This reinforces a general point: climate change seems to be, as much as anything, a story of inequality, both within and across countries. (5/5)
25.02.2026 21:31
👍 4
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
This reinforces a general point: climate change seems to be, as much as anything, a story of inequality, both within and across countries. (5/5)
However, the worst impacts are expected in poorer hotter places (rdanielbressler.com/s/JMP.pdf) where a large share of workers are in ag/manual work. I am worried they will struggle to adapt, especially when they have less ability to make investments to protect workers. (4/5)
In high/middle income countries, historical trends have reduced manual/ag work. Our results suggest this is good news. These places also have the resources to invest in worker protection. But this is not automatic, and climate change itself could alter these trends. (3/5)
This study is in Mexico, which has super rich data that allows us to address these kinds of questions.
One of the key things I take away: if similar results hold in other countries, I think this has important implications for the future impact of climate change. (2/5)
🚨New paper alert!🚨
I continue to be surprised by how much heat and cold impact different groups in society differently.
We find heat deaths are way more concentrated among young manual/agricultural workers, while cold deaths are more concentrated among older non-workers. (1/5)
A screenshot of the first page of the linked published article from the Journal of Public Economics.
Was your train delayed or cancelled this weekend? Mine was. Do you crave research that speaks to this particular experience? Look no further. In a new paper,
@xinmingdu.bsky.social and I quantify how much rail safety and operations are affected by the weather.
The best, clearest article I've read yet on recent regulatory changes. The crucial bigger picture, that I agree has been overlooked, is that the health benefits from regulations are no longer being quantified.
Lives are being valued at zero de facto because they are being ignored.
Call for papers:
HISTORY OF CLIMATE ECONOMICS
Details at:
journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/19...
Editors of the Special Issue
Christophe Cassen (CNRS, CIRED Paris)
Béatrice Cointe (CNRS, CSI Paris)
Antoine Missemer (CNRS, CIRED Paris)
Deadline for abstracts : January 15th, 2026
They provide some qualitative discussion of the health impacts of NO_x and SO_2, but they spend similar amounts of words criticizing past RIAs for providing false precision as they do actually qualitatively discussing the health impacts.
Yep one could reasonably do that. The analytical difference between this and what the Admin is now doing is that the Admin is not providing any estimates of impacts on premature deaths at all.
...But that would mean that they would be providing estimates of premature mortality that they would then be choosing not to monetize, which seems to be a worse look than just criticizing the past approaches and then subtly assuming a point estimate of exactly 0.
...If they were serious about addressing this point about false precision, they would show confidence intervals for premature mortality impacts and could show how the impact on premature deaths varies across multiple lines of evidence...
...They use the benefits section (4) to criticize past RIAs for using uncertain point estimates for providing a false sense of precision, but then their response seems to be not providing any estimate at all, thus implicitly assuming a point estimate of 0...
Digging into the new RIA under this guidance www.epa.gov/system/files... the bigger issue to me seems to be that they are not providing any estimate for the changes in premature deaths caused by the policy...
I love that the justification for assigning zero quantitative value to health benefits is that they're uncertain. Because there's obviously no uncertainty on the compliance-cost side of the ledger. No need to worry about "false precision" there. www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/c...
Apparently this marks the end of a 13 year blogging hiatus. www.paulkelleher.net/blog/2025/12... @madisoncondon.bsky.social @alybatt.bsky.social
@lissaharris.bsky.social @lpeblog.bsky.social
This is a fascinating paper. It's the first (afaik) to actually document food&drink&retail scheduling unpredictability using actual firm data.
It illustrates v clearly why unpredictable scheduling makes these jobs so difficult:
Hi! I’m Mary and I’m on the #EconJobMarket this year.
Extreme heat doesn’t just affect students, it affects the people teaching them.
JMP 🧵:
Analysis based on work by @rdbressler.bsky.social on the mortality consequences of climate change, including our co-authored paper on country-level climate damages
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Here's a few things I learned digging into electricity affordability and decarbonization in Connecticut 🧵
Really well-done article by @fastlerner.bsky.social that estimated temperature-related mortality impacts from recent climate rollbacks, drawing in part on my 2021 Nature Comms paper and my job market paper (bsky.app/profile/rdbr...). Check it out!
Should the carbon price be the same across countries and sectors?
Four kinds of imperfections call for differentiated carbon prices:
1. Different growth rates
2. Market power in trade
3. The presence of country- or sector-specific distorsive taxes
4. A constraint preventing cross-country transfers
A lot of Americans like to blame the Reagan Administration for the rise of market power and oligopoly in the US. But markups have been rising globally (except in South America) since 1980. Seems likely that other causes were at play:
drive.google.com/file/d/1W7A9...
We build on the small literature on this topic, e.g., the pioneering work of John Broome www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1... wwnorton.com/books/climat... to discuss where population ethics issues will show up in benefit-cost analysis, and to explore what analysts might do to address them.
The paper doesn't have all the answers. Our goal is to identify and discuss major issues in this new frontier of regulatory benefit-cost analysis.
We show that, as benefit-cost analysis is increasingly used to assess phenomena that impact life and death many years in the future, such as climate change, making choices around how to deal with critical population ethics issues becomes unavoidable.
Population ethics poses a number of difficult questions that have been largely ignored in the practice of regulatory benefit-cost analysis.
🚨New Paper🚨
Valuing statistical absences? Why benefit-cost analysis cannot avoid population ethics"
My new paper with regulatory legal scholar extraordinaire Andy Stawasz is out in Ecological Economics!
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
We had an all-star group of job market candidates this year and an all-star job market coordinator @rmetcalfe.bsky.social . Great set of placements in a really tough year. Proud to be a part of this group!
"The uncertainty that is baked into this crisis is all the more reason to take urgent and decisive action to address it."