Thursday, June 18, 2009
Yet More on Cost/Benefits of Waxman-Markey
This MasterResource blog post repeats much of what I've written elsewhere, but here's a new point I made in response to Silas Barta's criticism on my Mises Daily piece:
In conclusion, the above arguments do not show that the government should “do nothing.” If one accepted the premises of manmade climate change, and the property rights of certain people to be protected from emissions of others, then advocates could still plausibly argue that greenhouse gas emitters should be forced to pay a certain fine per ton of emissions, which would then be funneled into the hands of the aggrieved parties.
However, under no circumstances would the correct outcome be to cap emissions at the level proposed by Waxman-Markey. That would be akin to banning automobile usage, on the grounds that sometimes pedestrians get hit by drivers.
One final point: If the proponents of carbon legislation took the IPCC models (including the economic ones) seriously, and wanted to start penalizing emitters to compensate those damaged by the emissions, then the obvious thing to do would be WAIT and STUDY THE PROBLEM MORE. Even on their own terms, the damages to poor nations will not really kick in until many decades from now. To refine the analogy above, Waxman-Markey seeks to seriously restrict automobile usage now, on the grounds that some pedestrians might be killed by drivers in the year 2100.
Comments:
It would have been nice to see such even-handedness a year ago -- or when I made that exact point to you in discussions and via email -- but hey, better late than never.
Congrats on risking losing your lucrative consulting gigs over such misquotable statements. Takes a lot of courage on your part.
Btw, I'm just curious, do you see the difference between the argument you're making in the excerpt here and the argument "there's no scarcity in the atmosphere"? Or "it's not a market solution unless I like it"? Because you have a tendency to blur all those arguments together, even though they're quite distinct points.
I remember it being quite a chore to get you to explain what exactly you meant by "not a market solution" and why you felt that way.
Congrats on risking losing your lucrative consulting gigs over such misquotable statements. Takes a lot of courage on your part.
Btw, I'm just curious, do you see the difference between the argument you're making in the excerpt here and the argument "there's no scarcity in the atmosphere"? Or "it's not a market solution unless I like it"? Because you have a tendency to blur all those arguments together, even though they're quite distinct points.
I remember it being quite a chore to get you to explain what exactly you meant by "not a market solution" and why you felt that way.
My question is whether those who benefit from the warmer climate should pay a fine to those negatively effected by the pollution. Those in colder clients will begin to have longer growing seasons so they therefore benefit. Shouldn't they be punished too? Or do they just get a free public good.
# posted by 
: June 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM
: June 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Matt C.
s*las has calcualted who owes who what for the world on a one page excel spreadsheet. He'll be happy to let you know if you pay or collect on net.
s*las has calcualted who owes who what for the world on a one page excel spreadsheet. He'll be happy to let you know if you pay or collect on net.
# posted by : June 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM
: June 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Re: Matt C.
Yes, since my house is at 24 ft. above sea level, and I live approximate 8 miles from the ocean. What is the present value of my marginal gain in home value for the additional 10-24" predicted over the next 80 yrs? I mean my house could easily be a mere 22 ft. above sea level and 7.99 miles from the water by the end of the century.
Yes, since my house is at 24 ft. above sea level, and I live approximate 8 miles from the ocean. What is the present value of my marginal gain in home value for the additional 10-24" predicted over the next 80 yrs? I mean my house could easily be a mere 22 ft. above sea level and 7.99 miles from the water by the end of the century.
Candlemakers want to regulate their great nemesis competitor... He is crafty and sly, always causing great disruptions on the fly... And yet people yearn for his face, and will do so opening their curtains of lace... We candlemakers need some help to run, our business without competition from the Sun.
(With apologies to a hero - Frederic Bastiat)
(With apologies to a hero - Frederic Bastiat)
I keep thinking, "Maybe if I not only publicly admit that I overlooked a point, and then put it in the next thing I write on a topic, AND if I specifically acknowledge that I changed my stance because Silas raised the issue, THEN Silas will realize I am not smoking cigars with tycoons in back rooms."
I thought wrong.
I thought wrong.
"However, under no circumstances would the correct outcome be to cap emissions at the level proposed by Waxman-Markey."
This is unknowable, as both the damage function and actions that others will take are unknowable.
"Waxman-Markey [is] akin to banning automobile usage".
Wrong - more like saying now that we will cap driving at gradually declining levels.
"the obvious thing to do would be WAIT and STUDY THE PROBLEM MORE."
That`s what industry has ALWAYS said when those affected complain about pollution costs they bear.
Why isn`t the answer to problems regarding competing preferences with respect to open-access resources to increase information sharing about use, damages, control methods, and to start implementing property rights or other institutions? How many resources do we need to irreversibly trash before it makes sense to start acting proactively?
And of course the damaged are everywhere, not just in developing countries. Just ask the snowmobile industry, farmers, hunters, gardeners ...
FWIW, here`s something the climate scientist most familiar with geo-engineering just wrote:
"Ken Caldeira // June 18, 2009 at 11:17 am | Reply
Unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions very deeply and very soon, I think that Arctic ecosystems and coral reefs will be a thing of the past."
Many serious climate scientists personally think we are already too late to avoid significant cliamte change. Why do we need to wait until we seriously degrade and alter ecosystems?
Post a Comment
This is unknowable, as both the damage function and actions that others will take are unknowable.
"Waxman-Markey [is] akin to banning automobile usage".
Wrong - more like saying now that we will cap driving at gradually declining levels.
"the obvious thing to do would be WAIT and STUDY THE PROBLEM MORE."
That`s what industry has ALWAYS said when those affected complain about pollution costs they bear.
Why isn`t the answer to problems regarding competing preferences with respect to open-access resources to increase information sharing about use, damages, control methods, and to start implementing property rights or other institutions? How many resources do we need to irreversibly trash before it makes sense to start acting proactively?
And of course the damaged are everywhere, not just in developing countries. Just ask the snowmobile industry, farmers, hunters, gardeners ...
FWIW, here`s something the climate scientist most familiar with geo-engineering just wrote:
"Ken Caldeira // June 18, 2009 at 11:17 am | Reply
Unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions very deeply and very soon, I think that Arctic ecosystems and coral reefs will be a thing of the past."
Many serious climate scientists personally think we are already too late to avoid significant cliamte change. Why do we need to wait until we seriously degrade and alter ecosystems?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]