RT sends these reports:
- The state Climate Action Team has a new draft report.
- Price Impact on the Demand for Water and Energy in California Residences [PDF]
- Howitt, Lund, Medellin-Azuara, et al. use simulations to estimate the impact of climate change on California's economy. Since their CALVIN model assumes perfect, frictionless markets (anyone seen those recently?), their estimates of the impact of climate change on water supplies and the economy are VERY low, i.e., about $160 million/year (basically nothing compared to the State's $1.6 trillion economy). Since the lower bound of an impact is basically zero anyway, this estimate is not very helpful.
- Hanemann et al. estimate water demand elasticity of -0.20, which is much less than the economic consensus of -0.38 to -0.64. Since their estimate uses data from one area, I think it overly bold to conclude that "price is a less effective policy tool for managing water use than commonly thought." I'd prefer for them to conclude "we find limited elasticity with our data and model, neither of which may be replicated elsewhere." Oh well.
4 comments:
Here is a thought that might be right and might be wrong but seems to be worth discussing.
'Humanity's discount rate is 200%. An event in the future is not believed to be real until it has actually occurred, twice.'
Politician's corollary (could also be wrong).
'Until two politicians that I care about have lost elections over this issue, I do not have to pay attention to it.'
These hypotheses say that studies will be written but no action will be taken until it has to be taken, possibly too late. For examples, read Jared Diamond's "Collapse."
Thoughts?
Interesting thought. I'd clarify it to say that we need LOTS of evidence of being wrong before we begin to consider that possibility...
California state budgets
touche!
Post a Comment