus, very productive land.” |
|
|
The economic costs of fuel economy
standards versus a gasoline tax. • What is the policy objective? What alternative ways of achieving the policy objective were studied? |
• The policy objective is to raise fuel economy in order to decrease the US’s dependence on oil and its emissions of carbon dioxide
• Alternative ways: trade “fuel economy credits”, raise the gasoline tax |
|
|
The economic costs of fuel economy
standards versus a gasoline tax. • Why is this cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) rather than cost-benefit analysis (CBA)? What additional steps will need to be performed to do a CBA rather than a CEA? If CBA of the alternative policies is conducted (rather than a CEA, as in the present study), could we regard that as a more rigorous scrutiny of the policies than a mere CEA? |
• Because it just looks at the flat rate that each would cost, it assumes that everything else is being held constant. With a CBA, raising CAFÉ standards may cost less if the price of gasoline naturally (without a tax) increases – making fuel economy a more desirable attribute for vehicles. Also, future fuel saving technologies could become much cheaper. Also do not look at how this effects other parts of the economy.
|
|
|
The economic costs of fuel economy
standards versus a gasoline tax. • How is the assumption that “firms will not voluntarily use future new technologies to produce fuel savings” justified by the authors of the study? |
• consumers’ preferences over the past 15 years have induced automakers to increase vehicles’ size and weight (for safety/other reasons) and horsepower, while holding gasoline mileage ratings steady. An increase in the standards would reduce the welfare of automobile producers and consumers
|
|
|
Science behind closed doors: • What is the controversy that the article refers to?
|
• over 1,000 emails from researched at the Climate Research Unit in Britain appeared on the internet and the emails said that the claim that the Himalayas could lose all their glaciers in 25 years was false.
|
|
|
Science behind closed doors
• How would you characterize and briefly describe the conclusions of the committees that were formed to investigate these matters? |
• the science of climate is sound but it is tough to do science in such an argumentative area with high levels of scrutiny.
|
|
|
Science behind closed doors
• Would you say that the article supports the view that scientists studying climate change should be more transparent about their work? Explain your answer briefly. |
• yes, the author shows that hiding information can be bad.
|
|
|
Science behind closed doors:
• What does the author of the article mean by the following remark? “The mode of production has been found acceptable, but the product is for others to judge” |
• The way that science and research is done and shared is found to be proficient, but what comes out of this research is up in the air???
|
