From https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Media/Nordhaus_slides.pptx
@ProfSteveKeen says “Nordhaus ignores tipping points”
24 Oct 2019 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, environmental economics, global warming
Exaggeration About Global Warming Is Greater Than Ever
04 Oct 2019 Leave a comment
in climate change, development economics, economics of information, energy economics, entrepreneurship, environmental economics, global warming, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: climate alarmism
Why is the reduction in GDP levels so small? @GreenpeaceNZ @Oxfamnz
30 Jul 2017 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, economic growth, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming
The global reduction in the level of GDP between now and 2060 is estimated to range between 0.6% and 4.4% if nothing is done. In the case of developing countries undergoing growth miracles, we are all talking about 6 months GDP growth! Russia and Canada will be overrun by tourists in the event of runaway climate change.
Source: The Economic Consequences of Climate Change The damages from selected climate change impacts to 2060 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-5-en
Bjorn Lomborg: How to fix global warming smartly
08 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, climate change, economics of regulation, environmental economics, global warming
Matthew E. Kahn’s Keynote Address for 3rd Urbanization and Poverty Reduction World Bank Conference
11 Feb 2016 Leave a comment
in climate change, environmental economics, global warming, transport economics, urban economics Tags: climate change adaptation, Matthew Kahn
The Economics of Red State vs. Blue State Carbon Politics
25 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, climate change, constitutional political economy, economics of climate change, economics of media and culture, economics of regulation, energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics
1. My JPAM 2000 paper documents that suburbanites drive more and consume more electricity than urban residents.
2. My 2011 JUE paper documents that center city liberal resident NIMBY zoning regulation has deflected more development to the suburbs where people live a high carbon life (see paper #1 above) and then oppose carbon pricing.
3. My co-authored 2013 JPUBE paper documents that energy intensive manufacturing industries seek out cheap electricity price areas. Whether U.S carbon pricing and the resulting higher electricity prices would nudge them to move oversees remains an open question.
4. My co-authored 2012 EER paper documents that more educated people are more likely to have installed solar panels and to go off the grid and thus not pay higher electricity prices.
5. My 2013 EI paper documents that Congress Representatives oppose carbon mitigation regulation when they are conservative, their district is poorer and their district is high carbon. Nancy Pelosi and Tom Steyer are in liberal, rich, low carbon San Francisco. There, it is easy to comply with carbon regulation. They will pay few new costs for such low carbon regulation.
6. My co-authored 2015 JAERE paper documents that even in California and within counties that suburbanites vote against low carbon regulation relative to center city residents. Since we control for the fact that liberals live in center cities, this 3rd variable does not explain the urban form/voting correlation.
7. In my co-authored 2015 JUE paper we document that U.S protectionism through the Buy America Act has hindered the improvement of our bus fleet as a green technology.
Source: Environmental and Urban Economics: The Economics of Red State vs. Blue State Carbon Politics
Recent Comments