I`m with you, Bob, but I imagine that the MIT professor and others would argue that most of the allocation of the allowances and auction receipts IS productive.

But where have Austrians been pushing for more effective and less costly alternatives, such as rebated carbon taxes?

It`s only people who want to destroy civilization like Jim Hansen and Exxon who have done that
 

Why would Austrians push for something they think robs consumers for no good reason?

Again, you (and Silas and many others) believe that unless GHG emissions are seriously curtailed, that our grandchildren will experience large damages that could otherwise be averted.

I think these the confidence in these projections is misplaced.

Yes, if the gov't is going to do cap & trade, then it would be better to use the receipts to lower income tax rates, rather than having politicians give handouts to particular sectors.

But when the politicians fail to do even this, then why is that somehow a strike against me? Why wouldn't that just prove I was right all along, when I've been telling you et al. that you are naive for discussing the benefits of a textbook imposition of cap and trade with rebate?
 

Bob: The strike against you is that you use the argument "but the policy won't actually happen like that!" against every single position but your own. (And I've explained this to you on aguanomics.com before.)

Global warming alarmist: "We should do X and Y to combat global warming, and it will result in a net economic gain."

Bob: "But politicians will actually do something destructive like Z!"

GWA: "But I'm not advocating that!"

Bob: "Pff!"

***

Bob: "We would all be better off without the state."

Critic: "But your followers could commit atrocities in bringing that about!"

Bob: "But I'm not advocating that!"

***

See the problem?

And anyway, the point TT and I have been making is *not* that you're wrong about the political process, but all the obviously wrong things you say in trying to make your points. For example, how you have a complete blind spot to how *not* restricting CO2 emissions will *also* hurt someone's consumption.
 

Silas,

I could just as easily flip it around and say that your position is equivalent to the communist sympathizers who said, "Aww, the Soviets just picked some bad leaders. We'll get it right next time." I think we can both agree that that position is naive, and that communists should realize they will never get the angels that their system requires (even setting aside the calculation problem).

I think your point would be more valid if I advocated people voting in Libertarians, or if I supported AP (which I'm not spelling out because I don't want search bots to misunderstand). But I don't do those things.

Indeed, the position I advocate is educating yourself and renouncing violence. There is no way to "take those too far."
 

I could just as easily flip it around and say that your position is equivalent to the communist sympathizers who said, ...Er, we've been over this.

Just read my response again, for the first time.
 

Still don't see the light, Silas. I clicked the link and spent about 3 minutes sifting through us arguing about firefighters.
 

Did you make it to this part:

****

I have stated before that opposing government attempts to define atmospheric property rights until all governments are out of the property enforcement/definition business, would leave the atmosphere in a tragedy of the commons indefinitely, and that the latter would be very bad. I have also stated that there are ways government could handle the rights that would be worse than a tragedy of the commons in the atmosphere, and that we should oppose policies that would allow this.

That is in no way analagous to supporting nationalization of the oil industry "if we can just get the right people to be in charge"; the comparison is just sloppiness and/or a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

****

Anyway, you have good reason not to read any further. My next comment on the thread is the one where I explain my position on geoengineering. You know -- the one you lied about later?

Oops, guess that's not specific enough.
 

"Why would Austrians push for something they think robs consumers for no good reason?"

Good point. Austrians should consistently oppose all middle ground, even if that makes worse policies more likely.

They way, they can feel virtuous, which is more important than being productive or effective.

"you (and Silas and many others) believe that unless GHG emissions are seriously curtailed, that our grandchildren will experience large damages that could otherwise be averted."

Not quite. I believe that the amount of hot air spent on this topic is a good measure of the preferences of quite a few, whose preferences for more environmentally-friendly and less state-heavy technologies have long been frustrated by public utility monopolies, as Lew Rockwell points out here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/04/23/in-which-i-applaud-another-balanced-productive-post-by-dr-reisman.aspx.

I would rather see the pressure built up by these preferences directed in the least damaging and most useful ways.

"I've been telling you et al. that you are naive for discussing the benefits of a textbook imposition of cap and trade with rebate"

Where, in any discussions with you, have I indicated any naivety about how politicians were likely to mangle cap and trade, much less advocate "cap and trade with rebate"?

"when the politicians fail to do even this, then why is that somehow a strike against me? Why wouldn't that just prove I was right all along"?

Of course you are completely right that carbon policies (like all　others) have a tendency to be misused to provide pork to insiders. All the more reason to have been arguing for policies that may have some ability to satisfy those calling for carbon pricing, while blunting the worse pork-barrel aspects.

But you`ve conspicuously missed the ways that our current laws/regs have been deliberately throwing similar pork (actual pork, as well as pollution for old sources /strip mine bennies, and climate risk-shifting) to coal for years.

There`s a reason why fossil fuel firm have been funding principled, but one-sided arguments like yours for years.

A small point, but apparently some portion of caps will be auctioned and rebated to poorer ratepayers.
 

Silas: Given my views of the likely dangers of AGW, I think it would be much more dangerous to give government the power to cap CO2 than to allow business as usual. I realize you disagree on that point. In any event, if you and I both agree that any actual cap & trade coming out of DC would be bad for the economy and would do little to stem AGW, then it's not my responsibility to provide a solution. It would be great if I did (and I tried to, but you didn't like it), but someone can point out, "Your solution won't work" even if he can't come up with a better idea.

Tokyo Tom: OK sorry, sometimes I conflate you and Silas. So for the record, you're against cap & trade? Have you left such comments at Joe Romm's blog? (I'm not being sarcastic.)
 

@Bob_Murphy:

Given my views of the likely dangers of AGW, I think it would be much more dangerous to give government the power to cap CO2 than to allow business as usual. I realize you disagree on that point.[line break]

Wrong again. I have made it very clear (not going to dig up the links, but I made sure to be clear about this every single time the issue came up) that there are government policies where the cure is worse than the disease. In fact, I believe the overwhelming majority of possible CO2 restriction policies will be like that.

My dispute is with your trampling of the truth in order to make otherwise valid points. So government will botch the climate issue and make us worse? Fine. That still doesn't mean: Cap and trade is not a market solution, permits can't reflect scarcity, flooding people out of their homes is okay if it keeps gasoline cheap, etc etc etc. Yet you argue those points anyway, because hey, if it can convince the right wing nuts that read IER's press releases to agree with your policy recommendations ... well, that's good enough. It's all a blur anyway, right?

In any event, if you and I both agree that any actual cap & trade coming out of DC would be bad for the economy and would do little to stem AGW, then it's not my responsibility to provide a solution. It would be great if I did (and I tried to, but you didn't like it),[line break]

Excuse me, but there was no solution for me not to like in the first place. I hate to break it to you, but "don't worry, we'll get lucky!" combined with "sucks to be Bengali" is not a "solution" by any standard definition of the term.

but someone can point out, "Your solution won't work" even if he can't come up with a better idea.[line break]

In your op-ed (link for those new to this), you didn't say, "your solution won't work". You said, "your solution has bad aspects", which isn't much of a criticism. You would have to show how those bad aspects are worse than the alternative. Strangely enough, you reminded everyone that REAL market solutions are when the private owners of a resource make their own decisions on how to economize it ... and then proceded to oppose the nearest attempt to bring private ownership into existence ... on the grounds that there's no economization problem.

Can you see why that might be worse than unhelpful?
 

Silas, I really don't want to get into another full-blown debate. But if I'm reading your post correctly, you too think that cap & trade, at least in any version that will come out of DC in the real world, will hurt more than it will help.

Am I reading you correctly?

If anyone else is still reading this thread, were you as surprised as I was that Tokyo Tom and Silas both (apparently--maybe I'm misreading them) agree that cap & trade in the real world, will hurt more than it will help?
 

Okay, and my question to anyone still reading is: how can Bob possibly have this kind of confusion? I made things clear from my very first response to hisqueries.

Everyone, please go to that link. In that discussion Bob brought up the point about how politicians wouldn't give a good solution. I responded, to this irrelevant point, a full year ago, by saying:

My objection, let's keep in mind, was not merely that you didn't mention the theoretical possibility of an honest political attempt to set the catastrophe presenting levels. That was the "tip of the iceberg". I also criticized you for advocating a "true" market solution in a realm where ... there AREN'T ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS nor any identifiable private attempts to negotiate them.[line break]

If Bob is confused, it's because he never makes even a token effort to figure out what people he's responding to are actually saying, and instead just pattern-matches it to the nearest lame objection he's heard.

Let's go over this one more time:

A) Politicians will botch this problem just like any other issue.
B) That doesn't mean every inane argument you advance to oppose carbon restrictions is valid.

Our entire discussion history can be summed up as:

Me: Excessive carbon emissions hurt other people.
Bob: So, you like socialism? Gonna have to disagree with you there.
Me: *falls out of chair*

***

One last thing: I do actually think some politically feasible plans will have better consequences than the alternative, they just aren't widely discussed.
 

Bob, it might be just me, but it seems that you routinely fail to address my points, but instead address strawmen or suggest that the legitimacy of a comment raised here depends on whether I`ve made it elsewhere.

Before I repeat my previously expressed view on cap and trade and note other places where I`ve taken positions, would you kindly address my comments to you?