Saturday, August 01, 2009

What's Cost Got to Do With It?

With health care now looking like a long shot, Washington seems likely to turn some attention back to climate change. As I’ve said, the climb to 60 in the Senate will be steep, though, largely because of how unresponsive people are to reason in its purest forms. Why do I say that? Look at the evidence. Agreeing (as did the G-8 in L’Aquila) to a rise in global temperatures of no more than 2 degrees Celsius as the environmental quality objective on climate change—or to cutting four fifths of 2005-level emissions by 2050 (as Waxman-Markey did)—is to adopt a groundless, made-up objective. Neither bears any connection to the physical realities or projected future tragedies of climate change. Indeed, from what I've read, we’re most likely to blow past 2 degrees pretty quickly no matter what we do from here on out. Moreover, even if we did somehow peg it there, there’s a whole planet worth of (tragic) variance within that seemingly diminutive average. In other words, these goals are derived from "political" needs, not the actual costs or risks of climate change. And why would leaders agree to such things? Because they know they can’t convince the Earth’s people to act in their own collective self-interest. Bravo.

So why aren’t the prospects better in the Senate with such a politically-tailored measure? Because one thing (American?) politicians do know how to do is convince people to act right now on their own selfish interests, whatever the risks to others—and that logic has no stopping point in Washington. Costs have skewed the debate on health care much like they have the debate on climate change—as if business-as-usual on either of them will be magically cost-free. "Costs" in the form of taxes or prices are easily and widely "communicated" in our national politics. Costs that have complicated and uneven distributions, of course, are not.

How much will increased energy efficiency or fuel switching "cost" the average household? That number rolled through the press on WM like a tide when it came out. But the number was only a single central estimate picked out of a hypothetical possible future and detached from the other consequences that would flow from taking climate change at least as seriously as WM does. How about when you re-integrate that figure with an expanding (instead of contracting) job-base, enhanced productivity (from the investments in green technologies), and other side-benefits — like, maybe, biodiversity? And the “cost” figures you didn’t see? The $98 million our "energy" companies spent from April to June (3 months!) lobbying to get their best deals in the bill.

Of course, the big break that got WM through the House, DoL readers will recall, was the addition of an open-ended delegation to USDA to grant greenhouse gas "offsets" to farming. This most likely gave the Ag sector credits to spare (and thus to sell, assuming the rest of the law actually drives down allowed emissions) . . . thereby jeopardizing the overall integrity of WM. The farm lobby was mollified enough (although not enough to actually endorse the bill) that it dropped its opposition and presto! The collective risk is that, if Ag doesn’t actually reduce its emissions yet still has credits to sell to those who have to buy cap room, the slack could just cancel out the reductions made elsewhere in the economy. Why don’t we have a "cost" estimate for the risk that USDA botches these offsets and renders the whole thing a wash? That would at least be a cost figure relevant to everyone.

I was encouraged this week that Senator Baucus noticed a Senate Finance Committee hearing for next week into the distribution of allowances, a key aspect of WM as passed by the House. Hearings are a way to get some press for your bill, of course. They are also a way to respond directly to particular Senators’ concerns — if you line up the right testimony. Someone ought to bring this up: the American economy is so good at wasting energy today that we could reduce non-transportation consumption by 23% by 2020 and save $1.2 trillion. Cost that.

Posted by Jamie Colburn

6 comments:

Trilobite said...

The problem with using projected future savings as the basis for a policy argument is that studies show that people resent losing money more than they value the opportunity to gain or even save the same amount. New and different costs therefore seem bigger than costs of a kind or from a source we already accept as normal. Projected savings do not resonate.

You could make a more powerful argument by backdating the projection. Try this:

If we had started this project in 1997 (the date of the Kyoto Accords), the U.S. would now be $__ Billion richer. The people who are fighting against this legislation have already stolen $__ from each man, woman and child in the U.S. Now they want more.

Or
If climate change were going a little faster, say ten years ahead of where it is, then today the average global temperature would be ___, and you would be paying ___% more for energy, flood insurance, housing, and food. We would lose ___ in GDP.
In real life, these effects will happen around the time your kids graduate high school. How's your college fund?

酒店ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,,,,,,,,姐.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

J&D said...

情趣用品/情趣

正妹視訊/網頁設計/情趣用品

情趣用品/情趣用品/情趣


威而柔/自慰套/自慰套/SM/充氣娃娃/充氣娃娃/潤滑液/飛機杯/按摩棒/跳蛋/性感睡衣/威而柔/自慰套/自慰套/SM/充氣娃娃/充氣娃娃/潤滑液/飛機杯/按摩棒/跳蛋/性感睡衣/

自慰器/自慰器/煙火/影音視訊聊天室

色情遊戲/寄情築園小遊戲/情色文學/一葉情貼圖片區/情人視訊網/辣妹視訊/情色交友/成人論壇/情色論壇/愛情公寓/情色/舊情人/情色貼圖/色情聊天室/色情小說/做愛/做愛影片/性愛/

狗熊克星 said...

工作忙碌的現代人失眠是大家共同的通病,為什麼會有這樣的問題呢,可能是體內的酵素流失太多,這時候要補充才能夠使我們精神較佳改善睡不著的問網路新聞:隨著全球之後投資人更願意承擔風的比例大大提升黃金回收近來深受資金流出的衝,受到珠寶和工業需求減少影響酵素占資產配置一成左右即可,不宜過高,以防止被套牢造成損失。

投資黃金的熱潮又來了嗎?國際金價本週連漲4天黃金回收業者朱先生表示本週的顯示金價出現百年來難得一見的高價,此時進場正是時候他把黃金拿出來變賣,順便去買一些失眠藥來吃解決他多年來睡不好的老問題。

愛美女性有福了最新水刀抽脂能快速滿足追求完美體態若您想要瘦小腿小腿神經阻斷術可幫您達成美腿的功效你常拉肚子嗎那是因為脹子中的酵素分泌過少的原故可以多吃木瓜有助於消化吸終身醫療即將全面停賣了還想要買的朋友動作要快

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社