I want to commend a series of posts by Warren Meyer to your attention (hat tip: Megan McArdle). His subject is climate change. Here’s a snippet:
Even when government programs do likely have an impact of CO2, they are seldom managed intelligently. For example, the government subsidizes solar panel installations, presumably to reduce their cost to consumers, but then imposes duties on imported panels to raise their price (indicating that the program has become more of a crony subsidy for US solar panel makers, which is typical of the life-cycle of these types of government interventions). Obama’s coal power plan, also known as his war on coal, will certainly reduce some CO2 from electricity generation but at a very high cost to consumers and industries. Steps like this are taken without any idea of whether this is the lowest cost approach to reducing CO2 production — likely it is not given the arbitrary aspects of the program.
For years I have opposed steps like a Federal carbon tax or cap and trade system because I believe (and still believe) them to be unnecessary given the modest amount of man-made warming I expect over the next century. I would expect to see about one degree C of man-made warming between now and 2100, and believe most of the cries that “we are already seeing catastrophic climate changes” are in fact panics driven by normal natural variation (most supposed trends, say in hurricanes or tornadoes or heat waves, can’t actually be found when one looks at the official data).
But I am exhausted with all the stupid, costly, crony legislation that passes in the name of climate change action. I am convinced there is a better approach that will have more impact on man-made CO2 and simultaneously will benefit the economy vs. our current starting point. So here goes…
I think I’d support his five point plan, particularly if he made one addition: we should end federal highway subsidies. They are, frankly, subsidies to fossil fuel consumption and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I don’t honestly know where I fit into the spectrum of opinion on global warming and climate change. I may not even be a “lukewarmist” (see Megan’s post for an explanation). I’d just really like to see policy prescriptions that are actually suited to the results their proponents say they want to accomplish.
I probably agree with all five of his except number three:
“eliminate all the current Federal subsidies, mandates, and prohibitions that have been justified by climate change. Ethanol rules and mandates, solar subsidies, wind subsidies, EV subsidies, targeted technology investments, coal plant bans, pipeline bans, drilling bans — it all should go. The carbon tax does the work.”
Most of these aren’t simply justified by climate change and often existed in some form or another before climate change was a major policy issue. (Other than “bans,” which I think is euphemistic) Energy policy is full of subsidies for energy independence, improve balance of trade and encourage technological innovation.
I’m skeptical that regulatory problems are at the root of nuclear disadvantage. I think their energy cost is high relative to natural gas and energy demand is pretty flat in this country. It might be easier to encourage China to use nuclear energy, if we could trust the leadership to properly handle and dispose of its waste.
I think most of the damage of sprawl caused by the interstate system has been done. Maybe any new interstates should require environmental impact statements that consider their impact on increasing fuel consumption, but I don’t see how growing potholes on existing roads is an answer to anything.
As I’ve documented before, relatively little federal highway money goes to filling potholes. The majority is new construction.
While no plan survives contact, it reads like a plan I would sign on for. Since even prairie schooners travel better on smooth roads, would keep highway subsidies for maintaining current roads but not for expansion.
Meyer is surprisingly uninformed for someone who claims expertise. For example, on wind power, they are now able to predict wind patterns well enough that they do shut down fossil fuel base load generators. And he might want to mention that bird deaths from coal plants, at least by some measures, are much, much higher than from wind. Yes, Solyndra was a bad idea. OTOH the support that solar has gotten from govt investment has helped solar costs drop to the point where they are getting close to competing with fossil fuels, and is a cheaper option already in some rural areas. He starts out with so many bad assumptions I have to wonder about his recommended solutions.
Steve
Technocracy in America doesn’t work? I’m shocked.