US

Ethanol

Question A:

Ethanol content requirements and protectionism against imported ethanol (which includes fuel from sugarcane) raise food prices without significantly reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question B:

A direct disincentive to emit carbon-dioxide, for example through a carbon tax or an emissions permit market, is more efficient than requiring the use of corn-based ethanol fuels.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Alesina
Alberto Alesina
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
Clearly some link between ethanol production and corn prices, but magnitude not clear.
-see background information here
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
The first part is certainly true.
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
This sounds right, although it relies a bit on some knowledge of the chemistry involved, so I am not completely confident.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
I assume there is some reduction in emissions, but I don't know how much.
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Goldin
Claudia Goldin
Harvard
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
best evidence is that cost per ton of CO2 abated is very high.
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Strongly Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Lazear
Edward Lazear
Stanford
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
At white house we found that 30% of increases in corn prices, 10% of grain, 2% of food caused by ethanol and biodiesel for 2007-08.
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
At least some price increase to be expected if policy increases demand for corn. CBO study (link below) provides estimates.
-see background information here
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
US provisions expired at the end of 2011, but correct up to then. Best estimates are that these were GHG neutral.
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
I'm on the board of publily traded Cosan Ltd. It controls 50% of the world's largest sugar & ethanol producer. This didn't affect my answer
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Shin
Hyun Song Shin
Princeton
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
The first half of the statement is surely true. I have no idea whether emissions are significantly reduced so can't answer the question.
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
The first half is quite certain, but the net effect on carbon is quite complex, with offsetting effects.
Zingales
Luigi Zingales
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Alesina
Alberto Alesina
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Yes, but most emissions permit schemes do not cover non-stationary sources.
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
It would be pure coincidence if forced substitution of one input for another is efficient. A permit market can give the correct tradeoff.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Directly taxing pollutants is better than indirect approaches if pollutants can be adequately monitored.
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Strongly Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Goldin
Claudia Goldin
Harvard
Strongly Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
if for goal of reducing carbon emmissions then yes, that statement is true. For other goals, uncertain.
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Strongly Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
Lazear
Edward Lazear
Stanford
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Standard efficiency argument, but the calclulatiions show large taxes would be required to have any effect. Elasticies are low.
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Mountain of evidence here. See 2010 RfF study.
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
One of the true no-brainers.
Shin
Hyun Song Shin
Princeton
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Of course we should have a carbon tax or the equivalent. Taxes with negative dead weight loss are good things!
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Zingales
Luigi Zingales
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History