Yet More on Waxman-Markey
Ryan Avent has criticized my take on Waxman-Markey at The Atlantic, so I have responded at the same place. He raises some points that some TAS commenters have as well, so I thought I would link to it here. And also becuase nobody is bored of this yet.
Jim,
In all seriousness, I never get bored of you writing about climate change. This is a highly technical debate that is emotionally fraught, which you have brought great clarity and productivity to. Please don’t stop.
— brendan · May 22, 03:04 PM · #
Agreed with brendan. You’ve certainly made me rethink many of my assumptions in a big way, and I thank you for that.
Devil’s advocate: Looking at some of the GDP loss estimates by C degree increases, I’ve noticed that many have GDP increasing slightly over the next 100 years if we have a warming of just 1-2 percent.
In the cost-benefit analysis mindset, if the planet wasn’t warming, wouldn’t we have an obligation to warm the planet by, say, burning otherwise unprofitable forests at a minor cost, then?
— rortybomb · May 22, 05:56 PM · #
Awesome inputs on both sides.
But I think Riddick rules as per usual.
— matoko_chan · May 22, 11:25 PM · #
Thanks to each of you for the kind words.
rortybomb:
I’m not sure injunctions are symmetrical for action and inaction.
— Jim Manzi · May 23, 03:13 PM · #
Jim,
It seems to be that the largest benefit of a cap-and-trade system (or preferably a carbon tax) is to encourage US companies to engage in alternative energy research. Even a small carbon tax could have a very large effect on the incentive for US energy companies to research alternative energies, especially if proceeds from the tax were also used to fund research. I think it is quite clear that the only way to achieve massive global reductions in emissions is to invent cheap alternative energy. I also think that there are many promising avenues through which this might be done, particularly in solar energy, and that additional funding in this area could make a big difference. A carbon tax or emission cap auction system could provide that funding, regardless of whether or not other countries also enacted similar plans. Solar energy also has many non-climate-related benefits, so funding it could be defensible even if you don’t believe in the dire predictions of climate science.
Phil
— Phil · May 25, 03:58 AM · #
Jim:
Good job in your W-M commentaries.
It seems that a trump card that W-M supporters frequently pull out, is the fact that the US has high CO2 emissions per capita.
What is missing is the fact that the US (until recently) enjoyed what can best be summarized as a “free market” and has one of, if not the most, carbon EFFICIENT (productive) economies in the world as measured by tons/$GDP [e.g. see EIA data: “www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html”].
We’re often accused of representing <5% world population but 25%± of GHG emissions — yet we SELDOM hear the other fact that we’re responsible for 30%+ of world GDP and an even larger proportion (35%±) of the world’s food. We feed, clothe, house and protect the world which (in effect) is now being turned against us to try to make us feel guilty.
Additionally I see no one assessing the negative global impact attributable to our wearing a hair shirt and voluntarily (and unilaterally) handicapping our economy.
Let’s keep things in perspective.
BTW, I’m a physicist and long time environmental activist. [Email me at “aaprjohn@northnet.org.”]
— John Droz · May 26, 11:12 AM · #