3 ms·

I was with you until "Cap-and-trade is a sound market-based solution". It's goofy market cargo-culting of something that isn't a market. If you want a policy in

by bcoates 12y ago

I was with you until "Cap-and-trade is a sound market-based solution". It's goofy market cargo-culting of something that isn't a market. If you want a policy intervention to burn less coal, end policies that are de-facto mandates to burn coal. If you want a policy intervention to build more nuclear plants, end policies that are a de-facto ban on nuclear power plants (and switch to policies that are a mandate to build nuclear power plants, unless you have some actual plan to move from a mandate-driven energy infrastructure to a free-market one). You can't expect policies to lower co2 emissions in general in the face of policies that mandate emissions in the specific because the specific always beats the general.

joe_the_user 12y ago
I don't know why this comment deserves down-votes. As far as I know, Cap-and-trade has essentially failed as a policy to reduce carbon emissions and has stimulated a wide variety of dubious speculative enterprises. It is entirely plausible that policies to encourage or discourage the use of different energy types should be as direct as possible - it neither makes that paying for someone else to save resources would work nor has it been proven in practice.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
Nothing is a market until you make it a market. All markets are artificial: they require the government to recognize and legitimate property rights in a particular good and therefore allow the market in that good to be governed by the rule of law. I was a promoter of cap-and-trade for a long time, but the data, which I cited in my original post, suggest that straight carbon taxes work better. They are simpler to implement and demonstrably effective, and allow the reduction of income taxes and corporate taxes. Am I correct in assuming you are in favour of higher income taxes and corporate taxes? This seems odd to me: I think it makes more sense to tax things we don't want (dumping gigatonnes of garbage into the atmosphere) and lower taxes on things we do want (people making oodles of money.) The claim that you can't expect emissions reductions from carbon taxes is simply false, on the data. I believe in the data. Why should I believe an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary?

by bcoates 12y ago

joe_the_user 12y ago

I don't know why this comment deserves down-votes. As far as I know, Cap-and-trade has essentially failed as a policy to reduce carbon emissions and has stimulated a wide variety of dubious speculative enterprises. It is entirely plausible that policies to encourage or discourage the use of different energy types should be as direct as possible - it neither makes that paying for someone else to save resources would work nor has it been proven in practice.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

Nothing is a market until you make it a market. All markets are artificial: they require the government to recognize and legitimate property rights in a particular good and therefore allow the market in that good to be governed by the rule of law. I was a promoter of cap-and-trade for a long time, but the data, which I cited in my original post, suggest that straight carbon taxes work better. They are simpler to implement and demonstrably effective, and allow the reduction of income taxes and corporate taxes. Am I correct in assuming you are in favour of higher income taxes and corporate taxes? This seems odd to me: I think it makes more sense to tax things we don't want (dumping gigatonnes of garbage into the atmosphere) and lower taxes on things we do want (people making oodles of money.) The claim that you can't expect emissions reductions from carbon taxes is simply false, on the data. I believe in the data. Why should I believe an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary?