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

« How about (a) estimating benefits and costs and (b) determining the incidence of policy instruments? | Main | A short description of the halibut fishing derby »

August 10, 2008

Comments

“The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil. We are going to introduce a new tax reform in the direction of even higher taxation on energy and the revenue generated on that will be used to cut taxes on personal income — so we will improve incentives to work and improve incentives to save energy and develop renewable energy.”

For all our bluster in the U.S. with regards to breaking our addiction to foreign oil; it's not politically feasible.

On the other hand, if we want break our addiction to the worst of the fossil fuels, it's not oil we should be targeting but coal.

Wait, so would a Jewish Henry Ford hate himself? Or hate Gentiles?

Anyway, Congress shouldn't be picking winners, as it would be with subsidies to wind. Tell the market what the externality is for fossil fuels, slap the tax on, and let the market figure out what the best option is, given those constraints.

Saying that you know which energy source we should be "targeting" is like saying you know where stores should be located ... oh, wait.

Friedman's column may give readers the impression that Denmark's energy independence comes from wind when wind only provides 2.7% of their domestic energy production, but offshore oil and gas produces 97%. Denmark is an exporter of oil, gas and electricity.

Well, Vestas is going great guns on the northern Colo Front Range, lots of green collar jobs coming here. Oh, wait: it's not a Murrican company? Not really focused on in the papers.

Best,

D

I'm with you, Person. A carbon tax would presumably bring us alot more wind, as well as nuclear and other power generation and distribution investments. We don't need the government to be pretending it knows how to pick the winners on the green technology front; it will only wind up picking our pockets.

Thanks for the interesting stats, Joshua. It sounds like Friedman has fallen for Pickens' charms as well as the Sierra Club.

But I do think that Friedman does have one good, though implicit, point - our failure to price carbon is giving everyone else a leg up on industries that we should be investing in.

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