<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The green community should mend, not work in vain to end, cost-benefit analysis]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/ Thu, 08 May 2008 01:29:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/1 Agree - and a question

Good post.  My personal experience is that congress has a really time with two aspects of doing what you suggest though:

They don't do a good job at the benefit side of the ledger

Energy and environmental policies are siloed.

Re (1), one need look only at the process of "scoring" for any given line item in an energy/environmental bill.  The congressional budget office has all sorts of processes, but they all are one-hand-clapping exercises.  Thus, a tax-break to clean energy is a cost, which is a direct function of the fall off in federal revenues... but there is no corresponding calculation of the resulting benefits (health, job creation, etc.) that you articulate.  (Oddly, outside the CBO, we see all sorts of people articulate job-creation as a benefit, but that math is damn near North Korean, in the sense that it is always based on the number of jobs rather than their productivity.  Thus, a really inefficient coal plant is deemed a good idea because it creates more jobs for miners.)

Re (2), we've got congressional environmental committees that are wholly separate from congressional energy committees (mirrored at the Executive branch between DOE, EPA, FERC and parallel state PUCs, DEPs, etc.)  Thus, when costs or benefits occur in the other silo, they tend to be invisible.  Thus can coal be both cheap (energy committee) and expensive (enviro committee).  Or conversely, thus can pollution control be beneficial (enviro) or costly (energy).  

Do I have it right?  And if so, how do you propose that this political obstacle to holistic cost-benefit analysis be bridged?

]]> Agree - and a question

Good post.  My personal experience is that congress has a really time with two aspects of doing what you suggest though:

They don't do a good job at the benefit side of the ledger

Energy and environmental policies are siloed.

Re (1), one need look only at the process of "scoring" for any given line item in an energy/environmental bill.  The congressional budget office has all sorts of processes, but they all are one-hand-clapping exercises.  Thus, a tax-break to clean energy is a cost, which is a direct function of the fall off in federal revenues... but there is no corresponding calculation of the resulting benefits (health, job creation, etc.) that you articulate.  (Oddly, outside the CBO, we see all sorts of people articulate job-creation as a benefit, but that math is damn near North Korean, in the sense that it is always based on the number of jobs rather than their productivity.  Thus, a really inefficient coal plant is deemed a good idea because it creates more jobs for miners.)

Re (2), we've got congressional environmental committees that are wholly separate from congressional energy committees (mirrored at the Executive branch between DOE, EPA, FERC and parallel state PUCs, DEPs, etc.)  Thus, when costs or benefits occur in the other silo, they tend to be invisible.  Thus can coal be both cheap (energy committee) and expensive (enviro committee).  Or conversely, thus can pollution control be beneficial (enviro) or costly (energy).  

Do I have it right?  And if so, how do you propose that this political obstacle to holistic cost-benefit analysis be bridged?

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/ Thu, 08 May 2008 02:01:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/2 Great benefits

The really great part about the cost of renewable/conservation energy policy, it is payed back many times over in private investment and then the multiplier effect of the layers of the economy and finally in tax revenues.

It also defeats the base cause of inflation, rising energy costs magnifying prices all up through the economy.

How about an extension of this negative cost/benefit analysis of coal.  Into a positive assessment of alternatives?  It's a possibility.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Great benefits

The really great part about the cost of renewable/conservation energy policy, it is payed back many times over in private investment and then the multiplier effect of the layers of the economy and finally in tax revenues.

It also defeats the base cause of inflation, rising energy costs magnifying prices all up through the economy.

How about an extension of this negative cost/benefit analysis of coal.  Into a positive assessment of alternatives?  It's a possibility.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by Richard Revesz http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/ Thu, 08 May 2008 12:58:02 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/3 Institutions

The bulk of cost-benefit analyses in the regulatory process are done by agencies and reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB.  Our book is addressed primarily to those institutions.

]]> Institutions

The bulk of cost-benefit analyses in the regulatory process are done by agencies and reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB.  Our book is addressed primarily to those institutions.

]]> Comment #4 by VeganCountyFan http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/ Thu, 08 May 2008 23:27:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism/4 Interesting

"However, the assumption underlying the idea of a health-wealth tradeoff -- that higher income causes people to be healthier -- is contradicted by the most recent research on the subject. "

Could you point me in the right direction to locate this work?

Thanks

]]> Interesting

"However, the assumption underlying the idea of a health-wealth tradeoff -- that higher income causes people to be healthier -- is contradicted by the most recent research on the subject. "

Could you point me in the right direction to locate this work?

Thanks

]]>