Comments mkayser has made

  • Funny

    It's a shame to see religion being appropriated against the environment.

    Let's be careful to respect people who believe in God. This quote is different from "God gave us bananas so we could eat them" (which to me sounds equally silly but is much more benign) because this coal fellow is using the religious angle to serve a non-religious purpose. He's insinuating that we don't even need to reduce fossil fuel usage.

    The absurdity is the stretched connection between "God's bounty" and "let's pollute." We should ridicule the connection, not accept the connection and attack both at once.

    David, I'm sure you see it this way, but I want to get that out there because being a liberal I know how we often think about religion.On Notable quotable posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

  • Lot of speculation in the above post

    I speculated in two places, so don't take my word for it that:

    1. Policymakers really like clear answers and can't handle complexity. I don't deal with policymakers, I'm just stereotyping.
    2. Cap-and-trade policies etc. really are based on "first-best-guess" as opposed to a "smeared guess" that gives rise to many possible paths depending on what happens. I don't work on policy so I don't know these details, I'm just assuming.
    On Shellenberger & Nordhaus echo flawed economic assumptions posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • Agree partly

    Your points about the need for humility in economics are well taken. But economists aren't incentivized to be humble. Humble predictions aren't as clear, and policymakers like clear answers. That's where much of the problem is. Another is that people don't like to think in probability distributions. They like to focus on "the scenario that will happen," even when we don't know what that is.

    There are mathematical ways to account for uncertainty. We could put some "give" in our cap-and-trade schedule. I expect this often doesn't happen because it's too complicated for the policymaker.

    I'm appreciative of your helpful counterbalancing arguments in favor of experience-driven intuition over fancy math. But there are computers right now that basically run hedge funds, and some of them make a ton of money. That's just straight up math. Often using ridiculously unrealistic models of stock pricing, I might add.

    The two schools of thought should continue to have a healthy tension. Humility on both sides is warranted. Your post is well taken.On Shellenberger & Nordhaus echo flawed economic assumptions posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • Good point A Siegel

    However I'd note that this problem also applies to emissions reductions per se, not just energy intensity goals.

    Take a carbon tax. We can reduce emissions with it, but many emission-heavy activities can just move overseas. Of course this is not true of gasoline and not really true of power plants, so it's still a very good policy.

    More subtly, even a "carbon-neutral" U.S. economy is not really sustainable if it depends on the ability to trade with emission-heavy foreign economies. If we are dependent on loads of cheap Chinese products that were produced using coal power, we are not carbon neutral.

    That's why ultimately we need a global carbon price regime. But for the moment we at least need a U.S. carbon price.On The details on Obama's just-released energy plan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

  • Next time you guys talk

    I think none of the people in this flame war should be able to post anything more except

    1. What is the precise suite of policies you want enacted;
    2. How much will each policy reduce CO2;
    3. What are your calculations and assumptions.

    Talking any more at a high level is useless. Clearly you are operating from different assumptions.On Why bother criticizing S&N? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 21 Responses

  • Good contribution

    This is a good contribution to the debate, but I'm not sure it's decisive. You are essentially saying that technology breakthroughs have not driven recent trends in energy use. But isn't the obvious counterpoint that this is precisely because we haven't been sufficiently funding breakthrough research?

    You also seem to lean heavily on the "breakthroughs won't happen" argument, without addressing their argument that "if it doesn't happen we're screwed."

    What if you're both right? Then we're screwed?

    The reason that part of their argument is so relevant is because humans are capable of much more when our backs are against the wall. If the choice is really as stark as "breakthrough technology or mass death/famine," we will work our butts off to find a way. But if regulation can achieve the needed reductions there is much less reason to try that route.

    So your argument is a good contribution but I think there are some missing parts.On Breaking the technology breakthrough myth posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

  • Hmm

    Would I be wrong to think that we could put together two ideas?

    1. S&N is claiming that non-incremental abatement is impossible
    2. Clinton Global Initiative is planning to innovate on long-term financing to incentivize renewable development and production today. (Because the savings are mostly long term. So you want to translate that into a revenue stream that turns quickly positive.)

    Suppose S&N are really right that the technology isn't there. Then if we pass a cap-and-trade bill of around 80% GHG reduction, it will be impossible to fulfill in the time frame. So the carbon price will approach infinity.

    Given those odds, if that's really true, why can't we combine that situation with innovative long-term financing and give companies all the incentive in the world to achieve R&D breakthroughs?

    It may be that it's just not how things are done, so we couldn't count on it. But maybe it's at least plausible.On The death of 'The Death of Environmentalism' posted 2 years, 2 months ago 16 Responses

  • Word

    Consequentialism all the way.On Is Environmental Defense leader Fred Krupp a savvy dealmaker or a stooge? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

  • JCWinnie,

    It's an interesting question to ask whether CAFE or a national renewable energy standard are helpful second-best policies.

    But I would again say that the optimal policy for fighting climate change is a carbon price, which means either carbon tax or cap and trade.

    Only a carbon price will encourage conservation. CAFE will most likely actually increase miles driven, which is perverse. It will still decrease emissions, but it is not the best way to do it.

    Still, CAFE may be better than nothing, but I would prefer to aim higher. I take your point, however, that the political calculations are important.On Rep. John Dingell introduces his hybrid carbon tax posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

  • Siegel

    It looks like Charles is making the calculation that this bill needs a political defender. If Dingell really is just throwing this out there to go down in flames, the most important thing is for people on the left to circle the wagons and defend it as a positive step.

    If a bill has no defenders, it goes down in defeat. It's possible to defend the advance this bill represents to the national conversation (as Charles does) while emphasizing the need for more reductions in the future. I think it was a very well-done post, and I agree that we should applaud the bill.On Rep. John Dingell introduces his hybrid carbon tax posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

  • Interesting interview

    Mixed feelings about it. The interview seemed strident and confrontational to me. Plus there were two people debating against one person. I think the setup was something like what you'd see on Fox News. That doesn't allow for a fair discussion, and that's unfortunate.

    Substantively, some interesting points were raised. But Naomi is way off the mark when she lays problems like income inequality, crony capitalism, and lost money in Iraq at the feet of Alan Greenspan. His job is to control interest rates. Am I missing something?On A remarkable bit of radio on Democracy Now posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Agreed

    Manipulative and dumb.

    Non-child-exploiting negative ads in general might be fine though. Good cop bad cop and all that.On Environmental Defense's climate ads go negative, miss the mark posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

  • Innovation subsidies

    In a working market, the market itself would reward innovation. When prizes (or subsidies) are required to spur innovation, it's a sign that the market is broken.

    It's true there is much incentive already, but because technology spreads throughout society (not just through selling your products but also publication and word of mouth), there are positive externalities to innovation. So it can make sense to subsidize R&D.

    At least that is the argument of these folks. Seems reasonable.On The benefits of using prizes to drive alternative fuel research posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Wow

    Seriously. The scenario he writes sounds great, but it sounds like he's describing a completely different universe. Those words have no resonance for me whatsoever, no matter what I might like to believe.

    The conservatives will be right that the prize has been sullied by some past recipients (although one has to guess they will avoid mentioning Henry Kissinger, one of the most inconceivable recipients in all of history). Gore's doing great stuff but Americans will, one imagines, bristle at this attempt by European "outsiders" to impact the terms of American debate.On If Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize ... posted 2 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

  • You made it clearer but I disagree

    The disagreement here is in the definition of "payback time."

    I would define it as "time it takes till a method becomes cheaper than the cheapest available alternative."

    Your definition (I think) would be "time it takes till a method becomes cheaper than what I am doing now."

    We agree about all the facts, so there's nothing more than a definitional thing going on.

    For example, if I am propelling my car with really expensive rocket fuel, and then I switch to solar-powered plug-in EV, I could claim that my "payback time" is really low. But I'd say the baseline was a bad baseline. Similarly in this case: The baseline of "gasoline" is bad because it's not the cheapest alternative. The cheapest, given our assumptions, is EV powered by coal. (Cheapest in terms of dollars, today, not cheapest in terms of "plus a certain estimate of internalized externalities." I know how you feel about how this changes the coal picture.)

    I think of payback time basically like opportunity cost, whereas you're treating it as a way of comparing exactly two things. No problem. But, if you stick with your definition, then I stop caring about payback time. For me the only relevant measure is opportunity cost.On Who will lead on advancing smart-grid technologies? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

  • Fossil fuel cheapness

    Gasoline and coal power are cheap as long as you don't factor in the costs they impose on the environment, the climate and public health.

    Indeed. Nevertheless, I don't think that was the thrust of Andy's comment.On A panel discussion on how much plug-ins rule posted 2 years, 2 months ago 32 Responses

  • What does payback time mean

    Andy: When you couple plug-ins with solar and wind, you're not displacing electricity, you're displacing oil, which is much more expensive. That radically cuts down your pay-back time for solar.

    Assuming I understand what he means, I disagree with the relevance of his comparison.

    The relevant concept here is not displacement but opportunity cost. What is the cheapest alternative? In this case you have three alternatives for how to power a car:

    1. Gasoline: Costs least, pollutes most
    2. Plug-in, solar/wind power: Costs most, pollutes least
    3. Plug-in, coal power: Costs medium, pollutes medium
    (Medium meaning somewhere in the middle, I don't mean to suggest it is particularly close to the average)

    It's fine to say that ultimately solar electricity is replacing oil energy. But purely from a cost perspective, fossil fuels could also supply the electricity. Fossil fuels are currently cheaper, for powering a home or for powering an EV. So what does Andy mean by cutting down the "pay-back time of solar?" Surely the end-use in question is not relevant to payback time? I'm confused.On A panel discussion on how much plug-ins rule posted 2 years, 2 months ago 32 Responses

  • Kudos to Mankiw

    Kudos to Mankiw for consistently throwing his weight behind this idea. He's got some clout, hopefully people listen.

    I am not sure whether he's right that a global carbon tax is politically easier to create than a global cap-and-trade regime. But, if a carbon tax is less likely than cap-and-trade to give money to coal companies, I'm for it. Carbon tax is regressive, so give the revenue to poor folks a la the Tufts proposal, don't waste it on coal companies.On Conservative economists agree: Taxes rule! posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Good point

    This is what makes me especially think we need a carbon tax. It's a clear, simple policy that doesn't allow any greenwashing BS.

    I think that subpar policies (like CAFE, renewable production subsidies etc.) are mostly no better than media-hype-fueled greenwashing. Subpar policies make people feel good but do not directly solve the problem.On Greenwashing is getting more subtle posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Nice conclusion

    Nice post, I agree and disagree with some points.

    To recap:

    1. Communities are important
    2. Local food fosters community
    3. Ideally, we would all eat local food
    4. Equity considerations can sometimes favor bringing in food from abroad.
    5. Let's use fair trade agreements to support communities elsewhere.

    I agree with #1 and #2, but I wouldn't put too much weight on #2. Your argument applies equally well to consumer products: is it really important that my computer be built in the same state as me? I would argue, "maybe in a perfect world, but not really." Same with food. It's nice to have the sense of community, but I'm not sure it's critical that local community be fostered through food choices.

    More fundamentally: why should I cultivate greater care for the people near me, compared to the people far from me? This sounds like it verges on xenophobia. You might argue that caring about the local community is not mutually exclusive with caring about people farther away. That might be true. It's a psychological question, really. Your argument might be that a) you cultivate care where it's easiest because that's the most efficient way to do it, b) it's naturally easiest for us humans to care about stuff we can see and touch and live near; and c) once you care about some stuff, you start caring more about everything else too. If so, that's a plausible argument, though I'm not sure whether I agree.

    Anyways, I disagree with #3. but #4 and #5 sound pretty good. "Fair trade" is kind of a murky issue (people can sometimes do more harm than good by trying to overpay for something) but it might be worth it.On Strengthening community is an important benefit of eating locally posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

  • Interesting paper

    I actually posted a comment on ClimateProgress too, but the paper is worth a skim, even for the math-averse. Take this fascinating excerpt from the conclusions section:


    Perhaps in the end the economist can help most by not presenting a cost-benefit estimate for such situations as if it is accurate and objective -- and not even presenting the analysis as if it is an approximation to something that is accurate and objective -- but instead by stressing more the fact that such an estimate may be arbitrarily inaccurate depending upon what is subjectively assumed about the fatness of the tails and where they have been cut off.

    In other words, an economist who tells you precisely "how bad" the environmental future is going to be is necessarily making subjective assumptions -- and those subjective assumptions are substantially driving the result.

    This is kind of sobering. At the least it strongly suggests that we need to throw a lot of money into researching "how bad the environment might get". To try to get some objective handle on things.

    I imagine this plea, however ("let's fund more research into how bad global warming might get!") will tend to fall upon deaf ears in a place where most people are activists who are already convinced that global warming must be a very big problem.On Harvard economist disses most climate cost-benefit analyses posted 2 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

  • Dave,

    Thanks for the response.

    A reasonable price on carbon will, I think, effectively act as a moratorium. Coal plants won't make economic sense in carbon-constrained world. But it will take a while for the price on carbon to rise to sufficient levels, and for the carbon market to mature.

    Meanwhile, the coal industry is racing to build a buch of plants before that happens. And once you build a coal plant, it's spewing emissions for 30, 40, 50 years.

    Sorry, I don't understand. A tax on emissions will rise to a significant level before 30, 40, 50 years, right?

    So presumably coal plants, including new ones, will only be profitably dirty until the tax phases in to a significant level. This should both
    (1) discourage production of coal plants right now (the expected lifetime profit of the plant is lower), and
    (2) ensure that CO2 emissions do not last the lifetime of the plant, but only until the CO2 tax gets sufficiently ramped up.On Why Edwards' 'ban' on coal plants does little good against climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

  • The best review

    The best review I've seen so far is Tyler Cowen's post at Marginal Revolution. On Some reviews and criticism of Bjorn Lomborg's new book Cool It posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses

  • Careful

    The first and most obvious is a policy's particular goals. On that score, Richardson wins. He calls for a 90 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, which is better than Dodd and Edwards who call for 80 percent reductions over the same time span.

    I assume you are not saying that the more extreme proposal is always better? Would 95% emissions reductions be a better goal? What about 99%? 100%? At what point do the tradeoffs begin to outweigh the anticipated benefits?

    If the answer really is that you think carbon neutrality by 2050 is the optimal goal, what is your basis for this belief?

    I don't mean to give you crap for standing up for the environment-- it's a good cause. But we should be advocates for the optimal policy, not the most extreme policy. On Dodd doesn't have the boldest climate goal, but he's got the boldest policy proposals posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • A lot of alternatives

    Thanks very much for the link Jon. The arguments for rail look interesting, I haven't examined very thoroughly yet.

    There are many alternatives to subway/light rail mass transit:

    • electric cars
    • subsidize smaller cars
    • subsidize bike lanes
    • heavily tax single-occupant car trips
    • heavily subsidize private shuttles within city
    • institute toll regions in city

    I am not sure about the numbers but consider that the average number of occupants in a car might be as low as ~1.2. If we could raise that number to ~3 or 4 we would be halving emissions, or better. It is easy to imagine that this is the lowest-hanging fruit, and not mass transit infrastructure. Note that carpooling does not require any different infrastructure at all! (people already have cars). On How green is California? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

  • Does anyone have a link

    Does anyone have a link to a study that even tries to demonstrate that public transit is a cost-effective means of reducing emissions? Of course we could spend billions of dollars to reduce emissions in this way, but is this a cost-effective way to reduce emissions?

    I'm not saying it isn't cost-effective, but you will have to simply accept that many people say it is not cost effective. You cannot ignore these people, you have to explain why they're wrong.

    If the upshot is that we should forget about subsidizing mass transit and instead jack up a carbon tax higher, that's a valuable lesson for all of us to learn, and would make our lives easier.On How green is California? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

  • Mixed feelings

    1. The video gives a creepy sense of brainwashing and exploitation.

    2. Greater anger in public discourse usually reduces our ability to think clearly.

    3. We shouldn't care only about this kid's future, and I think his rather selfish "it's about my future" rings hollow. Rather, we should be concerned about the future of all succeeding generations (with some level of discounting to account for the fact that we might all die off someday).

    4. Raw anger can be a shocking spur to action but it clashes with my vision of the best society, which is peaceful and cooperative. Is it legitimate to use dire means to achieve that vision? That is not a simple question. Is it appropriate to use such means if "gentler" means could achieve the same ends? I think in that case we should err on the side of the less "severe" approach.

    5. I tend to think people who act like this have anger management problems and are simply using "causes" as a convenient outlet for their personal problems. I can't imagine having a productive conversation with this person.

    6. The underlying problems of society (climate change, poverty, malnutrition, etc.) involve a lot of uncertainty about the best solution. It is inappropriate to introduce virulent anger into a situation where the best path is uncertain.

    7. It's certainly memorable.
    On Greenpeace ad on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 19 Responses

  • By the same token.

    OK, suppose we grant the author's argument, which is something like this:

    "There is limited time, don't waste your energy improving your personal carbon footprint or exhorting your friends to do the same. Instead exhort the government to implement beneficial policy."

    Sounds fine. Should we then, not take this argument a step further and say this?

    "There is limited time, don't waste your energy pushing for less-effective policy measures like incandescent-light bans or CAFE standards. Instead, exhort the government to pass a carbon tax and to increase its subsidies of renewable energy research."

    I can understand the argument (focus your world-saving energy where it has the most efficient impact) but I am not sure how the author purports to understand the incredibly complicated mechanism of how social change happens. I suppose we could trust this author's intuition, so long as we accept that that is all it is.On Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

  • Last post in a row, I swear

    To be clearer: I don't agree with Billhook's analysis. But it points at a subtler problem which is that absolute emissions reductions from individual abatement depend on the supply and demand curves. The shallower the supply curve, for example, the greater the effect of individual abatement. So carbon offsetting is not really a 1-for-1 exchange, because all abatement is not created equal. This is a fairly subtle problem which by itself is not fatal to the offsetting cause, I think.On On the problem of carbon-offset projects in developing countries posted 2 years, 2 months ago 49 Responses

  • Another problem

    Another problem with the logic of offsets was raised by Billhook above:

    ...it also lands that volume of diesel back on the market
    where the next bidder will buy and then burn it.
    Thus there is no reduction at all of fossil fuel usage.

    We need to look at the supply and demand curve to know the effect of one person's abatement. A person abating is like a shift in the demand curve-- the quantity demanded at any given price is lower by let's say 1 unit. But this is not the same thing as a reduction in the equilibrium quantity consumed by 1 unit.

    Do this on a piece of paper: draw a supply curve with a slope of 1. Draw a demand curve with a slope of -1. Note where they intersect. Now shift the demand curve leftward by 1 unit. See the new intersection point? That is not a reduction of 1 unit consumed.

    Now, this logic applies both to the rich potential abater (who is just going to be "lazy" and buy an offset) and the poor abater (who receives money for abating). So the real issue is, we should perhaps pursue demand reduction where it will most strongly affect equilibrium consumption.On On the problem of carbon-offset projects in developing countries posted 2 years, 2 months ago 49 Responses

  • I still think offsets won't work very well

    I'm sorry, but I still think offsets are in danger of being baloney. How can you really know that someone would not have done abatement X unless you paid them for the credits?

    It seem to me that the business model only "works" for as long as potential abaters don't think about (i.e. don't try to exploit) the existence of the Terrapass-like company.

    Suppose in 5 years, everyone has perfect knowledge of Terrapass (and Climate Care, etc.) and suppose everyone is perfectly rational. A rational person in a developing country would plan on doing things that are a little more polluting so they could collect on offset credits once they abate. That is only the logical thing to do.

    How could Terrapass ever possibly detect when people are just playing this game with them? Let me ask a darker question: what incentive does a company like Climate Care/Terrapass have to even care whether an abater is playing this game with them? They make money either way, no? (This would be extra bad, if the offset brokers don't even care, but it's still bad if they do care but can't verify anything).

    If you think about the incentives, it seems to me that additionality becomes impossible to verify. Greedy rational actors will account for the existence of offsets, and try to exploit them. The net effect will be an inadvertent subsidy of wastefulness. The net impact on emissions may be zero, or worse.On On the problem of carbon-offset projects in developing countries posted 2 years, 2 months ago 49 Responses

  • What about another argument for offset credits

    What about this argument for offset credits, which probably nobody is willing to make, but which I think seems fairly plausible:

    "The best reason to support carbon credits is that they support a 'bait-and-switch' maneuver which better supports the environment in the future.

    People who buy carbon credits have implicitly admitted that CO2 emission is a problem, but perhaps are not willing to undergo much hardship to abate their own emissions. Thus, they have attached themselves to the most pain-free apparent solution. Once it is made clear to them that these credits are ineffectual, these people will undergo cognitive dissonance, as they discover they are not as environmentally friendly as they thought. They are likely to alleviate this dissonance by finally undergoing actual abatement."On Offset customers don't buy offsets to justify their other behavior posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

  • Thanks DR

    Thanks David, for the post and discussion. I think it was extremely well put and right on.On Fear of death leads to authoritarianism, not sustainability posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

  • Can I take this opportunity

    Can I take this opportunity to reopen the question of why RPS at all?

    1. On page 23 of this paper, Fischer and Newell argue that an RPS is equivalent to a fossil fuel tax plus a renewable subsidy.

    2. If I remember this paper correctly, it is argued that there are two primary externalities we want to correct in this scenario: (a) the negative externality of pollution from dirty technologies, and (b) the positive externality of increased knowledge that happens when renewable companies build capacity and "learn along the way."

    3. Seemingly, these two externalities compel us to support a blend of two policies: a) a pollution tax, and b) either a renewable energy production subsidy, a research subsidy, or the like.

    4. One last slight complication: you might also say that externality (b) is really just another negative externality of using dirty technology. That is, an extra dollar invested in dirty technology should be penalized because it prevents us from reaping the beneficial spillovers of investing that dollar in renewables. I tend to see things this way. People who take this view would say, there should just be one policy: a pollution tax.

    So, some people would say "pollution tax plus renewables subsidy" and some people would say "just pollution tax." But why should we even consider saying "RPS"? What is the additional advantage of this policy?

    The only argument I can think of is hinted at in the "two market failures" paper I linked earlier: since there is a corporate constituency for RPS, it may be more politically feasible than a carbon tax.

    Look, I'm all for pragmatism. A second-best policy that we can pass, is better than an awesome, world-saving policy that we can't. But if this is the argument, let's say so directly. As far as I can tell, that is the only valid argument for supporting RPS. In an ideal world, it is not the best use of our environmental dollars.On New article fails to shed light on state renewable portfolio standards posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

  • Why not food-joules?

    To me, the food-miles notion is almost the relevant measure, but not quite, because, as we're all discussing, different supply chains are more or less energy efficient. Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to measure CO2 emissions per unit of food, or usage of fossil fuels, or what-have-you. Isn't that more precisely the question?On The vexed question of exactly how far our food travels. posted 2 years, 3 months ago 19 Responses

  • Don't understand this post

    Agree with previous commenters... the post is not convincing.

    It is, however, worth considering the idea that people are irrational, which may support the use of "well designed" command-and-control regulations.

    Take an example: it at least seems irrational that CFL's haven't totally taken over the residential lighting market-- they give off the same light and are cheaper over their lifetime. People have a clear economic incentive to use these bulbs. Nonetheless, they are "different" and, in fact, don't give out exactly the same spectrum of light, and they cost more up-front. So some people will not get them, even though it seems only rational to do so. Some have proposed mandating the switch to CFL's, and it's not a crazy idea.

    Now it is always tricky territory to "prescribe rationality" by assuming you know what people really want even when they don't do it and mandating them to do it. So we should tread carefully. But, even though the economics behind market-based approaches assuming rational actors is impeccable, there may be psychological quirks that argue in favor of the "command-and-control nudge" in selected cases.On Correcting two misunderstandings posted 2 years, 3 months ago 19 Responses