Federal 
24 Jun 2008
McCain's $300 Million Prize for a 'Super Battery':
Would this help or hurt?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
Sen. John McCain has proposed that the federal government award a $300 million prize for the "for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
Assuming it would be a good thing to have this technology, is McCain's proposal economically sensible?
More...
17 Jun 2008
Carbon Taxes and Auctions:
What to do with $7 trillion, part 2
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy, Legislation
In a story summarizing an in depth interview with Sen. Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal reporters Bob Davis and Amy Chozick provide news insights concerning how he or Sen. John McCain would propose to spend trillions of dollars in new government revenue that would be collected by auctioning carbon emission allowances. More...
14 Jun 2008
Cap and Trade:
Applying it to gasoline
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics, Legislation
Energy economist Jonathan Lesser publishes a commentary in the Wall Street Journal "recommending" a cap-and-trade program for gasoline. The piece is lightly satirical but nevertheless highlights an important point: All emission permit systems, including the proposed cap-and-trade regime for greenhouse gases, is a form of rationing. More...
4 Jun 2008
Carbon Taxes and Auctions:
What to do with $7 trillion
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
Robert Reich, secretary of the Department of Labor in the Clinton Administration, addresses the question of what the federal government should do with several trillion dollars worth of new revenue from carbon taxes or auctioned permits. More...
2 Jun 2008
Economists, Advocacy Groups, and Climate Change:
The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's 'Economist Statement'
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
The Senate is this week debating what would be the most far-reaching environmental legislation in US history, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036). A regional US advocacy group, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), has distributed a "Cap and Trade Economist Statement" which would imply that economists favor the bill.
The Statement is interesting on several levels. First, it never mentions the bill being debated. Second, it focuses solely on one narrow (but politically important) aspect -- whether carbon emission permits would be given way or auctioned. Third, the principles that SACE wants economists to agree with are fundamentally incompatible with elementary economics. Finally, SACE says that a number of distinguished economists have signed the Statement anyway. More...
23 Apr 2008
Proposed New Fuel Economy Standards:
A test for benefit-cost analysis
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed on April 22 to significantly increase the fleet average fuel economy standards motor vehicle manufacturers must meet beginning in the 2001 model year. More...
21 Mar 2008
The Revised Ozone Standard:
Simple math and simple constitutional law
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Science, Regulatory Policy
The Washington Post's environment reporter says EPA has weakened the national ambient air quality quality standard for ozone. Given that the standard is going down, what does she mean? More...
12 Mar 2008
The Haze of Carbon Dioxide
According to the Washington Post, anyway
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Science, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
The Washington Post says carbon dioxide is visible to the naked eye. More...
6 Mar 2008
Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:
EPA's savings calculator exaggerates savings
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
Following up on yesterday's post, we now look at compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs. June Fletcher of the Wall Street Journal reported that the payback period for CFLs is "about four months." She provided no source for this figure. More...
5 Mar 2008
Energy Star Appliances:
EPA's savings calculator exaggerates savings
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
Wall Street Journal reporter June Fletcher says (link temporarily available to nonsubscribers) it's not easy being green at home because a lot of heavily-promoted household renovations and products cost more that they deliver in environmental benefits, including energy savings. "Most homeowners like the idea of going green," she writes, " -- until they get the bill.
With home sales slumping and consumers rethinking their remodeling budgets, building contractors and suppliers are dangling green upgrades. They hope that energy-efficient systems and products made from sustainably harvested materials will hook consumers concerned about global warming, pollution and natural resources.Some consumers are willing to pay for green goods and services even if they are not cost-effective. Making significant headway into the market, however, requires that they demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Fletcher says there are two examples of green products that pass this test: home appliances and comfact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs. Citing estimates from US EPA's Energy Star web site, Fletcher says Energy Star clothes washers and refrigerators have a "relatively short payback" of 3.5 years and 3.1 years, respectively, and that CFLs "pay back their extra cost in about four months."
Yet with a few exceptions, green materials and construction cost extra, making them a hard sell. Enermodal Engineering, a Canada-based consulting firm, estimates the premium at 5% to 10%, depending on how extensively a builder uses recycled materials and water- and energy-efficient products. When Specpan, an Indianapolis research firm, surveyed builders recently for Building Products magazine, the greatest number estimated a 10% to 19% cost increase when going green.
Today we look at the claims for Energy Star appliances. More...
17 Feb 2008
When Does a Normal Phenomenon Equal a Crisis?
The declining ranks of nuclear forensics experts
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
The Washington Post reports today that the ranks of experts in nuclear weapons forensics is declining, and that the situation requires immediate action by government to avoid a crisis. More...
2 Feb 2008
Incentives Work
But the New York Times is clueless
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
In today's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal says that Irish consumers don't use plastic shopping bags anymore. She acknowledges that the government has imposed a new tax of 33 cents per bag, but she appears to be baffled that consumers respond to taxes. Instead, she searches for mystical explanations. More...
8 Jan 2008
Cancer Risks from Air Toxics:
Remarkably small, even when exaggerated
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Science, Regulatory Economics
The Los Angeles Times reports that cancer risks in Southern California from air toxics declined in 2006 by 17%. Any decline in cancer risk is good news. How good is it? More...
19 Sep 2007
OMB's Principles for Risk Analysis:
OMB's initial response to the National Academy of Sciences
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Science, Regulatory Policy
Today the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to agency heads directing them to adhere to certain principles of risk analysis. The memorandum is OMB's initial response to the report of a National Research Council panel that OMB asked to review a 2006 proposed bulletin on risk assessment. That report called the proposed text "fundamentally flawed" and gave seven recommendations, one of which was that it be withdrawn.
A fair reading of the new memorandum is that OMB followed this specific recommendation. More...
4 Sep 2007
Trouble in the Carbon Offset Market:
Double-counting and other econ 101 errors
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
We've posted several times on "carbon neutrality" -- how
it's defined, how environmentalists are split
between CO2
Puritans and Pragmatists, and further ramifications of their
conflict centering on the nascent market carbon offsets (see here
and here).
Supporters say buying offsets is an effective and justifiable
way to compensate for CO2 emissions. Opponents liken carbon offsets to
the indulgences sold by the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Alan
Zarembo examines two specific aspects of the controversy:
- Do offsets purchase new reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or do they merely transfer wealth from buyer to seller>
- Do sellers claim credit for more than the amount of greenhouse gas reductions they actually achieve?
