All Americans need to remember is that the Republican Party has a difficult and illegal extremist element and that element is not good for the country. It is reasponsible for plutocrats, economic exploitation that leads to government bailouts, insurrectionists and anti-American religious bigots.
That said and realizing the extent the American voter is facing the election of 2022 with economic stress being one of the larger issues of our times, I thought it best to refresh everyone that new economics are needed anyway.
This is Nobel Prize Winner William D. Nordhous. He has a lot of interesting things to say.
That said and realizing the extent the American voter is facing the election of 2022 with economic stress being one of the larger issues of our times, I thought it best to refresh everyone that new economics are needed anyway.
This is Nobel Prize Winner William D. Nordhous. He has a lot of interesting things to say.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Nordhous discusses "harmonized carbon prices." I am fairly confident he did not envision a Russian invasion of Ukraine as achieving that goal. That reality has caused a return to coal in some countries and purchases of coal have turned to Africa. The cost of transportation is less in most instances to countries such as Germany. So, while Putin's genocide is pushing the cost of carbon higher and uniformly, it hardly is bringing about efficient reduction of greenhouse gases.
Dr. Nordhous is discussing the reason for removing carbon emissions from the global community as a peacetime measure through agreements. One would think since part of the goal is uniform high cost of carbon and the opportunity to shed it all together and build wind mill farms and solar fields which even in Third World countries can be the best alternative and not a return to coal.
Cap and Trade
The EU ETS is a cornerstone of the EU's policy (click here) to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. It is the world's first major carbon market and remains the biggest one.
Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade
From an economist’s perspective, (click here) climate change is an example of a negative externality. Externalities seem to have been first discussed in Arthur Pigou’s 1920 book The Economics of Welfare, and can be thought of as the spillover from an activity. An example of a negative externality is a chemical plant that releases its wastewater into a nearby river. There can also be positive externalities: if you have work done on your house to make it more attractive you increase the value of your neighbours’ houses as well as your own. Either way, an externality affects people not directly participating in the activity, like the people downstream of the chemical plant....
The idea of the Pigouvian tax in regard to the mention above, is that the USA, on a global basis, is a huge offender of negative externality. It produces enormous amounts of carbon emissions, as does China. In that is the reality as to how to make countries causing a negative externality to everyone on Earth be a positive externality in reducing all greenhouse gases to zero?
That is the real focus. No matter Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax, they both have to work to bring about positive externalities to every human life and biotic systems on Earth.
IT HAS TO WORK to the benefit of all, hence, the uniform global cost of carbon, even coal.
The effort cannot be exploited as the Millenium Assessment of 2000 was by those seeking wealth over effective carbon sinks. Examples are in Indonesia rainforests were destroyed to plant palm oil platation farms run by corporations (click here). In Brazil under directives of Bolsonaro (click here) destroys rainforest to plant grass for cows. The plantations of Indonesia and the cattle farms of Brazil are negative externals. Grass and palm oil plantations do not have the same carbon sink value as rainforests.
As a side note, the Bazil states that carried a majority for Bolsonaro had 78 percent higher death rates from COVID-19. It simply proves this type of leadership is completely anti-life no matter the manifestation it takes.
Below are the graphs that (1) justifies the concern and need for policy of the climate crisis and (2) the reality of the current climate outcomes that fall short. It is why the IPCC (click here) is demanding fast resolve to greenhouse gas emissions.
I sincerely believe ZERO emissions is the only reasonable goal at this point. Reaching for such an outcome may very well stabilize the climate enough far earlier than reaching the zero emission goal.
The fact is that politics is a real enemy to Earth's climate. To sell out energy needs to the coal industry is because electorates do not place enough importance on climate to move away completely from carbon fuels and emissions. There is no reason for this because moving to a Zero Emission goal is a win/win scenario. People can be spoken to in speeches to present strong economic outcomes while shedding old polluting forms of energy. This is a global concept and not just one for First World countries. All people understand the horrid weather patterns, sea level rise and water shortages.
The climate crisis today can become the climate catastrophe tomorrow and people understand that. The real politics is bringing that catastrophe to life and linking it to far better energy options and outcomes. People will vote for their future and their children's futures when they are presented with such options and realistic goals. Dr. Nordhous addresses reality and the new economic plans.
Below are the prices now being charged in countries around the world. There are dearly few addressing it realistically. What I find most interesting about the table below is Dr. Nordhouse looked for the contribution of the United States of America and only found participation in the northeast United States. When figuring the entire world, the actual price being paid for carbon emissions is only 40 cents per tonne (1000 kilograms).
Dr. Nordhouse states the carbon price is unharmonized both structurally and economically. He states that international climate policy is at a dead end because of the Free Rider problem.
It is my sincerest belief Dr. Nordhouse needs to work hand in hand with the IPCC and with every country in the world to bring about commitments that will literally save the world.
Good night.
