I’m sure that on reading that, Henry is very happy that he unbanned Tom.

I disagree. I think it’s going to take a single central-government decision, basically. Without that, no amount of higher carbon prices will work, because there is no other way for people to translate high carbon prices into non-use of carbon. You can’t just decide to start e.g. driving an electric vehicle unless there is a network of charging stations, support for developing them (probably at a loss), regulatory support, etc. Nor do you need price signaling to get you to convert if the government simply mandates that people convert. All that price signaling does is cause the lower class to pay a whole lot of their income in carbon taxes that they can’t avoid paying and can’t afford.

The same is true of conservation. Tell the electric companies, or other providers, that they have the responsibility to generate negawatts, then let them figure out how to do it in their areas. The technical staffs that they have or will hire can figure it out better than “the magic of the market”.

I think this whole attachment to pricing on the part of even left economists shows how much it has taken hold on the imagination. Pricing is fine in order to make decisions about production. This isn’t production, not really. It’s a societal decision about infrastructure.

Quite a few points here. The first difficulty is not to get rid of the existing gasoline infrastructure, but to create an infrastructure for an alternative and to get the alternative right. This is going to need both higher carbon prices (to make the alternatives attractive) and regulatory intervention.

The same is true, with an even bigger role for prices, in relation to electricity deamnd. There are a lot of opportunities for conservation here, but (apart from a few no-brainers like CFL lighting) it’s hard to tell which are worthwhile except by looking at price signals.

Neither did enough. Nor will any likely amount of price signaling be enough as long as people have to drive gasoline-powered vehicles. Once they are replaced, no amount of low prices for gas are going to get consumers to move back to gas, because there will no longer be an infrastructure of gas stations supporting it.

Given your apology, I am unbanning you – but putting you on a strict
warning to be a fair bit more careful in future, and to think
carefully about how you put arguments etc so as to minimize the heat
and maximize the light.

Best

HJF”

Henry, I don’t even have children, and I still understand the problem with that. You just undercut JQ’s authority. Given Tom’s previous and ongoing attitude, expecting change for the better is expecting what is unlikely.

You seem to define ‘lies’ as ‘statements I disagree with’. It’s generally considered pretty damn rude to call someone a liar without specifying what it is they said they said that they knew was false. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of point to what it was I said here that I knew to be untrue.

It’s not civil to lie, slocum. Why should people pretend that you are a person of good will, when you aren’t?

And of course you missed the humor in Zamfir’s comment.

No—the revenue from cap & trade is permanent. The plan is, for example, to use it as a permanent funding source for universal health care. I would expect those on the left to think that’s a good idea—not to deny it.

Do you have any idea how ignorant of how global warming works you have to be to think that the 10-year moving average of temperature is what we should be responding to? Since you claim not to be ignorant, then you must be aware of how dishonest this is. Confusion of timescales is one of the key denialist tropes.

I’m not confused—just not entirely convinced. The more temperatures continue to rise, the more convinced I’ll be, and the more I’ll be willing to favor major energy price increases and energy use changes. And I think this is the way the politics are going to shake out, too. That is, if temperatures do NOT continue to rise, the political will is just not going to be there for the strong actions you favor. That’s my prediction, anyway.

If energy goes up a lot more, than other things have to come down for the total to be -1 to 3.5%.

The gas price spikes of last year did not result in an immediate drop in GDP (it took the bursting of the housing bubble to do that). Still, many people thought the gas price increases were kind of a big deal despite the negligible effect on overall GDP.

Given budget projections, in the U.S. it seems extraordinarily unlikely that taxes are going to be going down in any significant way in coming years. So what most people are likely to see are flat or higher taxes (CT had a thread on instituting a VAT in the U.S. just a couple of days ago which you may have seen) to go along with higher fuel prices and electricity and heating costs (driven by cap & trade). That is what voters will be responding to. But maybe the government will, at the same time, be providing enough new services that most voters will think it’s a good deal overall.

I don’t think that righties like you are people of good will. I think that you are generally stupid, ignorant, and / or evil.

How does Rich go about getting banned around here, anyway? Or does this fit the CT model of civil discourse?

Zamfir: Actually, I know very European technocrats who do not only believe that pricing is a good solution, but even use it as pretty much the only mechanism in their models to estimate economic cost…

Thank you. But be careful—Rich now probably thinks you’re stupid, ignorant, and/or evil. And he won’t be shy about saying so.

Actually, I know very European technocrats who do not only believe that pricing is a good solution, but even use it as pretty much the only mechanism in their models to estimate economic cost, which they use for very government-centered-technocratic non-market driven decisions.

“the revenues from the sales of carbon credits are counted on to help pay for the major expansion in the size and scope of government that is underway.”

It’s largely Keynesian spending. Calling it “an expansion in the size and scope of government” pretends that we’re only Keynesians during boom times.

“Personally, I’d favor revenue neutral carbon taxes at a level tied directly to the 10-year moving average of global temperatures. ”

Do you have any idea how ignorant of how global warming works you have to be to think that the 10-year moving average of temperature is what we should be responding to? Since you claim not to be ignorant, then you must be aware of how dishonest this is. Confusion of timescales is one of the key denialist tropes.

“What happened to 2-3%? ”

Christ, the quote is right up there! If you want a range, it’s -1% to 3.5%. The average estimate is 2%. You don’t get to cite the range instead of the average and then drop off the lower end.

“I don’t know anyone (other than you) who thinks a 2-3% increase in energy prices is going to drive major changes in energy usage and carbon emissions.”

If energy goes up a lot more, than other things have to come down for the total to be -1 to 3.5%. And there you go with your “I don’t know anyone” bit, as if the world’s experts can be dismissed because you don’t personally know them.

Outside of some market ideologues in the U.S., it’s not a widespread belief that market pricing is what is going to drive this conversion. Decisions about major energy plants are a governmental matter, always have been, although they like to conceal it in the U.S. The people of France, who as someone about points out haven’t decarbonized through austerity, don’t agonize about it—once the power plants are changed, who cares?

“That was my point talking about the lefties I know, by the way. In general, I like them and think they’re people of good will. ”

I don’t think that righties like you are people of good will. I think that you are generally stupid, ignorant, and / or evil.

Except there are no plans to make carbon taxes or credits revenue-neutral—not in the U.S. anyway. Instead they are penciled in as a way of reducing, to some extent, the enormous deficits that Obama administration plans to run. Or, to put it another way, the revenues from the sales of carbon credits are counted on to help pay for the major expansion in the size and scope of government that is underway. But perhaps voters will respond positively in 2010 and 2012 to higher energy costs in exchange for bigger government—we’ll see.

Personally, I’d favor revenue neutral carbon taxes at a level tied directly to the 10-year moving average of global temperatures. But nothing like that seems to be on the table at present. And I am not in favor of much bigger government and using carbon credit revenues or carbon taxes to pay for it.

Uh huh. I guess I’ll take your word for it—wait, maybe not! In fact maybe I just cited a reputable source that says 2% of GDP.

What happened to 2-3%? And, in any case, that is a prediction for the economy overall. It does not mean that there will be only a 2-3% increase in energy prices. I don’t know anyone (other than you) who thinks a 2-3% increase in energy prices is going to drive major changes in energy usage and carbon emissions.

That was my point talking about the lefties I know, by the way. In general, I like them and think they’re people of good will. But when it comes to making changes that would meaningfully reduce their carbon footprints, they have feet of clay. So, absent economic considerations that would force them to change, I see no prospect of it happening. And if they won’t do it unless forced, I’m quite certain that average Americans won’t either.

Thomas Jørgensen: It is demonstratably a straightforward exersise in engineering to decarbonise the electric grid entirely, and at a price wholly competetive with fossile fuels, via the use of standardised nuclear reactors.

But unfortunately it is not a demonstrably straightforward exercise in U.S. politics to decarbonize the grid via nuclear power.

In fact, with the right tax cuts and credits you can do a big redistribution (compared with the present) from the well off to the average joe – something many think the US sorely needs. Of course if you disagree with this you can structure the tax cuts towards the better off instead – but in either case the net cost to the overall economy is small.