That's Why People Like Money

The Washington Post, taking a wide-lens look at the global warming debate, notes that "Wealthier Americans might be better able than poor Americans to afford new equipment -- more efficient air conditioners, better insulated windows, solar panels -- to cut energy costs."

This is a convenient all-purpose reason to never do anything at all that imposes costs of any sort. The way money works is that people who have more money will be better able than poor people to afford things. Like, if catastrophic climate change forces substantial alterations in lifestyle, wealthier Americans will be better able than poor Americans to afford that, too.

Comments

It's also the case that people with less money tend to live in smaller places, and in at least some cases drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

But this doesn't make a gas tax a good idea.

There are some people in some places that can drive less but a lot of people in a lot of places in this country who can't drive so much less. Cutting taxes on fuel efficient cars (including fuel efficient used cars; there are sales taxes in a number of states on used cars).

This is what some states are doing for solar panels and there are rebates too in some cases for more efficient appliances.

Need more revenue for r&d? (I'm not convinced you do but let's assume we do.) Try energy independence bonds.

Posted by Linus | July 15, 2007 12:21 PM

The dreadful part of the risk in Global Warming is that the threat is ill-defined and the possible "payday" for our bad behavior is so far away. Convincing people to bite the bullet so that their grandchildren won't suffer something vaguely bad? Not gonna happen. What if the consequences weren't much more than the kind of "inconvenience" that Florida faces with hurricanes or California faces with earthquakes? That's not too bad, is it? Too many intangibles and too many rich bastiges to change what we do by an iota.

From what I read, there's around a 2.5% chance of a civilization-squelching calamity. We've spent thousands of lives and $400,000,000,000 on less of a threat with less evidence. Which is why Daddy despairs of the political process.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 15, 2007 12:24 PM

OT

I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Yglesias. He has not yet commented on the totally inane op-ed in todays Washington Post by William Kristol. How can this opportunity be allowed to pass uncommented upon?

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2007 12:36 PM

As a liberal/libertarian, I love the idea of gas tax.

First, as the poster mentioned above, people with lower incomes tend to drive less, use public transportation more.

there's a lot of crappy Pigovian taxes which unfairly tend to tax the poor (cigarette tax). Or there's tons of tax breaks which the middle class receive but not the poor (deducting one's mortgage payments).

But this is a fair tax. the middle and upper classes won't be able to avoid it.

Posted by lasser11 | July 15, 2007 12:49 PM

"I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Yglesias. He has not yet commented on the totally inane op-ed in todays Washington Post by William Kristol. How can this opportunity be allowed to pass uncommented upon?"

Everything Kristol says tends to be stupid. Keeping up with Kristol's stupidity is like keeping up with Kristol's breathing. They didn't call him Quayle's Brain for nothing.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2007 1:02 PM

Re Reality Man

That is quite true but most of his stupidity is only on display on the fascist news channel. Here is a column appearing in what is theoretically one of the most prestigious of the MSM and its stupidity is of a high order indeed, even for Mr. Kristol.

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2007 1:14 PM

I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Yglesias. He has not yet commented on the totally inane op-ed in todays Washington Post by William Kristol. How can this opportunity be allowed to pass uncommented upon?

Likewise. I've checked the blog several times in hopes of reading his response.

Posted by Roberto | July 15, 2007 1:16 PM

"Likewise. I've checked the blog several times in hopes of reading his response"

I liked this post a lot. More class war, please. Capitalism and free markets will kill and impoverish your kids.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 15, 2007 3:09 PM

Saturday night in neon lights
Sunday in the [cell?]
Pills enough to make me feel ill
Cash enough to make me well

Take me, take me to the riot
And let me stay.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 15, 2007 3:19 PM

It's also the case that people with less money tend to live in smaller places, and in at least some cases drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. - Linus

Speaking as someone with "less money" (at least until I am done post-doc'ing and can get me a real job), you are correct about "smaller places" but incorrect about the fuel-efficient cars.

Most of us not so rich-'uns drive older cars which, while perhaps fuel efficient in their salad days, are quite gas-guzzlers now ... which of course, is an extra cost.

In general, and I know this has been pointed out many a time before, you can often spend less money in the long term for a given set of goods if you have more money to begin with. You own instead of rent. You can afford a new car with good gas mileage. Etc. Having money not only allows you to make more money, but it also allows you to spend the money you have in a more efficient manner.

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2007 4:14 PM

I'd like a country where we had progressive taxes, beefed up EITC, and lots of pigouvian taxes, and no more whining about "what about the poor," because we gave them free health care, great schools, and the EITC.

Posted by chris | July 15, 2007 4:24 PM

My family is middle class yet we still buy the energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, recycle and car pool in our high MPG car. There is a trade off in that we own a smaller, older house, don't take expensive vacation and rarely make unnecessary purchases but if this what it takes to keep the Algorná at bay it is well worth it.

Posted by fear the Goracle | July 15, 2007 9:44 PM

Case-in-point: if you're building a house, you can get geothermal HVAC for ~$8000 extra. It's relatively independant of the cost of the rest of the HVAC, because you have to have this big truck come and drill holes in your yard for a day or two. Then they run pipe. But, if you make that investment you have ~5 year financial payback. I've never seen any calculations of the environmental impact, but it's gotta be good.

The smaller the house, the bigger that $8000 investment gets, and the longer the payback gets (since you're HVAC costs will be less on a smaller house). So, geothermal is more common on big buildings like schools or prisons, and larger-than-average houses.

Posted by American Citizen | July 16, 2007 4:18 PM