The Unassuming Economist

A new paper from the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center finds that:

“This paper identifies key determinants that appear to shape OPEC’s quota strategy and implementation. Using econometric estimations, it examines the factors that seem to most influence members’ adherence to their production commitments in the short term and what drives the organization’s quota decisions and level of compliance in the longer term

Key findings:

• Global oil market indicators such as oil price, global crude oil demand, six-month global demand projections, and the output of non-OPEC producers primarily drive OPEC’s quota decisions. Macroeconomic indicators, such as global gross domestic product growth and inflation, appear to play an insignificant role.

• The sampled OPEC member countries have different drivers of oil production. The output of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Iran is significantly affected by OPEC’s quotas and their reaction to the compliance levels of other OPEC members.

• The national oil production of Algeria, Nigeria and Venezuela appears to be primarily driven by a portfolio of economic, financial and political indices.

• Exogenous shocks impact OPEC quota levels and production. These mostly include country-specific shocks which can be external (e.g., sanctions) or domestic (crises, strikes or military conflicts). The impact of such events, however, is usually alleviated on the OPEC level, indicating the organization’s ability to balance its aggregate supply.”

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“There is a certain kind of environmentalist who seems unable to acknowledge any good news about the environment, because it might create complacency about remaining issues. I’m not a fan of this approach. When successes are denied, credibility diminishes. And if there’s never been an environmental success to celebrate, I’m more likely to be discouraged about the future than energized. In that spirit, here are some figures from an Environment Protection Agency annual report, Our Nation’s Air.”

“This figure shows the decline in what are often called the “criteria” air pollutants. The horizontal line shows the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. At a national level, all of the pollutants are below the dashed line. The percentages in the upper right corner of the figure show the decline in the concentration of each category of air pollution since 1990s.”

From a new working paper by Justin Caron and Thibault Fally:

“This paper investigates the role of income-driven differences in consumption patterns in explaining and projecting energy demand and CO2 emissions. We develop and estimate a general-equilibrium model with non-homothetic preferences across a large set of countries and sectors, and trace embodied energy consumption through intermediate use and trade linkages. Consumption of energy goods is less than proportional to income in rich countries, and more income-elastic in low-income countries. While income effects are weaker for embodied energy, we nd a signicant negative relationship between income elasticity and CO2 intensity across all goods. These income-driven differences in consumption choices can partially explain the observed inverted-U relationship between income and emissions across countries, the so-called environmental Kuznet curve. Relative to standard models with homothetic preferences, simulations suggest that income growth leads to lower emissions in high-income countries and higher emissions in some low-income countries, with only modest reductions in world emissions on aggregate.”

From Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:

“June 2018 was the third-warmest on average across the contiguous forty-eight states since record keeping began in 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Only 1933 and 2016 saw hotter starts to the summer.

Climate scientists project that average global temperatures will rise over the coming decades, which could have a variety of environmental impacts. But what impact would higher temperatures have on the economy? To date, studies of this question have largely focused on developing countries, under the assumption that those countries are more exposed to the effects of higher temperatures. The economy in developing countries is often more reliant on agriculture or other outdoor activities, and those countries have fewer resources to devote to mitigating the effects of heat through technologies such as air conditioning. Indeed, researchers have found that higher temperatures have significant negative effects on the economic growth of developing nations.¹

In the case of developed countries, such as the United States, researchers have focused largely on measuring the impact of warming on outdoor economic activities, such as agriculture.² Since these sectors make up a relatively small share of the U.S. economy, it has generally been assumed that the economic effects of global warming for the United States would be relatively small. As Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Schelling observed in a 1992 article, “Today very little of our gross domestic product is produced outdoors, susceptible to climate.”³

However, research by three authors of this Economic Brief  (Colacito, Hoffmann, and Phan) finds that the consequences of higher temperatures on the U.S. economy may be more widespread than previously thought. By examining changes in temperature by season and across states, they find evidence that rising temperatures could reduce overall growth of U.S. economic output by as much as one-third by 2100.”⁴

 

 

Continue reading here.

From Conversable Economist:

“US emissions of carbon have been falling, while nations in the Asia-Pacific region have already become the main contributors to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These and other conclusions are apparent from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (June 2018), a useful annual compilation of global trends in energy production, consumption, and prices.

Here’s a table from the report on carbon emissions (I clipped out columns showing annual data for the years from 2008-2016). The report is careful to note: “The carbon emissions above reflect only those through consumption of oil, gas and coal for combustion related activities … This does not allow for any carbon that is sequestered, for other sources of carbon emissions, or for emissions of other greenhouse gases. Our data is therefore not comparable to official national emissions data.” But the data does show some central plot-lines in the carbon emissions story.”