Graduate Student Workshop

Participants | Agenda | Sessions

In Search of Relevant Environmental Economics: Designing Practical, Just and Sustainable Policy
January 7–9, 2009
University of California Washington Center, Washington, DC

Participants

Frank Ackerman — Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S. Center
James Barrett — Economist/Consultant, Former Director of Redefining Progress
James Boyce — University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Rachel Cleetus — Union of Concerned Scientists
Stephen J. DeCanio — University of California Santa Barbara
Peter Dorman — Evergreen State College
Richard Howarth — Dartmouth College, Editor-in-chief Ecological Economics
Jonathan Isham — Middlebury College
Laurie Johnson — Natural Resources Defense Council
John "Skip" Laitner — American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Julie Nelson — University of Massachusetts Boston
Richard Norgaard — University of California Berkeley
Matthew Riddle — University of Michigan, Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health
Kristen A. Sheeran — Director, Economics for Equity and the Environment Network
Liz Stanton — Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S. Center

Agenda

	Day 1

8:30-9:00	Breakfast
9:00-9:30	Opening Remarks - Kristen Sheeran, Director E3 Network
9:30 -9:45	Student Introductions
9:45-10:45	How Equity Disappeared from Economics - Dick Norgaard
10:45	Coffee Break
11:00-12:00	Modeling the Political Economy of the Environment - James Boyce
12:00-1:00	Lunch
1:00-1:30	Economics, Environment, and Politics in the Obama Administration: James Barrett — Redefining Progress
1:30-2:00	The Political Economy of Policy-Setting in Carbon Regulation - Peter Dorman
2:00-2:15	Coffee Break
2:15-3:45	Break Out Sessions

4:00-6:00	Climate Taskforce Session I (students not required to attend)

	Day 2

8:30 AM	Breakfast
9:00-10:45	State of Climate Economics - Frank Ackerman and Stephen J. DeCanio
10:45	Coffee Break
11:00-12:00	Modeling Technology and Energy Efficiency - John "Skip” Laitner
12:00-1:00	Lunch
1:00-1:30	Publishing Applied Work in Economics - Richard Howarth
1:30-2:00	Open Source Learning: New Approaches to Teaching Environmental Economics, Jonathan Isham
2:00-2:15	Coffee Break
2:15-3:45	Break Out Sessions

4:00-6:00	Climate Taskforce Session II (students not required to attend)

	Day 3

8:30 AM	Breakfast
9:00-10:00	Feminism and Ecology - Julie Nelson
10:00-10:30	What NGOs Need from Economists - Rachel Cleetus and Laurie Johnson
10:30-10-45	Coffee Break
10:45--12:00	Applied Climate Economics – Liz Stanton, Matt Riddle
12:00-1:00	Lunch
1:00-2:00	Wrap-up

Sessions

How Equity Disappeared From Economics – Dick Norgaard, University of California at Berkeley

Economists have a long history of making big, profound announcements based on marginal information, i.e. the prices generated by the marginal decisions within how the economy has performed. But if we have environmental or ethical reasons to think the economy is not performing as it should, especially if we think it is way off track, then the marginal reasoning and measurements of economists are inappropriate. This is surely an issue with respect to what the market tells us about how we think the future and how we "should" think about our grandchildren or what markets tell us about the costs of carbon sequestration given global inequities and how we should manage carbon. With a strong sense of these incongruities, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment nevertheless engaged in a fruitful collective discussion between disciplines and the North and the South about the interactions between social and ecological systems and what should be done. Ecological economics is most effective as a deliberative process.

Download the presentation (3.1mb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Norgaard, Richard B. 2008. Finding Hope in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Conservation Biology 22(4): 862-69.

Norgaard, Richard B. 2007. Deliberative Economics. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):375-82.

Howarth, Richard B. and Richard B. Norgaard. 1992. Environmental Valuation Under Sustainable Development. American Economic Review 82(2):473-477

Modeling the Political Economy of the Environment - James K. Boyce, Umass Amherst

Inequalities of wealth and power influence both the distribution of the costs and benefits from environmental degradation and the extent of environmental protection. When those who benefit from environmentally degrading economic activities are powerful relative to those who bear the costs, environmental protection is generally weaker than when the reverse is true. This leads to environmental disparities along lines of class, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Inequalities also may affect the overall extent of environmental quality: both theory and evidence suggest that inequalities exacerbate the overall magnitude of environmental degradation and reduce environmental protection.

Download the presentation (2.1mb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Boyce, James. 2007. “Inequality and Environmental Protection” in Jean-Marie Baland, Pranab Bardhan, and Samuel Bowles, eds. Inequality, Collective Action, and Environmental Sustainability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Political Economy of Policy-Setting in Carbon Regulation - Peter Dorman, Evergreen State College

The topic of this presentation is the political economy of policy-setting in carbon regulation. I will present a simple formal model of the relationship between policy content and the expenditure of resources by regulated industries and then illustrate the on-the-ground dynamic with a close look at the Western Climate Initiative. The goal is to understand how initial framing decisions in policy design can influence the potential for industry capture of the policy process.

Download the presentation (529kb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Dorman, Peter. 2008. Comments on the WCI’s Economic Modeling

Western Climate Initiative. 2008. Design Recommendations and Economic Analysis

James Kanter and Jad Mouawad, 2008. Money and Lobbyists Hurt European Efforts to Curb Gases. New York Times Dec. 11. 2008.

The State of Climate Economics - Frank Ackerman, Stockholm Environment Institute - U.S. Center and Stephen J. DeCanio, University of California at Santa Barbara

Both neoclassical and non-neoclassical perspectives indicate the need for strong action to mitigate climate change. Of primary concern is the risk that global warming could precipitate a climate catastrophe. Conventional cost-benefit methods are theoretically inadequate to deal with this possibility. In conjunction with this, equitable burden-sharing must be part of a workable international agreement to limit emissions. Egalitarian distribution of emissions rights or carbon tax revenues both domestically and internationally is preferable to other allocations. “Win-win” opportunities for investments in alternative fuels and energy efficiency exist, but cannot by themselves solve the climate problem.

Download the presentation (3.8mb pdf)
Download the presentation (440kb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Dewey, John. 1897. “My Pedagogic Creed.” The School Journal 54 (3): 77-80. Available at: www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/e-dew-pc.htm

Feminism and Ecology – Julie A. Nelson, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Along with discussions of equity and the environment, discussion of gender has often been sidelined, trivialized, or distorted within mainstream economics. This brief presentation will explain how key questions of definition and method underlie these systematic biases, and explore how ecological economists and feminist economists can learn from each other.

Download the presentation (1.13mb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Julie A. Nelson. 2008. “Economists, value judgments, and climate change: A view from feminist economics” Ecological Economics 65 (2008): 441-447.

Julie A. Nelson. 2005. “Is Economics a Natural Science?” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 1 no. 2.

Julie A. Nelson. 1997. “Feminism, Ecology, and the Philosophy of Economics” Ecological Economics 20 (1997): 155-162.

Applied Climate Economics: Analyzing the Impacts of a Cap-and-Dividend Policy on Households – Matt Riddle, University of Michigan, Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health

One promising policy option for reducing carbon emissions that has been gaining attention recently is a 'cap-and-dividend' system that would combine a cap-and-trade program with an equitable redistribution of permit revenues to households to simultaneously reduce carbon emissions and reduce income inequality. I will provide an overview of the cap-and-dividend proposal, and explain the basic approach that is used to evaluate the impacts of this and other cap-and-trade policies on households. I will also address several variations on how to conduct this analysis, and how they can affect the results.

Download the presentation (928kb pdf)

Suggested Readings:

Boyce, James K. and Matthew Riddle (2007) "Cap and Dividend: How to Curb Global Warming While Protecting the Incomes of American Families," Amherst, MA: Political Economy Research Institute, Working Paper No. 150, November. Available at www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_101-150/WP150.pdf.

Boyce, James K. and Matthew Riddle (2008) "Keeping the Government Whole:
The impact of a Cap-and-Dividend Policy for Curbing Global Warming on Government Revenue and Expenditure," Amherst, MA: Political Economy Research Institute, Working Paper No. 188, November. Available at www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_151-200/WP188.pdf.

Barnes, Peter (2008) Climate Solutions: A Citizen's Guide. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

DeCanio, Stephen (2008) "A Cap-and-Dividend One-Pager," Portland, OR: Economics of Equity and the Environment: E3 Network. Available at www.e3network.org/resources/DeCanio_Cap_And_Dividend.pdf.

Burtraw, Dallas, Rich Sweeny and Margaret Walls (2008) "The Incidence of U.S. Climate Policy: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit," Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 08-28, September. Available at www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-08-28.pdf.

China's Emissions Pathway: What Economic Development will mean for China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Liz Stanton, Stockhom Environment Insitute - U.S. Center

If China maintains the same greenhouse gas emissions intensity as its economy grows it will become another United States in terms of its emissions per capita — a level of emissions the world cannot afford, in China or in the United States. Within China, provinces vary greatly in emissions and standard of living: the urban provinces with the highest incomes tend to have much lower emissions intensities than resource-rich rural provinces. Can China take another pathway to development? Following the lower-emissions development path of Sweden or Switzerland would lead to a far smaller contribution to climate change. The European path to development, although less than half the emissions intensity of the United States and perhaps the best available on any large scale today, is still much too high in terms of what is need to avoid the worst effects of climate change. With innovation, technology transfer and leapfrogging, is an even lower emissions pathway possible? Today, China stands at the cusp between the lowest income countries that — given commonly available technology — can only increase their income per capita by increasing emissions, and middle and higher income countries that have had more choice of how emissions intensive their economies would be. If China can reduce its emissions intensity as it increases its standard of living, it will provide an example to the world of how to address climate change without impeding development. China's ability to achieve low-carbon growth also has important implications for U.S. perceptions of fairness in burden-sharing, an important potential obstacle to global climate negotiations.

Download the presentation (4.7mb pdf)

General Background – Suggested Readings

Frank Ackerman et al 2007. Real People, Real Environments and Realistic Economics.

Robin Hahnel and Kristen Sheeran. 2009. “Misinterpreting the Coase Theorem” Journal of Economic Issues, March 2009.