Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
I would like to move away from child bashing and suggest that another complicating factor in this debate is that climate change may improve certain areas of the globe (Siberia, Sweden) whilst destroying others (Island nations, India, Africa) and one group has more power than the other group.
One last thought on the conference you attended. As well as watching the panel you were on, I also watched "How to Spend a Trillion Dollars," where multiple panelists insisted that carbon fees were fatally flawed because they had a regressive effect, even though proposals to make a carbon fee progressive by redistributing its revenue have been around for more than a decade (four such bills are in Congress now; if the Senate does add a carbon fee to reconciliation bill, as it is considering, it will surely have a means-tested rebate). It took your old colleague, Dylan Matthews, not exactly a right-winger, to mention the dividend (rebate). Nonetheless, the conversation quickly moved on to other topics.
"And they’ve completely won the argument over a carbon tax — everyone agrees that imposing a really stiff carbon price is just not in the cards" is not accurate. There are currently five carbon pricing bills in Congress, one of which (HR 2307) has 84 cosponsors. The Senate is actively considering adding a Carbon Fee to the reconciliation bill (write/call if you want it added). Yes, the initial price will be too modest to do much, but if it has an annual increase it will still reduce emissions significantly since long-term investments like power plants, factories, and roof-top solar take into account the likely path of alternative fuel costs. Renewables are increasingly price competitive; a carbon fee will make them cheaper in many applications. Even a $25 fee knocks out most coal in the center of our country:
"A large reduction in emissions—77% relative to 2018—is accomplished at a $25/ton marginal abatement cost. The source of emission reductions is an enormous substitution of coal generation with a mix of natural gas, wind and solar generation, as well as a small amount of nuclear."
You're right that anti-market leftists have won the argument in gaining youth support and media coverage, but that's largely because they've won the argument with the progressive foundations you have criticized in other spheres. Unfortunately, the groups the foundations support are not objective sources of information about how to solve the problem (see Evergreen & NRDC paying for, working on, and then touting 'research' that finds CEPP creates a ton of jobs: https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/insights/publishing/2021-economic-impact-of-a-clean-electricity-payment-program.pdf, acknowledgements, p2). The CEPP, an absurdly inefficient, gameable (see https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2021/10/04/the-cepp-is-not-a-clean-energy-standard/ ), and politically delicate (DOE would write, interpret, and enforce its byzantine rules, which means if the President in 2025 cares more about fossil fuel producers than reducing emissions, he can throttle it) workaround of a true clean energy standard (already inferior to a carbon fee) apparently was developed with the help of Evergreen, created by veterans of Jay Inslee's presidential campaign and funded by progressive foundations. Perhaps drawing on the failures of carbon pricing in Washington State, the CEPP aims to completely hide the ball, which has been effective so far: not only has the general public not heard of it, few energy journalists ever discuss it, never mind mention its obvious flaws. The Washington Post has printed its full name once, and that was in a column from Bloomberg; the initials have never appeared. The problem with drawing lessons from Washington is that state and regional carbon fees don't make any sense--any price that is high enough to reduce emissions will be high enough to cause 'leakage'--companies moving emission-intensive businesses to states outside the fee's collection area. Also, we weren't ready to pass any significant non-market policies three years ago either. It has taken fires and floods to get mass interest. That interest will grow as they get worse, but quiet policies won't come close to solving the problem.
Why has Biden joined the anti-market movement even though they flung abuse at him during his campaign? Some theories: he's an old man who wasn't too sharp to begin with and doesn't understand the economics (and perhaps gets a kick out of ignoring the Obama economists who found him dim); he's in the worst possible demographic (and has too fraught a political history) to argue with them, especially the environmental justice warriors; he's an old man who doesn't really care as much about climate change as getting high-paying jobs for the people he likes to identify with.
"The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework also has climate provisions" is true, but most of the bill is to pour concrete from general revenues, which is anti-climate policy since better roads, airports, and ports at the same price (usually zero) will just call forth more driving, flying, and shipping, nearly all of it using fossil fuels.
So yes, carbon pricing is tough to pass, but it is necessary (though not sufficient) and those actually interested in averting disaster should devote their resources to explaining that to people, not to ever more elaborate schemes that pretend the transition will be costless.
I watched that panel. There was no discussion of what the actual 'quiet' policies currently in the reconciliation bill, which could easily be the last federal legislation until 2025 or even 2029, will likely achieve. Those who are interested in that should read (and then call and email their Senators to add to the bill the Carbon Fee they are currently considering):
“without a carbon price or other substantial climate policies, reductions fall short ... Carbon fees on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remain a powerful tool to reduce emissions, and our analysis finds that carbon fees can achieve as much or more reductions than the proposed credits and CEPP can achieve on their own."
The CEPP "open[s] up a variety of channels for gaming and unintended consequences that could lead to large government expenditures without inducing large-scale substitution of new, clean energy supply for fossil-fueled generation."
A quick thought about induction ovens. Not knowing much about the subject, I did a little quick Internet diving while reading these comments.
These things would be much more attractive if they talked about what the impact was an actual cooking then all about energy expenditure. In other words have famous cooks do the talking and not accountants and engineers.
Induction is for cooktops ('stoves'), not ovens. It works by heating magnetic pans and therefore wouldn't work well on baking bread or roasting meat. So an 'induction range' has induction cooktops and electric ovens, instead of $10k Wolf and Viking ranges that currently mostly have gas cooktops and electric ovens (even people who prefer gas cooktops usually prefer electric ovens). Aside from nostalgia, cooks like gas because it changes power immediately, unlike conventional electric burners. However, induction also changes power immediately and offers more of it than even fancy home gas ranges. It also is much safer (the cooktop does not get that hot--you can remove pots without potholders--and turns off automatically if the pan is removed or its contents boil down to nothing--it also obviously doesn't emit any products of combustion) and can be shut off with a built-in timer. They also don't heat up the kitchen in the summer nearly as much. I've only had inexpensive counter-top models (Max Burton 6400 Digital Choice Induction Cooktop 1800 Watts LCD Control, $74), which seem to have less well-distributed heat than our gas stove, but I assume that problem will be solved, if it hasn't been already on expensive stove-tops.
Losing gas stoves is not going to be a big downside of electrifying homes.
welcome. Forgot to mention that the counter top induction burners I have owned are sometimes a little noisy, though we haven't taken the time too categorize exactly which pots and settings cause it. Apparently the expensive ones are too:
One thing I find frustrating about "loud" climate policy is that it makes any increase in temperature sound like the end of the world. It's difficult to get a sense of the degree of damage that will be done under, say, 2 degree warming vs. 3 degree warming. Given that 1.5+ degree warming is now seemingly inevitable, it would be good to know what the potential scenarios are.
At what point are we talking about extinction? At what point is it a death toll of, for example, multiple Holocausts? At what point is it something less catastrophic than a world war? And do we know the consequences precisely, or is it just that we can't rule out certain bad scenarios?
We currently depend on computer models to try to predict how things will go, and this all ends up being expressed in probabilities. There's a lot that's unknown about how the feedback mechanisms will react as things get progressively worse. It's highly unlikely that we turn the place into Venus; however, there's a lot of terrible between here and there. You can look around on the internet for articles about how bad things get at certain levels of warning.
What is likely to happen instead of extinction or holocaust-level death tolls is massive migrations, if things get to the point where the tropics become uninhabitable to humans. Migrations that we are not currently equipped to deal with, at all.
Economists work with numbers, frequently gdp. While that's a useful concept, there are problems using that with climate change:
1) many things we enjoy are not measured by gdp: cool evenings after hot days; hiking without worrying about deer ticks; working or playing outside in comfort (would like to see interview with roofers in Phoenix); skating on ponds.
2) Lots of problems climate change causes will lead to higher gdp while quality of life declines. We're already seeing people in the northeast installing air-conditioning (gdp up, but no improvement in living standards vs pre-climate change) and people everywhere buying generators to protect against disasters taking down wires or power plants. Huge civil engineering projects--New Orleans already, New York soon--also add to gdp.
3) Tail risk with uncertainty: many climate phenomena are happening much faster than models predicted (e.g., Portland hitting 116 degrees). Thirty or fifty years out this could be much more than "a drag on economic growth."
Yes if you are spending every last penny you earn and can't borrow money, then installing air conditioning will require you to spend less on other things. But lots of people earn more than they spend, have savings, or can borrow money. For a middle-income or affluent family living in Portland, OR (I meant to say northwest, not northeast, since that's where I read people were suddenly installing a/c), installing a/c will generally add to gdp. If you generalize your view to all spending you'll see if doesn't make sense.
I guess I will put it this way. Even with 6 degrees of warming it will take 100-150 years for all the icecaps to melt. 95% of all buildings and infrastructure in America was built in the last 150 years. Basically over the time scales that the earth warms roads and buildings can be built some place else. As to loss of farm land it isn’t as bad as you think AK Canada Russia and Antarctica will have more farm land. 6 degrees over 150 years is scary short in geological time but is a long enough time to make new trade deals, and Stop providing flood insurance to Miami so it be abandoned. Kinda depressing we are letting this massive drag on economic growth happen but we are. When you hear someone say we only have ten years to stop it they are talking about stopping the harm by reducing co2 use.
You may be kidding around but I'll assume you're not. For someone who appears to be pretty young, you are remarkably sanguine about the prospect of rebuilding America's (and the world's) infrastructure. Even if it were possible, it would be incredibly expensive (and release immense quantities of CO2 that would only exacerbate the problem--for now we don't have non-carbon-emitting ways to pour concrete). And the locations of most great cities were not selected randomly so couldn't be replaced with empty spots on the map.
You live in California--would you want to stay there if drought and forest fires get several times worse (until all the forests are gone)? Does nothing short of human extinction alarm you?
You are correct all those things will happen and about 1/2 will happen in my lifetime. But it is obvious that global carbon reduction is impossible short of war. So we really have no choice but to live with it. Glbal warming will cause more loss of wealth than currently exists because economic growth will happen in spite of global warming. There is no climate or economic model I am aware of that shows extinction or even a lower standard of living. Yes CA will have to build a sea wall or the Central Valley will become a sea. Forest fires yea for like 6 weeks a year I have to have a mask on. As to the water I can handle my water bill doubling so I can drink desalinated water. I don’t have a yard. Not really sure what global warming consequences the USA can’t handle. I guess FL will be a low population state and AK will be a high population state.
I'm not an optimistic guy (but don't think climate change will lead to human extinction) but I think you're too pessimistic about the prospects for emission reduction. The global part is a big problem because small countries can free ride on bigger emitters reducing emissions. China, at 30% of global emissions and growing, can't. It has 3x our population and less room to move them around. So self-interest will convince them to reduce emissions, though slower than is desirable. Also, if the countries they export to all have carbon prices and impose a border carbon adjustment (BCA) to add a tariff to imports from countries without a carbon fee, then the exporting country will impose their own carbon fee since they'd rather pay the fee to their own government than to the importing country's. EU has already announced one; Biden admin & Congress want one too but haven't imposed our own carbon fee yet (EU and Canada already have carbon price). This contradiction won't stand since WTO will not allow BCA without an internal carbon price. Senate is considering adding a carbon fee to reconciliation, both for revenue but also to help meet emission targets. Will also allow a BCA. Call your senators if you find this logic compelling.
Democratic politicians emphasize climate change more than voters because of Peak Oil, not climate change. It just seems like most of this is marketing to try and get us ahead of the curve on replacing fossil fuels, which we have a limited supply. That seems smart. To the extent, we are trying to keep the temperature from rising, it seems completely futile. But we should be trying to do more to replace fossil fuels as an energy source, but these targets and the fatalism of the climatology religion is just unproductive. We need to develop alternative energy resources.
I think this is true, and an underappreciated dynamic in current climate discussions- there is a lot of general futurist tech-positiveness wrapped up in the call to reduce emissions.
I've also long wondered if climate is also a sort of secretly good issue for Dems because climate denial is a longstanding and prominent GOP position that a lot of rank-and-file Republicans are vaguely embarrassed/concerned about. As Matt says nobody really practically prioritizes climate, but I'm always tempted to see it as a sort of permission structure-in-waiting for people who want to defect from the GOP.
I recall visiting my wife's family in small-town Iowa in 2016, and Climate was a surprisingly hot topic among many of the old guard GOP voters that we talked to. To me, there wasn't an obvious reason that a bunch of Iowa farmers would suddenly start to care a lot about climate a few months before an election, so I wonder if they were just floating the idea of switching their vote to their peers (which sadly most of them did not eventually do).
It says Social Security "started out as a much more modest program and only expanded over time", but that should probably say "started out as a much less robust program" I think
I wonder what exactly that "$100 more per year in taxes" means. "Taxes can't go up by $100" and "government regulation can't make my cost of living increase by $100" are very different things. E.g. fuel efficiency standards aren't taxes, but they do increase car prices by requiring newer and more complicated technologies. (E.g. the F150's aluminum body.)
My guess is that more people wouldn't protest a $100 cost-of-living increase due to regulation simply because it's hidden in small cost increases distributed across a wide range of products. (It's like how my mom added a small amount of wheat germ, which I disliked but supposedly had health benefits, to baked goods when I was a kid.) If that's so, the "taxes can't go up by $100" result might say more about human irrationality than how much people actually care about climate change.
Agreed with all of this. One thing that isn't getting a lot of attention though is Regenerative Farming. From the research I've seen if everyone switched to Regenerative Farming practices we would lock enough carbon in the new topsoil we form to soak up all the extra C02 we've emitted since the industrial revolution started.
These farming practices would also be sustainable, not need a bunch of off farm inputs, oh and be much more nutritious.
Basically regenerative farming is a combination of no till drilling, cover crops. and mob/rotational grazing. And even better combined with limited or no fertilizer and herbicide/pesticide use.
Every time we till we are destroying the top soil. Every time we leave ground uncovered we are losing more top soil. And you can achieve more than adequate fertilization levels by using cover crops improve fertility.
Side note, why we hate electric stoves isn't primarily for the oven part, but for the top burners. You can't control the heat on electric like you can with gas. First chance we get, we are taking our stove out, and putting propane gas stove in (we don't have a NG connection)
it seems like most people's opinions on climate are:
-they'll be some adjustments, i.e. more people move further north and maybe Kiribati doesn't exist for long, but it won't ever threaten us existentially and life will go on for the vast majority of people
-advances in technology related to carbon capture and clean energy will be the real game changers and that has basically nothing to do with personal consumption choices and very little to do with government policy
I think climate change policy, in terms of loud vs soft, can be likened to abortion policy. Both divide the population. On both sides there are activists who feel passionately and morally about their position. In both cases, the mass of the population is rather ambivalent and would prefer not to have to deal with the issue.
For close to fifty years abortion has been "manageable" because we've followed a quiet policy. That's gone in two steps. First, take it off the front burner by having the Supreme Court sharply define the limits of policy via Roe and Casey. Second, let the most impassioned anti-abortion areas of the country satisfy their constituents by chipping away where they can but not really affecting any of the rest of the country.
What's likely to happen now is that abortion policy is about to become "loud." The Supreme Court, in its truly cowardly action on the Texas law, effectively gutted Roe/Casey already, even as they continue to pretend that they haven't. But they'll probably put the final nail in the coffin with Dobbs v Mississippi by next June.
What will happen then is anyone's guess, but I suspect the delighted pro-life faction will find their victory to be Pyrrhic one, as the backlash that's engendered will swamp whatever benefits they temporarily get. (Well, this is *my* hope.) That is, going "loud" may get you a temporary win, but by being too obvious and poke in your enemy's eye about it, you create the actions that will undermine your win.
I could see the same thing with a "loud" climate change win, especially if done in a 50/50 Senate and closely-divided House. It would feel great (and in theory *would* be great) but the thermostatic payback would be painful. The eventual outcome, after the backlash, might make us worse then we were before.
Didn’t “loud” politics generate the elite consensus on climate in the first place? I’m thinking of student climate organizing in the late aughts, the climate march circa 2014, etc. Even if I find Matt’s argument persuasive and agree that loud politics aren’t helpful now, I think they have had a time and place in generating the type of political environment that gets climate stuff into every bill dems put forward.
I was a kid then, and I'm an adult now. Seems to me the politics of that vintage were extremely successful in elevating the climate issue to the top of dem agenda, if not public adoration. MY gives the example of loud bank reform folks getting stuff done. I don't actually see how climate activism of a decade ago is any different than that case, actually.
Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
Yglesias is always dismissive of a climate tax but never says that there is an elegant alternative, namely a carbon fee and dividend. It is a price on carbon, but as opposed to a tax the money does not go to the government but directly to citizens in form of a dividend. See https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
I would like to move away from child bashing and suggest that another complicating factor in this debate is that climate change may improve certain areas of the globe (Siberia, Sweden) whilst destroying others (Island nations, India, Africa) and one group has more power than the other group.
One last thought on the conference you attended. As well as watching the panel you were on, I also watched "How to Spend a Trillion Dollars," where multiple panelists insisted that carbon fees were fatally flawed because they had a regressive effect, even though proposals to make a carbon fee progressive by redistributing its revenue have been around for more than a decade (four such bills are in Congress now; if the Senate does add a carbon fee to reconciliation bill, as it is considering, it will surely have a means-tested rebate). It took your old colleague, Dylan Matthews, not exactly a right-winger, to mention the dividend (rebate). Nonetheless, the conversation quickly moved on to other topics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
"And they’ve completely won the argument over a carbon tax — everyone agrees that imposing a really stiff carbon price is just not in the cards" is not accurate. There are currently five carbon pricing bills in Congress, one of which (HR 2307) has 84 cosponsors. The Senate is actively considering adding a Carbon Fee to the reconciliation bill (write/call if you want it added). Yes, the initial price will be too modest to do much, but if it has an annual increase it will still reduce emissions significantly since long-term investments like power plants, factories, and roof-top solar take into account the likely path of alternative fuel costs. Renewables are increasingly price competitive; a carbon fee will make them cheaper in many applications. Even a $25 fee knocks out most coal in the center of our country:
"A large reduction in emissions—77% relative to 2018—is accomplished at a $25/ton marginal abatement cost. The source of emission reductions is an enormous substitution of coal generation with a mix of natural gas, wind and solar generation, as well as a small amount of nuclear."
http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2021-011.pdf
You're right that anti-market leftists have won the argument in gaining youth support and media coverage, but that's largely because they've won the argument with the progressive foundations you have criticized in other spheres. Unfortunately, the groups the foundations support are not objective sources of information about how to solve the problem (see Evergreen & NRDC paying for, working on, and then touting 'research' that finds CEPP creates a ton of jobs: https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/insights/publishing/2021-economic-impact-of-a-clean-electricity-payment-program.pdf, acknowledgements, p2). The CEPP, an absurdly inefficient, gameable (see https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2021/10/04/the-cepp-is-not-a-clean-energy-standard/ ), and politically delicate (DOE would write, interpret, and enforce its byzantine rules, which means if the President in 2025 cares more about fossil fuel producers than reducing emissions, he can throttle it) workaround of a true clean energy standard (already inferior to a carbon fee) apparently was developed with the help of Evergreen, created by veterans of Jay Inslee's presidential campaign and funded by progressive foundations. Perhaps drawing on the failures of carbon pricing in Washington State, the CEPP aims to completely hide the ball, which has been effective so far: not only has the general public not heard of it, few energy journalists ever discuss it, never mind mention its obvious flaws. The Washington Post has printed its full name once, and that was in a column from Bloomberg; the initials have never appeared. The problem with drawing lessons from Washington is that state and regional carbon fees don't make any sense--any price that is high enough to reduce emissions will be high enough to cause 'leakage'--companies moving emission-intensive businesses to states outside the fee's collection area. Also, we weren't ready to pass any significant non-market policies three years ago either. It has taken fires and floods to get mass interest. That interest will grow as they get worse, but quiet policies won't come close to solving the problem.
Why has Biden joined the anti-market movement even though they flung abuse at him during his campaign? Some theories: he's an old man who wasn't too sharp to begin with and doesn't understand the economics (and perhaps gets a kick out of ignoring the Obama economists who found him dim); he's in the worst possible demographic (and has too fraught a political history) to argue with them, especially the environmental justice warriors; he's an old man who doesn't really care as much about climate change as getting high-paying jobs for the people he likes to identify with.
"The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework also has climate provisions" is true, but most of the bill is to pour concrete from general revenues, which is anti-climate policy since better roads, airports, and ports at the same price (usually zero) will just call forth more driving, flying, and shipping, nearly all of it using fossil fuels.
So yes, carbon pricing is tough to pass, but it is necessary (though not sufficient) and those actually interested in averting disaster should devote their resources to explaining that to people, not to ever more elaborate schemes that pretend the transition will be costless.
More amateur analysis at:
https://cleanelectricityperformanceprogram.com/
I watched that panel. There was no discussion of what the actual 'quiet' policies currently in the reconciliation bill, which could easily be the last federal legislation until 2025 or even 2029, will likely achieve. Those who are interested in that should read (and then call and email their Senators to add to the bill the Carbon Fee they are currently considering):
“without a carbon price or other substantial climate policies, reductions fall short ... Carbon fees on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remain a powerful tool to reduce emissions, and our analysis finds that carbon fees can achieve as much or more reductions than the proposed credits and CEPP can achieve on their own."
https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/a-clean-electricity-performance-program-and-tax-credits-could-drive-emissions-reductionsbut-alone-are-not-enough-to-meet-us-climate-goals/
The CEPP "open[s] up a variety of channels for gaming and unintended consequences that could lead to large government expenditures without inducing large-scale substitution of new, clean energy supply for fossil-fueled generation."
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2021/10/04/the-cepp-is-not-a-clean-energy-standard/
A quick thought about induction ovens. Not knowing much about the subject, I did a little quick Internet diving while reading these comments.
These things would be much more attractive if they talked about what the impact was an actual cooking then all about energy expenditure. In other words have famous cooks do the talking and not accountants and engineers.
Induction is for cooktops ('stoves'), not ovens. It works by heating magnetic pans and therefore wouldn't work well on baking bread or roasting meat. So an 'induction range' has induction cooktops and electric ovens, instead of $10k Wolf and Viking ranges that currently mostly have gas cooktops and electric ovens (even people who prefer gas cooktops usually prefer electric ovens). Aside from nostalgia, cooks like gas because it changes power immediately, unlike conventional electric burners. However, induction also changes power immediately and offers more of it than even fancy home gas ranges. It also is much safer (the cooktop does not get that hot--you can remove pots without potholders--and turns off automatically if the pan is removed or its contents boil down to nothing--it also obviously doesn't emit any products of combustion) and can be shut off with a built-in timer. They also don't heat up the kitchen in the summer nearly as much. I've only had inexpensive counter-top models (Max Burton 6400 Digital Choice Induction Cooktop 1800 Watts LCD Control, $74), which seem to have less well-distributed heat than our gas stove, but I assume that problem will be solved, if it hasn't been already on expensive stove-tops.
Losing gas stoves is not going to be a big downside of electrifying homes.
Thanks for the tutorial!
welcome. Forgot to mention that the counter top induction burners I have owned are sometimes a little noisy, though we haven't taken the time too categorize exactly which pots and settings cause it. Apparently the expensive ones are too:
https://www.subzero-wolf.com/assistance/answers/wolf/common/induction-cooktop-noise.html
One thing I find frustrating about "loud" climate policy is that it makes any increase in temperature sound like the end of the world. It's difficult to get a sense of the degree of damage that will be done under, say, 2 degree warming vs. 3 degree warming. Given that 1.5+ degree warming is now seemingly inevitable, it would be good to know what the potential scenarios are.
At what point are we talking about extinction? At what point is it a death toll of, for example, multiple Holocausts? At what point is it something less catastrophic than a world war? And do we know the consequences precisely, or is it just that we can't rule out certain bad scenarios?
We currently depend on computer models to try to predict how things will go, and this all ends up being expressed in probabilities. There's a lot that's unknown about how the feedback mechanisms will react as things get progressively worse. It's highly unlikely that we turn the place into Venus; however, there's a lot of terrible between here and there. You can look around on the internet for articles about how bad things get at certain levels of warning.
What is likely to happen instead of extinction or holocaust-level death tolls is massive migrations, if things get to the point where the tropics become uninhabitable to humans. Migrations that we are not currently equipped to deal with, at all.
So it is never extinction. It is a drag on economic growth.
Economists work with numbers, frequently gdp. While that's a useful concept, there are problems using that with climate change:
1) many things we enjoy are not measured by gdp: cool evenings after hot days; hiking without worrying about deer ticks; working or playing outside in comfort (would like to see interview with roofers in Phoenix); skating on ponds.
2) Lots of problems climate change causes will lead to higher gdp while quality of life declines. We're already seeing people in the northeast installing air-conditioning (gdp up, but no improvement in living standards vs pre-climate change) and people everywhere buying generators to protect against disasters taking down wires or power plants. Huge civil engineering projects--New Orleans already, New York soon--also add to gdp.
3) Tail risk with uncertainty: many climate phenomena are happening much faster than models predicted (e.g., Portland hitting 116 degrees). Thirty or fifty years out this could be much more than "a drag on economic growth."
Installing air conditioning is no change in GDP - whatever labor goes into doing it is *taken away from other endeavors*.
Yes if you are spending every last penny you earn and can't borrow money, then installing air conditioning will require you to spend less on other things. But lots of people earn more than they spend, have savings, or can borrow money. For a middle-income or affluent family living in Portland, OR (I meant to say northwest, not northeast, since that's where I read people were suddenly installing a/c), installing a/c will generally add to gdp. If you generalize your view to all spending you'll see if doesn't make sense.
I guess I will put it this way. Even with 6 degrees of warming it will take 100-150 years for all the icecaps to melt. 95% of all buildings and infrastructure in America was built in the last 150 years. Basically over the time scales that the earth warms roads and buildings can be built some place else. As to loss of farm land it isn’t as bad as you think AK Canada Russia and Antarctica will have more farm land. 6 degrees over 150 years is scary short in geological time but is a long enough time to make new trade deals, and Stop providing flood insurance to Miami so it be abandoned. Kinda depressing we are letting this massive drag on economic growth happen but we are. When you hear someone say we only have ten years to stop it they are talking about stopping the harm by reducing co2 use.
You may be kidding around but I'll assume you're not. For someone who appears to be pretty young, you are remarkably sanguine about the prospect of rebuilding America's (and the world's) infrastructure. Even if it were possible, it would be incredibly expensive (and release immense quantities of CO2 that would only exacerbate the problem--for now we don't have non-carbon-emitting ways to pour concrete). And the locations of most great cities were not selected randomly so couldn't be replaced with empty spots on the map.
You live in California--would you want to stay there if drought and forest fires get several times worse (until all the forests are gone)? Does nothing short of human extinction alarm you?
You are correct all those things will happen and about 1/2 will happen in my lifetime. But it is obvious that global carbon reduction is impossible short of war. So we really have no choice but to live with it. Glbal warming will cause more loss of wealth than currently exists because economic growth will happen in spite of global warming. There is no climate or economic model I am aware of that shows extinction or even a lower standard of living. Yes CA will have to build a sea wall or the Central Valley will become a sea. Forest fires yea for like 6 weeks a year I have to have a mask on. As to the water I can handle my water bill doubling so I can drink desalinated water. I don’t have a yard. Not really sure what global warming consequences the USA can’t handle. I guess FL will be a low population state and AK will be a high population state.
I'm not an optimistic guy (but don't think climate change will lead to human extinction) but I think you're too pessimistic about the prospects for emission reduction. The global part is a big problem because small countries can free ride on bigger emitters reducing emissions. China, at 30% of global emissions and growing, can't. It has 3x our population and less room to move them around. So self-interest will convince them to reduce emissions, though slower than is desirable. Also, if the countries they export to all have carbon prices and impose a border carbon adjustment (BCA) to add a tariff to imports from countries without a carbon fee, then the exporting country will impose their own carbon fee since they'd rather pay the fee to their own government than to the importing country's. EU has already announced one; Biden admin & Congress want one too but haven't imposed our own carbon fee yet (EU and Canada already have carbon price). This contradiction won't stand since WTO will not allow BCA without an internal carbon price. Senate is considering adding a carbon fee to reconciliation, both for revenue but also to help meet emission targets. Will also allow a BCA. Call your senators if you find this logic compelling.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57861067
https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/a-clean-electricity-performance-program-and-tax-credits-could-drive-emissions-reductionsbut-alone-are-not-enough-to-meet-us-climate-goals/
Democratic politicians emphasize climate change more than voters because of Peak Oil, not climate change. It just seems like most of this is marketing to try and get us ahead of the curve on replacing fossil fuels, which we have a limited supply. That seems smart. To the extent, we are trying to keep the temperature from rising, it seems completely futile. But we should be trying to do more to replace fossil fuels as an energy source, but these targets and the fatalism of the climatology religion is just unproductive. We need to develop alternative energy resources.
I think this is true, and an underappreciated dynamic in current climate discussions- there is a lot of general futurist tech-positiveness wrapped up in the call to reduce emissions.
I've also long wondered if climate is also a sort of secretly good issue for Dems because climate denial is a longstanding and prominent GOP position that a lot of rank-and-file Republicans are vaguely embarrassed/concerned about. As Matt says nobody really practically prioritizes climate, but I'm always tempted to see it as a sort of permission structure-in-waiting for people who want to defect from the GOP.
I recall visiting my wife's family in small-town Iowa in 2016, and Climate was a surprisingly hot topic among many of the old guard GOP voters that we talked to. To me, there wasn't an obvious reason that a bunch of Iowa farmers would suddenly start to care a lot about climate a few months before an election, so I wonder if they were just floating the idea of switching their vote to their peers (which sadly most of them did not eventually do).
It says Social Security "started out as a much more modest program and only expanded over time", but that should probably say "started out as a much less robust program" I think
I wonder what exactly that "$100 more per year in taxes" means. "Taxes can't go up by $100" and "government regulation can't make my cost of living increase by $100" are very different things. E.g. fuel efficiency standards aren't taxes, but they do increase car prices by requiring newer and more complicated technologies. (E.g. the F150's aluminum body.)
My guess is that more people wouldn't protest a $100 cost-of-living increase due to regulation simply because it's hidden in small cost increases distributed across a wide range of products. (It's like how my mom added a small amount of wheat germ, which I disliked but supposedly had health benefits, to baked goods when I was a kid.) If that's so, the "taxes can't go up by $100" result might say more about human irrationality than how much people actually care about climate change.
("very different things" -> "could be interpreted as very different things". In fact, they're arguably not that different.)
Agreed with all of this. One thing that isn't getting a lot of attention though is Regenerative Farming. From the research I've seen if everyone switched to Regenerative Farming practices we would lock enough carbon in the new topsoil we form to soak up all the extra C02 we've emitted since the industrial revolution started.
These farming practices would also be sustainable, not need a bunch of off farm inputs, oh and be much more nutritious.
Basically regenerative farming is a combination of no till drilling, cover crops. and mob/rotational grazing. And even better combined with limited or no fertilizer and herbicide/pesticide use.
Every time we till we are destroying the top soil. Every time we leave ground uncovered we are losing more top soil. And you can achieve more than adequate fertilization levels by using cover crops improve fertility.
Side note, why we hate electric stoves isn't primarily for the oven part, but for the top burners. You can't control the heat on electric like you can with gas. First chance we get, we are taking our stove out, and putting propane gas stove in (we don't have a NG connection)
it seems like most people's opinions on climate are:
-they'll be some adjustments, i.e. more people move further north and maybe Kiribati doesn't exist for long, but it won't ever threaten us existentially and life will go on for the vast majority of people
-advances in technology related to carbon capture and clean energy will be the real game changers and that has basically nothing to do with personal consumption choices and very little to do with government policy
I think the main role for government policy is extra R&D funding.
Though a carbon price would certainly help, but seems not to be feasible.
I think climate change policy, in terms of loud vs soft, can be likened to abortion policy. Both divide the population. On both sides there are activists who feel passionately and morally about their position. In both cases, the mass of the population is rather ambivalent and would prefer not to have to deal with the issue.
For close to fifty years abortion has been "manageable" because we've followed a quiet policy. That's gone in two steps. First, take it off the front burner by having the Supreme Court sharply define the limits of policy via Roe and Casey. Second, let the most impassioned anti-abortion areas of the country satisfy their constituents by chipping away where they can but not really affecting any of the rest of the country.
What's likely to happen now is that abortion policy is about to become "loud." The Supreme Court, in its truly cowardly action on the Texas law, effectively gutted Roe/Casey already, even as they continue to pretend that they haven't. But they'll probably put the final nail in the coffin with Dobbs v Mississippi by next June.
What will happen then is anyone's guess, but I suspect the delighted pro-life faction will find their victory to be Pyrrhic one, as the backlash that's engendered will swamp whatever benefits they temporarily get. (Well, this is *my* hope.) That is, going "loud" may get you a temporary win, but by being too obvious and poke in your enemy's eye about it, you create the actions that will undermine your win.
I could see the same thing with a "loud" climate change win, especially if done in a 50/50 Senate and closely-divided House. It would feel great (and in theory *would* be great) but the thermostatic payback would be painful. The eventual outcome, after the backlash, might make us worse then we were before.
Didn’t “loud” politics generate the elite consensus on climate in the first place? I’m thinking of student climate organizing in the late aughts, the climate march circa 2014, etc. Even if I find Matt’s argument persuasive and agree that loud politics aren’t helpful now, I think they have had a time and place in generating the type of political environment that gets climate stuff into every bill dems put forward.
I was a kid then, and I'm an adult now. Seems to me the politics of that vintage were extremely successful in elevating the climate issue to the top of dem agenda, if not public adoration. MY gives the example of loud bank reform folks getting stuff done. I don't actually see how climate activism of a decade ago is any different than that case, actually.