Further to my post on Lomborg below, here’s an idea. Maybe it isn’t new, but I’d still be grateful for critical comment. Lomborg says that it would be better to direct our resources to helping the world’s poor, rather than trying to implement Kyoto. Well, one thing first-world governments could do would be to introduce taxes on carbon emissions (many already have these) and to hypothecate those taxes (or some fixed proportion of them) to foreign-development aid.1
1 I take it that those who think that foreign aid is always a waste of money or counterproductive would not, themselves, put the Lomborg argument in good faith (whatever their opinions on CO2 and global warming). No need for them to comment below then.
Ok, I’m genuinely confused. In what sense would these proposed taxes be hypothecated, rather than just given?
Why is it so hard for people to do the research that has been published by the scientific community over the past twenty years on “global warming”. It is real. Please read Media Matters - “Saving the Earth from world’s end”; by Bill Moyers, Sacramento Bee, Forum Section, Sunday December 12, 2004. That ought to sum up what we are in for in the next four years. Enjoy the ride!
Nancy, that it is real is common ground here. No-one is arguing about that.
Antirealist: “hypothecated” is a Britishism just meaning that a particular tax is linked to a particular type of expenditure. But, yes, I’m suggesting that some or all of the taxes raised on carbon emissions be dedicated or given to 3rd-world development. Surely Lomborg wouldn’t object to that?
“Surely Lomborg wouldn’t object to that?”
Yes, he would. The transfers Chris is proposing would arise automatically if a global emissions trading system, with appropriate allocations of rights to poor countries, were introduced. The result would be a big transfer to poor countries as emitters in rich countries sought to buy rights. This is also the most cost-effective approach to Kyoto and mitigation more generally.
On p305 of his book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, Lomborg dismisses emissions trading as politically infeasible precisely because it would require transfers of billions of dollars from rich to poor countries.
These kinds of things could’ve easily been done under a strong world government; as well as many other good projects: enforcing nuclear non-proliferation, universal labor and environmental standards, dismantling terrorist networks, fighting money laundering, etc. Maybe some day…
It’s a superficially sensible and saleable idea but – if the taxes are effective in reducing supply, aid then falls. So there’s then a time inconsistency problem in that the consequences in any model of global warming are likely to follow many years after a reduction. The aid is therefore not timed to coincide with need it is meant to compensate for. So sentimentally the hypothecation makes sense, but practically it s wouldn’t.
At a theoretical level payment into a fund would make sense – since the faster developed countries reduced levels the less they’d have to pay in and if they reduced levels faster then theoretically needs would be less as well. But again I think that given the time scale, using a fund approach isn’t going to be sensible either.
Wouldn’t something like a Tobin tax do all of this much better and more?
phil: A Tobin tax, being on currency transactions, would not encourage a reduction in the use of hydrocarbons and thus not help reduce pollution, unlike a tax on the stuff directly.
Moving from fossil fuels to some other less efficient energy source would force Western economies to incur large economic costs. Transferring resources to the third world would be an additional and basically unrelated cost. The goal of an efficient tax is to raise revenue without influencing the economic decisions of taxpayers. Of course the goal of a tax on carbon emissions is to encourage taxpayers to use other fuel sources. That is an entirely separate cost borne by taxpayers.
I think your analysis assumes that the money collected by the tax reflects the full economic cost of the tax. That’s very inaccurate. Even if Western nations kept all of the tax revenues, they would still incur a large economic cost from instituting the tax because many carbon emitters would switch to more expensive fuels. Western nations would be economically better off if they raised an equal amount of money through some other method and used it to fund aid to the third world.
Xavier: Arguably (and I think this assumption is implicit in Chris’ question), the current system is distorted because rich countries are not bearing the cost of the externalities they are imposing on poor countries. The carbon tax could (in theory) remove an existing distortion rather than introducing a new one.
“These kinds of things could’ve easily been done under a strong world government; as well as many other good projects: enforcing nuclear non-proliferation, universal labor and environmental standards, dismantling terrorist networks, fighting money laundering, etc. Maybe some day…”
As well as many other BAD projects. Remember, in a world with one government, there would be no refugees… because there would be no refuge.
That the world is warming, yes, that’s pretty well established. The extent to which it’s due to human activities rather than natural causes such as solar variablity, how much it’s going to warm, whether the net consequences are bad or good, these are still open questions. As for the sincerity of advocates of the Kyoto treaty, I note that it prohibits credits gained by using the one proven source of power that produces no greenhouse gases, AND can be scaled up to support a world-wide industrial civiliation for many thousands of years: Nuclear.
Funny thing to to if the climate activists really thought this was a big freaking emergency…
Walt: Maybe so, but the West would still be bearing the full cost of reducing carbon emissions and, as an entirely separate cost, sending some money to the third world. We could get a nearly identical effect by reducing carbon consumption through regulation and then raising money through an income tax to send to third world.
Chris’s plan creates some vague connection between carbon reduction and foreign aid, but they are still two distinct costs being borne by the West. I don’t see how it is responsive to Lomborg’s argument.
Lomborg is saying that if the West wants to impose some economic cost on itself for the sake of the rest of the world, it would be better to impose the cost of foreign aid than carbon reduction. Chris is saying that we could impose on ourselves the economic cost of carbon reduction and then impose an additional cost for foreign aid. He muddles the issue by making it look like a single cost.
I wish people would acknowledge that we’re going to end up dealing with global warming. The only question is how we deal with it and, crucially, when we begin to deal with it. The folks I work with who project coal and energy prices already factor in the heavy cost of carbon dioxide recovery into their estimates becaue they think that even the most know-nothing rightists will eventually have to go acknowledge the problem. What worries me is that recapturing the CO2 from power plants requires technology that has yet to be developed. I expect that the lack of early investment in the development of such technologies is a serious error, far worse than blocking international treaties on greenhouse gases.
Actually, Los Alamos is doing some very promising research on techniques for extracting CO2 efficiently from air, rather than power plant exaust; The chief advantage of which is that it can deal with mobile sources of CO2.
But it only makes sense to put off doing something; We’re talking about a relatively slow process here, while technology is improving all the time. The longer we wait before doing something, the better tools we’ll have available to do it.
And, I repeat, we don’t even yet know that we WANT to do something, since we haven’t established yet the net effect on mankind of higher temperatures.
Brett, you’re overstating the limitations on nuclear power in Kyoto. Signatory countries can use nuclear power to meet their own targets, though there are limits on trade.
More generally, while some climate activists may absolutely rule out nuclear power, that’s not the case around here. The costs and benefits of nuclear fission energy have been canvassed on this and other blogs
Lomborg misrepresents the opinions of the economists he quotes. The ones who sat on his “Copenhagen Consensus” panel really said:
“The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years. Such a proposal however was not examined in detail in the presentations put to the panel, and so was not ranked. The panel urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.”
Lomborg writes in the Telegraph as though options beyond Kyoto, such as a carbon tax, were put to and considered by the panel (he writes “In fact, the panel called these ventures – including Kyoto – “bad projects”) when in reality the panel regretted that it could not look at other greenhouse mitigation ventures, and clearly believed that consideration of a carbon tax was the opposite of a “bad” idea.
Lomborg is in political science, not economics or environmental science, and I’d call “dishonest” his abuse of the findings of a panel of economists put together by himself.
But taxes are anti-freedom! Do you want to be a freedom-hating terrorist, or stop little children from realising their full potential?
Xavier, alternate sources of energy are not less efficient than present sources. In fact it is rather the contrary. Fuel cells are much more efficient than internal combustion engines, what they are is harder to develop, and since that imply high present costs, not taxing “carbon” is an economically ecologically energetically inefficient course.
DSW
“Fuel cells are much more efficient than internal combustion engines, what they are is harder to develop, and since that imply high present costs, not taxing “carbon” is an economically ecologically energetically inefficient course.”
So you are saying they are more efficient in some energy sense that you don’t define, but less efficient in an overall economic sense?
Fuel cells allow to recover over 90% of the fuel energy content, internal combustion engines are limited to 40% in the best cases, 30% is more common, so yes, they are more efficient in some energy sense. As for the overall economy sense, that is a contingency of how technology has evolved. Or do you believe that people would all ditch their cars to get a new car that works on methanol fuel cell overnight?
DSW
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review