Andrew Sullivan reads this Jim Manzi post (Conservatives are going to win on climate change! By doing nothing!) and says he's on board. He then proceeds to blow my freaking mind:
The key will be private and public innovation of non-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture technology. Frankly, however painful it is for many, the high price of gas is perhaps the best anti-global warming non-policy there is.
Now, why is it that the high price of gas is the best anti-global warming non-policy there is? The reason, of course, is that the higher prices are producing a demand response away from petroleum. Just as, you might note, a carbon price would. One might even go on to add that this demand shift is providing an incentive for private and public innovations and investments in non-petroleum (or reduced-petroleum) technologies. Zounds!
But of course, this price response is limited to the one fossil fuel, the price for which has doubled in a year's time. Unfortunately, there are others out there. But what if we could somehow make those expensive, too, with (say) a carbon price? And if we did price all of those different things, we wouldn't have to worry about whether one demand shift might have unforeseen consequences leading to an increase in emissions, or whether our carefully picked government research investments had covered all the most promising technology bases. Best of all, if we did the system well, we'd have additional revenue, which instead of going to the sovereign wealth funds of Gulf nations could be used in part to defray consumer costs or fund private and public innovation in non-carbon energy.
But of course, it will be politically difficult to pass such a bill. It would be a hell of a lot easier, however, if the better conservative journalists out there didn't sign on to some harebrained idea that the best response to warming, politically, economically, and morally speaking, is for us to sit back, wait for (surely inevitable!) economic growth to work its magic, and play at industrial policy while ice melts, storms intensify, floods worsen, cropland dries out, etc., etc., etc ...
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
Zach Arnold Posted 8:18 am
19 Jun 2008
A similar dynamic applies to electricity generation - the carbon prices necessary to make renewables cost-effective are way higher than anything being considered, as our recent article in the Harvard Law and Policy Review explains. The price signal mechanism works in theory, but in practice, will it be strong enough to effect broad change on its own? Probably not.
-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:29 am
19 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Zach Arnold Posted 8:57 am
19 Jun 2008
-Zach
Permalink
Zach Arnold Posted 9:15 am
19 Jun 2008
Actually curious,
Zach
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:18 am
19 Jun 2008
And I get that you breakthroughlets have been let loose to carry your gurus' gospel around to the benighted masses, but do you really want to be selling it as "more effective"? It's been very effective at garnering press attention, but can you point to instances where it's been successful in doing something about climate change?
grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:21 am
19 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Zach Arnold Posted 11:06 am
19 Jun 2008
I realize you have a history with Shellenberger and Nordhaus, but it'd be nice if you could engage the ideas, rather than whatever idea of me and the rest of the fellows you seem to have already formed. Sarcasm and belittling the messenger might work for you normally (I don't know - I'm a new commenter), but they reflect poorly on Grist and your argument.
In any case, by "more effective" I was referring to government RD&D funding, which has a proven track record in promoting clean energy (see: Denmark's early investment in wind technology, American renewable energy subsidies and RPS initiatives, etc). The success of existing cap-and-trade regimes (like the ETS) in reducing emissions, meanwhile, is considerably less certain.
Cheers -Zach
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:33 pm
19 Jun 2008
i know some labor activists who want their eight-hour days back.
i know some environmental activists who want their clean drinking water back.
and -- about "deficits don't matter" -- i know a whole bunch of people who want their houses back.
you really think all this wonderful stuff grew on the business tree, without tending? capitalism is agriculture by other means.
you don't have to be a sucker to be positive.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:30 am
20 Jun 2008
The fact remains that the more expensive it is to consume energy from sources other than local wind and solar, the less people will consume it and the better off the planet will be.
Permalink
Zach Arnold Posted 11:52 am
20 Jun 2008
cheers, Zach
Permalink