An open book

Read: What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics 5

Back in 2006 I wrote a piece entitled, "Why Environmentalists Should Embrace Economics," which appeared on Gristmill in two parts (one; two). The feedback I received from around the world was so overwhelmingly positive that I decided to expand the themes of the essay into a book. Well, now it’s done (with the title What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics), and it’s available online free to anyone who is interested. I hope some of you will find it both interesting and useful. Please spread the word, and I invite all constructive criticism.

Jason Scorse, PhD
Associate Professor
Chair of the International Environmental Policy Program
Monterey Institute of International Studies

Institute Webpage: http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/node/936

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 12:26 pm
    26 Jan 2009

    Command & ControlSmall appliances and toxics the only "Command & Control" example? And you sneak some C&C discussion into the discussion of labeling.
    You are so sure that stuff like CAFE and building standards is wrong headed that you don't even mention it to criticize? I mean what about a chapter on command & control? Or at least a significant section in your toolbox? I mean no one seriously questions the need for health and safety or fire safety regulations. No one argues for taxing e-coli. Why do you treat cases where this applies in environmental regulation as exceptions? Or as an economist do you have to kind sneak discussion of Command & Control in the back door or risk losing your professional reputation?
  2. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 1:28 am
    27 Jan 2009

    Gar....I'm not sure how to respond to your comments. Remember, this is a book about environmental issues not fire codes and worker safety standards for OSHA. I think I was pretty clear about a great need for C&C regulation in the realm of toxins- much more than most economists freely admit- so again, I don't quite understand your critique.



    We need to focus on the root causes of problems.
  3. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 1:45 am
    27 Jan 2009

    C &CBecause I think we need C & C in greenhouse gas regulations. max emissions per square foot or resident/full time employee equiv. Max emissions per passenger and ton mile. Max emissions per kWh. This is at least as important as some of the other stuff you include. And if you disagree that these make economic sense, then that is worth discussing too.
  4. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 6:12 am
    27 Jan 2009

    Gar....actually, I think if we have a binding and significant greenhouse gas tax we won't need much C&C but some of your suggestions make sense- I think however, between your type of C&C regulations and a greenhouse gas tax it's clear that the latter would be more effective (not that they are mutually exclusive).
    Thanks for the comments by the way. I'm always open to debate/discussion and don't claim to have all the answers....

    We need to focus on the root causes of problems.
  5. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 6:55 am
    27 Jan 2009

    Which is more effective is importantBecause it helps decide which is the main tool, which is the reinforcement.
    Here is one post I wrote suggesting that C&C is the main policy.
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/31/22430/356
    Here is a longer more detailed post:

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/25/17212/723

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement