5 ms·

As a counter argument to the piece in the Economist, this article by Steve Keen (University College London professor) explains the gross errors made by economis

As a counter argument to the piece in the Economist, this article by Steve Keen (University College London professor) explains the gross errors made by economists in their modeling of climate damages, how those errors arose and their implications. TL;DR: Nobel prize-winning economist, William Nordhaus, willfully or negligently underestimated climate damages. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1...

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Oh very nice. I rant to an annoying degree (sorry everyone) about the fundamental pro-business cultural bias of economics-the-profession, and how this has failed the human race to a frightening degree. Considering economics-the-profession is usually the first source of academic approval/opinion on government policy (because science sure as shit isn't. What makes it most annoying is that "externalities" is largely a bolt-on. And even worse, Economics-the-culture is averse to things they can't measure in some way (even though I'd say their measurements of EVERYTHING they do rely is is pretty bad). How does Economics price the "externality" of global warming? The lost value of displaced and dead people, maybe a broad stroke. Extinct species and habitat loss? How does one nihilistically price if we head outside of phytoplankton's ability to create oxygen? At best, a vast underestimate, especially given the pro-business bias. To me the shining failure of modern economics environmentally is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the last 30 years, a very basic and effective mechanism. Instead, easily arbitraged and gamed carbon markets. Secondarily, what is the economic value of any wetland or natural habitat? Vague tourism at best. The best economic use of a habitat is to drain it and pave it. Economics cannot measure how diversity of the species web is critical to our long term survival, because it can't even see one month into the future.
- Biologist123 5y ago
  It is impossible to price fossil fuel externalities. A point made by Steve Keen elsewhere.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    And thus the robed priests of capitalism retreat to their temples, converse, and release smoke signals to the faithful. Stay the path. Ignore those who question our word. We are all knowing. Beseech thy statue of Malcolm Gladwell. And yet, they actually know nothing. They cannot price the exigent threats to human civilization. They cannot price the risk to collapse of biodiversity chains from mass extinctions. They cannot price the value of wilderness. They can price slaughtering natives to gain access to natural resources. They can price the slave trade. They can price the value of a human life (it's not much). They can price paving a wetland to build some 1+5 apartments. And yet they are the #1 academic study that influences policy. Ok, PERHAPS international relations/political "science" is #1, although that is REALLY not a science.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > To me the shining failure of modern economics environmentally is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the last 30 years Every single economist has been shouting for a carbon tax for around this time frame. It's a political problem, not an econ one. There are many valid complaints about academic econ. I think you're right that many of them stem from a pro-business cultural bias, but it really doesn't seem like you know enough economics to have much of an opinion on them. Claiming that externalities are a bolt on when they're taught in every single econ 101 class is certainly puzzling.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Your 3300 economists finally issued a joint statement in 2019. Oh thanks, we're already at 1C warming. Way to be in front of things. It's only been, what 30 years of mainstream science? And yet still carbon taxes are opposed by every conservative think tank with staff economist (flunkies?) carrying the water. And that 3300 statement, did it come out of the CLC? With major oil producers cosigning? Strange how the oil companies, possibly the strongest lobby in congress, can't get carbon taxes through. Almost like they really don't support it. I guess you guys have done everything possible, after all you signed a petition. Can't wait for the not-really-Nobel prize to actually reward economics that involve actual climate solutions. Oh look! Another old white man doing price theory math. That will save us.
- geysersam 5y ago
  Is carbon tax really effective? Ultimately effective in this context means "removes the least valuable carbon emissions". I don't think a carbon tax can accomplish that. We need political decisions to make that distinction. The market does not cut it in this case.
  - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
    Shouldn’t that be a positive? Remove the least valuable carbon intensive emissions? We need to drive a transition to a sustainable economy. Knocking off the lowest hanging fruit first seems like a decent strategy to help jump start more competitive technologies.
    - geysersam 5y ago
      Yes absolutely, but I think carbon tax cannot achieve that. Because on a global scale (and in fact national as well) we have so large discrepancies in income. Food production is not the lowest hanging fruit. Neither is infrastructure construction in less wealthy nations. But in terms of spending power those budget posts can't compete with the demand for leisure travel and meat in the richer world.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Oh very nice. I rant to an annoying degree (sorry everyone) about the fundamental pro-business cultural bias of economics-the-profession, and how this has failed the human race to a frightening degree. Considering economics-the-profession is usually the first source of academic approval/opinion on government policy (because science sure as shit isn't. What makes it most annoying is that "externalities" is largely a bolt-on. And even worse, Economics-the-culture is averse to things they can't measure in some way (even though I'd say their measurements of EVERYTHING they do rely is is pretty bad). How does Economics price the "externality" of global warming? The lost value of displaced and dead people, maybe a broad stroke. Extinct species and habitat loss? How does one nihilistically price if we head outside of phytoplankton's ability to create oxygen? At best, a vast underestimate, especially given the pro-business bias. To me the shining failure of modern economics environmentally is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the last 30 years, a very basic and effective mechanism. Instead, easily arbitraged and gamed carbon markets. Secondarily, what is the economic value of any wetland or natural habitat? Vague tourism at best. The best economic use of a habitat is to drain it and pave it. Economics cannot measure how diversity of the species web is critical to our long term survival, because it can't even see one month into the future.

Biologist123 5y ago
It is impossible to price fossil fuel externalities. A point made by Steve Keen elsewhere.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  And thus the robed priests of capitalism retreat to their temples, converse, and release smoke signals to the faithful. Stay the path. Ignore those who question our word. We are all knowing. Beseech thy statue of Malcolm Gladwell. And yet, they actually know nothing. They cannot price the exigent threats to human civilization. They cannot price the risk to collapse of biodiversity chains from mass extinctions. They cannot price the value of wilderness. They can price slaughtering natives to gain access to natural resources. They can price the slave trade. They can price the value of a human life (it's not much). They can price paving a wetland to build some 1+5 apartments. And yet they are the #1 academic study that influences policy. Ok, PERHAPS international relations/political "science" is #1, although that is REALLY not a science.
colinmhayes 5y ago
> To me the shining failure of modern economics environmentally is the inability to enact a carbon tax in the last 30 years Every single economist has been shouting for a carbon tax for around this time frame. It's a political problem, not an econ one. There are many valid complaints about academic econ. I think you're right that many of them stem from a pro-business cultural bias, but it really doesn't seem like you know enough economics to have much of an opinion on them. Claiming that externalities are a bolt on when they're taught in every single econ 101 class is certainly puzzling.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Your 3300 economists finally issued a joint statement in 2019. Oh thanks, we're already at 1C warming. Way to be in front of things. It's only been, what 30 years of mainstream science? And yet still carbon taxes are opposed by every conservative think tank with staff economist (flunkies?) carrying the water. And that 3300 statement, did it come out of the CLC? With major oil producers cosigning? Strange how the oil companies, possibly the strongest lobby in congress, can't get carbon taxes through. Almost like they really don't support it. I guess you guys have done everything possible, after all you signed a petition. Can't wait for the not-really-Nobel prize to actually reward economics that involve actual climate solutions. Oh look! Another old white man doing price theory math. That will save us.
geysersam 5y ago
Is carbon tax really effective? Ultimately effective in this context means "removes the least valuable carbon emissions". I don't think a carbon tax can accomplish that. We need political decisions to make that distinction. The market does not cut it in this case.
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  Shouldn’t that be a positive? Remove the least valuable carbon intensive emissions? We need to drive a transition to a sustainable economy. Knocking off the lowest hanging fruit first seems like a decent strategy to help jump start more competitive technologies.
  - geysersam 5y ago
    Yes absolutely, but I think carbon tax cannot achieve that. Because on a global scale (and in fact national as well) we have so large discrepancies in income. Food production is not the lowest hanging fruit. Neither is infrastructure construction in less wealthy nations. But in terms of spending power those budget posts can't compete with the demand for leisure travel and meat in the richer world.