Ezra Klein: In Which I Extol Markets

« How To Pass Health Reform | Main | Dave Weigel Speaks »

October 15, 2007

In Which I Extol Markets

McMegan's post here gets at a big chunk of the reason why regulatory action is the only sensible way to oppose climate change. Even if we were all fairly committed environmentalists, there'd really be no way to effectively evaluate the amount of carbon our various activities generate. And more to the point, we don't want to. I have enough to fret over in a day without worrying whether this organic Tibetan rice was really spirited over to my local Whole Foods in a hydrogen powered rickshaw, and whether that took more or less carbon than all the miniscule bits of electricity and storage space used in the writing, publishing, accessing, and Google archiving of that joke. Carbon consumption should be in the price of my goods, and then I can do what I often do as a consumer and make decisions based on price signals. The government needs to fix the market failure wherein the price of carbon is not assessed in the cost of products, but we actually do need a high-functioning market to accurately translate carbon information into a form we can easily and quickly work with.

October 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I have enough to fret over in a day without worrying whether this organic Tibetan rice was really spirited over to my local Whole Foods in a hydrogen powered rickshaw, and whether that took more or less carbon than all the miniscule bits of electricity and storage space used in the writing, publishing, accessing, and Google archiving of that joke.

And poor folk have even fewer resources to do so.

There is a political strategy to pushing environmentalism as a matter of personal virtue and opposing environmental regulations. It isn't just worry about the regulations per se, but if environmental responsibility can framed as a matter of individual virtue then, not only is "Al Gore a hypocrite"(TM) because his home office uses as much electricity as a home and an office, but also liberals pushing environmentalism can be dismissed as elitists who are pushing an agenda the poor cannot afford -- as the poor certainly cannot afford [insert the joke here].

Of course (see various posts on my blog), we can collectively afford many liberal policies even if most of us individuals cannot afford them (and that's why we need the policies in the first place). Still, the virtue-two-step has been too easy to pass up:

(1) claim gummint shouldn't do X, 'cause virtuous people should do X

(2) claim liberals, in supporting X, hate the poor and want the poor to be virtuous in a way that the poor cannot afford.

And there's another bonus -- you get to say the poor are not virtuous (good ol' class war) and cover your tracks about saying so by deflecting the claim onto liberals.

Posted by: DAS | Oct 15, 2007 4:41:35 PM

It is not even clear that buying products grown in the USA causes less petroleum use. Because of the effeceincy of shipping large amounts in large volumne ships it is quite possible that you use more energy driving a pound of rice home the store than shipping it in bulk as far as it can possibly be shipped on the earth.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2007/03/18/rice-and-energy/

“Summary

The two tables below summarize the results for the Bangladeshi and California rice with rows for production and transport. The first table is the total energy. The second is for “non-biological” energy, which excludes human power, animal power, and seed energy. In both the A and B estimates, California rice requires more energy to produce — 20 and 60 percent more. The Bangladeshi rice’s ocean voyage requires about 14 times more energy than the California rice’s truck trip. When considering total energy sources (biological and non-biological), the California A scenario’s energy input is about 23 percent lower than the Bangladeshi scenario’s input, but the California B estimate is about 18 percent higher. When considering non-biological energy sources only, California A is only 13 percent lower, while California B is 32 percent higher.

Energy inputs, all energy sources (in megajoules for 2.5 kg of rice)

Bangladesh California A California B
Production
15.5 16.0 24.8
Transport 5.96 0.42 0.42
Total
21.5 16.4 25.2

Energy inputs, non-biological energy sources only (in megajoules for 2.5 kg of rice)

Bangladesh California A California B
Production 11.6 14.8 22.9
Transport 5.96 0.42 0.42
Total 17.6 15.2 23.3 “

BTW we do not buy petroleum just to have it we are buying transporation and that can get cheaper for ever.

BTW there is 0 evidence that organicly grown food is better in any way.

Posted by: Floccina | Oct 15, 2007 5:24:26 PM

That could be interesting with a less tendentious example. As it is, I'm thinking that comparing rice grown in a desert with rice grown in a more rice-friendly climate suggests that there just might be an agenda lurking, or at the very least that the conclusion doesn't reliably generalize.

Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Oct 15, 2007 7:52:27 PM

How to address AGW if it needs to be done. Carbon tax plus a payout for permanent removal of co2 for the air. Biochar is very promising for removal of co2 for the air cheaply.

Posted by: Floccina | Oct 15, 2007 8:12:09 PM

unless there is a tax cut for rich people, is it really a market?

Posted by: yoyo | Oct 16, 2007 3:51:25 AM

No issue makes the rich liberals more hypocritical then the environment. All the leftists piling out of their SUVs to attend environmental rallies, all the tens of thousands of miles flown by Al Gore to tell us to consume less..hey Al, telecommute, write a letter, etc. but stay off the private jets.

It would make much more sense to fund S-Chip with these taxes:

- You heat your swimming pool - 1,000 dollar tax per year.
- You have more then a 5,000 Square foot house - 100 dollars for each addtl square foot of living space per year.
- Newspapers: 2.00 tax per newspaper. (New York Times love kids don't they?
- You take a private Jet: 10.00 dollar tax for each gallon of fuel burned.

Posted by: Patton | Oct 16, 2007 7:02:24 AM

If Al Gore really and truly cared, he would run for President, as the Green party Candidate.

I would make a substantial donation!

Posted by: Patton | Oct 16, 2007 7:04:58 AM

Nobody knows what price of "carbon" (really, carbon dioxide) means. Environmentalists go ballistic at any proposal of cost-benefit-risk approach to environment problems. This is understandable, because such analysis, when made, usually exposes their policies as absurd, hypocritical and baseless. See Bjorn Lomborg books on the subject.

Posted by: Sergey | Oct 16, 2007 8:10:28 AM

Hey, Floccina - the sky is blue, food is good, air & water are useful, and baby kittens are cuddly-wuddly!

(waits for response . . .)

Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 16, 2007 1:11:46 PM

Patton, I like those ideas for taxes. I don't know what they have to do with Al Gore or SCHIP, but otherwise I'm on board.

Posted by: tps12 | Oct 16, 2007 3:12:01 PM

BTW, McMeagan is not advocating the regulatory approach (such as requiring efficiency standards in appliances, or higher fuel mileage standards for cars), she is explicity rejecting that approach as being insufficient. She is advocating dealing with climate change through taxes. Which you are as well but you are conflating a carbon tax with a regulatory approach when it is not. Just a quibble.

Posted by: richard | Oct 16, 2007 7:51:12 PM

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development has declared that medium-scale farming for local use is the only viable solution to the task of feeding the world. If UN resolutions are enough for us to go to war over, then they're a pretty reliable source.

I'm guessing that means that it's generally more carbon efficient to buy local food, and a gas tax that reflects that our preferred vehicular transportation is proven to have apocalyptic side effects would certainly help me make reasonable decisions about my own transportation methods.

Actually, it will take a huge gas tax to bring about the kind of cultural shift that would allow people to ride bikes to work and to farmer's markets, because at the moment, people who show up sweaty aren't shown respect. Ever try to find a shower at a retail store? Please. Start charging for gasoline at a rate that reflects its moral cost, and we might start to see them.

As it is now, there is already a resurgence of people commuting on foot in the suburbs, but this reflects a distinction of caste, so it's not about the poor being virtuous, but just about the poor being identifiable by the sweat on their shirts at the start of the day. I'd like to be able to get a regular, white-collar job without driving there, but there are few such options at the entry level. Only the really swank joints have full gyms with showers. And really, the boss doesn't care where the pears in your lunch came from if you smell like a farmer.

Posted by: Eli | Oct 17, 2007 2:40:43 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘