In a major break from the policy of the Bush administration, President Obama has announced that the US government will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency has found that CO2 emissions pose a ‘threat to public health and welfare’. This finding allows regulation to be imposed.
At the end of March the Democrats in the House of Representatives released a draft climate change Bill. Central to this would be a system of tradable permits. ‘Under this program, covered entities must have tradable federal allowances for each ton of pollution emitted into the atmosphere.’ (See 4th article below.)
U.S. in Historic Shift on CO2 Wall Street Journal (18/4/09)
Obama to regulate ‘pollutant’ CO2 BBC News (17/4/09)
US says CO2 is a danger to human health Financial Times (18/4/09)
House releases draft climate change bill Power Engineering International (31/3/09)
U.S. Carbon Emissions Trading Core of Clean Energy Bill Environment News Service (31/3/09)
Environmental Capital (see also) Wall Street Journal (31/3/09)
Who’s going to get the carbon pollution credits? Christian Science Monitor (14/4/09)
Questions
- To what extent is the EPA ruling compatible with the bill proposed by the Democrats?
- Is a ‘cap-and-trade’ system (i.e. tradable permits) the best way of dealing with climate change?
- What lessons can the USA draw from the European Emissions Trading Scheme in designing its own tradable permits scheme?
The ‘tragedy of the commons’ refers to the overuse of common land. If people can freely graze their animals on such land and have no responsibility for maintaining it, then the land will be overused and everyone will suffer. The problem is that the benefit of using the land occurs to the individual whereas the cost is collectively incurred.
There are many modern examples of the tragedy of the commons and the articles below look at some of them. Perhaps surprisingly, not all cases of the use of common resources end in tragedy; some common resources are used sustainably. A more thorough analysis must involve deeper questions of human motivation and behaviour.
IT’s tragedy of the commons Datamation (IT Management) (8/4/09)
The Tragedy of the Commons TechFlash (7/4/09)
Encarta’s failure is no tragedy Guardian (7/4/09)
How Self-Interest Destroyed The Economy The Huffington Post (23/3/09)
What does The Pirate Bay ruling mean for the web? Telegraph (17/4/09)
Tragedy of the Commons The Manila Times (23/3/09)
Questions
- Explain how the tragedy of the commons arises and give some examples other than common grazing land.
- How and why does the tragedy of the commons occur in information technology? Consider the benefits and costs of the ‘fix’ to the problem advocated in the first linked article.
- Does the case of Wikipedia (see the third linked article) disprove the proposition that common resources will be overused?
- To what extent is free access to content (music, newspapers, videos, books, etc.) a tragedy of the commons? Is the only solution to devise an effective charging model that rewards content creators?
There has been much discussion recently on the use of fiscal policy to combat recession. What measures should be used? How effective will they be? How will the resulting large budget deficit be brought back into balance in the future?
But what are the microeconomic implications of all the tax changes? Are the changes fair? What implications do they have for incentives? Perhaps it’s time for a completely fresh look at the structure of our tax system – a system that has been changed piecemeal over the past years to meet short-term macroeconomic and political goals. Can it be redesigned to meet the two microeconomic goals of efficiency and equity? The following article looks at what form a redesigned tax structure might take.
Our tax system is a mess. But Darling has a chance to fix it. (Peter Wilby) Guardian (11/4/09)
Questions
- In what ways does the present tax system fail to meet the goals of (a) fairness through redistribution and (b) creating appropriate incentives?
- Explain what is meant by “The whole system has been framed by Tory thinking to assist social engineering, Tory style”.
- Provide a justification and critique of the reforms proposed in the article.
The G20 countries meet each year. Normally their meetings are full of fine words resulting in little action. But at a summit in London on 2 April 2009, the fear of a deepening global recession focused minds and a package of measures worth over $1 trillion was agreed to stimulate trade and growth. This included $750 billion for the IMF to help economies in severe difficulties, $250 billion for financing world trade and $100 to multilateral development banks (such as the Asian Development Bank) to provide extra aid to the poorest countries.
The extra money for the IMF would include $500 billion of loans from member countries and £250 billion in new money – a form of international quantitative easing. This new money would be in the form of ‘special drawing rights’. These are denominated in dollars and are created by the IMF to be drawn on by countries in difficulties.
There was also agreement to tighten financial regulation and to resist protectionism. A ‘Financial Stability Board’ would be set up and work with the IMF to design a strengthened regulatory system for banks and other financial institutions and for financial markets and instruments.
The following articles look at the agreement and its likely effects.
‘This is the day the world came together to fight back’ Independent (2/4/09)
G20 communiqué: Point by point analysis Telegraph (2/4/09)
G20 summit – leaders’ statement. Full text of the communiqué Guardian (2/4/09)
G20: Economic summit snapshot BBC News Online (2/4/09)
G20 leaders seal $1tn global deal BBC News Online (2/4/09)
G-force The Economist (2/4/09)
World leaders declare war on risk Sydney Morning Herald (3/4/09)
Postscript (Sept 2009)
G20: What progress has been made? BBC News (23/9/09)
G20: Pledge by pledge BBC News (25/9/09)
Questions
- What will determine the success or failure of the G20 agreement to revive the world economy?
- Identify any multiplier effects from the agreed measures.
- Why did the French and German governments object to any further fiscal stimulus packages?
Nationalisation has been coming back into fashion lately with the UK bank bail-outs. In other parts of the world though, it has been back in fashion for longer and the articles below look at two recent cases in Latin America: the nationalisation of the Chaco energy company and the renationalisation of Spanish-owned airline, Aerolineas Argentinas (AA).
Bolivia nationalises energy firm BBC News Online (24/1/09)
Argentina renationalises airline BBC News Online (18/12/08)
Questions
- Explain what is meant by nationalisation.
- Discuss the arguments for and against nationalising (a) an airline and (b) an energy firm.
- Assess why nationalisation has become more prominent in the media recently than privatisation.
- Discuss the arguments for and against privatisation.