speedyplaidnickelflower

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 16

1. What role do personal incentives play in environmental resource management? Should policy design take incentives into account? Why or why not? Personal incentives encourage people to reduce or at least monitor the amount of a resource they are consuming. I believe policy design should take incentives into account because they play a major part in the management of these environmental resources. Nd anything that plays a part should be taken into account when creating policy

2. What topics did you find most interesting in this class? Most useful? (This is a chance to review your Reflection posts - something that is important for long term knowledge retention).

There were so many interesting topics in this course it is hard to pick just one. As a sustainability major, I’m hoping to go into a field that involves the management of natural resources so I think most of this class is very relevant to my future career. One of the most important would be cost benefit analysis. In order to make decisions about managing natural resouces, I believe I will have to perform this analysis on a pretty regular basis in order to help the company or government I work for making decisions on managing their resources.

3. What topics would you like to spend more time on? Why? How has your perspective on sustainability issues changed as the semester progressed? Well this goes into the previous answer. The topic I would like to spend more time on is natural resouces managment because that is what I hope my future career revolves around. This class has helped me expand my knowledge on sustaniability and get a better insight of the economic side of the sustainability. Before this class I actually saw myself goign more towards a sustinable marketing career but through learning about the managment of resouces and the importance in plays in society I am now leaning more towards a career in resource managment reather that a more business focused aspect of sustainablity.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 15

1. Name the four conditions for settlement explained in this chapter.

Brute force, a decision rule, agreement, ability to make a take-it-or-leave-it offer.

A decision rule- the deterrent to reaching a decision rule could be transaction cost for one party, in the past decision rules have been used to avoid violence such as duels, sporting events, or jousting. In order to avoid this outcome, there are a few different decision tactics available. One being divide and choose. For natural capital that can easily be measured this can come easily, however, if it is not easily dividable resources this can become an issue. The remedy to this issue is to let one party divide the capital and let the other party choose which side they want. This gives the divider the greatest incitive to make it as even as possible because the choosing party is going to attempt to pick the side with the greatest resources.

Jd, Jp- the defendants and plaintiffs, expected jury awards.

Fd, Fp- expected future attorney fees and other unrecoverable litigation costs for each side

Td, Tp- the threat points of the defendant and plaintiff. Threat points that make both parties better off settling than going to trial.

BR- the amount of money represented by the settling range.

2. A few years ago there was a significant spill into the Animas River above Durango from the Gold King Mine. Some information is here - http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/25/3705702/animas-river-spill-water-defense-study/. Do some research into the spill and the history of the mine. Who should have been responsible for clean up of the spill? Why? What are the possible disputes? How should we begin to resolve them? Is there a way to ensure the costs of potential problems like this one fall on the users of the resource? Does the age of the problem matter? Why or why not? How does your answer to 1 relate to problems like this?

The link posted does not work. However, I did a little research on my own. The mine owners and operators should have been responsible for cleaning up the spill immediately. Because they were the ones who initially caused it. I believe that the age of the problem does matter, the problem has likely expanded contaminating areas around the river. A possible dispute to this issue could be the community around the area where the spill occurred could want the mine to pay for all cleanup and any possible damages to the community health. They could form a class action lawsuit and take the mine to court for a large sum of money. ‘One of the ways to solve this issue could be an agreement, the mine could make an offer to the community lawyer and try to come up with a mutual sum to compensate the community for the issue. This could only work if they are able to reach a common ground. Another resolution to this could be a decision rule. They could form a coalition of individuals who are responsible for coming to a mutual decision on how to address the issue.

3. Provide an example of a local pollution problem. How would you resolve it?

A local pollution problem in my area is along the colorado river road, and the properties backing up to the river. During high water, a lot of property owners will leave debris and vehicles near the river. Pollutants and breakdown of unnatural substances can enter the water contaminating the river. A solution to this problem I believe would come in multiple steps. The first being education. Many of these property owners may not be aware of the harm they are causing to the ecosystem. By educating the communities and property owners of the harms of high water pollution issues you may decrease the amount of pollution entering the water. Another step would be to implement a river cleanup tax on these property owners. This could help them understand how much the pollution issue is costing the state and having them incur the total costs of the pollution. This may also deter them from adding to the river pollution. A final step would be to regulate how close objects may be to the river by a certain date and issue warnings and tickets to these individuals that do not comply. If a property owner is found with contaminating objects placed near the river during or near a time with high water they will be issued a ticket and pay a fine.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 14

1. In Colorado we frequently limit lawn watering to every third day of the week and to specific hours. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a policy such as that one over a block pricing policy? Why would you prefer one type of policy over the other to limit the usage of water for landscaping purposes? The advantage of this is that there is a limited amount of water in colorado during the summer months. If there were higher pricing people may use the same amount of water and just pay the extra cost. With a limited amount of water, this could have negative effects. Everyone should have a right to water and limiting the amount of water each person may use gives everyone an qual right to that water not just the people who can afford to pay more for it. Lawns are not the most important use of water so I believe by limiting this you can better conserve the water vs just letting the wealthier households water as much as they please wasting the resource.

2.Listen to this podcast on water - http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_zetland_o.html In what way is water a scarce resource? although water is renewable and there is a lot of it on the planet a majority of the water is not consumable to humans. There is a higher demand for freshwater than there is a supply. Water must travel from its source through pipes sometimes hundreds of miles long before it reaches its human consumer.

How would you choose to manage water in California? Why? One way to manage the water could be similar as they do In colorado only allow you to use so much water on certain days. They could also allow a set amount of water per household at the normal rate and water use after that could be greatly taxed. This could persuade people to keep a closer eye on their water usage and only use it for necessary reasons such as drinking or showering.

What groups matter in this discussion and why? The consumer of the water matter because they are the ones being directly affected. By having less water or paying more for their water. Government and economists are affected because they must make vital choices and pass policies determining who gets to use the water, when, how much, and at what cost. They must charge enough to conserve the water but give enough that people’s basics needs are met. How would you manage the tension between pricing for lower usage and need? I would calculate how much each individual household needs in order to meet their basic water needs. The initial amount would be offered at the regular price. Any water use after that would have to be specially ordered and paid for at a higher amount. Hopefully, this may get people to ration their water better and not use it on meaningless things such as lawns or pools when there is a shortage.

3. Let's go back to Paul Ehrlich and his bet with Julian Simon - https://fee.org/articles/how-julian-simon-won-1-000-bet-with-population-bomb-author-paul-ehrlich/ Why did he lose? What changed as the population increased? Do you expect those changes to continue? He lost because the prices of the metals chosen by Ehrlich fell by 50% from 1980 to 1990. As the population increased inflation-adjusted, GDP per person increased by183% so income grew 26% faster than the population. Humanity is producing faster than it is consuming. I do not think that this will continue unless we move away from a carbon-based society. Currently, our inflation rate is on the rise and the inequality gap is growing, meaning currently our individual gross income growth is begging to slow while inflation is on the rise.

4. Should upstream users of Colorado River water cover some/all of the costs associated with reduced flows downstream? How would you assess those costs? I believe they should cover some of the costs, however, water rights go into this scenario as well. Some people would say having water rights means they should not pay for the water they are using. I believe that this is a good point to use incentives offering people some sort of encouragement to use less water. Or limiting them to only use so much water for free with their water rights, anything after that set number must be paid for. To assess the cost you must consider the MB vs MC, how many people are relying on that water downstream, how many people are affected, how are they affected. How does this affect the individual as so on?

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 13

1. What does it mean to manage a fishery using "maximum sustainable yield" policies?

This means that you take the maximum amount of stock annually that can be sustained over time. This means that you will keep the stock at a level that promotes the maximum amount of growth.

2. Why do common property resources tend to be overused even when they are renewable resources? How can you assign property rights in a fishery? Why might that help sustain the fishery? Because everyone that has rights to the property or area tends to try to get all that they possibly can out of the resource resulting in overuse. A possible way to assign fishing property rights is by fisheries obtaining permits to fish in a certain area, TAC also help by allowing fisheries to only harvest so much stock from a given area. This can help by limiting the amount of fisheries havesting from a certain area at a certain time. Helping to keep the stock at a sustainable level.

3. The University of Washington has a Sustainable Seafood 101 website here: https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/seafood-101/

They have a list of management tools here: https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/seafood-101/management-enforcement/ Which ones fall into command-and-control? Which ones are incentive-based? command control- total allowable catch, managing physical objects-registering boats and obtaining a permit to harvest, gear restrictions such as TEDs on nets, spatial and temporal tools- restricting when and where fisherman can fish, marine protected areas, top-down management.

Incentive-based- adaptive management and bottom down management.

Consider a disaster like the collapse of the Grand Banks in 1992

(https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/biodiversity/will-the-fish-return/the-sorry-story-of-georges-bank) Would it have been possible to use any of these tools effectively? The total allowable catch and catch share could have helped to limit the amount of fish being caught by fishermen. A restriction on when and where to fish could have also helped, allowing fisherman to only fish certain areas on certain days could have helped to regulate the COD population and allowed for them to reproduce at a more sustainable growth rate.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 12

1. When would you use command-and-control pollution or overuse solutions versus incentive-based solutions? Why? Describe a situation where you would use one or the other and explain why. (Don't use an example from the book.)

Comand control:

fishing. I believe a command and control situation already applies to this and it seems to work. When you fish in certain areas it is only caught and release. In other areas, you can only keep so many fish of a certain size and breed putting a limit to the amount of fish you can remove from the environment This is in order to make sure the ecosystem in a particular area remains balanced. People are able to fish for pleasure or for food. And enough fish remain in the ecosystem so that it is not thrown out of balance. Nation forest and game wardens are employed to enforce these rules. Hunters and anglers are also required to purchase licenses and tags in order to fish and hunt. The cutting of trees would be another good one.

I believe recycling would be good for incentive-based control. People are not required to recycle therefore many tons of waste are deposited into landfills to decompose and pollute. If there was a better incentive program for recycling many more people might recycle versus just throwing things in landfills. I’m from Houston, areas of the city are very poor. Growing up you see old beat-up trucks and other vehicles driving around middle and upper-class neighborhoods collecting things such as washers and dryers from people’s trash piles. They do this because they can take it to the dump and get a certain amount of money for it. This incentive is currently only encouraging people who really need the money to recycle. But if incentives were placed with manufacturers such as a discount on your new dryer for recycling the old one and a tax break for these companies who offer customers discounts and recycle their old washer more people might begin to recycle things they would otherwise just throw away, and more companies would offer recycling programs.

2. The EPA uses command-and-control policies for auto emission standards. Read this article on the VW emission scandal: https://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/25/why-volkswagen-cheated-404891.html

Why do the authors feel VW cheated? How does their reasoning relate to MC and MB? Do command-and-control policies need to consider MC and MB? Why or why not? The authors feel VW cheated in order to dominate the US diesel market. Other companies pulled out of the race one the new EPA standards were released. They had a crime of opportunity. The cheat device was also very hidden making it impossible to find if you didn���t know where to look. They thought the marginal benefit of becoming the top US diesel dealer was larger than the marginal cost of breaking the law and polluting the environment. I believe command and control policies should be considered.

3. Find an article or study discussing tradeable pollution permits. Does your example provide a good example of that solution type? Why or why not? My example does not provide information on tradeable pollution permits, however, it is a very interesting concept to me. As you can tell from my past writings I’m very environmentally orientated and although this may seem like a good solution for the companies that produce more pollution I do not agree with it. My example does not apply to this because I did not discuss pollution made by factories I discussed pollution made more by individuals. In the form of waste and overhunting or fishing. Some people would argue that overfishing is not a form of pollution but I believe that throwing off an ecosystem, atmosphere, or environment in any way shape, or form is considered pollution. Rather it is adding something or taking away.

4. California is considering more congestion pricing on roads - https://www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/Los-Angeles-County-Exploring-Congestion-Pricing-Pilot-Tests.html

Why might this solution help? Why might it be more successful in London than in LA?

This solution could possibly help because it makes people more aware of the amount of pollution these systems produce. A reason it may be more successful in London is that they have a much larger population. Both of these places have around the same average income per household so I don’t see any other reason why it would be more successful in London vs LA besides my own opinion that Americans seem to be more stubborn and fight anything and everything that inconveniences them. So yeah maybe cultural differences or population differences.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 11

1. What are some international structures that are in place to prevent environmental harm when that harm is international in nature? What are the strengths and weaknesses of those structures?

The United Nations, The World Trade Organization, World Bank And International Monetary Fund. strengths of these structures include the involvement of many countries the UN being the largest at 193 members. When you have this many countries involved in a certain project or goal it is easier to enforce that goal to others and hold each country accountable. The more countries involved the bigger the change. However, enforcing policy to rogue nations is a difficult task. This could be a weakness in these structures. International law is only as binding as the multinational commitments that back it up.

2. In many nations policy-makers have an incentive to prioritize commercial interests over environmental interests. Why is that and what changes could we make to change that?

Because currency is what results in economic growth. It is believed that as people gain a higher monetary value environmental protection will become easier. The IMF believes that if we build stronger economies and stronger financial systems poverty will be reduced. And higher incomes will result in improved environmental protection. Changes could be made to this system. Let’s say that a community is in poverty, they do not have proper water filtration, waste management, or electricity. So the goal is to provide these services and help the community grow. If we go in and build all these systems is will result in higher production of greenhouse gases but the communities’ income will grow and more jobs will form causing homes to be built along with other structures impacting the environment even more. And then these individuals if they so choose can pay to fix their environment that was harmed in the process of economic growth. Well, what if in the beginning, we used sustainable sources to fix the initial problems, such as recycling or reusing waste to build sustainable homes, solar fields to provide electricity, and so on. This could result in economic growth all while having minimal impacts on the planet.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 10

1. Find a list of endangered species near where you live and choose one to write about. How much are you willing to pay to preserve that species? How did you choose that amount? What amount would you accept in compensation for the loss of that species? Are the numbers different? Why or why not?

The endangered species I chose is the bald eagle. This is not only an important predatory bird but also the nation’s symbol of freedom…

The bald eagle. I would be willing to pay $49 a year in order to protect the bald eagle. I chose this number based on a CVM study conducted by Richardson and Loomis. This is the average per person number individuals are willing to pay for the protection of this species. I believe that the bald eagle could have a higher amount of compensation lets say $100 per person because the loss of this species will not only effect the biodiversity of our nation but also affect the nation’s image. If we do not protect and save our national bird and a species that has symbolized America for generations it could affect how other countries view America and how they do business with Americans.

2. Contingent Valuation studies are popular for valuing environmental goods for which there are no markets. What are some strengths and weaknesses of CVM studies?

Strengths of CVM studies are that information can be gathered in a very straight forward and quick method. They can help determine whether or not people are willing to pay and what they are willing to pay to solve certain issues.

They are very versatile

weaknesses: people could not take the hypothetical situation seriously or they may provide unrealistic responses because they do not actually have to pay the money.

The survey questions must be carefully crafted in order to replicate a real-life scenario.

3. Creating a market for endangered species is sometimes suggested as a method to preserve a species. Recently a legal market for rhino horns has been discussed again - http://www.krugerpark.co.za/kruger-park-news-reasons-for-legalising-the-rhino-horn-trade-25515.html

(Links to an external site.)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of creating a legal market for rhino horns? Are you for or against? What is your preferred solution? The disadvantage is that these animals will be killed solely for their horns and this is unethical in my eyes. Another disadvantage is that poachers will begin to hunt these animals in order to make a profit. The advantage could be that people begin raising these animals in captivity growing their population. If these animals are protected because there is profit in harvesting their horns is could initially result in a spike in population. I do not agree with this because in the end the animals are being hurt and I think it will do more harm than good. Creating a market for an animal’s horn is eventually bound to result in over hunting and eventually extinction of the species. Plus I do not agree with killing an animal just because we want to make something pretty out of a single part of its body. Use it all or don’t use it at all.

4. Do you feel it is appropriate to make decisions about species based on anthropocentric values? Why or why not? Why do we attempt to place a value on diversity and on individual species? I believe that it is ethically wrong and it can lead to many environmental problems. Without humans, the planet and wildlife will live on, without the plants and wildlife humans cannot exist. It also puts human lifeforms above all others and I live by a quote as above so below, I am not about nor below any living being on this planet, without them I cannot be me. We attempt to place value on species in order to predict the opportunity cost of any given product or service. We are attempting to “play god” if I may say by saying that we can harm this many of a certain species or habitat without permanently enabling our ability to survive.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

1. This is a very optimistic podcast. Do you expect the environment to continue to improve? Why or why not? (Or perhaps, has the environment continued to improve since 2015?) Does it matter that the environment is improving in some parts of the world and continuing to degrade in others? Is there reason to believe countries such as China and India will work to solve some of their environmental issues in the near future? (An example of how they are working on improving their environment would be great here. India is trying to provide small farmers with equipment that would help them avoid burning their fields for example. MC and MB around that is fascinating.) I think that with more and more people becoming educated about global warming, pollution problems and more money going towards alternative resource research it is likely that the environment could continue to improve. It does matter that pollution is not improving in other areas because we all share the same atmosphere and although the ozone could be improving in some spots if it is still depleting in other areas the whole planet is I. Harms way. I believe countries such and China and India will work to solve their environmental issues because they are serious and research shows that changes need to be made. I’ve heard of these countries already making huge lead way in alternative energy sources China is currently leading the renewable energy revolution

More positive: here's a comment on the greening of the world from NASA that also specifically references China and India: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#2bdc78f76e13

2. The textbook lists four stages of demographic transition. In fact there appears to be a fifth - very low birth rates and low death rates leading to falling population. Japan and Thailand are examples of this, most of Eastern Europe, even the US would have a declining population if we had no immigration. What are some of the economic challenges of a declining population? Is that an appropriate goal for the world? Why or why not? (Consider innovation in your answer.)

Some economic challenges to a falling population is the lack of individuals of working age. The demand for jobs could fall and create a surplus of jobs. This would cause the employers to provide the employees with better incentives to make them want to work for their company, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, with a lack of workers you run into a problem of a lack of goods and services leaving people without. This could in turn cause a fall in the nations GDP.

Is there a reason to worry that a declining population might lead to more pollution? Why or why not?

A declining population could lead to more pollution because with a lack of human work more machines and robots will need to be used causing more pollution.

3. The texbook also quotes Paul Erlich which makes me a little crazy. See this article for why: https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/01/paul-ehrlichs-epic-fail-why-the-population-bomb-never-exploded/

Or how about this one: https://www.trivia-library.com/a/past-predictions-by-famous-scientist-dr-paul-ehrlich.htm

He really likes to predict disasters that never happen. What has he missed in all of these predictions -- why was there not a "population bomb"? How likely do you think a population bomb is in the future? Why?

I do not think a population bomb is very likely. At Least not in developed countries. As the world gets worse and worse in ways of climate change, inequality, and other major issues people in developed countries will be less likely to want to bring children into a failing situation. However, with the growth In technology underdeveloped countries are likely to begin to grow and become more industrialized. It is shown that when a country begins to grow rapidly technologically the population is likely to boom. So there is a possibility that worldwide we could have a population bomb. I don’t see it happening in areas such as America, Japan,Europe and other developed countries. China has already implemented a limit on the amount of children aloud per family making it very unlikely in this country.

4. What are the pros and cons of a trash disposal system that adds the cost of disposal to the purchase price of a good? A major pro is that the cost of the good is being kid for the consumer, this will make people think about their purchases and how much waste is being produced by each item. This could lead to manufacturers using less packaging and help minimize our waste. The cons is that it could cause people to buy less, hurting the economy but then again consumerism is a horrible trait of this country to begin with. It would also be more expensive to produce these items because manufacturers would be paying these disposal prices as well possibly causing the price of goods to rise even more.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 8

1. How do you define the concept of sustainability? What is the difference between weak and strong sustainability? Sustainability is the process of meeting the needs of this generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It is the ability to maintain a set rate of depletion of resources and protecting the natural resources in order for the earth to maintain itself for generations to come.

Weak sustainability states that man-made capital can be replaced by natural capital. Strong sustainability states that natural capital cannot be replaced by any other source of capital.

2. How are sustainability and efficiency-related?

Although the book states that sustainability does not imply efficiency and efficiency does not imply sustainability.

Sustainability is the act of conserving resources and efficiency is reaching peak performance, using the least amount of resources to produce the highest amount of output in energy or goods. These two are in relation because in order to be sustainable you must be efficient. Efficiency helps us to conserve these resources while still producing the needed output. Efficiency reverse to the ability to create more goods and services and better human well-being with less input of natural resources. Resource and energy efficiency is a big part of becoming more sustainable.

3. Consider one of the policy options aimed at helping consumers and/or producers internalize the costs of their choices. What are the difficulties involved in implementing such a policy? How would you overcome those difficulties?

One of the major issues is that people are opposed to these policies because it costs them more Money or seems like an inconvenience. Many people and industry leaders are not as concerned with environmental issues as they should be. Ways to overcome these obstacles could be by educating individuals and industry leaders on the issues and helping them to see how big of an issue it is. Another solution could be to provide incentives or subsidies.

4. What are the marginal costs of recycling? What are the marginal benefits? Does it make sense to recycle as much as we can even when the costs are higher than the benefits?

To what degree would you subsidize recycling? Why?

I believe recycling of certain goods should be subsidized. Goods such as cars and cell phones contain precious earth metals that should be recycled since they cannot be recreated. Recycling of things such as plastic bottles may have slight subsidization only if the recycling process is not harmful to the environment such as reusing them to make bottle bricks but since many of these recycling plants are burning this material they should not be subsidized. I believe recycling is overplayed and there is a very fine line between what we recycle and how we recycle it. I think all in all a lot of packaging and single or short life use objects should be made of different materials that are able to be composted. It is a very argumentative subject with a lot of different pros and cons.

Recycling is in trouble right now - no one wants our trash. Read the article from the Atlantic Monthly: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 7

\1. Discuss the reasons to subsidize renewable energy production. What should be considered when choosing a subsidy rate? If you were to choose one alternative energy source to subsidize which would you choose? Why?

We should be subsidizing renewable energy sources not only because they help minimize the emission of cO2 and other greenhouse gases. But also because the subsidies promote people to explore new ways of harvesting renewable energy. If I could choose one alternative form of energy to subsidize it would be space-based solar farms. This is because with this technology we could take the planet and our society from the next level. Harvesting energy from sources outside of earth will have minimal impact on the earth and convert us to a type 3 society. Meaning that we harvest energy from outside sources not involving or harming our own planet in the process.

2. Go back to the carbon tax initiative in Washington state that you read about for the last chapter. How does a carbon tax impact the demand for alternative energy sources? Why would you choose to tax carbon rather than subsidize alternative energy?

A carbon tax will cause the demand for renewable energy to grow. Meaning that more renewable energy forms will be created. I might choose the carbon tax over subsidies because people hate to lose money and if investors start to lose money they are likely to invest in renewable forms of energy that are not taxed and this impacts both the carbon emissons issues and the funding issues within the renewable energy industry.

3. Your textbook discussed the idea that the least expensive method of providing electricity may be to mandate a single provider. That would eliminate the option of rooftop solar. Summarize the argument in favor of a single provider.

If the industry is deregulated an outside company could come in and monopolize. This could cause prices to rise and companies to go out of business. When you have a single provider this contains the company and allows for each company to serve a specific number of people. This helps prices stay down and avoids worldwide monopolies.

IREA (Intermountain Rural Electric Utility) now charges a line access charge separately from an energy charge, Their reasoning is here: https://irea.coop/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SustainableSolar.pdf Does this solution avoid the issue of size? Why or why not? Are you in favor of a single provider or many small providers (including rooftop solar)? Why?

I don’t think this solution completely avoids the issues at hand but I think that the people who opt-out of having solar panels put onto their house should not be harmed. Maybe having customers who opt-out pay slightly more for renewable energy is not that bad, giving them an option between powering their home with renewable energy or non-renewable. If a tax break is added for houses that are powered on non-renewable sources people may be inclined to pay slightly more, especially knowing that they are helping the environment as well. I am in favor of single providers only if solar panels and renewable options are available. In steamboat, there is a single provider and it sucks knowing my energy comes from coal.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 6

1. What is the ability to go for a hike on a clean, beautiful mountain trail worth to you? To begin your estimation process think about what you last spent to go on a hike - shoes, car, fuel, food, gear, etc. If everyone in Colorado was willing to spend as much as you to go hiking what is the annual value of trails in Colorado? I would own a car regardless of hiking so I will not include the full price of a vehicle

shoes and other gear-$400 car-$2000 Fuel-$300 Food-$200

I would say the average amount of money I would spend for a year of hiking is roughly 3k.

If everyone in colorado spends the same amount of money as I do, and I’m gonna be honest I would rather climb, bike, or raft and don’t go on more than about 10 hikes a year although I do spend a fair amount on gear and included the price of backpacking equipment.

Colorados population is 5.7 million

If you multiply these two numbers the annual value of hiking trails in colorado would equal

17.1 billion dollars. I didn’t expect the number to be so large.

2. Consider both the purchase price of an automobile and the usage cost. How is the cost of pollution embedded in those costs? Is the purchase price artificially low (are there costs of production not included in the price)? How about the usage cost? What policies could be used to ensure more of the costs were included in the purchase and usage prices? And last of course the problem of disposal -- when should those costs be paid and by whom? Would your answer change if we were talking about paper cups again instead of cars? I believe the purchase price of cars is very low considering how harmful they are to the environment. The less harmful vehicles tend to actually cost more. When you buy gas or oil the cost of emissions is not included either. I guess maybe a small amount of emissions cost are paid for in registration and inspection fees but I still don’t think it’s even close to what the actual cost on the environment is. A market-based policy giving owners of electric cars a tax cut and giving the owners of gasoline vehicles an added tax yearly could help this problem. You could say that if they made the registration fee way lower and tied in the cost to the planet into the gasoline cars registration fee this could deter people from buying gasoline cars and sway them towards the less impactful electric when purchasing a new car. I believe disposal fees should be split between owner and manufacture. Having the manufacture pay more depending on how new the car is. However, it seems junkyard takes a majority of the disposal cost and the metal is likely recycled. If we were talking about paper cups I would say the consumer should pay waste costs.

3. Washington State voted down their latest carbon tax initiative. For a description of what it looked like see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/washington-state-carbon-tax/567523/

Would you have voted for the tax? Why or why not? What is this an example of according to your text?

I would vote for this tax because these types of taxes are detrimental to the transition away from a carbon-based society. Global climate change is one of the leading issues in our world today and if we passed a tax on greenhouse gas emissions it is likely that many other countries will follow and the world can begin to focus on alternatives to these harmful ways of production. This is an example of a market-based incentive. “Market-based policies for environmental protection create incentives for polluters to lower their environmental impacts, such as taxes, subsidies, or emissions trading programs.”

4. Give an example of a pollution problem in your area. Which of the solutions discussed in the chapter would result in the most optimal solution? Why? A pollution problem close to my area is the coal mine located in Craig, Colorado. I feel a good solution to this would be new technology. Let’s face it there is nothing good about mining coal and now that there are many alternatives to produce energy using a new form of technology would be the best way to eliminate the harmful waste produced from this coal mine and the burning of the coal for energy. Colorado gets little rain so solar energy would be a good alternative. Wind energy may be an option as well. I recommend a combination of both. Although solar panels placed in the more sunny regions of the state are probably the best option. If we absolutely have to keep the coal mine a cap-and-trade program would be the best this will limit the amount of pollution created by the mine and put a cap on how much pollution they can create each year.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 5

1. Define the term "discount rate". What is its purpose? Summarize the argument for using a lower discount rate for environmental projects and regulations than for financial regulations. Do you agree? Why or why not? Would you add a risk premium to an environmental discount rate? Why or why not? A discount rate is an estimated of the rate and time preference of a good in the future. Its purpose is to help spread a resource out and make it available to future generations the higher the discount rate the less of that resource is available in the future. You want to have a lower discount rate for environmental resources because you cannot make more of them once they are gone. Land, fresh water, animals, and non renewable resources can be used up leaving future generations unable to survive. With financial discounts they can print more money adn although this makes our monetary value less, the people are still able to survive. I do agree that the environmental risk premium should be lower becasue environmental resources should be better preserved for future generations. When using any environmental resource you are benifiting the people at cost to the planet. So there is added risk involved, eventually the resource you are using is going to run out and that could have detrimental affects on the planet then at cost to the people.

2. Colorado recently purchased Fisher Peak near Trinidad. It will eventually open as a state park. How would you apply the information in this chapter to decisions on how much to spend for the purchase of the peak? How about development of the park? (trails, facilities, etc.)

In order to determine how much to spend on the land they would first calculate the present value of the land. They can then caculate the rate at which they will use the land. In orer to determine how they should develop the park. They must think about the size of the land, the wildlife that lives in the park, and the areas that are able to be used for trails, restrooms ect. To do this they will establish a discount rate, in order to open the park they must first use a relatively large portion of land for designated restrooms, campsites, roads, and trails in order to attract people to enjoy the area. But in the years to come development slows they must leave the wild areas forthe animals to roam and to protect the ecosystems of the park.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 4

1. There are many goods currently provided publicly that could be provided privately, for example, campgrounds in national parks and forests. (See http://parkprivatization.com/) What are the advantages and disadvantages of providing campgrounds privately? Publicly? Campgrounds are not Public Good. Why not? An advantage of providing campgrounds privately is that the area will be maintained by the owner and therefore will most likely be less litter and better trash and restroom facilities the owner will be responsible for the upkeep of the land meaning fewer tax dollars will go towards this. A disadvantage could be that the land is not as maintained as well and it may not be preserved, if an investor comes in and wants to buy the land there is no way of stopping the owner from selling or building on this land. The owner of the land may also charge whatever fee he or she pleases for an individual to camp here. Going into the advantage of campsites being owned by the government is that since it is owned by the government it is less likely to get sold or farmed better preserving the land and its natural ecosystem. Campgrounds are not considered public goods because although owned by the government the park still may charge a fee for camping overnight and spots may be limited.

2. Why are well-defined property rights critical to a market solution to an environmental issue? What is the government's role in defining property rights? Look back at your answer to question 1 - in what way did property rights inform your answer? Property rights increase the market value of products and services when property rights are not well defined environmental issues may arise because prices cannot math the marginal cost to the marketplace. like the blackberry example from the text when the property line is not clearly defined it is likely that all the blackberry plants will be over harvested, but once a well-defined property line is put in place the harvesters only harvest enough for the plant to live because they are feeling the full cost of their actions. Before the property line was in place the environment and blackberry plant population were at a higher risk. Thinking of property rights in question one can go into pricing and land upkeep. If the owner decided to sell the land he could charge a (market fair) price which may be more then if the property rights were not well defined.

3. Provide an example of a market for a good or service that would function better with government intervention. Why should the government be involved? How should the government be involved - defining property rights? Tax? Subsidy? I believe the production and disposal of single use plastics should be regulated by the government. Plastic products are over produced and contain many harmful chemicals that when disposed of break down and leak micro plastics along with these chemicals into the soil, water, and ultimately the food chain. The government should tax the companies producing these plastics along with the companies using them in packaging such as Coca Cola. The taxes can then be used to create proper waste facilities, recycling facilities and to educate people on plastic alternatives. Individuals despising of these plastics should also be taxed for all plastic disposed of. This will help internalize the the cost that the plastic has on the environment and ecosystems. It will also deter people from producing and consuming these single use plastics and ultimately help to mostly illuminate them from our nations industries.

4. I am in southern Mississippi as I type this and just visited New Orleans. In most of these areas the only seller of homeowners flood insurance is the Federal Government. (https://www.floodsmart.gov/) That is almost certainly an example of a subsidy to home and business owners in this area. What is the effect on the market? Graph the market for homes with and without the availability of insurance. What happens to equilibrium price and quantity? Would you vote to continue this program? Why or why not? (PS If you haven't read Control of Nature by John McPhee it is a great book. https://www.amazon.com/Control-Nature-John-McPhee/dp/0374522596)

The effect that government run insurance agencies could have on the market since there is only one way to get flood insurance the government can charge whatever they want because there is no competition and since it is such a likely area to flood the owners have no choice but to pay the fee. And if the government chooses not to insure them then they have no other options and must go without insurance. The quantity goes down and the equilibrium price goes up because they have full control over the insurance and because everyone needs the insurance and there is always a high demand for the service. I think I would vote against the government control of the insurance because it gives them too much power. But if they stopped completely there probably would not be enough providers offering the insurance because this is a high flood area. So the government offering insurance in the area is necessary but I do not think they need to control it completely.

5. Just to think about.... last fall I was in Costa Rica for a few months. Costa Rica is all about the wildlife and eco-tourism. We took a vacation and headed to Cuba for a week. Cuba has no wildlife. We didn't even see an iguana, few birds, nothing. Around the world it has been true the wildlife does better under capitalism (or maybe in countries that lean towards the capitalist end of the political spectrum) than under communism (countries that lean heavily towards the communist end of the political spectrum). Why might that be? How do the incentives change as the form of government changes? No response required... just something to ponder as you read the section on government.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 3 reflection

1. Externalities are a common cause of market failure. Discuss the deaths of birds as an externality of power production through windmills or the destruction of salmon runs through the production of hydroelectric energy via dams. How would you value externalities such as those? Is a Pigou tax on the production of energy a potential solution? Why or why not? How will you place a value on birds or salmon? Why does it matter?

Wind turbines are estimated to kill 200 thousand birds every year. Although wind production does have many positive effects on society and the environment, this negative externality cannot be ignored. The death of these birds does not only affect the population of that particular species but also many animals that hunt them, and the animals they hunt as well. If a bird population is diminished it could cause their predators to have a shortage of food leading to death among the preditors. The animals that these birds eat could overpopulate and the domino effect would begin affecting the plant species, and the overall ecosystem of the area. These externalities are valuable because they ultimately will begin to affect the ecosystem as a whole. For the purpose of cost-benefit, we must put a price at the ecosystems at risk for every one wind turbine built, how many birds and bats will be affected? and for each of these affected animals how many other species are affected? I believe that the Pigou tax on the production of wind turbines could be a possible solution to this issue. If the producers of the wind turbines are charge a certain amount that is determined by the positive and negative externalities of the production of these machines then they are more likely to take into account the negative impacts that wind turbines have on the environment. While also being credited for the positive externalities the charge would end up not being as much as if the wind turbines had no positives. But it will still hold the companies producing them accountable for the negative impact that they have on the bird and bat population. In order to place a value on these birds, you must consider not only the species of birds impacted but also the impact the loss of these birds has on the ecosystem in which they live. This is important so that the birds are not over nor undervalued.

2. Provide an example of something you have purchased or an activity you enjoy that causes a negative externality. What are two possible policies that could help you internalize the full cost of your activity/purchase? Which do you prefer? Why?

I enjoy riding ATVs this can have negative externalities both in the form of pollution emitted from exhaust fumes and in the land that is destroyed in order to make trails for these vehicles. A policy taxing the owners of ATVs could be a good solution, a yearly registration fee that included cost for the environmental impact of these machines. Another could be a tax on the areas that you wish to ride them perhaps a day, week, or yearly fee that incurs the cost of building and maintaining these trails as well as paying the value of the animals that are affected by the building of these trails. I prefer the second option because it would internalize the cost to the individuals who are actively using the trails and not to someone who owns an ATV for other reasons such as working on their own ranch. If the users of these specific areas and trails are taxed it could possibly internalize all the cost of externalities from these trails being built and used. Currently, I believe we are taxed on this in out colorado state and federal taxes, that help the forest service protect and maintain these areas however I’m not sure we are paying the cost of the negative externalities accumulated by the recreational trails across our state.

3. Consider the four types of goods - private, open-access, club, and public. Which category does a national forest fall into? Why? If a forest near you was suffering an over-use problem could you use market -based incentives to manage that? Why or why not?

National forest themselves I believe would be a public good nonrival and nonexcludable anyone can enter the forest and appreciate the nature and scenery that it has to offer. The resources in a national forest however is not a publicgood but open access goods since they are rival but also non excludable such as the fish in the river, or the timber. I belive that if a nation forest was being over used it could be managed using market based incentives, in the example of hanging lake it was once open acces but from over use it is now limited access by permit only. I belive this is used in alot of nation forest areas another axample would be in order to raft the grand canyon you must obtain a permit, or in order to cut down your own christmas tree you once again must obtain a permit to do so, this limits the over use of public lands.

4. A couple of years ago I flew home from Europe with my parents. My Dad is tall and hates it when the person in front of him on the plane puts their seatback. This time there was a young family in front of us - nice couple traveling with a 2-year-old. Dad had a good conversation with the gentleman in front of him and offered to take them jeeping if they got over to the western slope and if he refrained from tipping his seatback. That parent made that whole trip from London to Denver with a child on his lap with his seatback upright. And that family did get over to Montrose and Dad did take them jeeping above Ouray. That is an example of Coasian negotiations. Why did it work so well (apart from the fact that everyone involved was very nice)? Give me an example of your own. Under what conditions does Coasian negotiation work well? I belive the Coasian negotiation worked well in this example because your Dad had something of value to offer the man sitting in front of him, if the man had his own jeep or had no intest in going jeeping, or the area they needed to get to in order to go jeeping was too far then the man might have not been intrested and it may not have worked. I personally dont think i could ever take an over seas flight with my seat back up the entire way even without a child so kudos to that nice man. An example I have is in the winter I work for christy sports in the tune shop, we are able to give friends and family free or discounted tunes. My friend hunter works for the mountain and they are given $25 lift tickets for friends and family. When my family came to town i asked hunter if he would give me 4 discount coupons in exchange for free snowboard tunes for the entire season. He did give me the ski passes and I did tune his board throughout the season. Since I had something of value to him he was willing to exchange something of value that he had.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 2 reflection.

1) Discuss why efficiency is important in terms of the environment. How is efficiency related to social welfare? How is efficiency related to MC and MB analysis? How is efficiency related to sustainability?

Efficiency is important in terms of the environment because environmental issues such as pollution or animal species depletion can be weighed as negative impacts on human benefit. Although efficiency criteria are anthropocentric much human happiness depends on being able to breathe fresh air and enjoying nature. However, efficiency criteria do sometimes affect the environment negatively by not properly weighing in the well being of the environment or animals. Efficiency is related to social welfare because it takes into account how each individual or group of individuals is effected in society by a certain act, for instance, the building of a landfill. When something is created human quality of life, happiness, a financial impact are often considered. Efficiency is related to an MC and MB analysis because a marginal analysis can be used to determine how efficient the production or depletion of something will be. By evaluation of the MB and MC economist can determine where the maximum efficiency line lies and thus maximize the net benefit. In Relation to sustainability efficiency and the use of marginal analysis can help determine the most sustainable course of action for a particular good, service, or resource.

2) A landfill has leaked a number of pollutants into the soil below the landfill. If society ignores the issue there is a 5% chance the pollutant will contaminate the water aquifer and thus local drinking water causing $1 million worth of illnesses in the future. There is an additional 1% chance the pollutant will cause further contamination and $4 million worth of damage and illness. If these are the only risk factors what is the expected value of the damage from the landfill? (If you want a real-life example of this problem lookup Rocky Flats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant) How should the math inform the policies around potential problems like this one?

The expected value of damage from the landfill is $90,000. Math helps policymakers to make informed decisions on what issues need to be addressed by weighing out the expected values of issues should they not be addressed against other issues at hand.

3) Think of a local decision that involved a choice similar to the bears versus snowmobiles example in the text. (You can use the introduction of grey wolves to Colorado if you are coming up dry). What are the marginal costs of each choice -- for example what are the marginal costs of an increasing wolf population? How about the marginal benefits? Are the primary beneficiaries (beyond the wolves themselves) different from the group that pays the costs? How could you use marginal analysis to determine the best outcome? Describe a possible route to Pareto efficiency.Wolfs are hunters so the marginal cost of re introduction to Colorado will mostly be to the farmers and ranchers and their cattle. Marginal benefits include revitalization of ecosystems particularly in wooded areas. The primary beneficiaries would include, elk population control, bird and mammal populations, and plant populations in these ecosystems. A marginal analysis could be used by comparing number of wolfs in the area to the amount of ranchers/cows that each wolf would cost.

4) What was the most useful/interesting concept discussed in this chapter? How can you apply it?

I think the most useful concept discussed In this chapter is how to run a marginal analysis. This type of analysis can be applied in many ways such as wildlife habitat to recreational areas like in the book. Or to decided how much of a product a company or country should produce

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Reflection chapter 1

1. Give an example of a good you have purchased recently. List at least three natural resources that were used in the production of this good. Did the price you paid include the full cost of production or were externalities created as well? What costs were missing from the price you paid? Will you have to pay disposal costs when you are finished using this good? Do you think you pay the actual cost of disposal? Why or why not?

I recently purchased oil for my car. One of the main components in engine oil is, crude oil extracted from the earth, other natural resources contained in engine oils are natural gases and minerals. I do not believe that the full cost of production was paid by my purchase of the good, and there are many externalities. oil is about $7 a bottle, considering that this oil is first extracted from the earth, then shipped most likely overseas, where it finally goes through the production process to refine it into engine oils, where it is then again shipped, probably multiple times until it finally makes it way to the shelf in your local auto parts store. Considering the amount of energy that is consumed in this process the consumer is not paying the entirety of production costs. The disposal costs of this material are also fairly low, considering that this is now contaminated oil that cannot be put back into the planet, and is now harmful to the environment the consumer is not paying the full cost of disposal.

If all of the costs discussed above were included in the purchase price of the good would you still have purchased it? Why or why not?

If all costs above were included into the price of the good I still would have purchased it because it is a necessary component to driving a car and I need my car to get places.

2. The text mentions that the optimal level of pollution cannot be zero. Why not? What factors should we consider when thinking about an optimal level of pollution? Define "optimal level of pollution".

Pollution levels cannot be zero becasue everything we do produces pollution, humans and animals emit pollution when breathing and digesting. Building homes, driving cars, and producing food all emit pollution. If we were zero pollution we would not be able to exist. When thinking about your optimal pollution level quations to ask are, how much pollution are we currently producing, how much pollution is sustainable, and how can we bridge that gap. Things to consider would be, what is creating the most pollution, what factors of pollution can we eliminate or greatly decrease, population growth, renewable eneergy sources , and natural resource managment Optimal level of pollution is the maximum amount of pollution we can produce while still maintaining a sustainable environment.

3. Your text also mentions the issue of finite resources with respect to a growing population. For an alternative view on this issue go to the following website and watch the video and read the essay:

https://fee.org/articles/thanos-like-malthus-is-wrong-about-population-control/

The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 44% in 1980 to under 10% today. (https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty) Do you expect world poverty to continue to fall? Why or why not?

I believe that with the innovation of new technologies poverty levels could continue to fall, many of these communities living in extreme poverty face issues such as not having clean drinking water or proper waste facilities. With technology expanding we are able to fix these issues with a much easier approach than in the past. This could be a reason that poverty levels continue to fall. However, the world’s population is continuing to expand and although up to this point technology has kept up with the population growth eventually we will reach a plato where an industrial and carbon based society can no longer be sustained on this planet. This could cause poverty levels to rise if we do not make the switch to a sustainable society. If the green revolution begins it could open new doors for these poverty sticken areas and create sources of income that were not once available to these communities, such as building a renewable electric grid where there once was no electricity. So in short I do believe the poverty level will continue to fall if technology and energy continue to grow and change in positive ways.

4. What was the most useful concept discussed in this chapter? Give an example of an application of this concept.

I think one useful concept discussed in this chapter is that of renewable energy sources when the director of the Rocky Mountain of institute states. “The linkage between information technologies and the energy sector is strong and growing. In all, the ground floor for an exciting and clean energy revolution is solid.” The application of this concept can be described in the book “The Green New Deal” it is a blue print of how our planet can evolve into a new renewable society with sustainable practices all around. These new forms of energy create new types of highly skilled jobs that are able to take the place of the jobs that the oil and natural gas industry is currently providing.

[speedyplaidnickelflower]

Chapter 23

I found the concepts of economic growth around the world interesting. How fragile the system can actually be. I think if it changed my thinking on anything it would be about economic policies and how even though some of them I do not particularly agree with they may be needed in certain times to protect the economy.

I think the policy makers should try to stabilize the economy is important I believe with the pro side because even though policy makers don’t always choose the right policies. Without them the citizens would be very heavily effected by booms and busts and the economy may become volitile to the citizens at times.