Comments Adam Stein has made
Economists are not conservatives
In the same way, is it really necessary to pay such close attention to economists? I know that policy makers listen to them, but maybe we should simply be arguing that they shouldn't be,
This is an excellent recipe for both (further) marginalizing environmentalists and also crafting worse environmental policy.
and for the same reason -- economists, for the most part, come from a conservative direction,
Just as a matter of sociology, this is flatly false. Like members of just about any other academic discipline, economists individually tend to be left of center. It's weird how progressives tend to lionize Paul Krugman without ever assimilating the fact that he is, through and through, an economist, not some lonely renegade throwing stones from outside the academy.
because after all that is the main moral of their story: government intervention leads to less than optimal outcomes.
I'm pretty sure Robert Stavins just posted a few thousand words at Grist directly rebutting this notion.
On One last foray into the economics discussion posted 9 months ago 17 ResponsesI is confused
I think we're talking past each other here, or maybe I'm just confused about the Making Work Pay program. I'm not saying that a payroll tax deduction is better than nothing -- I'm saying that the actual program being proposed here seems to be exactly what you're asking for.
The rebate is funding the Making Work Pay program. I got my blurb about the MWP program straight from the CBPP web site, and they seem to be big fans of its progressivity. Am I misunderstanding?
On Cap-and-trade rebates to taxpayers favor efficiency over equity posted 9 months ago 10 ResponsesMaking Work Pay
The carbon revenue is presently being tagged to fund the Making Work Pay tax rebate. Saying that this "reduces the regressivity somewhat" probably significantly undersells the policy. I can't find a ton of really clear info online, but I did find this on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' own web site (pdf):
Unlike the payroll tax holiday, the credit would provide the same benefit -- $500 -- to a worker earning $10,000 as to a worker earning $100,000. Moreover, that $500 credit would far exceed what low-income workers would receive from a payroll tax holiday.
In short, this looks like a pretty equitable solution. Orszag awaits his make-up hug.
On Cap-and-trade rebates to taxpayers favor efficiency over equity posted 9 months, 1 week ago 10 ResponsesAnalytical standards
The cited articles address both of the issues you raise. Specifically, the New Carbon Finance report attempts to separate out the effects of the recession from the effects of the cap. And the authors of the innovation study are well aware of the difficulty of establishing causation, so they include a variety of different measures to try to tease root cause out of the observed trend.
I'm curious: did you actually read the reports?
(I also have to say: your explanation of the patent trend in Kyoto-signatory countries is, well, beyond lame. These countries have a "cultural bent" toward climate sustainability, so starting in 2000 they began patenting a bunch of stuff? That's some serious analytical standards you got there.)
On Two encouraging signs that global climate treaties might be having the intended effect posted 9 months, 1 week ago 2 ResponsesHm
After I was set up as the pro-econ foil over at Env-Econ, I thought about writing my own thumbsucker on What I Think About Economics. Then I decided not to, because...it would be really boring. But here are some bulleted thoughts:
- It's impossible to think about environmental policy without employing economic thinking. Whenever we talk about how, say, agricultural subsidies change the incentives for farmers, thereby affecting the price of commodities, land use patterns, food consumption, etc. -- we're making an economic argument. This is part of the reason I really dislike overbroad rants against capital E economics. You're pretty much waving a giant banner that says "Ignore me!" when you haul off against an entire huge branch of social science. Targeted criticisms, on the other hand, are not just fine -- they're essential.
- I also think there's a fundamental disjunction between micro- and macro-economics. Microeconomics, while certainly lending itself to a degree of oversimplification, is still an essential framework for considering how the world works. Macro, on the other hand, is
an utterly baffling form of devilrydifficult for even informed lay people to understand and also comparatively less settled among experts. Hence the debates over models.
- It's impossible to think about environmental policy without employing economic thinking. Whenever we talk about how, say, agricultural subsidies change the incentives for farmers, thereby affecting the price of commodities, land use patterns, food consumption, etc. -- we're making an economic argument. This is part of the reason I really dislike overbroad rants against capital E economics. You're pretty much waving a giant banner that says "Ignore me!" when you haul off against an entire huge branch of social science. Targeted criticisms, on the other hand, are not just fine -- they're essential.
Er
Agriculture is indeed a terrible analogy, although not just for the reasons mentioned. Last I checked, our horrible food production system is very much the result of price controls and production targets -- exactly the the mechanisms Sarewitz seems not to like.
Of course, technology dissemination and innovation have been important as well, but saying we need all of these things isn't really saying anything very interesting at all.
On Dueling NPR stories illustrate surreal disconnect around climate discussion posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 9 ResponsesFamous Hollywood star with amazing magical powers!
Incidentally, I recommend to everyone the classic blog post, "If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride -- A Pony!"
See if this strikes a chord:
John came up with this "and a pony" scheme during a discussion we were having about crazy libertarians...Reason recently published a debate held at its 35th anniversary banquet. The flavor of this discussion is indescribable. In its total estrangement from our political and social life today, its wilfull disregard of all known facts about human nature, it resembles nothing so much as a debate over some fine procedural point of end-stage communism, after the state has withered away. Child-care arrangements, let's say. Position A: there will be well run communal creches! Position B: nonsense! the amount of work required from each individual to maintain a perfectly functioning society will be so small that people can care for their own children and those of others on a spontaneous basis, as the need arises!
On Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system posted 10 months ago 14 ResponsesNote that you did not address substantive point
I can hear you. I hear you once again trying to elevate some minor policy point into a matter of galactic importance, despite the fact that the actual legislative agenda has rendered the discussion moot. You're not discussing policy. You're shouting into the wind.
I ask again: what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
On Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system posted 10 months ago 14 ResponsesOh my effing lord. Let it go.
There is no substantive point here to address. The whole post goes off the rails in the first sentence: "Proponents of carbon trading over carbon taxes deny that carbon taxes are more transparent."
99.8% of environmentalists are proponents of getting something done about climate change. You seem to be a proponent of 1) demonstrating with faux-mathematical precision that one path forward is superior to all others and 2) attempting to burn all other options to the ground.
The most surreal aspect of this pointless exercise is that none of the people reading this blog are voting members of the U.S. Congress. It's all well and good to advocate for specific policies, but turning every single subclause into an environmental purity test raises the larger question: what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
A few days ago David wrote a post accusing conservative supporters of carbon taxes of poison pill politics. But Arthur Laffer's got nothing on Grist bloggers.
On Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system posted 10 months ago 14 ResponsesClimate change isn't World War II
Darrell and Russ,
This notion that we know how to fix climate change and we just have to do it is dangerously wrong. It also happens to be exactly what is underlying the new love affair with command and control. (The WWII analogy is pretty terrible. Building tanks is not the same as transforming the world's energy infrastructure.)
To be sure, we know a bunch of stuff we should do, and I'm totally on board with using mandates to tackle these issues. Of course, everyone is on board with using mandates to tackle these issues -- it's a completely banal observation to say that efficiency standards and transit investments are good things.
But this notion that they're all we need is a recipe for failure. Nor is it true that "we don't need anything new." We don't need any new breakthroughs in technology to make massive emissions reductions. That's a different thing entirely than not needing technological progress.
On Why the rush to defend this not-so-embattled style of legislation? posted 10 months ago 13 ResponsesNon sequitur
That we don't spend enough on public infrastructure isn't the fault of carbon pricing. Nor if environmentalists were to stop talking about carbon pricing altogether would that somehow make infrastructure investments more likely. Your attempt to set these things up as oppositional hinges on a very odd notion of the legislative process. Environmentalists don't get to pick one big prize every year for Christmas.
I'd also add that your example of freight trains does sort of reinforce the notion that, er, carbon pricing is the big missing piece. That one single thing is going to cost $400 billion? It seems pretty clear then that we're not going to remake our economy solely or even primarily through public spending, and in fact need to guide all investment, public and private, with price signals over a matter of decades.
But, really, I'm not the one insisting we have to choose.
On Why the rush to defend this not-so-embattled style of legislation? posted 10 months ago 13 ResponsesUpdate coming
Extending permits at the end of 2007 doesn't seem even close to banking. If actors in the market couldn't anticipate this happening, you wouldn't expect to see much impact on their behavior.
But, yes, the ETS does allow banking between Phase II and Phase III. I've been chatting a bit with someone who is much closer to the ETS than I am, and his take is basically that the financial crisis is so deep that no amount of banking is going to prop up the price of carbon. Post updated.
On Carbon price volatility is a real issue posted 10 months, 1 week ago 15 ResponsesPrice floors are good
Gar -- I agree that price floors for auctioned allowances makes for a much improved cap and trade system. Incidentally, the scoping plan for AB 32 has a bit of this in it, although it doesn't go as far as one would hope. I still think a low carbon price is more a symptom of a problem than an actual problem, though -- generally speaking, if firms lack an incentive to invest in clean tech, the carbon price will drop, not vice versa.
Ken -- I'm not sure why banking requires overallocation. Carbon emissions tend to bounce around quite a bit for exogenous reasons (weather, the economy, etc.). Banking just allows firms to smooth those temporal fluctuations by moving some allowances from one year to the next. This isn't an argument against price floors, but I don't really think it's fair to say banking is a form of speculation.
On Carbon price volatility is a real issue posted 10 months, 1 week ago 15 ResponsesComrades, trouble!
I took the disturbing news of the rise of the so-called "Mother News Network" as an excuse to tour Grist's content archives to ensure that we are hewing sufficiently to green orthodoxy. What I found troubles me deeply:
- An article recommending a $27 bottle of "Foreau Vouvray Brut" -- shipped all the way from France, where they use nuclear power -- for New Year's celebrations. Hey, is that white, red, or greenwash?
- Links to an "eco-conscious" store (like there's any such thing) hawking such garbage as reclaimed jewelry, electronic gadgets, and yoga gear. Some of this stuff is made from leather!!!@!
On Green as in money posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 15 Responses- An article recommending a $27 bottle of "Foreau Vouvray Brut" -- shipped all the way from France, where they use nuclear power -- for New Year's celebrations. Hey, is that white, red, or greenwash?
Dastards!
I checked out the MNN site. Here are some of the environmental atrocities I encountered:
- An article explaining the benefits of smart grid technology
- A book review column touting Van Jones' "Green Collar Economy" as the top read of 2008
- A media criticism piece about the climate change denial industry
- An article explaining the benefits of smart grid technology
But
Now you're wildly understating the effect of price changes from a primary input to the economy. With a commodity good like coal, there's no way the mine operator is going to soak up the difference.
Price signals do tend to propagate quite far. I imagine that in most cases they propagate all the way to the end consumer, or maybe one level short. The exception might be in really messed up markets like electricity, although even here I'm guessing the long-run effects are much more robust than the short-run effects. I'd love to be able to back up that assertion with more than anecdotal evidence, but for the time being I'll just put it out there.
One other thing: "making marginally less money for shareholders" is a price signal. Unattractive projects don't attract capital.
I hope it's clear that this isn't argument against efficiency standards. Mostly I think this supposed opposition between pricing mechanisms and command and control mechanisms is a fake one that allows us to wank away on blogs. But as long as we're wanking, someone oughtta stick up for price signals.
On Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax posted 11 months ago 13 ResponsesWhat Max said
I've been beaten to the punch, but I also wanted to chime in on this: "First, we have to remember all the places the price signal created by an upstream tax can be diluted or stymied on the way to consumers -- i.e., those who can change their behavior in response to prices."
I'm not totally sure where we get this fixation with consumer behavior. Americans are 69%corn not because they eat tons and tons of corn of the cob. It's because everything they eat is in one way or the other derived from corn, which in turn is a consequence of the fact that corn is heavily subsidized. Likewise, all the stuff we consume is made out of carbon, because today that's where energy comes from.
Pricing carbon isn't just (or even primarily) about getting consumers to change their behavior. It's about getting carbon out of the supply chain.
(By the way, I don't disagree with the larger point of this post. I just keep running across this formulation of what carbon pricing is about, and wish it would stop.)
On Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax posted 11 months ago 13 ResponsesYeah, it's a weird issue
I agree there is something weird about the fact that carbon pricing gives the revenue collector an interest in seeing carbon emissions continue, but this isn't unique to C&D. It's true of a carbon tax or any flavor of cap-and-trade other than the one in which all allowances are given away -- and no one likes that flavor very much.
It strikes me that this problem is probably smaller under C&D than under systems in which government or industry gets the revenue. I'd love to have a pointer to any research on the topic, though.
On Where will we find infrastructure funding under cap-and-dividend? posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 13 ResponsesNo, really, he's a complete buffoon
And this is the most wonderful argument for authority I've ever heard:
the number of people willing to pay hard money to read his books or travel to hear him speak indicates that, to a large degree, he is correct.
By this metric, Bill O'Reilly is Aristotle.
On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 ResponsesRelated article
Here's a related article about the virtues of older structures that, because they predated air conditioning, central heating, and, in some cases, electric lighting, had to be designed for energy efficiency. An excerpt:
"Consider one curious example: prismatic glass blocks, which can still be spotted above the doorway of the occasional early-20th-century storefront. These glass blocks, invented in the late 19th century, were cast with prisms along one side to redirect sunlight deep into long and dark rooms, magnifying available light between five and 50 times."
Good stuff.
On Reintroducing regionalism to green building posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response