Brian Prest (@bprest) 's Twitter Profile
Brian Prest

@bprest

Economist @rff, via @DukeU, @NERA_Economics, & @USCBO. Opinions my own.

ID: 200912145

linkhttp://www.brianprest.com calendar_today10-10-2010 16:23:58

573 Tweet

683 Followers

1,1K Following

Daniel Raimi (@danielraimi) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Psyched about this new Resources for the Future working paper from Brian Prest, Zach Whitlock, & me. It asks: in a future with more ambitious climate policies, what happens to oil and gas production in different US regions, and how does that affect local gov't revenue? 1/8 rff.org/publications/w…

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (@jeem_tweets) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Check out this new research in #JEEM on climate royalty surcharges on fossil fuels by Brian C. Prest (Brian Prest) and James H. Stock (Jim Stock). Increasing royalty rates on federal fossil fuel reduces global emissions. Link to paper: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Check out this new research in #JEEM on climate royalty surcharges on fossil fuels  by Brian C. Prest (<a href="/bprest/">Brian Prest</a>) and James H. Stock (<a href="/jimstockmetrics/">Jim Stock</a>).

Increasing royalty rates on federal fossil fuel reduces global emissions.

Link to paper: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
NBER (@nberpubs) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Discounting in benefit-cost analysis using investment rates of return can yield very misleading estimates of the costs and benefits of policies with long-lived impacts, from Richard Newell, Billy Pizer, and Brian Prest nber.org/papers/w31526

Discounting in benefit-cost analysis using investment rates of return can yield very misleading estimates of the costs and benefits of policies with long-lived impacts, from <a href="/richardgnewell/">Richard Newell</a>, <a href="/billypizer/">Billy Pizer</a>, and <a href="/bprest/">Brian Prest</a> nber.org/papers/w31526
Frank Errickson (@f_errickson) 's Twitter Profile Photo

We have a paper out in Science Magazine today showing how new guidelines allowing for income weighting in federal cost-benefit analysis would affect the social cost of carbon. Main takeaway, the SC-CO2 increases nearly 8x to ~$1300/ton. Resources for the Future ERGBerkeley science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

Jesse D. Jenkins (@jessejenkins) 's Twitter Profile Photo

My analysis on potential impacts of expanded US LNG exports is available here zenodo.org/records/137383… @RFF's analysis of oil & gas leasing led by Brian Prest can be found here rff.org/publications/i… One can read these and verify the letter's statement is incorrect.