The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. Technically, the new CBO prediction is about 10% higher.

   That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.

   For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.

   I don’t feel like you’re giving the entire picture, Manzi. Your colleague Conor has noticed that conservative blogs are a lot less likely to present graphical material like charts and tables than liberal blogs; it’s becoming clear that the reason for this is because conservatives find it difficult to prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie about the facts when they’re right there staring readers in the face.

   That’s according to the EPA. Who I’m sure are grossly over-estimating the costs of environmental protection, just like those other anti-environmental crazies at the CBO.

   Oh, I get the joke! It’s like saying that the SEC, for the past 8 years, did more to promote destructive securities investments than they did to stop them. Oh, wait, though, that’s exactly what happened. The idea that the EPA might actually be an opponent to environmentalism is absurd, I suppose, to anyone who was in a coma during the Bush administration.

   — Chet · Jun 22, 02:58 PM · #

2. Jim,

   one of the most persuasive parts of your past cost-benefit analysis was that these costs were likely a gross underestimate—they assumed tax rebates, no compliance costs, and actions by other countries, to name a few. Is this still the case with the new CBO study?

   — brendan · Jun 22, 03:04 PM · #

3. Chet:

   I’m sorry to disappoint you yet again, what with all my prevarication, obfustication and outright lies.

   brendan:

   I don’t know, as I haven’t spent enough time on it to have an informed opinion about that.

   — Jim Manzi · Jun 22, 03:17 PM · #

4. Yglesias writes:

   …dual goals of preventing extreme hardship in the developing world and reducing the odds of a spiraling-out-of-control climate disaster scenario that threatens the existence of human civilization.

   Question: isn’t .1°C — the expected net benefit of W-M — within the margin of error of the most reasonable model? If so, isn’t Y’s statement that W-M reduces the odds of climate disaster formally invalid?

   — Sargent · Jun 22, 04:35 PM · #

5. Meh. I’m pretty convinced that nothing that passes in Waxman-Markey will be relevant in 2050. Unless it creates an entitlement, it’s hard to imagine legislation being relevant for 40 years and producing an ever-greater drag on the economy. Either it won’t matter because we’ll have technology to make the permits irrelevant, or it will adjusted in favor of enabling economic growth.

   I’d still rather invest heavily in developing clean energy technologies, but if at the costs of Waxman-Markey, it’s nearly worth it just so we can check the “addressed climate change” box—regardless of whether or not Waxman-Markey will actually do much to total CO2 emissions, it’s difficult to imagine another such bill once this passes.

   — TW Andrews · Jun 22, 04:58 PM · #

6. Sargent,
   Even its defenders don’t argue that WM directly impacts climate forcing. Instead, they argue that it works via the intermediate step of getting other global sources to get with the program. I’d personally like to see this logic more formally integrated into the decision-making process.

   — Matt Frost · Jun 22, 06:10 PM · #

7. Matt, so everything turns on the Hamelin Lemma? I didn’t know W-M’s defenders had conceded this.

   Accordingly, I’d like to associate myself with Drezner’s take:

   International relations theory suggests two mechanisms to ensure cooperation: the logic of appropriateness (i.e., the power of norms), and the logic of consequences i.e., the power of sanctions). Certainly, the normative pressure to “do something” about global warming has been on the increase. The problem is that Chindia can deploy a counternorm of fairness. They can and will argue that because the economies belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were historically responsible for the bulk of carbon dioxide emissions, they should be responsible for shouldering the burden of ameliorating the problem. With competing norms at play, it is unlikely that a logic of appropriateness will work on its own.

   The logic of consequences involves the creation of material rewards and punishments to encourage more compliance. From everything I’ve read, however, the utility of trade sanctions or border taxes is very problematic from either a legal or a welfare perspective. Simply put, most CO2-emitting activity in these countries is for domestic consumption rather than export.

   There’s an additional reason why IR theory is pessimistic about the likelihood of cooperation on this issue. China has supplanted America as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. From an economic perspective, we are witnessing a transition from a bipolar world (the US + EU) to a multipolar world (OECD + BRICs). International relations theory is not sanguine about what this means for international cooperation. In theory, a concert of great powers can still foster cooperation. Possible does not mean likely, however. In practice, as the number of powerful actors increases, the likelihood of meaningful cooperation declines. The unending Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations is obvious evidence of this. Future trends in the distribution of power do not make the creation of an effective climate change regime impossible — but they do make it much more difficult.

   So, in the end, my expert take is that Waxman-Markey is kind of like Obama’s other soft power initiatives — they certainly don’t hurt, but they also don’t help all that much either.

   So W-M has little to zero intrinsic benefits, vague and unlikely secondary benefits, and real and clearly defined costs for the average American citizen. Is that an accurate assessment?

   — Sargent · Jun 22, 08:07 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Nice Try II, ctd.

↓ Cling to My Precious Battery Charge

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.