Bookmark and Share

Climate Policy in 2009!

Opinion Poll

  • Do you ... "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" in 2009?
    strongly support
    somewhat support (I'd strongly support a carbon tax)
    somewhat support (I'm worried about the recession)
    somewhat support (some other reason)
    somewhat do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    somewhat do not support (wait until after the recession)
    somewhat do not support (some other reason)
    strongly do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    strongly do not support (wait until after the recession)
    strongly do not support (some other reason)
      
    Free polls from Pollhost.com

The Answer Desk

  • GOT A QUESTION?
    Got a question about environmental economics? Why do economists like benefit-cost analysis? Tradeable permits? Ask an environmental economist at the Answer Desk.

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 05/2005

« Where in the world am I? | Main | Typepad problem »

April 07, 2008

Comments

This concept is not new with me, we discussed it in college:

Here's my jobs program - the use of agricultural machinery is hereby forbidden. This will clearly increase "jobs".

Of course, too bad about my suggestion's effect on the standard of living. So if the "targeted policy" is woefully inefficient, good riddance. For example, anything the failure of this legislation would do to drive a stake into the heart of "ethanol" would be a good thing, perhaps more than good enough to outweigh any and all potential benefits of its passage.

Actually I hold all of these "jobs" assertions suspect, because in almost every case, the benefits and multipliers will be paid for in full by the unwinding of something else. But, as always with corrupt lobbying, the alleged benefits are specific and visible, while the costs are diffuse and invisible.

"Employment and unemployment is unaffected in the aggregate." Therefore, the public should embrace subsidies for clean energy technologies because no jobs are lost, our air and water are cleaner and our future is more secure. Thank you for clearing this up for everyone.

And actually, much of the coruptness, as mentioned in the previous post, can be eliminated by increasing the upper income marginal tax rates to something like 75%. This eliminates much of the incentive for ripping people off.

Bob,

You're right! Environmental policy is not a macroeconomic issue. If we want tax credits for renewable energy the proper justification is micro (e.g., benefits vs costs; and "jobs" aren't benefits [see above]) and not macro (e.g., GDP, unemployment rate, inflation).

Bob -- you are assuming that people who are ripping off others declare/pay their taxes. BIG assumption :)

I just posted a different story on the "jobs" myth that Nestle has pitched to a town it is trying to rip-off. We gotta bury this silly rhetoric (after we bury the "imports make us poor" myth).

Bob -- you are assuming that people who are ripping off others declare/pay their taxes. BIG assumption :)

I just posted a different story on the "jobs" myth that Nestle has pitched to a town it is trying to rip-off. We gotta bury this silly rhetoric (after we bury the "imports make us poor" myth).

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blogads are good for you.

Search


  • Google



Google Ads



Stats





  • View My Stats

WSJ.com: Environmental Capital - WSJ.com

Common Tragedies

Environmental and Urban Economics

Globalisation and the Environment

Knowledge Problem