Articles by Jason D Scorse

Subsidize this!

In a recent post on the four shifts in public policy that would have the greatest positive impact on the environment, number one was the elimination of natural resource subsidies. Every year, when I cover these subsidies in my environmental economics class, it amazes me that societies around the world continue to tolerate such vast abuses and wastes of money. They do so primarily because most people don't know about them (to educate yourself check here [PDF] and here), which is why I have decided to begin a campaign to lobby for their elimination.

Repeat after me: Humans are part of the environment

The new article on the environmental paradox of biking, which says that the net environmental benefits are zero because bikers live longer and therefore consume more resources, is an example of the absolute worst scholarship. The real environmental insult is that trees are being used and coal burned to print such nonsense.

Humans are part of the environment -- not separate from it -- so anything that benefits human welfare is by definition an environmental improvement!

For too long, environmentalists have created a dichotomy between humans and the environment, and hopefully, with this paper and its absurd conclusions, we can all finally lay it to rest. If not, then stop reducing stress or exercising or eating well because you might actually live longer. In fact, the best thing for the environment, according to this perverse school of thought, is for everyone to kill themselves!

A challenge to all of those enamored with common property ownership

It seems like almost everyone who commented on my piece "The 4 E's for environmental improvement" took issue with point #2 -- that we establish property rights for all resources that are open access. (While I stand by this point, please also take some time to digest the other 3.)

The “Four E’s” of environmental improvement

I recently attended a conference on common property resources where the majority of participants were skeptical, if not downright antagonistic, to free market principles.

During one lengthy exchange in which I challenged the presenters to provide clear evidence that common property ownership led to superior environmental and social outcomes than private ownership, the moderator turned to me and asked what recommendations I, as an economist, had for improving the environment.

It was an interesting moment, because the participants had by now realized that I was somewhat of an anomaly at the conference (since I do believe in free market principles) and they were genuinely curious as to what I considered solutions to environmental problems.