This book gives basic understanding of environmental economics, the subject which is base of all climate change negotiation. Environmental economics put question that if one is ready to pay to conserve environment, wild lives, bio-diversity and how much they can bear or how much industries will pay to abate pollution and prevent environmental damage.
Yeah, it is a very short introduction I guess... heavily neoclassical point of view, market regulation is pushed as the be-all and end-all of environmental policy. Disappointing.
This book is all right for what it is. In terms of 鈥榳hat it is,鈥� this book would more accurately be titled How Traditional Economists Look at the Environment. It describes the standard business school approaches to reckoning the cost of environmental impacts and how much money should be spent to remedy these impacts. It contains no information whatsoever about how changes to the economic system itself could be a crucial tool for controlling things like climate change.
Given this important limitation, Smith does a respectable job of briefly outlining the traditional tools, options, and issues involved in trying to repair the market failures caused by polluters. First, there is this idea of market failure: the fact that the people who cause the problem are not, in any automatic way, forced to pay for the fact that they created it.
He also gives the standard economist鈥檚 answer to the question of how much we are justified in paying to correct environmental damages: until MAC (marginal abatement cost) equals MED (marginal environmental damage), and not a penny more. I.e., until the cost of fixing the problem exactly equals the cost the problem created.
He goes on to describe cost-benefit analysis and dedicates a separate chapter to the issue of how hard it is to quantify damage to the environment and quality of life. For instance, he describes how contingent valuation (and related tools such as quality-adjusted life years, though he doesn鈥檛 mention this) can be used to cost out the health impacts of environmental damage. He also discusses hedonic pricing, e.g., how much more would you pay for the same house if it were located next to a wildlife sanctuary?
He discusses factors involved in choosing among major policy instruments. He speaks a bit pejoratively of what he calls 鈥渃ommand and control鈥� policies, e.g., passing a law which forces factories to install scrubbers in their smokestacks. Alternatively, he gives a good description of market mechanisms, and there is an especially good outline of the pluses and minuses of carbon taxes versus carbon emissions trading.
Finally, he has a good concluding chapter on climate change, which emphasizes the difficulties of international negotiation where there is no higher-up referee to lay down rules of process. Here he offers a useful discussion of the Coase Theorem from the 1960s which gives guarded cause for optimism about how such problematic negotiations can proceed.
For information on broader systems change, I recommend books such as Raj Patel鈥檚 The Value of Nothing, Richard Wilkinson鈥檚 The Spirit Level, Binyamin Appelbaum鈥檚 The Economist鈥檚 Hour, Abhijit Banerjee鈥檚 Good Economics for Hard Times, Michael Sandel鈥檚 What Money Can鈥檛 Buy, and Kate Raworth鈥檚 Donut Economics.
Concise and useful summary with some helpful case studies and simple explanations of abatement vs damages. Simplification meant there was a fair amount of discussion of cost vs benefit "to society" without enough analysis of distribution for my taste. Whole book had a slightly defensive tone and you can see the poor guy is fed up with economists being painted as the bad guys who make everything about money and want to assign everything a monetary value, when the sad fact of the matter is that everything is ALREADY about money and if we don't assign something monetary value then to all intents and purposes it has no value at all.
The book was fine. Easy to understand. Perhaps too easy. It spent its 120 pages on only a very few concepts.
-Starts with some general philosophical concerns, which were fine but I felt a bit biased and shallow. E.g. really glosses over why poor people tend to live in polluted environments.
-Kind of explains the idea that a socially optimal solution is when the marginal economic damage to the environment equals the marginal cost of pollution abatement. But it doesn鈥檛 really explain *why*. So if you鈥檝e already got a background in econ, this will be old info, and if you don鈥檛 then this won鈥檛 really explain it.
-Taxes and tradeable permits. Author spends most of the rest of the book talking about these. Somewhat interesting.
-How to place economic value on stuff that鈥檚 not directly traded in the market. Vaguely interesting but if you already know about multiple-regression, then you won鈥檛 learn anything.
I wish this book would have either covered more concepts quickly or used a case study or two to really dive into issues. Instead it tried to thread a middle ground which was unsatisfying. Probably okay though for people who know literally nothing about Econ.
This very short introduction does an excellent job of giving an overview of key issues. I am unclear how much is understandable without having a bit more background.
The author does an excellent job of discussing why economists want to use dollar measures and how that has nothing to do with the profits of businesses.
His discussion of the Coase Theorem is too brief. His discussion of the carbon tax is outstanding, showing the innovation that will result, how prices will reflect all available information, and how behavior will change in desirable ways.
His discussion of discounting is excellent, in a few pages he discusses all the key issues and explains the different perspectives.
He has some good examples.
I think this book would be useful to use in an introductory course on environmental economics, something I intend to do. There are enough examples and case studies that can be developed in more detail.
3.5*, does what it says on the tin. V solid and informative intro to the topic ! Obviously can鈥檛 go into too much nuance in such a brief intro but its hard to give it a higher rating for that reason x i hope that is palatable x
I'm actually reading this book for the sake of a better understanding of the topic and for my project preparation. It was solid for me, a dense explanation. But I've to be honest, it's so hard for me to understand some of the topic
I wanted so bad to give this book a rating and actual review, but I think its just because I hate economics as a concept, so I'll stick to my rule of not rating books that are just trying to be informative/educational.
It鈥檚 boring, and so dryly written, without any detail to the sparse examples that he gives, which makes me think I鈥檒l forget the content within a week.