[HN Gopher] Have economists led the world's environmental polici...
___________________________________________________________________
Have economists led the world's environmental policies astray?
Author : pingou
Score : 57 points
Date : 2022-03-29 19:32 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| ohNoz3 wrote:
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > And that is without counting the returns on the investment.
| British officials reckon that three-quarters of the total cost of
| the transition to net zero will be offset by benefits such as
| more efficient transport, and that the state may need to spend
| only 0.4% of gdp a year over three decades.
|
| That also omits by far the largest return on investment, which is
| frequently omitted: Preventing the costs of climate change.
|
| People who criticize actions to prevent climate change often talk
| about the economic impact of those actions. The economic impact
| of not preventing climate change - in addition to the impact on
| human life - is usually far greater. The question is not, 'how
| much does this change cost?', but 'what are the outcomes of our
| various options?'.
| alephnan wrote:
| How well respected is The Economist when it comes to covering the
| global economy truthfully ?
|
| I've noticed there is a growing anti China sentiment from The
| Economist in recent years.
| jker wrote:
| And The Guardian has growing anti-American sentiment. Yet they
| both publish excellent reporting.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Articles paywalled. But the irony of an economist trying to
| explain why they aren't wrong using the failed quasi science that
| is economics is lulzy as hell.
|
| Economics isn't a science it's a collection of hypotheticals
| which rarely maintains consistency in results. To place such
| weight on these hypotheticals as we do, well we reap what we sow
| as they say.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| This is just a strawman. No one is claiming economics is a
| science with ground truth. That being said, people on the
| aggregate do generally act rationally, and they absolutely
| respond to incentives, which is pretty much all you need for
| economics to be useful.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Actually mate they try pass economics of as a science so
| regularly they use it to influence policy. Which if the title
| of this article is correct. It's been part of the reason our
| environmental policiea globally have been so woeful ("you
| can't do that you'll ruin the economy"). It's the case here
| in aus and most of the western world, your telling yourself
| porky pies if you think it's not happening. Economics places
| be all and end all weight on growth and dollars. When for the
| most of us that results in detrimental outcomes. For example
| as I write this I'm currently in a motel because my house is
| flooded out by a 1 in 100 year flood, the 2nd time this
| month....
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > Actually mate they try pass economics of as a science so
| regularly they use it to influence policy.
|
| I don't see how economic conclusion influencing policy
| means people think econ is a physical science. What I do
| know is that "you can't do that you'll ruin the economy" is
| not something economists ever say. That's something
| politicians say. Economists widely support policy that may
| have negative short term effects in order to achieve long
| term gains, but these policies aren't politically viable,
| so they are ignored.
|
| The idea that climate change is in some way caused by
| economics is misguided. Climate change is caused by human
| nature. People are extremely unwilling to make sacrifices
| when they aren't sure they'll see the results. That's why
| our environmental policies have been so woeful, not because
| economists object.
| geysersam wrote:
| Agree 100%. Economic theory is more moral philosophy and
| religion than science. To begin with, its fundamental
| motivation rests on utilitarianism. But then it also fails to
| accomplish that goal because it values the utility of a rich
| person buying something expensive more than it values ten poor
| persons buying something essential. That's also why a carbon
| tax does not work.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| paywall "Already have an account? Log in"
|
| short answer is "yes"
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I just disable javascript via ublock whenever I hit that sort
| of thing. 90% of the time things are hidden client side and
| that stops it. The other 10% I have to decide if i really want
| to go find an archive link to use.
| [deleted]
| kkfx wrote:
| My own raw and personal opinion, after having read books from
| Green New Deal, Great Reset promoters like "Covid-19: The Great
| Reset", by Klaus Schwab (head of World Economic Forum) and
| Thierry Malleret or Value(s): Building a Better World for All by
| Mark Carney (former head of UK central bank) I read the
| "environmental policies" as nothing really environmental, by
| points:
|
| - the western world is in decline, mostly for self-inflicted
| damage, since the actual situation is irrecoverable, the game is
| lost, a new global war like WWI or WWII can't be done, then
| overturn the table creating a new society forcing others who
| still depend on western tech to follow is a way to "reset" the
| game;
|
| - to do so an excuse is needed and seen the actual climate
| changes and level of pollution it's easy to choose that as an
| excuse, a true fact, depicted as solvable in a way that do not
| really solve anything but sound credible to public eyes;
|
| - since the French Revolution the world instead of being led by
| classic aristocracy (witch means by who detain the military
| power) is led by economy so by economist.
|
| Why the green new deal is not green in the sense of spring grass
| green but more in the sense of dollar-green and stereotypical
| toxic waste spills from rusty barrels? Because all publicized
| today, from the ONU New Urban Agenda to the Green Deal itself is
| _partially_ and _marginally_ about the environment and much more
| about a Chinese-like society, smart cities, drone delivery of
| industrial ultra-processed food, no travels except for very few,
| only public transportation, ... just read the classic
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
| and try to see what emerge.
|
| EVs? it's clear and clearly stated here and there that they can't
| be like actual cars, only few will get EVs like actual cars, most
| will get "glorified golf carts" [1] most others will live in
| "smart cities" designed like SK Goshiwon or JP Capsule Hotels,
| depending on public services because they'll can't afford the
| price of a "new" real car but "fun and be distracting enough" to
| keep those mass of population calm. Heat pumps? Ok, for new homes
| they are effective to reduce night/no/not-enough p.v. production
| time for heating a house or producing hot water, with p.v.
| productions they are needed mostly only to cool a home, without
| modern home + p.v. are just ways to consume less electricity at a
| significant price and peoples aren't much pushed for
| environmental reasons but for artificially skyrocketed prices by
| speculation of the same people who publicly sell the Green New
| Deal.
|
| To be clear:
|
| - politically I'm on the left side of the spectrum, the REAL left
| side
|
| - I'm an environmentalist concerned by actual climate change
|
| - I've built my new well-insulated home, with domestic p.v.
|
| - I do not own an e.v. simply because it's not green at all, and
| economically it's still more expensive than modern EU diesel, in
| the future when diesel here will be a 4 euros per liter than will
| be cheap and I hope it can be integrated in the house micro-grid
| so I'll buy an e.v.
|
| Just remember a thing: economist like those who drive our
| countries these days are the new generation of the same who have
| laid the foundations of devastating II half of 1800 wars and WWI
| and WWII. How "environmentally concerned" they can be?
|
| [1]
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-go...
|
| https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating...
|
| various trends toward cars-as-a-service, leasing etc
| zwieback wrote:
| Any article that uses Norway as a positive example needs to also
| mention that that country is a large exporter of oil. How much of
| the incentives of e-cars come from oil profit?
| breakyerself wrote:
| Isn't using oil profits to fund a transition to renewable the
| ideal use for those funds?
| usrusr wrote:
| Norway actively took a bet that long term, oil lying under
| their shelf might not appreciate in value quite as much as
| most would expect and opted for faster extraction than
| others. They might have had a certain hunch that scarcity
| might not be the only possible end game for oil?
| zwieback wrote:
| Not the worst use, for sure, but instead of incrementally
| improving the climate situation Norway is making it worse
| until suddenly much better, when everything is converted.
| [deleted]
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I think the best way to kill carbon emissions are with a revenue
| neutral 'vat' style tax. Give the money you took for co2 back on
| the income tax, and people will spend it decarbonizing in an
| attempt to dodge the tax.
|
| Having said that, I have zero faith that we will ever do anything
| substantial to stop climate change while the billionaire class
| funds grover norquist style hit men to terrify conservatives at
| the mere mention of the T-word.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Give the money you took for co2 back on the income tax, and
| people will spend it decarbonizing in an attempt to dodge the
| tax
|
| Even better, preempt this by funding decarbonising programmes
| first, with the threat of a tax in some fixed time period.
| People will decarbonise without the publicity hit of "new
| taxes".
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I dont think anyone is going to go for a new tax especially if
| it hits the middle class and poor. Even if one political
| administration implemented it, the next would revoke it. Carbon
| neutral technologies just need to be able to compete on price
| and appeal. Tesla has proven its possible in transportation and
| other car companies are following suit. Need a couple of high
| profile competitive examples in other industries, especially
| power. They also need really good lobbyists.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| The problem is that carbon intensive technologies _do not_
| pay for the damage they 're doing to the environment. The tax
| I suggested was revenue neutral, which means the average poor
| person would get back as much in income taxes on their
| paycheck as they paid in carbon taxes. Technically, this
| doesn't 'hit' anyone and it benefits those willing to change.
| I think you're right though that this is politically
| infeasible simply due to short-sightedness and cowardice.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Tesla succeeded, in large part, because of government
| subsidies and some policies that are essentially carbon taxes
| with extra steps.
|
| Some people would say that as an insult, but I both think
| it's true and a good thing.
|
| Putting a price on carbon has been a winning strategy
| everywhere it's been used. People just have had to hide it,
| because it's too easy to scare people with lies about taxes,
| so we get the exact same thing, but slightly less efficiently
| implemented.
| imtringued wrote:
| The solution is quite easy. Implement the carbon dividend
| first, then charge taxes.
|
| When you give people money and then tell them that money
| comes from carbon taxes they will understand that.
|
| If you introduce a new tax and then tell them you are going
| to give it back they won't understand it at all, they won't
| even trust you to implement the dividend.
| vsareto wrote:
| https://archive.ph/1HeyE
| Biologist123 wrote:
| As a counter argument to the piece in the Economist, this article
| by Steve Keen (University College London professor) explains the
| gross errors made by economists in their modeling of climate
| damages, how those errors arose and their implications.
|
| TL;DR: Nobel prize-winning economist, William Nordhaus, willfully
| or negligently underestimated climate damages.
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1...
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Oh very nice.
|
| I rant to an annoying degree (sorry everyone) about the
| fundamental pro-business cultural bias of economics-the-
| profession, and how this has failed the human race to a
| frightening degree. Considering economics-the-profession is
| usually the first source of academic approval/opinion on
| government policy (because science sure as shit isn't.
|
| What makes it most annoying is that "externalities" is largely
| a bolt-on. And even worse, Economics-the-culture is averse to
| things they can't measure in some way (even though I'd say
| their measurements of EVERYTHING they do rely is is pretty
| bad).
|
| How does Economics price the "externality" of global warming?
| The lost value of displaced and dead people, maybe a broad
| stroke. Extinct species and habitat loss? How does one
| nihilistically price if we head outside of phytoplankton's
| ability to create oxygen?
|
| At best, a vast underestimate, especially given the pro-
| business bias.
|
| To me the shining failure of modern economics environmentally
| is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the last 30 years, a
| very basic and effective mechanism. Instead, easily arbitraged
| and gamed carbon markets.
|
| Secondarily, what is the economic value of any wetland or
| natural habitat? Vague tourism at best. The best economic use
| of a habitat is to drain it and pave it. Economics cannot
| measure how diversity of the species web is critical to our
| long term survival, because it can't even see one month into
| the future.
| geysersam wrote:
| Is carbon tax really effective? Ultimately effective in this
| context means "removes the least valuable carbon emissions".
| I don't think a carbon tax can accomplish that. We need
| political decisions to make that distinction. The market does
| not cut it in this case.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > To me the shining failure of modern economics
| environmentally is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the
| last 30 years
|
| Every single economist has been shouting for a carbon tax for
| around this time frame. It's a political problem, not an econ
| one. There are many valid complaints about academic econ. I
| think you're right that many of them stem from a pro-business
| cultural bias, but it really doesn't seem like you know
| enough economics to have much of an opinion on them. Claiming
| that externalities are a bolt on when they're taught in every
| single econ 101 class is certainly puzzling.
| geysersam wrote:
| What is most fair? Every person on the planets gets the same
| portion of the remaining global carbon budget. Or, it is divided
| proportional to current wealth. A carbon tax is the latter.
| Veedrac wrote:
| > The authors are not kind to economists, who typically want to
| put a price on emissions and then let markets do the work.
| Economists have, the authors allege, skipped a chapter in the
| textbooks. They have focused on externalities, the damage done to
| society when carbon is emitted. But they do not think about the
| elasticity of demand--the extent to which prices change
| behaviour.
|
| This completely misunderstands the point of setting a tax
| precisely at the rate of the externality. If a good is taxed at
| its true, global, long-term rate of externality, then the
| externality, the damage being done, is precisely being paid for.
| There is now no longer a net externality. If the tax means demand
| switches to a product without that externality, then good,
| problem solved, and if instead people still prefer that good to
| the alternatives, then they can just go ahead and pay for that
| good plus the tax that pays for the externality. If this isn't
| good enough for you then probably the problem is you think the
| price is being estimated wrong, in which case you shouldn't be
| complaining about there being a tax, you should complain that the
| rate it is set at is incorrect.
|
| I also think the inelasticity of demand claim is mostly bogus;
| it's inelastic on short timescales but there is plenty of
| momentum to switch to electric cars and renewable energy even at
| undiscounted price points. Electricity generation in particular
| is extremely price sensitive; it's just that with cost trends
| that cover literal orders of magnitude the crossover point was
| always going to seem like a sudden event.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _If a good is taxed at its true, global, long-term rate of
| externality, then the externality, the damage being done, is
| precisely being paid for._
|
| If a little bit of CO2 pollution causes fairly quantifiable
| harm we can live with but a lot of CO2 pollution causes runaway
| global warming ending life on earth, what is it's "true,
| global, long-term rate of externality"? Me, with an actual
| degree in economics, would say there is none. Many damage
| effects simply can't be easily put into a simple cost function.
| But even if there somehow is such a rate, it seems quite likely
| that bureaucracies and markets "working together" can't be
| counted on adjust fast to be certain that price is paid.
| ephbit wrote:
| Climate scientists have long been calculating a remaining CO2
| budget (that would prevent the worst from happening if
| humanity didn't go over). This gives rate of CO2 emissions as
| kg/s.
|
| Economists surely can come up with some number of USD to be
| paid for the emission of 1 kg CO2 (by looking at some
| economic reference numbers) that will effectively render
| 10,20,...,90%,99% of all different uses of CO2 emitting
| processes unprofitable or economically infeasible.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It's not necessary to come up with a cost function. Instead,
| come up with a sustainable amount of CO2 emissions. Then,
| keep raising the carbon tax until emissions drop to that
| amount.
| geysersam wrote:
| Also, one product having a higher price does not mean it's
| more valuable in a global context.
|
| Two carbon equivalent products can be vastly different in
| terms of how essential they are (for the life or well-being
| of people). Prices may not reflect that difference because of
| global differences in purchasing power.
| dkarl wrote:
| > the problem is you think the price is being estimated wrong,
| in which case you shouldn't be complaining about there being a
| tax, you should complain that the rate it is set at is
| incorrect
|
| If there is no way of setting an appropriate price and fairly
| deploying the money gathered, then the policy is unworkable to
| begin with. From what process could an appropriate price for
| the externalities of global warming emerge? And by what process
| would climate refugees receive their share of compensatory
| value from the tax?
|
| In short, even if the theory checks out, it's no use unless we
| have a political process capable of implementing it. Otherwise
| it's about as useful as a policy of us all concentrating on
| breathing in CO2 and shitting diamonds -- a brilliant idea if
| we could do it.
| w-j-w wrote:
| DennisP wrote:
| > From what process could an appropriate price for the
| externalities of global warming emerge?
|
| I can think of one process: charge a fee per ton of CO2
| emissions that equals the cost of taking that CO2 back out of
| the atmosphere and sequestering it. Then give the money to
| whoever is able to do that and prove it.
|
| That's probably too expensive right now and definitely not
| feasible politically, but it's something to work towards. The
| closer we get to that, the more incentive there will be to
| develop technological methods of accomplishing it.
|
| In the meantime, we're probably best off just setting the
| price as high as we can get away with, and equally
| distributing the revenue among residents as partial
| compensation for the damage being done.
|
| In a functioning democracy, wide distribution helps build
| political support for a higher price. It also keeps the
| burden from falling heavily on the poor.
| robocat wrote:
| > If a good is taxed at its true, global, long-term rate of
| externality, then the externality, the damage being done, is
| precisely being paid for. There is now no longer a net
| externality.
|
| Why is there no longer an externality?
|
| Let's pick a concrete example: taxation of petrol in the UK.
| The externality still exists (say people in Indonesia living on
| the coast[1]), and more than enough fuel duty is paid to the UK
| Exchequer to cover the externality (from article: "Britain has
| had one of the highest levels of fuel duty in the rich world in
| recent decades, note Mr Lonergan and Ms Sawers, but drivers'
| take-up of electric vehicles has been unremarkable.").
|
| You could make a colour of money[2] argument that there is no
| explicit externality tax. Or perhaps the victims of sea rise
| need to tax British petrol users? And I have a feeling your
| argument somehow ignores surpluses or market inefficiencies?
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/29/risk-
| fro...
|
| [2] https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/accounting-for-saas-and-
| sw...
| derriz wrote:
| I think I'm misunderstanding you.
|
| There are multiple externalities to consuming petrol/driving
| cars around the UK.
|
| There's a local/national one. By consuming petrol you're
| generally inflicting wear and tear on existing roads and
| adding to the need for road-space - requiring the
| construction of new roads. This is the externality that UK
| petrol tax is supposed to pay for - road infrastructure
| maintenance and construction. Ok it gets all mixed up in the
| general UK budget but, in theory at least, the tax pays for
| this externality.
|
| But the government doesn't collect petrol tax and hand the
| money over to distant foreign countries in order to pay for
| global environmental externalities. So this externality is
| not paid for by UK petrol consumers?
| iso1210 wrote:
| No, in theory it doesn't pay for the roads, and in practice
| it doesn't. That's just a lie put about by the anti-cyclist
| lobby.
|
| Most roads are actually funded from local taxes - mainly
| council tax and business rates in any case, not even
| central funding.
| derriz wrote:
| There are all sorts of complex flows of money between
| local and central taxation and spending.
|
| It's not really relevant to my point which is that taxes
| being collected by consumers of fossil fuels in the UK
| are certainly NOT being sent to foreign countries to pay
| for the externalities of pumping CO2 in the air.
|
| As a consumer of petrol in the UK, it's a mistake to
| think "I'm paying loads of petrol tax, so I'm paying for
| the externalities" when the money is being spent, one way
| or another in the UK. While the externalities are global.
| sdeframond wrote:
| How do you know which money funds what?
| haihaibye wrote:
| The amount collected is less than the cost of
| building/maintaining roads, thus it must come from other
| sources.
| esteth wrote:
| Because council tax and business rates get paid to an
| entirely different entity than road tax (local government
| vs state government) and you can see your council's
| spending breakdown
| convolvatron wrote:
| sure. this only works if you spend that money to offset the
| consequence - i.e. direct carbon capture. then it really is
| no longer external.
| dagw wrote:
| _taxation of petrol in the UK._
|
| As a counter example look at Norway. To a first approximation
| no one in Norway is buying a new petrol car. The taxes are
| simply too high compared to electric cars. So obviously there
| exists a level where people will switch out of their own
| short term financial self interest, without having to make an
| environmental argument.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| In the economic model, cost of the externality should go to
| reverse the damage, or compensate those harmed.
|
| This breaks down if the government taxes a good due to
| externality, but spends the proceeds on something else.
|
| Raising government is arguably a social good, but does not
| benefit or compensate those harmed. Without targeted mitigation
| or compensation, such policies are simply sin taxes.
|
| I don't think this is a problem with economists, who understand
| this well. you can not "set a tax precisely at the rate of the
| externality" without finding the cost of the externality to
| those impacted.
| mr_toad wrote:
| It also overlooks the fact that elasticity is not constant, it
| changes as the price changes. Tax high enough, and demand will
| become elastic, if for no other reason than the tax becomes
| unaffordable.
|
| If you believe that human society cannot afford to continue
| relying on fossil fuels, because they are an existential threat
| to civilisation, then it follows that the tax on those fuels
| also needs to become unaffordable.
|
| Taxing fuels and other carbon emissions at a high enough rate
| to actually stop people using them is politically never going
| to happen.
| throwaway6532 wrote:
| >If you believe that human society cannot afford to continue
| relying on fossil fuels, because they are an existential
| threat to civilisation, then it follows that the tax on those
| fuels also needs to become unaffordable.
|
| I think if you cut out all fossil fuels society would just
| not work. At least not at the scale it currently does. Even
| so called "renewables" are really only possible because of
| the complex society that fossil fuels allow. The more I dig
| into reneweables the more I feel like once fossil fuels go
| away, we largely go back to the stone age.
| joebob42 wrote:
| I think the hope is that we bootstrap the renewable capable
| complex society on top of fossil fuels and then it can
| continue to function with the renewables it builds.
| DennisP wrote:
| As long as there are alternative to the fossil fuels, you
| just have to set the tax high enough so alternatives are
| cheaper.
|
| If you redistribute the money to the population, then people
| with low emissions would have a low net cost, and might even
| come out ahead. They'll still be incentivized to go with the
| now-cheaper low-emissions alternatives.
| narrator wrote:
| The bottom of the slippery slope is that they will eventually
| eliminate cash and the informal economy and give everyone a
| personal carbon ration that's debited in carbon units after
| every transaction regardless of cash price of the transaction.
| usednet wrote:
| I agree, and I think that what you said about the rate being
| incorrect is right. Pigovian taxes are great in models but
| extraordinarily difficult to implement. Measuring
| externalities, especially of something like carbon production,
| is a monumental task that economists in my opinion have been
| failing at. Another commenter linked a great analysis on how
| economists are drastically underestimating the economic effect
| of climate change (assuming 90% of GDP won't be affected
| because its indoors!).
|
| On the second point I somewhat disagree. The current
| inelasticity of demand is extremely important as climate change
| will become uncontrollable at longer timeframes. The current
| trend is not enough and not fast enough. I agree with the
| authors that Pigovian subsidies for renewables worldwide are
| necessary as soon as possible.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| > economists are drastically underestimating the economic
| effect of climate change (assuming 90% of GDP won't be
| affected because its indoors!)
|
| Please, take Steve Keen with skepticism. He is, so to say, an
| unreliable narrator.
| usednet wrote:
| I like Steve Keen. I find his work convincing and
| practical.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| That's fine. Just know that he's effectively a quack.
| soVeryTired wrote:
| It'd be nice to see a refutation of his arguments, or at
| least a recognition of them. As it stands I've just seen
| two ad hominems in a row and not much else.
| imtringued wrote:
| >Pigovian taxes are great in models but extraordinarily
| difficult to implement.
|
| Yeah so what? The bureaucracy of an income tax is a drag on
| an economy. The bureaucracy of pigovian taxes is a blessing
| for the economy.
| usednet wrote:
| I'm not fundamentally opposed to pigovian taxes, they are
| the best option in many cases. For climate change,
| definitely not the best option. I personally advocate for
| cap and trade.
| slibhb wrote:
| > The authors argue that getting people to make the big leaps
| needed to decarbonise, such as buying an electric car or
| installing a domestic heat pump, instead requires "extreme
| positive incentives for change" (epics).
|
| Seems like a recipe to lose elections.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Positive incentives are when you receive money as opposed to
| negative incentives such as fines where you have to pay money.
| So this is unlikely to cause a political party to lose
| elections, people like to receive money.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Taxes and regulations are the recipe to lose elections, too
| easily used to swing "undecided" voters.
|
| Incentives are giveaways, which even the most devout Big-R
| voters will jump on, because money is money.
| hardtke wrote:
| There are microeconomic concepts I learned in college that make
| decarbonization nearly impossible. First the FREE RIDER
| principle. Since CO2 (and methane) affects temperature
| globally, every nation (and individual) is incentivized to free
| ride off the decarbonization expenses of others. Second, the
| PRISONER'S DILEMMA. Most political systems have two main
| parties competing for power. Although both parties broadly
| agree that climate change is bad, policies that kick the can
| down the road are electorally advantageous (less taxes now
| always beats a better future). Thus the NASH EQUILIBRIUM is for
| political parties to always promise to undo any costly changes
| the other party is proposing.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| >Most political systems have two main parties competing for
| power
|
| I disagree. While this is true for some (US, UK), it's not
| true for other democracies (Spain, Germany), and even less
| true for more authoritarian systems (Russia, China). Some
| countries have political systems that are actually able to
| make long term decisions.
|
| >Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is
| bad
|
| True in some places, but not in others, such as Russia,
| Brazil, or (most importantly) the US.
|
| While I agree that decarbonization is really hard, and in
| part due to the reasons you listed, they are also not as
| universal as you paint them out to be.
| hardtke wrote:
| Agree -- here in California where we only have one relevant
| political party the California Energy commission has been
| able to impose energy efficiency requirements for
| appliances and buildings that have had a huge positive
| impact on our energy usage per capita. We've also had EPICS
| like the tax credit and ability to drive in the carpool
| lane for hybrids and later electric cars.
|
| At a US national level we have partisan trench warfare
| exacerbated by a Senate dominated by small states and
| supermajoritarian voting rules. It's not entirely untrue
| that the the continued existence of the US Senate is
| incompatible with a future habitable planet.
| sofixa wrote:
| By saying there will be a government programme funding/giving a
| tax credit/interest free loan/whatever other incentive to
| retrofit your house with more efficient heating or better
| insulate it or upgrade to a more efficient vehicle? I really
| think it's the opposite, those kinds of things are popular with
| voters.
| slibhb wrote:
| Maybe you're right but I think Republicans would have a field
| day with the term "extreme positive incentives for change".
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Politicians wouldn't use that term.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Lots of talk about taxing this or repaying that but in Meadows's
| taxonomy of leverage points these amount to changes between level
| 10 and 7.
|
| What the article is kinda saying is that these "extreme positive
| incentives for change" (EPICs) that are labelled
| political/structural instruments lie outside monetary economics
| and so hint towards level 5 and 4 changes, to system rules and to
| self-organisational motives. I still don't get, if so, how? And
| if so, why not apply both?
|
| But ultimately changing system goals away from consumerism might
| be the gift everyone wants. I know many bored people who want to
| feel like they're part of big change, what Alexis De Tocqueville
| called "restive fervour" in early America - in British parlance
| being "up for it".
|
| If economists exacerbate climate problems it is by the tepidity
| of their vision. I think we have forgotten as a society truly
| grand ambition. The Panama canal. The Hoover Dam. The dykes of
| Nederlands. US post-war Apollo Project. The Channel Tunnel.
| Imagine human action at scale, not as ungrateful entitled
| protest, but coordinated and purposeful action in the face of
| climate change. What would that look like? If we can't even
| imagine it then we're truly lost.
|
| In the shadow of the pandemic and Russo-Ukraine war I think we'll
| have an opportunity, and to avoid unrest maybe a necessity, for
| bold, crazy-ass projects whose ROI can just be written off to
| posterity - what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of
| War", not as mere National Service, but as Global Service.
| Literally pay people salaries to fight climate change.
|
| Of course that would require a strategy backed up by good
| science. But realising that monetary economics and "markets"
| isn't the only way out would be a good step. The Economist
| article hints and plays with that, and then backs off.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| > what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not
| as mere National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay
| people salaries to fight climate change.
|
| I see what you're going for with this, and I imagine I could be
| persuaded to a more workable version of this. What's hanging me
| up is - how do you avoid these salaried people being captured
| by incentives to sustain their salary rather than be
| incentivized to ultimately solve the problem?
|
| We've tried this with the war on drugs, war on terror, war on
| homelessness... haven't we? Is your suggestion different
| somehow?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-29 23:01 UTC)