« India historical fact of the day | Main | Ice cream markets in everything »
Why people dislike economists, installment #421
I will ignore the appalling possibility that, by reducing congestion, using your car less will encourage others to use theirs more, thus wiping out any benefit from your action. This kind of economist's logic creates inertia and despair.
That is from Chris Goodall's How to Live a Low-Carbon Life: The Individual's Guide to Stopping Climate Change. Just imagine, when it comes to the number of players in this game, the guy doesn't mention whether the appropriate model should use a countable or a non-countable infinity. Often it makes a big difference for the result.
I had promised to look at the author's claim that walking and eating meat (to replenish the lost energy) can be less carbon-friendly than driving a car; his analysis does offer the appropriate qualifiers. The author also argues that flying is about the least carbon-friendly thing you can do.
This book "taught" me that a carbon tax will never be very popular with the hard-core environmental movement. Their core intuition is "It is wrong to pollute." They are less interested in the message "It is OK to pollute as long as you pay the price," which is how a carbon tax sounds to them. Goodall (pp.227-8) insists it is wrong to impose the costs of carbon emissions on the future, no matter what payment or offset you are making today. In fact a high carbon tax would just show that quite a bit of environmental destruction was going on. Quite consistently, he argues that we all simply have to stop flying. Now.
He can mail back his Harvard MBA by boat.
Here is the book's web site. Here is his blog. Here is his carbon audit of Princes Charles.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 12, 2007 at 08:24 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Isn't the countable case more plausible seeing as it is the limit of the finite case, whereas the uncountable case is not?
Posted by: camello at Aug 12, 2007 10:15:57 AM
that's an easy question to answer. economists take trade-offs too seriously. "having their cake and eat it too" is a basic human need, probably also a basic right enshrined in the contitution or the bible (under appropriately creative reading). everyone have their little virtuous poject/vision for society and would like to pretend that it has no costs or risks. economists are such killjoys. they just can't help say, "but on the other hand, there is this extra cost in your little paradise..."
economists are even worse than shrinks, not much loved either in this culture (dependency != love). shrinks are skeptical of your flattering self-protraits and professed motives. but at least, they sympathetically help you blame all your imperfections on your parents. economists give you no alibi for your stupidity.
what cold m-f these economists are? being human is hard enough. what with shrinks taking away your self-deception, economists taking away your mutual deception, what's a naked ape to do?
Posted by: gasguzzler at Aug 12, 2007 10:31:59 AM
I know commercial flying in less energy intensive (about the same) than driving (not including the differences in refining and transport of fuel). I'm not sure how much more energy is needed to further refine oil into jet fuel, but I doubt it's much. I think what comes out of a refinery is mostly based on what goes in. The cost of transport should be less since airports are more centrallized than gas stations and the fuel purer.
I'm interested in reading it, but I don't want to contribute money to the author until I know it's not bullshit. Anyone want to lend me a copy when they're done?
Posted by: aaron at Aug 12, 2007 10:56:30 AM
Also, people who exercise tend to eat as much or more than those who don't. Kinda blows away the argument. We're gonna eat anyway.
I notice that I tend to eat better when I exercise, without effort.
Posted by: aaron at Aug 12, 2007 11:02:41 AM
Oops.
People who DON'T exercise tend to eat as much or more than people who do.
Posted by: aaron at Aug 12, 2007 11:04:14 AM
To the extent that AGW is a problem, we aren't going to solve the problem individually by stopping flying or whatever. China, India, and most (population weighted, not necessarily number of countries) of the rest of the world's poor are increasingly getting their economic act together. As a result of this economic activity, they will soon dwarf the "bad" emissions of the current rich countries. No amount of personal virtue will change the global temperature outcome.
What is needed is "green" technology that is cost competitive with coal, and with oil and with the gasoline substitute of coal liquefication that South Africa uses and that China is starting to adopt. This could be cheap carbon filters of some sort, or it could be storable wind energy, as well as high mileage electric or solar cars.
Without new technology anything we in the rich world do towards self-harming (economically speaking) conservation will have a result of diddly (or worse) because it will be swamped by the developing world which has no intention (nor should they) of emitting less carbon per capita than the rich countries do while they are escaping from poverty. Thus a carbon tax is the way to go, not emissions vouchers/trading. Emissions vouchers will act as an incentive to shut down those activities that emit the most carbon gas. While they would have an effect on spurring new technology, the effect is much bigger and of a wider range under carbon taxes. This wider range is necessary because it needs to be cost effective in order for the LDC's to adopt it, and we need the LDC's to cut emissions before they grow rich, or while they grow rich, not after they grow rich, by which time it is supposed to be "too late" under apocalyptic Al Gore type scenarios.
One could even posit that personal sacrifice via denying oneself the use of flying (or whatever) in the name of reducing emissions is counterproductive because it reduces the market for emissions mitigation technology in rich countries, and these rich countries will be needed as first adopters of the technology for it to move down the cost curve enough for poorer countries to affordably use. If you want to be helpful on your own, don't conserve via less usage. Conserve via superior (from a green perspective) technology instead, thus helping to make create a green technology market, thus helping it to move down the cost curve towards a price that is adoptable in growing LDC's.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Aug 12, 2007 11:24:03 AM
As a former Green, I can tell you that I've met several "hard-core environmentalists" who at heart were anti-capitalist more than they were pro-environment. Any solution like carbon taxes that would let "the rich get richer" in their mind would be unworkable in their zero-sum world view.
The environment itself is a zero-sum situation, so it's not surprising that those with a zero-sum point of view would be attracted to environmentalism for the wrong reasons.
Posted by: Macneil at Aug 12, 2007 11:37:34 AM
When the coroner's report on the death of the West is written, they'll find that what finally did us in was people who were more interested in their personal moral purity than in getting anything done.
Posted by: Dave at Aug 12, 2007 11:47:41 AM
Liquid coal is good for energy independence, but I think it is dirty and inefficient process.
Solar is looking more promising. The negative externality of decreased albedo seems slight. I also wonder if a good portion of it can be overcome by maybe encasing towers in vacuum tubes and then a greenhouse substance (one that lets in high frequency radiation, but traps the low frequency radiation).
Posted by: aaron at Aug 12, 2007 12:17:34 PM
I think many/most people believe that every human being has an equal God given right to make an enviromental impact, viewing it in much the same way as most Americans view equal rights under the law. Everyone knows that some people are more equal than others, but when the government tries to implement market based solutions for pollution, which has the effect of allowing the rich to pollute more than the poor, it produces the same outrage as courts selling decisions to the highest bidder would. Economist who view pollution only as a externality will never convince the public they have the correct policy unless they address the fundamental difference in worldview.
Posted by: Joan at Aug 12, 2007 2:16:37 PM
Aaron, iirc the problem with air travel is where the exhaust is released, not the fuel that is burned (jet fuel ~ kerosene?)
I am skeptical of anyone that gives personal recommendations for saving the planet. Anything with smaller footprint than starting a bike-to-work program seems pointless. I would like to see anyone Green give a more reasonable accounting for their alternative homes, or at least get them to admit that the major effect is upping the visible demand to developers.
Posted by: Chi at Aug 12, 2007 2:34:45 PM
I wonder what Tyler's take is on nuclear power. My personal semi-informed opinion is that even given constraints on supply of uranium and waste storage, as well as construction time (which France has innocatively decreased w/ a pre-approved stable of plant designs, it is probably the most cost-efficient way to reduce fossil fuel pollution. Unfortunately it doesn't play well with much of the environmental lobby, and certainly, even as many are coming around, doesn't arouse the same passion as pure natural energy "straight from the sun".
Posted by: at Aug 12, 2007 2:56:54 PM
These people are basically Luddites, especially conservative about technology that has the potential to
transform society. I think they would oppose the internet if not for Al Gore the internut.
Posted by: will mcbride at Aug 12, 2007 3:01:00 PM
I read an analysis on this from Lighter Footstep the other day. Did Goodall really offer all the appropriate qualifiers??
Posted by: DRDR at Aug 12, 2007 4:17:26 PM
“Goodall (pp.227-8) insists it is wrong to impose the costs of carbon emissions on the future, no matter what payment or offset you are making today. “
If the tax was accompanied by a payout to those who remove co2 from the air, the tax could be raised to the point where we are carbon neutral. I think that biochar/agrichar/terra preta is a pretty promising way to remove co2 from the air and I think it might be surprisingly cheap to remove c02 from the air. I am not for acting yet but I think that we could archive carbon neutrality without huge pain if we needed to.
Posted by: Floccina at Aug 12, 2007 4:19:34 PM
I've decided to fly less, and this is one reason why. But I'm not giving it up completely. Some economic arguments melt my mind, for example: an economic principle states that increasing efficiency in use of a fuel will ultimately increase demand, because more applications for the fuel will be invented. Perhaps so. I can't control that part. Climate change is ultimately a moral matter, and moral matters ultimately hinge on individual judgement. I do fly less, I do drive an efficient car less than I ride a bicycle, and I will consider carbon offsets if I ultimately determine they are morally necessary. governments are obligated but individuals are also obligated to make moral choices.
also: i have totally accepted the complex and subtle character of climate change, and i have totally accepted skepticism and pragmatism about what is at risk and what should be done. but i am effing done with deniers who have nothing in their pants. i listened to gary kauthbaum's chartist program last summer but not anymore. i am liberal and he is conservative, but i let a whole lot slide with him. this is the issue that finished it for me. when it comes to climate change, the windbags and skeptics need something in their pants to get my time. i guess that means the general debate is over for me. i must now entertain the innumerable devils in innumerable details.
Posted by: JohnDiddler at Aug 12, 2007 5:45:30 PM
I'm appalled by the massive amounts of carbon wasted by all the white pixels on Chris Goodall's website. Plus, it should be all text with no fancy graphics, so less energy is used in downloads and programming.
Posted by: Ted Frank at Aug 12, 2007 6:44:05 PM
I find these discussions of US CO2 emissions more that slightly amusing, because they are so irrelevant. According to the Netherlands Environmental Agency, China is now the number 1 CO2 emitter. Within a few years China will be far ahead of the US in CO2 output. By 2015-2020 China may well exceed the US and Europe (including Chris Goodall) combined. In time, India will probably pass the US as well.
To be blunt, US greenhouse gas policy is essentially beside the point. If the US simply disappeared, world CO2 output would continue to soar.
Any serious plan to control greenhouse gas emissions has to include the developing world. These countries will never agree to any restrictions for decades to come. The entire discussion is moot. However, it does provide one group of elites the opportunity to demonstrate their moral superiority over the rest of us (thank you Steve Sailer).
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Aug 12, 2007 7:45:52 PM
Aaron,
The energy requirements to convert crude oil into any fuel product are small compared to the energy content of the fuel. Jet kerosene was historically simply distilled from crude oil. These days it would also come from resid hydrocracking, coking, etc. However, compared to gasoline or even diesel fuel, jet kerosene is simple stuff. Gasoline has to meet octane requirements. Diesel has cetane specifications. I believe there are aromatic limits on jet kerosene to minimize soot. However, aromatics have greater value as petrochemical feedstocks anyway.
Of course, all liquid fuels are subject to tough sulfur limits. These specs do increase (slightly) the energy cost of fuel production. Sadly, marine bunkers are still somewhat exempt from sulfur limits (or so I think).
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Aug 12, 2007 7:53:51 PM
china and india may well soon exceed US or EU in co2 emissions. but not per capita for a very long time.
Posted by: gasguzzler at Aug 13, 2007 12:18:56 AM
Dear Tyler Cowan - perhaps a conversation between economists and environmentalists is rather like a conversation between a husband (left brain) and wife (right brain). (No offense to either sex intended.) If Chris Goodall says that it is "wrong to pollute" (full stop), he/she cannot really mean it literally. Even switching on the light would violate this rule. I think economists need to be smarter about interpreting what non-economists say. It's too easy to just take statements at face value and dismiss them. That said, it is also right to hold environmentalists accountable to the statements they make, and force them to confront the implications of their statements. This, plus being more careful about interpreting what environmentalists say, would (I think) assist in finding common ground between economists and environmentalists.
Posted by: KY Choong at Aug 13, 2007 12:33:25 AM
Chi: iirc the problem with air travel is where the exhaust is released, not the fuel that is burned (jet fuel ~ kerosene?)
Yes, and it's also a problem that the fuel economy of airliners on a seat-mile basis is not very good -- much worse than trains, buses or highway travel in most automobiles with more than one passenger. Fill the seats in a minivan at 25mpg on the highway and you're at 3-4x the fuel efficiency of a jetliner. Automobiles can be a highly efficient form of transport when they're filled with passengers (especially since they operate point-to-point and never have to run empty to meet a published schedule).
gasguzzler: china and india may well soon exceed US or EU in co2 emissions. but not per capita for a very long time.
True but beside the point. That 6 times as many people live in India and China (combined) than the U.S. is exactly why the impact of any reductions by the U.S. (and the E.U.) will be swamped by increases in those two countries alone.
Posted by: Slocum at Aug 13, 2007 7:12:20 AM
And yet nobody has thought of anything new in what 50 years?
Posted by: jacob at Aug 13, 2007 9:48:13 AM
Slocum,
China and India have 8.15x the number of people as the United States, not 6. According to the BBC, China is building two new coal fired power plants every week. See "China building more power plants" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm). There is little the United States and Europe can do to even slow the growth in greenhouse gases.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Aug 13, 2007 10:42:24 AM
"[Certain environmentalists] core intuition is "It is wrong to pollute.'"
They really do expect everyone to adopt a "green" outlook, lifestyle, and ethic, but most have not realized that that would require what would really be a religious movement of everyone in the world.
Every decision made would require weighing the cost-benefit to the environment. Mrs. John Edwards just talked about giving up tangerines because they had to be shipped too far. We'd all be counting carbon they way members of Weight Watchers count calories -- that would take a religious attitude.
For those who believe global warming is serious and we have only a few years to prevent a disaster talk of cutting the US carbon footprint by up to 80 percent. Believing that, the only alternative to radical religious conversion would be a strongly authoritarian government.
I am not suggesting all who worry about global warming think steps this radical are necessary, but if Al Gore is right about the problem, what other conclusion is possible?
The alternative idea would be to solve the problem thru market forces. Convert the commons to private property where possible, and price polluting activity appropriately. Then everyone makes the right decisions by taking into account relative prices.
Posted by: John Kunze at Aug 13, 2007 2:35:47 PM
