Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Government Is Not Going to Drastically Curb Carbon Emissions
I don't think the U.S. government is actually going to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, I think it is going to raise trillions of dollars that it then doles back out to industry. So the identities of carbon emitters will certainly shift from the political out groups to the connected people, but I don't think we will return to the Stone Age. Of course, that's almost worse than if we really did wreck the economy on the off-chance that it would avert global catastrophe. But nope, instead we will make the economy a lot less efficient, and if James Hansen is right then we will still be screwed.
Here's Donald Hertzmark in a comment at MasterResource:
Here's Donald Hertzmark in a comment at MasterResource:
With regard to trade agreements and carbon restrictions, we are on thin ice in WTO terms if we slap countervailing duties on countries without carbon restrictions. Just such a tariff was promised by the Secretary of Energy last week, but I suspect it was not thought through, since the primary target would be the country that holds the biggest share of US treasuries, China.
In addition, the initial allocations would hit many industries that are already ailing, including autos. The temptation to tinker with the carbon allocation, perhaps even giving, say, GM, assistance in the purchase of its carbon permits, would likely prove irresistible to and earmark-addicted Congress.
In Europe they solved the allocation problem by handing out excess permits, so that the trades took place with non-existent carbon reduction. That is a neat solution, but it does nothing to change carbon consumption and sooner or later, like any market in non-existent commodities, it crashes, as indeed occurred.
So my challenge to the Obama Administration is: Man up, make your case for a carbon tax and accept the up or down decision.
Comments:
There is definitely a rent-seeking game involving carbon permits - including the multi-decade effort by coal investors to get to socialize risks for free - and it`s too bad that none of our leaders have had the gumption to demand more transparency, as in the type of carbon tax that Exxon is calling for or the tax with dividend that Jim Hansen wants.
With a clear pricing policy (with offsets) we could sidestep alot of the pork that we are seeing in green energy subsidies, CCS etc.
Hertzmark is just blowing smoke on trade agreements: climate change is a collective action problem and trade agreements can be renegotiated if need be. The US is the linchpin on collective action; if we price carbon and set up a schedule for import duties, China and India would be quick to enact similar pricing schemes that would avoid both import duties and an outflow of more industry to dirty China.
BTW, I don`t comment at Master Resource any more, as Rob Bradley has shown his King Coal rent-seeking colors by banning me, as my comments have been too inconvenient to the message that his sponsors are purchasing.
You consider checking with him and see if this is true, and review whether you want to continue to be affiliated with his "Master-Bait-and-Switch" blog that offers "free market" commentary while suppressing free market comments, all for the aim of secure free rights to emit for coal firms: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/11/rot-at-the-core-rob-bradley-at-quot-free-market-quot-masterresource-blog-shows-his-true-colors-as-a-rent-seeker-for-fossil-fuels.aspx
Post a Comment
With a clear pricing policy (with offsets) we could sidestep alot of the pork that we are seeing in green energy subsidies, CCS etc.
Hertzmark is just blowing smoke on trade agreements: climate change is a collective action problem and trade agreements can be renegotiated if need be. The US is the linchpin on collective action; if we price carbon and set up a schedule for import duties, China and India would be quick to enact similar pricing schemes that would avoid both import duties and an outflow of more industry to dirty China.
BTW, I don`t comment at Master Resource any more, as Rob Bradley has shown his King Coal rent-seeking colors by banning me, as my comments have been too inconvenient to the message that his sponsors are purchasing.
You consider checking with him and see if this is true, and review whether you want to continue to be affiliated with his "Master-Bait-and-Switch" blog that offers "free market" commentary while suppressing free market comments, all for the aim of secure free rights to emit for coal firms: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/11/rot-at-the-core-rob-bradley-at-quot-free-market-quot-masterresource-blog-shows-his-true-colors-as-a-rent-seeker-for-fossil-fuels.aspx
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]