... no one's arguing for the price signal in isolation! Because that strawman person would be seriously misguided.

grist.org

All snark aside, David, it's a question of priorities. While most of us support adopting a diverse portfolio of tactics to address climate change, talk is cheap. Where are the environmental community's resources (nonprofit advocacy efforts, publicity, legislative legwork, etc.) directed? Mostly toward carbon pricing regimes like Lieberman/Warner, iCAP, Sky Trust, etc., as far as I can tell. This emphasis is dangerously misguided. Perhaps we should be focusing first on more effective approaches to the climate crisis instead.

-Zach

On that note, David, since you support both carbon pricing and investment (or so I gather), what do you think we should prioritize? Do you think that cap-and-trade should be the principal means to drive emissions reductions?

Actually curious,
Zach

Believe me, we've all heard the shtick before, and it remains a strawman. All the bills you list involve tens of billions of dollars in annual investment.

And I get that you breakthroughlets have been let loose to carry your gurus' gospel around to the benighted masses, but do you really want to be selling it as "more effective"? It's been very effective at garnering press attention, but can you point to instances where it's been successful in doing something about climate change?

grist.org

I don't see why we need to prioritize them. I view them as complimentary; any climate policy that gets passed is going to include both. And it strikes me that arguing about it endlessly before we're close to having either is a great way to keep interns busy but not a great way to make anything actually happen.

grist.org

damn. that's some q&a.

i know some labor activists who want their eight-hour days back.

i know some environmental activists who want their clean drinking water back.

and -- about "deficits don't matter" -- i know a whole bunch of people who want their houses back.

you really think all this wonderful stuff grew on the business tree, without tending? capitalism is agriculture by other means.

you don't have to be a sucker to be positive.

The now-repeated lie -- that because a large increase in U.S. gasoline prices has only produced a 4% decrease in driving, price increases will not produce significant reductions -- is ludicrous.  As prices continue to increase, driving will decrease by an even greater percentage and at a much greater rate per dollar increase in gasoline.  Why?  Simple: as the price of gas continues to increase, it becomes less viable for people to drive long distances, and eventually to drive at all.  Considering how behavior has changed with an increase of $2/gallon, then imagine how it will change with an increase of another $2 or $4.

The fact remains that the more expensive it is to consume energy from sources other than local wind and solar, the less people will consume it and the better off the planet will be.