Stop human air pollution (breaking wind) now - the Malawi experiment

A new policy in Malawi may have made breaking wind in public a criminal offense. I am all for it especially in lectures, classrooms and most importantly in staff meetings.

It is amusing (in a broad sense) that the BBC chose to picture someone holding their nose to illustrate this story.

Collecting evidence of such criminal behaviour must be a little tricky.

Malawi row over whether new law bans farting

Two of Malawi's most senior judicial officials are arguing over whether a new bill includes a provision that outlaws breaking wind in public.

Justice Minister George Chaponda says the new bill would criminalise flatulence to promote "public decency".

"Just go to the toilet when you feel like farting," he told local radio.

However, he was directly contradicted by Solicitor General Anthony Kamanga, who says the reference to "fouling the air" means pollution.

"How any reasonable or sensible person can construe the provision to criminalising farting in public is beyond me," he said, adding that the prohibition contained in the new law has been in place since 1929.

The Local Courts Bill, to be introduced next week reads: "Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the public to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

Mr Chaponda, a trained lawyer, insists that this includes farting.

"Would you be happy to see people farting anyhow?" he asked on the popular "Straight Talk" programme on Malawi's Capital Radio.

He said that local chiefs would deal with any offenders.

When asked whether it could be enforced, he said it would be similar to laws banning urinating in public.

.

"Value of statistical life": Does the cause of death matter?

Having published a VSL paper and wanting to do more (the work is somewhat down the queue at the moment along with more proactive blogging) I always had a nagging doubt about the whole process of calculating VSLs and why they should differ across countries and levels of development.

The VSL is closely related to the environment especially when it comes to environmental regulation - it regs save lives then they can be justified - but how many lives and at what cost?

After the mega-catastophies post (see below) what better way to begin the year than seeing how VSL is influenced by the cause of death. My pre-reading intuition would be that it will matter but I am not convinced that it should.

Happy new year.

Does the Cause of Death Matter? The Effect of Dread, Controllability, Exposure and Latency on the VSL

Anna Alberini
Milan Scasny

November 17, 2010

FEEM Working Paper No. 139.2010

Abstract:
The Value of a Statistical Life is a key input into the calculation of the benefits of environmental policies that save lives. To date, the VSL used in environmental policy analyses has not been adjusted for age or the cause of death. Air pollution regulations, however, are linked to reductions in the risk of dying for cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses, raising the question whether a single VSL should be applied for all of these causes of death. We conducted a conjoint choice experiment survey in Milan, Italy, to investigate this question. We find that the VSL increases with dread, exposure, the respondents’ assessments of the baseline risks, and experience with the specific risks being studied. The VSL is higher when the risk reduction is delivered by a public program, and increases with the effectiveness rating assigned by the respondent to public programs that address specific causes of death. The effectiveness of private risk-reducing behaviors is also positively associated with the VSL, but the effect is only half as large as that of public program effectiveness. The coefficients on dummies for the cause of death per se – namely, whether it’s cancer, a road traffic accident or a respiratory illness – are strongly statistically significant. All else the same, the fact that the cause of the death is “cancer” results in a VSL that is almost one million euro above the amount predicted by dread, exposure, beliefs, etc. The VSL in the road safety context is about one million euro less than what is predicted by dread, exposure, beliefs, etc. These effects are large, but the majority of the variation in the VSL is accounted for by the public program feature, the effectiveness of public programs at reducing the indicated risk, and dread. The effects of exposure and experience are smaller. These results raise the question whether using VSL figures based on private risk reduction, which is usually recommended to avoid double-counting, severely understates how much a society might be willing to pay for public safety.

Keywords: VSL, Conjoint Choice Experiments, Mortality Risk Reductions, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Forced Choice Questions

JEL Classifications: I18, J17, K32, Q51
Working Paper Series

.

Local Exposure to Toxic Releases: Does Ethnic Diversity Matter?

After many years of work Matt Cole, myself and Kate Khemmarat have finally got our "environmental justice" paper out in working paper form.

This literature has seen a recent return to the academic agenda with Wayne Grey, Ronald Shadbegian and Ann Wolverton also putting out a recent papers on this topic.

Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian & Ann Wolverton, 2010. "Environmental Justice: Do Poor and Minority Populations Face More Hazards?," NCEE Working Paper Series 201010, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2010.

# Ronald J. Shadbegian & Wayne B. Gray, 2009. "Spatial Patterns in Regulatory Enforcement: Local Tests of Environmental Justice," NCEE Working Paper Series 200902, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jun 2009.


Local Exposure to Toxic Releases: Does Ethnic Diversity Matter? [PDF]

Date: 2010-11

By: Matthew A Cole
Robert J R Elliott
Khemrutai Khemmarat

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bir:birmec:10-29&r=env

This paper examines the role played by community characteristics in influencing local environmental quality, focusing specifically on ethnic diversity. In contrast to the previous literature, this study argues that it is the fractionalization and/or polarization of ethnic groups that is the relevant consideration, rather than the population share of ethnic minorities, since such diversity may significantly increase the difficulty of co-ordinating community action. Using toxic release data for the period 1990-1995 and, for the first time, 2000-2005, we find that measures of ethnic diversity do indeed influence local toxic release emissions. This finding persists across a range of robustness exercises.

Keywords: pollution, ethnic diversity, fractionalization, polarization, community characteristics, environmental justice
JEL: Q53

.