Comments thebrowze has made

  • the proper way to rally voters

    Now that's going to rally American voters!

    I suppose the proper way to rally voters would be to lie and tell them that they won't have to do anything, just vote for the right people and the government will do it for you.

    After all, isn't that how the war in Iraq was sold?On Dingell gets off a zinger in a testy interview posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

  • not necessarily contradictory

    As I have not read the book myself I can only go off the passages you have quoted.

    Dr. Greenspans arguements about technology, higher carbon prices, and lower output aren't necessarily contradictory.  Raising the price of energy without finding new technologies to increase efficiency and counteract the higher prices will lower output and cost jobs and GDP growth.  But higher prices will spur the innovation to find new technologies, just like you mentioned (in part I) happened in the late 70's with gasoline prices and fuel efficiency.  These aren't mutually exclusive, in fact it is likely that both will happen if we raise the price of emissions.

    Any development period longer than one election cycle will be "too protracted for political comfort", so that is irrelevant.  It doesn't seem to me in these passages that Greenspan is arguing that we shouldn't raise the prices of emission simply because it would cost jobs, he is pointing it out to show why we lack the political will to do so.  Many of Greenspan's interest rate increases earlier this decade cost jobs because of slowed growth, but he was obviously alright with those.  It doesn't seem to me that Greenspan pointing out that something will hurt the economy in the short term is the same thing as him arguing we shouldn't do it, as evidenced by many of his actions as Federal Reserve Chairman.On Greenspan on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • It wasn't regulations...

    Quote:
    "If Greenspan were right that market forces were the most important thing, then when oil prices collapsed in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s, fuel economy would have collapsed too. Thankfully, fuel economy regulations stopped such a collapse from happening."

    Regulations didn't stop fuel economy from collapsing, the fact that we'd figured out new technologies did.  Why would manufacturers go back to using older, less efficient technologies just because the reasons for developing the new ones went away?  Wouldn't we continue to use the new and better technologies?

    And incidentally, fuel consumption (fuel economy is only an intermediate statistic) did increase faster when the prices dropped in the 80's and 90's.  That's why we had such a surge in the number of SUVs and such an increase in the number of people living farther and farther from their jobs.  When the price went down we used more petroleum.  When the prices go up we find ways to use less, and increased efficiency is only one of the ways we do it.On Greenspan on energy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

  • careful with buses

    I agree that mass transit funding needs to be increase dramatically and there needs to be a halt on highway expansion, especially here in seattle.  But be careful about recommending more buses.  A bus route that has a sparse ridership uses more gas (and therefore has higher emissions) than those riders driving themselves.  A bus with 3 people on it that gets 4 miles to the gallon is essentially only getting 12 passenger miles per gallon.  It would be better if those three people each drove SUVs.

    I'm not saying that mass transit isn't the answer, but it isn't a panacea either, and could do more harm than good if not planned carefully.On Tar sands are the enemy of the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Instead?

    Thanks for responding Gar.  The most obvious scenario to me that would make a carbon tax redistribute income upwards would be one in which carbon tax revenues were in fact used to fund energy research, since the money would go towards paying highly educated researchers and white-collar administrators.  

    I just don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing.  If we use revenue from carbon taxes to fund research it will most likely make the efficiency gains come more quickly, which will lower the carbon footprints for people in all income brackets, and therefore the taxes.  Also doing this means we would not have to find funding elsewhere for the research, and could instead cut income taxes for the poor, or provide money for other underfunded social programs.

    I am a little confused about your definitions of regressive and progressive.  A carbon tax, like a sales tax, will necessarily be a regressive tax because on the whole poor people spend a larger proportion of their income on energy than rich people do.  A tax does not change from being regressive to progressive simply because of what you do with the revenue.

    Instead of simply cutting everyone a check for the same amount (which would indeed result in the poorest people getting back more than they paid), why not use the money for a subsidy to pay for energy efficient technology for the poor in the same manner we provide the poor with health insurance through medicaid?  Not only would this help to alleviate the tax burden but would also help to poor reduce carbon emissions in a way that was not previously possible to them (not to mention giving them additional incentives to reduce emissions in a way that giving them their money back would not).

    I'd love to hear your thoughts.On The time to focus on policy is now posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

  • Wait....WHAT?

    So you're proposing to use carbon taxes as a tool for....um....income redistribution?  WHAT?  Even if I were to concede that income redistribution were a laudable objective (which I don't) using carbon taxes to achieve it would be so inappropriate as to border on stupidity.  Any politician that proposed this (I would hope) would be laughed off Capitol Hill for such an obviously pandering proposal.

    It's also less effective: if people simply get back part or most of what they pay in carbon taxes then they have less incentive to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Why not use the money to fund sustainable and efficient energy research?  Because we won't see the result immediately?  That's roughly analogous to saying we shouldn't fund primary education because we won't see the benefit of educating today's 10-year-olds for another 15-20 years.  It's a longer term investment in solving the very problem the tax was meant to alleviate.  Not to mention that when carbon tax revenues start to fall  with be roughly the same time they aren't needed as much to fund energy research.  The system will wind down by its own design.  It seems to me a much better solution than an obvious hand-out designed to build political support from the uninformed masses who could care less about climate change.

    As a side note:  the taxes would start out as a progressive tax, but may not end up that way.  There are clean technologies out there, in ever increasing numbers.  These technologies, however, are mainly accessible to the wealthy. When was the last time you saw a family below the poverty line driving a Prius or installing solar panels?  The wealthy have much greater means to reduce their carbon footprint (and therefore avoid paying the taxes) than do the poor.  These carbon taxes could very well turn out to be regressive.  It would have achieved the goal of getting the overall level of carbon emissions reduced but the revenue may end up coming more from the poor.  This is not, in my opinion, a reason to scrap the tax.  I am just pointing out that some of the more "feel-good" aspects of this proposal (income redistribution and a progressive tax) may be counter-productive, beside the point, or false.On The time to focus on policy is now posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

  • Carbon offsets

    The article mentions that there are numerous smaller landfills that don't produce enough methane to make them economically viable for methane extraction.  These seem like the perfect sites to use those GHG offsets (I guess usually they are for carbon dioxide) to make these projects economically viable.

    I remeber a thread here a few weeks ago about how many carbon offsets that are purchased are simply lining the pockets of firms who would have undertaken the emissions reductions without the handout from carbon offset brokers.  This is the perfect place to move those offsets:  take a project that will not go forward and give companies, like energy cooperatives, the incentive to take them forward.  Instead of simply helping people ease their guilty conscience this will actually do something to reduce global warming.

    A quick question:  the article mentions that methane accounts for 9% of US GHG emissions.  Is that by weight, warming effect, or some other measurement?  If it is by weight, and methane is 20 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 then some simple math reveals that methane is contributing at least twice as much warming effect as CO2.  If that's true, then why are people screaming about CO2 so much, and not focusing on methane?On Methane from landfills is hott posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • One thing.

    You're right.  He is so on the ball 5 years ago it is almost sickening.

    I do, however, have one problem with his reasoning.  It is a basic principle of free market economics that when there is demand for a product/service someone will supply that product/service provided that person can make a profit from it.  When Clinton is talking about a trillion dollar untapped market I'm sitting here five years later asking myself "Where's the market?  If the economic opportunity actually exists why aren't people selling this stuff?"

    I don't really know where I stand on the government funding the R&D for a product that is going to make a small number of individual companies very wealthy.  If the market really exists then it probably should be able to fund itself quite nicely.On So correct it hurts posted 2 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses

  • Scams and Suckers

    This strikes me as very similar to the many phony charities set up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.  People want to do the right thing but they don't want to spend the time or effort to make sure their dollars are going to the right place.

    This is one of those things that will get better the more light is shone on the situation.  The fact that the company in Colorado refuses to demonstrate or point to any of their projects for which these resorts are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars shrieks of a scam to me.

    What will probably end up happening is that more information with drive better consumer choice.  Right now the market is very young, but as time goes by the good companies will be able to demonstrate what they're doing and the scam artists without serious substance will fade away.On Among bad deals, TerraPass's methane offset project? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

  • Hold on...

    Quote:
    "If scientists want to dispassionately report the results of science, they can do so through the IPCC or the NAS or scientific journals or whatnot. If they're going to enter the public realm, then they become public citizens, and are perfectly within their rights to use all the age-old rhetorical devices that help messages rise above the background informational buzz."

    I have a big problem with this attitude, and I've seen it in a few different places on this site.  Scientists are in the business of discovering and reporting facts.  If license is taken with facts, or rhetorical devices are used in any way to enhance or otherwise obscure the meaning of the data then what is being said is no longer a fact, and is justifiably subject to the scrutiny of parties whose interest may be hurt by the facts.  If a group is going to claim to have the science and the facts on their side is is probably in its best interest to have those facts as indisputable and untainted as possible.On Tedious posted 2 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

  • Regardless, a good example is never a bad thing

    While I agree that the most important thing is the debate on ideas, people who appear to be hypocrites will always rub some people the wrong way.

    Environmentalists who fly in private jets have always left a bad taste in my mouth, especially given the increased availability of commercial air travel and the fact that it is no longer as necessary to be physically present at events given the incredible advances in communication technology.

    One thing that always bugged me studying economics was the extreme disconnect between what people should rationally do and what people actually do.  Regardless of whether we should leave personality out of debates on ideas people will always involve personalities in those debates (especially if it will help them discredit their opponents).

    There is a piece on this very website lamenting the fact that a straight science, just-the-facts, approach to environmentalism is not getting through to the general population.  The green movement needs to do a better job of relating to average people, and adopting a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to policy discussions is only going to make it harder for the general population to come around.On Don't shoot the messengers posted 2 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses