liberalnun’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  That's a horrible analogy.

  Agricultural investment was about boosting production of something (food), whereas mitigating climate change will be about reducing production of something (carbon emissions). These are two completely opposite objectives! Doesn't he think they require different policies? On Dueling NPR stories illustrate surreal disconnect around climate discussion posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: infrastructure and carbon pricing

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in the post you linked to, the 75% figure comes from the fact that there has been no serious investment in green alternatives.  The point I get from your post is that because green alternatives aren't readily available to people, it takes a very large price signal in order to change behavior, and even then the response is suboptimal. But while I'm convinced by your argument that green infrastructure is necessary to any smart climate change program, I'm not convinced that price signals aren't also necessary in addition to green investment.

  For example. Suppose we invest a lot of money into renewable electricity. This would cause people to buy more renewable electricity, which would be a good thing. But because such investment would increase the supply of renewable energy without decreasing the supply of dirty energy, overall energy supply would rise, and overall energy prices would fall. This would cause people to consume more energy, of both the clean and dirty varieties. However, if you increased the price of dirty electricity by putting a price on carbon, then energy consumption would actually shift from dirty to clean without rising overall. So in this scenario, green investment is necessary to get people to start using renewable energy, but a price signal is necessary to get people to stop using dirty energy.

  (I suppose that in this scenario, you could prohibit new coal plants from being built or set a shut-down date for existing coal plants - but neither of those seem as effective as a gradual phase-out of coal-fired electricity through a ramp-up of prices.)

  I do, however, agree that green investment should come first, as it seems that would help everyone adjust effectively to a higher carbon price.On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nice post.

  Good discussion of the merits of cap-and-trade vs. the carbon tax. I especially like that you called BS on the whole, "But we can't create a new TAX ZOMG" argument. In my opinion, people will eventually figure out that a cap-and-trade system has the same effects as a tax - and if they don't, there are plenty of right-wingers who would be glad to help them sort it out.

  I do disagree, though, on whether green infrastructure is an adequate substitute for carbon pricing. Green infrastructure creates clean alternatives to traditional dirty sources of energy, transport, etc. But I think you need carbon pricing in order for people to actually make the effort to switch to those green alternatives. In my mind, green investment and carbon pricing are complementary - green investment creates the means to lead a cleaner lifestyle, and carbon pricing creates the will to do so.

  While regulation also creates such will, it can only cover certain activities, and it's a relatively blunt instrument. Regulation can't create the sort of blanket incentive to reduce GHG emissions in all areas of modern living the way carbon pricing potentially can. On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I should have said...

  ...a viable solution for the short run. Perhaps the political climate will change enough in ten years to make a substantial gas tax possible.On Are the Big Three just ghostwriting WaPo editorials now? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I do agree with one thing:

  A gas tax would address two variables: the cars people buy, and the number of miles people drive. The clean car standard only addresses one: the cars people buy. So, if we were talking about two different policy instruments that were equally politically competitive, I'd favor the gas tax. Unfortunately, there's no way Obama would be able to push a gas tax through Congress that could accomplish in any decent length of time what the clean car standard will accomplish immediately. I'm amazed that the WaPo editors would actually propose it as a viable solution. In conclusion, the WaPo editors must be smoking crack. On Are the Big Three just ghostwriting WaPo editorials now? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses