ADDITIONAL READINGS

Zero Emission Vehicles: A Dirty Little Secret RFF Resources Winter 2001 (pdf file)

Bush Administration policies: Mid-Term 1/15/2003

A survey of the global environment: How many planets The Economist 7/6/2002

Gang green; Our expert panel examines how smart firms today invest in ways to make their plants and products cleaner Time Magazine 1/13/2003

The Copenhagen Consensus

The basic idea was to improve prioritization of the numerous problems the world faces, by gathering some of the world's greatest economists to a meeting where some of the biggest challenges in the world would be assessed. The web page is http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ Below are some background articles published in The Economist.

Economics focus: A modest undertaking Mar 4th 2004 From The Economist print edition Governments have limited resources for addressing the world's economic challenges. What should come first? Introductory article on Copenhagen Consensus

Economics focus: Degrees of difference Apr 29th 2004 From The Economist print edition In the third of a series of articles on the Copenhagen Consensus project, we look at climate change. The cost-benefit analysis does not look good - compared to other global problems - with current proposed policies imposing high short-term costs and benefits that do not show up for 100 years.

Economics focus: The stuff of life May 13th 2004 From The Economist print edition In the fifth of a series of articles on the Copenhagen Consensus project, we look at water and sanitation. These projects look good.

Copenhagen Consensus Putting the world to rights Jun 3rd 2004 | COPENHAGEN From The Economist print edition What would be the best ways to spend additional resources on helping the developing countries? Some answers. A panel of experts responds. Sanitation and Water is rated "good." Three climate projects - including the Kyoto Protocol - are rated "bad." All require sharp reductions in carbon emissions starting soon, reflecting the view of the challenge-paper author, William Cline, that bold action on the problem is warranted, and quickly. The panel, all in agreement, simply refused to buy it. The issue is real, they said, but not so urgent that such massive abatement costs need to be incurred right now. One of the commentaries on Mr Cline's paper, by Robert Mendelsohn of Yale University, proposed starting with a much lower carbon tax than implied by Mr Cline's three variants—at say $2 a tonne (compared with $150 in Mr Cline's “optimal” carbon-tax plan), rising in later years as more information on both the hazards and the technological opportunities became available. The panel thought that was more like it.