http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?emc=eta1
For those of you who have enjoyed following my posts, I've been away for a while and I want to welcome you back. I've had a hectic start to fall classes and the support programming for this "Blog" broke. So, I'm back now and I'm hopeful that things keep rolling.
Evidently, the "Al Gore Forces" have gotten to Paul Krugman, my "guru" for all things economic. Krugman was kind enough to let us know today that one can fight global warming (gw) cheaply. And, anyone who doesn't want to fight gw is kidding themselves. Could someone ask Paul if it has gotten "warmer" or "cooler" during this decade? I guess the battle against the "Al Gore Forces" is down to George Will and those of us who support him. Well, of course, there is the Copenhagen Consensus (that group of Nobel Prize winning economists, and other experts) that has shown, objectively, that a dollar spent on greening the world would be better spent on hunger, medical care for the poor and other more immediate problems.
The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But, the sticking point will be the Senate. Here, after Krugman dispenses with the "deniers" (those who think that gw hasn't been proven) as fools, he wants to let us know that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as "climate-change denial."
How do we know these things? First, we waste a lot of energy now burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don't actually enhance our standard of living (easy to agree here). Second, even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose modest costs on the average family (a CBO analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey estimated a cost to the average family of $160 per year). Once again, easy to agree.
Krugman's bottom line: the claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it's relatively easy to be green.
As always, Dr. K is very convincing. Who am I to contradict? But, a thought about cap-and-trade: who would get the "credits" and how would that be administered, and what would be the cost to the taxpayer of government administration? I honestly think that Krugman could make better economic arguments AGAINST cap-and-trade just on the basis of those questions than he has in favor of it. So, thank you Dr. K for letting us know how "cheaply" we can fight gw, but could you get back to us after you've calculated the overhead involved in administering all that carbon trading?
Meantime, life goes on with the EPA banning carbon dioxide and the Copenhagen Consensus suggesting we spend money more effectively someplace else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For me, the bottom line on these kinds of environmental issues always boil down to one thing:
ReplyDeleteCan it be done sanely, and will our quality of life be better afterward?
I submit that burning less coal is better for us, regardless if gw is real. I'd much rather see an energy policy driven by clean innovation than what's cheapest for us right now.
Ultimately it comes down to a simple choice. You can see this debate as equivalent to the arguments for and against waste treatment systems for cities. We don't *need* to do it, and it's cheaper not to, but we all realized about 50 years ago it was kinda nice not dumping human waste into rivers and oceans, not just for health reasons but aesthetic ones as well.
I view burning coal much the same way. It pollutes. Alot. It's no wonder that while coal energy production worldwide is at an all-time high that child asthma is also at an all-time high, and I don't need a scientific study to prove a link.
I'm rambling. Ultimately what 'prevents' gw is good for us, regardless whether or not gw really exists. The question we have to ask ourselves is how much good do we gain vs. how much cost, and Dr. Krugman is correctly focusing the argument there.