Academic production AND marketing

For some time, I've held that academics do not contribute to progress because many of them fail to translate their work into the vernacular and make it available. In a recent email-exchange, MV gave me a case-in-point:

Typical for scientists: they do something which might even be relevant, but no one knows about it. Have the same with people working on drought: they write a benchmark book, but tell me about it 3 years later

What's to be done?

Well, I put my talks on my site, so that people can download/listen to them. Here, in fact, are recent talks on

• "How regulators should -- and should not -- price water" (PDF slides and 40 min MP3) from the ERRA's water regulation workshop in Budapest 
• "Tools and methods for mitigating corruption" (PDF slides and 10 min MP3) from the Water Intergrity Forum  in Delft

I also put time into promote my existing ideas and papers, rather than just switching to a new topic and hoping that people will find their way to my popular and academic papers on my website. This paper was just accepted for publication:

Schuerhoff, Marianne, David Zetland and Hans-Peter Weikard (2013). "The life and death of the Dutch groundwater tax" [corrected draft] Water Policy forthcoming.
Abstract: We examine the Dutch national groundwater tax (GWT) --- a "win-win-win green tax" that promised to simultaneously provide revenue to government, reduce the relative burden of other taxes on productive behaviour (e.g., income tax), and improve environmental outcomes. We find that the GWT generated revenue without having a noticeable impact on production incentives or environmental health. Although the GWT is often cited as an example of environmental economics in action, it was neither designed, implemented nor operated in accordance with environmental goals. In many ways, the GWT was just another source of revenue --- and one that bothered special interests. The Dutch government revoked the "inefficient" GWT on December 31 2011.

Buyer beware, part 46

I was unhappy to pay for a seat that I did not need to reserve and very unhappy to be put on a return flight that left before I arrived, but I'm most unhappy about Auto Europe's deceptive pricing on car rentals.

Here's what happened:

1. I booked a rental on their website (pickup: Seville airport), after comparing sites...
   

   

   This is a sample. Ours was $103 (EUR 78)

2. We arrived at 8pm and then found that our rental was 60 percent more expensive due to the 49 EUR "airport pickup charge."
   
   
3. After our holiday, I called AutoEurope (in Oregon!).
   Q: Was there any way to avoid that charge?
   A: No.
   Q: Then why was it not included in the price?
   A: It's included in terms and conditions...
   
   Q: You mean the ones that nobody reads?
   A: Yes. It's in there somewhere...
   
   Q: How do other customer react to those charges?
   A: When they see that they had agreed to them, they pay.

Well, I didn't agree, and I eventually got half my money back.

What bothered me -- and what's bothered regulators who now require that some airlines include ALL charges in the prices they quote -- is that there was no way to avoid this charge. It should have been included in the price, so that I would have been able to compare AutoEurope to other sites on an apples-to-apples basis.

What REALLY bothers me is that I discovered that AutoEurope's site gives different prices and terms to you, depending on where you set your "home country" when viewing their site.

These deceptive business practices may be profitable for AutoEurope, but they rip off customers because there's no clear way of understanding how your charges may vary.

Bottom Line: Boycott and complain when merchants rip you off. Use other businesses that are honest.

Monday funnies

These spammers have some great lines...

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES
Internal Audit, Monitoring,Consulting and Investigations Division

From: Ms.Carman L.Lapointe

Dear Unpaid Beneficiary

This is to inform you that I came to Nigeria yesterday from USA,after series of complains from the FBI and other Security agencies from Asia, Europe,Oceania, Antarctica,South America and the United States of America respectively,against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the British Government for the rate of scam activities going on in these two nations.I have met with President GoodLuck of Nigeria who claimed that he has been trying his best to make sure you receive your fund into your account through their reserve account in USA.

Right now,as directed by our secretary general Mr. Ban Ki-Moon,We are working in collaborations with the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and have decided to waive away all your clearance fees/Charges and authorize the Government of Nigeria to effect the payment of your compensation of an amount of $10.5M approved by both the British/United States government and the UN into your account without any delay.The only fee you are required to pay in other to confirm your fund in your account is COURT NOTARIZATION FEE to the UN.

Sincerely,you are a lucky person because I have just discovered that some top Nigerian's/African's and British Government Officials are interested in your fund and they are working in collaboration with One Mr.Ben S.Bernanke,FAKE FBI and others from USA to frustrate you and thereafter divert your fund into their personal account.

I have a very limited time to stay in Nigeria here so I would like you to urgently respond to this message with your full name, full address,direct phone number so that I can advise you on how best to confirm your fund in your account within the next 72 hours.Contact me immediately on this Cell Phone: +234 [Nigeria] or email me on this [Vietnam]

Sincerely yours,

Ms.Carman L.Lapointe
United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight.

Water managers work for you

...but sometimes they do not remember that fact.

The Rijkswaterstaat (the Dutch ministry in charge of water infrastructure and water management) emphasizes that fact at the same time as it acknowledges staff discretion* with the following:

• Be responsible
• Be independent
• Be reliable
• Be careful

The Rijkswaterstaat also holds an annual "Integrity Day" to keep the message fresh by going over examples of where staff made decisions in compliance with these guidelines (and perhaps in conflict with personal or outside pressures to do otherwise).

---

* In my papers, I have explored how water managers are selfish like us [pdf], how they destroyed sustainability in Southern California, and how bureaucrats (in general) with discretion will serve the public good when they want to.

Flashback: 10--16 Jun 2012

A year later and still worth reading...

My TEDx talk -- I dropped the mike but managed to point out how elites harm consumers (poor, farmers, industry, et al.)

Economies of scale vary (bigger is not always better)

Some ideas from Mike Young -- ten of them, very useful, for improving water management

Thank you Elinor Ostrom for being one the great innovators in institutional economics (i.e., explaining how people have cooperated to manage resources over centuries).

The mathematics of disaster, i.e., why leaders do not prepare but markets would. Related: prices versus regulations and labels

Friday party!

Let's just pretend she's a cat :)

Anything but water

1. "Money will continue to be wasted on research into social and psychological interventions unless the methods used by the researchers are fully reported in academic journals"
   
   
2. The cocaine value chain (99 percent markup from Andean farmer to London user) explains the violence around drug trafficking and failure of the war on drugs.
   
   
3. Issues that couples need to address if they are to be happy.
   
   
4. The US government is putting a higher (shadow) price on carbon emissions for the purposes of writing regulations. It would be far more efficient (cheaper, faster, clearer) if the government would price carbon directly.*
   
   
5. Institutional insights: "The Transition to Market Economies in Central and Eastern Europe"

---

* CAFE standards have improved fuel economy at a VERY high cost (i.e., making SUVs more profitable for some manufacturers, relying on technology where techniques are more efficient, etc.)

Speed blogging

1. This project (==>) to clean up plastic in the ocean needs engineers!
   
   
2. Water Alternatives has a fascinating issue on the culture ("the hidden dynamics") of water managers.
   
   
3. More government screw ups: the ethanol glut and irrigation efficiency subsidies that increase water use -- as noted here and here on this blog years ago. (Here's the solution.)
   
   
4. Subsurface desalination intakes are environmentally and economically better [PDF]
   
   
5. Interested in water management in Asia or Africa? The International Water Management Institute (IWMI)  has hundreds of studies and projects on all dimensions of water. I'd bet that full adaptation of IWMI findings and techniques would end water shortage on both continents.

H/Ts to TG, DL and BS

Time for REAL water markets in California?

Will you bring me water if I put a sign in the desert?

This headline -- "The Tulare Irrigation District will receive zero surface water this year" -- is kinda ironic if you know that Tulare country was mostly underwater a century ago, before prior appropriation, subsidized infrastructure and total corruption turned the area into an income stream and environmental wasteland.

What can Tulare farmers do? I know they will ask for bailouts and extra subsidized surface water (even as they overdraft their groundwater), but they would be a LOT smarter to push for water markets. Why pay for water when you can get it for free? Because water markets are a LOT more reliable than politicians or courts.*

Bottom Line: Nature makes a drought; man makes a shortage.

H/T to RM

---

* ...and markets (or their potential) would force buyers and sellers to clarify surface and groundwater rights that are now abused, overextended and badly tracked. (Why? Because you need to know your rights before you can sell them!)

Speaking of police states

There's an exhibition of World Press Photos in Amsterdam that's accompanied by an exhibit of "Russpress" photos from the past 50 years.

What's interesting is that those photos display the "heroic" and "beautiful" sides of Russian and Soviets, but not the destructive sides that are on display on the other side of the hall (e.g., war in Syria and Iraq, poverty in the US, etc.)

Why are there photos of Brezhnev the humanist, instead of Brezhnev the killer of Czechoslovaks? Why are there photos of valiant Russians in Chechnya, instead of the many extrajudicial killings those soldiers committed? Why do they show the firemen at Beslan instead of the 300+ people killed by a botched security operation? Where, indeed, are the investigative photos behind the apartment building bombings that lifted Putin to power "by accident"?

Well, one reason may be the sponsorship of Russpress by Gazprom, which is basically an arm of the Russian government Putin.

Bottom Line: I love the Russian people, but I'm quite surprised to see real-life agit/prop in these "modern" times.

Why you should care about the NSA spying on you

From this interview:



Not sure of what you can do about all this? I gave $100 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You can too.

---

More thoughts worth reading from Lynne Kiesling (Knowledge Problem), Jim Harper (CATO) Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution), The Economist (read the top comments!) and The Daily Show.

Living in a police state*

Attack innocent students? You get unemployment. Darn.

While there's some argument over the depth of NSA (and other governmental) surveillance of US citizens (and people all over the world), I don't think anyone disagrees that the Deep State has grown more powerful -- and more abusive -- since 9/11. They have used fear, uncertainty and dread (aka, FUD) to push further into our lives, on a paranoid and voyeuristic quest to see all and know all.

Have they brought us security? Not only do I doubt it (e.g., Boston bombings could occur 10x a day if people were angry) but I also think that the overt efforts have weakened security (e.g.., the pathetic incompetence and waste of the TSA, the horrors of a useless war in Afghanistan, and the total disaster of the gratuitous "liberation" of Iraq).

But, wait... isn't this a price worth paying -- a price for security -- for those of us with nothing to hide?

I'd say no; Orwell would say no; Stalin would know no, but here's the reality in a police state:

(1) The purpose of this surveillance from the governmen'ts point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

(2) Let's say (1) goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you.

Keep reading...

I think it's high time that the US "defense" and "security" (oxymorons) complexes be downsized as useless destructive. Will citizens stay bent over or will they side with Ben ("those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither") Franklin?

Bottom Line: Now I have another reason to choose Canada over the US. Pathetic.

---

* NB: I wrote this before Snowden came out as the whistleblower