Re: How Much Would You Pay for Cap-and-Trade?
Derek Thompson has a post up which reproduces Nate Silver’s graph estimating that the break-even price for the average American to support solving AGW is about $19 per month, or not much more than CBO and EPA estimates for the costs of Waxman-Markey through 2020. This is almost certainly an accurate representation of polling reesponses, as it is closely consistent with the results that an MIT group has gotten for five years or so as they have nationally-represnetative polling on a very similar question.
However, here are a couple of severe problems with the implications of this post:
1. The most obvious is that responses such as this to a pollster, or commercial survey, are notoriously inaccurate predictors of behavior.
2. The more fundamental is that Thompson and Silver compare this response to the CBO projection of costs for Waxman-Markey as of 2020, which is many decades prior to the point at which it would even theoretically create significant benefits. In order to actually achieve its goals, it would have to be in place for many, many decades. By that point, its costs would, according to the EPA and any other competent analyst, be far higher, in absolute and % of income terms.
This is an excellent post ,thanks a lot ,I’m grateful to you .
— العاب شمس · Jun 26, 06:56 PM · #
Jim
I put my two cents over on my blog. I’ve actually been on going back on forth on which case I thought was stronger – getting the ball rolling on reducing emissions or having a policy that passes cost-benefit in and of itself.
I think I am coming down on your side though. I think I see at least as many was for W-M to foster ever increasing abuse by special interest as for it to be a first start towards a comprehensive global plan that yields benefits in excess of cost.
But, this conversation is great. Keep it going. Don’t think for a second that there aren’t any minds that can be changed.
— Karl Smith · Jun 27, 05:50 AM · #
Help me out here Jim. I only took a couple of years of college math. I thought, correct me if I am wrong, that the assertion in the Silver graph, is that there would be a 1% decrease BY 2050 (date?). In your graph, you appear to be showing a 5% difference in incomes in 2110. It looks like you are claiming that this 5% discrepancy in income will suddenly take place in 2110. Wouldn’t there be a cumulative effect over time? Shouldn’t we see earlier, smaller effects that will gradually reach 5%? If so, should this not work as a compounding effect? IIRC, Silver accounts for this in his graph as the effect gradually grows larger. Please explain how you reached your conclusion and correct me here if I am wrong.
Steve
— steve · Jun 27, 02:15 PM · #
Karl:
Thanks. I was literally out on a run this morning, thinking “what is the point of all this time and effort?”. I think your post highlights the issue with the Precautionary Principle, which is the fallacy of the one-sided bet.
Steve:
These two charts are showing two different things.
Conor’s chart is showing a projection of the difference in US GDP through 2050 with and without the costs imposed by W-M, prior to any damages caused by AGW.
My chart is showing a projection for consumption per per person for the world today and a hundrer years from now under two different scenarios: (i) we just let AGW rip and don;t do anything about it, and (ii) we implement a super version of global carbon taxes / cap-and-trade / whatever that is perfect – it eliminates all AGW costs and imposes no costs on anybody.
— Jim Manzi · Jun 27, 03:00 PM · #
dude…spell check…use it.
— jpd · Jun 27, 04:38 PM · #