Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Sean Casten Posted 2:30 pm
   02 Apr 2009

   Indeed.  But bear in mind that GHG policy is primarily about wealth-transfer.  Not GDP collapse, but wealth transfer.  When you pay me $100 for something that cost me $80 to make, GDP grows by $20... but you're $100 poorer.  (Although I will grant you that the sh*t I sell for $100 is worth way more.  You got a deal.)  Broadly speaking, the debate over GHG policy is between the dudes who stand to make $20 and the schmos who are out $100.So you're right that the political sides on GHG policy aren't D vs. R.  Their wealth transfer recipients vs. wealth transfer losers.  As currently framed, that basically means coal and manufacturing regions vs. everyone else.  But it doesn't have to be that way, especially if we contemplate policies that incentivize carbon reduction without presuming that our society will work without energy-intensive manufactured goods.  After all, CO2 is a global pollutant - shipping energy intensive manufacturing elsewhere ain't the solution, unless the "elsewhere" we ship it to is a place that has less CO2-intensive energy sources.

   Permalink

2. 

   Aldyen Posted 12:38 pm
   03 Apr 2009

   Sean Castian,Just to clarify...When I give you $100 for something that cost you $80 to make the GDP is typically estimated to grow something between $150 and $250 if all of the materials you used to make your thing originated in the US, depending on what the economists posit the GDP "multiplier" is for the good you make.   The simplest way to grow GDP is to blow up bridges and rebuild them.  GDP estimates do not differentiate between investments that add new value, or make us inherantly more productive and investments that might replace existing capital stocks with less productive capital stocks.  That is one reason it is kind of silly that we all use GDP as the magic measure of economic health.

   Permalink

3. 

   Sean Casten Posted 1:38 pm
   03 Apr 2009

   Aldyen:Please appreciate that I'm using GDP here for anything other than a proxy for economic activity.  Use another one if you prefer.  My point is that there are plenty of things we do that grow the economy (however you choose to measure) even while they transfer wealth from one party to another - and therefore, parties on the losing end of economically-beneficial wealth transfers are always prone to framing their personal woes as larger economic ones - and the media falls for it every time. Take a non-GDP measure if you prefer.  My life is richer by virute of the fact that I own an iPod instead of a Walkman.  And I don't give a damn that Sony shareholders are worse off in the transaction, even though I can appreciate why - if they had the power to do so - they would have lobbied their regulator to stop those bastards at Apple from crippling the economy.The electric sector is rife with these failings.  Just about every utility commission in the country compels customers to pay their utilities for the money they lose if they install a more efficient generator, because utilities have done such a good job of conflating the interests of their shareholders and rate payers.  Our GHG debate is being driven by those who cut their teeth in precisely those battles - and so your coal-rich utility stands up and says "we're opposed to GHG legislation because it will raise our customers rates!" and gets away with the suggestion that they are arguing only out of noble self interest, without any follow on consideration of (a) where the proceeds from those carbon emissions payments are going to go, and whether they might provide an offsetting reduction in the cost of a cleaner kWh or (b) why we presume that CO2 emitters will be allowed to shift 100% of their cost of pollution onto their customers backs.  Following both of those threads, it becomes apparent that wealth transfers are not universally painful.  By the same token - and going back to David's post - it makes it clear why the political fractures are where they are.

   Permalink

4. 

   Green Granny Posted 5:06 am
   05 Apr 2009

   You explain it well Sean.  I think you'd agree that the key is to remove "incentives" that encourage people and industries to continue their old, energy intensive polluting ways and create "incentives" for people to "do the right thing."  Tax codes, zoning regulations, infrastructure, etc are all "incentives" to behave in one way or another.  We need to make it easier for people and businesses to do what's best for the environment and society.I look at my neighborhood.  Landlords make the most "profit" when they invest  minimum $ while collecting the maximum rent.  They have little incentive to add insulation, energy efficient water heaters and furnaces, or replace windows.  I'd like to see rental income tax credits to encourage landlords to make such investments.  Another option would be to increase property taxes on non-upgraded rental units (though the cost of that would be passed on to tenants).  As a landlord, I don't get significantly higher rents from units with replacement windows and insulated attics.  (I might get higher rents from visible upgrades like kitchen counters and new bathroom tile)  Non-cosmetic upgrades to my properties feel like "charity" -- I'm doing the right thing and feel good about it, but they reduce my "profit."  Landlords have even less incentive to improve energy efficiency since they usually don't pay the utilities -- the tenant does.

   Permalink

5. 

   vakibs Posted 6:53 am
   05 Apr 2009

   Actually, the actors that hurt the environment are embedded within our economic and political systems. They might be as deep as (1) our political norm that we hold elections every 5 or 6 years (2) we use money that can entirely be produced upon the whims of the US Federal Reserve (3) That there exists a symbiotic relationship between the US dollar and OPEC (which quotes petrol entirely in US dollars) providing extra-leverage for USA to produce inflation ...
   
   It is impossible to pinpoint the enemy in a single political party or human being. If it were as simple as that, the problem would have been solved by now. We are in such a mess because what we are dealing with is not simple human beings, but complex animals which have evolved over 60000 years (our current political and economic systems). These systems can be looked upon as an artificial life, with a mind of their own, and a metabolism of their own. Individual human beings or organizations would be just actuators that these life-forms use to achieve their objectives. There exists a complex give-and-take between the different systems, just like in a natural biome.
   
   We should be better aware of our adversaries.

   Permalink

6. 

   auntiegrav Posted 7:08 am
   05 Apr 2009

   The Republicans have the perfect tool: it's called the FairTax bill.
   If the Democrats are serious about environmental issues and preventing the economic collapse from financial bubbles, then they should just get on board with the FairTax (sales tax to replace income taxes) and the only issue left is to negotiate the rate to a point where people will stop consuming more than they need.
   Things like carbon taxes and cigarette taxes and gas taxes are all just little con games when the real issue is our overall consumption and waste of resources. If someone comes up with an alternative fuel for cars or electricity, then the carbon tax becomes useless and we all go back to consuming the planet in other ways. The FairTax puts the costs of ALL the externalities at the focal point: where purchases are made.

   Permalink

7. 

   Sean Casten Posted 7:40 am
   05 Apr 2009

   AuntieGrav,There's something to be said for shifting from income to sales taxes, but it's no panacea (not to mention that the regressivity of that makes it a virtual non-starter politically).  Price only affects behavior at some level; increasing gasoline prices by 10 cents/gallon don't materially change our choice of vehicles.  So the tax only becomes meaningful to reallocate capital to the extent it is sufficient to do so - which will vary by sector, and doesn't have any direct reason to be tied to income taxes, which are set not be the level required to change behavior as much as they are set to match (however inaccurately) government budgetary needs. Finally, bear in mind that - per GreenGranny's comment - there are lots of barriers to efficiency that aren't simply matters of price, with the split incentives innate to real estate being only the most visible example.  All the tax-shifting in the world won't matter if the person who pays that tax is not the person who builds the building.

   Permalink

8. 

   auntiegrav Posted 9:33 am
   05 Apr 2009

   Follow through your own logic first before replying. "Price only affects behavior at some level" is exactly the point. You have to put the ACTUAL price up front where people see it. If using gasoline means that we go to war, then the price of the war needs to be at the pump, not buried behind the human resources department someplace, and treated like a reward when we receive our 'refunds' in April.
   Speeding tickets are a perfect example of price vs. government. The price is set to raise revenue, not to stop speeders. Take the FairTax plan, and double it or triple it to cover the costs of bailouts. The beauty is that the failure mode (cheating) means that people have to live locally, trade with their neighbors, and grow and make their own stuff. Now THAT's conservatism!
   A sales tax is a lot less regressive than a dead planet.
   The person who pays the sales tax IS the person building the building because the person BUYING is the person who starts the builder to work, not the builder's boss. It's all about consumption and marketing. Take away the tax incentive to advertise, and see what happens.
   "Knowledge, not college."

   Permalink

9. 

   greenferret Posted 7:07 am
   06 Apr 2009

   There's only one party with a climate policy that's based on science, and that's the Greens. You could at least give them a mention, especially since the intent of this article seems to be to get environmentalists to be more open-minded politically.

   Permalink

10. 

    auntiegrav Posted 7:31 am
    06 Apr 2009

    "There's only one party with a climate policy that's based on science,
    and that's the Greens."
    While that may be true, but the climate problem isn't a scientific one, but a psychological/government behavior one, and the Greens don't have much in the sense of government power or psychological commons with the majority.
    I agree that they should be mentioned, however, if only for the sake of seeing how NOT to get elected in a bully-based democratic government. You can't win if you're 'nice'. Obama did, but by default, I think, and many don't trust him because he's too nice and doesn't fit the leadership profile. The Greeks figured this out with the first democracies.

    Permalink

11. 

    greenferret Posted 7:46 am
    06 Apr 2009

    Being nice has little to do with it. What you need to get elected in America is corporate money, and Obama had plenty of that. Why do you think he's such a booster of 'clean coal'? The problem is that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to big-money interests.The Green Party has a message that would resonate with a large number of Americans, if only that message had a vehicle. Do you think "the majority" is opposed to nonviolence, justice, grassroots democracy and sustainability - the four cornerstones of Green politics?The point of this article is that we shouldn't be lazy and vote based on the letter next to someone's name, right? That's all well and good, but it's another form of laziness for the media to focus on two narrow choices and ignore everything else out there.

    Permalink

12. 

    ken1 Posted 10:57 am
    06 Apr 2009

    GF- so you want real choice? Heh. I think we're best off focusing our energies on the local, and letting it bubble up to the national, when possible. We simply cannot compete with one dollar-one vote so no use wasting all our emotional, psychic and spiritual energy there.

    Permalink

13. 

    Pangolin Posted 8:19 pm
    07 Apr 2009

    I think politics is the art of avoiding physical realities in order to fashion schemes which will benefit the few at the expense of the many. Since the two party system in the US is dependent upon the campaign contributions of the wealthiest sector of the economy references to objective reality tend to be hung with more political paper-mache than a pickup truck in a parade float.
    
    The GOP, in general, has decided that flat denial of reality is an easier way to sucker dim-witted voters than the Democratic party opposition. They practice a kind of across the board reality denial that leaves Obama's "clean coal" support in the dust. It doesn't matter if you are talking about stem cells, antibiotic resistance, forest management, water supplies, garbage disposal, solar power or nuclear it takes a Republican to be flat wrong on all matters of fact for years on end.
    
    It simply does not bother them to be caught lying on scientific matters. They know they are courting the nitwit vote that couldn't sort it out anyway. Meanwhile the corporate press would tear to pieces any Democrat that strayed too far from the truth unless really major chunks of money were to be made on truth denial. Remember the 2000 presidential election where Al Gore was constantly and incorrectly accused of lying by the media at the same time George Bush was simply constantly lying.
    
    As much as we'd like to pretend otherwise environmental stewardship is a wholly owned operation of the political left. The token voices in the GOP pretending otherwise are simply that; token voices. They have no intention of interrupting any profit stream that they are being paid from.

    Permalink