« The costs and benefits of long-distance relationships | Main | Why is competition between health insurance companies useful? »
Please do your calculations in the margins
Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I'm thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.
That is from Arnold Kling. And if you believe in a zero or very low discount rate, don't forget to count all those puppies too.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
1) Spencer's comment at Kling's blog is a good start. SUVs cost more to buy and maintain, hence they use more resources. This assumes the price reflects the underlying costs, as it should in a perfect market.
2) More to the point, if all prices reflected true costs (including externalities), then there would be no need for environmentalists to shame SUV owners or other polluters. The extra resource cost of an SUV would, on the margin, equal the extra benefit an SUV creates for the buyer. However, if there are significant externalities (as there likely are for gas), then the "shame" system and/or the "regulation" system need to kick in to supplement the imperfect market.
The key question is whether, on the margin, there are external costs BEYOND those taken into account by the buyer, for SUVs vs. dogs.
Posted by: A student of economics at Feb 11, 2008 1:01:58 PM
My dog presumably values his life a lot more than an SUV values its existence. (This is in reference to Tyler's recent comment that the unborn's valuation of their lives should be taken into account in any welfare calculations.)
My dog creates plenty of negative externalities (barking, excreting, etc.) but also many positive externalities. Walking a cute dog in a big city I am constantly stopped by people who want to pet him and walk away smiling. He facilitates interaction between strangers, which is important for neighborliness and very rare in crowded cities. In contrast, I rarely see people who stop and touch an SUV, smile at the owner and walk away happier.
-- Dog lover.
Posted by: at Feb 11, 2008 1:30:45 PM
without any numbers to back up his assertion, it appears that king is either trolling or making some stupid satire.
Posted by: a person at Feb 11, 2008 1:31:31 PM
typo: that should be kling, not king.
Posted by: a person at Feb 11, 2008 1:32:41 PM
A substitute for an SUV is a fuel-efficient, smaller car
A substitute for a not-publicly-littering pet dog is a cat (?), a tank of goldfish(?), a child(?), or a loyal human companion (?)
The true cost on the margin should be calculated based on the cost of substitution.
Posted by: Yan Li at Feb 11, 2008 1:33:16 PM
1) I think the cost question isn't quite as simple as calculating the total cost of dog vs suv, but rather the marginal cost of ownership of an suv as compared to a car. Compare that to the cost of a dog, and your answer isn't quite so clear. My colleague down the hall just spent $1600 on surgery for the family dog.
2) I think Arnold's point is to raise the question of what causes the environmentalist's shame system, as the first commenter aptly puts it. In the model implicitly presented by the first commenter, the shame system is a second-best optimal response to substantial externalities and mispriced resources. Arnold's model is one in which the shame system is knee-jerk anti-industrialism. Which model is closer to the truth? Don't know, but it's not obvious -- and maybe that's something important.
Posted by: Don at Feb 11, 2008 1:41:12 PM
Is this a marginal or absolute comparison? Is this owning an SUV vs. owning a Prius (and hence owning a dog versus owning a cat) or vs. not having one at all? Since the car is an SUV do we have to assume the dog is a German Shepherd, rather than Sheltie?
As implied by Spencer's comment, Kling's claim seems unlikely based purely on cost. Is Kling considering the impacts of "producing" either a dog or SUV, or the toll from disposal?
Count me skeptical.
Posted by: Daniel Hall at Feb 11, 2008 1:41:52 PM
Im so confused, what is a perfect market again? LOL.
Posted by: john pertz at Feb 11, 2008 1:43:10 PM
What if the dog is a small dog; 5 pounds small. Like a Yorkie?
Posted by: chug at Feb 11, 2008 2:01:17 PM
I'm not sure whether the externalities (as opposed to internalized costs) vary that much with a dog's size. This seems to be different for cars.
Posted by: at Feb 11, 2008 2:37:29 PM
I don't like dogs and I'm highly skeptical of environmentalism, and still I find this claim ridiculous.
As economics student points out, to compare the internalized costs one need only compare the market prices. Certainly dogs have externalities, but (even if SUVs had no externalities) it's hard to imagine how the dog's externalities could possibly be large enough to make up for difference in price. If every dog imposed $40K of costs on the neighborhood, I'm fairly sure that teams of neighborhood vigilantees would be regularly taking out dogs.
Most Americans who aquire a dog as a pet have it spayed or neutered, which makes the puppies line of argument hard to maintain.
Posted by: David Wright at Feb 11, 2008 2:46:16 PM
Theoretically, you don't have to feed a dog dog food. You do have to feed an SUV gas.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Feb 11, 2008 2:52:55 PM
quick googling results ==
in 2004 the dog food industry output was $34.4 billion according to the national association of dog food manufacturers.
each year Americans consume about 120 billion gallons of gasoline.
If that is at $3.00 a gallon it gives a cost of $360 billion or over ten times the size of the dog food market.
Anyone want to look up the number of auto mechanics compared to the number of vets, etc.?
Posted by: spencer at Feb 11, 2008 3:06:39 PM
Absent regulation or other exogenous factors, the price mechanism does not do a very good job of taking into account *environmental* costs. If it did, fossil fuels would likely be the most environmentally friendly fuels society could use. This is basically the sole reason that industry is typically sluggish (especially in past decades) to adopt more environmentally friendly processes: it costs more to adopt (and sometimes maintain) new technology that is cleaner than what a firm has been using. If the cleaner fuels were cheaper to begin with, they would have been used from the start (assuming perfect substitutability).
That said, I have no idea whether an SUV or a canine would generate more social costs. I think the most important variable would be the resources used and emissions created in the process of creating dog food.
Posted by: jn at Feb 11, 2008 3:37:25 PM
I have three dogs and I find this claim difficult to believe, but there are certainly things you can do to lessen your dogs environmental impact. Are they spayed or neutered? What type of food do you feed them? Is it organic? Is it vegetarian? Where is it manufactured? Where do you buy it? What do you do with their waste? Leave it, trash it, compost it, pay someone to pick it up? Plastic bags or biodegradable bags? Do you keep your home heated to keep them warm when you're gone? Do you take extra car trips to run them to doggie daycare? Do dress them in outfits? It's not really as cut and dry as it is with an SUV.
Cats are mentioned as being better on the environment on Kling's posting, but cats also have a whole host of environmental considerations around them. Many cat litters require strip mining. There are issues around toxoplasmosis getting in the water stream and harming wild animals. And the effect that outdoor cats have on birds is a huge source of contention.
Posted by: Jen (SLC) at Feb 11, 2008 4:08:19 PM
Spencer,
To compare the two you'd have to look at what the difference in gas consumption would be if no-SUVS were used. Its the difference between the two which would determine the effect of SUVS, unless you think people would quit driving altogether if they couldnt drive their hummer...
Posted by: A Good Man at Feb 11, 2008 4:14:22 PM
How can you take seriously someone who thinks that if you're "for" clean air, soil, water, and food, you're anti-industry?
Posted by: Old Tomorrow at Feb 11, 2008 4:35:38 PM
spencer,
I think your $34.4 billion is total expenditures on pets, including vet care, etc. See here.
Food expenditures were $16.8 billion, including dogs and cats. As for environmental impact, let's remember that much of what goes into pet food, such as various animal organs and so on, would otherwise be waste product from production of human food, so the marginal environmental effect is not so big. Of course it has to be hauled around, but the impact of that extar transportation can't come anywhere near the impact SUV's have compared with smaller vehicles.
I think Kling stepped in some dog externality.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 11, 2008 5:31:49 PM
The externality of neighbors letting their dogs do there business on my lawn is certainly greater that $360 Billion a year.
Posted by: asiequana at Feb 11, 2008 6:03:59 PM
The externality of neighbors letting their dogs do there business on my lawn is certainly greater that $360 Billion a year.
You mean you wouldn't give permission in exchange for $359 billion?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 11, 2008 6:12:53 PM
I view the thought experiment as either "ban SUVs" or "ban dogs as pets," with both laws being adequately enforced. *Some* pet dogs are the ones having puppies. At a Stern-like discount rate I think Kling is right. There's lot of invective against him, and a variety of asymmetric assumptions ("spay your dog!" but not "don't drive your SUV!"), but no real answer to his challenge.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 11, 2008 6:18:25 PM
no real answer to his challenge.
Huh? What challenge?
Kling makes a blind assertion and those who find it dubious are supposed to either dig around and come up with an analysis to disprove it or accept it? That's ridiculous. Kling offers nothing but conjecture. When he supports his argument it will be worth making an effort to refute it. Until then the answer, "that's absurd," is just as good, maybe better, than his "challenge."
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 11, 2008 6:26:48 PM
"Huh? What challenge?"
Seconded. All there was a blind assertion, with no evidence provided whatsoever.
"spay your dog!" but not "don't drive your SUV!"
How are these at all functionally equivalent? Are you suggesting that a spayed dog loses all of its usefulness to the family? If so, Bob Barker would like to have a word with you.
Posted by: Mike Moffatt at Feb 11, 2008 6:31:37 PM
ASE: The problem comes, of course, in "valuing externalities". That's very difficult to do when we have such a wide range of even scientific opinions about the effects of, say, car exhaust and the production of metals on the overall environment, and where the wide range of opinions has such low confidence. (Of course, it could be done by fiat, but that rather ruins the economic value of the valuations as a source of information about the externalities...)
Bernard: I think Kling's entire point was that it's an interesting conjecture. I didn't read his post as making a challenge at all; more pointing out that people prefer to blame things that are unpopular and have obvious costs for ill effects, even when it's quite possible that lovable things that have fewer obvious costs could have more ill effects.
(Which of course assumes that either have a substantial ill effect on "the environment", but arguendum that's given.)
Old Tomorrow: Because in practice, that's what a lot of "environmentalists" are, to all appearances, from their own words and actions.
One need not be anti-industry to be for that list of Good Things, as it were, but people who are already anti-industry for whatever reason find the modern environmental movement a popular way of spreading their effective goal.
The semi-luddite anti-industrialist subset of environmentalists might not be large (I don't have the data to say, and perhaps no-one does), but they're quite vocal, and they definitely exist.
Posted by: Sigivald at Feb 11, 2008 7:12:44 PM
Using my made-up law that for commodities (SUVs, gasoline, dogs, and dog-food,) cost is approximately equal to total direct and indirect energy inputs, and energy input is pretty well correlated with environmental impact, the per annum environmental toll is about 10x for an SUV compared to a dog.
Posted by: gorobei at Feb 11, 2008 7:40:26 PM
I think Kling's entire point was that it's an interesting conjecture. I didn't read his post as making a challenge at all; more pointing out that people prefer to blame things that are unpopular and have obvious costs for ill effects, even when it's quite possible that lovable things that have fewer obvious costs could have more ill effects.
But Tyler has turned it into a challenge.
Besides, what makes it an interesting conjecture? It might be interesting if he provided even a paper napkin's worth of calculation to show that there might just be something to it. Without that it's no more than an off-the-wall statement by someone who doesn't much like environmentalism.
Full disclosure: I don't like Kling. I think he is way too ready to assume that those he disagrees with are idiots, and likes to call for civil comments while insulting some of his commenters.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 11, 2008 7:58:08 PM
"no real answer to his challenge."
With all due respect, there appears to be far more careful analysis in the blog comments than in Kling's unsupported assertion, although admittedly that's a very low bar. Do you have some secret evidence you are relying on for your claim?
e.g. "There's lot of invective against him"
In contrast, Kling does his best to engender thoughtful, respectful discussion with comments like these:)
"it does seem to me that environmentalism inevitably points toward a policy of extermination of pet dogs. Unless environmentalism is simply hatred of industry."
Posted by: A student of economics at Feb 11, 2008 8:12:16 PM
"Some* pet dogs are the ones having puppies. At a Stern-like discount rate I think Kling is right. "
I'm pretty sure the equilibrium number of pet dogs is almost entirely a function of demand, not supply. If I have a dog, I seriously doubt it will lead to a resource-devouring population explosion of dogs in the future (unless he's so adorably cute that he manages to radically influence future dog demand). The future dog population is not constrained by too few available puppies today.
In contrast, the best science apparently concludes that future climate is a function of today's CO2 emissions.
Posted by: A student of economics at Feb 11, 2008 8:21:50 PM
> In contrast, the best science apparently concludes that future climate is a function of today's CO2 emissions.
My dad's dog, may he rest in peace, emitted some kind of gas, although I do not know the true chemical composition (there certainly was an external cost imposed on those near him) and do not know its impact on the environment.
Posted by: AZ at Feb 11, 2008 10:25:06 PM
I suspect that cats and dogs are an important and emotional matter, more important and emotional a matter than all guns and SUVs in combination, for some people at least. I don't blame them. I think that is the right attitude, anyway.
Posted by: Yan Li at Feb 11, 2008 10:30:29 PM
Owning an SUV is often decried as a waste of resources. A 3cylander hatchback is sufficient for most transportation needs so anything more is waste. Anyone who buys an SUV is merely gratifying their own selfish desires.
Owning a pet is, by the same logic, a waste of resources. Ownership of a dog or cat provides gratification to its owner but no little additional utility to society. At the same time pets consume billions of dollars of resourses which could be better used. For example, if Americans spend $34 Billion/year on pets, that money could fund 6 doctor visits per year per person for every uninsured individual in the United States.
Kling's challenge is: if SUV's are an unconscionable waste of resources, then why aren't pets?
Posted by: george at Feb 12, 2008 12:00:26 AM
Kling is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
Posted by: Jim Hu at Feb 12, 2008 12:06:06 AM
Kling's example mentions dog poo, which environmentalists could argue acts as a fertilizer. But maybe that's because I think environmentalists are just a bunch of hippies. And as for dog food, isn't that largely made from scraps and animal byproducts, and thus a more efficient use of resources?
Now, if you think of it in terms of its impact on humans - like diseases, ruining of shoes, noise, attacks, etc, then that makes the dog more costly. But I doubt environmentalists consider the harm there to be done to the "environment."
Posted by: David at Feb 12, 2008 12:26:02 AM
George, posting at midnight, is on to something. Arnold's point is more rhetorical than a comparison of costs.
Tyler rightly suggests, albeit subtly, that the marginal cost to an SUV owner to switch to driving a regular car is much smaller than the marginal cost to a dog owner to switch to other forms of companionship.
Posted by: AntonEgoFan at Feb 12, 2008 1:38:51 AM
Hehe...sorry but i can not agree with you...
Posted by: RealBusiness at Feb 12, 2008 7:30:23 AM
"George, posting at midnight, is on to something. Arnold's point is more rhetorical than a comparison of costs."
Absolutely. Arnold seems to have wanted to show some things need to be considered more deeply (like a simple google won't do). Everyone here has proved (what I believe is)his point that people don't delve in deep enough to consider all the facets of an argument.
Posted by: Tom at Feb 12, 2008 10:12:25 AM
Anyone considered the idea that dogs and SUVs (or similar large vehicles) are probably complementary goods? If I have a large dog, or multiple dogs, I'm more likely to want a large vehicle to drive it around to places to run around.
Clearly there is a solution to both issues here. Concerned about companionship, transport and the environment? Get a horse.
Posted by: Tim at Feb 12, 2008 11:28:57 AM
Well, I have both, and would argue that the time I spend walking and playing with my dog (I live walking distance to trails and a dog park--no driving involved) is time I don't spend on other leisurely pursuits, virtually all of which would involve me driving the SUV somewhere. Considering this probably totals 10-15 hours/week, this is not at all trivial.
Doesn't most pet food come from byproducts out of the human food supply anyway?
Posted by: B at Feb 12, 2008 2:41:00 PM
Everyone here has proved (what I believe is)his point that people don't delve in deep enough to consider all the facets of an argument.
I don't think that was his point, but if it was my response is, "Physician, heal thyself."
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 12, 2008 3:41:05 PM
I love it how Tyler Cowen is making a fool of himself. You simply can't beat that.
I predict this will be a standard example used in introductory economics classes: "Try to make sense of this statement, and discuss its validity. What are the underlying assumptions? What is the adequate conceptual framework for discussing this problem? Which terms need to be defined in order for the statement to become meaningful? What is the hypothesis and how can it be tested, if at all? What empirical data are required? And why would a professional economist with a reputation to defend make such an obviously nonsensical claim? What does this tell you about the scientific status of economics?"
Well, probably not. It would be a good topic for a term paper, but I doubt it will happen.
Posted by: piglet at Feb 12, 2008 4:11:12 PM
Kling and Cowen have chosen an absurd example in order to accuse environmentalists of double standards. That accusation is simply not justified. I don't know any environmentalists who approve of dog owners who fail to collect the poop. And the noise made by barking dogs especially at night is a kind of pollution, just as industrial noise is pollution. Animal lovers tend to look very disapprovingly on pet owners who fail to have their pets spayed/neutered. The impact of feral pets on wild life is a problem that conservationists are well aware of. Environentalists also take animals as sources of GHG emissions very serious (this is not a big concern with dogs but it is with cattle).
Kling and Tyler obviously think they can ridicule environmentalists by painting them as naive tree-huggers who love animals and hate SUVs. What a bullshit. Every thoughtful environmentalist is certainly aware that pet ownership incurs social and environmental costs, that pet owners have a responsibility to minimize these costs (e.g. by using biodegradable litter for cats), and that individuals should seriously consider the pros and cons before aquiring a pet (the pet's welfare as well as that of the owners being an important consideration). We don't need clueless economists to tell us these things.
However, the comparison of a dog with an SUV is just outlandish and doesn't even merit a serious discussion (and you should be grateful for the many thoughtful responses you got undeservedly). What is wrong btw is not the SUV per se. What is wrong is SUV owners (most of whom could as well use a more efficient vehicle) wasting resources and burdening society with the external cost of their behavior. If SUV owners were charged the true environmental cost, SUVs would be rare. Kling and Cohen are making a clownesque effort to distract attention from this fact.
Posted by: piglet at Feb 12, 2008 4:56:39 PM
bravo piglet!!
Posted by: samson at Feb 12, 2008 7:19:39 PM
This discussion is certain the raise the credibility of economists among the general population.
Posted by: BillWallace at Feb 13, 2008 3:58:17 AM
If fuel taxes don't capture the full pollution cost of a gallon used by an SUV driver, they don't capture the full pollution cost of a gallon used by a Prius driver, either. Fix the costs for everyone, without demonizing someone with different preferences. That's the civil and effective approach.
Personally, a PET would cost me far more, in cash and time, than I could save by trading down from my SUV. I'd get less pleasure from the PET. And both consume extra resources that I "could" avoid "wasting", if I abstained from the pleasure an SUV or PET brings. At least the SUV only emits CO2 intermittently, while the PET exhales CO2 24 hours a day, 365 days a year!
Shame campaigns easily grow beyond what's rational or proportionate. Whip up enough fear of impending eco-disaster, and of course there'll be sneering calls for the selfish P-E-T owners to give up their wasteful luxury, for the sake of the planet. "What, do they think they're better than us?" "They probably have some psychological defect where they need the false sense of security they get from a P-E-T."
Posted by: anpat at Feb 13, 2008 4:02:28 AM
If fuel taxes don't capture the full pollution cost of a gallon used by an SUV driver, they don't capture the full pollution cost of a gallon used by a Prius driver, either. Fix the costs for everyone, without demonizing someone with different preferences. That's the civil and effective approach.
Of course it would be better, and more civil, and whatever. It is also not happening, hence the demonizing of SUVs as a weak substitute for really effective measures. Do you think Prius-driving-SUV-bashing people are the main opposition to raising the cost of gas? Or SUV-driving-Prius-bashing people?
Posted by: greatzamfir at Feb 13, 2008 6:53:38 AM
anpat: I am trying to be civil but what I have to tell you is learn how to read. Your personal pleasure is not the topic of this debate. The question raised, not by me but by Mssrs. Kling and Cowen, is (repeat slowly after me):
"Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV?"
The issue is what is the toll on the environment, not whether you or I personally like pets. If you have evidence that the pet's environmental cost is greater than that of the SUV, let us know. If not, stop whining. If you can't even properly understand a post of 37 words, or if you are not able or willing to stay on topic, then I'm afraid there is not much point in engaging a debate with you. I am just telling you this because I am civil and calling you a troll would be rude, even though it would probably be true.
BillWallace: Exactly. Tyler Cowen: don't you think now is a good time to just admit that your typing (and copy/pasting) was faster than your thinking? Maybe for the sake of "the credibility of economists among the general population"? You may not believe this but you can actually earn respect that way.
Posted by: piglet at Feb 13, 2008 1:17:40 PM
As a last thought, and as a reminder from the Common Sense department, let me point out that domesticated dogs have been around for 10'000 years and there is no evidence that they ever caused significant environmental problems (tell me if you know otherwise), whereas the evidence that gas-burning SUVs are contributing to pollution and climate change is rock solid.
Posted by: piglet at Feb 13, 2008 1:37:38 PM
Good work, piglet.
I had mistakenly interpreted the issuse as "dogs vs. SUV's." That's still ridiculous, of course, but when you state it as one dog vs one SUV, as Kling and Cowen do, it's beyond ridiculous, and bordering on insane.
Kling is sort of a GMU hanger-on/worshipper, I guess, so Cowen feels some loyalty, but he would have done better to let this one slide by.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 13, 2008 9:16:31 PM
No, piglet, the question I'm interested in -- and I'm not commenting on Kling's blog, I'm commenting on this entire thread -- is whether there is anything reasonable or productive about the demonization of SUV ownership.
There isn't. The same puritanical sanctimony could be whipped up against any optional resource-consuming luxury, like PET ownership. The effective response to all such activity is simply to ensure that it pays its real costs.
For another example, the Prius owner who commutes 25 miles daily pollutes a lot more than my SUV. The judgmental attitude you advocate does nothing about that -- in fact it can encourage that behavior, because it sets the wrong standard ("what do you drive?"), and emphasizes emotional and symbolic actions over tangible results. A working price mechanism exactly and proportionately addresses the real harms.
And maybe that PET owner or that Prius-long-commuter or that SUV owner gets enough pleasure and value out of their marginally higher resource consumption that it's worth it for them to pay the fair full costs. If so, such payment is all that a civil and respectful person should demand, because we all have different preferences.
Finally, name-calling and insults do not make your argument stronger.
Posted by: anpat at Feb 14, 2008 1:34:48 AM
anpat, you are whining as if we are burning SUV-owners at the stakes. Get real. It was Messrs Kling and Cowen who chose to bring up the cliché of environmentalists as SUV-haters in order to ridicule them, an attempt that fell back on themselves. I am not interested in discussing the SUV issue any further except for one observation. If SUV owners had to pay the true cost of the "toll on the environment" they are causing, for example by charging an adequate carbon tax on fuel, we would see very few SUVs on the road because most people couldn't afford the high cost of such an inefficient vehicle. That is all there is to say from an economic perspective.
The moral issue of wasting scarce resources, and hurting the environment and fellow human beings for no good reason (unless "showing off" counts as a good reason), I don't even want to discuss that with you.
Posted by: piglet at Feb 14, 2008 1:29:14 PM
Re: "for no good reason"
It's fair to concern yourself with my externalities. But my utility curves are none of your damn business.
Posted by: anpat at Feb 14, 2008 8:17:00 PM
