Like everyone else, I agree that the negative comments on CVM may be pretty extreme. I think that when your using any sort of self-reported data to take the results with a grain of salt, but that does not mean that we should dismiss Contingent Valuation Method. I think the problem arises when economists use Contingent Valuation to make exact and specific policy recommendations for certain fees. For example, if contingent valuation comes back with an recommendation for a certain park fee, we should not necessarily take that as an hard and fast truth. If results show consumers are willing to pay more though, we could take that to mean that we should impose more fees. Especially in the case of government using CVM, I think that line of thinking influences Hausmann’s negative comments on the government using the method versus private firms. Firms could be able to use and perfect CVM without imposing as much costs on society if earlier estimates where wrong. If the government used CVM and was wrong, there could be a deadweight lose imposed on society.

This article brings up some of the many anthropogenic threats to the ocean, but also shows how little we really understand about those affects. It also touches on the theme Laura Henson’s talk. Laura was inspired to continue her career path thanks to diving with relatively well-known species, but the article emphasizes how little is known to the general public about some of the little known and smaller species. We need more people like Laura and the marine biologists quoted in this article that are able to articulate the importance of some of these species and the dire situation they are in. This article was also a little disheartening because it touched on the interlocking affects that other climate problems are having on the health of ocean ecosystems. Clearly, global warming will continue to play a big role in the health of the ocean, but the health of the ocean will also play a big role in climate change, and both will have impacts on human populations that require the ocean for protein. It would be interesting to know how limiting fishing could affect land use and if regulations aimed at protecting the oceans might just cause use to use more land for farming, thus continuing to other problems on land.

I’m impressed by the scale of these renewable energy projects, and the signs of international cooperation between a Spanish and American company. Like many of the other posters, I worry about the location. I assume that the locations must have been chosen with good reason, but will there be enough sunlight throughout the year the make sure the plants provide power consistently? I would also be interested to hear about any studies on the cost of delivering the energy to consumers in California. I thought the last sentence of the article was also interesting- California is requiring utilities companies to use 30% renewable. by 2030. I already imagine California has maxed out available hydro power possibilities so it will be interesting to see if this will be a cost effective way for them to meet that target and how consumers will react to possible price increases. Is the government going to have to provide subsidies for this to be profitable? It’s also worth noting that as technology increases, I’m sure these solar projects will get bigger and cost will be less of a concern.

I agree with previous posters that this article echoes many points from Laura Henson’s talk. I believed both she and Matthew Tejada do a very important service in recognizing the importance of communication for between different stakeholders (including the poor), companies and the government. His point about taking a holistic approach to environmental justice also echoes Laura’s interdisciplinary training to get to where she is today. I am extremely impressed with Matthew’s credentials and commitment to his job though! I also thought this is an interesting issue that we haven’t been able to focus on a lot in class that would be very worth it to talk about it if we had time. Its very clear that there are many social determinants to health, and that if that is the case we have an obligation to provide help in the form of healthcare or to take care of some of the environmental issues. This becomes even more dramatic, but also more controversial, when considering global issues. Should we be in some way held responsible for pollution in China due to factories that meet our demand for cheap manufactured good? I agree with previous posters that this article echoes many points from Laura Henson’s talk. I believed both she and Matthew Tejada do a very important service in recognizing the importance of communication for between different stakeholders (including the poor), companies and the government. His point about taking a holistic approach to environmental justice also echoes Laura’s interdisciplinary training to get to where she is today. I am extremely impressed with Matthew’s credentials and commitment to his job though! I also thought this is an interesting issue that we haven’t been able to focus on a lot in class that would be very worth it to talk about it if we had time. Its very clear that there are many social determinants to health, and that if that is the case we have an obligation to provide help in the form of healthcare or to take care of some of the environmental issues. This becomes even more dramatic, but also more controversial, when considering global issues. Should we be in some way held responsible for pollution in China due to factories that meet our demand for cheap manufactured good?

I agree with previous posts that it is sad that what was previously a bipartisan issue has become such a politicized issue. It is also sad that this article confirms what Professor Casey said in class earlier- that we were closer to addressing climate change in 2003 than in 2013. Though it is ironic that Republicans are now against their market-based solutions, it would be interesting to study public opinion polls on the issue over time and see how the discourse has changed. The article mentions that Republicans have demonized cap and trade as “cap and tax.” Does this mean that conservative opposition is only due to budgetary concerns and maybe once the budget arguments are over there is reason to believe a cap and trade system will be passed? It also seems as if the discourse has drifted away from the costs of pollution. Cap and trade supporters should move the discourse away from taxation and into the costs of pollution. Also, as the authors point out, it will be harder to maintain opposition to cap and trade systems for CO2 as other nations across the world implement one. If China is able to get one passed, it is only a matter of time before opposition will be proven wrong.

This article shows how the EPA emission standards that we recently talked about in class are starting to have an impact. I thought the last sentence in the article was most startlingly- just the closure of three plants can prevent 203 early deaths, 310 heart attacks and 3160 asthma attacks. These types of medical afflictions are easily quantifiable, and clearly just in those terms these new regulations are having a large impact already, and probably a much larger impact when you consider the other 142 coal-burning plants the article mentions. Even beyond those easily quantifiable statistics, I’m sure this decision is having a much larger effect on overall wellbeing east of Ohio where the pollution would have been gone that can’t be quantified without more studies. I’m a little curious though about how this outcome would have been affected if there were a carbon tax in place. The article mentions that American Electric Power was forced to act in response to a lawsuit. Assuming there was a carbon tax that theoretically internalized the cost of carbon, would lawsuits such as this be allowed? They could probably never have carry the same power to force a firm to change, and though environmental law is far from perfect, it offers a path of recourse for people unfairly affected by pollution, like those living east of AEP’s coal fired plant. In class we always talk about how great a carbon tax is but we should still leave room for recourse in cases of severe localized pollution.

I agree with the sentiment already expressed in the thread so far. It is embarrassing that the US is so far behind other rich countries in terms of taxes on carbon. I think though that we have to consider why it is that other countries are so quick to adopt controls on carbon. It seems strange that Northern European countries have the highest tax on carbon, when they will not incur as much of the costs of global climate change as some countries in the tropics. Have politicians framed the carbon tax in a different way to constituents? Could that sort of framing make a difference in the political discourse for a carbon tax in America? The article starts by mentioning the costs of Hurricane Sandy, which seemed to show Americans how costly global climate change could be. I would be interested in seeing what percentage of the total cost associated with climate change could be attributed to super storms, like Sandy. Perhaps if Sandy could help convince a lot of Americans about the cost associated with climate change, showing them the other costs beyond that would be even more convincing. Maybe the best way to show Americans the necessity of a carbon tax it will require more concrete costs as opposed to dealing with abstract costs.