It's interesting that every instance of cost-effective carbon reduction you list involves deregulation: Allow import of cheap electric cars, allow Waymos to operate, allow new renewable infrastructure to be built and connected to the grid. I suspect many progressives would chafe at these suggestions as they see deregulation of any sort as right-wing.
The ban on chinese imports is costing us. Not only would there be less emissions if we were “allowed” to import them, but car prices would go down as well. If there’s one thing citizens want, it’s lower prices.
74% of American adults are priced out of the new car market. Even the used car market is screwed. We’re on the path to resembling the USSR with lots of people repairing their 20 year old cars with duct tape lol
Rhetorically it used to be quite popular to say you'd offer something for the people who lose out on any given deal and that no one believes this will happen you get to the poison of concentrated losses and diffuse benefits.
That no one believes we can do things to move Detroit to compete with BYD and Tesla in making great electric cars for instance. I'd like there to be an electric car market to be super competitive and it's just not that competitive compared to the ice market.
Across the board I don't know who could even develop the trust to do that kind of big picture, yes there will be change and loss but there will be gains for you too kind of pitch. No you specifically will do just fine
Thinking about the Keystone Pipeline, one thing that comes to mind which isn’t mentioned here is that the environmentalists in questions didn’t just want to shut down that pipeline: they wanted to shut down practically all new pipeline construction.
So while isolating the potential effects of stopping that pipeline when evaluating that political action is instructive, it seems more honest to try to do a benefit-cost analysis in a Kantian Universal Maxim way: how shutting down all new pipeline construction would effect Americans.
This is a double-edged sword. The GHG reduction benefits would be larger, but the direct economic harms could also be larger. It would also require more complex analysis evaluating whole-economy effects.
I bring up this point because the argument for stopping investment in all fossil-fuel infrastructure would almost certainly cause immediate lowering of interest rates, which makes capital intensive carbon-free electricity buildouts (solar, wind, battery storage, grid improvements) much more attractive.
But of course the economic effects extend far beyond that simple analysis. Point being, a broader economic analysis like this would be interesting.
It's interesting that every instance of cost-effective carbon reduction you list involves deregulation: Allow import of cheap electric cars, allow Waymos to operate, allow new renewable infrastructure to be built and connected to the grid. I suspect many progressives would chafe at these suggestions as they see deregulation of any sort as right-wing.
Astute, well written and informative! Thank you JRT.
Your mileage may vary, but I see ending car dealerships and homeowner veto power as very good things.
The ban on chinese imports is costing us. Not only would there be less emissions if we were “allowed” to import them, but car prices would go down as well. If there’s one thing citizens want, it’s lower prices.
74% of American adults are priced out of the new car market. Even the used car market is screwed. We’re on the path to resembling the USSR with lots of people repairing their 20 year old cars with duct tape lol
Rhetorically it used to be quite popular to say you'd offer something for the people who lose out on any given deal and that no one believes this will happen you get to the poison of concentrated losses and diffuse benefits.
That no one believes we can do things to move Detroit to compete with BYD and Tesla in making great electric cars for instance. I'd like there to be an electric car market to be super competitive and it's just not that competitive compared to the ice market.
Across the board I don't know who could even develop the trust to do that kind of big picture, yes there will be change and loss but there will be gains for you too kind of pitch. No you specifically will do just fine
Thinking about the Keystone Pipeline, one thing that comes to mind which isn’t mentioned here is that the environmentalists in questions didn’t just want to shut down that pipeline: they wanted to shut down practically all new pipeline construction.
So while isolating the potential effects of stopping that pipeline when evaluating that political action is instructive, it seems more honest to try to do a benefit-cost analysis in a Kantian Universal Maxim way: how shutting down all new pipeline construction would effect Americans.
This is a double-edged sword. The GHG reduction benefits would be larger, but the direct economic harms could also be larger. It would also require more complex analysis evaluating whole-economy effects.
I bring up this point because the argument for stopping investment in all fossil-fuel infrastructure would almost certainly cause immediate lowering of interest rates, which makes capital intensive carbon-free electricity buildouts (solar, wind, battery storage, grid improvements) much more attractive.
But of course the economic effects extend far beyond that simple analysis. Point being, a broader economic analysis like this would be interesting.
AHEM ... http://www.climateofcontempt.com