Here. Bottom line:
Waxman-Markey would impose costs at least 10 times as large as its benefits, would not reduce the deficit, and doesn’t even really cap emissions.
But other than that, it’s a great idea.
Not to mention that the bill is twelve hundred pages long. I wonder if they’ll be given an opportunity to read it?
[Afternoon update]
What this bill will and won’t do for the climate.
Manzi’s case omits some relevant background:
* If you don’t believe that climate change is a threat, or that reductions in CO2 emissions can reduce that threat, then of course Waxman-Markey is a bad idea. If you are in this camp (like Rand) you don’t need any of Manzi’s arguments.
* If you do believe that it’s important to reduce CO2 emissions, then you think we should do something, and Waxman-Markey is the most cost-effective something that has any chance of being passed (I expect it to be watered down some more in the Senate). If you are in this category the question is not “should I support Waxman-Markey?”, it’s “why won’t Congress support more effective action?”
* In order to make Waxman-Markey passable the bill’s authors bought off opponents with giveaways to the coal, electricity production, and other industries. That’s why the costs are as high and the impact as low. It has nothing to do with limitations of cap and trade. It has everything to do with the limitations of the U.S. Congress as an environmental policy-making body. The fix for that? Elect more Congressmen like Waxman and Markey.
That said, most of the defects that Manzi points to are issues for its first decade. The expectation is that, like the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, it will be strengthened over time, as the threat is nearer and less disputed, and as the cost of reducing emissions comes down (just as the cost of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts came down over time).
* If you don’t believe that climate change is a threat, or that reductions in CO2 emissions can reduce that threat, then of course Waxman-Markey is a bad idea. If you are in this camp (like Rand) you don’t need any of Manzi’s arguments.
Patently false, since it was Rand that brought out arguments against the bill that has nothing to do with Jim’s nonsequitor.
* If you do believe that it’s important to reduce CO2 emissions, then you think we should do something, and Waxman-Markey is the most cost-effective something that has any chance of being passed (I expect it to be watered down some more in the Senate). If you are in this category the question is not “should I support Waxman-Markey?”, it’s “why won’t Congress support more effective action?”
Which is it? It isn’t the most cost effective? or is it the only one that will get a chance of being passed?
My concern is that it is the latter, which means it is inefficient, and at 1200 pages, that’s a lot of inefficiency.
* In order to make Waxman-Markey passable the bill’s authors bought off opponents with giveaways to the coal, electricity production, and other industries. That’s why the costs are as high and the impact as low.
So it’s not cost-effective. It’s just a pork laden bill to buy off Congressmen willing to sell out anything. If the bill had to pass on its own merit, (ie cost effective solution to a crisis) it would fail.
It has nothing to do with limitations of cap and trade. It has everything to do with the limitations of the U.S. Congress as an environmental policy-making body. The fix for that? Elect more Congressmen like Waxman and Markey.
It seems it has everything to do with paying off special constituents with pork barrel projects. The fix for that? Vote out Waxman and Markey.
It should go without saying, I think, that any bill which is 1,201 pages long has a vanishingly small chance of being good legislation, regardless of subject matter
As a real question, if one can assume that it is important to reduce emissions, what would be your alternatives and proposals?
I don’t know much about this Waxman-Markey thing. I’ve seen honest people who think acting is important, oppose it because of the inefficiency.
I think the ESAS / Ares criticism is serious since much better alternatives are offered.
Maybe someday about some other things as well.
Well just remember, its up for vote Friday. Read fast.
Oh wait a minute, we’ll get 5 days to review it prior to Obama’s signature, so we can always fix it then, or so we are promised.
If the bill had to pass on its own merit, (ie cost effective solution to a crisis) it would fail.
Well, duh! And if it was more cost-effective, it would still fail. The price of actually enacting climate change legislation in this Congress is larding it up with provisions that decrease its cost-effectiveness and increase its political support. That isn’t the fault of the bill or its authors — it’s the fault of Congressmen who care more about handouts to coal companies and power companies than they do about climate change.
It is still better than anything else that could get passed, and it is better than doing nothing. If you don’t support W-M you support doing less or nothing. Which is fine, if you don’t care about climate change, but don’t make it about cost-effectiveness when your alternative has zero effectiveness.
“but don’t make it about cost-effectiveness when your alternative has zero effectiveness.”
Something tells me that Jim’s definition of cost-effectiveness equals how many hair shirts we can buy. After all, its not effective climate change policy if the level of suffering on all of our part is kept too low. The only way we can save the coral reefs is if our electric bills double and rolling black outs become the norm.
The only way we can save the coral reefs is if our electric bills double and rolling black outs become the norm.
I don’t like hair shirts any more than the next person. So if you have a way to save coral reefs without increasing electricity costs, by all means go for it.
I should note that my preferred climate change policy would be a fully refundable carbon tax: every dollar taxed is returned to the public. No hair shirts at all. But you can’t get a simple carbon tax through Congress.
Wow. Jim’s letting the mask drop completely.
So it’s impossible to get a climate change bill through a Democratic controlled Congress and Democratic President, without giving enticements to Democratic Congressmen.
If we are against this travesty of a bill, we are branded as against climate change, because that’s what the bills title says, even though Jim admits that’s not exactly what the bill does. We can’t possibly be against the bill because of the largesse, much of which goes to payoff Democratic fundraisers.
And in Jim’s crooked mind, all of this is reason for us to vote for more Democratic Congressmen, so they can continue to claim that even with a majority, they cannot pass legislation without first giving kickbacks.
So it’s impossible to get a climate change bill through a Democratic controlled Congress and Democratic President, without giving enticements to Democratic Congressmen.
Yes.
If we are against this travesty of a bill, we are branded as against climate change, because that’s what the bills title says, even though Jim admits that’s not exactly what the bill does.
I admit that isn’t all the bill does. But it would be a major step forward for addressing climate change.
We can’t possibly be against the bill because of the largesse, much of which goes to payoff Democratic fundraisers.
Note: the “largesse” is in the form of carbon permits. If you have a way to address climate change without making the exemptions that W-M does, let’s hear about it.
And in Jim’s crooked mind, all of this is reason for us to vote for more Democratic Congressmen, so they can continue to claim that even with a majority, they cannot pass legislation without first giving kickbacks.
I don’t want more Democratic Congressmen, I want Congressmen who are more Democratic, i.e. ones who will support climate change action (and health care reform) even if it upsets some donors and constituents, because they’re the right thing to do. I’d be just as happy with more GOP Congressmen if they supported serious action on climate change.
“Returned” to the public? Then why take it from them in the first place?
Your definition of “public” shifted rather interestingly in the space of a single sentence.
“I don’t want more Democratic Congressmen, I want Congressmen who are more Democratic, i.e. ones who will support climate change action (and health care reform) even if it upsets some donors and constituents, because they’re the right thing to do.”
They wouldn’t be very democratic if they went against their constituents wishes now would they? Your assumption that most people want this is as skewed as a NYT poll. So you want this bill that hurts middle class and poor Americans the most, does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases world wide and will make us less competitive. You must have voted for Obama.
“Note: the “largesse” is in the form of carbon permits. If you have a way to address climate change without making the exemptions that W-M does, let’s hear about it.”
Massive. Nuclear. Program.
“Returned” to the public? Then why take it from them in the first place?
To put a price on carbon emissions. It’s a tax on people who emit more CO2 than average, and a subsidy to people who emit less CO2 than average.
They wouldn’t be very democratic if they went against their constituents wishes now would they?
I said “Democratic”, not “democratic.”
Your assumption that most people want this is as skewed as a NYT poll.
I assume no such thing. I do believe that in 2050 most people will want us to have passed W-M or something like it in 2009, but it takes some forward-looking leadership to support climate change action now.
this bill that hurts middle class and poor Americans the most
That isn’t true — according to the CBO analyis low-income Americans would gain $40 a year, and high-income earners would pay $250 a year.
does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases world wide
The Clean Air Act does not reduce airborne pollution outside our borders. Nonetheless it’s a good idea. We’ve put more carbon in the atmosphere than any other country. We don’t have to wait until everyone else starts cutting emissions before we start cutting ours.
will make us less competitive
Or, will make us more competitive in a world where more and more countries will be trying to restrict carbon emissions, creating new markets for low-carbon technologies. You could argue that the Clean Air Act makes us less competitive vis-a-vis some countries, but do we want asthmatics to choke to death instead?
Massive. Nuclear. Program.
I expect the nuclear industry to get billions in subsidies when this bill gets to the Senate. And that’s a giveaway of actual taxpayer dollars (not just carbon allowances), which won’t reduce CO2 emissions much if any in the next decade (it will take that long to get any new plants built). But you don’t see Manzi complaining that government support of nuclear power is not cost-effective.
The nuclear programs in America are essentially dead by fiat until Yucca Mountain is certified. They can do all the designs and proposals they want – the EPA has ruled them DOA for failing to have a “Permanent Waste Repository.” (The rulings are from the eighties IIRC. They’ll issue initial permits, let the developers waste money, then kill the plan.)
The current administration has pulled the funding on Yucca Mountain – and promised Nevada that it will never ever open. (This was on his fund-raising trip with Harry Reid to LV.)
They don’t even need to do “massive subsidies,” just promise not to change the regulatory environment and micromanage every plant from DC.
Or, will make us more competitive in a world where more and more countries will be trying to restrict carbon emissions, creating new markets for low-carbon technologies. You could argue that the Clean Air Act makes us less competitive vis-a-vis some countries, but do we want asthmatics to choke to death instead?
Such things make us better competitors only if regions that don’t implement the equivalent of a Clean Air Act or restrict carbon emissions are significantly penalized. I assume such penalties will come some day. In which case, it’d probably be reasonable at that time for the US to consider a carbon restriction program. Alternately, it may be more appropriate for the US to subvert it rather than follow it. We’ll just have to see.
As I see it, there’s insufficient evidence of the need for carbon restrictions and insufficient will to push forward such a bill. This shows in the payoffs required to pass the bill. My view is that it simply is not time to pass such a bill. And yes, the greenhouse problem should be allowed to get worse in order to build more solid support for carbon restrictions in the future.
A final remark, if the Waxman-Markley bill does become law, let me be the first to support a permanent soft cap on carbon emissions. The European carbon markets have proven the futility of rigid carbon caps.
“We don’t have to wait until everyone else starts cutting emissions before we start cutting ours.”
What makes you think they are going to? When they see what happens to us, they will laugh their asses off and say nevermind. Thanks America for showing us what not to do. You understand temps aren’t rising and haven’t for what, ten years?
I expect the nuclear industry to get billions in subsidies when this bill gets to the Senate. And that’s a giveaway of actual taxpayer dollars (not just carbon allowances), which won’t reduce CO2 emissions much if any in the next decade (it will take that long to get any new plants built). But you don’t see Manzi complaining that government support of nuclear power is not cost-effective.
Hilarious!
If I were to write a troll post generator, one rule would be:
I expect [imagined-fact]. And that’s [accusation]. But you don’t see [bad-person-name] complaining that [accusation] is not [good-thing].
We need to cap Congressional emissions.
You understand temps aren’t rising and haven’t for what, ten years?
And that means it’s safe to let atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise?
As I noted above, this topic (the Waxman-Markey bill) is only interesting if you think it’s important to reduce CO2 emissions. If you don’t think that’s important, you already know to oppose the bill.
And that means it’s safe to let atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise?
Maybe it’s not safe to not allow them to continue to rise. If the sun stays quiet, we may have to stave off a new glacial advance. Write the environmental impact statement for a thousand feet of ice over Chicago.
What we need is comprehensive energy reform. We need to rid ourselves of the red tape that prevents us from advancing our use of nuclear power, while countries like Iran and North Korea advance theirs. We are already behind many Western countries in our use of atomic energy, and that should stop.
We are already reversing efforts at the end of the Bush Administration to become less dependent on foreign supply of energy. Efforts to move to electric means of transportation are facing an overall increase in power costs that make plug in cars unreasonable options. And at a time when we need an economic boost, Congress is working to cap overall production by capping the power for production.
What we need is better power options that reduce emissions harmful to our atmosphere. Nuclear Energy provides that. In addition, a viable industry is already in place for finding ways to reduce the harmful aspects of nuclear waste, and in many cases the efforts are leading to more energy production and advanced materials.
Yet this doesn’t matter, because what we have already learned from Jim, who I must admit is being honest, is:
the climate bill is nothing but a pork barrel spending project to get Congressmen to vote on something they otherwise would not agree to accept. They wouldn’t accept it, because anyone who works the math knows this will be a heavy tax on the poor and a drag on an already weak economy.
I still think Jim is either a paid troll, or a toll-in-training for some kind of future assignment, and not necessarily as a troll, either.
We need to rid ourselves of the red tape that prevents us from advancing our use of nuclear power, while countries like Iran and North Korea advance theirs.
Iran and North Korea aren’t using “advanced” nuclear power; they’re trying to get what we had 50 years ago. It isn’t red tape that keeps the U.S. from building more nuclear plants, it’s risk vs. ROI. Which is why the nuclear industry is pleading for federal guarantees to underwrite their investments.
the climate bill is nothing but a pork barrel spending project to get Congressmen to vote on something they otherwise would not agree to accept.
I would put it differently: it is a needed bill, weighed down with concessions to particular industries and regions in order to get it passed. It isn’t a pork barrel spending project, and certainly isn’t “nothing but a pork barrel spending project” — it brings in more money than it spends, and does reduce emissions.
They wouldn’t accept it, because anyone who works the math knows this will be a heavy tax on the poor and a drag on an already weak economy.
Again, this is wrong. The CBO knows the math, and forecasts that it will give money to the poor, and cost the wealthy all of 70 cents a day.
…it brings in more money than it spends, and does reduce emissions.
By taking it from the productive economy. But then, people like you don’t believe in productive economies.
But then, people like you don’t believe in productive economies.
Where does this come from? I own a profitable, productive business. I want the U.S. economy to be productive. I also want there to be a cost to generating negative externalities like CO2 emissions. When did support for productive economies become synonymous with allowing unlimited free CO2 emissions?
Where does this come from?
The fact that all of your preferred policy solutions move resources from the private sector and direct them to the public sector.
I wrote: We need to rid ourselves of the red tape that prevents us from advancing our use of nuclear power
Jim wrote: Iran and North Korea aren’t using “advanced” nuclear power;
Jim apparently has reading comprehension problems. I never said Iran and North Korea are using advanced nuclear power. But they our advancing their use of nuclear power, where as the US has restricted its use of nuclear power, at least for civilian means, for 2 decades.
If Obama has no problem with Iran using peaceful nuclear power, it sure would be nice if he would allow the US the same option. And as pointed out, subsidizing isn’t sufficient, because it is not a financial problem other than the extreme burden it takes to fill out the bureaucratic paperwork to accept proven designs.
And this reminds me of another leg of comprehensive energy reform. We need to deep six the red tape that prevents automobile manufactures from selling highly efficient diesel cars in the US. Honda never brought its 50mpg Accord Diesel to the US, because the cost of certifying its compliance to EPA standards made the effort cost prohibitive. The same thing caused Volkswagen to pull the Jetta TDi from the market for several years. Other companies have diesels with less remarkable results but they still out perform the gasoline counterparts. That’s not to say they are always cost effective when comparing fuel prices, but they are far more cost effective than hybrids.
Again, this is wrong. The CBO knows the math, and forecasts that it will give money to the poor, and cost the wealthy all of 70 cents a day.
That is debatable.
The fact that all of your preferred policy solutions move resources from the private sector and direct them to the public sector.
Not so. For carbon emissions I prefer a fully refundable carbon tax, which would move no resources to the public sector. Unfortunately there’s only a small constituency in Congress for a simple, revenue-neutral carbon tax policy: the GOP is in the thrall of climate change denial, and coal-state Dems insist on exemptions for their favored industry.
What’s more, I dispute the premise that funding a robust public sector is incompatible with a productive economy. Public sector investments in infrastructure have dramatically increased the productivity of our economy, the public sector VA health system is more productive than our private sector system, etc.
If Obama has no problem with Iran using peaceful nuclear power, it sure would be nice if he would allow the US the same option.
In your reality are there no U.S. nuclear plants? Is there a different Energy Secretary? In this reality Sec. Chu has come out in support of more nuclear power.
We need to deep six the red tape that prevents automobile manufactures from selling highly efficient diesel cars in the US.
That “red tape” keeps the air breathable. And more diesels is a bad idea anyway. Demand for diesel is forecast to grow much faster than for gasoline over the next 30 years, and moving more passenger cars to diesel would accelerate that trend. We could end up back where we were last year, with diesel costing much more than gasoline, wiping out any efficiency gains. Click my name for “evidence.”
Demand for diesel is forecast to grow much faster than for gasoline over the next 30 years, and moving more passenger cars to diesel would accelerate that trend.
So what? I don’t see a problem here. This is an advantage of an agile economy that changes occur rapidly.
When did support for productive economies become synonymous with allowing unlimited free CO2 emissions?
When proposals to restrict CO2 emissions became a real threat to productive economies.
This is an advantage of an agile economy that changes occur rapidly.
Replacing the U.S. auto fleet does not occur rapidly. Building more diesel cars, just when we expect diesel to become increasingly scarce and expensive, is plain dumb.
On the other hand, using more electricity for transportation, when we have a wealth of unused off-peak power, and the ability to bring new and cleaner electricity sources online without requiring people to buy new cars, is thinking ahead.
On the other hand, using more electricity for transportation, when we have a wealth of unused off-peak power, and the ability to bring new and cleaner electricity
What generates that unused off-peak power, Jim? (hint, most US electric plants use coal and oil based fuels… if you run them at night with higher loads, they produce more CO2… oh yeah, solar cells don’t generate power at night).
What generates that unused off-peak power, Jim?
Coal, nuclear, hydro and wind (probably in that order). They run at night whether we need the power or not. We might as well store that power in car batteries and use it in place of gasoline.
Anyone arrogant enough to believe that we people have the ability to change the climate, cause global warming, move the earth out of orbit, or any of the other planet sized idiocy that is so bandied about, are so beyond mental help they will not listen to reason or argument for which they do not agree, and they remind me of those who built the tower of Babel, who were of the same mentality. “If we could just build a tower tall enough we could reach into heaven.” Well, there was some truth to what they were saying (they did reach into heaven), but the ridiculous idiocy of their reasoning resulted in such grand human effort pursuing something the scale of which was so beyond their true abilities – ergo, idiocy! Such is the pursuit of so called climate control.