Comments on: Waxman-Markey Day

By: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:48:03 +0000

Thanks for the links, Jim! I’m mostly persuaded, but I’m not sure the public choice concerns are as problematic if you’re just talking about a Pigou tax tied to research, which would presumably be a relatively small tax not that much bigger than the gasoline taxes already in existence.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:26:29 +0000

Yay, walkable cities, yay mass transit. Incidentally, spending a summer in East Asia, totally made me an urban mass transit convert. The MTR is air conditioned heaven that runs every minute during rush hour.

Also, good point about the increase in gas taxes which just in turn goes right back towards road infrastructure (while encouraging people to drive less), it’s the automotive equivalent of taxing cigarettes to pay for anti-smoking ads.

Final point about gas, prices and taxation of. I think (looking ahead) we really need to look at the issue of rising energy costs more comprehensively. Increases in the price of gas are incredibly regressive and it seems like it’s a lot easier to propose a gas tax or hmm and haw about alternative fuel sources than to figure out the best way to compensate for the increased cost burden of the poor and lower middle class or decouple our society from complete dependence on one fuel source.

By: Jim Manzi

Jim Manzi — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:32:57 +0000

The problem with “testing” hypotheses is the follwoing: suppose we have some annual rate of emissions X and temperatures follow some path: we can’t know the counterfactual, i.e., what would temperatures have been had we had some other emissions level? This is becauase we have no “control earths” that we can pump up with various levels of CO2 in order to see what happens to temperature.

By: Jim Manzi

Jim Manzi — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:30:16 +0000

No, I wouldn’t, and go into the reasons at length in this (very nerdy) psot from a couple of years ago: http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/30/why-i-oppose-a-carbon-tax

and then in this follow-up: http://theamericanscene.com/2007/12/05/coase-club

I hope you’ll agree that the public choice-based predictions of what a real carbon tax would like have been validated dramatically by Waxman-Markey.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:13:38 +0000

E.D.,
I too would like to see a push toward more walkable cities and away from serpentine suburbs, but I don’t understand why we can’t do that along with a gasoline tax and real Cap & Trade (not what’s being proposed in Waxman-Markey).

Why hope that we can reduce emissions and move to more fuel efficient cars, factories, etc. when we can make it happen with the right kind of market-driven action? By the way, what’s the difference between the “false” cap and trade market and what I’d assume you consider a real market like the NYSE?

By: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:48:26 +0000

Are there testable hypotheses, though? Even assuming that it’s a testable hypothesis as to whether a decrease of x tons of greenhouse gases will cause y decrease in global warming, isn’t the real issue whether policy A will, in fact, cause x decrease in greenhouse gas emissions? Is this a testable hypothesis? Or is it more likely to be along the lines of the stimulus package where an increase or insufficient decrease in greenhouse gas emissions will be proof positive that things would have been even worse without Policy A, while a sufficient or excessive decrease in emissions will be proof positive that Policy A was a smashing success?

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:48:22 +0000

If it’s admitted that we will agree that we need to keep doing what we are doing no matter what happens, lest the world end, I’d say that “science” is not necessarily the best descriptor.

By: greginak

greginak — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:25:51 +0000

No because there is science involved. I know i have seen climate scientists. They had lab coats and clipboards and use numbers. Although I didn’t see Bunsen burners or jars of colored liquids. Scientists usually have that stuff.

In any case there are testable hypothesis that can be used to assess what is going on. While our info is limited we have some and need to make our best guesses on that. Sort of like life in general.

By: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:22:39 +0000

Jim:

Would you favor a Pigou tax of some sort specifically tied to that research and investment?

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:13:08 +0000

I’d also reiterate that building more walkable cities (through a de-zoning approach to new urbanism, perhaps) and investing in mass transit are two ways that would actually create jobs, real products, etc. and not a false market like cap & trade. They also might do something to reduce carbon emissions and to prepare us for the days when oil becomes simply far too expensive for many drivers to continue driving. (This is better than artificially raising the price of gasoline as well, since it invests in infrastructure rather than simply adding artificially to costs).