Presently, there are three candidates for president in the Democratic field who have credible chances of winning the nomination: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. The editors of the Washington Post have evidently decided that the weakest in that pack is Bernie Sanders and have decided to go after him. In response to his climate change proposal they write:
As with practically every grandiose program Mr. Sanders proposes, we are left wondering what the democratic socialist would actually do as president. Nothing resembling his climate plan could pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. Mr. Sanders typically retorts that he will lead a political revolution. But he will not change the fact that the nation is ideologically pluralistic.
On climate policy, the key is to get the most bang for the nation’s buck. The task is so large that direct government spending on projects such as power plants is a recipe for unconscionable waste. Mr. Sanders’s promise to divert national wealth into proven boondoggles such as high-speed rail is another red flag.
No central planner can know exactly how and where to invest for an efficient and effective energy transition. That is why economists continue to recommend that the government take a simple, two-pronged approach: invest in scientific research and prime the market to accept new, clean technologies with a substantial and steadily rising carbon tax. People and businesses would find the most effective ways to avoid the increasingly high, tax-inflated costs of using dirty fuels. Maybe that would mean building huge new solar farms throughout the country. Maybe it would mean massive energy efficiency gains driven by home retrofits or new appliances. Maybe it would mean continuing to accept some role for nuclear power.
I wonder if they appreciate the peril in the position they just articulated. Bernie Sanders is not the only “central planner” in the Democratic field. They’re all central planners, most importantly, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are.
If only there were a system which in which local issues and local variation in ideology and needs could be addressed on a systematic basis. Perhaps we can create a federal bureaucracy stationed in Washington, DC to tackle that problem.
“If only there were a system which in which local issues and local variation in ideology”
How exactly would this work with climate change? The local communities who decide they dont believe in it just dont do anything, those communities who believe it is an issue take steps to correct things? There are economic theories on why that won’t work.
Steve
There is no climate change mitigation plan that doesn’t include India and China that will make an ounce worth of difference.
Assuming that weren’t the case, so long as a conservation model is used, you’re right. It’s why all of the non-engineers are pushing conservation models. They don’t have a clue.
The economists are putting a lot of stock in a carbon tax, ignoring that Europe’s carbon tax flopped (go back and check the assumptions about diesel and you’ll get what I mean). It was too easy to jigger.