BIOFUELS, CLIMATE POLICY, AND WATER MANAGEMENT: ASSESSING POLICY-INDUCED SHIFTS ON AGRICULTURE’S EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE MARGINS

Biofuel expansion efforts and climate mitigation policy could fundamentally alter land management trends in U.S. agriculture and forestry (AF) by mandating biofuel feedstock production and providing incentives for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and carbon sequestration from terrestrial sources. Research has shown that biofuel expansion can alter commodity markets, induce agricultural land expansion, and intensify production. Meanwhile, GHG mitigation efforts could limit agricultural expansion, reduce current cultivation, and lower management intensity by incentivizing GHG emissions reduction and carbon sequestration within AF. To date, little work has attempted to quantify biofuel and climate policy-induced shifts together along the extensive and intensive agricultural production margins within a systems-based framework, though such shifts could have resounding implications on agricultural water consumption and quality. This study uses a comprehensive and detailed economic model of the U.S. AF sectors to simulate land management responses to biofuel expansion and GHG policies. While bioenergy production and altered AF management practices are found to significantly reduce GHG emissions, additional water consumption and nutrient use are possible policy outcomes. Specifically, we find that policies that influence shifts to the extensive margin will increase aggregate water use and nutrient application, but lead to lower intensity per-unit area. Conversely, when combined with biofuel mandates climate mitigation incentives lower agricultural land expansion, but lead to higher levels of management intensity. Somewhat contrary to expectations, GHG mitigation incentives cause water and nutrient use intensity to grow at an increasing rate due to the greater level of land use competition. Additionally, important regional trends emerge, as water use and quality concerns grow with the CO2 price in areas with limited GHG mitigation possibilities. This suggests that “water leakage” is possible whereby emissions reduction activities decrease output in one region and stimulate management intensity elsewhere. The potential indirect consequences of combined biofuel and climate mitigation incentives on water resource systems warrant further attention in policy design and future research.Greenhouse gas mitigation, biofuels, water resource management, Environmental Economics and Policy, Production Economics, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Evaluation of the estimation of diffuse irradiance from global and direct normal irradiance measurements

As part of a radiometer intercomparison experiment, different combinations of pyranometer and pyrheliometers were used to estimate diffuse solar irradiance on a horizontal surface. Sixteen combinations were possible with four pyranometers and four pyrheliometers. The values were intercompared and then compared to the measured values, obtained with a solar tracking/occulting disc system. The difference in estimated values using different radiometer combinations varied from 1 to 21 W/m2. It was found that uncertainty in measuring the global irradiance accounted for most of the difference in estimated values. In the worst case, a 2.1 per cent difference in the global irradiance as measured by two different pyranometers caused a 12 per cent difference in estimates of the diffuse irradiance. It is shown that, if the estimated and measured values are analyzed statistically, agreement to within 1 per cent is possible.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/24943/1/0000370.pd

BIOFUELS, CLIMATE POLICY, AND WATER MANAGEMENT: ASSESSING POLICY-INDUCED SHIFTS ON AGRICULTURE’S EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE MARGINS

Biofuel expansion efforts and climate mitigation policy could fundamentally alter land management trends in U.S. agriculture and forestry (AF) by mandating biofuel feedstock production and providing incentives for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and carbon sequestration from terrestrial sources. Research has shown that biofuel expansion can alter commodity markets, induce agricultural land expansion, and intensify production. Meanwhile, GHG mitigation efforts could limit agricultural expansion, reduce current cultivation, and lower management intensity by incentivizing GHG emissions reduction and carbon sequestration within AF. To date, little work has attempted to quantify biofuel and climate policy-induced shifts together along the extensive and intensive agricultural production margins within a systems-based framework, though such shifts could have resounding implications on agricultural water consumption and quality. This study uses a comprehensive and detailed economic model of the U.S. AF sectors to simulate land management responses to biofuel expansion and GHG policies. While bioenergy production and altered AF management practices are found to significantly reduce GHG emissions, additional water consumption and nutrient use are possible policy outcomes. Specifically, we find that policies that influence shifts to the extensive margin will increase aggregate water use and nutrient application, but lead to lower intensity per-unit area. Conversely, when combined with biofuel mandates climate mitigation incentives lower agricultural land expansion, but lead to higher levels of management intensity. Somewhat contrary to expectations, GHG mitigation incentives cause water and nutrient use intensity to grow at an increasing rate due to the greater level of land use competition. Additionally, important regional trends emerge, as water use and quality concerns grow with the CO2 price in areas with limited GHG mitigation possibilities. This suggests that “water leakage” is possible whereby emissions reduction activities decrease output in one region and stimulate management intensity elsewhere. The potential indirect consequences of combined biofuel and climate mitigation incentives on water resource systems warrant further attention in policy design and future research

The Legal Status of Charter Schools in State Statutory Law

Given the recent increase in charter schools as an alternative to the traditional public education system, this Article explores the legal status and position of charter schools. Charter schools exhibit many characteristics of private schools, particularly in terms of management, but also retain many public school features. Thus, this Article explores areas of the law where charter schools were either classified as public or private in terms of state statutes or regulations, discussing recent and some pending litigation. First, this Article discusses whether charter schools, charter school boards and officials, or educational management organizations which manage charter schools are entitled to governmental immunity, thus classifying them as public entities. Second, this Article examines the interplay between charter schools, their boards, and their management organizations and whether they are subject to public accountability laws, as their public school counterparts are. Third, this Article surveys whether charter schools are subject to state prevailing wage statutes. Fourth, this Article examines whether charter schools are required to follow the same student expulsion requirements as public schools. This Article proceeds to tally the results of this litigation, discussing both whether charter schools are subject to the same laws and regulations as public schools in their districts and whether charter schools and their officials are public entities under the law, and thus subject to the same rules governing the action of public officials. This Article concludes that often times, this distinction is not clear in state statutory requirements as they currently stand, and that legislators should take care in drafting charter school legislation, so that charter schools have a clear set of rules to follow and courts have a clear set of rules to apply in litigation. The status quo is particularly troubling with regard to student disciplinary issues and educational management organizations’ fiduciary obligations, and this Article urges legislators to address these issues

Are Charter Schools the Second Coming of Enron?: An Examination of the Gatekeepers that Protect Against Dangerous Related-Party Transactions in the Charter School Sectors

INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF ENRON A. ENRON AND DEREGULATION B. THE LJM SPES C. ENRON’S COLLAPSE II: ENRON’S GATEKEEPER PROBLEMS A. ARTHUR ANDERSEN B. INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS C. CREDIT RATING AGENCIES D. ENRON’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS E. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) III: CHARTER SCHOOLS AND RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS A. CHARTER SCHOOL DEREGULATION AND PRIVATE INVESTORS B. EXAMPLES OF ENRON-LIKE RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS 1. IMAGINE SCHOOLS 2. IVY ACADEMIA CHARTER SCHOOL 3. AMERICAN INDIAN MODEL CHARTER SCHOOLS 4. GRAND TRAVERSE ACADEMY 5. PENNSYLVANIA CYBER CHARTER SCHOOL C. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS, AND THE NEED FOR STRONG GATEKEEPING IV: CHARTER SCHOOL GATEKEEPERS A. AUDITORS B. CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BOARDS C. CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS D. STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES (SEAS) E. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONCLUSIO

School Finance, Race, and Reparations

In this article, we explain why and how school finance reform should be a part of a reparations program for Black Americans. This article proceeds in six parts. Part I explains how Black-white school funding disparities occurred during the separate-but-equal era. Part II discusses how these funding disparities have occurred in the aftermath of the Brown decision. Parts III and IV explore why school desegregation and school finance litigation, respectively, have failed to remedy these gaps. Part V lays out a reparations framework that state legislatures could adopt to provide restitution to schools and taxpayers harmed by state policies creating Black-white racial funding disparities. Part VI discusses the role that the federal government could play in a school finance reparations program

Australia: PISA Australia—Excellence and Equity?

Australia’s education system reflects its history of federalism. State and territory governments are responsible for administering education within their jurisdiction and across the sector comprising government (public), Catholic systemic and other independent schooling systems. They collaborate on education policy with the federal government. Over the past two decades the federal government has taken a greater role in funding across the education sector, and as a result of this involvement and the priorities of federal governments of the day, Australia now has one of the highest rates of non-government schooling in the OECD. Funding equity across the sectors has become a prominent issue. Concerns have been compounded by evidence of declining student performance since Australia’s initial participation in PISA in 2000, and the increasing gap between our high achievers and low achievers. This chapter explores Australia’s PISA 2018 results and what they reveal about the impact of socioeconomic level on student achievement. It also considers the role of school funding and the need to direct support to those schools that are attempting to educate the greater proportion of an increasingly diverse student population including students facing multiple layers of disadvantage