The Cost of Delay
Ezra Klein joins in with Kristen Sheeran and Mindy Lubber to remind Robert Samuelson and the Washington Post op-ed team that you can’t talk about how costly it will be to mitigate climate change without also talking about how costly it will be to let a climate crisis wash over us.
Another point I would make is that as costly as it is to act today to reduce carbon emissions, it’ll be much more costly to start doing it ten years from now.
Think back to 1990. Both the 1990 budget and the 1993 budget contained unpopular tax increases. Suppose that instead of those unpopular tax increases, those budgets had created and then raised a carbon tax. Well, that would have been unpopular. But what was actually done was unpopular too. And consider where we’d be today, climate-wise. Well, we’d probably still need to do a comprehensive overhaul of our energy policy. And we’d probably still need to change things around and have a cap-and-trade system since to really cope with the climate problem you need to cap the overall level of emissions. But in a whole bunch of ways we’d be in much better shape than we are today. For one thing, in this alternative reality our 2009 emissions would be lower, so lowering them to a sustainable level wouldn’t require such steep cuts. But for another thing, the total level of carbon in the atmosphere would be lower and the current average temperature would be lower, so for both of those reasons the sustainable level of ongoing emissions would be higher than it currently is.
In other words, we’d be looking at smaller cuts from a lower level.
Meanwhile, our past 18 years worth of investment in infrastructure would look somewhat different. The new houses constructed would, on average, be a little bit smaller a little bit closer together and there’d have been a little bit more attention to insulation. These slightly smaller houses would have been slightly cheaper, and people would have spent more money on something else. The result would not only be a dynamic in which current emissions were lower, but also a dynamic in which people found it easier to adjust to more drastic emissions curbs.
All things considered, we’d be in much better shape. And much the same is true about the case for acting quickly versus getting scared by the costs and doing nothing. Just pretending that the climate crisis isn’t real doesn’t change the fact that it is real. And since it’s real, we’ll have to do something. But if we think the changes we need to make today are difficult, they’re nothing compared to what the needed changes will look like in 2020 if we keep on the business as usual path.
34 Responses to “The Cost of Delay”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Climate/environmental actions need to be driven by free markets. We have the ability.
Free up taxes and regulation and have those that really want to make the investment get some of our Hollywood celebs to start using green, alternative energies – they talk the talk, now they need to walk the walk. If celebs adopt green energy it will become popular. Popularity will drive down the cost. Once the cost is down green energy will enter the mainstream.
Keep government involvement limited.
MYODB
May 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
If celebs adopt green energy it will become popular.
Well that’s certainly a novel approach. The Lindsay Lohan path to sustainability.
Good grief.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
If celebs adopt green energy it will become popular.
Good lord no! That would just strengthen the perception that green=costly.
Once the cost is down green energy will enter the mainstream.
Tax rebates/credits would help mitigate cost, and that should be something even conservatives could support.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Republicans and the free market remind me of the old saying that “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Free markets are great for creating a variety of choices, but they’re not a panacea for everything. Health insurance is the glaring example of how the free market doesn’t always serve the consumer’s best interests. It’s in the insurance companies’ interest to deny as many claims as possible; in fact it’s their obligation to do so to maximize profits.
Simple rule of thumb: when the profit motive is in direct conflict with consumer interests, the free market is not a preferred option.
In this particular case I think the government will play a critical capitalization role in the initial adoption stages, but once critical mass is reached and economies of scale are realized the free market should then be able to take over from there.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Why do liberals always insist on other people living with less rather than finding ways to make more? What a smallness of attitude, a paucity of vision, and cramped consciousness. This constant negativity is the most unattractive aspect of modern liberalism. It’s just a depressing display of incompetence that can only redistribute what someone else achieved rather than create.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
What does that even mean?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Why do liberals always insist on other people living with less rather than finding ways to make more?
Because we hate freedom.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
CO2 mitigation will be costly because it is a one sided affair, taking money for CO2 usage and putting it into the general federal fund. CO2 mitigation will always be costly and always be viewed unfavorably because funding the federal government and solving the CO2 pollution problem are only partially related.
The costless approach to CO2 mitigation is to directly have the CO2 polluters pay a damage fee to the non-polluters, and the federal government is responsible for about 20% of the CO2 pollution, it is not necessarily qualified to receive damage payments.
Progressive critics of damage payments always have the same retort: Funding federal services is more important than protecting the environment, and that is the source of the cost and the reason for failure.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Then what the hell else are the delayers and other carbon-whores supposed to do with their time?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
It’s just a depressing display of incompetence that can only redistribute what someone else achieved rather than create.
The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon and other greenhouse gases is limited in terms of the effects of those emissions. In other words, the amount of crap you can put in the air is a limited resource that one cannot create more of, or create alternatives to, the atmosphere. Its a fixed amount.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon and other greenhouse gases is limited in terms of the effects of those emissions.
Not if we create a bigger atmosphere. Think big, pinko!
May 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Well, unless you’re talking about personal freedoms and privacy, it’s probably because you’ve got to grow up some time. It must be fun for the right to keep waving the fantasy of an ever-enlarging carbon footprint as the measure of manhood as a cover for letting carbon producers avoid pricing in negative externalities.
“Here, it takes a real man to drown in goop. Those liberal ninnies want to take away your God-given right to drown in goop. They just envy the lifestyle of the successful goop entrepreneurs and their many victims. If we don’t cash in social security to subsidize fake tits for the mistresses of goop producers, you’re going to have to buy your goop from the wogs. The liberals want you to drown in wog goop. Hell, they may even take ‘under goop’ out of the Pledge of Drowning. Why do they hate Amerigoop?”
You may now return to collecting widgets for your altar.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“The new houses constructed would, on average, be a little bit smaller a little bit closer together and there’d have been a little bit more attention to insulation.”
When Al Gore moves into a 1500 sqft apartment in the city, I’ll start taking global warming seriously. For that matter, when Matt moves out of his condo into a smaller place, I’ll take him seriously.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Like carbon?
If our polluters are so creative, why are we still stuck with this old technology? Why do they have to buy political cover for their obsolete business models? What the hell are they “achieving,” anyway, besides crapping in our lungs and padding their lifestyles?
I don’t see what I’m supposed to envy about these parasites.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
When Al Gore moves into a 1500 sqft apartment in the city, I’ll start taking global warming seriously. For that matter, when Matt moves out of his condo into a smaller place, I’ll take him seriously.
That’s oh so clever, Brad. But no one will ever take you seriously when you spout nonsense like that.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
This is what passes for science on the right.
“The blue-breasted Gore has sought shelter in a much smaller nest. That gives me an idea! That data that’s been accumulating on AGW might be worth examining for a change. Here we’ve been blowing the IPCC budget on hidden cameras following the life of Al Gore!”
May 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Why do liberals always insist on other people living with less rather than finding ways to make more?
Here you go, Mr. Creosote. Just a wafer thin mint.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
You are correct that a true cost-benefit analysis does require us to balance the future cost of inaction against the cost of action today. That said, the issue of present day cost is still a real one. The costs of the ideal solutions proposed by many liberals are quite high and would result in real economic pain for many. Any serious discussion of this issue should begin with Nuclear Power as it is the most cost effective low carbon solution currectly availible. Plus, this and increased funding for new energy technologies are the solutions that moderate Republicans like myself are most interested in, though of course my idea of a good funding model and yours are likely quite different.
As an aside, the critic of “when Al Gore moves into a smaller place I will take it seriously” might seem dumb, but reflects a very real weakness in Gore’s arguement, namely that he is telling other that they desperately need to change their lives to make do with less but that he apparantly does not. To be an effective advocate for other people making sacrifices you should already be making those same sacrifices, and preferably more sacrifices than you ask of others. This is one reason why I found John Edward’s arguement that the rich had a moral duty to pay higher taxes absurd, as he surely takes tax deductions and therefore doesn’t REALLY believe that he has a moral obligation to pay more.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
the critic of “when Al Gore moves into a smaller place I will take it seriously” might seem dumb, but reflects a very real weakness in Gore’s arguement, namely that he is telling other that they desperately need to change their lives to make do with less but that he apparantly does not.
As far as I’m aware Al Gore purchases carbon credits/offsets for all of his airplane travel, large house, etc. The point is that we’re not asking people to make do with less by getting a smaller house, just that if they want to live a lifestyle that has externalities that negatively affect the planet, the rest of society is paying the cost associated with that, and they’re going to have to pay their share of the cost. Why do conservatives always want something for nothing?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
When Al Gore moves into a 1500 sqft apartment in the city, I’ll start taking global warming seriously.
I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that you would not in fact do this. You’d just find some other flimsy reason to justify the conclusion you want to make.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
This problem won’t be solved. Adding another 3 billion to the world’s population will undo any progress made, even if politicians can get people to sacrifice short term for the long term gain. Good luck.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“Why do conservatives always want something for nothing?”
It’s not much of a stretch when your entire ideology is based on magic and fantasy (see: supply side/trickle-down economics, voluntary industry regulation, etc.)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
In reply to: Why do liberals always insist on other people living with less rather than finding ways to make more?, Halfdan said: Because we hate freedom.
And here I thought it was because exponential growth curves aren’t sustainable. It’s remarkable how quickly a growth of even 1% a year in human population hits various marks, such as total biomass of the planet, total mass of the planet, and eventually “sphere of human flesh whose radius expands at light speed”.
The same, sadly, applies to economic measures. Go on, work it out – assume a 1% yearly growth of the economy, with fixed population (or 1% growth in excess of the population, if you prefer). How long does take before the average human being produces as much “value” in each year as the entire world currently produces? And just what will they be making or doing that can be that valuable?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Just a quick point, the hypothectical smaller house with better insulation and maybe like double-paned windows or somthing might end up being the same price or more than a larger house built according to our current standards of residential construction. This certainly isn’t meant as support for the “how dare you suggest Americans live slightly less profligatly, this is why I can’t stand liberals” trolls who’ve popped up, it’s meant more to point out just how crappily the average suburban house is built.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
When Al Gore moves into a 1500 sqft apartment in the city, I’ll start taking global warming seriously. For that matter, when Matt moves out of his condo into a smaller place, I’ll take him seriously.
Brad: This is idiotic even by your standards. Rather obviously, a nation’s carbon output depends on the behavior and actions of millions of individuals. Hundreds of millions in the case of a large country like the United States. If carbon taxes are imposed, and they affect aggregate behavior in the manner economists predict, we’ll get the results we want, whether or not Al Gore or Angelina Jolie or Oprah Winfrey get with the program.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
OK sports fans, here’s a productive suggestion. Who can figure out how many trees need to be planted to offset our dire future of excess CO2?
May 6th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
The globe is cooling, folks; the impact of CO2 on climate has been greatly exaggerated. If we raise the price of energy in order to mitigate a warming that isn’t happening, instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening, then millions presently living on the margin will die. Do you want a holocaust on your conscience?
===============================================
May 6th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Ice is accumulating at both poles, sea level rise has eased, atmospheric temperatures, and more importantly, oceanic temperatures have fallen since 2005, and yet, CO2 continues to rise. You’ve been had by the climate alarmists, and it’s time to admit it. This CO2=AGW foolishness can’t go on much longer.
Did you know that sunspots are on a decline curve to completely disappear by 2015? Now, whether or not that will cool the globe during a new Little Ice Age is a very good question, because the last two times the sunspots went away, and the globe cooled, there were also volcanoes which unequivocally cool the globe.
Pay attention to the science, which is not settled, instead of the politics which is stumbling along a high wire without a safety net. The world and the climate have CHANGED in the last half decade. Keep up!
=========================================
May 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The irony is that the Washington Post is obsessed with Social Security payments exceeding revenues (possibly) decades from now, but they don’t seem to give a damn about anything else beyond the immediate future.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I would happily move into a 1500 square foot apartment in the city!
May 6th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Ah, yes, how clever. When faced with a scientific question, just skip all the booooooring stuff liberals would do, like researching the topic or finding out what the experts studying it have to say, and instead, check the living arrangements of the guy who was vice-president ten years ago.
Umwhat?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
For one thing, in this alternative reality our 2009 emissions would be lower, so lowering them to a sustainable level wouldn’t require such steep cuts. But for another thing, the total level of carbon in the atmosphere would be lower and the current average temperature would be lower, so for both of those reasons the sustainable level of ongoing emissions would be higher than it currently is.
This is pure conjecture. One could argue that the decrease in US demand would have lowered global energy prices, resulting in higher usage in China, India, Brazil, and elsewhere around the world. Atmospheric CO2 might be no different today than if the US had implemented a cap and trade system back in 1993. But aside from that, one need not look at alternate realities to see how bizarre Matt’s argument is, the present reality works just fine. What was the global mean temperature in 1998 as compared to 2008? In fact, the global mean temperature 10 years ago was higher than it is today. Now, I support policies that will reduce our output of CO2, but I protest the lame arguments and scare tactics so often put forth as justification. Good grief.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Re the 1993 tax increases – Al Gore actually tried to get a BTU tax that would be functionally similar to a carbon tax in 1993, but was stopped by Republicans and some Dems. He was opposed by a number of Repubs who now claim they support a carbon tax (probably an attempt to stop cap and trade and not a sincere position). People often forget the BTU tax, and instead talk about Gore’s house.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I think you are wrong, Yglesias. You don’t need a cap to effectively control emissions. If the price is high enough people will not emit any CO2. So all that is required is to properly set the tax.
I’m pretty sure that economists favor a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, but C&T is just considered more politically feasible. Carbon Tax is simpler and it allows the market to figure out a solution, you can still get the same effect as a tradable permit by changing the mix of energies in your production or by use financial contract.
In C&T, there is a risk that government attempts to create a permit market will just fail outright. Even if successful, there is opportunity to game the system by exploiting inefficiencies in this fledgling market. Plus there is additional administrative cost for administering permits, on top of the enforcement cost that would be common to a tax and a permit.
But politicians don’t like to talk about taxes and people are convinced that C&T will allow a more gradual transition.
Really the C&T situation is similar to a recent post that, I think you made, on the relative effectiveness of healthcare proposals. The simplest and most cost effective policy would just be medicare for all. But the specter of socialized medicine forces policies that would probably be worse but easier to pass.