Cooperation Between Environmentalists, Oil, and Agriculture

A recent Twitter conversation with the folks at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) pointed me to some interesting examples of cooperation between environmentalists and oil interests, farmers, and ranchers. Some of them involve artificial markets for conservation credits while others are simply payments to land owners to help preserve environmental amenities. I don't specialize in environmental economics but I think it's important to bring up theses issues from time to time on the Farmer Hayek blog. On a related note, I want to be clear that I don't take a position on these issues personally since I haven't studied them carefully.

One example concerns the decline of monarch butterfly habitat. A blog post last week at the Environmental Defense Fund gives the details:

Natural Resource Potpourri

I don't have the expertise in natural resource economics to really do a lot of writing on the topic. However, I want to make sure we cover it at least occasionally, so I'll probably stick to this potpourri format for now. I hope some day we find a contributor who is interested in this area.

Lynne Kiesling has a great post on the benefits of retail electric markets. Living in the state of Texas, I can attest to the advantages of this kind of direct competition between providers. Here's Kiesling:

The report’s policy recommendations are in keeping with the idea that market processes provide opportunities for producers and consumers to benefit through experimentation and trial-and-error learning, and that product differentiation through innovation is the most potent form of dynamic competition for creating meaningful consumer benefits.

Digital Trends has an interesting piece on electric vehicles and their actual impact on the environment:

The best outcome for EVs was a 24-percent improvement in global-warming potential over the average gas powered car, and between 10 percent and 14 percent over diesel. These numbers are nothing to sneeze at, but they change radically depending on the source of electricity that EVs are powered on. 

The above numbers rely on the European power mix, which more heavily favors nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewable sources of energy than other parts of the world. 

The global warming potential for EVs that rely on natural gas – generally considered to be the cleanest fossil fuel – show an improvement of only 12 percent over gasoline, and break even with diesel. 

Most alarming, EVs that depend on coal for their electricity are actually 17 percent to 27 percent worse than diesel or gas engines. That is especially bad for the United States, because we derive close to 45 percent of our electricity from coal. In states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, that number is much closer to 100 percent. That’s right folks; for residents of some of the most populous states, buying an EV is not only toxic, it’s warming the planet more than its gas-powered counterparts.

The Continuing Land Price Decline

A recent article on agrimoney.com summarizes a couple of the causes of the continuing slump in land prices. In this post I'll expand a little bit on the article and discuss some possible scenarios going forward.

As the article indicates, the recent strength in the dollar has put downward pressure on crop prices (and, of course, oil). Part of this is due to an expected decline in exports. As the dollar strengthens, foreign buyers of US commodities will have to pay more in terms of their own currencies to purchase US products. If we expect crop prices to be low, we would expect land prices to fall especially if we expect interest rates to rise (For a full discussion of this issue, see this article.)

Over the last week, the financial press has been abuzz with news of the Fed's removal of the term "patient" from its guidance. The question was whether the Fed would remain "patient" and put off raising its federal funds interest rate target. Since asset prices are an inverse function of interest rates, an indication that rates would rise sooner would probably have pushed down the major stock indices.

Potpourri

Don Boudreaux discusses the issue of monopsony power and the minimum wage in an interesting fashion.

Prompted by criticism from local food advocates, Jayson Lusk clarifies his position. It continually baffles me that so many people equate opposition to subsidies for or outright government provision of some good or service with opposition to that good or service itself.

Paul Krugman's most recent comments on the minimum wage have sparked several productive discussions in the blogosphere. One post in particular stands out to me. In it, Scott Sumner uses this episode to illustrate the difference between economists who take basic theory seriously when it comes to practical matters of policy and those who don't.

The EPA continues to generate policy uncertainty in the corn markets by failing to set volume obligations. On top of this, repeal of the Renewable Fuels Standard continues to garner support on both sides of the aisle. What exactly this potential repeal would mean for corn producers, I don't know. My initial thought would be that corn prices would fall, causing losses in the short run, but that input prices and planted acres would adjust (over time) and the policy-change-induced losses would cease. Additionally, we could expect lower fuel costs and slightly lower food prices if the RFS were repealed.

Potpourri

- John Tamny, Forbes contributor and senior economic adviser to Toreador Research & Trading has an interesting piece on oil prices with a provocative title: "Let's Be Serious, Falling Oil Prices Are Not Causing The Busts In Texas And North Dakota." His basic point is that the weak dollar has pushed up nominal oil prices over the last several years. This led to a lot of investment in Texas, North Dakota, and other regions. As the dollar has strengthened recently (thanks at least in part on the ending of the Fed's third round of quantitative easing), nominal oil prices plummeted causing a lot of pain for oil investors, employees, and others in oil-rich regions.

He concludes:

The oil patch isn’t suffering cheap oil, rather it’s being wiped out by an unstable dollar.  We’ve seen this movie before as this column has been repeating in annoying fashion since 2005.  Cheap oil isn’t what’s shaking the oil patch simply because the oil in the ground was never expensive to begin with.  It’s the unstable dollar that caused an artificial boom, and it’s that same unstable dollar that’s authoring the bust.  Until the U.S. Treasury gets serious and gifts the U.S. economy with a dollar that is constant in value, the gut-wrenching reversal that’s taking place now in economies reliant on commodities will be the tragic norm.

- Economist Bob Higgs of the Independent Institute discusses the burdens placed on the private sector of the U.S. economy since WWII. Though the market system is robust, Bob correctly points out that there is a limit to the regulatory burdens the private sector can bear.

- On another note, Don Boudreaux shares a snippet of an e-mail from Bob Higgs on what makes a good economist. His comments are similar to those I made in a previous post. One big difference between my post and Bob's email is tone; assistant professors can't afford to be as blunt as Bob is!

- Randall Holcombe of Florida State University provides a graph of new pages in the Federal Register by decade. Note that regulations (as measured by this page number data) are increasing at an increasing rate. He also discusses the recently-proposed Regulatory Freedom Amendment to the Constitution. Put simply, the amendment would allow the Congress to regain its power to decide the regulatory power of the Executive, rather than regulatory bureaucrats deciding the scope and scale of their power.