Competitively Priced Electricity Costs More, Studies Show – New York Times

The problem with monopolies, as our AP students have learned, is that a monopolistic firm, left to its own accord, will most likely choose to produce at an output level that is much lower and provide their product at a price that is much higher than would result from a purely competitive industry. A monopolist will produce where its price is greater than its marginal cost, indicating an under-allocation of resources towards the product. By restricting output and raising its price, the monopolist is assured maximum profits, but at the cost to society of less overall consumer surplus or welfare.

Unfortunately, in some industries, because of the wide range of output over which economies of scale are experienced, it sometimes makes the most sense for only one firm to participate. Such markets are called “natural monopolies” and some examples are cable television, utilities, natural gas, and other industries that have large economies of scale. (click graph to see full-sized)

Government regulators face a dilemma in dealing with natural monopolistic industries such as the electricity industry. A electricity company with a monopoly in a particular market will base its price and output decision on the profit maximization rule that all unregulated firms will; they’ll produce at the level where their marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. The problem is, for a monopolist its marginal revenue is less than the price it has to charge, which means that at the profit maximizing level of output (where MR=MC), marginal cost will be less than price: evidence of allocative inefficiency (i.e. not enough electricity will be produced and the price will be too high for some consumers to afford).

Here arises the need for government regulation. A government concerned with getting the right amount of electricity to the right number of people (allocative efficiency) may choose to set a price ceiling for electricity at the level where the price equals the firm’s marginal cost. This, however, will likely be below the firm’s average total cost (remember, ATC declines over a WIDE RANGE of output), a scenario which would result in losses for the firm, and may lead it to shut down altogether. So what most governments have done in the past is set a price ceiling where the price is equal to the firm’s average total cost, meaning the firm will “break even”, earning only a “normal profit”; essentially just enough to keep the firm in business; this is known as the “fair-return price”.

Below AP Economics teacher Jacob Clifford illustrates and explains this regulatory dilemma. Watch the video and see how he shows the effect of the two price control options on the firm’s output and the price in the market.

The article above examines the differences in the price of electricity in states which regulate their electricity prices and states that have adopted “market” or unregulated pricing, in which firms are free to produce at the MR=MC level:

“The difference in prices charged to industrial companies in market states compared with those in regulated ones nearly tripled from 1999 to last July, according to the analysis of Energy Department data by Marilyn Showalter, who runs Power in the Public Interest, a group that favors traditional rate regulation.

The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states.”

The idea of deregulation of electricity markets was that removing price ceilings would lead to greater economic profits for the firms, which would subsequently attract new firms into the market. More competitive markets should then drive prices down towards the socially-optimal price, benefiting consumers and producers by forcing them to be more productively efficient in order to compete (remember “Economic Darwinism”?). It appears, however, that higher prices have not, as hoped, led to lower prices:

“Since 1999, prices for industrial customers in deregulated states have risen from 18 percent above the national average to 37 percent above,” said Mrs. Showalter, an energy lawyer and former Washington State utility regulator.

In regulated states, prices fell from 7 percent below the national average to 12 percent below, she calculated…

In market states, electricity customers of all kinds, from homeowners to electricity-hungry aluminum plants, pay $48 billion more each year for power than they would have paid in states with the traditional system of government boards setting electric rates…”

That $48 billion represents higher costs of production for other firms that require large inputs of energy in their own production, higher electricity bills for cash-strapped households, and greater profits and shareholder dividends for the powerful firms that provide the power. On the bright side, higher prices for electricity should lead to more careful and conservative use of power, reducing Americans’ impact on global warming (since the vast majority of the country’s power is generated using fossil fuels).

Here arises another question? Should we be opposed to higher profits for powerful electricity firms if their profits result in much needed energy conservation and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? An environmental economist might argue that if customers are to pay higher prices for their energy, it might as well be in the form of a carbon tax, which rather than increasing profits for a monopolistic firm would generate revenue for the government. In theory tax revenue could be used to subsidize or otherwise promote the development and use of “green energies”.

Whether customers paying higher prices for traditionally under-priced electricity is a good or bad thing depends on your views of conservation. But whether higher profits for a powerful electricity company are more desirable than increased tax revenue for the government are beneficial for society or not seems clear. If we’re paying higher prices, the resulting revenue is more likely to be put towards socially desirable uses if it’s in the government’s hands rather than in the pockets of shareholders of fossil fuel burning electricity monopolies.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do governments regulate the prices in industries such as natural gas and electricity?
2. Why would a state government think that de-regulation of the electricity industry might eventually result in lower prices in the long-run?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Robert Reich’s Blog: Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary?

Former Secretary of Labor and Berkely Economist thinks Obama’s federal government budget is conservative and responsible. He also likes Obama’s plan for tackling environmental problems, which uses the “cap and trade” system of using a market to internalize the environmental costs of firms’ production which in the past have been externalized due to lack of effective regulation.

What about the environment? Isn’t cap and trade a huge deal? Not at all. Instead of heavy-handed regulation it’s a market solution to the problem of global warming. Government merely sets an overall cap on the amount of carbon dioxide to be allowed into the atmosphere, which drops annually, and then requires firms to bid for permits to pollute within that overall cap. Firms can buy and sell permits to each other; they can innovate to reduce pollution even further. Such a system will generate enough revenues to give 95 percent of Americans a yearly refundable tax credit of $400, and also finance research and development of renewable energy and a modernized electricity grid.

There’s much more to this excellent post by economist Robert Reich, and I recommend anyone interested in economics give it a read.

Below is an illustration of the effect that a “cap and trade” program will have on the cost of firms to pollute, showing that over time the amount of permissible pollution can be tightened thereby increasing the incentive for firms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This post is about how Switzerland has successfully employed an innovative system of incentives to encourage its citizens to reduce the amount of garbage they create. Just three weeks in this amazing country and I can already see why it earned the highest score in last year’s Environmental Performance Index.

In the AP and IB Economics units on market failure, we study the concept of negative externalities, which exist when the behavior of one individual or firm creates spillover costs to be faced by other individuals or society as a whole. A simple example is a factory that dumps waste in a river. Clearly, disposing of its waste in such a manner poses little or no cost on the factory owners, but significant costs on downstream users of the river’s water. A community that wishes to use the river for drinking water must now install expensive filtration and purifying systems just to make the water usable. The factory has kept its own costs down by externalizing the cost of filtration by passing it on to downstream users.

Spillover costs exist on micro levels as well. While it is easy to see how a large factory creates negative externalities, it is often harder to imagine how we as individuals create spillover costs for our neighbors and society in our everyday actions. The stark truth, however, is that an individual’s behavior, multiplied by millions upon millions of individuals making up a citizenry, can have as great if not greater negative impacts on the environment and society as the negligent behavior of one firm.

Here in Switzerland, the behavior of each individual citizen is subject to unusually strict scrutiny. No, Big Brother is not watching, as you may be thinking, (however, I have heard stories of snoopy neighbors alerting the police upon witnessing the most minor of infractions by a fellow citizen), rather, one finds it in his best economic interest to strictly monitor his own behavior down to the finest detail. Allow me to explain what I mean.

Let’s take garbage for example. The definition of garbage in Switzerland is very different from that in the United States. Where I’m from, garbage is anything that you can’t use anymore. You throw it “away”, put it on the curb and it disappears.

A garbage bag in the US is usually a 40 gallon (160 litre) plastic bag that could fit an entire family inside, and the typical American family probably produces two to three bags worth of “garbage” each week, which conveniently disappears in the wee hours of the morning to be taken “somewhere”, which most Americans don’t know or care to know where that is. How much does it cost an American household to dispose of this voluminous quantity of garbage? Well, the bags cost around 18 cents each, and monthly removal services vary depending on the community, but are typically a flat rate for almost any amount of garbage.

In the United States, it is very easy for individuals to pass the true cost of their garbage disposal onto society as a whole. It doesn’t matter all that much whether you put one tiny plastic bag on the curb or a half dozen 40 gallon bags on the curb, you are going to generally pay the same amount for collection regardless. The result of such a system is that the typical household has no incentive to reduce the amount of garbage that it produces. Logically, Americans are inclined to over-consume and produce copious amounts of garbage in the absence of any significant system of incentives in place to encourage waste reduction.

So, what’s different about Switzerland? It’s all about incentives. Let me explain. Here, you don’t pay a flat rate for garbage removal. In fact, you don’t HAVE to pay anything for garbage removal! Oh wow, you say, it’s FREE? In fact, quite the opposite is true. You don’t have to pay anything for garbage removal as long as you don’t create any garbage. In other words, you only pay for what you throw away.

Unlike in the US, here a typical garbage bag here is a 35 litre plastic sack, only slightly larger than a plastic grocery bag. Each village requires its citizens to buy official garbage bags for that community, and each individual bag costs anywhere from $1.50 – $2.50. A role of ten 35 litre bags can cost around $25.

When we consider that anything a household wishes to throw away must be put in an official village garbage bag which itself must be purchased for $2.25, and we know that a typical 40 gallon (160 litre) garbage bag in the US costs just $0.18, we can easily calculate and compare the costs of garbage disposal to both US and Swiss households.

• In Switzerland: 100 litres of garbage costs $6.40 to dispose of
• In the US: 100 litres of garbage costs a little over $0.11 to dispose of
• In other words, garbage removal costs Swiss households around 57 times as much per litre as it does Americans, when we consider the price of garbage bags alone.

Clearly, Swiss households are given a significant incentive NOT to create garbage. So what DO the Swiss do with all their waste? Recycle it, of course! See, here in Switzerland all recycling is free. The villages even offer free curb side pick-ups for all recyclable materials.

A simple system of incentives (and dis-incentives) is the secret to Switzerland’s environmental success. Other systems are in place to encourage citizens to use public transport, tread lightly while hiking in the outdoors, conserve energy and water at home, and behave in other environmentally friendly ways, but I’ll save my discussion of those items for another time, once I figure out how to reduce, re-use and recycle all my own “garbage” here in Zurich!

Inside Obama’s Green Budget – Forbes.com

Some say that Global Warming may be the greatest market failure of all. This podcast was originally broadcast in January of 2007 while George Bush was still in office. The commentator claims that global warming is “nothing but one giant market failure”, arguing that the United States therefore must get serious about tackling the problem.

 

 Global Warming - one giant market failure [1:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The allocation of resources towards carbon emitting industries has almost undoubtedly contributed to the warming of the planet over the last half century. Only recently have governments begun taking active measures to reduce the impact of industry on the environment through greater regulation of polluting industries, employing corrective taxes in some instances and market-based approaches to pollution reduction in others.

US President Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor, appears to be serious about correcting the “market failure” represented by global warming:

Obama’s budget, announced Thursday, looks to fund a host of new energy programs, from carbon sequestration to electric transmission upgrades. It would also provide the EPA with a $10.5 billion budget for 2010, a 34% increase over the likely 2009 budget. Nineteen million dollars of that would be used to upgrade greenhouse gas reporting measures.

The Interior Department would get $12 billion for 2010. The agency would use part of the money to asses the availability of alternative energy resources throughout the country.

Funding comes from elaborate carbon “cap and trade” program, which puts a price on emitting pollution and is the core of Obama’s plans. Starting in 2012, the government would sell permits giving businesses the right to emit pollution, generating $646 billion in revenue through 2019.

During those years, the number of available permits would gradually decline, forcing businesses to buy the increasingly scarce, and costly, rights to pollute on an open market. Obama hopes that the rising cost of permits will encourage businesses to invest in clean technologies as a cheaper alternative to meeting pollution mandates, helping to cut greenhouse gas production to 14% below 2005 levels by 2020.

Below is a diagram that illustrates precisely how the Obama cap and trade plan is meant to work. Notice that between 2012 and 2020 the cost to firms of emitting pollution will increase dramatically, while at the same time the total amount of carbon emissions in the US economy will fall due to regular reductions in the number of permits issued to industry.

The Obama cap and trade scheme is not the first experiment with such a market based approach to externality reduction:

Europe established such a market in 2005. But some E.U. governments allocated too many credits at the outset, causing the value of some permits to fall by half and making it relatively easy for large polluters to simply buy credits rather than cut emissions. Overall emissions grew in 2005 and 2006. In 2008, E.U. emissions dropped 3%; 40% of that drop was attributed to the carbon trading scheme.

Europe’s cap and trade program took a few years before it began having any noticeable impact on the emission of carbon by European industry. While unpopular among the firms who are forced to pay to pollute, the fall in emissions in Europe shows that a market for carbon may be effective in forcing firms “internalize” the costs of carbon emissions, which until now have been born by society and the environment in the form of the negative effects of global warming.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think tradeable pollution permits are more politically viable than a direct tax on firms’ carbon emissions?
2. Why did Europe’s carbon emission permit market fail to reduce emissions over its first couple of years of implementation?
3. Is making firms pay to pollute a good idea in the middle of a recession? Do you think that we should even be worrying about the environment when millions of people are losing their jobs and entire industries are struggling to survive?

Economics is the field of study that attempts to address the basic problem faced by society relating to the environment and natural resources: the problem of scarcity in a world of infinite wants. Many, if not all, of our planet’s environmental woes are attributable to an economic phenomenon known as market failure. A market failure results whenever too much (or in some cases too little) of a good or service is produced and consumed by the economy.

What does this have to do with the environment? The connection lies in the reality that everything we produce and consume (and I mean everything!) originates from the earth. Nothing can be made by the sweat of man alone; in fact, three resources are required to produce any good or service: labor, capital (i.e. tools), and land. Sometimes we think of the resource of land as gifts of nature. However, in a world where environmental threats like those mentioned above are staring us in the face, it is becoming more and more obvious that the natural resources we’ve exploited for so long may not, in fact, have been gifts from Mother Nature at all, and their overuse may impose significant and unaccounted for costs on society AND the environment.

But let’s be honest, consuming is fun! Nothing is more gratifying than scoring a fantastic deal at your favorite boutique, walking out of a fast food joint with a plastic bag full of tasty treats for super cheap, and getting your hands on the latest high tech gizmos as soon as they’re launched (and dumping that old technology out so you’re not the lame one with the three pound cell phone!) However, the true cost of our obsessive consumption habit is not always represented by the price we pay for our fast food, our blue jeans, and our iPod Nanos.

In reality, the prices we pay for our goods and services are far lower than they should be; and the quantity of these things we consume is far higher than it should be. How do we know this? Look around. The very environmental issues with which clubs like Roots and Shoots are most concerned can be traced back to the consumer behavior we enjoy partaking in so much. We’re conditioned to buying what we want, when we want it, and for a price that places little burden on our pocket books.

What we don’t realize, however, is that nature is bearing the burden of our high levels of consumption. In its attempt to absorb the pollutants that are emitted in the manufacture of our products, the waste that’s created from the disposal of our products, and the destruction that’s left behind from the extraction of the natural resources that go into our products, Mother Nature is more than ever choking on the waste created by our economic behavior. The costs born by nature are not accounted for in the production costs faced by firms, nor in the prices paid by consumers. These costs are externalized, or passed on for others to worry about.

The problem is, these days the bill has come due, and the environment is calling in its debts. Humans must now face up to the failures of its markets, and internalize the costs that for so long have been passed on to the environment and society, which suffers from the effects of environmental degradation.

The reality that we’ve used too many natural resources to produce too much stuff for too long is evidenced by simple examination of the natural world around us. Or, in the case of China, the complete lack of a natural world around us. From the pollution filled skies, to the waste clogged waterways, to the traffic jammed highways, China is a case study in market failure. The world, now used to the cheap imports China is so good at pumping out, does not consider the impact that the manufacture and consumption of such a massive variety of cheap products is having on China’s, and these days the world’s, environment.

In the following audio clips, you’ll hear three short stories about how the over-exploitation of resources is causing harm to human welfare and the environment. Each of these stories contains a market failure, usually in the form of a negative externality, or the production and consumption of certain goods creating spillover costs on somebody or something not involved in its production or consumption. See if you can identified who’s being harmed, and who’s at fault:

 

 E-waste [7:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Trash Island [2:01m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Nauru [6:57m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Story #1: “Where does all that E-waste go?” from Public Radio International’s “The World: Technology” podcast

Story #2: “Trash Island” from WBEZ Chicago’s “This American Life”

Story #3: “Nauru – the island in the middle of nowhere” from WBEZ Chicago’s “This American Life”

After listening to these stories, reflect for a moment on the true cost of the environmental and human tragedies of which they told. What role does our consumer culture play in these tragedies? What could have been done to prevent the conditions in those E-waste markets in Africa and China, the islands of garbage floating in our deep oceans, and the complete destruction of an island paradise 1,100 miles from the nearest land? Is there anyone to blame? Should we blame our politicians, our leaders? The answer to these questions is: there’s no easy answer, unless we want to get really personal here and point to humans’ own flawed nature: the fact that we are motivated primarily by greed and self-interest.

If that’s true, then perhaps hope for the environment can only be found in the responsible hands of benevolent governments, who once and for all take steps to mitigate the destructive impacts of our endless patterns of production and consumption. In fact, it is often government which is needed to intervene and correct market failures like those in the stories.

Three tools have emerged for governments wishing to correct such negative externalities. These involve three fundamentally different approaches, some more effective than others. One involves direct government control. This is when governments intervene in a market in which negative externalities exist and try to make producers clean up their acts. They threaten producers with penalties and fines, and monitor industries to try and force firms to manufacture their products in a clean, efficient way. (this is like what the Europeans are doing to minimize their e-waste).

The next option also involves a large roll for the government: corrective taxes. Businesses that produce goods that end up polluting the environment (either through their production or consumption) can be taxed based on the amount of pollution they create. If creating more pollution means paying more taxes, the companies will find ways to produce in a more environmentally responsible manner, in order to keep their costs low and to maximize their profits.

The third method for externality reduction is also the most recently adopted. A market for pollution permits is set up, where a government actually gives all the companies in a polluting industry permits that allow them to pollute a certain amount. WHAT? The government’s allowing firms to pollute? Well, yes. The fact is, they’re going to do it anyway, they HAVE to in order to produce anything! The benefit of this system is that the government will only give each firm so many permits, and they’re not allowed to pollute beyond what their permits allow, UNLESS they go and buy more permits from producers that don’t need all theirs. This way, firms have an incentive to pollute less, because any permits they don’t use they can sell to other producers and make profits on those sales! Dirty firms have to buy more and more permits, clean firms get to sell those they don’t need… can you see where this is going? ALL FIRMS want to become clean firms in this scenario!

The three methods introduced above are being used to different degrees by different countries in various industries to try and mitigate the negative effects of some types of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, not nearly enough is yet being done, especially by some of the worlds largest economies (and thus, polluters), namely the United States, China, and India.

If our world is to avoid a fate like that of the tiny island of Nauru, where every last resource was exploited to the point where the island could no longer sustain life, then more must be done to reduce the spillover costs that accompany the production and consumption of so many of our precious goods.

I tell my econ students a story about how one day hundreds of years ago some smart guy decided to start calling products (you know, the stuff we consume), GOODS. From that day on humans would always associate consumption with something GOOD. Today, in an era where the goodness of consumption is offset by the evil of environmental destruction, more than a strong government hand is needed. Conservation and appreciation for the gifts of nature, not insofar as they can be exploited by industry, but left intact for the appreciation and welfare of society, both today’s generation and that of our grandchildren, must be fostered and encouraged among global citizens young and old.

Hopefully, this article and the stories you heard here will help you understand a little more about the economics of the environment, and help you become more educated about what can and should be done to correct the market failures that have led to the dire challenges faced by our world today.

A great website on environmental economics written by two economists WAY smarter than Mr. Welker can be found here: http://www.env-econ.net/

Kite Powered Ship Sets Sail for Greener Futhre – Guardian.co.uk

A German engineer has given an old technology new life to help make trans-oceanic shipping greener and least costly.

A cargo ship pulled by a giant, parachute-shaped kite will leave Germany on Tuesday on a voyage that could herald a new “green” age of commercial sailing on the high seas.

The owners of the MS Beluga, a 462ft cargo vessel, will try to prove that modern steel ships can harness wind power and reduce their reliance on diesel engines.

During the journey from Bremen to Venezuela, the crew will deploy a SkySail, a 160 square metre kite which will fly more than 600ft above the vessel, where winds are stronger and more consistent than at sea level.

Its inventor, Stephan Wrage, a 34-year-old German engineer, claims the kite will significantly reduce carbon emissions, cutting diesel consumption by up to 20 per cent and saving £800 a day in fuel costs. He believes an even bigger kite, up to 5,000 square metres, could result in fuel savings of up to 35 per cent.

Here’s a thought… reduced fuel costs to trans-oceanic shipping companies should shift the supply of such services out, as the marginal cost of shipping falls. Greater supply will mean lower prices to customers demanding such services, moving downward along the demand curve, increasing the equilibrium quantity of trans-oceanic cargo journeys.

Question: Assume all cargo ships in the world eventually incorporate the sail technology, increasing the supply and reducing the price of shipping by an average of 20% and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases of vessels by an average of 20%. What would have to be true about the price elasticity of demand for trans-oceanic shipping in order for a 20% reduction in price to result in an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by cargo ships? Depending on the answer to this question, this “green” technology could actually result in greater emissions of greenhouse gases by cargo ships.

Explain…

The summer before last, I spent three weeks exploring the mountains, beaches, volcanoes and temples of the Indonesian island of Bali. While crossing Bali’s central mountain range, I stopped at a produce market where local fruits, vegetables, coffee and nuts were brought in from the surrounding hills to be sold. As I strolled the market snapping pictures, I caught out of the corner of my eye a flash of a familiar shade of red. Upon closer inspection, I was surprised to find a “Blue Chelan” apple from Washington state (my home state!).

I could not help but be shocked to see a fresh red apple grown on another continent in another hemisphere on the Eastern slopes of the Cascade mountain range of Washington state for sale in a farmer’s market in a remote village 60 km from the nearest port. It got me thinking about globalization, trade, specialization and comparative advantage. So I pose these questions to you, my Econ students:

Discussion Questions:

1. How did a ripe apple grown 9,000 miles away in the United States end up fresh and shiny in a market 1500 meters up in the mountains of Bali? I mean, literally, HOW did it get there?
2. Why would Indonesia import apples from so far away when surely it could grow apples domestically and avoid the hassle of transoceanic transport?
3. Where did Indonesians get the dollars to buy US grown apples?
4. How does trade between Indonesia and the US affect consumers? Producers? Is trade between these distant countries good or bad? Discuss.

PickensPlan

The Pickens Plan is an initiative put together by the hedge fund manager of BP capital Management T Boone Pickens. The plan puts forth a model to get America off its addiction to foreign oil and on a path towards sustainable energy sources produced in the US of A. Watch the following video and read through the following information and comment on the questions.

“America is addicted to foreign oil. It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people. In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today it’s nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war. Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States. That’s 25% of the world’s oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world’s population. The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.”

THE PLAN

Discussion Quesitons

1. Is Pickens correct in saying that America’s addiction to foreign oil is a problem? Be sure to use the concept of comparative advantage and specialization in your answer.
2. If we assume it to be a problem, what solution would you recommend? Do you agree with Pickens?

Bush, Democrats point fingers over energy crisis – Jul. 12, 2008

…apparently just over $4.00 per gallon of gasoline; at least according to the article above:

With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are more willing to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect.

Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals.

The travesty of Americans’ attitude in favor of drilling and against conservation is the shortsightedness of it. Regardless of how many millions of acres of wilderness the government opens to drilling, gas and energy prices will only continue to rise over the long-run as emerging market economies like China’s will continually drive demand for energy higher and higher as growth rates remain above 8%.

America, in the mean time, with the largest per capita levels of energy consumption in the world (and some of the lowest gas prices), turns its back on conservation just when it is needed most. The cost to the environment, society and the bounteous wildlife that inhabit the vast tracts of land and sea that Congress is considering opening to exploitation by energy companies will create a permanent scar in one of the most valuable (and simultaneously undervalued) resources, its wilderness.

As my summer vacation approaches its end and I begin to think about another year of teaching Economics in international schools, I find myself reflecting on what’s most important in the world: to me, to my home country, to my fellow Americans, to the kids I teach and the students I will teach 10, 20, 30 years from now. I spend my summers in one of the most beautiful parts of this great country, the Pacific Northwest, where despite over a century of logging, mining, hunting and trapping, beautiful wilderness still remains. Only 2% of America’s original forests remain standing today. Countless species of predator and prey have been wiped out. There are around 300 wolves running wild here in Idaho, and thousands of citizens here are campaigning for a hunting season that will threaten to wipe out that great species once again. Clearcuts dot the landscape, proposed mines threaten watersheds and the wild Bull trout, an endangered species in the lakes and streams of Northern Idaho. Bears are put to death when the stumble into our yards, yet we turn more and more of their habitat into housing tracts every year.

Conservation is on my mind, and the news from Washington saddens me today, as I read that Americans concern themselves less and less with what I consider this country’s greatest resource, its wilderness, when times get the slightest bit difficult economically. As I prepare for another year of teaching Economics, this year at a new school in a new country, one where conservation is of the utmost importance, I will think about ways to incorporate more of an environmental economics perspective into this blog and my own teaching. As I prepare to leave my home in the mountains of Northern Idaho once again, I will cherish what little wilderness remains in this beautiful country, and try to make as little impact as I can on an individual level towards the continued destruction and exploitation of nature that characterizes the path that Americans seem to be choosing in this time of economic hardship.

How does a growing Chinese middle class threaten duck populations in the American Midwest? Here’s the story:

As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation Program – New York Times

“You can’t pay me NOT to farm this land!”

This is the view being expressed by more and more American farmers today. Since 1985 the US government has paid hundreds of thousands of farmers around $50 per acre of land per year to NOT grow food. In other words, if you were a farmer with 1,000 acres, you could earn $50,000 a year for not doing anything with it at all, just letting it sit idle.

What is the logic of such a program? In the mid-80’s food prices were so low that farmers working their tails off to cultivate and harvest their lands often found themselves losing money when they went to sell their crops. The traditional farming lifestyle was in jeopardy as farmers experienced year after year of economic losses. Improvements in farm equipment, along with the widespread use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides had increased farm yields to levels never before achievable in human history. What increases productivity for all farmers, however, also increases total supply of crops, driving prices to historic lows. All this meant farmers could barely get by in the American heartland.

Enter the government:

…the Conservation Reserve was conceived as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. Participants bid to put their land in the program during special sign-ups, with the government selecting the acres most at risk environmentally. Average annual payments are $51 an acre. Contracts run for at least a decade and are nearly impossible to break — not that anyone wanted to until recently.

Things were great for the farmers. Output fell as millions of acres went into disuse, while farm incomes rose due to rising prices for their outputs and transfer payments from the American taxpayers. Farmers now had to work less to earn more money.

Today, however, farmers are putting millions of idle acres back into cultivation. They are choosing to work harder and farm more land in order to take advantage of the rising world food prices caused by the increasing demand for meat among the world’s emerging middle class and the rising price of grains due to the push to promote ethanol as a renewable energy.

The farmers’ behavior today is a perfect demonstration of the law of supply, which acknowledges the direct relationship between a product’s price and the quantity that producers will bring to market. There are actually two markets at work here: the market for cropland, and the market for wildlands. Farmers face a tradeoff in their decision of whether to farm their land or let it lay fallow. In 1985, the government made the decision that not enough land was lain fallow, so it subsidized farmers who set lands aside for conservation. Since subsidies are a determinant of supply, the supply of idle land increased while the supply of cultivated land decreased, driving up food prices.

In addition to the law of supply, this article also encompasses the concept of market failure. The Farm Bill of 1985 inadvertently corrected a market failure relating to “merit goods”, or those that create positive externalities or spillover benefits for society. In the case of farmland, the less land was used for farming, the healthier the wildlife populations on the now idle lands of the American Midwest. Hunters, environmentalists, and conservation groups had much to cheer about:

,,,hunters had more land to roam and more wildlife to seek out, with the Agriculture Department estimating that the duck population alone rose by two million; and environmentalists were pleased, too. No one disputes that there are real environmental benefits from the program, especially on land most prone to erosion.

At its peak the “Conservation Reserve”, as it was known, saw more than 36 million acres set aside for wildlife. Today, however, farmers are choosing to put this land back into cultivation.

Markets are complicated things. Markets do a fantastic job of assigning values to easily tradeable commodities like corn, soybeans, sunflower seed oil, and wheat, which happen to be some of the crops most commonly grown on the millions of acres set aside for conservation since 1985. What market fail to do, however, is to assign adequate values to the non-tradeable goods in our society. The biodiversity of a wild grassland, the health of a water fowl population, the carbon-sequestration capacity of a standing forest, and the joy a hunter gets from roaming a fenceless wild land.

As food prices continue to rise in response to the shift towards bio-fuels and the growing demand for meat among developing countries’ consumers, there will be more and more pressure for farmers in the industrialized world to take their lands out of conservation and put them into cultivation. This is not only a rich world phenomenon either. In Brazil, farmers are responding to rising sugar prices by cutting down ever growing chunks of the Amazon, one of the world’s last great rainforests, sometimes called “earth’s lungs” because of its ability to trap carbon from the atmosphere.

If balance between conservation and cultivation is to be achieved, it requires a market system that puts a tangible, tradeable value on the sometimes intangible “goods” relating to the environment. For now, a short-term solution might be a new Farm Bill that offers farmers a more substantial payment for keeping lands idle. Such an interventionist approach may stem the loss of wild lands, but does little to address the bigger problem of market failure underlying the degradation of the world’s remaining natural environments.

Answer: Because sometimes it’s just the right thing to do.

Major British retailer Marks & Spencer will charge for plastic bags – International Herald Tribune

More and more firms and governments are seeing the merits of corrective taxes on plastic bags. British retailer Marks and Spencer will voluntarily begin “taxing” its customers who wish to use plastic bags:

Beginning May 6, food and clothing retailer Marks & Spencer says it will charge 5 pence (10 US cents, €0.07) per plastic bag.

Marks & Spencer says it hopes the charge will save 280 million bags per year, and income from bags that are sold will go to an environmental charity called Groundwork.

The company said Thursday that it has tested the idea in Northern Ireland and southwestern England, and says it cut bag use by 70 percent.

Now that’s good economics, right out of a principles text: tax the product whose overconsumption creates negative externalities for the environment, and use the revenue earned to support environmental projects in the community. Here’s to Marks and Spencer, a corporation with an environmental conscience!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Beijing’s Olympic Quest: Turn Smoggy Sky Blue – New York Times

In ancient times alchemists exerted great energy trying to turn worthless metals into gold. Their endeavors proved to be in vain as science would later show that such alchemy was a fantasy.

In Beijing, similar endeavors are underway to turn the city’s gray sky to blue for the upcoming Olympic games in August of this year. In a city where 1,200 new cars and trucks appear on the road every day and where a massive construction boom has been underway for years, the sky remains thickened with particulate rich smog for over 100 days a year. The problem is, China has promised the world that during the month of August, when the world’s athletes congregate in the city for the Olympics, the skies would be clear and blue.

The solution to Beijing’s problem is obvious, yet impossible to achieve: halt new construction, ban automobiles, and shut down the factories surrounding Beijing. So how IS Beijing planning to deal with this challenge? Turns out they’re once again turning to alchemy, this time to turn gray to blue: Continue Reading »

Environmental Economics: From the Answer Desk: Monitoring Cap and Trade

Towards the end of our last Micro unit, which was on Market Failure, SAS AP Econ student asked a good question in a comment on my blog post “Reducing negative externalitites – the European market for carbon emissions”

I forwarded Kevin’s question to the two professors who write the blog Environmental Economics. Their response to Kevin’s question is in the link above. Here’s what was posted on their blog last week:

Reader Jason Welker received the following question from a high school student (Kevin Yeh):

“It’s very interesting how this whole marketing pollution rights works. In this way the “commons” in the tragedy of the commons becomes privatized, and companies are forced to take responsibility for their pollution which is being dumped into the atmosphere.I do have one question, though, and that is how does one regulate the amount of pollution a factory dispenses into the air? How can the government be sure that a firm is not violating the law by dumping more than its licensed amount?”

My question: Why do Jason’s high school students ask better questions than my PhD students?

Anyway, I’m getting ready for a lecture on the EPA’s Acid Rain Program and I happened across this answer…

“Emissions monitoring and reporting systems are critical components of a successful program. Since the Program’s inception in 1995, the emissions data – continuously monitored by sources, verified and recorded by EPA, and posted for public review on the Internet – has been among the most complete and accurate ever collected by EPA. Unlike traditional emissions limitation programs, the Acid Rain Program requires an accounting of each ton of emissions from each regulated unit to determine compliance. The Acid Rain Program requires units to install Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to continuously measure and record emissions. In order to ensure accurate emissions monitoring and reporting, regulations specify equipment certification procedures, periodic quality assurance and quality control procedures, record keeping and reporting, and procedures for filling in missing data periods. All affected units are required to report hourly emissions on a quarterly basis to EPA’s tracking system. EPA invests substantial time and resources into assuring that both the monitoring and reporting of emissions are occurring properly and efficiently. Conservative “missing data” procedures help ensure that emissions are never understated. Real-time electronic auditing by EPA helps to ensure that emissions data are accurate, consistent, and complete.”

There you have it, Kevin! Looks like SAS Econ students are asking better, more relevant questions that Economics PhD students! Ahh… you guys make me proud!

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Nano comes with its own moral dilemma. – By Anne Applebaum – Slate Magazine

Tata Motors of India recently launched the world’s cheapest automobile, the Nano.

“…meet the Nano, possibly the most significant new car of the decade. Small, cute, and snub-nosed, it fits four people and a duffel bag, has a single windshield wiper, travels at 60 mph, and it’s all yours for the princely sum of $2,500…”

Tata plans to build and sell 250,000 Nanos this year in India, spreading production to Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia. Clearly the company is targeting not the traditional auto markets of Europe and North America, rather the regions traditionally thought of as poor and thus not associated with auto sales.

What is the meaning of this “car for the masses”? At first glance, it looks like the perfect solution for bringing millions of the world’s poor (if not super-poor) closer to the dream of achieving a quality of life previously only accessible by the world’s middle class and rich. Great,  so what could possible be bad about fulfilling the dreams of so many of the world’s poor? The answer? Externalities…

“Though the small Nano uses less gasoline than many larger cars, the enormous potential numbers could mean an equally enormous environmental impact. Since it will be a long time before Nano drivers will be able to afford the $20,000-plus hybrids now on the market, let alone a Honda FCX Clarity, the prototype experimental hydrogen car thought to be worth as much as $10 million apiece, that means an exponential rise in carbon emissions as well as other kinds of pollutants. The United Nations’ top climate scientist, Indian economist Rajendra Pachauri—chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore—has said he is already “having nightmares” about precisely this scenario.”

Herein lies the moral dilemma of the Nano: where does society’s desire to improve the lot of the world’s poor come into conflict with society’s desire to to improve the environment and minimize the impact global warming?

What do you think? Do the social benefits of a $2,500 car exceed the social costs it will likely impose? Does the Nano’s $2,500 price incorporate the full costs that its existence places on society and the environment? Should we jump for joy at the thought of millions upon millions of the world’s poor finally having access to the convenience of automobile transport? Or should we pause with uncertainty to contemplate the effect on the environment and the social costs that millions of cheap cars will impose on the world?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Matt Rothschild of Progressive Magazine concludes that global warming is one “giant market failure”, and argues that US president George W. Bush is making it too hard for regulators in the country that is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases to impose limits on pollution.

Among the externalities caused by the emission of greenhouse gases that Rothschild points out:

• Rising sea levels
• Arctic free of ice
• Draughts  in Africa

 

 "Global warming is a giant market failure" [1:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Discussion questions:

1. Is Rothchild’s understanding of global warming as a market failure correct in an economic sense?
2. Is imposing new “limits on pollution” the best way achieve a long-term reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases?
3. What alternatives to direct government controls over firms’ emissions does the Bush administration have that may make use of “markets” to correct this “giant market failure”?

Greg Mankiw’s Blog: The Pigou Club Manifesto

Here’s a good question to bring up around the dinner table with mom and dad tonight: “When is more taxes good?” Most individuals in society despise taxes; what is it the cynics say? “The only things guaranteed in life are death and taxes.” Clearly, the thought of giving money to the government is as miserable for some as the thought of dying!

But when might more taxes be good taxes? The answer, as you may have guessed, has to do with the concept of negative externalities and the idea that a tax may be used to correct a market failure of too many resources being allocated towards a particular product. One such product towards which too many resources have been allocated in the last several decades is gasoline; that’s right petroleum gas, the life blood of our beloved automobiles, the symbols of our very freedom and prosperity we cherish so much. How do we know too many resources have gone towards the production of gasoline? Simple, there’s too much of it and it’s too cheap. Evidence? Just look around:

• Congested roads
• Urban smog
• Auto accident fatalities
• Shortage of parking spaces in most cities
• Noise pollution
• Sprawling road systems that ugly the landscape
• Global warming

All of the above ills in some way are the result of cheap gasoline. The market failure here is simple: too much gas has been produced and it sells for too cheaply, hence, lots of people drive lots of huge, gas-guzzling SUVs, trucks, vans, sports cars, luxury sedans, Hummers, and not enough small, economical, fuel-efficient automobiles that would put way less a strain on our urban and natural environments.

So what do we do now to fix this problem? Should be dismantle all the oil refineries, shut down the gas stations, and blow up the pipelines that facilitate the production of gasoline? Well, that would be one option, although it’s not ideal. Another might be to require that all auto makers achieve a certain level of fuel-efficiency among their automobiles. That’s what the US government has done by adopting the “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards. This sort of direct control creates market distortions of its own, however. One economist has said, “the CAFE standard was a failure and said it was like trying to fight obesity by requiring tailors to make only small-sized clothes”

Continue Reading »

Tighter European limits set to push up price of carbon emissions – Times Online

When it comes to correcting the market failure of negative externalities, governments have several options. The most interventionist approaches may involve placing strict limits on the amount of a pollutant firms are allowed to emit and fining them for exceeding this limit, taxing firms that pollute in order to increase their costs and decrease market supply, reducing output and increasing price closer to a socially optimal level, or simply banning the production and consumption of goods whose existence places excessive spillover costs on society.

Such interventionist approaches to externality reduction tend to require a complex bureaucracy to administer, monitor, execute and enforce. The government may not be able to determine the appropriate level of a tax on a polluter if it can’t determine the exact level of the externalized costs placed on society; the government cannot always check up on every producer in the economy to determine just exactly how much pollution each factory’s producing, and then levying a fine on excessive polluters again raises the question of how high should a penalty be?

Because of the complexities involved in the interventionist approaches above, economists have recently promoted and the worlds’ governments have begun adopting a market-based approach to reducing negative externalities, involving the creation of a whole new market: one in which the right to pollute is bought and sold by firms. This may sound crazy at first, but here’s a basic summary of how these markets work:

• A government or international agency decides on the acceptable amount of pollution in a particular region and issues permits that firms can purchase giving them the right to pollute. Each permit will allow a certain amount of pollution. The total supply of permits is perfectly inelastic since it is decided by the government agency.
• The demand for pollution permits is downward sloping. At high prices, firms will either stop polluting or pollute less by acquiring pollution-abatement equipment, which is more attractive when the rights are more expensive. If the “cost of pollution” is cheap, then firms will chose to buy permits rather than acquiring expensive abatement equipment or upgrading to “greener” technology.
• In the market for pollution permits, the “price to pollute” will be determined by the downward sloping demand among firms for pollution permits and the perfectly inelastic supply of permits determined by the number issued by the government. If the price of permits is too low to make firms bear the full environmental and social costs of their production, the government can reduce the supply thus increase the price and decrease the quantity of pollution permits demanded, reducing the negative externalities of pollution as firms will shift to greener production techniques.

There are several advantages to this system over direct government controls:

• It reduces society’s costs because pollution rights can be bought and sold. Some firms will find it cheaper to buy the rights than to acquire abatement equipment; other firms can sell their rights because they may be able to reduce pollution at a lower cost. The incentive for all firms is to reduce their own pollution and sell the permits they no longer need, adding to the profits of “green firms”.
• Conservation groups and  individuals can buy permits as  well as producers. If conservation or individuals wish to make it more expensive for firms to pollute, they can buy permits and hold them. This drives up the price of remaining rights, further encouraging polluters to reduce emissions.
• The revenue from the sale of pollution rights could be used to improve the environment or subsidies more environmentally friendly methods of production.
• The rising cost of pollution rights should lead to improved pollution-control techniques.

In the article above, we see how the creation of a market for carbon pollution permits in Europe evolved from a fledgling, ineffective experiment in market-based externality reduction a few years ago to a major market where billions of dollars worth of carbon permits are exchanged each day between firms, all of which have incentives to continually reduce their level of carbon emissions so as to minimize their costs and perhaps even earn revenue through the sale of unneeded permits.

The first phase (of the carbon permit market) was launched in 2005 but was widely dismissed as a failure, primarily because too many permits were granted by member states to individual polluters, leading to a collapse in market prices to as little as €1 (74p) per tonne. The slide undermined the principle of the scheme – to make carbon emissions a meaningful cost for big polluters, thereby encouraging reductions.

The key difference in the second phase is a reduction of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent in the emissions permits granted. Mr Marcu said that he expected the tougher regime to “start delivering some substantive reductions” in carbon emissions.

City analysts believe that it will lead to a big increase in the market price of carbon. Deutsche Bank expects forward prices to rise from the present level of about €23 a tonne to €35. UBS has predicted a rise to €30 a tonne.

35 euros per ton of carbon may not sound like a lot, until you consider how many millions of tons of carbon are emitted by the big factories of Europe each year. In fact, when we realize the size of this market at $100 billion, we then begin to grasp just how significant such a market can be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That means that firms are spending $100 billion for the right to pollute!

Just imagine, if you were a manager of a firm that was polluting heavily, the more expensive these permits get, the higher your average costs of production get, the less competitive you become with firms who have taken steps to clean up their production. Not only do you not have to buy as many permits once you start cleaning up, but you actually start earning revenue by selling the permits you no longer need!

A market for externality permits minimizes the role the government must play in managing the production and emission practices of the economies big polluters. Furthermore, if the permits are auctioned off from the beginning, billions can earned in revenue for the government, which in theory could be used to subsidize the research and development of pollution abatement technologies and “green energies” like wind and solar power.

While it still may seem weird that governments are giving firms the right to pollute, the logic of such a plan makes sense once the picture is clear. Markets work, even when they’re being used to correct a market failure.

Discussion questions:

1. What are some ways a government could invest the revenue earned from the sale of pollution permits to firms?
2. Why is a market for pollution permits easier to implement than strict government control of the pollution of individual firms?
3. What is the importance of incentives in achieving reduction of negative externalities? Does a market for pollution permits create more or less of an incentive to reduce emissions than direct government controls?

‘Green funerals’ feature biodegradable coffins – CNN.com

Our final micro unit examines situations in which resources are either under or over-allocated towards the production of certain products. Such a scenario is known as a “market failure” and in some case is represented by the existence of negative externalities, or spillover costs born by society, the environment, other species, or any third party that was not part of the market transaction.

All this is a fancy way to say that someone or something gets screwed thanks to someone else’s actions. In the case of negative externalities, such as air-pollution, second-hand smoke, loss of biodiversity that results from over-grazing or over-farming of sensitive lands, or even global warming, the full costs of production or consumption of particular goods are not being born solely by the producers and consumers of those goods.

The article above talks about the funeral industry, which for decades had had incalculable impacts on the natural environment thanks to humans’ irrational desire to be preserved for eternity with the help of countless chemicals, air-tight metal lined coffins, and heavy use of pesticides, herbicided, and all kinds of “icides” to make sure that our place of rest remains sterile and lifeless for perpetuity. All this “preservation” takes a huge toll on the environment, and as a result of America’s newfound sense of “greenness”, alternative forms of burial have emerged:

“It is composting at its best,” said Beal, owner of The Natural Burial Company, which will sell a variety of eco-friendly burial products when it opens in January, including the Ecopod, a kayak-shaped coffin made out of recycled newspapers.

Biodegradable coffins are part of a larger trend toward “natural” burials, which require no formaldehyde embalming, cement vaults, chemical lawn treatments or laminated caskets. Advocates say such burials are less damaging to the environment.

Continue Reading »

Environmental Economics: Someone’s been drinking a little too much of the Kool-Aid

Professor Tim Haab of Ohio State University and author at Environmental Economics Blog made a post the other day titled “Someone’s been drinking a little too much of the Kool-Aid”. Apparently he thinks that what high school students in Shanghai drink for fun (do you?) because he was talking about us. Yes, here’s Professor Haab’s words:

“AP Economics students at the Shanghai American School are pointed to the Blogs of America’s Leading Economists.  The only reason I’m pointing this out is because we are listed before Greg Mankiw, Marginal Revolution and Freakonomics…cool. Click the thumbnail for proof–in case they decide to change the order once they realize their obvious oversight.”

Apparently the fine professor is flattered yet confused about the fact that on our Wiki’s student resource page, I have listed his blog ahead of that of Havard’s Professor Makiw and Steven Levitt of “Freakonomics” fame. This is no oversight, Professor Haab. Perhaps his preferred position is based on my own interest in environmental economics and the fact that his blog serves a very important role in raising awareness of the environmental implications of our rapidly growing global economy.

He shouldn’t be flattered, just aware that his words are being read and appreciated by young economists like yourselves, as is evidenced by the several posts on our own blog linking to Dr. Haab’s articles on the Environmental Economics blog.

Anyway, just as he’s flattered at his own position on our Resource Page, I’m equally flattered that he somehow found our wiki and commented on it on his own widely read blog! Thanks for the plug Professor Haab!

Powered by ScribeFire.

China Chokes – New York Times, August 26, 2007

This article, one in a series of articles yet to come, is a must read for all IB and AP Economics students. The particular article investigates the effects of China’s massive growth on its population, its environment. and on its pollution levels. The authors present videos, photographs, interactive maps in their article in order to graphically illustrate the many ways that China is affected by its rapid economic progress.

As economists, we all know that there are opportunity costs to all decisions and this article looks at the “costs” of China’s massive economic growth. One video includes information about China’s attempt to apply a Green GDP formula to its own growth and sobered by the outcome. Another interactive map compares economic growth rate of different countries around the world while another looks at the carbon emission rate of different countries. The point is that this article is meant to be very interactive so that the reader can experience how China is choking on its own growth. It is your turn to find out.