{"id":2394,"date":"2022-04-20T14:50:59","date_gmt":"2022-04-20T18:50:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/?p=2394"},"modified":"2022-04-20T14:51:02","modified_gmt":"2022-04-20T18:51:02","slug":"the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Travis Kniffin, JD Anticipated May 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February of last year, The Royal Society<\/a> \u2013 a London-based organization which describes itself as \u201ca [f]ellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists\u201d and \u201cthe oldest scientific academy in continuous existence \u2013 held a virtual event<\/a> titled \u201cThe Economics of Biodiversity.\u201d After a brief introduction, Prince Charles appeared via Zoom. In his remarks, the Prince called for \u201cthe restoration of our degraded natural systems.\u201d The imperative to restore nature, he warned, is \u201cnot only vital for reasons of ethics and common sense, but also economics.\u201d And as the Prince continued, he didn\u2019t just make the case that restoring nature was vital to economic well-being. He also likened our natural assets to financial ones: \u201cJust as diversity within a portfolio of financial assets reduces risk and uncertainty, diversity in ecosystems, in species, and in genes \u2013 in other words, biodiversity<\/em> \u2013 directly and indirectly increases nature\u2019s resilience to shocks.\u201d He declared that \u201c[n]ow\u2026is surely the moment when we must see the world as it truly is.\u201d Then, taking his point past a mere analogy, the Prince stated<\/a> that it was high time we \u201cfind the means to ensure that economy and ecology are viewed as one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Prince may not have known it, but he has the experts on his side. The way in which economists, bureaucrats and legal thinkers conceive of policies to regulate our air, water, and soil has long been grounded in prices.<\/a> But these regulatory approaches are only as useful as their ability to properly \u2018price\u2019 the things they seek to regulate. And it\u2019s particularly difficult to put a price on the inherent uncertainty that comes with forecasting the severity of future harms to the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cost-Benefit Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The predominant way of using price to determine policy is called cost-benefit analysis<\/a> (CBA). In 1981, the Reagan administration mandated<\/a> that federal rulemaking \u2013 and therefore much of environmental rulemaking \u2013 use CBA to analyze policy. CBA has many virtues. It allows environmentalists and economists to speak a common language, and it does this by translating environmental problems into straightforward quantitative comparisons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To assess potential environmental regulation, policymakers and regulators use CBA to express the benefits of the regulation in economic terms. In this analysis<\/a>, the costs of mitigating a given risk are weighed against the damage that would be done in the absence of regulation. Thus, the cost of avoiding such damage equates, in turn, to the \u2018benefit\u2019 of some aspect of a healthy and viable environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first blush, CBA seems like an eminently reasonable way to plan and calibrate our response to future environmental harm. In order to weigh costs and benefits against one another, CBA expresses all values in a dollar amount \u2013 and thus CBA allows the direct quantitative comparison of competing cost and benefit values. Although the premise is intuitive, CBA comes out of a particular ideological context. And the story behind this line of thinking starts with the discipline of welfare economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Welfare economics is motivated by a noble goal: it aims to maximize the aggregate well-being of all members of a given population. But as Professor Amy Sinden notes<\/a>, the task of \u201c[m]easuring aggregate \u2018welfare\u2019 has always been problematic,\u201d and it\u2019s little wonder that even the discipline\u2019s early practitioners were skeptical that well-being could be accurately measured from one person to the next. However, welfare economics soon found a clearer articulation in something called the Pareto Principle, named for the Italian economist who devised it. Sinden describes<\/a> \u00a0how in Pareto\u2019s formulation, a \u201cPareto Improvement\u201d is an action that improves the lot of a single person, while leaving others untroubled. As these \u201cimprovements\u201d play out in voluntary transactions between people, the thinking goes, society will eventually reach a state in which no further improvement is possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, welfare economists also recognize<\/a> that population-wide improvement doesn\u2019t play out according to Pareto\u2019s thinking \u2013 that social actors in the real world will fail to achieve \u201cPareto efficiency.\u201d In light of this issue, welfare economists concede that the state will sometimes need to intervene. But these same economists maintain<\/a> that \u201cwhen [the] government does step in, it should calibrate its regulation to mimic the economically efficient outcome that a perfectly functioning market would have produced.\u201d And in order to most accurately mimic that outcome, economists use CBA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core advantage of CBA is that it reduces the analysis of competing values to a direct numerical comparison. And in these comparisons, regulation of an environmental harm is justified if the dollar cost of that regulation is lower than the dollar costs that would result from the harm. Of course, as the level of regulation \u2013 its \u2018stringency\u2019 \u2013 increases, its costs increase as well. At a certain point, additional stringency yields<\/a> greater costs than benefits. As a result, the quality of CBA depends a great deal on how much certainty is fed into it. When risks are well understood, CBA is a powerful and effective tool. But when there is uncertainty about just how bad a potential future harm could be, CBA begins to fall apart. And unfortunately, the risks we\u2019re least certain of also happen to involve<\/a> the most catastrophic potential harms of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A useful way to understand this phenomenon is called the \u201cfat tail\u201d of risk<\/a>. Many people are familiar with the bell curve, which represents a distribution of outcomes visually, in histogram form. In bell curve representations, the most likely outcomes are clustered in the middle, giving the curve its familiar shape. But as it happens, the usual bell curve distribution produced by CBA isn\u2019t suited to describing the risks from climate change. Instead, as climatologist Michael Mann contends<\/a>, the right way to think about climate risks might be familiar to anyone who\u2019s purchased automobile or home insurance. As he puts it<\/a>, \u201cwe don\u2019t purchase fire insurance on our homes because our homes are likely to burn down.\u201d Of course, we know that a residential fire is unlikely. But \u201cif it did <\/em>happen, it would be catastrophic<\/a>.\u201d As obvious as Mann\u2019s observation seems, CBA does not lead us to it. A CBA approach would probably fail to account for threat posed by an unlikely \u2014 but disastrous \u2014 house fire. This is partly because CBA, with its basis in welfare economics, implicitly underweights remote-yet-catastrophic possibilities \u2014 and thus lessens the anticipated impact of things like the \u201cfat tail.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another irksome characteristic of CBA is something it inherited from welfare economics: the assumption of an ever-expanding economy. Douglas Kysar has observed how the assumption of a continually expanding economy means that climate change CBA models project \u201cthat<\/a> global GDP can continue to pour forth even after all presently inhabited land on earth has been rendered unsuitable for human existence.\u201d \u00a0Therefore, a policymaker using CBA to predict the worst-case effects of an environmental harm is bound to conclude that any foreseeable catastrophes won\u2019t be especially catastrophic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Social Cost of Carbon<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since CBA is only as good as its inputs, there is much at stake in calculating the harm, in dollar terms, that each additional ton of carbon wreaks on the atmosphere. The name of this measure, an input into climate change CBA, is the Social Cost of Carbon<\/a> (SCC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael A. Livermore and Richard L. Revesz have told the origin story<\/a> of this effort. In a 2008 federal case called Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA<\/em>, nearly a dozen states brought suit against National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because it failed to account for the ill effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its fuel economy standards. For its part, NHTSA argued that accounting for the effects of GHGs involved too much uncertainty. The Ninth Circuit, however, found the agency\u2019s approach untenable. Even if the precise effects of GHGs are difficult to quantify, the court reasoned, reducing the amount of GHGs emitted clearly has some value, rather than none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From there, the Obama administration charged several government agencies \u2013 which together formed the Interagency Working Group (IWG) \u2013 with the task of determining the SCC. In turn, the IWG based its findings<\/a> on \u201cthe three most widely cited, peer-reviewed models that link the physical impacts of carbon dioxide emissions to economic damages.\u201d The models worked by first translating emissions GHGs into levels of atmospheric carbon, and then translating those levels into projected changes in average global temperature. Finally, the projected changes were converted into dollar amounts of economic damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IWG\u2019s source models had a problem, though. In their article<\/a> “The Social Cost of Carbon,” Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton call out the problem, by way of a question: \u201cWhat importance should be given to, for instance, the loss of endangered species, unique habitats and environments, and human lives and communities?\u201d As it happens, the IWG\u2019s models shrank from the task. The model-makers chose to exclude these considerations. To be sure, placing a dollar value on them is a thorny proposition. Indeed, this possibility is probably not lost on economists. In a rather famous episode, economist and former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers released a memo in which he argued for the virtues of exporting rich countries\u2019 pollution to poorer countries. The thinking, described<\/a> in Harvard Magazine, was straightforward enough: \u201cunderpopulated\u201d African nations are vastly \u201cunderpolluted.\u201d So in Summers\u2019s formulation, \u201cdumping toxic wastes there\u201d made perfect economic sense. Summers (who claims that the memo was partially fabricated and improperly credited to him) was rightly excoriated for that vile thesis. But when it comes to climate change, the failure to assign an approximate dollar value on the loss of priceless assets such as endangered species makes CBA untenable. As Ackerman and Stanton see it, excluding these risks from the CBA equation is tantamount to suggesting that<\/a> they \u201chave no value at all.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is more, Ackerman and Stanton also describe how the IWG\u2019s models tended<\/a> to give little weight to the cost of saddling future generations with the runaway warming of our planet. This is because when considering the impact of economic damage in the future, the models applied what\u2019s called a \u2018discount rate.\u2019 Since modelers need to aggregate the cost of damages in the near term along with those in the more distant future, they choose to underweight future damage relative to near-term damage \u2013 and the discount rate refers to this practice of underweighting future damages. But as the authors point out, the trade-off<\/a> is that \u201c[t]he higher the \u2018discount rate\u2019 that is chosen, the less future costs are valued in present-day terms.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Repeating NHTSA\u2019s Mistake<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As noted above, Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA<\/em> helped to set in motion the effort to find the SCC. NHTSA, the court said<\/a>, \u201ccannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits\u201d of avoiding additional GHG emissions. Thus the court found that NHTSA\u2019s contention \u2013 that uncertainty precluded them from factoring in the cost of carbon \u2013 was untenable<\/a>. And despite the scale and ambition of the effort to find the SCC, the IWG repeated NHTSA\u2019s mistake. By choosing to not specifically quantify the toll of harms which are ethically difficult to price, and choosing to heavily discount the cost of catastrophe in the far future, the IWG showed that it was unwilling to deal with uncertainty head-on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all their efforts, the IWG (and the models it drew upon) ultimately repeated NHTSA\u2019s mistake. The IWG failed to \u2018price in\u2019 the unknown. And at the same time, their long and comprehensive process lent legitimacy to an SCC that merely formalized NHTSA\u2019s error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the Trump administration abandoned the IWG. But on the day of his inauguration, President Biden reestablished the group through Executive Order 13990. With this executive action, the administration seeks to revise federal policymakers\u2019 approach<\/a> to the SCC, \u201cto the extent that current methodologies do not adequately take account of climate risk, environmental justice, and intergenerational equity.\u201d To that end, the IWG has indicated that the new SCC will include adjustments to the discount rate based upon \u201cintergenerational ethical considerations.\u201d It has also acknowledged the need to \u201caccount for global damages,\u201d by recognizing \u201cthe diverse ways in which U.S. interests, businesses, and residents may be impacted by climate change beyond U.S. borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the IWG\u2019s new focus is likely to drive down the discount rate and yield a model that is more data-rich, we ought to remain skeptical. Still grounded in CBA and saddled with the limitations it\u2019s bound to inherit from IGW\u2019s previous SCC effort, the new model will struggle to overcome the in-built assumption of an ever-expanding economy, and a general aversion to ethically troubling price estimates and dealing head-on with uncertainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, let\u2019s return to Prince Charles\u2019s declaration that we ought to treat economy and ecology \u201cas one.\u201d It\u2019s a broad directive, and CBA and SCC are hardly the only ways to represent the environment in economic terms. But the example of CBA and SCC should caution us. Policymakers implement these approaches to make hard-to-describe factors more quantifiable and tangible. Rather than making the impacts of potential harms more concrete, CBA and SCC tend to leave us where we started: hindered by uncertainty. In formulating approaches that put prices on the virtues and drawbacks of measures to combat climate change, policymakers would be wise to avoiding reproducing the dilemmas that their new approaches are designed to address.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Travis Kniffin, JD Anticipated May 2023 In February of last year, The Royal Society \u2013 a London-based organization which describes itself as \u201ca [f]ellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists\u201d and \u201cthe oldest scientific academy in continuous existence \u2013 held a virtual event titled \u201cThe Economics of Biodiversity.\u201d After a brief introduction, Prince Charles appeared via Zoom. In his remarks, the Prince called for \u201cthe restoration of our degraded natural systems.\u201d The imperative to restore nature, he warned, is \u201cnot … <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[67],"class_list":["post-2394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog","infinite-scroll-item","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"yoast_head":"\r\nThe Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Travis Kniffin, JD Anticipated May 2023 In February of last year, The Royal Society \u2013 a London-based organization which describes itself as \u201ca [f]ellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists\u201d and \u201cthe oldest scientific academy in continuous existence \u2013 held a virtual event titled \u201cThe Economics of Biodiversity.\u201d After a brief introduction, Prince Charles appeared via Zoom. In his remarks, the Prince called for \u201cthe restoration of our degraded natural systems.\u201d The imperative to restore nature, he warned, is \u201cnot ... Read More\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Law & Public Policy Program\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Beckie Schatschneider\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Beckie Schatschneider\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d\"},\"headline\":\"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2248,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\",\"name\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\",\"description\":\"Temple University Beasley School of Law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/lppptest.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/lppptest.png\",\"width\":1835,\"height\":496,\"caption\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d\",\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/author\\\/rschatsc\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program","og_description":"Travis Kniffin, JD Anticipated May 2023 In February of last year, The Royal Society \u2013 a London-based organization which describes itself as \u201ca [f]ellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists\u201d and \u201cthe oldest scientific academy in continuous existence \u2013 held a virtual event titled \u201cThe Economics of Biodiversity.\u201d After a brief introduction, Prince Charles appeared via Zoom. In his remarks, the Prince called for \u201cthe restoration of our degraded natural systems.\u201d The imperative to restore nature, he warned, is \u201cnot ... Read More","og_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/","og_site_name":"Law & Public Policy Program","article_published_time":"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00","author":"Beckie Schatschneider","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Beckie Schatschneider","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/"},"author":{"name":"Beckie Schatschneider","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/person\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d"},"headline":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d","datePublished":"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/"},"wordCount":2248,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Blog"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/","name":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d - Law & Public Policy Program","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-04-20T18:50:59+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-20T18:51:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/the-problem-with-prices-when-economy-and-ecology-are-viewed-as-one\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Problem With Prices When \u201cEconomy And Ecology Are Viewed As One\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/","name":"Law & Public Policy Program","description":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization","name":"Law & Public Policy Program","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/lppptest.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/lppptest.png","width":1835,"height":496,"caption":"Law & Public Policy Program"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/person\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d","name":"Beckie Schatschneider","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/author\/rschatsc\/"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paQyul-CC","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2394"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2395,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2394\/revisions\/2395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2394"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}