ENVR 201 Flashcards

Question

Explain the history of US Highways.

Answer 1

No networks of roads across the country, had to convince the public and politicians of the necessity of roads as a public good. Key contributor were auto industry members, urban planners were absent (no profession). Highway engineers created fast, efficient roads without much consideration of what that would mean to the fabric of cities and environmental degradation —> cities and neighbourhoods were destroyed to build highways. Passage of Interstate Highway Bill in 1956.

Answer 2

Drivers used to be perceived as intruders of urban space and a threat to safety. The auto industry convinced the public of the importance of cars to encourage more sales. Invention of the term jaywalking. Cars were not required to have speed governors.

Answer 3

- Pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable road users, greatest injury is felt by them. - Speed and mass of vehicles is a key factor (and both have been increasing). - Equity issue: many accidents happen to non-white people. - Pedestrian fatalities are increasing.

Answer 4

Zero traffic fatalities are acceptable because all fatalities/injuries are preventable (e.g. drinking and driving, non-safe infrastructure, decisions of car manufacturers/government, etc.). This approach requires wide range changes, rethinking the need for speed, the role of a car, the design of a road (people drive faster on roads well-suited for it), street policies and street design to encourage multimodal transport, liability (more blame on the drive than the pedestrian).

Answer 5

- Changes of fuel (biofuels, reduced fossil fuels component). - Improve efficiency of vehicles: making them run on less fuel. - Fuel pricing: changing the market, increasing the price and tax on fuel. - Land use changes: more wide spread, long-lasting impacts. - Improve competitiveness of public transport and active transport: lasts longer.

Answer 6

Th objective is to reduce CO2. However, there is an issue with efficiency vs. Effectiveness. As fuel efficiency has increased, miles driven by vehicles has also increased.

Answer 7

Nothing has any intrinsic value.

Answer 8

I have intrinsic value. No other humans have any value, except possibly for instrumental value for promoting my good.

Answer 9

All humans have intrinsic value. All other animals have only instrumental value for humans, or no value at all.

Answer 10

All animals able to experience pleasure, or happiness, have intrinsic value. Other organisms can have only instrumental value for sentient animals, if that.

Answer 11

All and only loving organisms have intrinsic value. Lifeless matter and energy can have, at best, only instrumental value for organisms.

Answer 12

All organisms, species, and ecosystems (and interactions) have irreducible intrinsic value. Lifeless matter and energy can have, at best, only instrumental value for organisms, species, or ecosystems.

Answer 13

All organisms, species, and ecosystems, and even lifeless matter and energy, have intrinsic value.

Answer 14

The first step is realizing there is a decision to be made and thinking about what is the best alternative option to a given action. We weigh our options through opportunity cost (value of what you didn’t do but could have done) or by benefit/cost analysis (value different options). 1. Rights-based decisions: we don’t consider other options , cost of taking away individual liberties are not allowed for a particular situation. 2. Weigh alternatives: find a way to weigh alternatives and find the best outcome.

Answer 15

Ecosystem service are the attempt to evaluate and quantify services from nature by conceptualizing them as a service to humanity.

Answer 16

Use value: we take a consumptive benefit from a good/service directly. Direct flow from nature to humans. It can be indirect if we use something but its value does not reach humans immediately, it may support something else which has a direct value to humans. Option: something we would like to be able to use if we need it, but we might not. Possibly a category of non-use value. Non-use: Bequest (we may value something now because we want to use it in the future) or Existence (value it even though we don’t use it because we want it to exist). Services: provisions services, regulating services, cultural services, supporting services.

Answer 17

A method of estimating the value that a person places on a good and to derive consumer surplus. WTP: Willingness to pay for improved ecosystem services. Not paying over a certain amount is the equivalent benefit you get from having a certain good/service. WTA: Willingness to accept compensation in exchange for degraded ecosystem services. Instead of offering an improved ecosystem service, how much would the consumer need to be payed to agree to get rid of a good/service. Contingent value is mostly used for existence value (non market benefit).

Answer 18

In standard practise, WTP is better. More consistent estimates, people say more when asked for WTA. For preserving an existing piece of common property, already belonging to “people,” WTA is better. Wealthier communities give higher values.

Answer 19

1. Free-riding: might lead to an under-estimate of true WTP. 2. Strategic Bias: might lead to inflation of WTP to achieve a better outcome if they believe they will not have to pay for their stated answer (only influences the result). 3. Framing Bias: changing the framing of the question affects the answer.

Answer 20

“Choice experiments” consist of a series of hypothetical binary choices. By looking at many choices, one can infer valuations of specific goods. Giving people a number of choices and doing it a number of times, from these choices, you can tell how much people value a certain good.

Answer 21

Consumer surplus is the benefit to people that they get beyond what they pay for. It is the difference between WTP and what one actually has to pay for a service. For a society at large, it is the difference between the sum of benefits over all people and the total cost of provision.

Answer 22

The travel-cost method measures the amount of money that people spend to get to the resource (park, river, beach, etc.). Part of revealed preference method. By relating differences in travel cost to differences in consumption, a demand curve for the resource can be derived and the consumer surplus can be estimated. No one will pay more to travel somewhere than the benefit they get from arriving there. For example, people that live close to parks have a lower travel cost, but don’t necessarily have the same benefits.

Answer 23

1. People have different opportunity costs: they have different alternatives, being far from one park means that you might be closer to another one. 2. Some may have alternative recreational alternatives that others do not: you might want to do something else with your time. 3. Money: people have different amounts of money (different WTP) and some have a higher ability and willingness to travel from people that are wealthier.

Answer 24

Looking at house prices as a way to value access to an amenity or a disamenity. Part of revealed preference method. For example: a house near a contamination. Looking at the sales of homes before and after a contamination became public, there was a change in valuation. You can add up the total disbenefit tear occurred as a result of the incident. The price and value of a house decline as a function of the location from the incident.

Answer 25

Used exclusively for valuing human life. We get the estimated value of a statistical life. Monetary life is put on a human life. For example, a profession. Comparing different professions, we can get an idea of the value of the hazard. We can estimate a WTA an increase in the risk of death, which estimates the value of life/

Answer 26

1. Assumes worker have/understand accurate information. 2. Sample selection bias: people who chose risky Jon’s are not average people, lower risk aversion. 3. Assumes voluntary and involuntary risks have the same value: people require more to accept a risk that is imposed on them without their consent, they did not make that choice. 4. Puts a larger value on life in rich countries than in poor countries. 5. Statistical life is not equal to individual life: the value we get from the studies is the amount of money that the average individual in a society requires to accept a high risk death, we cannot put money value on someone’s life.

Answer 27

An engineering cost method used to figure out the cost to put something back like it was (e.g. after damage). It is the cost of adaptation to environmental damage or cost of complying with needed environmental legislation. In the case of an ecosystem service, it is the cost of replacing it with a human alternative. Central for ecosystem services evaluation.

Answer 28

Focuses on experiences human well-being rather than productivity/market consumption. Using data of how people are happy with their life and using statistical analysis to infer what differences across people and overtime and different places explain those differences in life satisfaction. We can evaluate things like the value of pollution, value of an access to a park, etc.

Answer 29

1. Revenue: raise revenue for governments to spend in order to solve other CAPs. 2. Punitive (and Pigouvian): tax thing to reduce people’s consumption of them (e.g. cigarettes).

Answer 30

Government has various ways to make revenue (taxes) and many ways to spend money, they are often tied together. It does not make sense in terms of the right amount to be spending on something and the right amount to be taxing something (Green Fund). Expenditures should be made at the level which is efficient and adresses the CAP correctly. The revenue, in order to fund that level, should be raised from whatever the means are that we have to raise.

Answer 31

Mixed messages, visibility, free-riding, capital turnover timescale, R+D investment and scale-up sequence, commitment, rebound effect.

Answer 32

Who is in the sum when we add benefits? Who gets a vote in the sum? Do we count people equally? Fairness: who do we count? With what weight? Critique: wealth matter. An evaluation of amenities or benefits by a person who has more means, you will get a higher number. We can’t add up people whose experiences can’t be compared. Equity problem: do we consider all humans? Non-human? Do we consider future humans (they usually don’t get a vote)?

Answer 33

Summing-up benefits overtime. What is something worth overtime? It is worth to invest in things to have a flow of benefits overtime.

Answer 34

There is risk and uncertainty of benefits. The future is far away and it is divergent, it represents multiple possibilities. It is difficult to add up benefits that have different possible futures.

Answer 35

1. Future is uncertain: the resource/offer might disappear or not be credible later. 2. Increased income: might have a job/more income by then, the resource is worth less and there is no need for free handouts. 3. Limited empathy/intrinsic impatience: I care less about my future than present self. 4. Exchange/selling of good for a productive asset: it becomes more valuable to trade it in the present than the future offer.

Answer 36

When future benefits are not weighed as heavily as current befits, we say that the future benefits are discounted. Due to interest (growth of productivity over time), resources on hand today are more valuable than resources available at a later date. The amount we would put aside today to grow to a certain benefit in the future is the present discounted value (PDV) of that benefit. It is the different in value between the future and the present.

Answer 37

People in the future will be wealthier than us due to capita economic growth. Future people can afford to buy resources to solve certain issues that we cannot afford in the present. They do not value the same things as us (e.g. we value keeping forests but their technology does so easily). Their marginal benefit from consumption is much lower than ours.

Answer 38

The rate at which we discount the future people’s well-being compared to ourselves, regardless of their wealth status. How much do you care about the future person’s well-being? We care less about someone in 5 years, and even less in 10 years.

Answer 39

A combination of the pure time preference discounting and their wealth. This is the overall valuation we consider now of someone in the future having a particular material benefit. It is a way to compare one point in time versus another. The discount factor tells us how to discount marginal consumption at a particular future date. How much does the person value one extra of a certain good?

Answer 40

Closely related to discount factor. The rate tells us how how to calculate the discount factor, based on how far in the future the consumption happens. It is the rate of fall overtime of the discount factor. E.g. a discount rate of 1% means the discount factor is 0.99 next year, 0.98 the year after, etc.

Answer 41

It is a market reflection of the private (as opposed to social) discount rate. It is the market speaking about what it considers the discounted rate to be.

Answer 42

An individual is risk averse if they prefer a “sure thing” to a gamble with a high expectancy payoff. Risk aversion implies that people will dislike exposure to catastrophic event occurring with low probability more than unpleasant event occurring with high probability even if they have the same average cost.

Answer 43

1. Voluntary vs. Involuntary risk: there is a preference of voluntary risk over involuntary risk (e.g. Driving vs. Flying) . Psychological factor. 2. Lack of knowledge: people don’t deal with risk properly due to lack of information (e.g. educating people about climate change could lead to more will for policy to address it). 3. Distrust of experts: people are averse to knowledge about certain kinds of risks, cognitive bias. 4. People are risk averse.

Answer 44

An extreme case where people are using more of a resource in response to an increased efficiency of use of that resource. We consume more when something is cheaper. Jevon’s Paradox is not likely, but mostly the rebound effect, in which some of the expected conservation from efficiency gains is lost to increased use, is the norm.

Answer 45

1. Increased consumption of the good (substitution effect): use of the resource directly through the appliance/service that ois being increased in efficiency. When it is strong enough, it leads to Jevon’s Paradox. 2. Increased consumption of other goods (wealth effect): an indirect effect. There is an increased consumption of other goods, which may relate to the same resources. 3. General equilibrium growth effect: increased consumption by everyone, due to spillover of more economic activity. Everyone is wealthier, so consuming more resources.

Answer 46

The total (summed), discounted (net-present) value of all future damage caused by emitting an extra unit (ton) of GHG today (or in a given year).

Answer 47

This is an economic feedback model that calculates the SCC.

Answer 48

One possible sequence of future emissions (or concentrations) overtime, by country. We have to assume an emissions pathway since we don’t know how much people will emit in the future.

Answer 49

1. Mitigation: practise of avoiding or reducing emissions into the atmosphere (information, subsidies, prices, regulation). 2. Adaptation: coping by preparing or responding to damage, there are already enhanced climate forcing/climate change that has effect on people (disaster management, development policy). 3. Geo engineering: emergency countermeasures that reverse climate changes without treating the GHG cause.

Answer 50

The quantity is fixed. The government decides on a maximum amount of GHG emissions for a period of time. Firms emitting GHGs can sell/bid on permits at an auction. The reduction of GHG is achieved at a minimal cost because we mitigate at the cheapest places. The investment of mitigation goes to the lowest hanging fruit, the ones who have the opportunity to reduce their emissions. This achieves a maximum amount of reduction for a minimal cost to society.

Answer 51

The price is fixed. The government decides on a price that should be paid for the emissions of GHGs. This results in the maximum reduction of GHGs for a given cost. Firms for whom it is cheaper to mitigate will save money by not paying the tax. Those for whom it is more expensive will choose to pay the tax and not yet mitigate.

Answer 52

1. Coverage: it is difficult to implement a carbon pricing system that covers all GHG emissions in the economy because some are difficult to measure. 2. Horizon/timeline: signals about prices in the future so that firms can make smart investment decisions. 3. Revenue neutrality: what will the government due with the revenue? Giving it back to the people or spending it on a particular domain. 4. Handouts and allowance: giving permits for free, but less every year and eventually auctioning them off. Easier integration of new policies and eases competition without having t o worry about carbon pricing. 5. Offsets: paying someone else to reduce their emissions so that you can keep emitting. 6. Commitment: clear signal about what will happen in the future. It is not credible if someone can change the legislation and change the carbon pricing system in the future.

Answer 53

1. Impose a uniform price on carbon across the whole economy. 2. Generate revenue for the government. 3. Require monitoring and enforcement. 4. Very few firms need to be monitored. Only a few emit a significant amount of carbon that needs to be monitored.

Answer 54

1. Pricing. - Cap and trade: the future price is less certain. 2. Emissions: - Taxes: the quantity of emissions in the future is uncertain. 3. It is easier to hand out permit for caps.

Answer 55

Resources can be material or sinks. Resources can be sinks and sinks can be resources. Source: something that you draw things from (e.g. the global atmosphere). Sink: collection of a resource. - a source can also be a sinks -e.g. water is a source and also a sink because we dump all sorts of waste into it.

Answer 56

Without us humans, there would be no resources. Reflection of human need: - The term resource as we use it is a reflection of human needs. Without humans, there are no resources because only we conceive resources as a need, it is a human construct. Not stable over space and time: - Resources can change with human needs —> whether it is a resource or not.

Answer 57

- Used in Central America for thousands of years - Rubber trees. Discovery of rubber and its properties by Europeans —> not seen as a resource (used for erasers and raincoat —> not durable). - Rubber is heated —> flexible, durable, resilient - explosion in demand = vulcanization. Increase in price —> perceived as an important resource (increase in wealth in Amazon). - Rubber growth and production in a mass production —> rubber is a fraction of its cost. - Wild rubber collapse post WW2. Synthetic rubber is developed —> plantation collapses.

Answer 58

1. Scarcity. 2. Price rise, stimulate R&D. 3. Innovations lead to substitution, reuse, recycling. 4. New resource “created”. 5. Prices fall, demand rises. 6. Easily accessible, reserves are exhausted.

Answer 59

1. Fixed stock (fixed amount on Earth). 2. Depletable (natural replenishment this too slow, less available as you consume it). - Availability measured as reserves. 3. Proven or Potential: - Proven: known resources profitably extractible with reasonable certainty given current prices, technology, and political condition. - Potential: profitably extractible at a given price. - If prices increase, so do potential and proven reserves.

Answer 60

1. Natural replenishment at a non-negligible, useful rate (useful for human time scale). 2. Grow or flow (forests, fish, wind, sun). 3. Public or common property (belongs to everyone but no one in particular). 4. Availability is flow restricted, based on regeneration rate. 5. Sustained yield.

Answer 61

- Catch/cut <<< replacement rate. - Sustained yield is the rate at which you can extract the resource without the resource being compromised. - The rate at which you extract renewable resources has to be below the replacement rate. Otherwise, you can cause collapse.

Answer 62

Exist in a form that allow recovery once the original purpose is fulfilled (e.g. metals - difficult to recover).

Answer 63

The population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear (not enough to sustain it) —> population collapse. People tend to use an abundance of food supply to increase their own number (population growth) rather than their well-being. Food production cannot keep up with popualtion growth —> starvation.

Answer 64

Related to a given species in a given environment. Maximum population of that species in a specific environment that can be sustained given the resource needs of that specific species and the availability of that resource in the environment. Neo-Malthusians.

Answer 65

1. Scarcity of resource is not a problem, but a distraction. 2. Distribution of resources is the problem (some have too little, some too much). 3. Technological change can overcome limits. - There are resource limits, but technological change can overcome them. 4. Carrying capacity is not fixed and can be modifiable due to technological change.

Answer 66

1. Resources can be substituted through revolutionary change. 2. Population and economic growth are the solution to resource scarcity. - Julian Simon: human knowledge and ingenuity is the ultimate resource. - No need for population growth. 3. Controlling population growth would be unwarranted, unwise, immoral —> economic growth and technology will save poverty.

Answer 67

1. Non-renewable and non-substitutable. | 2. Renewable and substitutable.

Answer 68

1. Very rapid growth since 1800 (agricultural revolution and industrial revolution = food supply and production increase). - Population keeps growing, but at a decreasing rate. 2. Population is unevenly distributed across the globe - 90% of population lives on 20% of available land. 3. North America, Europe grow slowly and stable. - Latin America grows quickly but stabilizes quickly. - Asia grows, stabilizes, eventually declines. - Africa: bulk of net population growth.

Answer 69

Population growth is equal to the birth rate minus the death rate plus the immigration minutes the emigration. R = (b-d) + (i-e)

Answer 70

CBR: annual number of live births per 1000 population. - Birth rate is computed for the population as a whole without a reference to a specific age group. CD-R: annual deaths per 1000 population. - No reference to a particular age group.

Answer 71

1. Average number of children a woman would likely have during her childbearing years. - Small in Canada, large in other parts of the world. 2. Number of children a couple must have to replace themselves. - Needs to be higher than 2 - more viable male births, some die as infants.

Answer 72

1. Deaths < 1year old per 1000 live births. - CBR is computed as a population as a whole, the IMR is the rate of death of infants below 1 per live death, not population as a whole. - Strongly influenced by the availability of clean drinking water, nutrition, health care, sanitation, etc. 2. Average years a new-born infant can expect to live.

Answer 73

CBR: 30/1000 is high. Implies rapid population growth. - Influenced by the age structure of the population (young population in their childbearing years = high birth rate). - Customs, social norms an laws related to reproduction, religious beliefs, health care. CDR: 20/1000 is high - less variation across different regions. - Influenced by the age structure (older population = dies more frequently). - Quality of access to health care, etc.

Answer 74

IMR and CDR are computed differently. - CDR is computed on 1000, on the basis of the population as a whole. Low because it is divided by a large number (8 billion). - IMR is the number of deaths of infants below 1, divided by the number of live births (not the total population). Live births are a very small portion of the population.

Answer 75

Population Momentum: more people even if fewer children. The high fertility in previous generations gave rise to a number of people in their reproductive phases (or going into) who have children of their own. So, a high proportion of young people. You now have each couple having fewer children, but there is an increase in the amount of couples having less children = increased population growth for the next 3-4 generations.

Answer 76

Stage 1: Pre-industrial. - CBR = CDR (high birth and deaths rates, very precarious life). Stage 2: Transitional. - Decline of CDR (agricultural revolution), higher CBR (not confident in survival of children). Stage 3: Industrial. - Confidence in survival (less labor needed, rising incomes, urbanization). - CBR > CDR, they both decline. Stage 4: Post-industrial. - CDR and CBR minimize. - Decline of growth in the West, demographic trap in LICs.

Answer 77

Some countries are stuck in the transition stage where the birth rate exceeds the death rate. 1. Low CDR due to improved life quality. 2. High CBR - when the bulk of the population is rural, need for family labor, too low income to invest in technologies = high CBR. 3. Vicious cycle. - need for labor due to poor life quality —> environmental degradation, poverty, need for family labor, high CBR. 4. High proportion of young living into adulthood due to low CDR = high momentum. - Growth over several generations = stuck in the cycle. 5. Economic output is consumed to sustain a growing population rather than to increase income and reduce the need for children.

Answer 78

1. More viable males than females for biological reasons. - Male to female ratio is higher than 1. 2. Mortality is higher for males than females, assuming equal access to good life quality. - Females have a higher life expectancy. - Male to female ratio is below 1 - more females than males.

Answer 79

Male to female ratio is way higher than the HICs —> more males. 1. Females are neglected in terms of nutrition and health care, they can go missing. 2. Sex detection/selection with ultrasound - selective female abortions. - Funded by the West - fear of population bomb. 3. Women with Hepatitis B have more male children - many LIC females have hepatitis B.

Answer 80

Population control: policies to manage overpopulation. Population boost: HIC have a decline in population, motivations to boost population. - Immigration (working age, people that can contribute to society). - Pro-natalism: boost birth rates (cohesive or financial incentives). - Discouraging, banning abortions. - Baby bonuses. - Taxation policies. - Childcare subsidies to reduce the costs of childbearing.

Answer 81

Would population growth be an issue if we had infinite resources? From the POV of climate change, Canada has the population problem because of its high emissions (6 times higher).

Answer 82

Must focus on natural increases; total fertility. The only way to address population growth is to address the number of children people are having. - Reduce TFR to control CBR. - Problem: reproduction is a personal choice, making it difficult and political difficult to control fertility rates. Solution: governments have to apply more subtle, indirect approaches —> “Later, longer, fewer”.

Answer 83

Trying to get couples and women to start having children as late as possible. - Minimum age of marriage. - Invest in literacy of females - more employed with incomes, it empowers them to make decisions in terms of reproduction —> marry later and have children later. - Provide abortion services, birth control. - Policies need to be put in place that lead to people not needing as many children (investing in health care to reduce IMR, investing in production of infrastructure and resources to reduce the need for labor).

Answer 84

- High cost of procreation, especially for women (financial and physical) —> little influence in terms of decisions. Strong correlation between high TFR and low female literacy. - Lack of female employment and no income —> no decisional influence. - Larger families due to gender inequalities - preference for male children. - Small household is unviable (need for labor), risk diversification. - Incentive to marry early and make large families.

Answer 85

Need to invest in policies to give female employment regardless of literacy levels. - Gives them more power to make decisions. - Increases the cost of procreation for men.

Answer 86

Backlash and resentment, could increase poverty —> need for children. Need for social-economic developments: - Investing in literacy. - Female employment for income and increase their decision making abilities in terms of reproduction and boost their economic independence. - Invest in policies to alleviate poverty and boost economic security. - Making resources more accessible. - Invest in family planning.

Answer 87

1. Maternal system: enhanced female decision making. 2. Public investments in education, public health, libraires for both sexes. 3. Political factors Marxist system (equal distribution of resources). Socioeconomic conditions were changed.

Answer 88

1. Protein intake. 2. Employment in fishery sector. 3. Biodiversity. 4. Better livelihoods and food security, affordable food. 5. Renewable but exhaustible resource (to the point of extinction). —> Major production in aquaculture.

Answer 89

Use of fertilizers and antibiotics. Massive amounts of water waste and pollution. Stress on marine fishing - need 5kg of food to produce 1kg of fish. —> Unsustainable fishing rates have increased overtime.

Answer 90

1. Economic and social costs of over-fishing. - Revenue loss (no more fishes to fish = revenue loss). - Economic and social devastation (fishing and coastal communities that rely on fisheries for their livelihoods and economic well-being for generations are facing unemployment, social disruptions, migration, etc.). - Food security - availability stagnates and prices rise. - Conflict. - Monitoring and enforcement costs. 2. Overfishing reduces stocks, but also degrades marine ecosystems, habitats - marine food webs, predatory-prey relationships. 3. Declining productivity as demand increases.

Answer 91

1. Growing demand. 2. Extractive technologies. 3. Open, unrestricted access (non-excludable and rival) + fleet size and technology. - If the fisherman does not take all the fish, someone else will. 4. Difficult to manage - fish are migrating. 5. Government policies (subsidies to keep fishing low due to economic collapse —> reduced cost of fishing —> inefficient practises remain with exploitative technologies). 6. Vicious cycle : overcapacity (chasing too few fish), depletion and industry collapse, subsidy —> increase in fleet, cycle restarts.

Answer 92

1. Over fishing —> lower value fish —> over fishing. - In order to stay economically viable, fisheries have to fish low economic value fish —> more. 2. Younger, smaller fish —> eating babies. - We fish younger, smaller fish and it affects future productivity. 3. As fisheries collapse, fishermen move to low-income countries with poor enforcement and use advanced extractive technologies. - LICs are desperate for international income. - HIC overfishing LIC water —> less nutrition, destroyed land and increased poverty —> reduced livelihoods.

Answer 93

Pollution: - Population pressures in coastal regions. - Agricultural, municipal runoff (algal blooms). - Acid deposition, persistent toxics, mercury. Climate change: - Temperature rise in the ocean that can affect temperature sensitive species. - Seal level rise and acidification. - River and lake flows.

Answer 94

1. Open access, competition, and technologies contribute to overfishing. 2. Ecosystem, habitat damage, large quantities of low value fish, young fish, bycatch, pollution lead to the depletion of fish. 3. Economic collapse occurs. The government provides subsidies. 4. An overcapacity of fishers. Need to fish harder, bigger catches, lower returns, spread over more fishers. Leads to overfishing.

Answer 95

- Drift-nets: massive nets put in open water to catch as many fish as possible. - Ghost fishing: nets trap fish after being used. - Non-selective gear: nets are not selective, picking up as much as possible and discarding the rest. - By-catch. - Trawlers: scrape ocean floor, by-catch and habitat destruction.

Answer 96

1. There is a pro-social action P, which each individual can take. It has a cost to them, but has a benefit to everyone else. 2. Each individual is worse off if they take the action P, when it is independent of others’ actions. 3. all individuals are better off if everyone take the action P.

Answer 97

Governments are CAPs institutions. The only way to solve the CAP is by imposing a rule, coercing people into doing something —> imposing tax or punishment (taking away freedom). - Playing to a population’s consciousness does not work - telling them to act pro-socially will not work. - Enforcement is costly (people opt out of the enforcement task if possible).

Answer 98

- Cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. - One person makes a choice, it has an effect on someone else.

Answer 99

Sum of one’s own costs/benefits plus all externalities to all others.

Answer 100

Rivalrous: a thing is rivalrous if it cannot be (fully) used or enjoyed by more than one person at once. Non-rivalrous: a thing is non-rivalrous when its use by one person doesn’t diminish the possibility of others to use it. Excludable: a thing is excludable if its properties are conducive to controlling its use. If you can control access to it (building a fence around something, putting something in your pocket, and only one person has access to it). Non-excludable: a thing is non-excludable if it is hard to stop any given person from using or consuming it (e.g. can’t put a fence around the ocean).

Answer 101

The people who are making decisions about use of the goods are generally the people who are capturing all the costs and benefits - CAPs are not likely. A good that could easily be privatized because it is excludable and is sensibly privately owned by an individual because it is rivalrous (e.g. food, clothing, toys, furniture, cars, etc.).

Answer 102

Excludable because their access can be controlled, but multiple people can use them at once. Because they are excludable, we can charge entry fees, but many people can use the good at once. It is natural to share a club good among a group (because it is non-rivalrous), but can feasibly be owned because it is excludable (e.g. cable TV).

Answer 103

Non-excludable, rival. We cannot stop people from getting to them, but we cant have more than one person benefiting from them fully. These goods are rival but cannot be controlled, rationed, or conserved because they are non-excludable (e.g. fishing, hunting, water, etc.).

Answer 104

We all benefit from them and we can all benefit from them simultaneously, but we cannot stop people from doing so (e.g. we all benefit from national defence, good climate, music, etc). A pure public good is one which is free to reproduce or is otherwise non-rival and will always be available to everyone because it is non-excludable.

Answer 105

- Travel costs - House pricing - Wage risk

Answer 106

- Travel costs - House pricing - Wage risk - Replacement cost - Life satisfaction approach

Answer 107

A pigouvian tax is one which is quantitatively calculated to be equivalent to the social cost of the externality . It is not a punishment. (e.g. we pay an enormous cost to look after people with lung cancer, this is the externality from people smoking).

Answer 108

If a tax is punitive, it is confusing whether or not it is good to buy that product (e.g. cigarettes funding daycares).

Answer 109

A policy can be chosen to be more visible (part of your platform) or not visible to hide the effect. Political consideration.

Answer 110

People receive a service/subsidy without paying, but they were going to pay for it anyways (e.g. electric cars for those who already wanted one).

Answer 111

Average length of time that an investment is around, how long will it take to change it? For example, paying people to get rid of an infrastructure in the present or incentive a new alternative for an infrastructure that will break down in the future. Commitment: short-term incentives for elected officials, it is difficult to put in place a long-run policy that cannot be overturned by the next government. Rebound effect: an unintended consequence in environmental policy.

Answer 112

Commitment: short-term incentives for elected officials, it is difficult to put in place a long-run policy that cannot be overturned by the next government.

Answer 113

Rebound effect: an unintended consequence in environmental policy.

Answer 114

- Agriculture accounts for 70% of water withdrawal. - HIC have very low water stress. - Africa has a lot of water that is being drawn (agriculture, drinking) as opposites to its renewable rate. - Significant level of ground water depletion.

Answer 115

1. Reduced tillage for soil conservation. - Better job of soil management and conservation - disturbing the land as little as possible (reduced tillage). 2. Increase multiple cropping. - To increase more food production without increasing crop land, we have to grow as much food as possible from existing crops - crop rotation. - In many parts of the world, we can grow 2-3 crops a year from the same land. 3. Planting grains with leguminous trees to boost soil nutrients, yield, farmer incomes. - Roots fix nitrogen to boost soil nutrients. 4. Improve crop breeding - molecular biology. 5. Adapt to climate change - growing drought resistant crops (sweet potato, barley). 6. Soybean - increased efficiency of conversion of grain to protein (soybean meal). - Adding soybean to cereal for cereal feeding production.

Answer 116

1. Boost water productivity (more “crop per drop”). - Increase the amount of cereals that you can grow per unit crop production. 2. Reduce irrigation water evaporation - consuming less water. 3. Water efficient irrigation - drip irrigation - increases yields, low cost, quick pay-back, labour intensive (no more labor shortage in LICs). 4. Shift to less water intensive crops. 5. Reduce water and energy subsidies. - Provision of subsidies reduces the incentive to invest in water conservation and increases water stress —> vicious cycle of overcapacity and depletion. 6. Local control over water rather than centralized capital intensive water project is - better control over pricing.

Answer 117

1. Africa - low ability to transport and use fertilizer. 2. Water stress is a major barrier to fertilizer use to boost yield. - We need irrigation for fertilizers to work effectively - doesn’t work when water is tressed.

Answer 118

Controlling population growth - in most regions, the fertility is expected to go below replacement rate.

Answer 119

1. In North America, most calories are wasted in consumption - supply-chain is very efficient. 2. A lot of food is lost during the production stage. 3. There is a significant potential of reducing crop loss and food waste for preventing food insecurity.

Answer 120

Agriculture contributes to GHGs. Most GHGs and land intensity is from beef and sheep and goat production. There is a dramatic potential for reducing GHGs by changing diets: 1. Climate change. 2. Land use. 3. Water use. Shifting to other meats of other crops would greatly reduce GHGs - very low contributions from vegetarian diets.

Answer 121

Positive: water use, GHG emissions. Consequences: it is not land use efficient. - You can more efficiently convert cereals to animal protein by using poultry or fish species. - Soil as a source of protein is not efficient because it is characterized by low yields —> a lot of deforestation for cop growth.

Answer 122

1. Evaluate; identify preferred collective outcome. - Making decisions, which path is best? 2. Policy “instruments” to get there - how do we get there?

Answer 123

1. From a cost-benefit POV it is too expensive. - We would be hurting ourselves more than climate change itself and would cause breakdown of civilization —> we would lose the capacity to mitigate. 2. We cannot change infrastructure overnight.

Answer 124

1. There is a more efficient (cheaper) way to get the same emissions: some places can reduce more than 10% per year really easily - some would find it hard. We can cut back with less costs than this plan - it is harder for other to cut back. 2. Very fast transition. Might cause more disruption than the environmental damage would.

Answer 125

The total (summed) discounted (“net-present”) value of all future damage caused by emitting an extra unit (tonne) of GHG today (or in a given year).

Answer 126

Global climate - economy feedback model. This is how we calculate SCC —> we need to infer for a given level of emissions in the future, how much emitting an extra ton today will affect the future climate and how it will affect the future economy (how much will the future suffer?). We add that suffering overtime = the social cost of emitting a ton today —> aggregation problem.

Answer 127

One possible sequence of future emissions (or concentrations) over time, by country. We have to assume an emissions pathway —> we don’t know how much others will mit in the future.

Answer 128

World population: 8 billion. Social cost of you emitting 1 ton of C: 300$. Private cost of you emitting 1 ton of C: 0.000004 cents.

Answer 129

1. Mitigation: practise of avoiding or reducing the emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. - Info (PSA), subsidies, prices, regulations = policy instruments. 2. Adaptation: policies that deal with the fact that there is already enhanced climate forcing/climate change and it has effects on people. —> help mitigate the damage of climate change (e.g. disaster management). 3. Geo engineering: policies that don’t address the initial emissions of GHGs into atmosphere, but they do something else to change the radiative forcing on the planet —> emergency countermeasures that reverse climate change without treating the GHG cause.

Answer 130

Learning vs. Saturation First: they will be built at more favorable sites - good mitigation method. Second: they will benefit from the learning acquired by building the first implementation.

Answer 131

1. Cap and trade. | 2. Carbon tax.

Answer 132

The quantity is fixed. - Government decides on a maximum of GHG emissions for the period. - Firms bringing emissions into the economy bid on permits at an auction (or can buy/sell them). - Reduction of GHG achieved with a minimal cost. - Quantity instrument: the quantity of emissions is fixed by the government.

Answer 133

Gets the hard to change polluters to pay the easier to reduce polluters to reduce more than they would have otherwise. Investment to mitigate lowest hanging fruit —> desired outcome with minium cost.

Answer 134

The price is fixed. - Government decides on a price that should be paid for emission of GHGs. - Firms producing GHGs buy permits at a fixed price - set by government. - Maximum reduction for a given cost (cheapest for those who mitigate, expensive for those who don’t). - Price instrument —> the price is fixed.

Answer 135

1. Coverage. - Difficult to implement system that covers all GHG emissions —> difficulty to measure. 2. Horizon/timeline. - Prices in the future —> confident climate decisions. 3. Revenue (budget) neutrality —> how do we make money if we are paying back households. 4. Handouts and allowances —> how can we reduce emissions if we are giving away permits for free? 5. Offsets. - Way to deal with some part of emissions that are not fully covered by the system —> someone else reduces emissions or in another sector. 6. Commitment. - Signal is not credible if someone can change the legislation.

Answer 136

1. Both succeed in imposing a uniform price on carbon across the whole economy —> many decision-makers are choosing the amount they emit knowing the price. 2. Generate revenue for the government. 3. Require monitoring and enforcement. 4. Don’t need to monitor and observe all emitters —> significant contributors of GHGs.

Answer 137

1. In a cap system the future price is less certain —> no one know for sure what the price will be next year. 2. In a tax system, no one knows what quantity of emissions will be this year —> only price is known. 3. It is easier to hand out permits in caps —> softening initial blow.

Answer 138

If environmental (damage) costs are highly sensitive to the amount of mitigation, a need a QUANTITY CONTROL to limit the suffering. The environmental risks of climate change are uncertain in the long term (damage costs come gradually overtime (climate changes slowly), and what matters environmentally is only the TOTAL emissions over decades. —> it is not our emissions per year that matter, but the total accumulated carbon emissions over time that drive climate change.

Answer 139

If mitigation costs are highly sensitive to the amount of mitigation, we need PRICE CERTAINTY to limit the suffering. The costs of mitigation are uncertain in the short term (we know we can decarbonize if we were to take sufficient time to innovate, etc, but if we impose constraints on production too suddenly, it could cause enormous suffering and even destroy our capacity to keep addressing the problem).

Answer 140

Cap and trade is best: use a quantity control. - Relevant on a time scale of a couple decades —> it is the total aggregate emissions that matter. - Over decades, there is a risk of passing a certain threshold —> if we go too far, it will be difficult to predict future damage. Tax is best: use a price control. - On a shorter time scale, the greatest risk is the speed at which we change things. - The risk is imposing too high of a price on our short term transition. - In the short term, we need a price certainty to make sure we don’t go to those extreme regimes where we destroy ourselves too quickly.

Answer 141

1. Most of the world currently has a tax: the tax is 0. 2. An uncertain policy future is the worst of all. 3. Carbon taxes and caps can co-exist - they can also be blended. 4. We need price certainty in the short term and we need emissions quantity certainty in the long term. 5. International agreements may be no different.

Answer 142

Pass through system: a combination of the producer and the consumer. If prices go up, consumers can chose between the pricey good or an alternative. If companies pay for the carbon price, it comes out of their pocket. If their profits are too small —> economic crash —> they need to find a new alternative.

Answer 143

1. Manufactured: things humans have built. 2. Human: we invest in humans for them to perform better overtime - health and education. 3. Social/organizational: leave a population this. 4. Natural: all things humans did not create —> ecosystem services. 5. Financial. 6. Knowledge.

Answer 144

Running down natural capital is not an option. It is OK to build more human-made capital if we are preserving the level of natural capital we have now.

Answer 145

We can substitute to some degree benefits from one form of capital to another, in particular from natural capital and from human-made capital. Even if natural capital is decreasing overtime, we may still be better off if we are compensating with sufficient forms of production.

Answer 146

Weak: manufactured capital can be substituted for natural capital. - Substitutions between produced and natural capital are possible. - Machines,buildings, roads, knowledge can be traded off with natural capital. - Future generations will thank us for leaving this human-made capital, just as much as they will regret other losses. Strong: manufactured and natural capital are really not substitutes but compliments. - There is something special about natural capital.

Answer 147

1. Does not require being able to measure and aggregate dissimilar elements of nature. 2. Does not require knowledge of natural thresholds, feedback, or risk. 3. May require less quantification of value. 4. Relates to the precautionary principle - there is a risk to running down natural systems, so let’s not run them down at all. 5. Avoids risk of rebound effect. 6. With strong constraints, technology might move faster to the zero impact or sustainable version of technologies.

Answer 148

1. Focuses on human welfare —> avoids injustices/racism. 2. Optimist view of human capabilities (we can overcome technological challenges as we have in the past). 3. More latitude for solving urgent problems, including inequality. - Sometimes we need to run down resources to get to the point where technology is clean and are wealthy enough to have priorities over the environment. - Wealthier countries = less pollution.

Answer 149

Sustainability is about distributional equity - it is about who gets what. It is about sharing well-being between present and future people. Inconsistency for those who are concerned with future people but not about poor people today. Today’s poor want to consume, not invest. Solow proposes an investment rule —> one calculates the fraction of income that is due to nature and consuming and running down the natural capital and one makes sure that one is investing as much in another form of capital —> force one to measure the running down of capital.

Answer 150

Solow claims that investment is knowledge (especially T+S) is as environmentally clean as we know —> it is safe way to pass on wealth to the future and pass on capital. Given the rebound effect, creating new technologies might bring with them new needs —> mining for new elements that were not needed before (for example).

Answer 151

Measured at the individual level by surveys across all countries.

Answer 152

Based on asking concrete questions about emotions. These reflected shorter-term circumstances. The cognitive evolution of life reflects the longer-terms circumstances that people are experiencing.

Answer 153

In recent years, life satisfaction has been globally decreasing - average around humans. Not all countries are experiencing a decrease - if we average around the countries, we find an increase in life satisfaction. Difference: large countries affect the scale.

Answer 154

1. Sustainability: more consumption now might not be good for future welfare. 2. We are putting your future well-being at risk by consuming our resources now, but even today it does not deliver its promise of improved well-being. —> Contradiction between the trend in happiness (flat or decreasing) and the trend of economic growth (buying power of an average person, average income).

Answer 155

1. Group identity drives behaviour. - We behave in certain ways appropriate for that group - we can have different group identities and act differently. 2. Well-being: need for sense of belonging. - We need to feel valued and are contributing towards something. - We can be part of different groups that all bring us benefit. 3. Well being: trust, engagement, giving —> important for life satisfaction.

Answer 156

1. Optimistic case: - Material: modest improvements around the world overall life satisfaction —> strongest in places that already have relatively low satisfaction levels today. - Non-material: enormous improvement in life satisfaction around the world —> policies that build our social connections, trust, etc. In ways which have 0 impact on income or life expectancy —> variables don’t change. 2. Pessimistic case: - Material: governments failed to improve the material circumstances —> countries stil tend to be growing little economically and little improvement in life satisfaction. - Non material: if we fail —> keep income and life expectancy where it is but screw up non-material factors.. Disastrous outcome, global life satisfaction could be near the bottom.

Answer 157

1. Not correctly predicting our own subjective well-being. - We don’t always make the right decisions that would lead us to be happier. 2. Education. - We learn through experience, asking others, appealing to modern data/knowledge —> could be taught in school. 3. Capitalism. - There are aspects about society that might fool us into thinking what is best for us. - Capitalism: a demand for a good or service is met.

Answer 158

Finding the weakened in consumers and exploiting it. This creates needs when there is a profit to be made rather than waiting for a new demand.

Answer 159

1. Being with others, helping others, trusting others, belonging to a group: all improve our loves as much as nearly anything else. 2. Material standards (wealth and affluence) and norms set by others through “conspicuous consumption” affect our standards and expectations. - The degree to which we are satisfied with out own material level of consumption and affreuse is socially constructed.

Answer 160

1. Adaptation to changes. - Adapting to a level of income —> happier when we first achieve a certain level of income. 2. Comparison with peers. - Benefits in relation to standards set by others.

Answer 161

Promoting sustainability is not necessarily good for well-being and vice-versa. The science of well-being gives us a path to paint positive futures in which lives for everyone are steadily improving through policy at the same time as we meet our ecological challenges (restrict our material impacts on the environment). Positive views of the future to address our challenges.

Answer 162

How can we provide for a population that will hit 11 billion while alleviating poverty and massive deprivation without jeopardizing the environment on which our survival depends on. Multiple dimensions problem - food, water, energy, biodiversity, climate change - that will require a multi dimensional response.

Answer 163

Inter-generational equity and intra-generational equity. Concerned about the well-being of future generations while alleviating present poverty.

Answer 164

Lack of food, electricity, safe sanitation, clean water, shelter, cooking facilities in rural areas. Population growth —> need for more labor.

Answer 165

Many GHGs have a long lifespan in the atmosphere —> thousands of years or eternity. We have to consider cumulative emissions and not yearly emissions. GHGs are independent of where they were emitted —> the effects are felt all over the world. Parts of South Asia, East Asia, SSA are disproportionally affected by the effects of climate change compared to us —> where the bulk of the global population is.

Answer 166

The countries of the West have contributed to and benefited the most from GHG emissions —> likely to be least affected by climate change. In terms of financial and technological capabilities, they are most able to cope with the impacts of climate change. LIC and MIC account for 80% of the global population and have contributed the least and benefited the least from GHG emissions. They will be mostly affected by climate change and are less capable of coping with the effects. The West sees climate control action to have significant costs in the here and now in terms of economic opportunities for example. There is no incentive for control on their part, but huge benefits to people in distant elsewhere and future generations.

Answer 167

1. Need to increase consumption in LICs to address their basic needs, but within the context of stabilized global consumption. We need to lower global GHG emissions in a just way —> contraction and convergence. 2. Reduce consumption of industrialized countries (while increase in LIC). - Energy efficient devices make economic sense —> reduces energy consumption. - Supporting pricing mechanisms and subsidies. - Eliminate wasteful and environmentally destructive subsidies (fossil fuels).

Answer 168

Getting different countries and regions of the world to converge a lower level of per capita CO2 emissions —> rapid convergence. Allowing countries with very low capita consumption level in emissions. Contracting —> whole world reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.

Answer 169

1. Impossible to follow the path of HIC. - No affordable access to abundant resources (they are taken). 2. Small increase in consumption are needed to address basic needs. 3. Many things that promote broad-based socio-economic development and societal well-being are not resource intensive (literacy, public education, health, etc.). 4. It is not the resources themselves that we need, but the goods and service that the resources make possible —> only need to improve it slightly to achieve significant improvements. 5. You can achieve high levels of human well-being at low levels of per capita income and GHG emissions (Kerala) —> adresses basic needs, poverty, population control. 6. Leap frogging technologies (clean energy technologies) without waiting for income to grow massively.

Answer 170

1. Focus on economic growth. 2. Let people figure out what’s good for them. 3. People suck. 4. Environment vs. Human welfare. 5. Disaster is coming.

Answer 171

1. Life satisfaction and income. - We should focus on the social context and social relationships of society in thinking for making good lives in the future. 2. Degrowth: we should aim to reduce the size of the economy (for environmental reasons). - Problematic approach.

Answer 172

We should not focus on economic degrowth and pursuing reasonable measure to prevent environmental harm in terms of economic growth. 1. It perpetuates the focus on growth. - It tries to make life counterproductive. 2. Economic growth is not a good proxy for environmental damage. - We know how to implement paired policies (environment and economy). 3. Political non-starter. - Sounds negative (decreasing level of welfare) —> closes ears.

Answer 173

1. We need to stop focusing on information about poor proxies. - There are social aspects in our jobs and lives that are move valuable in term of well-being that we should be putting our attention towards —> stop the focus on the consumption and income components. 2. No matter how smart we get as a society or individuals, we will have simple joys in life. 3. Social and emotional learning can improve life outcomes. - Positive education interventions are low hanging fruit to make lives better.

Answer 174

1. Compassion for what we are facing —> intrinsic CAP. - It is hard to find solutions to CAPs when we can’t enforce it. 2. CAP represents opportunities. 3. Solving CAPs is what we do as a society —> even though it is slow, we are going in the right direction.

Answer 175

In terms of sustainability —> sustainability development goals shift the measures of success from traditional ones to measure that no one is good at in terms of sustainability —> we are all developing.

Answer 176

Disaster is already here.