Climate change has been good - so far - but its getting worse

So says Richard Tol in this new research paper that uses the FUND3.6 model to examine the impact of climate change in the 20th century.

So what is the punchline - overall climate change has been good for the world (on average).


The Economic Impact of Climate Change in the 20th Century

Date: 2011-02

By: Tol, Richard S. J.

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp376&r=env

The national version of FUND3.6 is used to infrapolate the impacts of climate change to the 20th century. Carbon dioxide fertilization of crops and reduced energy demand for heating are the main positive impacts. Climate change had a negative effect on water resources and, in most years, human health. Most countries benefitted from climate change until 1980, but after that the trend is negative for poor countries and positive for rich countries. The global average impact was positive.

Keywords: Climate change/impacts/Impacts of climate change/Human health

.

Mass extinction coming soon?

The possibility of a new mass extinction (the sixth) is always good for a weekend post. Easter bunnies anyone?

Putting an estimation on the arrival at between 300 and 22,000 years gives us little breathing room - the scientists need to tighten up on their sensitivity analysis a little.

Are We At The Start Of A New Mass Extinction? [Environmental Graffiti]

According the World Conservation Union, 51% of known reptiles, 52% of known insects and 73% of known flowering plants are under threat. Many species will become extinct before they are even discovered. In the United States, there are approximately 1,300 endangered species. In 1993, the eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that we lose approximately 30,000 species a year. We now face the loss of entire genera, and it appears we are the culprit.

../

Many scientists believe that we are actually in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. If this is the case, it will be the first such mass extinction that was not caused by a physical activity such as volcanic activity or a meteor. This mass extinction will be caused by living organisms, and the cause is more of a serious problem than one of its major contributors – global warming. If all species currently threatened actually become extinct, we can expect the sixth mass extinction to properly arrive within the next 300 to 22,000 years.
Click the link to read more.

.

Unexpected consequences - illegal logging in Russia

The ban on logging in certain areas of China in 1997 following damaging floods has led to a massive increase in illegal logging in Russia. The break up of the Soviet Union only exacerbated the problem.

The Diplomat reports.

This is a standard "tragedy of the commons", "property rights", "weak institutions and rule of law", "corruption" problem. There is no simple solution.

Russia’s Far East Forest Mafia [The Diplomat]

The vast forests of Russia’s Far East are being plundered. Prompted by rising Chinese demand for timber and enabled by a culture of official corruption and fear, environmentalists say a Russian forest mafia is stripping the region of rare and valuable hardwoods, a trade that threatens the world’s last remaining populations of Siberian tigers.

In China, timber is processed into finished consumer products such as veneers, picture frames and wooden toilet seats, many of which end up on shelves in the West, the endpoint of a pernicious and largely unacknowledged global market chain. Despite statements of concern from the Russian authorities, the logging industry is ‘now beyond federal control, and overrun by criminal gangs’, according to Dark Forest, a recent TV exposé of the official corruption at the heart of the trade.

.

Humanities and climate change

From the inbox:

Humanties Professors at Stanford look at climate change under the banner of "human experience".

Humanities Scholars Shed New Light on the Past, Present, and Future of Environmental Change

At first glance, Stanford University history professor Richard White might seem an unlikely source for fresh perspectives on today’s environmental debate. But White—a humanities scholar whose research focuses on American history—believes that looking back at events of the past often gives keen insights into what has shaped the present, as well as offering glimpses of what the future holds.

White’s examination of the expansion of railroad system in the American West during the 1800s, for example, revealed an unexpected and lingering ecological downside. While creating a brief economic boom for dozens of cities at the time, many of the regions that were developed have been in economic and environmental decline for years.

“Americans tend to focus on the environmental disasters of other countries and point out the ways in which they had environmental catastrophes,” White said. “You sometimes forget that we in the United States also have a history which has many of the same elements.”

White, the Margaret Byrne Professor of American History, is just one of a number of humanities researchers at Stanford who feel that current-day environmental issues should be considered by a range of scholarly disciplines, including those in the humanities and in the sciences.

Scholars from the University’s philosophy, literature, and history departments are contributing to interdisciplinary discussion through their publications and in academic workshops and research groups. They stress that their unique perspectives are valuable because science alone can’t completely address the massive problems of global climate change, industrial pollution, food shortages, and vastly unequal living standards in Western and developing nations, none of which can be fully understood without considering their complex historical and cultural legacies.

With input from colleagues in academic disciplines from the economics to medicine, humanities professors across campus have created a variety of opportunities for interdisciplinary discussion about the environment. Graduate students, too, are working alongside faculty members in several workshop groups and research teams. In all these cases, their aim is to paint a more detailed picture of the nuanced reality of the past, present, and future of environmental change.

“You might be able to do scientific studies about what is happening,” White explains, “but if you want to know why it’s happening, how it’s happening, the political background, and what to do about it, then you’re into the humanities and social science research.”

Researchers consider the following questions:

Philosophy Raises Questions of Environmental Ethics

Multi-Disciplinary Conversation Inspires and Informs

Digital Humanities Projects Uncover the Roots of Environmental Change

Research Predicts “Climate Migrants”

.

The Hatwell paper " new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009"

An interesting paper that I should have blogged on a long time ago:

The Hartwell paper "new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009"

From wikipedia:

The Hartwell Paper calls for a reorientation of climate policy after the perceived failure in 2009 of the UNFCCC climate conference in Copenhagen. The paper was published in May 2010 by the London School of Economics in cooperation with the University of Oxford. The authors are 14 natural and social scientists from Asia, Europe and North America, including Mike Hulme, Roger A. Pielke (Jr), Nico Stehr and Steve Rayner, who met under the Chatham House Rule.
Hartwell House, where the meetings took place.

The paper argues that "decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic."

It emphasizes human dignity as a necessary guiding principle for climate policy: "To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness – which has failed and will continue to fail."

It has three main objectives:

* 1. Energy access for all
* 2. Clean energy
* 3. Dealing with climate change

The ultimate goal is "to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels

.

.

Recycling: "It could be you or could it?"

This simple video is strangely emotionally powerful or I am just going soft in my old age?



.

Krugman on climate change, the press and the republicans

Hot on the heels of my first post of today Paul Krugman joins in.

His main point and something hinted at in the previous posting is exactly this:

"Where do they find these people".

More to the point - why do they find "these" people when there are so many to pick from?

The Truth, Still Inconvenient [NYT]

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What’s the punch line? They were three of the five “expert witnesses” Republicans called for last week’s Congressional hearing on climate science.

But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.

Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth.

Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”

The deniers’ response was both predictable and revealing; more on that shortly. But first, let’s talk a bit more about that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and others have had about a number of committee hearings held since the G.O.P. retook control of the House — namely, where do they find these people?

My favorite, still, was Ron Paul’s first hearing on monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a “horrific tyrant” — and for advocating a new secessionist movement as the appropriate response to the “new American fascialistic state.”

The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week’s hearing weren’t of quite the same caliber, but their prepared testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the lawyer’s declaration that the E.P.A. can’t declare that greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these emissions have been rising for a century, but public health has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.

Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of past cases of “analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming” — presumably intended to show why we should ignore the worriers — included problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.

But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case.

You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.”

Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality.

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.

But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

But it’s terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical careerism — for that’s what it is — has probably ensured that we won’t do anything about climate change until catastrophe is already upon us.

So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race. 

.

The 25th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Accident

Given the events unfolding in Japan I have seen a large number of statistics being thrown around many of which explain the excellent safety record of nuclear often in light of the Chernobyl accident.

I believe it would be useful for the media to read this paper to get a deeper understanding of the short and medium term implications. Is 25 years long term?


The 25th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Accident
Date: 2011
By: Simmons, Phil
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aare11:100713&r=env

The nuclear accident at the Chernobyl plant in 1986 is described and a summary of its immediate effects on people and the environment outlined. Then there is a summary of the important parts of the literature on diseases and deaths resulting from radiation and mortalities to date and the way mortality data became increasingly conservative over the years is discussed. Today, there is still uncertainty about future mortalities dues to long latency periods for many cancers however cancer deaths in Chernobyl affected regions are expected to be similar to non-Chernobyl controls. The major literature on environmental effects on wild species, forests, water and agricultural land are then reported with a brief discussion of remediation work and of current trends. Finally, contemporary perceptions of the Chernobyl accident are described in the context of popular anti-nuclear sentiment that prevailed in 1986, the immense publicity surrounding the accident and the natural tendency of people to exaggerate prospects of unlikely, yet extreme, events.

.

Communicating Climate Change

Climate sceptics remain "sceptical". The "significant" chance of "catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences" during the next 100 years barely registers on the public's list of concerns.

Kevin Parton and Mark Mossison investigate.

This is an interesting topic of debate.


Communicating Climate Change: A Literature Review
Date: 2011
Parton, Kevin
Morrison, Mark
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aare11:100693&r=env

For climate scientists, climate change is a problem that has a significant chance of having catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences during the course of this century. In contrast, public opinion seems to regard with scepticism the pronouncements on climate change that emanate from the scientific community. Why the difference? This is what our research project was designed to examine. Or to put it another way: Assuming that the scientific information is correct, and that without a dramatic change in technology (and policy to promote such a change) there would be a significant risk of man-made, global catastrophe, what must be done to communicate this urgent issue to the public? We have approached the analysis of this problem by reviewing the literature on communicating climate change. By organising the literature according to the role of the major groups of participants in the information transfer process, useful insights can be gleaned. These groups include scientists, business, the government, the media and the general public. This analysis leads to an overall model of the information transfer process that highlights various issues including the role that the media plays as a lens through which the public observes scientific results.

.

300 Years of FOSSIL FUELS in 300 Seconds

A nicely put together left handed artists summary of 300 years of fossil fuel (from the inbox).

An award winning youtube video no less



.

Third World US and Europe

Arriving at an agreement on limiting carbon emissions was never going to be easy but when one looks a little more closely at the lobbying going on in the US it is no surprise that the average American is skeptical about the whole global warming "scare".

The following article goes straight for the emotional jugular. "Jobs, revenue and modern living standards". These are all in danger - why? Because of the scare-mongering "warmists" and environmental regulations.

This article and others like it reveal clearly why the planet is ultimately doomed.

The solution? Move to a high place and either buy or sell oil stocks.

Welcome to the Third World [No pain, no gain]

../

Welcome to the Third World, Europeans, where costly electricity is available only from time to time, at unexpected hours, depending on bureaucratic whims and how much power wind turbines and other “environment-friendly” generators can muster.

Is the USA next in line? The United States is reaping imaginary bounties from its $814-billion “stimulus” spending orgy. It hemorrhaged $223 billion in red ink during February alone – on its way to a projected 2011 deficit of $1.5 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office reports.

Over 13.7 million Americans remain unemployed; another 8.3 million are involuntarily employed only part-time; black unemployment stands at 15.3 percent; and gasoline prices have hit $4 per gallon, foretelling more rough waters ahead for the still fragile US economy.

America depends on abundant, reliable, affordable energy – 85% of it hydrocarbons. Coal generates half of all US electricity, and up to 90% in its manufacturing heartland – versus 1% from wind and solar. Newfound natural gas supplies promise a sea change in US energy supplies and electricity generation. However, oil still powers transportation, shipping and petrochemicals – and in 2010 the United States exported $337 billion to import 61% of this precious liquid fuel.

../

Unlocking America’s still abundant hydrocarbon resources and unleashing our innovative, hard-driving free enterprise system would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in leasing, royalty and tax revenues for federal, state and local governments. It would put millions back to work … help stanch the flow of red ink … keep tens of billions of crude oil spending and investment in America … and create enormous new wealth, instead of redistributing a dwindling pool of old wealth.

We must drill safely, use fuel more efficiently in vehicles and power plants, and get more from every underground reservoir. And we could do so, if government would allow it.

Just consider the incredible revolution that the genius of American capitalists has presented the world: hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” to tap previously inaccessible oil and gas deposits. This technology has turned “depletion” and “sustainability” claims upside down. It has already doubled US natural gas reserves and given North America over a century of recoverable gas, at current consumption rates.

It is also unlocking oil wealth in the vast Bakken shale formation of Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan. Oil production there has already soared from 3,000 barrels a day five years ago to over 225,000 today. The US Energy Information Administration says it could reach 350,000 barrels a day by 2035; industry sources say it could top a million barrels by 2020. Related oilfield employment has soared from 5,000 to over 18,000 in the same five-year period, and could eventually reach 100,000 jobs. At $100 a barrel, even 350,000 barrels a day could mean $1.6 billion in annual royalties, from Bakken oil alone.

The new Made in America technology is already changing energy, economic and political landscapes in Europe, and will soon do so across the globe. It is a technologically possible and economically affordable solution that generates bountiful jobs and revenues – as opposed to pixie dust solutions that require perpetual subsidies and address speculative problems. Offshore and ANWR drilling could do likewise.

../

President Obama wants oil, gas, coal and electricity prices to “skyrocket,” to make “green” energy appear more attractive. Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe” – over $8 per gallon! Most of all, these anti-hydrocarbon politicians want a self-sustaining political-environmentalist-industrial-public sector union complex based on government subsidies to favored industries and companies, in exchange for campaign contributions that will keep them in power.

This palpable, intolerable insanity must end. It’s time to tell Congress (and the European Commission) we need real energy for real jobs, real revenues and a revitalized economy. And we need it now.

.

Krugman on Hotelling and the 40% rule

Paul Krugman has a neat piece in the NY times reminiscing about his time as a research assistant for Nordhaus when the latter formualated the hotelling rule of non-renewable resource extraction.

Having seen Marty Weitzman recently present at the World Congress last year I can perfectly imagine how he came up with his 40% rule.

What is the 40% rule you ask?

What was wrong with those circulars? They were much too optimistic about the costs of alternative energy sources, especially alternatives to oil. Basically, the engineers were understating the difficulties involved. Later Marty Weitzman would formulate a law on this: the cost of alternatives to crude oil is 40% above the current price — whatever the current price is.

This is the sort of rule I like. Simple but also entirely doom-laden.

It is almost poetic. My guess is that our increased knowledge and technical expertise will have reduced the 40% rule to somewhere around 20-30%. Can I make a claim to have invented the "approximately 25% rule"?

The links in the Krugman article are worth following. Here is a taster.

The Answer, My Friend [NY Times]

And shining in the sun, too — or so say two papers cited by Brad Plumer, arguing that we can have a fully renewable-based, nuclear-free economy by 2050. And I’m sure that’s right — but I’m a bit skeptical about the cost estimates, for reasons having to do with personal career history.

The story: I effectively began my career as a professional economist way back in the summer of 1973, working as a research assistant for Bill Nordhaus. Nordhaus was in the early stages of a long and highly successful run of research into resource economics, and was trying to come up with a way to estimate “appropriate” energy prices. And he had come up with a wonderfully elegant approach, building off the classic Hotelling model of exhaustible resource pricing.

.

China's environmental growth pains

I continue to do a lot of work on China and its environment because "this is where the action is" and where academic work had have a greater impact.

The news from PlanetArk this morning comes as no surprise.

As I have posted before, growth comes first and central to that growth is the burning of fossil fuels and most importantly coal. Whilst China has the will and the funds to make changes it is fighting against a tide of growth that will overwhelm any investment in wind (currently has the largest installed base of wind) and other green investments.

China Says Environment Still Suffering Growth Pains [PlanetArk]

China's fight against chronic pollution is faltering in the face of urbanization and rapid growth, though the last five years have seen some progress, the country's environment ministry said on Saturday.

China was still producing more "traditional pollutants" than it could bear, but new industries were also creating torrents of dangerous chemicals and mountains of electronic waste, said Zhang Lijun, vice-minister of environmental protection.

"We're still a developing country -- the standard of living is still not high, employment trends are serious and each level of government is paying attention to economic growth," he said.

China's consumption of coal -- the dirtiest of fossil fuels and a major source of acid rain, water pollution and climate change -- rose around 1 billion tons in the five years from 2006, and could rise another billion in the next five, he said.

"In this kind of territory, if we add emissions from another 1 billion tons of coal, how big will the impact be on our environment?" Zhang told reporters.

TACKLING CARBON

China plans to cut its levels of carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP -- by 17 percent by the end of 2015. Zhang said individual regions had already been set targets.

China's climate change measures have normally been the responsibility of the growth-focused National Development and Reform Commission, with the environment ministry taking on more immediate threats such as acid rain-inducing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as well as water and soil contamination.

But environment minister Zhou Shengxian said last month the ministry would include CO2 emissions in the environmental impact assessments of major projects.

Zhang said the ministry would only approve individual projects that fit in with regional greenhouse gas targets, and the NDRC would still play the leading role in China's climate change efforts.

GROWTH VS POLLUTION

The ministry was upgraded from a lower-level "bureau" just three years ago, and fears remain that China will continue to give priority to economic growth, especially in poorer regions.

The ministry has not been involved in climate change discussions, and environmental activists say it has been frozen out of policy debates about the development of hydropower -- seen as a key part of China's "low-carbon" strategy over the next decade.

Zhang said it would be "very easy" to sacrifice the economy for the environment, but the crucial issue for local governments was greener growth, and China already had systems to ensure regions meet their duty to both create jobs and protect health.

China aims to keep annual growth at around 7 percent in the next five years, but Zhao Hualin, head of the ministry's pollution control office, told reporters the GDP target was only for "guidance" and would not supersede environmental goals.

China will publish its detailed "five-year plan" for the environment after it has been approved by the State Council, the country's cabinet. It has already announced that sulphur dioxide and chemical oxygen demand will be cut by a further 8 percent in the next five years, and nitrogen oxide and ammonium nitrate will also be cut by 8 to 10 percent.

Zhang said nitrogen oxide represented the biggest challenge, and China should consider imposing car ownership curbs in its largest cities and also cap coal consumption in built-up regions such as the Pearl and Yangtze river deltas.

Responding to the closure of three nuclear power plants in Japan following the country's biggest ever earthquake on Friday, Zhang said Beijing would keep a close eye on the situation.

"We have already begun monitoring coastal cities to test whether Japan's nuclear leaks will affect China but up to now everything is normal."

He said radioactive emissions standards around China's 13 existing reactors were actually higher than international norms.

.

Is "degrowth" the future?

The "strategy of “degrowth” has appeared as an alternative to the paradigm of economic growth."

That makes logical sense but if a government were to pursue an active policy of "degrowth" we had better nail down exactly what it means.

Luckily the latest issue of Ecological Economics (a post-normal science journal) has the answer.

It appears to be that "a-growth" is better than degrowth. Now I need to find out exactly how to define "a-growth".

Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Berghlow

Abstract

In recent debates on environmental problems and policies, the strategy of “degrowth” has appeared as an alternative to the paradigm of economic growth. This new notion is critically evaluated by considering five common interpretations of it. One conclusion is that these multiple interpretations make it an ambiguous and rather confusing concept. Another is that degrowth may not be an effective, let alone an efficient strategy to reduce environmental pressure. It is subsequently argued that “a-growth,” i.e. being indifferent about growth, is a more logical social aim to substitute for the current goal of economic growth, given that GDP (per capita) is a very imperfect indicator of social welfare. In addition, focusing ex ante on public policy is considered to be a strategy which ultimately is more likely to obtain the necessary democratic–political support than an ex ante, explicit degrowth strategy. In line with this, a policy package is proposed which consists of six elements, some of which relate to concerns raised by degrowth supporters.

In defence of "degrowth" we have the following paper which makes it clear that degrowth is a "a radical political project that offers a new story and a rallying slogan for a social coalition built around the aspiration to construct a society that lives better with less."

Sounds great. Count me in.

In defence of degrowth

Giorgos Kallis

Abstract

This article defends the proposal of sustainable degrowth. A starting premise is that resource and CO2 limits render further growth of the economy unsustainable. If degrowth is inevitable, the question is how it can become socially sustainable, i.e. a prosperous and stable, rather than a catastrophic, descent. Pricing mechanisms alone are unlikely to secure smooth adaptation; a full ensemble of environmental and redistributive policies is required, including – among others – policies for a basic income, reduction of working hours, environmental and consumption taxes and controls on advertising. Policies like these, that threaten to “harm” the economy, are less and less likely to be implemented within existing market economies, whose basic institutions (financial, property, political, and redistributive) depend on and mandate continuous economic growth. An intertwined cultural and political change is needed that will embrace degrowth as a positive social development and reform those institutions that make growth an imperative. Sustainable degrowth is therefore not just a structuring concept; it is a radical political project that offers a new story and a rallying slogan for a social coalition built around the aspiration to construct a society that lives better with less.

Water and CO2 - the future for China's 5-year plan

In what appears to be great timing the Chinese government has just announced that water and CO2 will be priorities for the next 5 year plan.

This matches perfectly with news this week that a one-day workshop sponsored by EDF on "The Global Impact of China's Energy Demand" has been confirmed to be run in Paris in June.

More details to come but it promises to be an interesting session.

Apologies for posting the whole article but (1) it is an excellent summary and (2) I will need to refer to it on a regular basis and what better way to record the text than to blog it here.

Water, CO2 The Priorities For China's 5-Year Plan [Planet Ark]

Tackling environmental problems from carbon emissions to water pollution will be a key focus of a new five-year plan that China will launch during its annual parliament session starting on Saturday.

The plan for 2011-2015 will include new directives aimed at reversing the damage done by 30 years of untrammeled growth, and it will also aim to give a fillip to clean and renewable energy.

The challenges were put in stark focus in an essay by environment minister Zhou Shengxian on Monday.

"The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the deterioration of the environment have become serious bottlenecks constraining economic and social development," he wrote.

China, the world's biggest source of climate change-inducing greenhouse gases, will put the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions at the top of its agenda.

But those same commitments could also spell bad news for China's vulnerable river systems with hydropower capacity set to surge by 140 gigawatts by 2015. That's nearly three times Australia's total power generation capacity.

Beijing has already pledged to reduce carbon intensity -- the amount of CO2 produced per unit of economic growth -- by 40-45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

It also aims to raise the share of renewables to 15 percent of the country's total energy mix.

"The targets will not be as ambitious as we hoped, because the 2020 targets aren't that ambitious," said Ailun Yang, China campaign manager with Greenpeace.

"I would put much more emphasis on the detailed measures, which are much more important than the targets themselves."

Detailed targets will emerge in the coming months as individual industries issue their own five-year plans.

The government wants to clean up heavy industries such as steel and aluminum, encourage non-fossil fuels, cut nitrogen oxide emissions and improve water and air quality.

BUSINESS AS USUAL?

Enforcing new restrictions and targets, especially for CO2 emissions, will test the central government's clout.

Premier Wen Jiabao said last month China would cut energy and carbon intensity by 16-17 percent over the 2011-2015 period, less of a challenge than the 17.3 percent figure suggested last year.

Experts say energy intensity -- the amount used per unit of GDP -- needs to fall by 20 percent to achieve an 18 percent cut in CO2 intensity, but Wen did not make the distinction.

Yang Fuqiang, director of global climate solutions at the Worldwide Fund for Nature, said cutting CO2 intensity by less than 17 percent was little more than "business as usual."

"There is a game being played by the central and local governments, and if the central government adopts 16 percent they will lose their authority because it shows that 'government orders don't go beyond Zhongnanhai'," he said, referring to the Chinese Communist Party headquarters in Beijing.

Yang said a 16 percent cut could allow China to hit the 40 percent carbon intensity goal by 2020, while an 18 percent cut would take it toward the higher 45 percent target.

A commitment to use market mechanisms in the fight against climate change is also expected, with a number of provinces keen to launch pilot emissions trading programs. Detailed plans will emerge later this year.

Analysts have said China might consider an absolute energy consumption cap over the 2011-2015 period, and draft policies to restrict coal production to 3.6-3.8 billion tons by 2015 have also been leaked to the local press. Provinces such as Guangdong might impose their own energy caps to stimulate city-to-city emission trading, but government researchers have dismissed the idea of a national limit.

"There are no such plans," said Zheng Shuai, researcher at the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission, but added some academics have proposed Beijing implement a limit on fossil fuel use without imposing an overall cap on energy use.

"This is more realistic because it will allow and encourage the use of renewable energy," Zheng said.

DAM NATION

China is desperate to improve its depleted, contaminated rivers, which have been blighted by a spate of burst tailings dams, untreated chemical discharges and plant explosions in the past five years.

In 2009, nearly 20 percent of the length of China's major rivers and lakes were judged unfit even for irrigating crops, according to government figures.

Environment minister Zhou said Beijing will aim to cut 2007 levels of heavy metal discharges in key regions and industries by 15 percent in the next five years.

"We understand thousands of key heavy metal polluters will be put under tightened monitoring and this is important," said Ma Jun of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a non-government organization that monitors water pollution.

"But there is a lack of transparency and we believe public scrutiny could generate the motivation to cut their emissions."

China will also push for more water conservation, imposing stricter water consumption standards heavy industry.

"We expect to see more action on that but I still believe that the first step is pollution," said Ma.

"The huge volume of wastewater discharge is destroying our very limited clean water resources and if we continue to allow that we cannot talk about recycling and conservation."

But the commitment to cleaning up rivers could be undermined if binding carbon targets lead to a renewed drive for large hydropower dams and reservoirs throughout China.

The five-year energy sector plan is expected to back controversial hydropower plants on China's Nu River, also known as the Salween. Previously untouched rivers in Tibet may be next.

"We need to realize that large hydro by itself has such a large environmental impact that it shouldn't be considered a renewable energy," said Ma.

"In 2004, China overtook the United States as the world's largest hydropower capacity but the plan is to more than triple that by 2020 -- that means in many of our rivers there won't be running water.

Is ecological economics becoming a "post-normal" science

Some paper titles cannot be ignored especially when I am not entirely clear what it means. The title suggests that ecological economics is (1) a science and (2) normal.

So far so good. Ecological economics is a normal science (not a social science?).

However, now we have to worry that it is becoming post-normal or perhaps that is a good thing. It appears to hinge on the empirical content of the paper. A regression in a paper appears to be post-normal.

In that case, all my EE papers have contributed to this big push into post-normality and now I feel a little guilty. In fact my et al. from the previous post is an EE paper.

Time to investigate further.

A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?

Manuela Castro e Silvaa and Aurora A.C. Teixeira

Abstract

In ecological economics the debate on formalism and formalization has been addressed in the context of a lively discussion on ecological economics as a ‘post-normal’ (versus ‘normal’) science. Using ecological economics (EE) as a ‘seed’ journal and applying bibliometric techniques to all (2533) the articles published in EE from January 1989 to December 2009, we analyze the evolution of the field of ecological economics aiming to shed light on this debate. We observe the predominance (and increased relevance) of certain research topics: ‘Methodological issues’, ‘Policies, governance and institutions’ and ‘Valuation’. Moreover, ‘Collective action’, ‘Technical change and the environment’ and ‘Values’ stand as emergent themes of research. Finally, we note that ecological economics experienced an ‘empirical turn’ reflected in a shift away from exclusively formalized papers towards exclusively empirical and, to a larger extent, ‘formal and empirical’ ones. The combination of the prominent and emergent topics and the ‘empirical turn’ mirrors the increasing awareness among researchers in the field of the need to address a key specificity of ecological economics — the interdependence of the economic, biophysical and social spheres. On this basis, we argue that at least through the lens of EE, ecological economics has evolved towards a post-normal science.

Keywords: Ecological economics; Bibliometrics; Research trends; Methodology; Post-normal science

.

"Environmental Substance Abuse"

A truly astonishing piece of work in which the author Mark Atlas proceeds to do a pretty convincing hatchet job on a very large number of applied "environmental economics" papers (550) including one of mine :-( (I am part of an et al).

It is hard to argue with much in the 715 pages (and over 4,000 footnotes) from what I have read so far.

Anyone doing applied environmental economics has to at least attempt to read some of this report.

Thanks to Aquanomics (a very fine new "...nomics" to add to my collection) for the hat tip.

The Aquanomics article on this topic is certainly worth a read for its "academic bun fight" report.

It is very impressive that Atlas went to the lengths he has gone to in this paper (and his post reported in Aquanomics). This paper deserves to be read by anyone purporting to be an environmental economist.

Back to the report......where does something like this get published? A little long for JEEM unfortunately.

My papers will never be the same again...

Environmental Substance Abuse: The Substantive Competence of Social Science Empirical Environmental Policy Research[LARGE PDF]

Mark K. Atlas
affiliation not provided to SSRN
December 22, 2010

Abstract:
In a 2002 article, social science scholars criticized legal scholars for violating empirical analysis principles in law review articles. Their review of hundreds of empirical law review articles led to a pervasively grim assessment of these articles and their authors, concluding that empirical legal scholarship was deeply flawed, with serious problems of inference and methodology everywhere. In essence, the 2002 article argued that although legal scholars’ articles might be substantively competent (i.e., knowledgeable about the law and facts), they were, at best, methodologically incompetent.

This Report reverses the 2002 article’s focus, assessing the substantive competence of social science empirical research articles, ignoring their methodological competence. This Report focuses on about 550 social science articles from peer-reviewed journals since the 1960’s that used quantitative research to study United States domestic environmental policies and practices. The 2002 article examined aspects of law review articles at which legal researchers might be deficient but at which social science researchers should be competent. This Report does the opposite by focusing on what legal researchers should be most expert – determining the relevant laws, government policies, and facts. Consequently, just as the 2002 article evaluated whether law review articles violated empirical research rules, this Report evaluates whether social science environmental policy articles were incorrect or incomplete about the relevant laws, government policies, or facts.

Although the 2002 article concluded that every empirical law review article was fatally flawed methodologically, this Report does not conclude that every social science environmental policy article was fatally flawed substantively. However, the overwhelming majority of those articles were substantively uninformed, amateurish, shoddy, and/or deceptive. Anyone with a basic understanding of the environmental laws, policies, facts, and/or data relevant to any particular article would conclude after only a brief review that the article was seriously flawed. Unfortunately, social science journals publishing environmental policy articles have been like runaway trains of invalid research that keep picking up new passengers. This Report explains in detail the substantive problems with each of these articles.

JEL Classifications: K23, K32, K41, K42, Q25, Q28
Working Paper Series

.

Ancient Megadroughts

I have not come across the term "megadroughts" before but I like it.

The findings to not surprise me - small changes in the climate could be enough to set off a series of feedback effects that result in large changes in local climate and of course lead to "megadroughts".

Ancient Megadroughts Preview Warmer Climate: Study [PlanetArk]

Ancient megadroughts that lasted thousands of years in what is now the American Southwest could offer a preview of a climate changed by modern greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The scientists found these persistent dry periods were different from even the most severe decades-long modern droughts, including the 1930s "Dust Bowl." And they determined that these millennial droughts occurred at times when Earth's mean annual temperature was similar to or slightly higher than what it is now.

These findings tally with projections by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others, according to study author Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. The results were published in the current edition of Nature.

"The IPCC model suggests that when you warm the climate, you'll see extended droughts in this part of the world and this is what the paleo record seems to be telling us," Fawcett said in a telephone interview. "When you've got past temperatures that were at or above today's conditions, conditions got drier."

The U.S. Southwest has seen steep population growth over the last century, with population increasing by 1,500 percent from 1900 to 1990, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The total U.S. population grew 225 percent over the same period.

The settlement of this area depended, as all human settlements do, on access to water. There would clearly be less water available in a megadrought.

EARTH'S ORBIT AND GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS

Megadroughts in the past were caused by subtle changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which were also responsible for periodic ice ages. If these orbital changes were the only influence on the planet's climate, Earth should be heading into a cool period, Fawcett said in a telephone interview.

However, recent temperature statistics indicate that is not the case. The decade that ended last year was the hottest since modern record-keeping began in 1880. The previous decade, 1991-2000, was next-warmest and 1981-1990 was third-warmest.

Emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide help trap heat near Earth's surface and could be influencing the natural orbital cycle that would dictate a cooling period.

To figure out just how long these megadroughts lasted, and what happened during them, scientists took samples from a dried lake bed in northern New Mexico called the Valles Caldera. They analyzed these sediments for biochemical signs of drought, ranging from which trees and shrubs grew and how much calcium was in the cracked mud in the dried lake bottom.

Looking at records going back more than a half-million years, they also developed a technique to determine temperature in the ancient past by looking at signs left by soil bacteria, Fawcett said.

The fats in the walls of these bacteria change their structure in response to temperature changes, he said, and act like a "tape recorder" for antique temperatures.

.

Smoke in the (Tariff) Water

Although more of a "globalisation" that "globalisation and the environment" blog post the question has to be asked - did these authors mean to title this paper after the well known British hard rock group Deep Purple's track that goes my the name "smoke on the water". The introduction to this song is prety much the first thing anyone every learns on the guitar.

If so, calling a recent World Economy paper "Smoke IN the water" represents a fundamental mistake.

However, they almost make up for it with a footnote that says "Nevertheless, the views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Deep Purple."

Other than that it reprents a good effort although still not close to a recent paper in the AER called "Panic on the Streets of London" by Steve Machin and co-authors named after the well known Smiths track of exactly the SAME name.

Smoke in the (Tariff) Water

Liliana Foletti1, Marco Fugazza2, Alessandro Nicita2
and Marcelo Olarreaga3

1. INTRODUCTION

DURING the Great Depression, protectionism spread rapidly. By 1933,
world trade was only a third of what it was in 1929. Part of this slump had
to do with the decline in economic activity, but several studies estimate the contributionof protectionist forces somewhere between 25 and 50 per cent of the
total decline in world trade.1 The protectionist response started in the United
States with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passed in June 1930, which raised
tariffs by 23 per cent according to Irwin (1998). Many countries retaliated.
According to Madsen (2001), the world average effective tariff (the ratio of the
value of import duties and import value) increased from 9 per cent in 1929 to 20
per cent by 1933, with values as high as 30 per cent in Germany and the UK

.

Vampire spiders, the smell of human feet and blood as an aphrodisiac

The law of natural selection has resulted in some pretty impressive "specialisations". The spider that lives on the mosquitoes that feed on humans (after the insect has itself fed on humans) is a pretty impressive specialism.

For applied economists who are forever thinking about causation (and the direction of causation) this is a good one.

The spider is attracted to the smell of human feet because that is where the mosquito that feeds on human blood will be hanging out. The spider then eats the blood filled insect thus indirectly feeding on human blood but having to go through a middle man. This in turn makes them irresistible to the opposite sex.

If the spider could feed prior to the mosquito human feast it would be worth filling one's room with them but given its post feed there seems to be little benefit in such a policy given they are prone to jumping all over the place.

I wonder if I am alone in finding this kinda cool.

Why the Vampire Spider is Attracted to the Smell of Human Feet

Crouching on the ground, it sniffs the air looking for the scent of a human foot. Finally it is in luck, it gets a hint of what it is looking for and tracks it, ready to pounce on its prey. Wait though... the prey is not the foot but the mosquito that is feeding on it! Most jumping spiders find their prey with their incredible eyesight but this one uses its olfactory organs instead.

Especially drawn to malarial mosquitoes, Evarcha culicivora goes for our blood after the mosquito has filled its belly. In an experiment carried out by Fiona Cross and Robert Jackson of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, they discovered that the scent of human feet makes them stay longer.

They found that by blowing the scent of socks into test tubes that the spiders were in (and allowed to leave), the ones that had socks worn at least 12 hours by volunteers stayed an extra 10-30 minutes than the ones who were presented with the scent of unworn socks.

In a devilish way this spider is our friend as it goes after the dangerous and annoying mosquito; but they are both drawn to the smell of our blood. In fact for the jumping spider in this case, once they have fed on the blood they become irresistible to the opposite sex so it is an aphrodisiac as well! Well they do say it takes all kinds to make a world. It seems they have worked out that places with the smell of human feet are likely to be good places to find their prey, waiting until it has fed on us first before pursuing it. So, if you find yourself in Kenya and a spider is looking at you curiously don't run necessarily, just be glad that it is after the mosquitoes feeding off you.

.

Economic Journal - natural resources papers

A series of interesting papers related to the resource curse that came out in the current issue of the Economic Journal.

Is it true as many suspect, that the greater the oil reserves of a country the less democratic it it likely to be?

ARTICLES

Harnessing Windfall Revenues: Optimal Policies for Resource-Rich Developing Economies (pages 1–30)
Frederick van der Ploeg and Anthony J. Venables


The Long Term Consequences of Resource-Based Specialisation (pages 31–57)
Guy Michaels

The Quality of Political Institutions and the Curse of Natural Resources (pages 58–88)
Antonio Cabrales and Esther Hauk


More Oil, Less Democracy: Evidence from Worldwide Crude Oil Discoveries (pages 89–115)
Kevin K. Tsui

Market Power in an Exhaustible Resource Market: The Case of Storable Pollution Permits (pages 116–144)
Matti Liski and Juan-Pablo Montero

.

The environmental excuse for not buying roses on Valentines day

It is always handy to have an environmental excuse tucked away as a get out clause.

Not buying red roses on Valentines day and making do with a small (recycled card) is just such an occassion.

Valentine's Day roses bought in UK could 'bleed Lake Naivasha dry' warns ecologist [University of Leicester)

Valentine's Day roses bought in UK could 'bleed Lake Naivasha dry' warns ecologist

Dr David Harper of the University of Leicester's Department of Biology. Credit: Robert Llewellyn Smith

Issued by University of Leicester Press Office on 10 February 2011

A renowned University of Leicester ecologist who has spent over 30 years researching wetland conservation at Lake Naivasha in Kenya has warned that the country is being “bled dry” by the UK’s demand for fresh flowers. He called on UK supermarkets to show more concern about the health of the natural environment that the flowers come from.

Dr David Harper, of the Department of Biology, University of Leicester, said UK supermarkets should do more than simply selling “Fair Trade” roses. They should look beyond the farm gate at the sustainability of the natural resource that feeds the flowers - Lake Naivasha.

He said: “A notable few of the farmers sending roses to Europe are showing concern and an eagerness to pioneer a sustainable way forward: the best flower farms have achieved Fair Trade status, which brings money back into the workforce for social welfare improvements. Two farms have even seconded senior managers to help Kenya's water management agency at Naivasha.”

He warned that increased UK supermarket promotions of flowers over Valentine’s Day, and subsequently on Mother’s Day, without showing concern about where or how environmentally sustainable roses can be grown, will just increase the export of water – the scarcest natural resource in Kenya.

“There are just a few good farms but many more that don’t care how much damage they do to the lake. Seventy percent of the roses sold in European supermarkets come from Kenya and the majority of those are from Naivasha, many thus coming without any ecological certification. This has to change for the future of the industry as well as the lake and the country,” said Dr Harper.

Switzerland is the only country in Europe that cares about selling environmentally sustainable Kenyan roses, says Dr Harper, because the Swiss Coop – its largest supermarket - recycles some of its profits to fund sustainability projects at the lake.

He said: “Over the past 20 years, Lake Naivasha has been seriously degraded by over-abstraction of water. The blame has invariably been put onto flower farmers, who use irrigation to grow the roses that adorn the vases in our homes - especially on Valentine's Day and Mother's Day.

“The ecology of the lake has deteriorated due to lack of government enforcement of the laws that regulate water abstraction, prevent over-fishing or stop clearance of wetland vegetation”.

../

“The Kenyan Government, whom I have advised through the Prime Minister's Office, has launched "Imarisha Naivasha", a campaign to bring all parties together to change damaging behaviours and enforce laws. People who live and work around the lake are showing concern and eagerness to be taught a sustainable way forward. The few farms have led the way with innovations like hydroponics for growing flowers in minimal water and wetland systems for wastewater treatment.

../

Dr Harper called for UK supermarkets to accept more responsibility by promoting sustainable management policies that reach beyond the farms and help to conserve the ecosystem which will allow flowers (and profits) to flourish beside a healthy, restored lake. If the flowers they sell could show a ‘water ecological footprint’ customers might be able to choose more discerningly, as they presently are seeking to do with food miles.

.

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.

.

Per capita carbon

A fantastic graphic (HT: Env-econ) that clearly shows why the odds of finding a climate solution are so distant.

Simply look at the China circle on both pictures and there is your answer.

Click HERE for a large version.

Those naughtly Gibratarians.

.

Sleep or slaughter?

The following two links are to provide readers with a Friday night choice.

Offering number 1

The 7 sleepiest animals on earth (with photographs)

Offering number 2

Shocking images from inside Britain's slaughter houses (with photos and videos)


.

Cap and Trade is DEAD

A 10 minute lesson for all - students, academics, everyone.

You can never have enough cartoons. Hopefully a "carbon tax" that might actually work will come to be the accepted solution (eventually - by which point it will be too late).



.

Man Friday post - The First Globalization Debate

Any academic paper that can link globalisation and a riveting read is good by me. Having read the first book last year sometime I admit to not putting the book in the context of globalisation and cannot recall how the book links to the gains from international trade even though I teach this stuff. I now feel that I must reread the book with this new found knowledge.

A great idea for a paper. See what I did with the title of this post?

"The First Globalization Debate"

Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 88

CRAUFURD GOODWIN, Duke University - Department of Economics

Email: GOODWIN@ECON.DUKE.EDU

Early in the 18th century, before the birth of political economy as a discipline, two of the earliest novels in the English language were published: Robinson Crusoe (1719) by writer and economic entrepreneur Daniel Defoe, and Gulliver’s Travels (1726) by the cleric and political adviser Jonathan Swift. The first was widely perceived as an entertaining adventure story, the latter as a pioneering work of science fiction. Both contain indirect comment on the foreign policy of Britain at the time. When viewed from the perspective of the modern economist, however, the works appear to be expressions of opposing positions on the desirability of a nation pursuing integration within a world economy. Crusoe demonstrated the gains from international trade and colonization and even the attendant social and political benefits. He explores the instinct to trade overseas, stages of growth, and the need for careful cost-benefit calculations. By contrast Swift warned of the complex entanglements that would arise from globalization, especially with foreign leaders who operated from theory and models rather than common sense. He makes a case for economic autarky.

.

"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

.

Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes

There is nothing like a paper on "mega-catastrophes" to begin the new year with a bang. Excellent work.

The small but uncertain possibility that the world could be ending as we know should appeal to economists everywhere.

Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes [PDF]

Carolyn Kousky, Olga Rostapshova, Michael Toman, and Richard Zeckhauser

Abstract
There is a low but uncertain probability that climate change could trigger “mega-catastrophes,” severe and at least partly irreversible adverse effects across broad regions. This paper first discusses the state of current knowledge and the defining characteristics of potential climate change mega-catastrophes. While some of these characteristics present difficulties for using standard rational choice methods to
evaluate response options, there is still a need to balance the benefits and costs of different possible responses with appropriate attention to the uncertainties. To that end, we present a qualitative analysis of three options for mitigating the risk of climate mega-catastrophes—drastic abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, development and implementation of geoengineering, and large-scale ex ante adaptation— against the criteria of efficacy, cost, robustness, and flexibility. We discuss the composition of a sound portfolio of initial investments in reducing the risk of climate change mega-catastrophes.

Key Words: climate change, catastrophe, risk, decisionmaking under uncertainty
JEL Classification Numbers: D81, Q54