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.
Tariffs are coding more right wing now since Trump made it a signature part of his administration, although protectionism has fans on both sides of the aisle.
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
No we’re not. Almost half of all preowned EVs sell for under 25,000. Ford is debuting an inexpensive EV truck platform, Slate auto is doing the same. Chevy has great EVs for a great price. Nissan just released an updated Leaf.
25k for a used car is still bad adjusting for inflation. Ten years ago you could get a used budget car on craigslist for 3-5k. I appreciate all those examples and hope we keep heading in that direction, but the market is flooded with huge expensive trucks and SUVs. Personally all I want for my next car is a simple sedan and I’m hard pressed to find anything used that isn’t rebuilt for under 22k
Yeah I might be generalizing my own preferences for cheap whatever-brand cars (I’m not a car person and don’t want to spend 1/5 of my salary buying one, no matter how nice) so BMWs and the like are out of my range. If anyone has tips or websites they used to find what I’m looking for I’m all ears haha
Check out Autotrader, Carvana, CarMax, or go on dealer sites for whatever brand you want. They’ll have off lease used or certified preowned vehicles. Used EVs are a great deal if you have a place to charge at home. The first owner already ate the depreciation and in the next year or two tons of them will be coming off lease. Battery studies are showing they last much longer than anticipated.
I'm guessing that same car would cost a lot more now with inflation and tariffs since he bought it pre-Covid. It would definitely move into the unaffordable column now.
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.
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
Does the Left have a climate denial problem? Perhaps- but Thomason does not make much of a case for it. Sure, thinking about costs and benefits is always good and virtue signaling (surely as much a liberal as a leftist vice) does not reduce anyone’s carbon footprint.
But the author’s ’let’s not get hysterical’ stance overlooks two simple facts: for one, on average, Americans have twice as high a carbon footprint as Europeans and four or fife times the world average (without the US). Secondly, within a national economy, carbon footprints are pretty much proportional to a person’s income - largely irrespective of their political views.
Suggesting that politics as usual plus a few cost-effective techno-fixes without a serious change in consumption patterns can lead to a sustainable way of life in the US is quite obviously wishful thinking. In fact, it’s pretty irresponsible and intellectually lazy. Rather than sniping at the left, perhaps the Argument could join the conversation on how we collectively can get out of our consumption addiction.
How about building a humongous mirror in space? People keep talking about ways to reduce carbon emissions so heat from sunlight isn't captured in the atmosphere. Why not just stop it from arriving in the first place?
Geo-engineering seems to not be taken seriously even though it seems to pass the cost benefit analysis with flying colors. It seems like the tax dollars that it would cost to implement it are much smaller than the costs of emissions reduction.
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.
Tariffs are coding more right wing now since Trump made it a signature part of his administration, although protectionism has fans on both sides of the aisle.
Your mileage may vary, but I see ending car dealerships and homeowner veto power as very good things.
Astute, well written and informative! Thank you JRT.
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
No we’re not. Almost half of all preowned EVs sell for under 25,000. Ford is debuting an inexpensive EV truck platform, Slate auto is doing the same. Chevy has great EVs for a great price. Nissan just released an updated Leaf.
25k for a used car is still bad adjusting for inflation. Ten years ago you could get a used budget car on craigslist for 3-5k. I appreciate all those examples and hope we keep heading in that direction, but the market is flooded with huge expensive trucks and SUVs. Personally all I want for my next car is a simple sedan and I’m hard pressed to find anything used that isn’t rebuilt for under 22k
Less than a decade ago, a friend of mine got a used BMW for I think less than $25K that practically felt new.
Yeah I might be generalizing my own preferences for cheap whatever-brand cars (I’m not a car person and don’t want to spend 1/5 of my salary buying one, no matter how nice) so BMWs and the like are out of my range. If anyone has tips or websites they used to find what I’m looking for I’m all ears haha
Check out Autotrader, Carvana, CarMax, or go on dealer sites for whatever brand you want. They’ll have off lease used or certified preowned vehicles. Used EVs are a great deal if you have a place to charge at home. The first owner already ate the depreciation and in the next year or two tons of them will be coming off lease. Battery studies are showing they last much longer than anticipated.
I'm guessing that same car would cost a lot more now with inflation and tariffs since he bought it pre-Covid. It would definitely move into the unaffordable column now.
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.
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
AHEM ... http://www.climateofcontempt.com
Does the Left have a climate denial problem? Perhaps- but Thomason does not make much of a case for it. Sure, thinking about costs and benefits is always good and virtue signaling (surely as much a liberal as a leftist vice) does not reduce anyone’s carbon footprint.
But the author’s ’let’s not get hysterical’ stance overlooks two simple facts: for one, on average, Americans have twice as high a carbon footprint as Europeans and four or fife times the world average (without the US). Secondly, within a national economy, carbon footprints are pretty much proportional to a person’s income - largely irrespective of their political views.
Suggesting that politics as usual plus a few cost-effective techno-fixes without a serious change in consumption patterns can lead to a sustainable way of life in the US is quite obviously wishful thinking. In fact, it’s pretty irresponsible and intellectually lazy. Rather than sniping at the left, perhaps the Argument could join the conversation on how we collectively can get out of our consumption addiction.
How about building a humongous mirror in space? People keep talking about ways to reduce carbon emissions so heat from sunlight isn't captured in the atmosphere. Why not just stop it from arriving in the first place?
Geo-engineering seems to not be taken seriously even though it seems to pass the cost benefit analysis with flying colors. It seems like the tax dollars that it would cost to implement it are much smaller than the costs of emissions reduction.