TVHE

Keith Ng writes today that the real villain in climate change is not businesses, it’s households! He claims that most growth in emissions and energy consumption is due to household consumption, not businesses. Which is the biggest red herring I’ve seen around climate change in a while.

Here’s a picture that will help: it shows how everything in the economy is actually linked together so considering household and business emissions separately makes no sense.

Now that may be a little simplistic but it’s good enough for our purposes here. Household emissions are measured by looking at the emissions generated in the production of goods that the household consumes. So the emissions come from producers, but the final product is consumed by households. Households provide the demand that causes the creation of goods that generate emissions in their production. So households are really responsible for ALL emissions. All emissions??? Yes, ALL of them.

What about businesses emissions? Well, businesses use goods to enable the production of other goods that households end up consuming. If there were no households buying things then there’d be no businesses making things. So this whole distinction between households’ and businesses’ emissions is really rather confusing, and more of a statistical device than a real division: one would not exist without the other.
Read more…

When it comes to climate change the biggest argument against unilateral action is the lack of any tangible benefit. What can a single country really do to mitigate climate change? However, an article by Akira Yakita suggests that there are welfare benefits to action outside of the benefits to the climate.

His central argument is that preferences are not stationary and can be influenced by publicly expressed attitudes. So, if the government subsidises green technologies as part of its climate change policy, then people’s preferences shift towards green products. Because the subsidy increases the production of green products, which are now preferred, total welfare might increase. Obviously the final welfare outcome depends on the coefficients on each effect, but Yakita shows that an increase in welfare is possible.

While that’s all well and good in theory it’d be nice to have some evidence of the effect. After all, it could get awfully close to saying that anything the government does is good because people will grow to love it. Yakita’s evidence for the effect comes from two industries. First, he points to the explosion of interest in hybrid cars, where sales growth has been huge despite the 50% price premium they command. Sales of hybrids in Japan have grown by 19%pa from ’98 to ’06, while the overall growth in car sales is ~1%pa.

Secondly he points to sales of organic food. While there may be dispute over whether organic foods are actually environmentally friendly, there is no doubt about how they are generally perceived. He reports that the organic food market has grown 15%pa over the last decade as the environmental movement has taken hold.

Those two pieces of evidence together do suggest that preference shifts have taken place. However, it’s a bit of a jump from there to suggesting that government action can instigate a preference shift. I’m willing to believe that preference shifts could make it worthwhile for the government to promote green activities to boost welfare, but I’d suggest the causation has to run from preference shift to government action rather than the other way around. Nonetheless it’s a novel way to look at the benefits of unilateral action on climate change.

Peter Mandelson wants to revamp British universities to make them more inclusive and have them focus more on job-relevant courses. Proponents of liberal arts schools are predictably outraged. I agree with them that they shouldn’t be discriminated against. A fair system would make people pay for the benefit they receive from their education, and have the government subsidise to the value of any positive externalities from education.

To draw an analogy to university staff pay, the quality of university staff depends in part upon the difference between their university salary and their outside options. As Daniel Hamermesh puts it:

If a university went ahead and paid equally, lowering economists’ pay and raising French professors’ pay, it would have a great French staff and a dreadful bunch of economists.

Of course, Hamermesh is talking from the perspective of a US academic. In the US they pay different salaries for different disciplines. In NZ we do pay all university staff equally and the research bears out the truth of Hamermesh’s conjecture. So paying people with different market values equally is essentially a subsidy on those with low market value.

To come back to the issue of students’ fees, subsidising all students equally is a subsidy on students whose degrees have only private value. Surely, in order to be fair to all departments and all students, the subsidy on education should pay for only the social benefit. The entire private benefit to the student should be paid for by the student. At the very least the subsidy should be proportionate to the social benefit and differ across disciplines.

So who would be the winners and who would be the losers? Speculate away!

A friend of mine who is passionately vegetarian pointed me to this report as a good economic reason to eschew meat:

…two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.

So am I thinking about becoming vegetarian since meat is known to be more costly than I previously thought? Of course not. As tempting as it is to see these things in black and white, it’s very unlikely that the cost of meat will ever get high enough that we cease to eat it. Rather people will substitute away from eating as much meat as the price rises.
Read more…

The Herald reports that most music is bought by the very same people who illegally download a lot of tracks. It says

plans … to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections … could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers.

Now that seems like a stretch. The key here is to figure out a plausible counterfactual to the present situation. The Herald seems to be suggesting that, if these people didn’t have access to an internet connection then they’d lose all interest in music. Which is pretty unlikely! Let’s think about what might be a more plausible counterfactual.

Suppose there are two kinds of music: paid for and illegal. If illegal becomes more expensive all of a sudden – because of the risk of your internet being cut off – then two things happen. First, you’ll probably consume less music overall, because it’s more expensive now. Secondly, you’ll switch out some of your illegally obtained music for paid music because the two are substitutes. So a first look suggests that the music industry would probably be better off if the cost of illegal downloads went up, even if everyone who buys also downloads.
Read more…

Kiwiblog and others are bothered by Nicholas Stern’s pronouncement that:

Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.

[Stern] predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.

Matt talked recently about why subsidising agriculture is a bad idea, so I don’t want to rehash those arguments. What really baffles me is why Stern feels that changes in peoples’ attitudes are important. If we price greenhouse gasses, and other natural resources, appropriately then there is no need to worry about peoples’ attitudes. As Stern says, meat is far more environmentally costly to produce, so its price will rise. Meat will become a luxury that most can’t afford to eat on a daily basis. That’s something that will happen whether people consciously make a choice to become vegetarian or not.

Read more…

The Standard mentions the writings of Richard Epstein on racial discrimination and says:

A charitable reading of Epstein’s work is that he believes employment law stopping employers from putting “No Blacks or Jews” on their situations vacant ads is ineffective and counter-productive. Instead, we should allow employers to openly discriminate against people on the basis of race, age and sex because the free market will punish them for their irrational choices.

It’s a very interesting topic on which I’m no expert, so I shan’t wade into the debate on affirmative action. However, the latter sentence quoted just makes no sense from an economic perspective. Read more…

Greg Mankiw isn’t impressed by Obama’s comments on health spending. Obama thinks that increasing health spending without limit is a bad thing. Mankiw points to a QJE article that suggests increasing health spending is optimal:

As people get richer and consumption rises, the marginal utility of consumption falls rapidly. Spending on health to extend life allows individuals to purchase additional periods of utility. The marginal utility of life extension does not decline. As a result, the optimal composition of total spending shifts toward health, and the health share grows along with income. In projections based on the quantitative analysis of our model, the optimal health share of spending seems likely to exceed 30 percent by the middle of the century.

What I find interesting is the choice of assumptions in this article. Read more…

Dilbert is on the money again. This time on the subject of CEOs working without pay as a show of penance.

Lant Pritchett comes out strongly in favour of aid agencies that promote economic development on Aid Watch:

There are many ways of providing assistance to people in poor countries that do little or nothing to produce development. While we might all whole-heartedly agree that de-worming is demonstrated to be cost-effective assistance, its impact on development is, at best, tiny.
…
[A]ddressing a series of important problems for well-being like vaccinations, schools for girls, HIV/AIDS prevention or malaria does not add up to a development agenda.
…
Development, as accelerated modernization… is the only demonstrated and sustained way to achieve the objectives of increased well-being.

This is particularly relevant in NZ now that Murray McCully wants to make NZAID promote development, rather than poverty elimination. Are his opponents just concerned about political manipulation of aid money, or do they really think that development is the wrong goal for an aid agency? Read more…