McClimate

Dave Roberts interviews Doug Holtz-Eakin about John McCain's climate policy. The whole interview, including the fact that the McCain campaign bothered to send a high-level surrogate to talk to Grist about climate change, is the sort of thing that might lead a person to note that though either Clinton or Obama would be preferable to McCain, McCain would be preferable to Bush.

On climate, it seems to me that aside from a curious devotion to nuclear power, McCain's big blind spot has to do with transportation issues. It's true that we shouldn't underestimate the power of American consumers and businesspeople to adopt to an environment where a carbon cap puts a price on emissions. But the free market can't do things like provide commuter rail lines and subways or denser living patterns to help people adapt. The market is already adapting to rising gas prices and increased congestion by enhancing the relative value of homes in walkable neighborhoods or near transit. It's adapting by making those places more expensive. Along with capping carbon emissions, we need to increase the supply of places like that, so as to put them within reach of a reasonable number of people. That requires government action -- much of the necessary action is actually deregulatory action, but it's action nonetheless -- and not just the "cap and forget about it" philosophy.

But all things considered this is pretty good stuff. Unfortunately, one suspects that the difficult task of getting China on board for climate policy would be rendered much, much more difficult by McCain disastrous approach to foreign policy.

Comments

But all things considered this is pretty good stuff. Unfortunately, one suspects that the difficult task of getting China on board for climate policy would be rendered much, much more difficult by McCain disastrous approach to foreign policy.

Good point, and I think this topic reinforces the whole McSame theme. Despite McCain's laudable personal stance on the issue, the election of a capital R Republican to the White House in 2009 would virtually guarantee that the same constituencies distorting the current White House's policies would continue to exert an unwarranted amount of influence on the important policy debates that will take place in 2009.

Posted by fnook | April 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Hm, as I recall, the Democrats are much, MUCH more protectionist in regards to China than the Republicans are, or Bush was. This sort of protectionism that Obama and Hillary support, such as threatening tarriffs in order to get China to re-value the yuan in order to erase their competitive edge in exports is the kind most likely to convince the Chinese that any global warming caps are meant to retard their economic growth.
Now, of course Bush doesn't think that climate change is a problem, so he didn't negotiate with China about it, but I see no reason why a President McCain wouldn't engage in climate negotiations with the Chinese government. Is McCain especially militant on China? Let's see some evidence that he'd alienate the Chinese.

Posted by jamie | April 21, 2008 5:35 PM

Undoubtedly, zoning changes are part of the solution, but that problem is micro-local: the federal government has only pretty blunt instruments for it.

On climate change, I could be persuaded that McCain would actually do better, since there's a Nixon-to-China element, and he has some sort of concept of "honor" that might disincline him to tolerate the kind of rent-seeking and distortion that may disfigure any climate change plan.

In the end, I think it's right that we have to see if McCain is open-minded to federal funding of public transit, or not.

Posted by MHD | April 21, 2008 5:38 PM

a curious devotion to nuclear power

What is curious about that? What practical alternative to coal and oil do we have right now?

IF we reduced our energy consumption to that of, say, Mali, then we wouldn't need nuclear. But we're not going to.

Given that, environmentalist-types should be yelling for nuclear power.

Posted by Anderson | April 21, 2008 5:49 PM

Keep in mind that, according to the United Nations, the production of meat contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined. Not that this is first-order, compared to the brutality of factory farms.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 21, 2008 6:04 PM

Given that, environmentalist-types should be yelling for nuclear power.

While we're at it, let's yank back the oil subsidies and give some grants out to figure out the best way to handle nuclear waste. Other than NIMBY, it's really the last hurdle to greatly increased use of nuclear power.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 6:11 PM

But the free market can't do things like provide commuter rail lines and subways or denser living patterns to help people adapt.

Good luck with your absurd ideas. At $200+ million per mile for tunnels and tracks, and billions of dollars each for stations, I somehow doubt we'll be seeing new subway systems any time soon. The average size of a new house in the U.S. has been increasing for 50 years. Even if Americans could somehow be persuaded to return to average house size of the 1970s, which seems highly unlikely, we'd still have vast suburbs for which subways and commuter rail would make absolutely no sense.

The market has already responded and will continue to respond to higher gas prices and longer commute times, in the form of things like telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and more fuel efficient vehicles.

Posted by Mixner | April 21, 2008 7:05 PM

But the free market can't do things like provide commuter rail lines and subways or denser living patterns to help people adapt.

Living in a big city I can appreciate the need for rail and denser zoning, but how much of an impact will these sorts of measures have on overall American carbon output? Isn't most carbon produced by people who don't live in these kinds of dense areas? (I'm genuinely asking here--I don't know much about this stuff.)

Like, what in your guys' esteemed opinions are the top 3 single most high-impact things that can be done (with regards to transportation) to reduce carbon output in the US?

Posted by David Morris | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM

I will vote for Obama over McCain. McCain is married to a druggie whore and he wears false dentures. He is not fit to be president.

Posted by KellyM | April 21, 2008 7:32 PM

1. KellyM, with friends like you Obama doesn't need enemies.

2. More nuclear power please. Let's all follow the French model. They've been doing it right there for decades.

Posted by dug | April 21, 2008 7:56 PM

Thank you for the plug for those of us who work in public transportation and/or urban density issues.

Your last sentence, though, is puzzling. As you say, the ability to respond to climate change is based on urban form and infrastructure, which is a profound expression of a nation's self-image. In China, the next president will have no more impact on those decisions than Bush or Clinton had. China makes decisions about those things based on its own perceived self-interest, not on whether they're mad at America at any given moment.

The Chinese decision to build so much car-based infrastructure in the last decade is a tragic mistake. It's based on the cultural influence of American images of prosperity and it will change only as those images change. It's hard to imagine an issue on which the US President has less influence.

Posted by Jarrett | April 22, 2008 12:15 AM

Gosh, Mixner. $200 million sounds like a lot.

Of course, street widening and freeway construction can be $5 or 10 million per mile. Not counting maintenence. Or the lost use of all that urban space. And then there's the congestion, pollution, noise, and accident-related externalities. Those run on the order of several hundred billion every year.

Maybe $200 million a mile doesn't really sound too bad.

In fact, if we invested just a few percent of all those external costs, say $30 or $40 billion a year, we could outfit many US cities with decent mixed light/heavy rail systems in short order. Especially considering that $30 million/mile or so is a more reasonable figure for light rail, with $100 million being pretty much the upper limit. And just a hundred miles or so could make a pretty nice system in a lot of urban cores. Then over the next couple decades, development around stations will make those cities denser, and the rail systems ever more useful and valuable.

Of course I'm sure you agree that construction cost per mile is kind of a silly way to compare these things...

Posted by jack lecou | April 22, 2008 12:56 AM

I made myself a little $5 bet on Mixner jumping in here and raining on this parade, looks like I made myself 5 bucks.

Mixner, I supported you when you asserted that a majority of american humans actually did in fact opt for mcmansions and long commutes in SUVs and that enforcing what by definition are unpopular zoning laws was undemocratic and unfair, but that these folk should pay the full cost for their chosen lifestyle.

However pal, you're just flat out wrong here.

I'm going to introduce you to a concept called 'natural monopoly.' It's something that exists where it's appropriate for the government to intervene (and often manage) in order to create the initial infrastructure that makes markets hum.

You wouldn't want a bunch of power lines running in parallel all down city streets would you?

Our rail system is worse than Bulgaria's right now, of course we should, we the people, the government, do a bunch of explicit rebuilding and expansion. It's a double winner, it makes the economy quite literally run more efficiently, and provides productive jobs.

Ok Mixner, start calling me a bolshevik now.

Posted by mike | April 22, 2008 1:54 AM

Matt,

The market can't provide "denser living patterns" so the solution is to increase supply by "government action" which is mostly "deregulatory action?"

That is a sloppy, inconsistent argument not worthy of a philosophy major.

Posted by Jeff H. | April 22, 2008 3:44 AM

"Unfortunately, one suspects that the difficult task of getting China on board for climate policy would be rendered much, much more difficult by McCain disastrous approach to foreign policy."

Nope. Infinity + X = Infinity. No difference. China is not getting on board for climate policy regardless of who's living in the White house.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | April 22, 2008 6:52 AM

Jeff H.-
Sloppy, maybe. Inconsistent? Not so much. Anyway, everyone knows it's mathematicians you really have to watch out for.

Brett-
I think you're looking at it a little backwards. Possibly Obama or Clinton would not be any more likely to be able to coax China into full membership in an explicit Son of Kyoto agreement or anything, but that's not necessarily the only way. What's important is a better approach on global warming with our allies in the rest of the developed world. The picture of what's possible changes very radically when it is whole-of-developed-world vs. China, rather than most of the developed world vs. China, the US, Australia, etc.

China is not omnipotent, or immune to outside pressure. If China (or even China + India + a few others) stood alone, without the cover provided by US bad faith, then something like a developed-world import tariff on the carbon intensity of manufactured goods could be justified. That would remove most of China's motive for malfeasance.

Besides, China is already building things like nuclear stations and subways like crazy. Probably not fast enough, given their size, of course, but they're still spending tens of times what the US is. I'd not be totally surprised to see things like congestion pricing start to go up in Chinese cities.

I think it's clear that the Chinese leadership is not actually in love with coal or oil, and could be brought at least partly into the fold if the incentives and leadership are in place in the rest of the world.

Posted by jack lecou | April 22, 2008 2:49 PM