4 ms·

This is an uninformed comment. If you want “better industrial policy” it would help to have some idea of which policies are better than others - that will get

This is an uninformed comment. If you want “better industrial policy” it would help to have some idea of which policies are better than others - that will get you very quickly into cost-benefit analysis which is very much the wheelhouse of economists. If you want “[better? any? new?] investment in proven technology,” you are going to need to make decisions about where scarce dollars should be allocated among different options to achieve your goals at the lowest possible cost. Again: cost-benefit analysis and very much in the domain of economics and economists. If all you care about is achieving a less than 2C increase in average temperature, you have an “easy” solution - shut everything down now. Once you accept that you aren’t ever going to do that, you need to make hard decisions about how to allocate resources among competing options to achieve your aim. You would like to achieve your goal at a minimum cost while taking into account uncertainty over the range of possible outcomes and the different effectiveness of different choices. That’s literally economics 101. You don’t have to like what we say but you should definitely listen before deciding to ignore it.

jjk166 5y ago
Having economists do the cost-benefit analysis of technology development is like having a physicist who studies vibrations as a concert pianist. Having a really good understanding of the theory behind cost-benefit analysis does not in any ways inform you about the actual costs or benefits of a specific decision. Literally every decision ever involves the allocation of finite resources, that does not mean that economists are qualified to triage patients at hospitals, optimize the design of bridges, or negotiate plea deals for criminal defendants. The climate is another example of an incredibly complicated system where decision makers must have detailed understanding of the actual costs and benefits they are evaluating.
epistasis 5y ago
There's a big difference between paying attention to costs and optimizing the transition, and listening to climate economists. The best grid modelers out there for planning a carbon free electricity grid are not economists. They may be applying economics 101 as you call it, but they were not primarily trained in the field and they do not identify as economists. Similarly, when it comes to how to change behavior. There may be some hints from behavioral economy in order to guide consumer behavior, but they will be minor effects compared to industrial policy, tax policy, and solid investment in new tech and deployment. The National Review is a political magazine with a huge slant, and that slant is not towards a speedy and effective decarbonization of the economy. Quite the opposite. They are trying to convince their audience to listen to climate economists in order to slow the transition.

jjk166 5y ago

Having economists do the cost-benefit analysis of technology development is like having a physicist who studies vibrations as a concert pianist. Having a really good understanding of the theory behind cost-benefit analysis does not in any ways inform you about the actual costs or benefits of a specific decision. Literally every decision ever involves the allocation of finite resources, that does not mean that economists are qualified to triage patients at hospitals, optimize the design of bridges, or negotiate plea deals for criminal defendants. The climate is another example of an incredibly complicated system where decision makers must have detailed understanding of the actual costs and benefits they are evaluating.

epistasis 5y ago

There's a big difference between paying attention to costs and optimizing the transition, and listening to climate economists. The best grid modelers out there for planning a carbon free electricity grid are not economists. They may be applying economics 101 as you call it, but they were not primarily trained in the field and they do not identify as economists. Similarly, when it comes to how to change behavior. There may be some hints from behavioral economy in order to guide consumer behavior, but they will be minor effects compared to industrial policy, tax policy, and solid investment in new tech and deployment. The National Review is a political magazine with a huge slant, and that slant is not towards a speedy and effective decarbonization of the economy. Quite the opposite. They are trying to convince their audience to listen to climate economists in order to slow the transition.