Expunging Sin Through Legislation
E.D. Kain at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen nails the problem with the Waxman-Markey approach to climate change legislation:
Once again it seems proponents of Waxman-Markey are talking right past the actual objections to the bill and speaking instead quite generally about the moral impetus of climate change legislation itself. In the great rush to just do something – anything – because the moral consequence of doing nothing seems so great, lawmakers and supporters of climate change legislation will rush headlong into even a very bad piece of legislation so long as it allows them to wash their hands of the sin of simply standing by while the Himalayans melt. That the Himalayans will melt anyways is secondary.
The problem goes beyond the still-controversial claims of anthropomorphic (a fancy word for “man-made”) global warming (AGW). The problem is that even if AGW theory is completely true, the legislation being proposed imposes high economic costs for no discernible impact on the problem. It seems to be doing something just to be (seen to be) doing something. And those who object get hit with rhetoric so hyperbolic as to call into question the sanity of the user:
Of course, this line of reasoning is tantamount to treason, at least according to Paul Krugman. Once again, skeptics of climate change legislation are conflated with skeptics of climate change itself. One can believe that climate change is in fact occurring and also believe that a cap and trade system is the wrong approach to fixing the problem. This does not make them a climate change denier.
The end result is to make AGW activism in its current from indistinguishable from a dysfunctionally passionate religious movement seeking bizarre but utterly unhelpful and potentially harmful rituals to purge collective sins. Waxman-Markey is ritual flagellation with a trillion-dollar price tag.
AGW activists need to do much better if they want to be effective in both designing and selling policy ideas.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“A nobel laureate should know better than to forgo skepticism to make a lazy accusation.”
I agree, but apparently Al Gore does not.
To repeat what I’ve alluded to before, I will assume for the sake of argument that AGW is proven beyond doubt.
The C&T bill is STILL a very bad one, with enormous economic costs with no serious impact on AGW. This line about “setting an example” for the Chinese and Indians is very faulty logic. It’s a hope, and nothing else. AGW will continue at a rapid pace with or without this C&T business. As the saying goes, nations have interests, not friends. And if using carbon-based energy is going to further those nations that is what they are going to do UNTIL a viable, cheap alternative is found. Solar and wind aren’t goint to be enough.
Now, I’ve said nothing even questionable about AGW, but still criticize this bill. I assume this does not make me a “denier” or moron or any other derogatory term except in the eyes of Dr. Krugman. If the debate has sunk that low…whereby to question the bill is the same as calling AGW a hoax then there is no debate at all. I must say however that history has never been on the side of those quashing dissent.
“A nobel laureate should know better than to forgo skepticism to make a lazy accusation.”
Well, yeah, but this is Paul Krugman we’re talking about. A man who has never let his own knowledge of economics interfere with his political rants, even when his rants directly contradicted his own econ texts.
And, um, I believe you mean anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
The “expunging sin through legislation” is a tried and tested method of destroying rational discussion of legislation on just about any controversial issue. A very large number of useless or counterproductive laws were enacted following this sort of maneouver from the supporters of the bills concerned. If you don’t support our legislation then you don’t care about the poor/children/small animals etc, etc, etc.
Well in the case of this bill its the Democrats IRAQ.
I hope it passes the senate with the GOP voting NO..NO…and NO.
In 2010 there will be about 50 less democrats in the house.
In 2012 we will be looking for a new President. Just think this bill is setting the stage to elect Sarah Palin as your new president.
Way to go Dems.
The problem seems to me that the against camp seems to fall eventually into two lines of reasoning. First, ‘this is the wrong way to do it’ and ‘the costs are too big’. The first is more or less false, and the second devolves into an argument about the reality of AGW.
First, the ‘this is the wrong way to do it’ line of thinking. There are three main ways people have figured out to curb unwanted behavior. Regulate, tax, and some hybrid (cap and trade). Direct regulation if fraught with unintended consequences, and I doubt many opposing the bill would seriously consider this an option. Taxation also has significant problems. A direct tax of a set dollar ammount doesn’t index to inflation, so must constantly be readjusted. Also, the amount to witch the tax will curb the behavior has to be guessed at based on past supply and demand curve, which can be unreliable. A % tax solves some of those problems, but can exaggerate natural price fluctuations in ways which don’t premote a stable economy. Cap and trade seems to be the the most reasonable alternative. In a sense it is a market derived tax. You set the final ammount of the unwanted behavior ahead of time, and the market derives a the price the tax would have to be in order to meet that output. This also has the added benefit of actually reducing the volatility of the cost of the good/behavior. To explain the difference between % tax and cap&trade on price volatility, imagine for a second that the world oil supply suddenly drops to 50% of what it was. Demand will stay the same, so price will skyrocket. The % taxation will mirror that spike in price, making oil even more expensive. However, with cap and trade, if supply were to suddenly drop, while market price would still increase, the potential for the market to exceed the cap would actually decrease. This reduced pressure of contraining output would drop the price of a credit. While the overall price would still increase in most situations, it should increase less than a purely market driven situation. So of the available option to us, a pure cap and trade system is probably the best solution.
I should note that there are aspects of the legislation which could have all sorts of secondary effects. The most obvious is the plan to hand out free credits to different industries. Depending on the particulars of that program which I don’t fully understand, you could essentially be subsidizing some industries at the cost of others, favoring certain businesses within an industry over others, or favoring small business over large ones. All of which, ideally would be kept separate from this bill, but having a bit of pork mixed in seems to be an unfortunate consequence of ANY action by our congress.
The second, ‘the costs are too high’ rational makes a large assumption, that the costs of not enacting the legislation will be less. To validate that assumption, you have to put a $ ammount on both the costs of the legislation, and the costs of doing nothing. Both sides can play games here, but hopefully we move the debate forward a little bit. Should we include costs simply to the US, or to the entire world? Which model of climate change damage do we pick to base our cost projections on? So, at it’s heart, the ‘costs are too high’ debate is a debate about whether AGW is real, and it’s magnitude. It’s not necessarily a bad argument, but it’s one that doesn’t play well when you look at current public opinion polls.
People. There are two groups that are using the Global warming debate to drive their agenda. Those who believe that global warming is a dire event and if not stopped it will imminently cause the demise of our world.
Those who are using the Global warming debate to punish America with excessive taxation in order to raise capital for their social programs, wealth redistribution and social reorganization of America for the good of the people.
Cap and Trade is about the second group while pretending to address the concerns of the first group.
I do not care if Global warming is or is not happening. There are much better ways to reduce global warming then Cap and Trade.
CAP AND TRADE is NOTHING more then a government TAX. Corporations do not pay taxes. Period. You and I do and EVERYTHING is made with energy. Everything. Nothing will escape an escalation in prices due to this bill.
My Republican Congressman says Cap and Trade will be good for America.
And, he caught the Green River Killer.
Did you catch the Green River Killer?
No, no you didn’t.
You can hear his interview here.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=194&sid=184941
Dave Reichert SPEAKS: says Cap and Trade will be good for America
He argued that the expense would not be what the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Wall Street Journal were predicting. He argued that it would cost around $.48 per day and that we would have better national security, more nuclear, coal and refining capabilities, and a cleaner environment with the bill. He argued that the conservative arguments against were mistaken, and that Washington specifically would be better off even though the bill was imperfect.
And, he caught the Green River Killer.
Yeah, it took him a couple of decades, but better late than never.
I hear Fox was thinking about making the Series 24 about Reichert. But instead of showing 24 hours in a day they would have to make each episode a year.
to consider the first part wrong you would have to conclude that it there is a problem – and as such cannot decide the true or false of it while dismissing the 2nd part.
Cap and trade is still a tax. Just like pay go is tax & spend.
Just by a different name.
Either way – we can be sure this Lefty congress has our best interests at heart. They’re working hard at it!
….
With this Congress we either pay for their spouse – or their mistress.
It’s good to see they are trying to Stimulate the US Economy for the hard working Americans that voted them in.
Scientific models show that earth can only support 8.3 billion people with current technology.
We are at 6.7 billion and rising and guess what….in less then 100 years its expected we will reach that 8.3 billion people…
Amazingly at the exact same time that the Global warming experts predict that global warming will destroy the planet.
There is a crisis coming but the only way to truly avert it is a massive sterilization program or just let it run its course and go back to the way things used to be…..
Only the strong survive. Its natures way of weeding out the weak, sissies and those who just dont have the “want to” to survive.
That ultimately is where we are headed and the sissies among us….you know the global warming crowd….are “afraid” they dont have the ability to survive if there is no one to take care of them. Cradle to grave mentality.
My recomendation……..become a Republican, buy a gun and start taking karate lessons. Be a real man…..not a “gurly man.”
That way when the new world order takes place and the Republicans bring kegs of beer and the wild pig to the camp fire you will be rewarded with a brew and a steak instead of told to go wash the clothes with the wimmin.
can hear that resounding CRACK
Legislate and regulate. Its the Democratic way. SUPER NANNY STATERS they are. You will like what they say is necessary!!! It is after all the fascist way.