Articles by Clark Williams-Derry

Whatever its other costs and bennies, ethanol is no biggie on global warming

A new study (found via Tidepool, and reported here in the Des Moines Register) claims that U.S. taxpayers will pay somewhere between $5.1 billion and $6.8 billion dollars this year to subsidize ethanol production. That's works out to, oh, around a buck and a half per gallon of gasoline equivalent, on top of the sales price of the fuel.

As far as I can tell, the authors have done a pretty credible job of tallying up the various costs of ethanol subsidies -- not just the federal tax credits, but also farm subsidies, accelerated depreciation allowances for capital investments, and even state-level ethanol promotion programs.

Still, I don't think this is the last word on the matter. Not by a long shot. A complete assessment of the issue would look even farther afield, and tally a far wider swath of costs, as well as benefits.

And when I do that, I see billions and billions of dollars, on both the plus and minus sides of the ledger. But the climate-change benefits of ethanol? Not so big.

We need better ways to measure well-being

For a moment, let's ignore the political context of this NYT article (about how incumbents are having difficulty capitalizing on the "strong economy" in this fall's U.S. election). As ur-blogger Matthew Yglesias points out, there's something seriously amiss with reporting that describes the economy thus ...

... the economy has not looked so good in a long time. ... the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990's, setting records almost daily ... glowing economic statistics ...

... and so on, all with the subtext, "Hey, we're doing great!" -- all while burying the followng down in the bowels of paragraph 30:

Living in the suburbs may not be so cheap

The conventional wisdom is that it's cheaper to live in the outer suburbs (i.e., a long drive from jobs, stores, or schools) than closer to a town or city center. I suppose that's true enough -- if you're looking only at the cost of housing.

But if you live a long way from most of the places you want to go, you wind up driving a lot more. And that, of course, costs money too -- not just for gas, but also for depreciation on your car, maintenance and the like.

Which leads to the obvious question: what happens if you combine transportation costs and housing costs into a single budget? Is living at the urban fringe still cheaper?

There have already been a couple of attempts (see, e.g., here) to look this issue. Now there's a new study, noted here in The Washington Post. The key finding: when you combine travel and housing, living in a suburban outpost can cost more than living closer to a town or city center. According to the study's author:

Business as usual is expensive too

Will global warming eventually cost the world's economy $12 trillion? I've got no clue. I mean, even the specialists who've studied the economic impacts of climate change have no real idea. The latest figure is just their best guess.

But this much is clear: no matter whether this estimate is on the mark, the idea that we should tally the cost of "business as usual" -- i.e., letting climate change run amok -- is exactly the right framework for thinking about the issue.