- First, Tyler Cowen continues to talk about what he calls the "new federalism", this time citing a decision not to build a hospital in New Hampshire. I'm having more and more trouble recognizing this federalism that Cowen has made several posts on at this point. It seems like his "new federalism" is "governors that decide not to spend money on things". On its own, of course, that's fine. The whole point of federalism is that more of these decisions are made at the state level. But I don't think we would have gotten a post from Cowen if the governor decided to build a hospital (or high speed rail, in the case of Florida). If states are going to be empowered of course they have to be judicious, but state empowerment is going to involve the states spending and doing more, all else equal, and the federal government spending less. I don't know if Cowen would recognize this as a "new federalism". I'm used to people applying the label "new federalism" to the late Clinton administration (we had a research agenda at the Urban Institute called "Assessing the New Federalism (ANF)" dedicated to evaluating these reforms. During that period, with respect to welfare specifically, "federalism" was about more being done and decided at the state level, not simply the fact that governors were making cuts. You want to see a rebirth of federalism in the U.S.? Step one is doing away with the state balanced budget requirements.
- I am a big Mars booster on here, and I'm skeptical about talk of bothering much with the Moon. I'm not even sure of the value of another manned mission there. That's because I'm largely focused on human settlement. But Jennifer Ouellette shares information about some intriguing mining prospects (helium-3) on the Moon. Add that to the recent discovery of ice and I may have to reevaluate. It still oughta be automated for the most part. It's not a place for humans to thrive. But it's probably worth looking into. Aside from some up-front start up costs that could be subsidized, etc., note that this is just mining. Whereas I'd see a state role for human colonization for reasons I've reviewed in the past, mining is something we've done for millenia and oughta be an entirely private endeavor.
- Robert Stavins in the AER on the tragedy of the commons (HT Mark Thoma)
- Paul Krugman on internal improvements in the early republic (something I had a series of posts on here a while back).
- Stickman argues that tort law is no panacea for the environment. I strongly agree - I talked about this issue here and here. I must register a complaint with stickman, though. He piqued my interest by saying in the beginning that he would talk about "non-representation of future claimants", but he never seems to have gotten around to it. Stickman also links to a new Buchanan paper titled "The Limits of Market Efficiency". A great excerpt from stickman:
"I think that scepticism of government is absolutely justified in many cases, as I have tried to indicate at the beginning of this post and in a number of my previous posts. If there are market imperfections, it doesn't necessarily follow that government involvement will adequately address them. Indeed, it could exacerbate the situation and, frankly, it’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Where possible, I absolutely support community/individual management of resources above that of the State, just I support individual responsibility in many economic aspects. I also think that tort law can play an important role in controlling for localised environmental externalities. However, as per my reasons above, I disagree that regulations are inherently inefficient in comparison to a purely market-based system underpinned by tort law. Again, the danger is in applying blanket rules to complex situations that require evaluation on an individual basis."
Posts
And opposition to internal improvements came from New England and the Old West for other reasons. Leave it to Krugman to cherry pick like that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of course is the regulation doesn't really do all that well with the issue of future claimants either (and it is more prone to the "Baptists and Bootleggers" problem, etc. than the court system is). That would require predicting the future, which humans are not terribly good at.
ReplyDeleteMy thought of the day comes from William Adama (and it is inspired by the events occurring in the Maghreb, etc.):
ReplyDelete"Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore."
Thanks for linking, Daniel. (I don't know if you saw, but I linked to your calculation-versus-incentives tag within the text.)
ReplyDeleteA quick word on the neglect of future claimants... I probably didn't word this very well, but my point was that I had just responded elsewhere to a comment on one of my previous posts. Essentially, an Austrian friend of mine put forward that the climate change impasse could be resolved through the (private) courts. I maintain that such a system would be impractical in the extreme. You can see my response to that specific case over here. A snippet on future claimants:
The costs of climate change will affect future generations. How do you propose that a litany of unborn peoples is adequately represented in a present day court room?
@ Gary
ReplyDeleteWell, I disagree that regulation is inherently as bad w.r.t. representing future claimants than the courts. Indeed, the entire thrust of the "state" reaction to dealing with climate change is predicated on judging how it will impact future generations. Just read the Stern Review (which is all about intergenerational ethics at its core). Even the "opposition" camps, such as represented by Bill Nordhaus, base their assessments on evaluating costs far into the future.
PS - Thanks for the heads up on the new Stavins AER paper. I think I've mentioned his blog here before, which is a very good resource for anyone interested in the economics of the environment and natural resources.
ReplyDeleteIn a related note, I've been meaning to post something on Hardin's famous "Tragedy of the Commons" essay, which I think you will enjoy. Basically, similar thoughts to what you wrote regarding Malthus a while ago... on how his main message has been much misunderstood over the years that followed.
Not that being misunderstood makes him correct, mind you. However, the idea that he was getting it is the one that interests me (i.e. the need to cede certain freedoms in order to protect others)...
stickman,
ReplyDelete"Indeed, the entire thrust of the "state" reaction to dealing with climate change is predicated on judging how it will impact future generations."
My response to that is this: hundred year predictions are worthless, and to be meaningful those are the sort of predictions that regulation in that area would need. Even twenty year predictions are fairly meaningless. They are simply beyond our scope of judgment.
@ Daniel
ReplyDeleteI've just made some minor edits to my post so as clear up that whole future claimants confusion!
@ Gary
No-one is claiming that predictions will be 100 percent accurate.* However, I find that a most unsatisfactory defence for abdicating responsibility in planning for the long-term future of the planet. (I'm not even sure that macro trends, such as what we are dealing with here, are *that* beyond our scope of judgement, which leads me to...)
* Although, ironically, one of the strengths of climate science in this regard is that it specifically deals with long-term trends over many centuries. Hence, you could easily argue that it is one of the best topics to engage discussion of the far off future.
"No-one is claiming that predictions will be 100 percent accurate.*"
ReplyDeleteThey aren't even 10% accurate. So please, don't trot out that tired old strawman.
"Although, ironically, one of the strengths of climate science in this regard is that it specifically deals with long-term trends over many centuries. Hence, you could easily argue that it is one of the best topics to engage discussion of the far off future."
That is wrong on its face. For example, climate scientists have no way to predict future technologies.
Anyone who gives a hundred year prediction on any subject with a straight face ought to be ignored right out.
The main problem with Hardin's essay is that it is so chockablock of errors. It makes for nice, stylized history and fact though; I know I was fooled when I first read it.
ReplyDelete@ Gary
ReplyDeleteLet me try another way: So your position is do nothing on the basis of uncertainty?
Ya, I have to agree with stickman Gary. The fidelity of any given prediction is going to vary with what it is you're predicting. We can predict weather a couple days out, certain economic indicators a couple months out, climate comparatively farther out, and the movements of celestial bodies for millenia out. It all depends on what you're looking at.
ReplyDeletere: "They aren't even 10% accurate."
Citation? Presumably stickman can make an "it's not 100%" claim and no one will give him trouble, but when you make a claim like this you really need to provide evidence for it.
BINGO - and another good point, stickman.
ReplyDeleteDoing nothing is a deliberate action as well. Nobody is claiming that addressing climate change is a sure-thing. What we are claiming is that it is a far better wager than the alternative decision to do nothing. In other cases, that alternative is the better decision, of course.
stickman,
ReplyDelete"So your position is do nothing on the basis of uncertainty?"
My position is to let things emerge. That's another straw-man I've lit on fire. That is not the position of most advocates of government action re: climate change; most of them appear to presume that a ready-made, centralized system of decision making can be set up based on our current knowledge set.
Daniel,
Look at the margin bars.
"...climate comparatively farther out..."
Sez who?
"...and the movements of celestial bodies for millenia out."
But we can't predict the next ELE from the stars.
But insisting on doing nothing isn't letting things emerge. It's blocking an emergent set of solutions.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But environmental educator Annie Leonard did some research and started promoting a presentation called Story of Cap And Trade through her nonprofit.
ReplyDeleteHer case was that leaving aside the entire issue of climate problems, cap-and-trade legislation has next to nothing to do with solving it. When we examine earlier cap-and-trade experiments, we find that it has led to rapid fluctuations in fuel prices and the scheme probably has more interest in limiting energy usage so that licenses for it can be traded on the market and make money for many interested parties. Does anybody else find it midly annoying that the powers-that-be only discuss "climate solutions" when there is money in it for them?
We can start talking about "blocking an emergent set of solutions" when legislators actually start proposing solutions. But cap-and-trade...that was a possible sign they were wasting our time with a song-and-dance show.
PS: Mainstream televised climate deniers are also a song-and-dance show - what a fake dichotomy that a person who opposes a cheap moneymaking scheme like cap-and-trade is one with unscientific opposition to climate research. As if scientists and environmentalists have not criticised cap-and-trade.
Who is insisting on doing nothing?
ReplyDelete1. I'm not the most knowledgeable about climate policy, but is this not why carbon taxes are usually prefered to cap and trade by analysts?
ReplyDelete2. re: "We can start talking about "blocking an emergent set of solutions" when legislators actually start proposing solutions." - this something of a chicken-and-egg retort, is it not? The reason why we haven't seen a lot of solutions move forward is that people have blocked emergent solutions in the name of emergent order (a curious little irony). Plenty have been proposing this. Those who try to force society and the state to play by their vision have stood in the way of efforts to try things out. Then again, that resistence to order is also emergent in its own right.
Also note that once talks broke down at Copenhagen and attempts at ensuring international cooperation on cap-and-trade blocked, the global warming issue totally disappeared from discussion in media.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the determination and alarmism? Where is that earlier terror that time was running out? If global warming was the most important issue concerning human survival, why did politicians worldwide go back to discussing austerity, financial reform, immigration, medical care reform, and microfinance? Aren't they concerned?
Prateek - if you're looking for terror and doomsday, I think you need to talk to a different set of people than stickman and I. The point is it is a serious trend with a lot of evidence behind it that we need to address. That's no more alarmist than discussing the reality that we need to think about building levees and earth-quake resistent buildings.
ReplyDeleteAs for politicians - I can't account for them :) They're a fickle bunch.
Gary - you are ruling out a whole class of actions (namely, public ones) by definition. So no, you're not advocating "doing nothing", but you are cordoning off large swaths of human activity and saying nothing can be done, and then promoting that as an emergent order.
ReplyDeleteThat's no more "letting things emerge" than the collectivists who rule out private action by definition.
ReplyDeletePrateek Sanjay,
ReplyDeleteThat's because during hard economic times things like climate change go by the boards, and politicians realize this.
Daniel,
"Gary - you are ruling out a whole class of actions (namely, public ones) by definition."
Because they as a general rule don't work.
________________________
Krugman got pwned today, BTW: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/paul-krugman-epitomizes-current-liberal-divorce-reality
That may be your understanding of the situation, but that's not "letting things emerge".
ReplyDeleteSure it is. We tried things in the past, they didn't work, we move on. The problem is that some people are stuck in the old meme.
ReplyDeleteSorry I've been out for the day since my last comment... but as an attempt to catch up:
ReplyDelete@ Gary,
My position is to let things emerge. That's another straw-man I've lit on fire.
I'm sorry, but I believe you are the one constructing false dichotomies. My entire position is based on acting against a balance of probabilities, not some one-off choice between certainties of 100% and 10(really?)%. If an overwhelming majority of relevant experts currently says that we are, with very high probability, affecting the climate in a way that will negatively impact us, then I think it would be rather foolish to gamble against them.
If new information does emerge that conclusively proves the mainstream view wrong, any government wishing to persist with unwarranted climate regulation would be committing political suicide.
Further, my position is that people lack the necessary information (RE a carbon price) to make informed decisions on how best to react to climate change in their own capacity. I make the case that torts are an inherently inadequate tool to address a problem as diffuse and long-lived as climate change... Indeed, I think that you'd be crazy to maintain that private courts are a more efficient way to go about this than via a carbon price. (Need I state that I'm hardly alone in saying this? There's a reason, for example, why Bob Murphy never seriously invokes tort law in his many discussions on climate change...)
You consistently cite uncertainty - which no-one is denying, though I think you completely overplay it - to complete dismiss the notion that regulation can reasonably incorporate future generations in establishing a carbon price. In this context, I'm afraid that I still see your "let things emerge" stance as effectively equivalent to "do nothing".
@Prateek
ReplyDeleteI think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what cap-and-trade is about. I recommend these posts by Rob Stavins as a start to seeing how well this type of system has worked in reality and what it's precise limitations are, say, versus a carbon tax:
Cap-and-Trade versus the Alternatives for U.S. Climate Policy
and
In Defense of Markets
I don't claim that cap-and-trade is free from any political meddling or that prices of, say, C02 won't be subject to some level of fluctuation. But, like Stavins, I think that the biggest concerns around cap-and-trade ultimately come down to (fixable) matters of design; not inherent weaknesses in the theory.
If global warming was the most important issue concerning human survival, why did politicians worldwide go back to discussing austerity, financial reform, immigration, medical care reform, and microfinance? Aren't they concerned?
What Daniel said; I've no desire to defend politicians. However, it's clearly understandable that people have more pressing concerns in the current economy. Further, I think that actually emphasises my point on difficult it is for the man on the street to incorporate future generations into consideration.
Cheese and rice.
ReplyDeleteJust got back from a (very) boozy dinner and can still see how many typos I've left in the above comments. Apologies.
Note to self: Proof read before posting!