Comments on: Standing up to Samuelson’s “Can’t Do” Spirit http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/03/standing-up-to-samuelsons-%e2%80%9ccan%e2%80%99t-do%e2%80%9d-spirit/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:55:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Ric Merritt http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/03/standing-up-to-samuelsons-%e2%80%9ccan%e2%80%99t-do%e2%80%9d-spirit/#comment-13900 Ric Merritt Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:01:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/03/standing-up-to-samuelsons-%e2%80%9ccan%e2%80%99t-do%e2%80%9d-spirit/#comment-13900 I happily endorse all your larger points about fighting dangerous climate change, but I think you and many others are dangerously blind to important economic technicalities and fundamental political needs. Please look again! People like Samuelson (whose record on climate is mostly unknown to me) and even George Will (whose record on climate is mostly lamentable) are coming around surprisingly quickly. They are willing, lately, to talk turkey and get into real issues. Given the politics, especially in the US, we need to make common cause with such folks, or at the very least with their millions of readers and sympathizers. Carbon pricing is far better accomplished via a carbon tax (tax shifting to carbon). Cap and trade, while it can conceivably work, is a technical poor second. As to what is politically a non-starter, so far ANY real action is a non-starter, and we are, collectively and in effect, delayer-1000s, judged by our actions. This is the first few yards of a decades- or centuries-long marathon, so let's not hobble ourselves with a mechanism we'll be forced to change a half mile down the road. If you disagree, I would very much like to see extended, repeated engagement point by point with the reasoning found at, say, carbontax.org. I haven't seen that. If it's already here, I'd appreciate the links. Just don't brush it off in a couple words. I happily endorse all your larger points about fighting dangerous climate change, but I think you and many others are dangerously blind to important economic technicalities and fundamental political needs. Please look again! People like Samuelson (whose record on climate is mostly unknown to me) and even George Will (whose record on climate is mostly lamentable) are coming around surprisingly quickly. They are willing, lately, to talk turkey and get into real issues. Given the politics, especially in the US, we need to make common cause with such folks, or at the very least with their millions of readers and sympathizers. Carbon pricing is far better accomplished via a carbon tax (tax shifting to carbon). Cap and trade, while it can conceivably work, is a technical poor second.

As to what is politically a non-starter, so far ANY real action is a non-starter, and we are, collectively and in effect, delayer-1000s, judged by our actions. This is the first few yards of a decades- or centuries-long marathon, so let’s not hobble ourselves with a mechanism we’ll be forced to change a half mile down the road.

If you disagree, I would very much like to see extended, repeated engagement point by point with the reasoning found at, say, carbontax.org. I haven’t seen that. If it’s already here, I’d appreciate the links. Just don’t brush it off in a couple words.

]]> By: Lindsay Meisel http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/03/standing-up-to-samuelsons-%e2%80%9ccan%e2%80%99t-do%e2%80%9d-spirit/#comment-13863 Lindsay Meisel Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:45:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/03/standing-up-to-samuelsons-%e2%80%9ccan%e2%80%99t-do%e2%80%9d-spirit/#comment-13863 If capping emissions won't raise energy prices and hurt consumers, then why is the bill's second-largest expenditure a consumer tax cut? That's money that could be going to much-needed clean energy development and deployment, but because instead its going to appease a public that doesn't want to see energy prices rise. Saying we're going to make the "polluter pay" really means we're going to make the consumer pay, because big energy will pass simply its cost increases on. In polls, people overwhelmingly prefer Apollo-style direct investment in clean energy over Kyoto-style price increases that are meant act as behavior deterrents. Critics of cap and trade do not, as you argue, want to delay action on global warming, they simply don't think it will work. And what could be more of a delay on real action than giving politicians something to brag about, even though its completely ineffectual? If capping emissions won’t raise energy prices and hurt consumers, then why is the bill’s second-largest expenditure a consumer tax cut? That’s money that could be going to much-needed clean energy development and deployment, but because instead its going to appease a public that doesn’t want to see energy prices rise. Saying we’re going to make the “polluter pay” really means we’re going to make the consumer pay, because big energy will pass simply its cost increases on.

In polls, people overwhelmingly prefer Apollo-style direct investment in clean energy over Kyoto-style price increases that are meant act as behavior deterrents. Critics of cap and trade do not, as you argue, want to delay action on global warming, they simply don’t think it will work. And what could be more of a delay on real action than giving politicians something to brag about, even though its completely ineffectual?

]]>