> But when those people also oppose geothermal drilling and also oppose nuclear power, then they are clearly fundamentally unserious about finding an economically tractable way to limit climate change. Elected officials should tune them out, and we should encourage donors who care about climate change to redirect their funds in more pragmatic directions. What these people wildly over-index on instead is the idea that if you somehow kneecap domestic fossil fuel production, you’ll crush the nefarious political power of dirty energy and solutions will flow from there.
The realest of the real shit. Thanks Matt for saying this. We need to say this louder for the people in the back, and hopefully in 2026 and 2028 this becomes mainstream thinking among Dems trying to get elected.
A key difficulty in addressing climate change is that the optimal policy requires (1) lowering fossil fuel use by increasing the price of energy from fossil fuels (which at the present means increasing energy costs) and (2) developing scalable non-fossil fuel sources of energy, generally through subsidies. But people HATE price increases for necessary commodities -- see the wrath over recent inflation -- and therefore the first option is generally off the table. This issue is further complicated by the fact that halting the increase in CO2 emissions requires the essential elimination of the use of fossil fuels (again, without increasing the price of energy) which will only happen when there equally low cost non-fossil fuel alternatives. And while things are looking promising for power generation and auto transport, even here we need to remove infrastructure constraints.
Thank you Michael. As an elderly retired research scientist in the general area of atmospheric chemistry and climate science since 1971 (you can check my paper in Science of that year if you wish), I would like to applaud you for your very logical and realistic position on our evolving climate, the evolution of which is currently being driven by increasing levels of "greenhouse gases", primarily CO2 and CH4. A couple of points of interest that you could have raised.
1. China now is by far the leading emitter of "greenhouse gases" and we are a rapidly fading number two. India will almost assuredly surpass us in emissions in a decade or so.
2. The warming of the ocean, which takes many centuries to equilibrate with the atmosphere (if the Pacific, which is the largest body of water, ever does), will continue to warm for the next millennium or so. The best case scenario for sea level rise (unlikely since that assumes neither Antarctica or Greenland having significant net-melting) would still be approximately 1 meter by 2100.
At some point the world as we know it will have to take the situation seriously. Right now a little realism would certainly help. Keep up your posting.
I think Matt missed an important aspect to this argument when he simplified and narrowed it to just carbon and warming.
The global value of slowing down (or stopping) warming is greater than the local value to the United States. Yes, this is true. Yes, our policy-making calculations should acknowledge that. But there are other impacts of fossil fuel emissions, as Matt well knows.
I think it would be a more palatable argument to some in the middle if Matt explained that the cost-benefit calculations would not be just economic growth vs. warming. He could in good faith talk about asthma and children's health. He could talk about impacts of adult and child cognition. He could use test scores as an examples. These are all issues he has mentioned or tweeted about in the past.
That is, there are local and humane benefits to reducing fossil fuel use whose mention might show that that Matt is not *just* a neoliberal sellout. He would build credibility by acknowledging that the argument for reducing fossil fuel emissions is more than just warming—which is why he favors so many sources of energy and why it is important to replace the worst emitting sources with less emitting sources.
Even though “deliverism” may not have resulted in convincing enough of the working class of all backgrounds to vote for Democrats, I am at least encouraged that there does not seem to be a consensus on the right for full repeal of the IRA. The “all of the above approach” - nuclear, geothermal, CCS, hydrogen, renewables, and allocating a significant portion of the investments in red and purple states, will hopefully keep the IRA intact. At the time, I was against getting rid of the Clean Electricity Payments Program and wanted to preserve more of Build Back Better. But in retrospect, Joe Manchin deserves a lot of credit for framing it as a tool to keep inflation in check, when most other Dems didn’t realize to what degree people were upset about inflation. Whether it results in energy abundance and keeps energy costs low
in the long-term of course remains to be seen. But it turned out to be the right approach, particularly as Republicans will have a trifecta and of course a 6-3 SC. And now hopefully some version of permitting reform will pass going forward.
Two reactions to an excellent piece. First, I would love to see you engage in dialogue with some of the folks making related but often somewhat different points about how to respond to climate issues. For example, a conversation between you and Bjorn Lomborg would be great to read/listen to. Likewise one with Matt Ridley (in the UK), Roger Pielke Jr. (a fellow sub stacker), or Jonathan Adler (CWRU law, has done some really interesting work on climate). Please consider seeking out such interesting people and talking with them for us.
Second, this is a really important point you make: "If US public policy leads to breakthroughs in areas like small modular reactors, geothermal power, battery technology, carbon removal, or low-carbon manufacturing processes, that has a large impact on the long-term global picture because those technologies would be widely adopted if they existed." As it happens, I am (with coauthors) finishing a paper using patent data to examine the relative success in solar, wind, and fracking in the US, China, Japan, and Europe. TLDR: the US leads the way in technological innovation in all 3 by a large margin. (Longer version - we have a good way to control for patent quality, not just numbers; this makes a big difference. If you or others are interested, let me know and I will share the paper when it is done, likely in January.)
When you use an image like that funny spiderman meme, you need some method of attribution. In this case, it's apparently (https://screenrant.com/spiderman-meme-dinosaur-cure-cancer/ ) a cropped panel from the comic "Spider-Man and the X-Men #2 by Elliott Kalan, Marco Failla, VC's Clayton Cowles, and Ian Herring".
I wish there were a "I really dislike this post" button. I'd mash that. Really great title -- and a post that spends 90% of the time bashing trolls and the groups.
Yeah, we're all agreed on that. Yes, any policy should have some level of cost-benefit analysis. Got it, got it, got it. Other than that, what an empty post.
I think the biggest problem with the Inflation Reduction Act is the perception (rightly or wrongly) that people are struggling with inflation, but instead of trying to make their lives better, Democrats focus on (at best) climate change or (at worst) toys for a few weird rich people who drive different cars from everybody else in the name of showing their support for stopping climate change.
Yes, the bill did had some stuff that really helped people (like capping insulin prices), but that got lost in the noise, with the big picture being that Democrats are focused on climate.
This doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't pass climate bills going forward, but it needs to be a side thing, not the main focus of their agenda.
I just hope that the Trump administration doesn’t renege on insulin prices. That new inhaled insulin is awesome, my mom’s on it and it plus that new continuous blood sugar monitoring device (the Libre) has had my mom’s diabetes managed better than ever before.
But because it’s the only insulin that doesn’t require needles and is still on-patent it would be super expensive without the $25 co-pay with Medicare coupon. A lot of folks will have better managed diabetes once people realize that these needle-free options exist. Most folks aren’t going to do 4 to 5 shots of insulin a day plus a finger prick before every meal, but you can get the same control now with only one tiny needle prick every couple of weeks for the continuous glucose monitor.
This is pretty late so idk if anyone will see it. But I think there's some interesting history about the anti-progress environmentalists. Dating back to the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s many in the environmental movement have thought sacrificing human living standards was necessary to avert the worst environmental harms. While the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts essentially averted a lot of local harms without really impacting living standards (to say nothing of the environmental issues of acid rain and the ozone hole which were solved by tailored regulation), the idea that human sacrifice was necessary for sustainability moved on to climate change.
The idea became neatly tied to theories about "peak oil" that were super popular in the culture from 1990 to about 2009, I would say. Peak Oil/climate advocates would say it is time to reduce the amount we drive/time to sacrifice both to avert climate change and to avert having to do so in a chaotic fashion after we are unable to produce enough oil to run our cars.
This played nicely into the progressive critique of oil companies that they were preventing America from preparing for a more energy-scarce future.
But since about 1990, GDP growth in OECD country has become decoupled from CO2 emissions and oil use, so there's no longer the need to sacrifice living standards to decarbonize. And even restrictions or liberalization of regulations on oil drilling are actually somewhat unlikely to change the overall landscape since it seems oil supply is being set more by demand from economic growth (energy demand) MINUS renewable deployment.
So the theory of blocking projects or restricting production to induce lower consumption is a carryover from the old "peak oil" austerity framework, and no longer has an ideological anchor. The problem is I don't think progressives actually believe that oil is declining, so they are stuck in the 1990-2009 paradigm of contesting production rather than trying to speed the consumption transition.
Long way to say I mostly agree with everything here but wanted to say some more stuff haha.
Besides, wasn't "no blood for oil" a more fun slogan?
In reply to some comments here, I disagree with the problem being more extraction or US export, rather than consumption. There is plenty of reserve capacity in the world of ff and restricting extraction is more likely to just foster a switch to coal and oil than stop consumption. And doing things that eg raise gas prices is a great way to get unelected.
I would put my energy into reducing consumption. There is no reason we couldn't require all cars to get 50 mpg. We could tax carbon and put taxes on homes that exceed 2500 sq ft. We need to subsidize renewables and nuclear here but more importantly abroad where most new fossil fuels generating plants are being constructed.
If the US unilaterally decreases extraction it will only benefit a host of bad actors - Russia, Iran, Saudi's. If you reduce extraction it might raise prices, though with oil, OPEC can make up the slack, but it wont stop driving, and it will be politically toxic, ask Joe.
I am a little more worried than you. Of course the future is unpredictable, and those predicting catastrophe are no more right than the "what me worry" crowd that denies the possibility of great harm. Modelling is helpful, but there are too many variables for certainty.
But as a physician one learns not to just treat the most obvious likely outcome, but the most severe worst case scenario. A persistent cough most likely has a benign answer but if you ignore lung cancer you will be a great friend of morticians and malpractice attorneys.
Agree, that we must act in ways acceptable to the public, so gas stove bans are counter productive. Agree that tying in every progressive wish list to environmental bills is a way to alienate the less radical people- witness Green New Deal or Greta Thornburg's championing of the Palestinians. We need to make environmentalism not just the domain of the political left.
So here is imo some low hanging fruit that is doable politically:
1) Convene a meeting of the 20 or so countries that make automobiles and outlaw or greatly decrease the production of all cars that get less than 50 mpg. What I like about that as an owner of a Prius, is as opposed to most environmental solutions, it actually saves people money, as hybrids are cost effective if you drive more than 5-10K a year.
2) The key to increase in ff emissions is the growing middle classes of India, China, Indonesia etc. where all new ff power plants are being constructed and planned. This will cost money. But we must offer subsidies for renewables, public transportation, etc. in those countries in exchange for mothballing these plans. Without stopping those generating plants we will not see a decline in world ff use, which btw continues to rise, even as renewable capacity increases. That is just that people want cars and air conditioners.
So to summarize the optimal climate policy: cut fossil fuel costs by half, cut clean energy costs by 99%. Sounds like a good abundance agenda objective.
This brings to light even more of how perfect the carbon tax with dividend proposal is. It's basically giving people the free money they loved from COVID while also fixing the externality issue. It would be literally a populist way to fix climate change
> But when those people also oppose geothermal drilling and also oppose nuclear power, then they are clearly fundamentally unserious about finding an economically tractable way to limit climate change. Elected officials should tune them out, and we should encourage donors who care about climate change to redirect their funds in more pragmatic directions. What these people wildly over-index on instead is the idea that if you somehow kneecap domestic fossil fuel production, you’ll crush the nefarious political power of dirty energy and solutions will flow from there.
The realest of the real shit. Thanks Matt for saying this. We need to say this louder for the people in the back, and hopefully in 2026 and 2028 this becomes mainstream thinking among Dems trying to get elected.
A key difficulty in addressing climate change is that the optimal policy requires (1) lowering fossil fuel use by increasing the price of energy from fossil fuels (which at the present means increasing energy costs) and (2) developing scalable non-fossil fuel sources of energy, generally through subsidies. But people HATE price increases for necessary commodities -- see the wrath over recent inflation -- and therefore the first option is generally off the table. This issue is further complicated by the fact that halting the increase in CO2 emissions requires the essential elimination of the use of fossil fuels (again, without increasing the price of energy) which will only happen when there equally low cost non-fossil fuel alternatives. And while things are looking promising for power generation and auto transport, even here we need to remove infrastructure constraints.
"This all comes down to the fact that Democrats need to stop thinking of climate policy as separate from economic policy."
And immigration policy.
And public health policy
And education policy
And crime/disorder control policy
Anything that is worth doing is worth doing cost effectively.
Thank you Michael. As an elderly retired research scientist in the general area of atmospheric chemistry and climate science since 1971 (you can check my paper in Science of that year if you wish), I would like to applaud you for your very logical and realistic position on our evolving climate, the evolution of which is currently being driven by increasing levels of "greenhouse gases", primarily CO2 and CH4. A couple of points of interest that you could have raised.
1. China now is by far the leading emitter of "greenhouse gases" and we are a rapidly fading number two. India will almost assuredly surpass us in emissions in a decade or so.
2. The warming of the ocean, which takes many centuries to equilibrate with the atmosphere (if the Pacific, which is the largest body of water, ever does), will continue to warm for the next millennium or so. The best case scenario for sea level rise (unlikely since that assumes neither Antarctica or Greenland having significant net-melting) would still be approximately 1 meter by 2100.
At some point the world as we know it will have to take the situation seriously. Right now a little realism would certainly help. Keep up your posting.
Hiram Levy
I think Matt missed an important aspect to this argument when he simplified and narrowed it to just carbon and warming.
The global value of slowing down (or stopping) warming is greater than the local value to the United States. Yes, this is true. Yes, our policy-making calculations should acknowledge that. But there are other impacts of fossil fuel emissions, as Matt well knows.
I think it would be a more palatable argument to some in the middle if Matt explained that the cost-benefit calculations would not be just economic growth vs. warming. He could in good faith talk about asthma and children's health. He could talk about impacts of adult and child cognition. He could use test scores as an examples. These are all issues he has mentioned or tweeted about in the past.
That is, there are local and humane benefits to reducing fossil fuel use whose mention might show that that Matt is not *just* a neoliberal sellout. He would build credibility by acknowledging that the argument for reducing fossil fuel emissions is more than just warming—which is why he favors so many sources of energy and why it is important to replace the worst emitting sources with less emitting sources.
Even though “deliverism” may not have resulted in convincing enough of the working class of all backgrounds to vote for Democrats, I am at least encouraged that there does not seem to be a consensus on the right for full repeal of the IRA. The “all of the above approach” - nuclear, geothermal, CCS, hydrogen, renewables, and allocating a significant portion of the investments in red and purple states, will hopefully keep the IRA intact. At the time, I was against getting rid of the Clean Electricity Payments Program and wanted to preserve more of Build Back Better. But in retrospect, Joe Manchin deserves a lot of credit for framing it as a tool to keep inflation in check, when most other Dems didn’t realize to what degree people were upset about inflation. Whether it results in energy abundance and keeps energy costs low
in the long-term of course remains to be seen. But it turned out to be the right approach, particularly as Republicans will have a trifecta and of course a 6-3 SC. And now hopefully some version of permitting reform will pass going forward.
Two reactions to an excellent piece. First, I would love to see you engage in dialogue with some of the folks making related but often somewhat different points about how to respond to climate issues. For example, a conversation between you and Bjorn Lomborg would be great to read/listen to. Likewise one with Matt Ridley (in the UK), Roger Pielke Jr. (a fellow sub stacker), or Jonathan Adler (CWRU law, has done some really interesting work on climate). Please consider seeking out such interesting people and talking with them for us.
Second, this is a really important point you make: "If US public policy leads to breakthroughs in areas like small modular reactors, geothermal power, battery technology, carbon removal, or low-carbon manufacturing processes, that has a large impact on the long-term global picture because those technologies would be widely adopted if they existed." As it happens, I am (with coauthors) finishing a paper using patent data to examine the relative success in solar, wind, and fracking in the US, China, Japan, and Europe. TLDR: the US leads the way in technological innovation in all 3 by a large margin. (Longer version - we have a good way to control for patent quality, not just numbers; this makes a big difference. If you or others are interested, let me know and I will share the paper when it is done, likely in January.)
US energy policy does not influence global carbon emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?fbclid=IwAR29T0kAt5k_F4ZYOxXZPZBcV8ki29SEIq5Rv5zPM-lh94xjFF1PQP9A4UA
When you use an image like that funny spiderman meme, you need some method of attribution. In this case, it's apparently (https://screenrant.com/spiderman-meme-dinosaur-cure-cancer/ ) a cropped panel from the comic "Spider-Man and the X-Men #2 by Elliott Kalan, Marco Failla, VC's Clayton Cowles, and Ian Herring".
I wish there were a "I really dislike this post" button. I'd mash that. Really great title -- and a post that spends 90% of the time bashing trolls and the groups.
Yeah, we're all agreed on that. Yes, any policy should have some level of cost-benefit analysis. Got it, got it, got it. Other than that, what an empty post.
I think the biggest problem with the Inflation Reduction Act is the perception (rightly or wrongly) that people are struggling with inflation, but instead of trying to make their lives better, Democrats focus on (at best) climate change or (at worst) toys for a few weird rich people who drive different cars from everybody else in the name of showing their support for stopping climate change.
Yes, the bill did had some stuff that really helped people (like capping insulin prices), but that got lost in the noise, with the big picture being that Democrats are focused on climate.
This doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't pass climate bills going forward, but it needs to be a side thing, not the main focus of their agenda.
I just hope that the Trump administration doesn’t renege on insulin prices. That new inhaled insulin is awesome, my mom’s on it and it plus that new continuous blood sugar monitoring device (the Libre) has had my mom’s diabetes managed better than ever before.
But because it’s the only insulin that doesn’t require needles and is still on-patent it would be super expensive without the $25 co-pay with Medicare coupon. A lot of folks will have better managed diabetes once people realize that these needle-free options exist. Most folks aren’t going to do 4 to 5 shots of insulin a day plus a finger prick before every meal, but you can get the same control now with only one tiny needle prick every couple of weeks for the continuous glucose monitor.
This is pretty late so idk if anyone will see it. But I think there's some interesting history about the anti-progress environmentalists. Dating back to the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s many in the environmental movement have thought sacrificing human living standards was necessary to avert the worst environmental harms. While the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts essentially averted a lot of local harms without really impacting living standards (to say nothing of the environmental issues of acid rain and the ozone hole which were solved by tailored regulation), the idea that human sacrifice was necessary for sustainability moved on to climate change.
The idea became neatly tied to theories about "peak oil" that were super popular in the culture from 1990 to about 2009, I would say. Peak Oil/climate advocates would say it is time to reduce the amount we drive/time to sacrifice both to avert climate change and to avert having to do so in a chaotic fashion after we are unable to produce enough oil to run our cars.
This played nicely into the progressive critique of oil companies that they were preventing America from preparing for a more energy-scarce future.
But since about 1990, GDP growth in OECD country has become decoupled from CO2 emissions and oil use, so there's no longer the need to sacrifice living standards to decarbonize. And even restrictions or liberalization of regulations on oil drilling are actually somewhat unlikely to change the overall landscape since it seems oil supply is being set more by demand from economic growth (energy demand) MINUS renewable deployment.
So the theory of blocking projects or restricting production to induce lower consumption is a carryover from the old "peak oil" austerity framework, and no longer has an ideological anchor. The problem is I don't think progressives actually believe that oil is declining, so they are stuck in the 1990-2009 paradigm of contesting production rather than trying to speed the consumption transition.
Long way to say I mostly agree with everything here but wanted to say some more stuff haha.
Besides, wasn't "no blood for oil" a more fun slogan?
I remember the '60's and '70's and the growth/environment dichotomy was just as stupid then as now.
In reply to some comments here, I disagree with the problem being more extraction or US export, rather than consumption. There is plenty of reserve capacity in the world of ff and restricting extraction is more likely to just foster a switch to coal and oil than stop consumption. And doing things that eg raise gas prices is a great way to get unelected.
I would put my energy into reducing consumption. There is no reason we couldn't require all cars to get 50 mpg. We could tax carbon and put taxes on homes that exceed 2500 sq ft. We need to subsidize renewables and nuclear here but more importantly abroad where most new fossil fuels generating plants are being constructed.
If the US unilaterally decreases extraction it will only benefit a host of bad actors - Russia, Iran, Saudi's. If you reduce extraction it might raise prices, though with oil, OPEC can make up the slack, but it wont stop driving, and it will be politically toxic, ask Joe.
Matthew, thank you for the article.
I am a little more worried than you. Of course the future is unpredictable, and those predicting catastrophe are no more right than the "what me worry" crowd that denies the possibility of great harm. Modelling is helpful, but there are too many variables for certainty.
But as a physician one learns not to just treat the most obvious likely outcome, but the most severe worst case scenario. A persistent cough most likely has a benign answer but if you ignore lung cancer you will be a great friend of morticians and malpractice attorneys.
Agree, that we must act in ways acceptable to the public, so gas stove bans are counter productive. Agree that tying in every progressive wish list to environmental bills is a way to alienate the less radical people- witness Green New Deal or Greta Thornburg's championing of the Palestinians. We need to make environmentalism not just the domain of the political left.
So here is imo some low hanging fruit that is doable politically:
1) Convene a meeting of the 20 or so countries that make automobiles and outlaw or greatly decrease the production of all cars that get less than 50 mpg. What I like about that as an owner of a Prius, is as opposed to most environmental solutions, it actually saves people money, as hybrids are cost effective if you drive more than 5-10K a year.
2) The key to increase in ff emissions is the growing middle classes of India, China, Indonesia etc. where all new ff power plants are being constructed and planned. This will cost money. But we must offer subsidies for renewables, public transportation, etc. in those countries in exchange for mothballing these plans. Without stopping those generating plants we will not see a decline in world ff use, which btw continues to rise, even as renewable capacity increases. That is just that people want cars and air conditioners.
So to summarize the optimal climate policy: cut fossil fuel costs by half, cut clean energy costs by 99%. Sounds like a good abundance agenda objective.
This brings to light even more of how perfect the carbon tax with dividend proposal is. It's basically giving people the free money they loved from COVID while also fixing the externality issue. It would be literally a populist way to fix climate change