Economic Question

profileAmazingExpert
final.docx

Answer all Questions Econ of Energy and Environment 25 points

1. The Clean Air Act instituted trades between states for SO2 emissions. Several utility companies across geographic borders have engaged in such trades in recent years. Consider a trade between a utility in Wisconsin and the TVA in Tennessee. Assume that the trade reduces Wisconsin electricity consumers’ bills by a total of $ 1 million, and lowers Tennessee electricity consumers’ bills by $ 500,000. Also assume that the trade improves local environmental quality in Wisconsin by an amount that people value at $ 2 million. If the local environmental quality in Tennessee declines as a result of this trade, then indicate a potential Coase agreement that could avoid the environmental decline and would still make the trade profitable to both parties ? Is such a trade possible in this scenario ? (4 points)

2. Chip and Dale run separate logging companies in the same forest. Both pollute the river flowing through the forest with debris from their work. In the table below, the first row shows the current level of debris that makes its way into the river from their work. The following rows show how much it would cost each logger to reduce its pollution by additional increments of 10 pounds. You are the official from the EPA who is responsible for the reduction of this pollution. Fully describe the cost-effective mechanism that you will design to reduce the current level of debris by half. (4 points)

Companies

Chip

Dale

Current debris in pounds

60

80

Cost of reducing debris by 10 pounds

$5

$2

Cost of reducing debris by a second 10 pounds

$10

$4

Cost of reducing debris by a third 10 pounds

$15

$6

Cost of reducing debris by a fourth 10 pounds

$20

$8

Cost of reducing debris by a fifth 10 pounds

$25

$10

3. Four companies, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, are burning coal to produce electricity. As a result, they also produce emissions. The first row of the table below shows the total pounds of emissions currently produced by each firm. The other rows of the table show the cost for each firm of reducing emissions by the first 50 tons, the second 50 tons, and so on. You are an EPA official and you want to design a cost-effective mechanism to reduce total emissions by one third. What will be the new levels of emissions of Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta under your mechanism ? (4 points)

Companies

Alpha

Beta

Gamma

Delta

Current production of emissions in tons

150

300

450

600

Cost of reducing emissions by first 50 tons

$20

$6

$25

$7

Cost of reducing emissions by second 50 tons

$25

$12

$31

$8

Cost of reducing emissions by third 50 tons

$30

$18

$39

$9

Cost of reducing emissions by fourth 50 tons

(no emissions left)

$24

$49

$10

Cost of reducing emissions by fifth 50 tons

(no emissions left)

$30

$51

$11

4. Let qi and qp represent the total amounts of improper and proper disposal of soda cans. Thus if 25% of all waste is improperly disposed off, then by default, 75% is disposed of appropriately and safely. Let us say that total amount disposed is 100 units, i.e

qi + qp = 100

Assume that the total private and social benefits equation for improper disposal (qi) of soda cans is given by this equation:

The above equation is motivated by the avoidance of time and resources to collect wastes, and to bring non-recyclables to landfills and haul recyclables to a collection center. Because there are no external benefits, we assume that the total social benefits equal private benefits from improper disposal (3 points).

The marginal private and the social costs of illegal dumping are:

MPCi = 4 qi + deposit

MSCi = 7 qi

a. Show that when there is no deposit (set deposit = 0) private markets will dispose off a greater percentage of soda cans improperly; more than the socially optimal level.

b. Calculate the amount of deposit that we have to charge consumes at the front-end so as to achieve the socially optimal equilibrium.

5. The total private benefits (TPB) and total private costs (TPC) of refined petroleum are related to production levels (Q) as follows: (3 points)

TPB = 42 Q – 0.0625 Q2

TPC = 10 Q + 0.0375 Q2

We let total private benefits (TPB) also equal total social benefits (TSB).

However, production involves externalities and the marginal external costs (MEC) are:

MEC = 0.05 Q

a. What is the level of production if the market does not account for externalities ?

b. What is the socially optimal level of production ?

c. Suppose the government imposes an excise tax and achieves the socially optimal level of output. What is the dead-weight loss of this tax ?

6. The World Resource Institute provides important information regarding global environmental challenges. I reproduce 2 graphs from a recent study in their web-site (http://pdf.wri.org/fishanswer_fulltext.pdf). What can you infer from the two graphs ? Relate your inference to some of the important concepts discussed this semester. What can you say, based on your inference, about “free markets” ? So what ? (3 points)

And another one:-

7. Consider the following 2 statements: (2 points)

a) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26, King James Version).

b) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis 1:28, King James Version).

Statements (a) and (b) tell us how to act with respect to environmental and public goods.

Logically it follows that we have to act in accordance to statements (a) and (b). Consequently, any act of environmental protection and conservation policies is essentially doomed to failure, and indeed, is a sacrilege.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Hunting is an admirable quality according to many other similar statements: He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD (Genesis 10:9) Now then, get your weapons—your quiver and bow—and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game for me (Genesis 27:3)]

My question: Do you agree with statements (a) and (b) and their implications ?

Now obviously a simple, “Yes” or a “No” is not going to cut it. You have to take a stance and argue supporting your position (logically, scientifically and using economics).

Say there are two camps: camp A that agrees with the statements and the implications, and camp B which does not agree with the statement at all. You must take a position with either camp, and argue as follows:

· If you are in camp A, then you have to identify the scientific and economic basis for the claim, regardless of the economic-concerns raised in the class this semester.

· If you are in camp B, you have to scientifically and logically dismantle the claims of camp A, based on the principles of economics picked up from this class.

8. Find ONE good example where markets have actually solved the Tragedy of the Commons Problem. (2 points)