Comments on: Squaring the Circle

By: darwin

darwin — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:02:52 +0000

Well, if Waxman would have only talked to the Wicked Witch of the West, (fill in the blank), he would have realized it’s melting!

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:38:39 +0000

Jon: I understand that, but the point of this post and others is that the politics doesn’t seem to be working that way. So what would work? A small carbon tax with the revenue targeted at energy research would be preferable to a political stalemate. Though I don’t know if even a small carbon tax could pass…

By: Jon Frum

Jon Frum — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:48:30 +0000

Mike

The ‘consensus’ is that if we wait until the sky is actually falling, it will be too late to do anything about it. In order to forstall dramatic effect, you need dramatic action, and you need it now. Dramatic costs are needed to effect dramatic changes, so there is no time for a gradual change in popular sentiment.

Of course, if you don’t accept the apocalyptic consensus, then you’re a denier, aren’t you?

By: tomfid

tomfid — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:57:41 +0000

“The economics of pricing carbon is fundementally flawed because giving rebates to the majority of consumers undercuts the price incentive. But not giving those rebates undercuts the political will.”

Roger made a similar argument recently ( http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/climate-revenue-in-the-budget-4999 ) but later cited economists who criticed Obama, partly on grounds that the incentive argument is all wet ( http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/obama-on-cap-and-trade-climate-impacts-and-chicken-little-5054 ).

Economists may drink a little too much of the equilibrium kool-aid from time to time, but unless you posit allocation mechanisms that no one is proposing, the profit motive works:
“If you give permits away for free or sell them, either way, allowances will be priced and the system will work,” Stavins said in an interview. “There may be sound arguments that the administration wishes to make for auctioning allowances, but the functioning of the price mechanism and the environmental performance of the system is not one of them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/13/13climatewire-obama-erred-on-key-capandtrade-features-econ-10134.html

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:22:42 +0000

Isn’t the problem mainly that advocates want to do too much at once? Would it be possible to enact a carbon tax if it were kept small? Perhaps popular sentiment would allow for a gradual increase if real effects of global warming (as opposed to hypothesized future effects) became obvious. It seems to me that Roger suggested something like this (a small carbon tax with the revenue targeted at energy research) when he was imagining being the climate czar… Revenue could perhaps also go toward adaptation measures, but political resistence probably increases if the revenue is used for non-related things.

By: Raven

Raven — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:06:18 +0000

The economics of pricing carbon is fundementally flawed because giving rebates to the majority of consumers undercuts the price incentive. But not giving those rebates undercuts the political will.

This plays out at the international level where developing countries are asking for a free ride while developed countries adopt draconian policies. A mass migration of industry to developing countries and an increase in total emissions is the inevitable consequence of such policies.

I realize that people concerned about CO2 emissions are desperately looking for anything that sounds like a solution but wanting a solution does not magically make one appear. People have wanted a ‘cure for cancer’ for 50 years but we are still a long way from finding one.

This political discussion would be a lot more useful if people were realistic and acknowedged that migitation policies will most likely fail and we need to plan for that failure.

By: tomfid

tomfid — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:01:15 +0000

Are you arguing that the economics are flawed because there isn’t actually a profit incentive, because people won’t accept the economic implications, or because the system will break down for other reasons?

By: jae

jae — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:35:00 +0000

It is mind-boggling to watch these “brilliant” Congressmen explain how they plan to ruin my standard of living, while trying to make me happy about it! The same guys who sign $700+ billion bills without even reading them. Has the USA gone completely insane, or is it just me?

By: David

David — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:01:01 +0000

Well, I meant tubes. I must be forgetting my Alaskan technical lingo.

As with Stevens, Mr. Waxman’s comment illustrates what happens when elected officials get off script and summarize staff briefings in their own words.

By: David

David — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:57:57 +0000

But if the North Pole is evaporating and the tundra isn’t being held down, then Congress can expand the pipes of the Internet up there and we’ll all benefit!

Sorry Roger, couldn’t resist.