tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66321070279643005332024-03-13T10:09:40.652-07:00The Dismal EnvironmentalistThoughts on environmental law and policy from an American/Canadian economist/lawyerShi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-28411754681330472122015-11-29T09:03:00.000-08:002015-11-29T09:57:09.656-08:00Nobel Laureates and Other Climate Experts to Paris Negotiators: Tax CarbonA <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2015/11/29/a-call-to-paris-climate-negotiators-tax-carbon/" target="_blank">letter</a> composed by the <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/" target="_blank">Carbon Tax Center</a> calling for a carbon tax as the basis for international climate negotiations boasts of an impressive list of signatories: three Nobel Laureates in Economics, three former Cabinet Secretaries (one of whom, Steven Chu, also received the Nobel Prize in Physics), two Vice-Chairs of the Federal Reserve Board, and some other people that have done a few things in their lives, like teach Economics at Harvard.<br />
<br />
What is perhaps most important to note about using carbon taxes as a basis for negotiating a climate treaty is that while international negotiations will always be fraught, a carbon tax treaty would at least <i>look </i>more like what international treaties look like: countries promising to observe some code of conduct -- human rights for prisoners of war, reducing trade barriers, and harmonizing taxation for border straddlers like me. It is much more intuitive for countries to agree to do something -- phase out subsidies and tax carbon -- than it is for countries to divvy up responsibility, a divisive exercise that led to the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol, which allowed China to <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2013/" target="_blank">triple its emissions</a> over the time period since. The strength of such an approach is also, admittedly, a weakness: unless something is specified about the collected carbon tax proceeds, a carbon-taxing signatory would be free to somehow channel proceeds to affected fossil fuel stakeholders. But if the approach is paired with a commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, then at least carbon tax proceeds are likely to be distributed in such a way as to <i>decouple</i> emissions from proceeds. Above all, one thing would be important about a carbon tax-based treaty: countries raise revenues, keep them, and spend them in a way that they control. That intrudes upon sovereignty concerns less than other approaches, and avoids some of the finger-pointing exercises that have plagued previous Conferences of Parties.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-50456186307333019152015-11-23T09:20:00.002-08:002015-11-24T07:21:53.536-08:00Alberta's Carbon DisappointmentAlberta Premier Rachel Notley <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153" target="_blank">announced Sunday</a> that the province will adopt a <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-minister.pdf" target="_blank">climate policy</a> that will replace its existing <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-139-2007/latest/alta-reg-139-2007.html" target="_blank">Specified Gas Emitters Regulation</a>. Unfortunately, the new policy really does not do much more than the SGER. It appears to be a cap-and-trade program that replaces the intensity-based SGER trading program. Whereas SGER would give more permits to specified emitters (large ones) as long as they got more efficient, the new policy allocates emissions permits on the basis of output, but seems to institute a cap for each sector. (I will frequently use the words "seems" and "appears" because the plan does not completely spell out some implementation details) So the possibility of indefinitely rising emissions allowances disappears, but the initial allocation (which appears to re-set each year) is still based on productive and/or value-based efficiency (which one and when is not clear). <a href="http://alberta.ca/climate/oilsands-emissions.cfm" target="_blank">The cap on Alberta's oil sands sector is 100 Mt, which is not a binding cap at all because current emissions are about 70 Mt</a>. The plan does expand carbon pricing into consumer sectors, so that distributors of gasoline and heating fuels will have to have permits, too, and pass them down to end-consumers. That is a sensible step, making the carbon price as economy-wide as possible.<br />
<br />
What is mysterious about the plan is what exactly the role of pricing is. The report refers to a ceiling price of $30 per tonne, which is consistent with a cap-and-trade program, but it also refers to price increases of 2% above inflation, "as long as emissions prices in Alberta do not significantly exceed those in comparable/competitor jurisdictions and as long as they are not above current estimates of the social cost of carbon." (p. 32 of the <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-minister.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>). How do you increase the price if the price is determined by market trading? The mechanism seems to be that the province will reduce allocations "1-2% per year to reflect expected energy efficiency improvements." (p. 31 of the <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-minister.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> OK, but that still seems like the province still just adjusting the cap.<br />
<br />
In sum, this plan is a disappointment for those like myself, who were hoping for a bolder policy, especially in light of the Premier's remarks earlier this year <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2015/10/is-alberta-inching-toward-provincial.html" target="_blank">expressing unhappiness with the SGER</a>, and rejecting the National NDP Party's call for cap-and-trade. The plan still grandfathers a certain amount of emissions, and that is disappointing because the income effects of those freely-allocated permits will reduce the incentives to innovate. Worse still, the sector-specific caps will eliminate any market signals to re-order Alberta's economy in less carbon-intensive ways. In particular, if the oil sands sector still has 30 Mt to grow, there is no bite at all to this climate policy in terms of curbing oil sands emissions. Some of the money raised from the plan (how the plan raises the claimed $3 billion in revenue is unclear) will go towards reducing coal-fired generation and increasing renewable energy generation, but how it does it is ... you guessed it: unclear.<br />
<br />Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-51725996127238394852015-11-10T14:30:00.004-08:002015-11-13T13:43:14.238-08:00Party Before Country: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Kills Moderate Republicans ... Because It Can (or thinks it can)If you're a Democrat, and you blame the Republican Party for hyperpartisanship, maybe you should look a little closer to home. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is partly to blame -- probably exactly half. The DCCC has been targeting Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo (FL-26) for all kinds of <a href="http://dccc.org/bad-week-curbelo-shadiness-continues/" target="_blank">fabricated charges</a>. Why? Because the DCCC thinks Florida's 26th district is a swing district, and they think they can win it.<br />
<br />
But what a pyrrhic victory would it be, to wipe out one of the last of the remaining members of that most endangered species, the moderate Republican. Congressman Carlos Curbelo is an environmental hero. Curbelo was one of the eleven co-sponsors of the <a href="http://gibson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/environmental_stewardship_resolution.pdf" target="_blank">Gibson Resolution</a>, the nonbinding but meaningful statement by House Republicans that climate change is really a problem, and needs addressing. It is perhaps an unfortunate thing that it takes political courage for a Republican to "come out" on climate change, but that doesn't make it less courageous. Curbelo came out early, as <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lonely-republican-voices-buck-party-to-urge-action-on-climate-change/" target="_blank">this Scientific American article points out</a>. <br />
<br />
These are <i>precisely </i>the kind of craven, Machiavellian shenanigans that have corrupted Washington. This is why Republicans are drawn to ignorant knaves like Donald Trump and Ben Carson. I would personally give Bernie Sanders more credit, but he draws upon the same, angry, anti-Washington sentiment that is also gaining ground in the Democratic party. The Party comes before your country.<br />
<br />
Support, and vote for Curbelo if you live in Florida 26th. And call the office of Steve Israel, the chair of the DCCC, at 631-777-7391 or in DC at 202-225-3335, and let him know he is a schmuck.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-72742531600522768162015-10-20T19:12:00.003-07:002015-10-21T07:43:24.838-07:00Carbon Tax Time in CanadaHoly Loonie Toonie! It was clear that incumbent Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was very nervous heading into yesterday's election, going so far as to enlist the help of Doug Ford, the brother of famously inebriate Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, and <a href="https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/doug-ford-defends-brother-cnn-vodka-bottle-plain-211814247.html" target="_blank">not exactly a teetotaler himself</a>. The smart money was that a plurality would emerge from yesterday's federal election and the best bet, far from a sure bet, was that the Liberal Party would wind up holding the most seats. But Canadian voters stunned everybody by handing Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party 184 seats out of 338, for a majority. This is parliamentary democracy, where caucus members toe the party line reliably. As leader of a majority party, Trudeau does not have to negotiate with Harper and the Conservatives, nor Thomas Mulcair and the NDP. <i>Justin Trudeau has control over Canadian government policy</i>.<br />
<br />
Trudeau has clearly signaled a concern with climate change. Here is the first order of business for the Prime Minster-elect: enact a carbon tax. Do it in a way that will outflank the NDP and permanently put to rest their cap-and-trade dalliance: by enacting a <a href="https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/" target="_blank">carbon fee-and-dividend</a>, collecting all revenues into a dedicated trust fund, and distribute every single tax dollar collected to Canadian households, on a per-person basis. This is the proposal championed by <a href="http://www.citizensclimatelobby.ca/" target="_blank">Citizens Climate Lobby Canada</a>, and its sister American organization <a href="https://citizensclimatelobby.org/" target="_blank">Citizens Climate Lobby</a>.<br />
<br />
A carbon fee-and-dividend makes economic sense for the United States, but the political prospects for enactment in Canada are far brighter. Not that Americans should give up on carbon fee-and-dividend, but this moment in history is <i>perfect</i> for Canadian adoption. Here is why:<br />
<br />
<b>Canadians are ready for a carbon tax.</b> <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/04/20/canada-an-international-laggard-on-climate-change.html" target="_blank">Canadians have tired of being an international laggard on the climate change,</a> and have expressed a clear desire for something on climate policy. But what policy? Apart from a basic suspicion of the NDP leadership's maturity levels, Canadian voters have questions about the cap-and-trade that Mulcair championed, especially after <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/notley-emphasizes-environment-in-speech-to-montreal-business-group/article26565766/" target="_blank">Alberta Premier Rachel Notley rejected it</a>. How about just regulating greenhouse gases as a <a href="http://www.ec.gc.ca/toxiques-toxics/?lang=En&n=98E80CC6-1" target="_blank">toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act</a>? That is plausible, and was the predicate for two past federal initiatives: the failed rolling-cap-and-trade scheme proposed by the previous Prime Minister, Paul Martin, and Harper's 2011 <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-167/" target="_blank">plan to phase out coal-fired generation in Canada</a> over the next forty years. But how does Environmental Canada (the weak Canadian version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) set a standard for greenhouse gas emitters in Canada? It <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2014/06/by-way-on-greenhouse-gas-limits-canada.html" target="_blank">had to lean heavily on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just to help establish the coal-fired generation phaseout</a>, so my guess is that Environment Canada simply does not have the institutional capacity to figure out how to set standards for cement plants, refineries, steel mills, and pulp and paper mills. So what's left? Well, the Canada Revenue Agency is pretty good at what it does, and collecting a carbon tax is comfortably within its wheelhouse. Add to that the political dynamic that oil sands executives <a href="https://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-canadian-oil-producers-and-the-parties-that-love-them-should-embrace-a-carbon-tax/" target="_blank">past</a> and <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-industry-pushing-for-carbon-tax-in-alberta-1.3083832" target="_blank">present</a> favor a carbon tax, and it is starting to look like a political no-brainer.<br />
<br />
<b>Canadians are ready for at least a <i>small</i> wealth redistribution. </b>No study of carbon fee-and-dividend has been done for Canada, but the results would be similar to that of the United States: that a <a href="http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-Carbone.etal.CarbonTaxes.pdf" target="_blank">carbon fee-and-dividend would effectuate a modest wealth redistribution from rich to poor</a>. Not that we are talking about fleecing the rich. If the <a href="http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A4.htm" target="_blank">$30 per ton CO2 tax in effect in British Columbia</a> were to apply nationally, emissions (<a href="https://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=5B59470C-1&offset=2&toc=show#figure_S2" target="_blank">576 Mt in 2013</a>) would likely decrease by about 7% in response to what would be an 7% increase in fossil fuel price (a -1 elasticity), resulting in emissions of about 535 Mt of CO2, producing revenues of about $16 billion Cdn. Spread out over the 35.8 million Canadians, that would be about $450 for every man, woman, and child, or an average of $1,800 for a household of four. We know that wealthy Canadians consume more, poor Canadians less, so a lump-sum rebate, or "dividend," would wind up giving the poor back a little more than they pay out, the wealthy not so much. But the difference is small, a transfer payment from a rich family to a poor family on the order of a couple of hundred dollars. Still, in a political reality in which the poor are globally clamoring for greater equality, this is in the right direction, and really not much to complain about if you're a wealthy Canadian. Certainly wealthy British Columbians have moved on to more important things, like hockey.<br />
<br />
<b>Canadians will want some simple, clean, and straightforward.</b> There is something small, simple and straightforward about a carbon fee-and-dividend. Dollars go into a trust fund, not unlike sovereign wealth funds like Alberta's <a href="http://www.finance.alberta.ca/business/ahstf/" target="_blank">Heritage Savings Trust Fund</a> or <a href="https://pfd.alaska.gov/" target="_blank">Alaska's Permanent Fund</a>, only the incoming dollars would go right back out, instead of invested. The amount of money for some industries would be large -- cement and coal-fired power plants -- but for most Canadian households, it would be a mostly manageable adjustment. Unlike the British Columbia carbon tax, the dividend would make net winners out of the poorest Canadians. Could political shenanigans hijack some of those carbon tax proceeds? Of course, that is always possible. But<i> Justin Trudeau has a majority, and he doesn't have to deal with the opposition</i>, the way that Democrats would have to work with Republicans in the U.S. Justin's in control. The only question is whether Canadians would punish the young Prime Minister for this. If he proceeds deliberately and with notice -- something Gordon Campbell did not do in British Columbia -- he will not be politically punished, but rewarded.<br />
<br />
A carbon fee-and-dividend is small, self-contained, costs rich Canadian households a couple of hundred dollars a year, benefits poor Canadian households by a few hundred dollars a year, and reduces emissions. You want to mess with that? Step right up and announce your opposition to a small wealth redistribution or to climate policy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-61267134158966303972015-10-01T13:43:00.001-07:002015-10-01T13:46:25.403-07:00Is Alberta Inching Toward a Provincial Carbon Tax?The third significant climate change-newsworthy event of last Thursday (in addition to the Pope's address to Congress and President Xi Jinping's announcement that China would institute a cap-and-trade program) was an <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/notley-emphasizes-environment-in-speech-to-montreal-business-group/article26565766/" target="_blank">address by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley</a> to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, in which she clearly balked at toeing the federal party line on climate change: Thomas Mulcair's call for a national cap-and-trade system. "A national cap-and-trade program may not be our best road forward." Canadians are polite; that was was a rejection. Give 'em hell, Rachel!<br />
<br />
I may turn out to be a fool, but I find myself wondering what Alberta, as a province could do, other than a real, British Columbia-style, old fashioned carbon tax. Former Canadian oil executive Dennis McConaghy <a href="https://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-canadian-oil-producers-and-the-parties-that-love-them-should-embrace-a-carbon-tax/" target="_blank">blogged </a>a month ago that Canadian oil producers should embrace a carbon tax. Privately, Alberta oil executives have long been open to a carbon tax. The <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/search?q=hyndman" target="_blank">late Rick Hyndman</a>, the widely respected senior economist for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, espoused a carbon tax. Rick even quietly worked for Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, designing an ultimately ill-fated convoluted cap-and-trade scheme with a price floor and a price ceiling. Hmm, a cap-and-trade with a price floor and a price ceiling ... is that a carbon tax? Rick only smiled when I asked him that question.<br />
<br />
We know that a carbon tax would <a href="http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9Rezb430SESUA4Y" target="_blank">win political points from economists</a>. We know from the British Columbia experience that a carbon tax would win political points from environmentalists. If the Alberta oil industry is aboard <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-industry-pushing-for-carbon-tax-in-alberta-1.3083832" target="_blank">(it is</a>), who's left? It is ironic that people have always thought a carbon tax was a political non-starter. In Alberta, it really seems as if there is no place left to go.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-81365003958448709282015-09-28T11:01:00.000-07:002015-09-28T11:01:05.231-07:00President Xi: Maybe a Carbon Tax Would be Better<div class="MsoNormal">
Who would have thought that the first-ever Papal address of
a joint session of Congress, calling for Congress to take action on climate
change, would be the <i>second</i> most
important news item of the day on climate change? That was the case for
Thursday, September 14, when Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China
will commit to establishing a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The details of the program are still apparently under development, but
the Chinese plan is hardly an impulse; regional pilot trading programs have
been operative for years. The announcement was still considered a surprise; the
New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/world/asia/fading-coal-industry-in-china-may-offer-chance-to-aid-climate.html">reported</a>
just Monday that "<span style="background: white;">There is little
expectation that Mr. Xi will promise anything as drastic as he did last year."
</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The plan is meant to be an operationalization of a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article">commitment
by China back in November to peak its emissions in 2030</a>, but it may have to
wind up being a good bit better. The way that the Chinese Central Committee
moves on policy, incrementally and cautiously (except maybe when rescuing stock
markets), suggests that the Chinese are not nearly done with climate policy.
The greater significance of the announcement is that it renders incredible the
claims of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-slams-u-s-china-climate-deal/">climate
skeptics inveighing against President Obama's cooperation with China on the
grounds that China is simply sitting on its hands and waiting for the world to
end</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The nature of climate commitments would seem to call for an
emissions limit, and therefore a quantity instrument – like cap-and-trade, with
an emissions cap – rather than a price instrument, like a carbon tax. But
cap-and-trade brings problems with administration. The U.S., with its
experience with sulfur dioxide trading, could probably set it up and run it
competently, for about a billion dollars as a start-up cost. But other
countries might not start up so smoothly. It has been pointed out that China
has even more experience with corruption than Chicago. If <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/dec/14/eu-carbon-trading-fraud">emissions
permit fraud can happen in the European Union Emissions Trading System</a>, it
seems pretty likely that we will see some permitting fraud and corruption
cropping up with a Chinese cap-and-trade system. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A better alternative would be a Chinese carbon tax. Who
would complain if China had announced a plan to introduce a carbon tax,
instead of a cap-and-trade program? There could be Sino-skeptical climate
skeptics out there that would argue that a carbon tax would not necessarily
constrain the quantity of emissions, but those people are not open to persuasion
anyway. There could be environmentalists out there that worry that emissions
reporting fraud could be a problem, but such an enforcement problem would be no
worse, and significantly better, than they would be under a cap-and-trade
program. Under cap-and-trade, it would be easy for a permit buyer to avoid
asking questions about the validity of permits bought, especially if she could
simply flip the permit to someone else in a robust-traded market. Under a
carbon tax, there could be an angry Central Committee to face if emissions
under-reporting were found. It is true that under both systems there is a
danger of local government and emitter fraud. But if guaranteeing the absence
of fraud in China is the condition for an international agreement on climate
change, then we might as well just give up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A Chinese carbon tax would also be a better base model on
which to negotiate a climate treaty. The failure of the Kyoto Protocol itself
is testament to the fraught politics created by divvying up emissions among
signatory nations. What do international treaties look like? Unfortunately,
American and European negotiators were overly taken with the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/">Montreal Protocol,</a> the
cap-and-trade-like agreement to phase out the use of ozone-depleting
substances. In the wake of the success of the Montreal Protocol to dramatically
reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances worldwide, every international
environmental problem started to look like a pollution problem nail that needed
to be addressed with a cap-and-trade hammer. Result: Kyoto. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What do treaties really look like? Most are agreements in
which every signatory party agrees to do something affirmative, and the
signatories get to bicker over whether certain behaviors are or are not
consistent with the treaty. They do not generally look like Kyoto or Montreal.
Not only that, tax treaties are really quite common. The harmonization of tax
collection throughout the world is imperfect, but a familiar task for trade and
tax people. And with a carbon tax, there is at least there is the fact that
carbon tax proceeds can be retained by each signatory taxing country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/john-boehner-resigning-as-speaker/">Tea
Party extremists can force out a House Speaker,</a> then a carbon tax treaty
may not seem very plausible. But if opposition from the Tea Party is a really a
deal-breaker for international climate negotiations, then we might as well give
up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-21847508708159030432015-09-25T12:22:00.002-07:002015-09-25T13:28:38.607-07:00Actually, What the Pope Thinks Matters<div class="MsoNormal">
The Papal Encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html"><i>Laudato Si</i></a> of this past summer, and
the address to Congress by Pope Francis yesterday (the first Pope to ever
address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress), prominently featured calls for
action on immigration reform (calling himself a "son of immigrants"),
poverty, and also climate change. Climate change is often talked about as
problem to be solved by policy and economics, but a growing number of people
have raised it as a moral imperative. Niskanen Center's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/opinions/taylor-climate-change-conservatives/index.html">Jerry
Taylor wrote cogently about it yesterday</a>. I think the world of Jerry, and
am privileged to call him my friend, but when it comes to moral authority, the
Pope has a higher perch.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question has remained,
however, whether the Pope will move people. On the Niskanen Center blog, <a href="https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-pope-wont-move-conservatives-on-climate-change/">David
Bailey has argued persuasively that he will not</a>. I disagree. I agree that
the Pope inveighs quite heavily against what we have to believe is capitalism,
and loses some of his moral authority in doing so. Note that at this point in
history, with lingering public anger over the role of the finance industry over
the Financial Crisis, wagging a finger at exuberant capitalists seems more
credible than it has been in decades (see <a href="http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/brown-vitter-urge-congressional-leadership-to-remove-derivatives-swap-provision-in-spending-bill">Republican
Senator David Vitter's opposition to the deregulation of derivatives in the
last spending bill</a>). I do agree that with a few exceptions in Congress –
John Boehner, who wept during his address, one of them – it does indeed seem as
if the Pope will fail to move the needle, at least directly and immediately.
Former Senator and Presidential candidate Rick Santorum remarked on the Papal
Encyclical, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/02/1389997/-Rick-Santorum-to-Pope-Francis-Leave-science-to-the-scientist">"The
Church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we're probably
better off leaving science to the scientists…"</a> We might elide the fact
that Santorum has waded into climate science himself as a lawyer <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=93">("the idea
that man, through the production of CO2 … is somehow responsible for climate
change is, I think, just patently absurd.")</a>, lacking the training that
Pope Francis had as a chemist, but the point is that politicians seem to
believe they have their own moral authority.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But in the longer term, the Pope's
calls will have a political effect. Politicians' beliefs are ultimately derived
from, in addition to the beliefs of the Koch Brothers, the beliefs of their
constituents. I believe that for the 1.2 billion Catholic voters in the world,
the Pope's call for action on climate change <i>will </i>have substantial weight. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513800000714">Humans
are evolved to take all kinds of action and belief cues from prestigious,
high-ranking people within their most important social groups</a>, and the
Catholic Church remains an extremely important source of identification for
many of the 1.2 billion. Climate change is an economic issue, a policy issue,
but it also is a compelling moral issue. Harm imposed on others is both
an externality and a moral wrong. Ultimately, the divergence between the Pope
and the <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/08/pope-and-market/">economists
of the world rolling their eyes at his moral call</a> may just be a matter of
degree. No credible economist believes that the appropriate price of greenhouse
gas emissions is zero. That is inefficient <i>and
</i>immoral.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Pope is not actually the first
to invoke faith in support of action on climate change. <a href="http://creationcare.org/2015/07/30/evangelicals-support-president-obamas-epa-climate-change-regulation/">The
Evangelical Environmental Network has long advocated for action on climate
change</a>. That organization has recognized the need to pass on a clean
environment to future generations. There is no reason for economic and moral
compulsions to be rival motivators for action on climate change. On climate
change, there really is no tension between economic efficiency and moral
imperative. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Pope 1, Economics 1.<o:p></o:p></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-32990270451747938832015-08-21T10:19:00.000-07:002015-08-21T10:22:20.142-07:00A Capital-Driven Oil Glut?Russell Gold of the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-end-in-sight-for-oil-glut-1440113703" target="_blank">reports today</a> that even as oil prices sulk at $40 per barrel, oil producers just keep on pumping, even at what analysts believe to be losses. He doesn't mention it, but it is even worse in the oil sands (notice I did not say "tar sands") of Alberta, where their discounted price (because of the difficulty of transporting crude to market from Northern Alberta, and the reason for their desire to build Keystone XL) is more like<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-sands-producers-struggle-1440017716" target="_blank"> $24 per barrel</a>. Ouch, that hurts, eh?<br />
<br />
A common explanation for the persistence in production, even at losses, is competition for market share. Saudi Arabia has actually increased production. Russell Gold, taking the same line as oil pundits, explains that this is Saudi Arabia trying to avoid losing Asian customers to competitors.<br />
<br />
But there is another explanation. Saudi Arabia has always had low production costs -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $8-$10 per barrel. See the graphic below, from Agora Financial and Total S.A. It is true that most producers are now operating at a budget loss, <i>but not a production loss</i>. The difference between the budget breakeven and the production breakeven is the difference between the orange blocks and the blue blocks below. As one can see, most producers are still selling their oil for more than the <i>variable costs</i> to produce it. The capital, most of the difference between orange and blue, is sunk. If you are a producer, you stop producing when your marginal price drops below your variable costs, not your total costs. Your capital is sunk; what are you going to do about it anyway?<br />
<img alt="Breakeven Costs For Selected Producers" src="http://cdn.oilprice.com/images/tinymce/Evan1/ada918.png" height="187" width="400" /><br />
<br />
This is the problem with a capital-intensive oil industry: that production continues even at loss levels. A heavy loading of capital makes the industry sluggish to change, and less responsive to price fluctuations. I guess that's a consequence of the capital-intensive oil industry. But that ignores the role that law and policy have played in contributing to this overcapitalization.<br />
<br />
We have seen this before, actually. Fisheries have in the past been plagued by overcapitalization. Chronically poor fishers have gone out to fish out a depressed and overfished species just because they have a boat, and no other plausible use for it. It does not cost too much to pay the variable costs of fishing (gas, crew), so why not? What else are you going to do with that boat? That, in sum, as most ably researched by <a href="http://are.ucdavis.edu/en/people/faculty/james-wilen/" target="_blank">Jim Wilen</a>, is an important cause of overfishing worldwide.<br />
<br />
In the United States and Canada, we feed this overcapitalization, just as we fed, through fisheries policy, the overcapitalization of the fishing industry. The overcapitalization of oil and gas goes beyond the approximately <a href="http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf" target="_blank">$4 billion per year bestowed upon the oil and gas industry by the American taxpayer for over 100 years</a>. All oil and gas exploration and drilling subsidies have to do is change the decision environment enough to convert an unprofitable situation to a profitable one. How inefficiently overcapitalized the oil and gas industries are, we do not know. Oil and gas subsidies are so old, there is no baseline.<br />
<br />
So, oil continues to flow. And that's in significant part thanks to the American taxpayer.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-82823047920858130452015-07-16T10:50:00.001-07:002015-07-16T10:50:38.673-07:00Koch Brothers, SocialistsThe Koch Brothers and their putatively conservative friends, like Americans for Prosperity, have reached new heights of Orwellian messaging. Charles Koch has complained in the past that politics <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations?currentPage=all" target="_blank">"tends to be a nasty, corrupting business," preferring instead to "advancing libertarian ideas</a>." Above such nastiness himself, Charles opines that <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/05/charles-koch-how-to-really-turn-the-economy-around/13643229/" target="_blank">"[c]ompanies should earn profits by creating value for customers and acting with integrity, the opposite of today's rampant cronyism."</a><br />
<br />
This must surely be the reason that the Koch Brothers are opposing a <a href="http://www.flsolarchoice.org/" target="_blank">Florida ballot initiative to allow homeowners to finance rooftop solar panels with third parties that are not necessarily their local utility</a>. The ballot initiative <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/tea-partys-debbie-dooley-roils-far-right-with-clean-energy-stance/2204416" target="_blank">has the support of Georgia Tea Party activist Debbie Dooley</a>, as well as the <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/florida-launches-ballot-initiative-for-third-party-owned-solar" target="_blank">Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida and the Libertarian Party of Florida.</a> <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/florida/article/americans-for-prosperity-proposed-solar-policies-are-not-free-market/" target="_blank">Americans for Prosperity Florida opposes the ballot initiative "because they are not free market."</a> <br />
<br />
Really?? This is not free market, to facilitate new entry into the electricity supply business? To allow outsiders other than utilities to provide an alternative to regulated monopoly electricity service mode? It sounds like flat-out socialism, to me, protecting incumbent industries regardless of their economic merit. Sounds like the cronyism that Charles says he finds so offensive, protecting incumbent industries because they share an ideology. There really are few industries in the modern world that have been as allergic to innovation and efficiency as the electricity generation industry. <a href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=elq" target="_blank">In 1920, a kilowatt-hour delivered to the grid by a coal-fired power plant was about twenty percent of the energy contained in the raw coal. By 1999, that figure was thirty-three percent</a>. That stands in pretty stark contrast to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law" target="_blank">Moore's Law, that semiconductor processing speeds double every two years or so</a>. Rooftop solar threatens to upend this dinosaur of an industry. Actually, with the restrictions on entry, as the Kochs would have it, it is more of a guild than an industry.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-rebates-and-incentives/florida/florida-net-metering/" target="_blank">Florida does provide for net metering</a>, the requirement that utilities buy back, under reasonable terms, excess electricity generated by residential owners of solar rooftop. The rub is that most homeowners cannot afford to buy and install solar rooftop panels without some financing. Under the Floridians for Solar Choice ballot initiative, homeowners can receive financing from some outside funder. <a href="http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-rebates-and-incentives/florida/" target="_blank">The utility itself is not, under Florida law, permitted to finance solar rooftop panels to its customers</a>. It is only allowed to sell electricity to its customers, not help them generate their own. The Arizona Public Service Company, the state's largest utility, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBL2fOZNLzg" target="_blank">received funding from the Koch Brothers to fight net metering in Arizona, attempting to keep rooftop solar out of the state</a>. <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2015/03/13/regulators-expect-aps-ask-higher-solar-fees/70283120/" target="_blank">The Arizona Public Utilities Commission ruled that utilities had to allow net metering for rooftop solar owners, provided they paid a $5 monthly fee for access to the grid</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
That is the crux of the problem, and why the Koch Brothers are acting like such socialists, protecting their anachronistic utility friends under the guise of "freedom." Solar rooftop is disruptive, and it does in fact threaten the traditional hub-and-spokes, regulated utility model for electricity generation. Rooftop solar, cheap as it has become, threatens to make obsolete the large, expensive baseload power plants, many of them coal-fired and looking at a bleak future anyway.<br />
<br />
The socialist dinosaurs in Florida have countered with their own ballot amendment, which contains this following language:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/235544" target="_blank">This amendment establishes a right under Florida’s constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain the ability to protect consumer rights and public health and safety, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do</a>.</blockquote>
This sounds uncontroversial, attempting to conceal its real opposition to solar, and it skirts the tough issue -- what exactly would be a reasonable grid access fee for residential rooftop solar homeowners? Is the Arizona $5 fee too much? Too little for utilities to recoup their fixed costs of providing grid support?<br />
<br />
This would be a good debate to have, one that is ongoing in Arizona, what residential rooftop homeowners should have to pay their utility to essentially have them back up their electricity generation. But is obscured by the sophomoric demagoguery that has, with the Koch's blessing, taken over the discussion in Florida. If you are sympathetic to the Koch Brothers, you would have to be disappointed that they do not seem interested in this discussion, but merely wish to entrench the incumbent utility industry, to protect their regulated profits at the expense of technological progress in electricity generation. This is not the first time that the Koch Brothers have allowed their high-minded principles to trump the discomfort of telling their friends they're wrong, they should do things the Koch way. Three years ago the Koch Brothers, funders of the libertarian think tank <a href="http://www.cato.org/" target="_blank">Cato Institute</a>, tried to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/koch-brothers-sue-cato-institute-president/2012/03/01/gIQAUoHMkR_blog.html" target="_blank">capitalize on the death of William Niskanen by claiming the right to buy his shares, trumping claims by Niskanen's widow, Kathryn Washburn</a>. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-kochs-v-cato-winners-and-losers" target="_blank">Their goal? To knock out the leader, Ed Crane, in favor of someone that the Koch Brothers wanted</a>. What do you expect from a couple of good old-fashioned socialists but a coup at Cato?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-26616627784486598322015-06-26T12:40:00.002-07:002015-06-26T21:40:40.403-07:00Alberta Increases Its Carbon "Price"<div class="MsoNormal">
I put the word price in the title in quotations because the province of
Alberta has announced plans to tighten its emissions standards under its <a href="http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2007_139.pdf">Specified Gas
Emitters Regulation</a>, the first-ever policy in Canada to impose some sort of
a pricing mechanism on greenhouse gas emissions. You read that correctly:
Alberta, home to the "tar sands" (I prefer the older term "oil
sands"), not climate-taxing British Columbia, was the first to impose a
price on carbon emissions. In fact, other than <a href="https://bouldercolorado.gov/climate">Boulder, Colorado's carbon-tax-like
electricity surcharge</a>, this was the first in North America. The catch is
that the SGER is not a carbon tax unless one of the specified emitters exceeds
a particular emissions "intensity," a measure of emissions <i>per unit of production</i>. The requirement
was a twelve percent reduction from baseline levels. The bottom line was that <a href="http://myweb.fsu.edu/shsu/publications/54McGillLJ463.pdf">emitters were only
required to become more efficient with their greenhouse gas emissions, rather
than actually reduce them</a>. The price for being unable to sufficiently
reduce emissions was $15 per ton of emissions over the required levels
(12% below baseline), <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/an-inside-look-at-albertas-new-climate-change-rules/">working
out to a pretty low average cost of under $2 per ton</a>. So this is not a carbon
tax, but still, Alberta, which passed the legislation in 2003 and implemented
the regulation in 2007, was first. Now, <a href="http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/alberta-and-climate-change/regulating-greenhouse-gas-emissions/greenhouse-gas-reduction-program/default.aspx">Alberta
has announced that they will ratchet up both the price – from $15 per tonne (that's
"ton" in Canadian) to $30 per tonne – and the reduction from baseline
– from 12% to 20% -- by 2017</a>. That is a welcome first step.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qg8Q-gOHNgE/VY2pMfq3zLI/AAAAAAAACzA/WRVf_rzSD3Q/s1600/_3doBhIO.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qg8Q-gOHNgE/VY2pMfq3zLI/AAAAAAAACzA/WRVf_rzSD3Q/s200/_3doBhIO.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Earlier, in June, newly-elected Alberta Premier Rachel
Notley announced that she would seek help on environmental policy from the
national and Ontario offices of her New Democratic Party, a party that occupies
a very liberal political left in Canada. I groaned, because I have historically
found the <a href="http://myweb.fsu.edu/shsu/publications/54McGillLJ463.pdf">NDP's
climate policy positions a bit facile</a>. The national NDP leader, Thomas
Mulcair, has <a href="http://www.ndp.ca/news/new-vision-new-century-our-plan-prosperous-and-sustainable-energy-future">called
for cap-and-trade because "polluters [should] pay for the pollution they
create instead of leaving those costs to the next generation."</a> There
has always been a for-the-little-guy-against-the-big-guy populism in the NDP,
and unfortunately climate policy has been similarly hostage to this party
principle. The <a href="http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/06/25/the-bc-ndps-axe-the-tax-campaign/" target="_blank">NDP, historically a very green party, even opposed British Columbia's carbon tax on the grounds that it hurt individuals</a>. (Oy) I am heartened to see that the Premier has asked <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/an-inside-look-at-albertas-new-climate-change-rules/">University
of Alberta economist Andrew Leach to chair a climate advisory panel to help
devise a new provincial climate policy</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9vI8gcc5ZA/VY2pPYllKFI/AAAAAAAACzI/i1hCp7Raojw/s1600/Andrew-Leach01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9vI8gcc5ZA/VY2pPYllKFI/AAAAAAAACzI/i1hCp7Raojw/s200/Andrew-Leach01.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Expect some change. The new Premier <a href="http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/new-ndp-government-has-big-job-ahead-on-climate-change">has
said she's not a big fan of the current regulatory scheme</a>, so this recent announcement
is likely just a stopgap. She is also reported to be <a href="http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/new-ndp-government-has-big-job-ahead-on-climate-change">skeptical
that a cap-and-trade plan is right for Alberta</a>, so that leaves …. hmm, a
carbon tax? Chair-designate Leach has written quite sensibly in the past <a href="http://andrewleach.ca/oilsands/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-panacea/">that
carbon pricing is not a "panacea," but depends on the stringency and
the context</a>. But at this point, it is hard to imagine any kind of scheme
that is not a plain old carbon tax. Alberta will probably not try to one-up its
neighbor, but seems likely to eventually accept a <a href="http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm">provincial carbon
tax like British Columbia's</a>. Trying to imagine some regulatory scheme to
regulate Alberta's specified gas emitters just seems too anachronistic to me. What
could you possibly tell Alberta's eight coal-fired power plants besides simply,
"shut down"? What kind of a standard would be applied, above and
beyond the <a href="http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/regulations/detailReg.cfm?intReg=209">already
existing federal plan to phase them out</a>? What about gas plants? What would their standard be, and why? I am
hard-pressed to imagine a climate policy for Alberta other than a carbon tax.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-6318756938849051752015-05-08T09:04:00.000-07:002015-05-08T11:21:22.159-07:00Canada's Climate Will Change, and So Will the World'sApologies to my readers whom have somehow managed to do without me for several months while I battled with teaching a new course.<br />
<br />
Wow. Holy Bob and Doug Mackenzie. I would guess that the vast majority of Americans would not have had the slightest idea that the earth moved underneath the second-largest country in the world, and the United States's largest and most reliable trading partner. The most conservative of Canada's ten provinces, and the one that is most reliant on oil and gas production for economic growth, Alberta, tossed out a <a href="https://www.pcalberta.org/SiteHome" target="_blank">Progressive Conservative Party</a> Premier (that's "Governor" in Canadian) and elected ... the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Rachel Notley as its new Premier. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/06/alberta-ends-44-year-conservative-party-reign-by-electing-left-center/" target="_blank">Fox News calls the NDP "left of center."</a> Huh? No, sorry -- the NDP is left of <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/george-mcgovern-9392136" target="_blank">George McGovern</a>. The center (such as it were in Canada) has historically been occupied by the "Liberal" party. This election is the equivalent of Wyoming electing <a href="http://www.warren.senate.gov/" target="_blank">Elizabeth Warren</a> as its Governor.<br />
<br />
Why is this so significant for Canada? Canada's palpably creepy <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/prime-minister-stephen-harper" target="_blank">Prime Minister Stephen Harper</a> hails from Alberta (although originally from Ontario), has led the Progressive Conservative Party that housed every single Alberta premier since the Party's founding in the 1990s, and has devoted enormous federal resources and political capital to helping the oil sands industry in Alberta.<br />
The spurned incumbent, Jim Prentice, was very closely allied with the Prime Minister, and in fact was the Environment Minister when Canada announced its sensibly Canadian <a href="http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-09-12/html/sor-dors167-eng.html" target="_blank">plan to phase out coal-fired power plants over the ensuing forty-five years</a>. The oil sands are not going away, but they will have to deal with a very different government. To think about the NDP, just imagine Elizabeth Warren, only not as reasonable. Stephen Harper must be sitting in his Centre Block office wondering, "what am I going to spend my time doing now?"<br />
<br />
Why is the world going to change just because of a provincial election for a province of 4.1 million people? It's what Alberta represents to Canada, and what Canada represents to the world. Alberta has always been the most conservative of the provinces, the most energy-focused, and the most socially conservative. That Alberta voters have turned against its economic engine in favor of a liberal populism and more concern for the environment is extremely important. Imagine what American politics would look like if all of a sudden Texas elected an environmentally conscious and liberal Democrat like, oh, how about Elizabeth Warren? And what would that do to a President Ted Cruz (who was born in Alberta, by the way)?<br />
<br />
So who cares about Canada? Why does a shift in Canada mean anything significant on the world stage? Well, first, Canada is the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, accounting for about 4% of world crude. But Canada and Norway are the two oil giants that viewed as socially and globally responsible. If Canada become discernibly more concerned about climate change, that would remove one of the major stumbling blocks to an international climate treaty. Even with the ascendance of <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/prime-minister-stephen-harper" target="_blank">Prime Minister Voldemort</a>, Canada punches well above its weight in terms of serving as a moral conscience. <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w12312" target="_blank">Its New York City diplomats, like those from Scandinavian countries, avoid illegal parking</a>. If Canada, a country heavily dependent upon oil production and export for its economic health, can turn the corner, then it will be harder for other countries, like the United States, to plead helplessness.<br />
<br />Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-68044863002880614552015-01-12T13:49:00.000-08:002015-01-12T13:49:42.942-08:00My 5-year-old Son's Rosa Parks QuestionIn advance of Martin Luther King's birthday, my wife and I have been checking books out of the public library on Dr. King's life, and the civil rights movement in general. Our local elementary school has certainly dedicated a significant part of its teaching year to the civil rights struggle.<br />
<br />
My wife is Caucasian, so our children are half-Asian, but we have always taught our children, Katharine and Allen, that they are persons of color, even though they are only half. Their half-Asian status came up last night because my wife was reading to our 5-year-old son Allen about Rosa Parks. He learned the rule in those days that black people were supposed to sit in the back of the bus, and white people sat in the front. Aware of his half-Asian status, Al thus asked, "does that mean that Katharine and I would have had to sit in the middle of the bus?"Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-7959171981471981442015-01-02T07:26:00.000-08:002015-01-02T13:55:12.320-08:00Thomas Piketty and Mancur Olson<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Thomas Piketty's <i>Capital in the Twenty-first Century</i> has garnered a lot of attention this past year, <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-role-of-law-in-thomas-pikettys.html" target="_blank">as I've noted</a>. One of the many striking things about Piketty's account is the idea that wealth inequality is a process, and a one-way ratchet at that: wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of a few, gradually and over time. By "gradually," he means a long time: we are headed back to the vast differences in wealth in place at the beginning of the <i>twentieth </i>century, but that process has been slowed by two world wars and the Great Depression, which knocked everybody back, so that the world became more equal. Wealth inequality has not yet, by Piketty's account, recovered from those economic catastrophes.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">A
slightly different version of Piketty's story has been told before. In </span><i><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Rise and Decline of Nations<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Ref345527745">, </a></span></i><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">the
late economist Mancur Olson described</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> a one-way ratchet of increasing unemployment,
stagflation, and the ultimate economic decline of nations. Over
time, Olson argues, a country with a stable political environment allows
special interest groups to develop. Special interest groups exist <i>only</i> to engage in rent-seeking – the
achievement of favorable government policy that secures above-normal rents for
members of the special interest group. Why else would members of special interest group pay dues, unless they expect
the group to obtain benefits they could not obtain themselves as individuals? Drawing upon Olson's earlier <i>magnum opus</i>,
<i>The Logic of Collective Action</i>, how else can one even explain the existence of special interest groups, given the
potential for within-group free-riding?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The provocative result of Olson's work is that this
decline is almost inevitable. Over time, special interest groups form, they
secure enough above-normal wealth, and what is left over is below-normal wealth
for everybody else. Once special interest groups gain a foothold, their
influence over policy grows, and their gains at the expense of society accumulate. Exceptions to inexorable decline exist, but are uncommon. A large and
sudden shock from a trade liberalization might scramble the economic order
faster than special interest groups can form or mobilize. Or,
disruptive technologies might lead to a creative destruction. But absent such serendipitous shocks, the die is cast. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">While Olson is primarily
concerned with allocative inefficiency and Piketty with distributive effects,
it is striking to notice the parallels of their theses. Both see a one-way
ratchet, not a cycle. Both see their stories as mostly inevitable, checked only
by random, infrequent, exogenous shocks. But why, save for the few exceptions,
should spirals be inevitable? Why can't developed countries stave off the
tyranny of special interest groups and periodically re-invent their economic
identities? In Piketty-world, why can't the ninety-nine percent rise up in
electoral anger and smite down the one percent? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There is one answer for both Olson's and Piketty's puzzles.
In both cases, a narrow segment of society – Piketty's one percent and Olson's
special interest groups (though there is clearly overlap) – garner above-normal
rents, use them to invest in capital, and then use legal rules and institutions
to protect that capital. This has the effect of both widening wealth inequality
<i>and</i> blocking reform. For Piketty, the
missing piece was the use of law to secure outsized rents for the one percent,
while for Olson, the missing piece was the use of law to protect capital,
developing an elaborate legal super-structure around it to protect it from
changes in its legal or economic environment. The legal system is used in
Piketty's world to obtain capital and in Olson's world, to protect capital from
regulatory interference and reform. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Governments at all levels have demonstrated an
inclination to use "carrots" instead of "sticks" to achieve
policy goals,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> and the carrots frequently take the form of some capital promotion or
protection. Scattered throughout the Internal Revenue Code are carrot-like
provisions that lower the cost of private capital or increase the returns to
private capital.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> This two-staged exploitation of the legal system has the dual effects of exacerbating
wealth inequalities </span><i style="font-size: 11pt;">and</i><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> grinding
legal and economic reform to a halt.</span></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
</div>
</div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-30284513187238089422014-12-17T11:02:00.000-08:002014-12-17T11:26:41.305-08:00A State Carbon Tax?Washington State Governor Jay Inslee has announced that he will propose some sort of a carbon pricing program to help raise revenues for his state's starved budget, which is currently <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-11-19/washington-state-budget-outlook-predicts-shortfall" target="_blank">about $2 billion in the red</a> (over two years, and out of a <a href="http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget11/highlights/balance_sheet.pdf" target="_blank">total budget of about $33 billion</a>), and which includes a <a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/843627.opn.pdf" target="_blank">Washington Supreme court-mandated increase in school funding</a>. The details remain sketchy at this point, like whether it is a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2014/12/17/stories/1060010674" target="_blank">Greeenwire is calling it a "carbon fee"</a> and the <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025247349_transpobudgetxml.html" target="_blank">Seattle Times is reporting it as a cap-and-trade</a>), but the Governor is hoping that it will produce $400 million per year. He has tied it to transportation funding, which both parties in Washington state would agree is badly needed.<br />
<br />
Inslee is a Democrat and Republicans have a majority in the Washington Senate, and are just barely a minority in the State House, so prospects of passage might appear dim. But this is a state where the parties still seem capable of working together. Republican state senator Curtis King of Yakima (the hometown of Justice William O. Douglas) <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025247349_transpobudgetxml.html" target="_blank">criticized the Governor's plan for linking such a tax to general spending projects like transportation projects, but praised the Governor for proposing something in advance of January budget negotiations</a>. (Can we get some of those Republicans down here in Florida?)<br />
<br />
I have one problem with this. Washington State still has to figure out a way to comply with the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating" target="_blank">Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan</a> to reduce emissions from the electricity generating sector. Washington's goal is already a heavy lift -- 1,379 lbs./MWhr down to 215 by 2030 -- this is a state with only one coal-fired power plant so it does not have much low-hanging fruit to pick. I would save my political capital for when I needed to propose something for the Clean Power Plan, which is going to really cost Washington State. What Washington could do, much more directly if it truly wishes to fund transportation projects, is just raise its gasoline taxes, currently at 37.5 cents per gallon. That is high (ninth among states) but Washington is one of seven states with no state income tax. If I am a motorist in the Emerald State, I would accept a gasoline tax as the price of having good roads and bridges (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/us/washington-bridge-collapse/" target="_blank">a major and important bridge collapsed in Northwest Washington in 2013</a>), and could separate that from carbon reduction measures. <a href="http://www.statemaster.com/state/WA-washington/ene-energy" target="_blank">Washington State consumed about 64 million barrels in 2013</a>, or 2.7 billion gallons. A tax of 10 cents per gallon would raise $270 million dollars, and 15 cents would raise about $400 million, the hoped-for amount raised by the carbon "fee," or permit price, or whatever it is going to be. Do it now, when gas prices are low!Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-56220633588007818742014-12-04T13:54:00.003-08:002014-12-05T05:35:41.541-08:00House Republicans: One Million Dollar Deduction for Big Trucks, $4,000 for CollegeThere is an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/opinion/a-costly-and-outrageous-tax-break.html?_r=0" target="_blank">op-ed</a> in Wednesday's New York Times on the push by some Republicans to extend a stimulus tax incentive, a "bonus depreciation" provision that allows businesses to deduct the <i>full purchase price</i> of qualifying equipment, essentially deducting it as a business expense (like a luncheon or business travel) up to, in some cases in the past, 50% of the value of the equipment. The provision is part of a tax extenders package in <a href="https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr5771/BILLS-113hr5771ih.pdf" target="_blank">H.R. 5771</a> which passed the House on Thursday <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll544.xml" target="_blank">378-46</a>. That is a bipartisan vote, but make no mistake: it was House Republicans that have been pushing for this provision. In comparison, the maximum deduction for higher education expenses would be capped at $4,000 for an individual whose maximum adjusted gross income can be no more than $65,000 (or $130,000 for joint filers). $500,000 for business equipment, $4,000 for higher education. <a href="http://www.section179.org/property_that_qualifies_for_section_179.html" target="_blank">Qualifying property</a> includes <a href="http://www.alphaleasing.com/businessaspects/over6000gvwr.asp" target="_blank">vehicles heavier than 6,000 lbs</a>., off-the-shelf software, office furniture, equipment, and property not part of a structure.<br />
<br />
However, there is something else that is moving forward as part of H.R. 5771. Even before you get to bonus depreciation, under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code businesses can take a first-year deduction of up to $25,000. That means that business, whatever and whoever they are, can expense up to $25,000 of equipment right away. The limit had been, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr5140enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr5140enr.pdf" target="_blank">as part of a 2008 economic stimulus package</a> lifted up to $250,000 on capital equipment having a total value of no more than $800,000. That generous limit expired, and House Republicans are now seeking to lift that limit from the current level of $25,000 up to $500,000. That's a total of $1 million for business capital, $4,000 for higher education, in case you were keeping score.<br />
<br />
There is actually a website, <a href="http://section179.org/">Section179.org</a>, that spells everything out for anybody, most prominently small businesses, to figure out exactly how the bonus depreciation works. It is not complicated. For <a href="http://www.section179.org/property_that_qualifies_for_section_179.html" target="_blank">qualifying capital equipment</a>, you can basically expense anything up to $25,000, which becomes $1 million if the House package becomes law.<br />
<br />
What is the effect of these tax provisions? These provisions have gone up and down over time, and <a href="http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/directory/z/eric-zwick" target="_blank">Eric Zwick</a> and <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/mahon/home" target="_blank">James Mahon</a> have looked at these provisions and their effects on business investment, and how changes in these rates over time have changed investment from year to year. <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/zwick/files/stimulus.pdf" target="_blank">They found that bonus depreciation raised investment by 17.3 percent from 2001 to 2004 and 29.5 percent from 2008 to 2010</a>. They carry out a number of robustness tests, leading them to conclude that these provisions really do work. In fact, insofar as the up-and-down movement of the limits of section 179 and bonus depreciation create "kinks" in the optimal investment levels of firms, firms are observed to be investing right up to the kinks, in effect taking full advantage of these provisions. Firms tend not to take full advantage if they do not have the ordinary income against which to take these deductions (though bonus depreciation has, in past years, been used to create losses which can be carried forward to offset income in future years).<br />
<br />
That said, what kind of capital are we subsidizing, and what good is it doing? Even if we ignore the distributional impacts of this disparity between funding business equipment and higher education, what good is this increased business investment doing? This we do not know.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-10932153069311297582014-11-20T00:30:00.000-08:002014-11-20T00:30:02.060-08:00Why the U.S.-China Climate Deal May Be a Tipping Point<div class="MsoPlainText">
The Obama administration announced a climate agreement
with China last week, which was <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-us-china-climate-deal.html" target="_blank">immediately criticized by congressional Republicans</a>. Putting aside partisan churlishness however, this climate agreement may be a turning point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
As <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1573054" target="_blank">I wrote three years ago</a>, and international climate negotiations are, above all, a game-theoretic process. For an international
climate agreement to be durable, there must be sufficient confidence on the
part of all parties that all of the other parties are committed to mitigation
of greenhouse gas emissions. For any individual country, it is likely that the
benefits of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions are much greater than the
costs. However, this is predicated on other countries also performing their own self-interested cost-benefit analysis and arriving at the same conclusion. It is a fragile agreement indeed, when there are
numerous parties, all of which must trust <span style="font-family: inherit;">that all of the other parties will reach the same conclusion and will refrain from free-riding. Ironically, a country that makes great strides in </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">mitigation or geo-engineering may actually undermine cooperation, as this would
sow doubt among potential partners that such a country may not reach the
conclusion that the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases exceed the costs. </span>In an environment of such fragile cooperation, signaling is extremely important. This US – China deal may just be
the strongest signal yet that the two largest emitters in the world recognize that the benefits of climate policy exceed the costs.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-35339743276304549172014-11-18T14:02:00.000-08:002014-11-18T14:02:08.923-08:00Virginia Possibly Pushing For a State Carbon Tax Under Clean Power Plan<div class="MsoPlainText">
<a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/morrisa" target="_blank">Adele Morris</a> of the Brookings Institution reports that state of Virginia has submitted <a href="http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Air/Planning/vacommentstoepa.pdf" target="_blank">comments</a> on the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating#table_of_tables" target="_blank">EPA's Clean Power Plan</a> that call for additional flexibility in compliance options. Significantly, the Virginia comments were very similar to <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/10/28-epa-should-allow-states-to-comply-taxing-pollution-wara-morris" target="_blank">those that Morris has been advocating</a>, in her push to get states to consider a state
carbon tax, and to have a state carbon tax be an option for complying with section 111(d). Morris and others met with Virginia state officials three months ago to
discuss a state carbon tax and suggested comments, so apparently that meeting went pretty well.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
This is a potentially huge development, because Virginia is a very
carbon-intensive state. Under the EPA proposed rule, Virginia is expected to reduce its
emissions from a rate of 1438 lbs. of CO2/net MWhr to 884 by 2020, and to 810 by 2030.
That a state that is politically purple and with a very important coal industry is considering a state carbon tax is much more
significant then if this was under consideration in a state like Massachusetts
or Washington.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-4375288500074537112014-11-16T16:33:00.004-08:002014-11-16T16:36:06.776-08:00Land Use Law and Disability<div class="MsoPlainText">
<a href="https://law.syr.edu/profile/robin-paul-malloy1" target="_blank">Robin Paul Malloy</a>'s <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/law-and-economics/land-use-law-and-disability-planning-and-zoning-accessible-communities" target="_blank">Land Use Law and Disability: Planning and Zoning for Accessible Communities </a>has just been published by Cambridge University Press. Malloy argues that Land Use Planning should take greater account of people with mobility
impairments and other disabilities that interfere with access. Planning with universal access design guidelines is superior to the <i>de facto</i> litigation-driven process of land use planning for
accommodating persons with disabilities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-72113005379412469212014-11-13T11:11:00.000-08:002014-11-13T11:11:11.271-08:00The U.S.-China Climate DealEverybody, even people disinterested in the environment, has heard by now: President Obama announced a bilateral agreement between the United States and China for the United States to reduce emission 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and China will peak its emissions by 2030. Those are the central pieces of the deal. There is also agreement to jointly pursue carbon capture and sequestration, funding for a new US-China energy research center, and other feel-goodies, but clearly something that speaks directly to emissions is the big deal.<br />
<br />
Mitch McConnell and fellow Kentuckian Ed Whitfield proved again why the Republican Party deserves our scorn, by simply dismissing the deal because it was struck by Obama. If Obama's for it, then Republicans are agin' it. McConnell said that the deal "<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/senate-republicans-slam-us-china-climate-deal/" target="_blank">requires China to do nothing for 16 years</a>." That is true. Of course, the alternative is no deal at all, as if McConnell expects China to cap emissions tomorrow. Rep. Ed Whitfield from Kentucky snarked, "Everyone who's ever dealt with China knows that they've made all kinds of commitments." That's Ed Whitfield, the noted Sinophile. As a more thoughtful commentator pointed out, what matters more <a href="http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2014/11/13/stories/1060008833" target="_blank">is the level at which China peaks than when it peaks</a>. Importantly, though, a 2030 peak will likely keep <a href="http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6079/02iie6079.pdf" target="_blank">China below a BAU baseline</a>. It also represents a step in that China is moving away from an intensity target -- which is no cap at all -- to a mass-based cap.<br />
<br />
Everyone who reads the newspaper understands the inherent caution and conservatism of Chinese foreign policy, which is driven by the Chinese Communist Party's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_Standing_Committee_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China" target="_blank">Politburo Standing Committee</a>, the real decisionmaker, and which makes decision by consensus and under strict Chatham House rules. Policy changes slowly in China. There will be next step, and it will be the specification of an absolute cap, a "how much" and not just a "when."<br />
<br />Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-87707423433745572462014-11-09T09:21:00.000-08:002014-11-09T09:26:40.532-08:00Direct Air Capture Technology About to Come Online"Direct Air Capture" (DAC) is a term that has been used to describe a technology that seeks to suck carbon dioxide out of the ambient air. That contrasts with "carbon capture and storage," (CCS) which seeks to either suck carbon dioxide out of the flue stream of a fossil fuel combustion process, or to de-carbonize coal before combustion.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">DAC has never been a mainstream technology, in large part because so much has been invested politically and economically in CCS technology. </span><a href="http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/78160/print" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Senator Lamar Alexander once said "w[e] should launch another mini-Manhattan Project and reserve a Nobel Prize for the scientist who can get rid of the carbon from existing coal plants, because coal provides half our energy</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">."</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> But it would appear to deserve some attention, as an effective post-combustion technology could buy some time. <a href="http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/" target="_blank">David Keith</a>, who moved from the University of Calgary to Harvard a few years ago, has been the primary agitator for this technology, and even founded his own startup company, <a href="http://carbonengineering.com/" target="_blank">Carbon Engineering</a>, which counts Bill Gates as one of its investors. It is a Carbon Engineering pilot project that will begin operations in Squamish, British Columbia, next year. Keith claimed in 2009 that carbon dioxide could be captured at a cost of "closer to $100 per ton than $500 per ton." The American Physical Society came out with a <a href="http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf" target="_blank">withering criticism</a>, offering its own less sanguine estimate of $600 per ton, at the very least. The physical problem with direct air capture is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth" target="_blank">carbon dioxide comprises such a small fraction of our ambient air -- 0.04%</a> -- so that capture from ambient air is inherently less efficient than, say, capture near the source (a coal-fired power plant). Nevertheless, I'm going to borrow <a href="http://dismalenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2014/10/im-not-scientist.html" target="_blank">my Governor's go-to line when faced with uncomfortable scientific facts: "I'm not a scientist</a>." Let's see how this pilot plant in British Columbia does.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The politics of direct air capture are simply that no politician has heard of it, and that David Keith or Carbon Engineering is not yet a major political or campaign contributing source. It has to get picked up by an AEP or a Duke. But given the century-long atmospheric life of carbon dioxide, this technology has to be seriously considered.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The one downside of this technology is highlighted in <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1573054" target="_blank">an article I wrote in 2011</a>: that success would ultimately decrease the pressure to reach an international agreement to reduce emissions. Research on direct air capture could allow say, China and India, to simply free-ride off of the research efforts of Canada and the United States. We could build the massive carbon dioxide collector arrays, and China and India would then go on building coal-fired power plants and emitting. That might be politically unappealing.</span></span>Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-54817084888496008022014-11-01T15:11:00.000-07:002014-11-02T11:23:31.212-08:00Chile Enacts a Carbon TaxOn September 26, Chile became the first country in South America to enact a carbon tax. <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/27/carbon-chile-tax-idUKL6N0RR4V720140927" target="_blank">This story was picked up the following day by Reuters</a>, and was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/business/international/climate-change-concerns-push-chile-to-forefront-of-carbon-tax-movement.html" target="_blank">not picked up by the New York Times until October 29</a>. The New York Times is taking its divestment from climate change coverage seriously, it appears. It appears to be too busy trying its best to save the Senate from Republican control.<br />
<br />
The tax will be $5 per ton of carbon dioxide, and is limited to the electricity generation sector, and will cover 55% of country-wide emissions.There is some natural political economy to the measure, as 80% of Chile's energy emissions are from fossil fuels, and most of it is imported oil and coal, so it is not as if domestic production of fossil fuels will be curtailed so much, as it would in the United States. But of course, the electricity generators (there are four big ones) will raise the price of electricity, and the energy-intensive mining industry, an important one for Chile economically, will feel some pain. Chile reports that it expects to collect $160 million per year in carbon tax revenues, which I can't quite back out. <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2014/" target="_blank">In 2013, Chile's emitted of 24 Mt of carbon</a>, or (taking into account the weight of carbon dioxide as opposed to carbon) 88 tons of carbon dioxide. If, as economist <a href="http://www.economia.puc.cl/jmontero" target="_blank">Juan-Pablo Montero</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/business/international/climate-change-concerns-push-chile-to-forefront-of-carbon-tax-movement.html" target="_blank">reports, the tax will cover 55% of Chile's emissions</a>, it would seem to me that the covered emissions would be 48.4 Mt of CO2, and therefore revenues should be around $242 million, not accounting for the demand response to the carbon tax. Maybe the Chilean officials and Dr. Montero have different estimates of what emissions will be covered.<br />
<br />
At any rate, Chilean officials and Dr. Montero state the obvious, which nevertheless eludes some in the United States: that of course, Chile will have to go beyond $5 per ton, but that the institutions can now be put into place to pave the way for increases in the carbon tax in the future.Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-14666628336537602532014-10-31T11:14:00.000-07:002014-10-31T11:14:04.462-07:00"I'm not a scientist"That has been the response from some politicians averse to any kind of climate policy, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html" target="_blank">including my own Governor, Rick Scott</a>, but also Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner. Michael McKenna, a prominent Republican energy lobbyist, says: "It's got to be the dumbest answer I've ever heard... .Using that logic would disqualify politicians from voting on anything. Most politicians aren't scientists, but they vote on science policy. They have opinions on Ebola, but they're not epidemiologists. They shape highway and infrastructure laws, but they're not engineers."Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-69155710605792518492014-10-06T08:48:00.000-07:002014-10-06T08:48:00.052-07:00Society for Environmental Law and Economics, Groningen, the Netherlands -- Call for Papers<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<strong style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: black; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Society for Environmental Law and Economics (SELE) 2015 Conference</span></strong></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: black; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Call for Papers</span></strong></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The seventh annual meeting of the Society for Environmental Law and Economics (SELE) will be held on 21-22 May 2015, at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We hope to build upon the great success of past SELE meetings, and continue to build a community of scholars interested in working at the intersection of law, economics and environmental issues. We welcome both theoretical and empirical papers, ranging from local to international themes. While all topics are welcomed, this year we in particular invite scholars to submit papers on how to balance sustainability and competition: should competition authorities allow for restrictions of competition that benefit the environment?</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In a spirit of collegiality, the meeting will take place in a workshop format in which all sessions will be plenary. We strongly encourage all attendees to attend all presentations. Our goal is to create a program that includes a variety of disciplinary perspectives, ideally consisting of about 20 papers over the two-day period.</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As in past years, no funding will be available for travel or lodging expenses, but food and drink will be provided during the workshop for the participants and a dinner will be hosted on the first day of the conference.</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Further information regarding accommodation, the conference program and other logistic matters will be posted on <a href="http://www.envlawecon.wordpress.com/" sl-processed="1" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #9c8a6a; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">www.envlawecon.wordpress.com</a>. Inquiries can also be sent to (this year’s local organizer) Edwin Woerdman (<a href="mailto:e.woerdman@rug.nl" sl-processed="1" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #9c8a6a; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">e.woerdman@rug.nl</a>).</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To submit a paper, please email a Word or PDF file to Edwin Woerdman at<a href="mailto:e.woerdman@rug.nl" sl-processed="1" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #9c8a6a; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">e.woerdman@rug.nl</a> with the subject line “SELE SUBMISSION”, by November 17, 2014. We will review all the papers and get back to you by December 15.</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hope to see you in Groningen!</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Edwin Woerdman, Associate Professor, University of Groningen</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Daniel H. Cole, Professor, Maurer School of Law and SPEA, Indiana University</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Shi-Ling Hsu, Professor, Florida State University College of Law</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jonathan R. Nash, Professor, Emory University School of Law</span></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Josephine van Zeben, Fellow, Worcester College, University of Oxford</span></div>
Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-32205587043455672892014-10-03T08:46:00.001-07:002014-10-03T08:46:51.400-07:00University of Chicago Professor Saul Levmore on Thomas Piketty<a data-mce-href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/levmore" href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/levmore" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;" target="_blank">Saul Levmore</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;"> has posted on SSRN </span><a data-mce-href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2488057" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2488057" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;" target="_blank">his review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-first Century</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">. In it, he raises a question that others have raised: is there a problem with inequality, </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">per</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;"> se?</span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;"> </em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">We exchanged emails, and I raised this point: severe enough inequality creates a sitution in which the poor have a </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">comparative</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;"> advantage in violence. Even if the rich are able, with their resources, able to buy enough security to obtain a sizable </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">absolute </em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">advantage in violence, the poor may have such low opportunity costs of violence that they may freely engage in it. Professor Levmore replied that if we are afraid of violent revolution, then we are in a pretty dark place and we are not quite there yet. Agreed. But we may not need to be at a point of violent revolution in order for the threat of inequality-induced violence to impose costs. Is our American gun fetishism part of that? If so, that is pretty costly. Everybody talks about Ferguson as if it were about race, only. Is it? Maybe. But is some of it a fear of the </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">other</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">, that other being quite possibly poor enough to entertain rational thoughts of violence? I dunno. But possibly.</span>Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-23508111700404411012014-09-18T19:15:00.000-07:002014-09-18T19:15:00.124-07:00Solving Climate Change Will Cost Nothing, Sort OfOn Tuesday the <a href="http://newclimateeconomy.net/" target="_blank">Global Commission on the Economy and Climate</a> launched its report, <a href="http://newclimateeconomy.report/" target="_blank">Better Growth, Better Climate</a>, in which it makes the bold-sounding pronouncement that major steps can be taken to address climate change that cost nothing. Over the next 15 years we will spend some $90 trillion in infrastructure investment. "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Our argument is that it would be smart to invest the $90 trillion in a good way,"<a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/fighting-global-warming-doesnt-have-break-bank" target="_blank"> said Jeremy Oppenheim on APM Marketplace on Tuesday</a>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, DejaVu Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">In a way, we have always known this. The question has always been, can you measure and quantify the risks and the known harms from climate change? Even if there remain uncertainties, it is increasingly incredible to deny that the balance of climate risks and mitigation costs tilts in favor of deep emissions reductions. So why do we still debate it? Why does it still seem as though reducing emissions is costly?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, DejaVu Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, DejaVu Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">The answer goes back to my previous post, in which we do not explicitly grapple with the "losers" from climate policy, coal-related industries and states, petroleum industries, states, and countries, and all of the related industries. There is a lot of capital, physical, human, and social wrapped up in a lot of industries and places, and they may not be able to do much other than what they're doing, which is to continue to service a greenhouse gas-intensive economy. In theory, we could buy them out with the cost savings of avoiding all those climate harms. But in practice, we just don't have the money.</span></span>Shi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.com0