Ah, Dano. Sometimes I miss Dano at www.env-econ.net

From the comments section at Climate Progress:

Dano Says:

I enjoy Joe’s histrionics on occasion, but sometimes they are a bit much.

It is like fish in a barrel to look at the narrow view of neoclassical economists and bash on them. But we’ve moved beyond this with ecological econ, behavioral econ, etc.

The key is to point out the relatively antediluvian approaches and bring up, say, Daly or any of the EcolEconomists…oh, wait: bring up Tim and John too.

There are folks out there with workable approaches. Let’s not tar all with too broad a brush, shall we?

Best,

D

I left the comment that is the title of this post.

Sometimes ;->

Comments

[Dano]

Translation: sometimes I like hitting myself in the head with a hammer, because it feels so good when I stop!

;o)

Best,

D

[John Fleck]

I never enjoy Joe's histrionics, but always apprciate Dano's ripostes.

[Eli Rabett]

Joe reminds me of that old saw

"When all about you are
Running about, screaming and crying,
And you are calm and collected

Maybe there is something you don't know?"

[odograph]

I guess someone should explain "histrionics."

Take the oceans, for example. The Economist is running a piece subtitled: Man is assaulting the oceans. They will smite him if he does not take care

Is that histrionics from the staid Economist? Should we rather all step back and just blog/teach policies we might implement in an ideal world, if we gave a shit?

[Dano]

odo,

My point is that no one person can do it alone - my disciplinolatry point made somewhere. So we have to have multidisciplinary teams working together to get it done.

In the past, I berated Joe for yelling and screaming at S&N (histrionics) for the direction they were advocating.

That is: right now, we (the societal ship 'we') is steaming on a course somewhere between 135º and 150º. S&N said we should head in a 139º direction, and Joe yelled at them for not heading to 145º. Now, S&N have a bad taste in their mouths and some folks think their work is useless.

Same here with economists. Maybe not with Stavins, as my reading of him over the last several years isn't favorable in my view, but for economists in general. Sure, I don't think their findings in general explain most of the variation, but sometimes it helps, and some newer branches of economics have dropped the neoclassical nonsense.

Why p*ss in the well you may need to drink from (says Dano who ridicules denialists at every opportunity).

Best,

D

PS, I enjoy John Fleck's writing immensely - his work for the paper should be more widespread, IMHO.

[odograph]

I think the problem Dano is that we're heading 100 degrees and the argument is about, if we actually turned, should it be to 150 or 160?

I think the energies spent at env-econ on achieving nothing ("let's not turn until we sort out these jobs claims") have got me down.

Maybe I should give it up and be even more a hedonist than I already am. I mean, I'd be down with group action if it came, but without it there's no point in depriving myself of ... anything really.

You think a carbon tax OR a cap and trade is actually going to change our course? Of course not. The argument is about what we could do, if we really wanted to.

[Dano]

Odo,

I disagree. The ship is at the brink of leaving the harbor, on a vague course between 135-150,and societies are discussing somewhere in between.

Your distinction is more about do we shovel coal in the boiler or raise the sails, what are the penalties/incentives are for propulsion options, and who swabs the deck to make it more seaworthy/aerodynamic. That's what we're (arguing/discussing/inacting/delaying/denying).

In my mind, the Env-Econ boys just lay out the arguments for each camp, making them more stark for everyone to discuss. IMHO. YMMV.

Now, I also agree with Eli's position on this site in the past several days - we're not moving fast enough. But I also wonder whether society can get galvanized, motivated, and organized to move faster.

"The good earth - we could have saved it but we were to d*mn cheap and lazy" -- Vonnegut

Best,

D

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

I think the energies spent at env-econ on achieving nothing ("let's not turn until we sort out these jobs claims") have got me down.

Your distorting comments are getting more and more depressing on this end.

As far as I can tell, I've yet to say let's not employ an economic stimulus until we decide where the jobs are going. The whole thing started with political statements about green jobs during the campaign, before we knew the economy was as bad as it is.

I'm nervous about the size of the stimulus and the size that Krugman wants it to be, budget deficits and all, but I don't have any better ideas.

My position is that macroeconomic stimulus is not effective environmental policy. 5 million green jobs doesn't address climate change exactly. Therefore, I can't seem to avoid statements about green jobs that seem to be inaccurate when viewed through economic theory.

[odograph]

I'm not even talking about stimulus John. I'm talking about the oceans and climate change. I'm not even talking solely about this site (more how it relates to human nature and the broader dynamic).

Dano says the ship is almost ready to leave. Romm points to a Chinese plan to expand coal burning by 30 percent.

I'm depressing you?

[odograph]

Shorter: Historical Global CO2 Emissions

[odograph]

Let me tell you another story John. It might help you get where I'm coming from. My friend went to Bali for the climate change conference in 2007. I've got the baseball cap. She got the irony of flying to Bali for that.

So I asked her what her family's carbon footprint was. She said "you don't want to know." Paused. And said "I don't have to have a low footprint because I saved company X millions of pounds of CO2."

I don't really want to single her out, or you out, but to say that this is our nature. That's what's got me down. Too many of us, all of us really, can name something we do that is enough, so that we don't have to do enough to matter.

I think that is the record historians will find, when they look back to see what the heck went wrong. They'll find lots of rationalization, or focus on meaningless details, and all along no action.

That's what's going to keep Dano's ship in port.

[odograph]

Shorter: Dano, in what year do you think we'll give up pickup trucks?

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

Where do you get off lecturing us on environmental responsibility? We have "green freakin' jobs"! We work them every day.

We have a different approach than you do, but so what? We're aware of environmental problems, perhaps better than you. We pore over the data. We design surveys, estimate models, estimate the economic benefits of environmental quality, make policy recommendations that almost always suggest movements toward more environmental quality. We try to solve environmental problems in our own little academic way.

We're not issue advocates as we try to stay as objective as possible. This means that in addition to conducting research without advocacy we try to get the economics right when we discuss current events. Politicians get things wrong for a variety of reasons. The most unsettling for an economist is the act of selling policy in a "no-cost paradigm" (e.g., tax cuts lead to increase government revenue, environmental policy leads to increased economic growth).

So, save your self-righteous blather for Exxon and others that are actually doing serious harm.

[odograph]

You've got the emotion wrong. I'm not self-righteous, I'm guilty. I've slacked off the low-carbon lifestyle I had a couple years ago. Now I'll drive 50 miles just to take a more interesting bicycle ride. I could ride out from the house ... but for a little more fun, why not? Everyone else does it.

And that leads to the more substantive angle ... can we actually reduce our global green house gas emissions with a "go along" Odo?

Have you really looked at the per-capita CO2 emissions required to stabilize emissions? On a global basis, actually accepting the Chinese as our peers?

The sad thing is that most readers are going to think I'm weird for guilting out about a 50 mile weekend drive ... but the harsh physics is that we can't make it with that being normal. Acceptable.

(Some might think I'm weird for granting an average Chinese my CO2 footprint, which is sad too.)

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

You've got it all wrong then. Renewable subsidies lead to reduced prices of energy and give you an economic incentive to drive your car more. You should not support their implementation (without an offseting carbon tax or cap-and-trade). Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade raise energy prices and would save you from yourself. See my latest post.

And you wonder: have I really done my homework? Typically, yes.

I realize that climate change mitigation is a potentially serious problem with solutions that are, at best, difficult and problematic. OK solutions sold with false assertions are problematic. False solutions are even more problematic.

[odograph]

When did I ever back a renewable subsidy?

[odograph]

I realize that climate change mitigation is a potentially serious problem with solutions that are, at best, difficult and problematic. OK solutions sold with false assertions are problematic. False solutions are even more problematic.

I don't think we are actually going to do anything substantive. "OK solutions" shot down were a tragedy within that, which bothered me, but I can step back and see it doesn't matter.

This nation is not going to price carbon high enough to make us reduce our production of it ... let alone China.

One of my mini-themes in the last week has been that these are debates about things we would do, if we cared. I think that's our epitaph.

It is our human nature to care a little, but not enough.

[Dano]

odo,

The GF and I had this conversation yesterday - she was accusing me of being a downer because I point out that human nature is such that we likely won't change our trajectory in time. Yet, I continue to take action to assist a trajectory change and I walk the walk.

So, as much as I hate binary logic, the choice is stark: we either do nothing or we do something. Just because a direction is not perfect is no excuse. And we can't expect China to do the right thing if we don't. Walk the walk and let others get their house in order. It'll work out or it won't. There is a moral imperative to act.

Best,

D

[odograph]

What would you guess, 2-3% of Americans live a low carbon lifestyle? A tenth that?

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

When did I ever back a renewable subsidy?

Oooooookaaaaaaaay.

Delete: Renewable subsidies lead to reduced prices of energy and give you an economic incentive to drive your car more. You should not support their implementation (without an offseting carbon tax or cap-and-trade).

[odograph]

Don't you need to delete "You've got it all wrong then." as well?

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

Delete: You've got it all wrong then.

[Dano]

What would you guess, 2-3% of Americans live a low carbon lifestyle? A tenth that?

Many of the poor do. Willingly, behavior-changingly: 3-5%. Unwillingly due to being poor: 5-7%.

Best,

D