December 2005 Archives

Here's an interesting post, and ensuing discussion, on the Environmental Economics blog on efforts to increase the use of incentives under the Endangered Species Act.

Commercial production of chestnuts is increasing. This could contribute the revival of the American chestnut. The AP reports here. There's more on the American Chestnut Foundation, the non-profit leading the way for chestnut recovery, here.

At the request of the U.S. Forest Service, a federal judge has ordered environmental groups contesting a Forest Service timber sale to post a $100,000 bond in order to keep an injunction in place during appeal from his ruling that the timber sale should go forward. The Forest Service had requested a $400,000 bond. Timber groups laud the bond as a step towards reducing frivilous lawsuits, while environmentalists call the step "unprecedented."

In apparent reaction to the heat some have felt for their "do as I say, not as I do" behavior, TourJet America, a private aircraft broker catering to the entertainment industry, has pledged to offset all of the carbon emissions associated with its operations. As the newest "Zero Carbon" partner of the nonprofit Carbonfund, the company will offset its entire corporate carbon emissions, from office energy use to jet fuel expenditures. Carbonfund will offset the carbon by supporting reforestation projects in fire stricken areas of California.

I suspect the forests near Malibu will take priority.

"TourJet's Zero Carbon initiative is a significant step for an industry member that must rely heavily upon carbon fuels," said Carbonfund president Lesley Marcus Carlson. He didn't explain why the entertainment business has to rely on carbon fuels anymore than the next guy--I suppose it's because EVERYBODY has to rely on carbon based fuels (ne: fossil) as there is no viable rational alternative, and it just isn't necessary. Same holds for airtransport industry if that was the point of Mr. Carlson's remark. The airtransport industry had tried hot air ballons and hydrogen derigibles in the past but they just didn't quite work out the way intended.

"TourJet going Zero Carbon demonstrates what our foundation has always maintained - incorporating carbon offsets is simple and quite manageable within any successful business endeavor." The company says it will look into expanded support of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the coming year. Of course, a company can go from successful to not-so-much fairly quickly when it embraces bad or silly ideas.

Source: GreenBiz.com, 12/19/2005

In his initial post on the hunting rights purchase in Canada, Chris Bruce over at Environmental Economics commented:

This kind of purchase is exactly what Ronald Coase discussed in in his famous 1960 article in the Journal of Law and Economics. Of course, although the Society is trumpeting their success as the opening of a brave new world in environmental activism, the fact that economists have been discussing this possibility for 45 years leads one to suspect that the problems Coase foresaw - the diffculty of raising funds due to the free rider problem and the substantial administrative costs - have had a significant damping effect on this form of "free market environmentalism."

But in the 45 years to which Chris refers, the federal and state governments subsidized a great deal of habitat preservation through both direct purchases with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increased wilderness designations, and regulatory frameworks such as the Endangered Species Act. The government efforts most certainly created two incentives that made private, Coasean transactions much more difficult over the period.

First of all, most private citizens were probably less willing to contribute to environmental organizations when they figured their tax dollars and user fees in the form of duck stamps were already providing environmental amenities. With that bundle of goods well-provided, they were more likely to donate to goods not provided by the state, such as the great amount of money contributed to churches and synagogues. Second, environmental groups that did receive funds found it best to spend their money on the political process to influence the extensive dollars already being leveraged for governmental action rather than spending their money on purchasing habitat directly.

The increased reliance on direct purchases seen in the 1990s and 2000s can likely be traced to disgruntlement with government, a desire to see effects occuring more locally where private purchases are more successful, and finally the lag period between Coase's ideas gaining ground, making their way into educational programs, and the students of those programs finally working their ways into positions of power where they are able to implement new methods.

Finally, just because the group is trumpeting their method as a new way in Canada does not mean that it hasn't been occurring regularly in the United States for some time. The Nature Conservancy and local land trusts have been relying on Coasean bargaining for the entirety of their existence. Their success may have been unheralded over that time, but it certainly wasn't nonexistant.

As I am sure Mr. Bruce is aware, Coase certainly understood the administrative costs and free rider problem of the private sector, but he was not certain that those costs and that free rider problem were not equally or even more prevalent in government.

The dean of the Yale School of Forestry, of which I am a graduate, has apparently been engaged in some serious scholarly reading as of late. Check out his endorsement of a book straight from the mind of a second grader.

Thanks to my friend Sean for the link.

Chris Bruce at the Environmental Economics blog has an interesting follow-up post on the purchase of hunting rights by environmentalists that Bishop noted here.

The EPA announced new, tighter fine particulate standards yesterday. As expeceted, environmental activist groups said the new, tighter standards are not tight enough.

The WSJ's Kim Strassel reports on the aftermath of a state court decision invalidating the regulatory takings compensation initiative in Oregon.

The proposed wind farm off the coast of Nantucket may have a big problem: Proposed legislation barring the cosntruction of wind turbines near shipping lanes. According to the NYT, Alaska Congressman Don young is seeking to add such a provision to the Coast Guard's appropriations. Wind farms have enough trouble competing in the open market; they have no chance if they have to fend off government regulation as well.

In Biritiba Mirim, Brazil, national environmental laws have prevented the construction of new cemetaries and prohibited cremation. In response, the town's mayor has outlawed death. Residents must take good care of their health so they do not die or they will be held accountable. The mayor's proposal is a protest to the uncompromising nature of the national regulations.

As many environmentalists blame overpopulation as the greatest environmental threat, this is clearly a classic case of the unintended consequences of regulation.

The Rainforest Conservation Foundation paid $1.35 million to buy out the hunting rights of an outfitter for lands running along the British Columbia coastline in western Canada. The group plans to retire nearly all hunting on the license, though some hunting is mandated as part of owning the license. The group will fill the hunting mandate through moose and deer hunts for food, but no trophies and no bears.

While trophy hunting is increasingly becoming a way to fund conservation efforts around the world, the group thinks trophy hunting is wrong and thus is doing its part to eliminate it. Native tribes in the area agree, but mainly because they feel hunting interferes with their eco-tourism opportunities. It is clear that there are opportunities for sport hunting and eco-tourism to work together in a symbiotic relationship, given success in other parts of the world, such as the CAMPFIRE program (still going strong despite the Zimbabwe government.) But the groups in this process have decided they don't want trophy hunting in the area and have put their money where their mouths are.

The one thing the group might want to consider, however, is changing their name. Rainforest Preservation Foundation might be more appropriate. Conservationists are usually not opposed to hunting in the way that preservationists often are.

Thanks to Jeremy Brown at the Fraser Institute for pointing out the story.

In The Times, Tim Worstall takes to task a British environmentalist-turned-aspiring-Tory-politician (Zac Goldsmith) whose whose opinions about agriculture and farming were published prominently in The Times yesterday. Goldsmith and other European pundits seem to be some of the few who dare to lament that food prices for consumers are decreasing.

The direct benefits of modern agricultural technologies to humanity and the environment in the 20th century have been elucidated in numerous scholarly articles on agriculture by by Indur Goklany. For instance:

If agricultural-technology development had been frozen in 1961, we estimate, using data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (see FAOSTAT 2003: apps.fao.org), that cropland would have had to increase from its present 11% to some 25% of the planetary surface to produce the same amount of food now.(Nature, vol 423, p.115)

The Hertfordshire oil depot explosion here in the UK seems to provide great fodder for The Guardian to rant yet again against modern society, affluence and technology: "Millions of us have to accept we must live duller lives", a columnist writes today. "Without being forced to change our habits, very few of us will do our bit. The job of government is to lead, and to insist..."

This reminds me of an article a while back in The Onion, "America's Finest News Source", concerning a "report" by the "American Public Transportation Association" (APTA).

The headline reads "98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others". Here is an excerpt:

In conjunction with its release, the APTA is kicking off a campaign to promote mass transit with the slogan, "Take The Bus... I'll Be Glad You Did."

The campaign is intended to de-emphasize the inconvenience and social stigma associated with using public transportation, focusing instead on the positives. Among these positives: the health benefits of getting fresh air while waiting at the bus stop, the chance to meet interesting people from a diverse array of low-paying service-sector jobs, and the opportunity to learn new languages by reading subway ads written in Spanish.

"People need to realize that public transportation isn't just for some poor sucker to take to work," Collier said. "He should also be taking it to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the laundromat."

Glenn Reynolds on Robert Bruegmann's new book, Sprawl: A Compact History.

That's the plan, announced by the Bush Administration Tuesday.

Nanotechnology is not particularly regulated. The Washington Post reports some are trying to change that.

The New York Times reports on an "extinction crisis" in Mongolia. The likely causes are identified as overhunting and trade in animal skins. Wolf populations are increasing, but that's no consolation as the wolves may increase the pressure on some species.

It's odd that trade is identified as a cause of the crisis. There is robust trade in products derived from many species that are in no danger of extinction. The relevant factor is not trade, or lackthereof -- nor is it consumptive use. Rather, the question is whether there are institutional arrangements in place that create opportunities and incentives for conservation -- a point I make in this book chapter. In Mongolia, there are not -- the story notes that "the Mongolian Constitution declares wildlife to be a common resource of the people" -- and that is the real cause of the problem.

Mark Steyn writes brilliantly as usual in today's Daily Telegraph about the increasing shrillness of environmental groups who advocate global climate control.

According to one member of Greenpeace who Steyn quotes:

"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

Got that? [asks Steyn] If it's hot, that's a sign of global warming, and, if it's cold, that's a sign of global warming.

Steyn notes that a strong economy is a prerequisite for a clean environment -- and "even the poseurs of the European chancelleries are having second thoughts. Which is why, in their efforts to flog some life back into the dead Kyoto horse, the eco-cultists have to come up with ever scarier horrors, such as that 'New Ice Age'."

A new site devoted to casting a skeptical eye at wind energy.

Heads up on a new book published on Tuesday, 6 December by the Sustainable Development Network:

Carrots, Sticks and Climate Change: A primer on down-to-earth ideas for climate policy

Policymakers are being pressured to`address the threat of climate change. Most of the focus so far has been on ‘sticks’, in the form of government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This book argues that ‘carrots’ are a more humane and cost-effective way for policymakers to address climate-sensitive problems.

Like it or not,we live in a world characterised by scarce resources. All decisions have costs and tradeoffs, and people make decisions about what costs to bear and which tradeoffs to make, and how, in response to incentives. It is here that social science – specifically, economics – can make an important contribution to the climate debate.

Read More »

'If a shifty salesman in a blue suit adorned with yellow stars appeared on your doorstep flogging a life insurance policy with high, high costs and low, low returns, would you turn over your hard-earned cash? Most likely you would shut the door in his face. This is effectively what some non-government organisations and governments are asking us to do when they call for drastic restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the name of saving us from climate change.'

This is from an article I wrote - originally titled "Kyoto's shady salesmen" - which ran in The Australian on Monday.

A report by the European Environment Agency claims that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto targets thanks to "additional measures being planned" as well as "the use of Kyoto mechanisms by various Member States". This may be exciting for the Kyoto-ists - yet it is not convincing. First, it is not clear what "additional measures" is the EEA talking about. Of course there are additional measures that may work - for example, just impose a cap to emissions (at what cost? is the relevant question then, that the EEA doesn't address at all). Secondly, it is not clear how the Kyoto mechanisms may work as long as most EU Member States are missing their national targets. Of course there is a way for the Kyoto mechanisms to work: just allow EU countries to buy hot air from developing countries - that is, pursue a reduction on paper with no effect on the actual level of global emissions. The EEA is cheating: that's fine, they are paid for it. What is not fine is that most of those who are in Montreal will take such "projections" seriously, and European policies that will affect the Old Continent's development will be designed accordingly.

Over the next year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether the gray wolf is ready for delisting from the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Tim Haab discovers the cost of green gifts.

The Grand Canyon Trust turned to he marketplace in its efforts to improve the condition of federal grazing lands. Rather than seek additional regulatory controls on the use of federal land, they began buying grazing permits from ranchers who were willing to sell. Over the past several years, the Trust has spent over $1 million buying grazing permits on some 400,000 acres. It seemed like a win-win solution -- the Trust reduced grazing, ranchers got paid -- but some ranchers were not so happy about it. As the New York Times reports:

The deals seemed to suit all concerned, until a group of local officials decided that they were bad for the local economy and a threat to the ancestral tradition of living off the land. The group set out to end this latest, uncharacteristically civil chapter in the fraught history of cattlemen, environmentalists and dueling visions of the West's future.

Michael E. Noel, a former Bureau of Land Management employee who now is a Republican state representative from southern Utah, led the charge to roll back agreements the trust had forged. Mr. Noel said the loss of the grazing allotments would hurt ranching, which would in turn deprive the area's young people of the character-building chance to work on the land.

"Yes, it's a free market to buy and sell," Mr. Noel said recently. "But if you buy it, you use it."

By retiring the lands, he said, the trust is reneging on an implicit agreement, and "if we allow that to occur, we go down the path of eliminating all grazing on public lands."

Perhaps so, but this is a change being brought about by the marketplace, rather than government fiat. That's how markets work. If a given land-use is less desirable, the land will be purchased and devoted to higher valued uses. In the past, this meant that much land was devoted to grazing and resource extraction. Yet as the nation gets wealthier, people are willing to spend more money to purchase enviornmental amenities on tha same lands -- if the government lets it happen. Mr. Noel is seeking to put a legal halt to the Trust's efforts.

Read More »

Lake County, long the "poster child" for recycling in Ohio is dumping the program, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, because the costs are too high. The story (link here) is enlightening on the costs of recycling:

Lake County had provided free curbside service to its residents since 1993, paying for it with a multimillion-dollar surplus accumulated from fees charged at the Kirtland landfill. The county paid $1 per household per month, while cities, villages and townships began to pay 69 cents per month in 2003.

That would have increased to $2.25 per household, per month next year, Hodges said. Most local officials told commissioners when polled that the amount would break their budget.

"Everyone wants to be an environmentalist, but it eventually becomes a cost-benefit ratio thing, too," County Commissioner Dan Troy said

The question I would have, if I lived in Lake County, would be: if it isn't worth recycling when the money comes from the local budgets, why was it worth doing when the money came from the "multimillion dollar surplus" from the landfill? Couldn't that money have been better spent on, say, roads, schools, tax relief, parks, etc.?

The problem of governments not facing the true opportunity cost of the resources they spend seems evident here.