From the publisher:
The failure of the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009 revealed major flaws in the way the world's policy makers have attempted to prevent dangerous levels of increases in global temperatures. The expert authors in this specially commissioned collection focus on the likely costs and benefits of a very wide range of policy options, including geo-engineering, mitigation of CO2, methane and ‘black carbon', expanding forest, research and development of low-carbon energy and encouraging green technology transfer. For each policy, authors outline all of the costs, benefits and likely outcomes, in fully referenced, clearly presented chapters accompanied by shorter, critical alternative perspectives. To further stimulate debate, a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, evaluate and rank the attractiveness of the policies. This authoritative and thought-provoking book will challenge readers to form their own conclusions about the best ways to respond to global warming.

Contents
Introduction Bjørn Lomborg;
Part I. The Solutions:
1. Climate engineering Eric Bickel and Lee Lane;
1.1 Alternative perspective Roger Pielke Jr;
1.2 Alternative perspective Anne E. Smith;
2. Carbon dioxide mitigation Richard S. J. Tol;
2.1 Alternative perspective Onno Kuik;
2.2 Alternative perspective Roberto Roson;
3. Forestry carbon sequestration Brent Sohngen;
3.1 Alternative perspective Sabine Fuss;
4. Black carbon mitigation Robert E. Baron, W. David Montgomery and Sugandha D. Tuladhar;
4.1 Alternative perspective Milind Kandlikar, Conor C. O. Reynolds and Andy P. Grieshop;
5. Methane mitigation Claudia Kemfert and Wolf-Peter Schill;
5.1 Alternative perspective David Anthoff;
5.2 Alternative perspective Daniel Johansson and Fredrik Hedenus;
6. Market and policy driven adaptation Francesco Bosello, Carlo Carraro and Enrica de Cian;
6.1 Alternative perspective Samuel Fankhauser;
6.2 Alternative perspective Frank Jotzo;
7. Technology-led climate policy Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green;
7.1 Alternative perspective Valentina Bosetti;
7.2 Alternative perspective Gregory Nemet;
8. Technology transfers Zili Yang; 8.1 Alternative perspective David Popp;
Part II. Ranking the Opportunities: 9.
Expert panel ranking Nancy L. Stokey, Vernon L. Smith, Thomas C. Schelling, Finn E. Kydland and Jagdish N. Bhagwati;
Conclusion Bjørn Lomborg

Reviews
“Clean energy is essential to our addressing the carbon climate problem. This research shows clearly that we must prime the pump on innovation now with increased funding for research and development, while putting incentives in place that allow the resulting new technologies to compete successfully in the marketplace.” - Bill Gates

“This book of research challenges readers to consider the costs and benefits of different responses to global warming. It introduces an important – and seldom heard – economic perspective to this policy discussion. The wealth of data and provocative arguments presented here make ‘Smart Solutions to Climate Change’ a valuable resource for policy-makers, NGOs, academics, students, and everybody who is interested in learning more about the economic realities that face us as we confront this challenge.” - Douglass C. North, Washington University in St Louis, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences

"This book provides not only a reservoir of information on the reality of human induced climate change, but raises vital questions and examines viable options on what can be done to meet the challenge. In the introduction itself Bjorn Lomborg catalogues the impacts of climate change, highlighting the problem of sea level rise, pressure on water resources, and declining food production in some countries, ' possibly becoming a source of societal conflict'. It allows different authors to articulate their views on a range of solutions, and then leaves the book's readers to form their own conclusions on what might be the best set of actions to adopt. Even though its pages present a diversity of options, at the end the average reader would stand better informed, and would have formed his or her own compelling logic on the answer to this planet's problem of climate change. I would recommend this book as much for the fact that Lomborg supports the view that we have 'long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change', as for the rich diversity of analysis it presents on a range of possible solutions." - Rajenda K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“In an environmental field where positions are too often frozen in orthodoxy—on the left and on the right—Bjorn Lomborg provides a much needed fresh perspective, grounded in a realism that still avoids pessimism. His work with the Copenhagen Climate Consensus is a vital, solution-oriented contribution to the economics of global warming—and the many other problems facing a growing planet.” - Bryan Walsh, Time

“The bad news is that the world seems poised to spend vast sums on ineffective global warming policies. The good news is that Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center bring together the best advice from leading experts on smart ways to address climate change. The public and policymakers should take heed.” - Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine

Edited by Bjørn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org
ISBN-13: 9780521138567
Not yet published - available from October 2010
$29.99

Abstract: A vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) tax is frequently mentioned as viable alternative to a fuel tax for collecting highway users fees from light vehicles. Both a static model and a regression based model are used here to assess the distributional impacts of a switch from a fuel tax to a VMT tax for the state of Oregon. The VMT tax is found to be slightly more regressive than the fuel tax and rural households are found to actually benefit relative to urban households under a VMT tax. Two alternative VMT structures that might increase incentives to use more fuel efficient vehicles are provided, but both are found to be even more regressive than a flat VMT tax.

by B. Starr McMullen 1, Lei Zhang 2 and Kyle Nakahara 1
1. Department of Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Transport Policy via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 17, Issue 6; November, 2010; Pages 359-366

Abstract: This article surveys the literature on the economics of water scarcity and water demand. Sheila M. Olmstead examines demand estimation in diverted uses (urban, agricultural, and industrial), as well as the demand for instream uses such as recreation and habitat preservation. The article also assesses what is known about efficient water pricing, water allocation, and water trading within and across sectors. The literature examining the efficiency and distributional impacts of large water projects such as dams for irrigation and hydroelectric power is also discussed. Water conservation is examined from the perspective of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The author highlights water management issues to which economics has made important contributions, as well as areas where further research is needed.

by Sheila M. Olmstead, Associate Professor of Environmental Economics, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Telephone: 203-432-6247; Fax: 203-436-9150; e-mail: sheila.olmstead@yale.edu; and Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future.
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy via Oxford Journals http://reep.oxfordjournals.org
Volume 4, Issue 2; Summer 2010; pages 179-198
doi: 10.1093/reep/req004

According to Antoinette Martin writing in the September 3, 2010 New York Times:

HERE’S an idea: Buy a house, and make money off the investment. Guaranteed. So long as the sun keeps coming up.

That is the pitch being made at River Pointe, an age-restricted community in Manchester (New Jersey) where PulteGroup Inc. is installing, as a standard feature in each house, solar technology that earns energy credits.
...
Buyers can earn as much as $30,000 over 15 years.

Those earnings will come in four ways, according to Paul Schneier, the president of the company’s metropolitan New York and New Jersey division: savings of more than half on electricity bills, a onetime federal tax rebate of at least $6,000, an annual break on property taxes, and income from the sale of the credits back to utility companies.

Like 26 other states, New Jersey is requiring its utility companies to generate an increasing percentage of electric power through the use of renewable sources of energy like sun and wind. It has established a credit/purchase program so companies can meet the requirements while they build up enough solar-generating power of their own. (New Jersey officials estimate that will take at least 10 years.)
...
Each Solar Renewable Energy Credit certifies that 1,000 megawatts of power have been produced by solar energy.

The credits are bought and sold in an online marketplace. New Jersey’s credits have emerged as a particularly hot property, because electric rates are comparatively high here, making each megawatt of power worth more.

“The system is complicated,” said Douglas Fenichel, a spokesman for K. Hovnanian Homes. When Hovnanian put solar technology on its list of options at its Jockey Club age-restricted development in Oceanport, he said, “We found people didn’t really understand it.”

Buyers were generally interested in sustainable construction, Mr. Fenichel said. But it was hard to explain the savings and how they would be reaped by buyers. In the end, the developers decided to make solar standard instead of optional in all 44 Jockey Club units. The development sold out six months ago.

“It was not until the first resident stood there watching his meter going backward, generating electricity that would go back to the power company, that I think it really sunk in,” Mr. Fenichel said.
...
In New Brunswick, ... Ironstate Development is retrofitting Riverwalk Commons, an apartment building, with rooftop technology that will power lighting in common areas and the garage.

The cost of the units has been the prevailing issue holding back more widespread use, said Michael Winka, the director of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Office of Clean Energy. At River Pointe, the cost to the developers of installing the standard 2.25 kilowatt unit, which at current rates would earn about $1,330 in credits per year, is about $20,000. An optional upgrade to a 3.1 kilowatt system, which would earn about $2,000 per year, would cost the buyer $10,000. Mr. Schneier said that solar equipment adds to resale value.

On the other hand, Mr. Winka said that most solar power systems start to wear out after about 10 years. In addition, both he and Mr. Schneier said that the market for energy credits could not be expected to remain strong indefinitely, as utility companies are pushing ahead with developing their own solar plants.

The reimbursement at River Pointe on a house bought right now would shape up like this, according to the PulteGroup’s calculations:

¶$6,000 to $10,000 in federal tax credits, depending on the size of the solar unit.
¶Roughly $450 in reduced energy costs the first year, depending on use and house size (floor plans range from 1,600 to 2,700 square feet). Savings would rise in proportion to rising energy costs.
¶Solar technology is exempted from property tax, saving $341 or $451 a year, depending on the size of the unit.
¶Proceeds from the sale of energy credits, $1,333 or $2,000 a year.

There are already 150 residents at River Pointe, a community of single-family houses with yards that are maintained by the homeowners’ association, a community clubhouse and other amenities. A total of 550 units are planned.
...
by Antoinette Martin
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/realestate/05zone.html
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
Published: September 3, 2010

For additional information go to http://www.delwebb.com/delwebb/assets/pdf/NJ-RiverPointe-SunPowerFlyer.pdf

Detroit Edison will begin de-energizing 50 streetlights in the south central part of Ann Arbor under a cost-savings move by the Ann Arbor City Council.

The work will be done under a pilot program and is part of a larger plan to reduce city spending. Upon successful completion of the pilot program, the city will select an additional 1,200 streetlights for shut off. These streetlights would be in various areas within the city limits outside the downtown area. The city is expected to save about $120,000.

DT Energy www.dteenergy.com
Press release dated June 18, 2010

Abstract:
Desalinated brackish water is becoming an important water source for agricultural irrigation, a fact which raises the incentive to include a minimal Mg2+ concentration in the product water, which would minimize fertilization requirements. Both the mineral content and chemical stability of desalinated water are attained through the post treatment stage at the desalination plant. A modified post treatment process is introduced, in which Mg2+ ions are separated from the brackish water fed to the desalination plant via a selective cation exchange resin, and subsequently released to the product water through further exchange with Ca2+ ions previously generated in a common H2SO4-based calcite dissolution process.

Calcite dissolution provides the water with carbonate alkalinity, Ca2+ and SO42−, while the ion exchange step adds Mg2+. Laboratory and theoretical investigations of the process show that it results in a high water quality, attained in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner. Three case studies are presented in which the additional cost of supplying Mg2+ concentration of either 12 or 18 mg L− 1 using the process is estimated at less than $0.006 m− 3 product water. The results indicate that the process is feasible for brackish waters characterized by Mg2+ to Ca2+ concentration ratio higher than 1:1.

by Liat Birnhack, Noa Shlesinger and Ori Lahav; all of the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion – IIT, Haifa 32000, IsraelTel.: +972 48292627; fax: +972 48295696.
Desalination via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 262, Issues 1-3; November 15, 2010; Pages 152-160

Abstract:
Objectives:  The increasing health-care cost of lung cancer treatment has caused debates regarding the reimbursement of new medications. The purpose of this study was to estimate patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical new drug.

Methods:  Patients with lung cancer were recruited through referrals by senior specialists from two medical centers in Taiwan. Double-bounded dichotomous choice questions and follow-up open-ended questions were employed to elicit patients' WTP. The contingent valuation question assumed that a novel medication was available, which provided a cure for lung cancer; however, patients would have to pay for this new cure out of their own pocket. In addition, the question was asked as to how much patients would be willing to pay for supplementary hospitalization insurance? Interval regression and linear regression were used to estimate the maximum WTP.

Results:  A total of 294 patients were recruited; their mean age was 67 years; 74% were male and 26% were female. The results show that patients were prepared to pay New Taiwan dollar (NTD) 7416 or NTD 7032 per month to purchase this new medication. Sex, religion, income, the Karnofsky Performance Scale score, and having family that takes care of you are significant factors influencing a patient's WTP.

Conclusions:  Patients would like to pay less than the actual price of the new medication for their lung cancer. Thus government and health policymakers should consider the ability to pay when making their decision regarding the coverage of new drugs.

by Hui-Chu Lang PhD, Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang-Ming University, No.155, Sec. 2, Li-Nong St., Taipei 112, Taiwan. E-mail: hclang@ym.edu.tw
Value in Health via Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Volume 13, Issue 6; September/October 2010; pages 743–749
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00743.x
© 2010, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)