While I agree, for the most part, with his post 2008 analysis, I disagree with his take on Carbon Tax. To make the switch will take 3 uncoordinated moves all taken simultaneously. 1. A serious transferable tax on emissions. 2. Subsidies to the renewable arena in both research and purchase areas. Investment in, and modernization of, our electric distribution grid including vast numbers of charging stations. One of the major thrusts should be the decentralization of our Power Grids and burying the transmission lines. Doing this would help prevent more climate damage, stimulate the economy and leverage our economy into the 21st Century.
Do you agree that the fundamental requirement of a transition to a low-carb and energy sector is nuclear fission? Yes or no? I haven’t been really that long so I don’t know what you’ve written about it in the past, but I see no other way to do this that makes any sense.
1) The only practical strategy in sight is to switch to nuclear wherever possible, asap.
2) I know it's a typo, but Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, not 1940.
3) Re. working families:
"The cause of low birthrates is that...in a post-industrial economy... children are a cost rather than a benefit."
Has been true for a while, but took a couple of generations & costs skyrocketing to finally sink in. Disruption of traditional family/community ties was the last nail. Can't see it changing back in foreseeable future (unless we deindustrialize, that is!)
Re: "time to come up with a serious plan for the United States [...] ; Step two would be for the Europeans to follow the US lead"
That may be for some policy areas, but how does this square with the political aspects of policy highlighted in this article?
* The energy industry is in the topmost echelon of sponsors of the political process in the US. Unconditional veto power over Republicans, and a healthy influence over Democrats.
* Energy, in the US, is considered a vital aspect of national security. But in a de-carbonized world, The US advantage in cheap energy vanishes. Worse yet, China becomes the global leader -- in manufacturing, deployment, and export of all of the big 4 energy sources: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.
So IMO, between the industry and the national security bloc, the US will have much more robust political opposition to near-term de-carbonization. I'm afraid leadership on this topic will necessarily come from elsewhere, with the US dragged along, resisting the whole way.
“It was not a coincidence that Stalinism was delivering ten percent growth rates as the capitalist world economy plunged ever deeper into depression”. Yes, but the Soviet Union was producing this growth on a much lower baseline than western nations, so comparing in % growth terms feels seems about as fair as comparing the % growth of covid cases in Vermont vs. Texas. Western democracies were far more prosperous and remained so throughout the existence of the ussr. Also, no mention of Stalin’s unsustainable campaign of coercion driving this growth.
Well, I surely enjoyed this romp through economic history and policy-making, with some side dances into military policy. I probably agree with 90% of this post, which makes me suspicious of its merits.
Perhaps steady but small increases in gasoline taxes are politically impossible in the US. As the author probably knows, US national gasoline taxes are small, due in part to the Senate having two Senators from every small (population wise) but vast rural state. They drive a lot.
Decades ago, perhaps before the author was born, I advocated for a nickel per year hike in US gasoline taxes. This slow but steady increase in taxes would both reduce gasoline consumption, and send a signal to markets about likely future conditions. This idea may still be a good one, even if "too late" now. It would just take some deal-cutting with the rural Senators. They get a big infrastructure projects in their states etc., or more corn ethanol subsidies, etc.
The other big simple idea, which may work if the promising solid-state battery is a commercial idea, is big subsidies for battery cars, maybe those built in the US. Get the buy-in through the domestic sourcing idea with some flag-waving.
Nuke plants are a good idea too. So is the elimination of property zoning.
I respect the yellow-vest and other populist movements which are really legitimate complaints about the declining fortunes of the employee classes across the developed world. But I think higher gasoline taxes in the US can be sold. Europe already has high fuels taxes.
BTW, oil consumption in Japan and Europe has been declining ever since the 1970s. So higher fuels taxes do work.
Geo-engineering a cooler planet may be a good idea too. What puzzles me is the recurrence of Ice Ages in the recent past. This present warm spell is the anomaly.
It applies to them too. In fact, it was because of group think among climate scientists that catastrophism remained marginal for so long. It is only recently that gradualists have lost ground, as evidence has accumulated about tipping points in things like ice sheet stability. See our https://policytensor.com/2019/06/02/discourse-reality-and-strategy-in-the-planetary-impasse/.
For decades now, the in-group (97% consensus) for climate science have been the alarmists while the out-group have been the "deniers". But describing extremists within the in-group as members of the out-group is an interesting tactic.
While I agree, for the most part, with his post 2008 analysis, I disagree with his take on Carbon Tax. To make the switch will take 3 uncoordinated moves all taken simultaneously. 1. A serious transferable tax on emissions. 2. Subsidies to the renewable arena in both research and purchase areas. Investment in, and modernization of, our electric distribution grid including vast numbers of charging stations. One of the major thrusts should be the decentralization of our Power Grids and burying the transmission lines. Doing this would help prevent more climate damage, stimulate the economy and leverage our economy into the 21st Century.
Do you agree that the fundamental requirement of a transition to a low-carb and energy sector is nuclear fission? Yes or no? I haven’t been really that long so I don’t know what you’ve written about it in the past, but I see no other way to do this that makes any sense.
Absolutely. This doesn't work without nuclear energy.
Amen. Far too few people understand that.
1) The only practical strategy in sight is to switch to nuclear wherever possible, asap.
2) I know it's a typo, but Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, not 1940.
3) Re. working families:
"The cause of low birthrates is that...in a post-industrial economy... children are a cost rather than a benefit."
Has been true for a while, but took a couple of generations & costs skyrocketing to finally sink in. Disruption of traditional family/community ties was the last nail. Can't see it changing back in foreseeable future (unless we deindustrialize, that is!)
Fantastic read, good job!
Re: "time to come up with a serious plan for the United States [...] ; Step two would be for the Europeans to follow the US lead"
That may be for some policy areas, but how does this square with the political aspects of policy highlighted in this article?
* The energy industry is in the topmost echelon of sponsors of the political process in the US. Unconditional veto power over Republicans, and a healthy influence over Democrats.
* Energy, in the US, is considered a vital aspect of national security. But in a de-carbonized world, The US advantage in cheap energy vanishes. Worse yet, China becomes the global leader -- in manufacturing, deployment, and export of all of the big 4 energy sources: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.
So IMO, between the industry and the national security bloc, the US will have much more robust political opposition to near-term de-carbonization. I'm afraid leadership on this topic will necessarily come from elsewhere, with the US dragged along, resisting the whole way.
“It was not a coincidence that Stalinism was delivering ten percent growth rates as the capitalist world economy plunged ever deeper into depression”. Yes, but the Soviet Union was producing this growth on a much lower baseline than western nations, so comparing in % growth terms feels seems about as fair as comparing the % growth of covid cases in Vermont vs. Texas. Western democracies were far more prosperous and remained so throughout the existence of the ussr. Also, no mention of Stalin’s unsustainable campaign of coercion driving this growth.
Well, I surely enjoyed this romp through economic history and policy-making, with some side dances into military policy. I probably agree with 90% of this post, which makes me suspicious of its merits.
Perhaps steady but small increases in gasoline taxes are politically impossible in the US. As the author probably knows, US national gasoline taxes are small, due in part to the Senate having two Senators from every small (population wise) but vast rural state. They drive a lot.
Decades ago, perhaps before the author was born, I advocated for a nickel per year hike in US gasoline taxes. This slow but steady increase in taxes would both reduce gasoline consumption, and send a signal to markets about likely future conditions. This idea may still be a good one, even if "too late" now. It would just take some deal-cutting with the rural Senators. They get a big infrastructure projects in their states etc., or more corn ethanol subsidies, etc.
The other big simple idea, which may work if the promising solid-state battery is a commercial idea, is big subsidies for battery cars, maybe those built in the US. Get the buy-in through the domestic sourcing idea with some flag-waving.
Nuke plants are a good idea too. So is the elimination of property zoning.
I respect the yellow-vest and other populist movements which are really legitimate complaints about the declining fortunes of the employee classes across the developed world. But I think higher gasoline taxes in the US can be sold. Europe already has high fuels taxes.
BTW, oil consumption in Japan and Europe has been declining ever since the 1970s. So higher fuels taxes do work.
Geo-engineering a cooler planet may be a good idea too. What puzzles me is the recurrence of Ice Ages in the recent past. This present warm spell is the anomaly.
Why does elite group-think only apply to economists and not atmospheric scientists?
It applies to them too. In fact, it was because of group think among climate scientists that catastrophism remained marginal for so long. It is only recently that gradualists have lost ground, as evidence has accumulated about tipping points in things like ice sheet stability. See our https://policytensor.com/2019/06/02/discourse-reality-and-strategy-in-the-planetary-impasse/.
The current IPCC scenarios do not incorporate the discoveries of the past couple of years, including more recent models and estimates of extreme weather probabilities such as https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272?fbclid=IwAR1ZKSWNQtELBIDVogWumlp-8ZTHjexxM5Xj2e-xWrSKnEStArOz9M7iFHQ
For decades now, the in-group (97% consensus) for climate science have been the alarmists while the out-group have been the "deniers". But describing extremists within the in-group as members of the out-group is an interesting tactic.