Corporate lobbying for environmental protection

Much of the time, polluting firms lobby against environmental protection, but there are major exceptions to this rule, for example in the regulation of both ozone and greenhouse gases. Political support from firms can be pivotal for governments trying to protect the environment. I offer an explanation for this phenomenon, suggesting firms behave as they do in order to steal market share from their rivals. I develop a model in which a polluting firm makes a clean technology investment and then lobbies successfully for strong environmental protection, since this will shift market share away from its rival who has not made the clean investment. The key result concerns the impact of lobbying on the equilibrium outcome: for a region of the parameter space, it is only because of firms' lobbying that environmental protection is achieved. This is because lobbying increases a firm's returns to going green, by increasing the market share it can steel. The net effect of this distortion is an increase in welfare

Pass-through, profits and the political economy of regulation

Government regulation, such as the pricing of externalities, often raises the unit costs of regulated firms, and its impact on their profits is important to its political economy. We introduce a reduced-form model (“GLM”) that nests existing models of imperfect competition under weaker assumptions. We show how a firm's cost passthrough is a sufficient statistic for the profit impact of regulation. We apply the GLM to carbon pricing for US airlines. We find large inter-firm heterogeneity in pass-through, even for a uniform cost shock. The GLM allows us to sidestep estimation of a consumer demand system, firm markups and conduct parameters. We derive the second-best emissions tax including lobbying a government “for sale”

Widespread methanotrophic primary production in lowland chalk rivers

F.S. is supported by a Natural Environment Research Council CASE studentship with the Freshwater Biological Association of the UK

Anatomy and Physiology of Knee Stability

Knee instability has been the focus of large number of studies over the last decade; however, a high incidence rate of injury still exists. The aim of this short report is to examine knee joint anatomy and physiology with respect to knee stability. Knee joint stability requires the integration of a complex set of anatomical structures and physiological mechanism. Compromising any of these structures leads to destabilisation and increased risk of injuries. This review highlights the structure and soft tissue of the knee that contribute to its stability and function. This introduction is part of the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology’s Special Issue “The Knee: Structure, Function and Rehabilitation”

Generalized linear competition: From pass-through to policy

Economic policy and shifts in input market prices often have significant effects on the marginal costs of firms and can prompt strategic responses that make their impact hard to predict. We introduce “generalized linear competition” (GLC), a new model th

Modelling Human Locomotion

This report is a coverage of my 16 weeks practical training at the Center for Sensori-Motor Interaction of the Aalborg University (Denmark). One of their research topics is on the ?eld of the biomedical modelling, where they want to answer the question of the functional behavior of the proprioceptive feedback system of the human body. A valid/good biomedical model could support their hypotheses which are results from different measurements. The original intention of the project was to build a complete walking lower body model to ?nd the reason for proprioceptive feedback during walking. In the middle of the project this original goal was a too high, because of the additional work of redesigning previous work of Huber [26]. The goal is adjusted to design the mechanical and muscle model and a well documented report, so a next project can continue immediately. The mechanical and muscle model appeared to work correct and are veri?ed with measured data. The forward activation of the muscle/mechanical model is not completely the same as expected. This is because the used method does not take co-activation of antagonistic muscle into account. For the continuation of this project a complete measured data set is necessary, because the veri?cation is not 100% valid. This performed veri?cation uses data that is not correlated in the sense that is measured at the same conditions and persons

Good Bye, Soldier Boy

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/1530/thumbnail.jp