[update] Bob Murphy, Rob Bradley and the Austrian Road Not Taken on Climate by two fossil-fuels gunslingers
[Update: I copy at bottom a follow-up exchange I had on Bob`s thread with another reader – radio silence from Bob.]
Bob Murphy has a new post up at his blog, “CBO Testimony Misleads on Cost of Cap-and-Trade“, that draws attention to a new blog post at the Institute of Energy Research that Bob says he “had a lot to do with”.
The IER post rightly criticizes some of the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office has released, but the IER is playing games itself.
I left the following note at Bob`s (now substantially goosed up for the benefit of readers):
TokyoTom said…
IER? Isn`t that the “free-market” blog that bans libertarians who are not on their pro-coal, pro-pollution wagon? [Oops, I confused this with Rob Bradley`s MasterResource blog; IER is different, in that IER is – much more clearly than MR – an active rent-seeking front for fossil fuel interests, which Exxon made clear last year when it publicly announced that it would no longer fund IER`s “unproductive”, climate-skeptic position.]
But while we`re on the subject, let`s not forget:
– Austrians` fundamental objections to cost-benefit analysis;
–
that the mining, transport and combustion of coal, in addition to whatever climate “cost” it
might have to various people whose preferences can`t be measured, have
very real and significant costs in terms of damage to persons and property;
–
that federal law authorizes this (via the “Clean Air Act”, surface mining laws and ownership of the TVA), and grandfathers the very worst
midwestern utilities, the oldest 10% of which (41 or so) are estimated to be responsible for 43% of the
$62 billion in annual damages (not including damages from harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, or climate change)(according
to the latest NAS report on the indirect costs of fossil fuels);
– the future “costs” that the IER analysis refers to (in 2050) are not discounted to present value;
–
that alternative policies – such as
- a rebated carbon tax,
- accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate
amortization of capital investment, - eliminating antitrust immunity for
public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will rapidly push efficiency gains), - ending Clean Air Act handouts to the dirtiest
utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches), - ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license), and
- speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs,
are never advanced, much less their costs weighed [that is, no attempt is ever made to engage opponents in good faith or to seek mutual gains by working to resolve underlying problems];
– the costs/consequences/risks and equities of “do-nothing” policies are hardly considered, and when so are heavily discounted;
– that deliberate “geo-engineering” holds no promise as a panacea, and itself is fraught with issues about statism, preferences, risks and liaibility;
–
the need for investment in infrastructure and change in laws to adapt
(and foster adaptation) to very real ongoing climate changes are never
discussed; and
– no one at IER ever seems to question the
unstated presumption that utilities and our transportation industries
have somehow homesteaded an ownership right over the global atmosphere – or the massive role that our federal government and states play as coal and other energy resource owners),
so that it`s perfectly okay to dismiss the preferences of those who
have concerns at home [those “religious” nuts like Exxon, and our Academies of Science] and those abroad in the least developed countries
that are most vulnerable to damages (much less to suggest how those
injured should be aided).
In other words, those defending the
status quo seem to have abandoned any Austrian training (or to have no
familiarity with its concern for problem-solving and awareness that
[as Block points out] common law protection of private property rights was hijacked a century
ago, with massive pollution and rent-seeking problems being the result).
Someone
ought to post a few of these thoughts over at IER; Rob Bradley somehow
finds comments of this type over fundamental principles to be “ad hominem” arguments [of the kind that very quickly tested his patience and got me banned, without any word to his co-bloggers, who found my comments worthy of considered response].
Sure, we should fight over policy, but let`s not ignore principles or put our heads in the sand.
rather apparently UNINTERESTED in engaging productively or on a
principled basis on this issue; rather, they are simply sniping (though
they make excellent points) at the cap-and-traders).
Though,
of course, from the view of those financing them, this form of
engagement may very well be “productive”, if it delays any action that
will lower returns to coal, rail or utility investors.
What`s
regrettable is that this obfuscation, which has been going on for
decades, is what is likely to saddle us with extremely costly, porky
and ineffective “climate change” policies.
April 22, 2009 at 6:28 am