[extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns
rhanson at gmu.edu
Thu Jun 8 23:24:00 UTC 2006
At 05:08 PM 6/8/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
> > > From what I can see, emissions reductions do not make economic sense
> > >at this time.
> > Perhaps, but it seems to at least make sense to tax carbon at something
> > like its estimated externality cost on others. A $14/tC tax might be a lot
> > less that some people want, an a zero tax might be better than those large
> > taxes people want, but the $14 tax would be better than either. Then
> > you'd want to pay people who create those substitutes for reductions at
> > that same level, and if they come up with stuff great, if not fine too.
>I see two problems with this. ... Kyoto ... is full of exceptions
>that make it highly inefficient ... While a uniform carbon tax would be much
>better, it is questionable whether our present global institutions can come up
>with anything better than Kyoto.
Yes of course, an inefficient non-uniform tax could be worse than no tax.
>The second problem is that there will probably be ways of solving the
>problem for much less than $14/tC, hence charging people that much today
>is inefficient. ... Teller claims that a ONE-TIME set-aside
>today of 1.74 billion dollars would generate enough interest in 50 years
>to indefinitely fund a stratospheric shield.
It depends on our confidence in these lowering prices. I wouldn't
just want to
talk Teller's word for it, though I'd probably believe a prediction
more than we needed to might not be near as bad as not doing as much as
we should have.
Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
More information about the extropy-chat