Daniel Hall’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  David,

  The cap is determined by the best recommendations of scientists.

  This won't be true in reality, nor indeed should it be.

  First, with regards to reality, the decision about any cap is inevitably going to be a political negotiation.  Consider Kyoto: informed by scientists?  Yes.  Determined by them?  Hardly.

  Second, the decision about what the cap should be is implicitly also a decision about how much it will cost to get there.  Even if we are agnostic about the precise relationship between a given level of reductions and its cost, the general link is uncontroversial: greater reductions will cost more.  (See IPCC WGIII.)  And in a democracy I think it is valuable -- necessary, even -- to have societal input on what we collectively are willing to pay.

  Thus unless we are willing to outsource the discussion of cost, it does not seem obvious to me that scientists alone should be deciding the level of the cap.  Such an arrangement might be preferable from the standpoint of climate protection -- but I posit it would be unwise if the goal is to create durable institutions that have broad societal support, arrived at through a democratic process.On No carbon reduction program is a silver bullet posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Auctions with a few freebies

  David,

  Although I'm generally very much in favor of auctioning permits, Clinton's plan to provide "assistance for energy-intensive industries" may actually be a good idea if done for a limited set of industries that face stiff international competition.  I explain in detail here.On A conference call with Clinton's energy advisors, about her new energy plan posted 2 years ago 1 Response