Alternatives

I liked this Tyler Cowen post so much I decided to quote the whole thing:

A new Cato study, by Indur Goklany, suggests that instead of carbon taxes we should spend money on better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on. In general we should make the world as wealthy as possible. Here is the link, the piece is intelligent throughout and well worth reading.

Two questions suggest themselves. First, is the choice either/or? I don't see arguments against a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Second, is there really enthusiasm for the proposed measures or is the real intent to do little or nothing on carbon? Since this is both a Goklany piece and a Cato piece, an interesting question arises: who exactly is now obliged to push for anti-malarial foreign aid? Cato? Goklany? Either/or? Both? Or is it enough to just make the comparison once and leave it at that?

One way to raise the money necessary to "spend money on better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on" would, of course, be through a carbon tax or (more politically realistic) an auction of tradable carbon emissions permits. Meanwhile, there's an issue of consistency here. The style of argument here is don't do X because if we did Z, which costs as much as X, we would see more benefits. That's a very stringent standard to meet. Can Goklany's own argument meet it? Is collaborating with libertarian think tanks to oppose carbon restrictions really the most efficacious method of boosting spending on anti-malarials? As best I can tell, historically, Cato's only been interested in malaria as a pretext to complain about DDT regulations. Now I suppose we can add carbon regulations to the list. But actual malaria-related advocacy doesn't seem to be on the agenda.

Why not say we should eliminate all these subsidies and tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal firms and use that money to finance "better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on"? Meanwhile, if the planet just keeps getting hotter and hotter with more and more carbon in the atmosphere forever surely at some point it overwhelms are capacity to adapt.

Comments

As best I can tell, historically, Cato's only been interested in malaria as a pretext to complain about DDT regulations.

That sentence is one of the best ever illustrations of what's wrong with the Cato Institute.

Posted by Beth in VA | February 7, 2008 9:41 AM

We could (read: should) also put an end to these deals where oil and gas companies get to drill and mine public lands for basically nothing.

Oil and gas are not public goods, people, as much as politicians might pretend otherwise.

Posted by Jeff | February 7, 2008 9:56 AM

Making the world as wealthy as possible is indeed a worthy goal but I don't see how that's going to help the polar bears and other species which will be driven to extinction by climate change. Even if one focuses exclusively on humans, it stands to reason from a cursory look at history and human nature that even in the best of circumstances, rampant climate change will lead to winners and losers. One can only speculate as to which it would be for the poor of the world.

Posted by Jeff S. | February 7, 2008 9:59 AM

The principal rule for giant, far-reaching government projects should be, "first, do no harm".

I imagine the Cato people are as opposed to oil and gas subsidies as they are to farm subsidies. The point here it seems to me is that if we are going to insist that Leviathan act immediately to do something about climate change, it ought to do things that have been prioritized for maximum effectiveness on carefully formulated, achievable goals (one of which is not going to be to reverse climate change any time soon, no matter what); and minimum negative impact on, in particular, the elements of our society most likely to produce helpful innovations.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 7, 2008 10:14 AM

Meanwhile, if the planet just keeps getting hotter and hotter with more and more carbon in the atmosphere forever surely at some point it overwhelms are capacity to adapt.

No, even if you assume an ever increasing concentration of co2 the warming derived from it is limited by the amount of outgoing radiation there is to absorb.

Posted by iron pimp hand | February 7, 2008 10:33 AM

I'm on board for getting rid of oil/gas/coal subsidies (although I'd get rid of the corn and sguar ones first), but I think you might be surprised at how small they are. Certainly not big enough to finance all the things you mention.

Posted by Amber | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM

"Meanwhile, if the planet just keeps getting hotter and hotter with more and more carbon in the atmosphere forever surely at some point it overwhelms are capacity to adapt."
There's a lot of uncertainty in the historical record and modelling, but best estimates put the threshhold at around 600-650ppm. Beyond this you get extremely rapid climate change (even more rapid than current anthropogenic climate change) as a result of feedback loops such as methane in undersea hydrates and the arctic tundra, which would be well beyond the capacity of (most of) mankind (and most of the global ecosystem) to cope.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 7, 2008 10:43 AM

Actually, there would be a nearly immediate salutary effect on water use, nitrogen runoff, and methane production, by eliminating many of the agricultural subsidies -- fewer water intensive cash crops and their fertilizer requirements.

Also, increasing the oil/gas lease rates would effectively park some of the more marginal oil land (and I am thinking more in terms of oil shales which appears to be the "next" oil frontier), as an example, creating oil from oil shale can pollute the surrounding (and downstream) water table.

Cato, from my other reading, brings up DDT as a bit of morality play -- DDT is a cheap way to eradicate malaria which kills a lot of people and is well within the budget of the poorest nations. Alternative chemicals and environmental adaptations (nets, drainage, etc) are less effective and are often more expensive to use and are typically well outside the budgets of the poorest nations. DDT also causes some environmental problems. Balance human life vs. environmental damage.

Posted by mike c | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM

No, even if you assume an ever increasing concentration of co2 the warming derived from it is limited by the amount of outgoing radiation there is to absorb.

Literally true, but not meaningful. The earth would be uninhabitable long before that limit was reached. Think about living in an autoclave. As a practical matter, there is a log relationship between CO2 concentration and retained heat, and that holds true for any conceivable levels of CO2 concentration.

Posted by Jeff S. | February 7, 2008 11:02 AM

Arguing that any regulatory regime isn't maximally cost-efficient is a classic anti-environmental tactic. The best example is probably Kip Viscusi's mid-nineties work arguing that we should replace environmental regs with safety-based regs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cyWsBpfcuNQC&dq

These folks never turn into advocates for "more cost-effective" regulations, just critics of those they deem inefficient.

Posted by Dave Meyer | February 7, 2008 11:04 AM

DDT is a cheap way to eradicate malaria which kills a lot of people and is well within the budget of the poorest nations.

Yes. In fact, I got malaria for free when I went to Panama, so I'm sure most nations can afford it.

Posted by James Gary | February 7, 2008 11:23 AM

Literally true, but not meaningful. The earth would be uninhabitable long before that limit was reached. Think about living in an autoclave. As a practical matter, there is a log relationship between CO2 concentration and retained heat, and that holds true for any conceivable levels of CO2 concentration.

And? he was wrong, I pointed it out. I win.

Posted by iron pimp hand | February 7, 2008 11:25 AM

minimum negative impact on, in particular, the elements of our society most likely to produce helpful innovations.

Code words for Paris Hilton & her friends . . .

We have permission to do something about global climatic change, as long as we don't thereby inconvenience our plutocratic masters.

Posted by rea | February 7, 2008 11:26 AM

DDT is a cheap way to eradicate malaria which kills a lot of people and is well within the budget of the poorest nations. Alternative chemicals and environmental adaptations (nets, drainage, etc) are less effective and are often more expensive to use and are typically well outside the budgets of the poorest nations.

Conmpletely wrongheaded.

Very limited use of DDT for malarial control is still permitted under present regs.

More general use would simply breed DDT-resistant mosquitos.

Posted by rea | February 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Can we summarize their position as "rather than raise taxes we should spend more money"?

Posted by Joe | February 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Cato's only been interested in malaria as a pretext to complain about DDT regulations.

and of course in real life, Cato could give two cheap shits for DDT (a commodity chemical which nobody sane thinks is ever going to be used as an agricultural pesticide again) - this was only ever a cheap way of bashing greenies in order to strengthen their self-image as hard-nosed practical types who could really save the planet, for use in important arguments like the carbon tax one.

Posted by dsquared | February 7, 2008 12:00 PM

Why not say we should eliminate all these subsidies and tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal firms and use that money to finance "better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on"?

Because it's not possible to eliminate all the subsidies and tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal. We could, and maybe should, eliminate or reduce some of them, though. But maybe the money we raise from that would be better spent on adaptation to climate change rather than mitigation.

Meanwhile, if the planet just keeps getting hotter and hotter with more and more carbon in the atmosphere forever surely at some point it overwhelms are capacity to adapt.

The operative word there is "if." IF any number of Really Bad Things happen, then we're screwed. The important questions have to do with the probabilities and timescales of the various kinds of threat, and the merits of various kinds of response, not mere possibilities.

Posted by Mixner | February 7, 2008 12:42 PM

"and of course in real life, Cato could give two cheap shits for DDT (a commodity chemical which nobody sane thinks is ever going to be used as an agricultural pesticide again) - this was only ever a cheap way of bashing greenies in order to strengthen their self-image as hard-nosed practical types who could really save the planet, for use in important arguments like the carbon tax one."

DDT is clearly an issue where smug self rightousness exists on both sides. The bottom line is hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved a year with more extensive use of DDT.

If hundreds of thousands of people were dying from Maleria in the US every year, I have no doubt it would be used here even if it hurt the spotted owl.

Posted by Dave | February 7, 2008 12:47 PM

"DDT is clearly an issue where smug self rightousness exists on both sides. The bottom line is hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved a year with more extensive use of DDT."

DDT is clearly an issue where people don't seem to have any clue. DDT is currently in use for vector control in virtually every malaria prone region, and intelligent use requires far less than when it was used as an agricultural pesticide. Perhaps most importantly, this low level of use reduces the risk of mosquitoes developing resistance. Your bottom line is ridiculously wrong.

Posted by Andy | February 7, 2008 1:24 PM

What's really stupid here is that this line of argument--that we shouldn't have carbon taxes etc. because there are so many other urgent needs that the government and the economy's need to spend resources on them outstrip the dangers of additional carbon in the atmosphere--is an argument for MORE government, not less. True libertarians (like Tyler Cowen maybe?) would want Pigovian taxes so that people are forced to reconcile with their externalities by the price mechanism.

To say that instead of doing that we should just declare by government fiat that more money needs to be spent on malaria, malnutrition, clean water, etc, may or may not be a good idea. But it is definitely not a libertarian idea. It's almost as though for some libertarians global warming has become an end in and of itself, in that they love fossil fuels more than they hate the government.

It is similar to those who argue that we need not do anything about global warming because we aren't certain how bad it will be. The fact that we could be catastrophically wrong in underestimating the rate of change is a reason to take CO2 emissions more seriously, not less--in general, you shouldn't go modifying chaotic, potentially fat-tailed systems without having a good idea what will happen.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 7, 2008 1:43 PM

"As best I can tell, historically, Cato's only been interested in malaria as a pretext to complain about DDT regulations."

Yeah. And as best I can tell, just about every think tank and advocacy group in existence uses various arguments as "pretexts" to get to what they really care about.

For instance, I know plenty of libertarians who probably couldn't give two craps about abortion, but who take a pro-life position because it better fits with their larger worldview. And will occasionally expound on the issue when doing so supports other ends.

I think this is obviously true of race, taxes, religion, education and a host of other issues.

This doesn't "excuse" Cato. But anyone who sees it as THE reason to not like Cato has a pretty limited group of think tanks to admire.

Posted by Sam M | February 7, 2008 2:33 PM

For instance, I hear the American Lung Association talking about "worker safety" a lot these days. Because they want to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the American Lung Association actively working to improve safety relations as they apply to window-washers and NASCAR drivers, both of which die from work-related causes at a much higher rate than bartenders.

The ALA cares about worker safety only when caring about it furthers its wider agenda.
So? Does this mean that the groups failure to advocate for mandatory headgear on boxers is a sign of hypocrisy? If it REALLY cares about worker safety, why bother trying to ban secondhand smoke at Madison Square Garden when other workers in the same venue get punched in the face for a living?

I guess it would be more consistent. Just as Cato embarking on a large-scale anti-malarial campaign would be more consistent. BUt that's just how things are. I guess it's just natural to notice when you disagree with the group's larger agenda.

Posted by Sam M | February 7, 2008 2:43 PM

It's funny: Just the other day, Mixner and his ilk were arguing infavor of the enormous U.S. military budget because 1) there are all sorts of low-probability scenarios (China invades Russia, say) that we needed to have the ability to stop, and 2) because of our wealth, we have more to lose than any other country from global instability and should therefore be willing to pay more to stop it.

But here, Mixner seems to be on the side arguing that A) since there are uncertainties concerning the magnitude of bad outcomes from global warming, we shouldn't invest money--in sums much smaller than the defense budget--to stop them, and rather B) we should instead be working to adapt to changing conditions.

Hmmmm. . .

It would seem to me that the Mixner Defense Hypothesis would lead to calls for an enormous reaction to stop global warming. After all, ill effects from climate change are far more likely than any two important countries going to war. (When's the last time one G8 country went to war against another, or against India, China or Brazil?) What's more, since we are wealthy, and our wealth is tied to the present climate conditions, we have more to lose in a world of climate chaos than a smaller, poorer country.

Not that I'd want to adopt the DOD model to fighting climate change--after all, I want an effective, cost-efficient program that doesn't make the situation worse. I just think it's funny that people can be so worked up about the brown and yellow hordes that they are willing to spend any sum to help them sleep at night, but the same people are unwilling to make moderate-size investments to avert a slow-motion globe-spanning catastrophe.

Posted by jlw | February 7, 2008 2:45 PM

How about a reality check: neither a "carbon tax" nor "credit trading" in the US/EU is going to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years. Two years ago, China became the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, with an economy that is less than half the size of the US (according to the latest world bank data) and with per capita emissions at about 1/6th the US level. Every ten days, the Chinese open a new, coal-fired power plant large enough to power all of the homes in Dallas, Texas. Today, 30% of the air pollution over LA is of Chinese origin, and in a generation, India's emissions will likely exceed Chinese pollution levels.

Do the math, check the demographics, and you will see that unless mandatory emission limits are imposed on China/India and the rest of the "developing" countries, greenhouse gas emissions are going to increase exponentially for at least the next 50 years. And don't even try to recycle the old chestnut that the West is at fault for Chinese emissions because nearly all of our consumer goods are manufactured there. Understand this: Chinese people like cars, air conditioners, TVs, and computers just like us. They want something more than a life in a dirty, backward village, just like us. And so China, and India, and Indonesia, and Vietnam, and Malaysia, and Bangladesh, and Pakistan, are going to continue to grow their economies. The Chinese domestic market is larger than the US and the EU combined - not as wealthy, of course, but so large that you could make the US/EU 100% carbon emission free, and still find you've done next to nothing to slow the rate of emission increases.

Your choices, if you are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are very limited: (1) Convince the Chinese et al to return to a pre-industrial existence, or (2) come up with some new technology that renders carbon-based fuels obsolete, or (3) figure out a way to impose carbon emission limits on the developing economies. Otherwise, you're nothing but hot air.

Posted by Eagle613 | February 7, 2008 3:01 PM

I just found the idea of investing in sea level protection to be funny as hell. The scale of a project that would protect a noticable percentage of coast would be insane. They might as well suggest starting work on blueprints for a Dyson sphere.

Posted by daveNYC | February 7, 2008 5:00 PM

Eagle--
You mean, even if we make Paris Hilton drive a Prius, we'll still have to buy more skin cream?

Posted by Robert Powell | February 7, 2008 6:10 PM

"Your choices, if you are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are very limited: (1) Convince the Chinese et al to return to a pre-industrial existence,"

Clearly not going to happen - unless, of course, we follow Mixner's advice and nuke China...

"or (3) figure out a way to impose carbon emission limits on the developing economies."

Clearly not going to happen - unless, of course, we follow Mixner's advice and nuke China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, basically, everybody...

"or (2) come up with some new technology that renders carbon-based fuels obsolete,"

Which, of course, the one to two trillion dollars we're spending on conquering the Middle East for oil would do handily within, maybe, ten or twenty years.

As Dr. Smalley has said, "Nanotechnology is right at the core [of] the answer to the energy problem".

Nanotech Key To Future Energy Solutions, Nobelist Says
http://www.energybulletin.net/834.html

Not to mention the one trillion dollars a year the US spends on defense in general - again, on Mixner's advice.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 12:52 AM

"The style of argument here is don't do X because if we did Z, which costs as much as X, we would see more benefits. That's a very stringent standard to meet. Can Goklany's own argument meet it? Is collaborating with libertarian think tanks to oppose carbon restrictions really the most efficacious method of boosting spending on anti-malarials?"

This is pure sophistry. Even if Goklany can't meet his own standard, it doesn't mean the government should waste money pursuing an option with less payoff. ("If you're stupid then I'll be stupid.") The motives of the Cato Institute don't destroy the logic of their argument.

Besides, I bet for an economist/political theorist who probably has interests and expertise outside of this narrow question but no treasure chest with which to supply anti-malarial drugs, he probably is picking the "most efficacious" career he can. If he's not, then he should go somewhere he can get higher pay.

"One way to raise the money necessary to 'spend money on better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on' would, of course, be through a carbon tax"

Taxes do not create wealth. If we shut down the economy by shutting down carbon emissions to the level necessary to make a dent in greenhouse gas, we have no wealth to combat these problems, no matter what the illusory tax rate is.

I don't think anyone has proven that we face anything but an "either/or" question on the economy and carbon emissions. I would actually like to be learn if someone has proven otherwise.

"Meanwhile, if the planet just keeps getting hotter and hotter with more and more carbon in the atmosphere forever surely at some point it overwhelms are capacity to adapt."

This does not strike me as a well-researched scientific argument.

Posted by Rit | February 8, 2008 11:43 PM