Jody Lipford and Bruce Yandle wonder why everybody’s fussing about the need for climate change legislation, arguing that past experience with other pollutants suggests that the best way to mobilize public efforts on environmental issues is to maximize economic growth. They’re right about dirty air, which is a local phenomenon. But it’s hard to see why folks will ever be sufficiently motivated to reduce local carbon emissions without financial incentives, since the effects will largely be felt far away – and far in the future.
|
|||||
Libertarian Misunderstanding1 comment to Libertarian Misunderstanding |
Professor Dieter Helm (Oxford) is a very fine fly fisherman, and an even better economist. If you haven’t done so, take a look at his new book “The Carbon Crunch: How We Are Getting Climate Change Wrong — and How to Fix It” for a bit of unconventional wisdom. He argues that politicians and the general public have not shown any real interest in addressing climate change. Helm argues that places like Europe should focus on setting a price for carbon that would cover consumption (and not just production), and that fracking could be a good “bridge” technology for reducing consumption of coal. The book is readable and insightful for those interested in the inside track on climate policy. 
   |
||||
|
Copyright © 2013 regulation2point0 - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Jody Lipford and I thank you for calling attention to our work on carbon emissions and environmental Kuznets curves. Our underlying research paper to which you refer implicitly, “Environmental Kuznets Curves, Carbon Emissions, and Public Choice,” is forthcoming in Environment and Development Economics. Upon reading the paper and rereading our piece in Regulation, we think you may find that you have mischaracterized our understanding of the nature of local versus global emission control.
All best wishes.
Bruce Yandle