Is climate change like diabetes?
My latest essay explores that question through The Language of Climate Politics by @doctorvive.bsky.social, and it engages her ongoing debate with ecomodernist thinkers like Ted Nordhaus.
I hope it gets you thinking.
open.substack.com/pub/carbonre...
Our heads are buried in the sand, and our leaders keep digging deeper holes.
In protest of EPA’s hearings on the GHG endangerment finding this week, have a listen to Watch It Fall by @billystrings.com
m.youtube.com/watch?v=y97g...
Some personal news. Would appreciate all the LinkedIn luv I can get. Eventually, I’ll need another real job 🥳
Pretty sure that one’s taken, but I appreciate the deeper meaning—that is, the more scientists, the starker their foreboding
Climate scientists deserve a collective noun (esp. for groups of more than a few outliers).
I propose: “consensus.” As in, a consensus of climate scientists.
ChatGPT says it’s available.
Any better options?
I’m incorporating my previous comments by reference. And props to @paulkelleher.net for the high praise from Cass!
I enjoyed our exegetical exchange yesterday, if that’s an appropriate use of the term.
I wrote an article about the policy irrelevance of the social cost of carbon in the hopes of prompting an uncomfortable conversation about the future use of the metric.
So I was excited to see that @Revkin asked @CassSunstein about my critique 🧵
revkin.substack.com/p/a-fresh-lo...
The future benefits of abatement exceed present costs, yes.
But many technical issues—including the proper discount rate—turn on whether one’s cost-benefit analysis attempts to weigh changes in real welfare, or whether it asks how much future people would pay us today to abate. 1/
*what Congress does on a partisan basis through reconciliation is more durable than regulatory policy, but not durable enough, sure.
Were Congress to adopt new climate regulations, that’s subject to the filibuster.
So “workable” should encompass political viability and administrability
I’d agree it’s more workable if legislators, perhaps informed by CBA, set a number in law, like 45Q. But then that’s hard to optimize.
CBA is unworkable w/r/t climate for agencies because it’s neither durable nor stable. Better than nothing, but it looks like Congress has to start over.
That's a fair point. Unless knowledge of benefits is a necessary condition of efficiency? I was reaching the character limit, but pretend instead I'd said: using CBA to set price signals is unworkable w/r/t climate because benefits are too imprecise. Call it a shot in the dark.
CBA can’t tell market actors how many DAC plants to build in 2030 or 2035 and under what conditions they should operate.
Investors need price signals instructing when to reduce versus when to avoid or abate.
CBA yields inefficient price signals w/r/t climate because benefits are too imprecise.
CBA isn’t a great tool here though. It’s okay to assume the future benefits/harms avoided exceed some present costs. But that still doesn’t solve for marginal abatement investments.
Better to set a net zero target (2050 or beyond) and minimize cost of abatement within that parameter.
An oldie but a goodie. Originally presented for an @rff.org forum, long before webinars.
"The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth" by Kenneth Boulding.
arachnid.biosci.utexas.edu/courses/thoc...
Rules versus standards & delegation theory: SCC is far too imprecise for stable, durable climate policy
What’s implausible about carbon recovery? 😉
Sorry folks, I've been slacking on my #BMFS evangelism.
I kid you not, this song brought tears to my eyes the last time I saw them in Charlottesville.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWoz...
This forefront of climate reform could be a new source of hope for the climate movement,
Especially in light of EPA’s trajectory on GHGs
This is what reimagining climate policy really looks like
Yoga helps!
The Biden-era, industrial policy-heavy approach to #climate mitigation overtly relies on the expansion of #EPA authority over GHGs.
Untangling the endangerment rescission will take years, in the off-chance #SCOTUS abstains.
This is an inflection point for US climate policy.
Anyone have their hands on EPA’s proposed endangerment rule yet?
It’s worth adding that there’s no path dependency to building out new legislative frameworks and shopping them around. If this admin fails its CAA climate objectives, and the next dem president has another bite at the apple w/ GHG rules, the threat of those rules increases leverage in Congress.
Maybe carbon recovery (like carbon takeback) is a bad idea, but nobody refutes it.
That’s a shame because I’m convinced a CRF framework takes the best of both carbon tax and cap-and-trade without nearly as much baggage.
Please spread the word and send open-minded collaborators my way.
Professor, I share your concern that the CAA may be removed as a tool of real climate progress.
That’s why I’m trying my damnedest to raise awareness about a legislative pathway that’s gone largely unexplored here in the US.
See Section IV.B.👇🏼
digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol13/i...
I hope the climate movement is prepared to make an opportunity out of this potential outcome, if and when it arises.
How else should climate advocates prepare for this moment, @volts.wtf, anyone...?
End/
If the ball is punted squarely back to Congress, members might anticipate an opportunity to overcome partisan gridlock, or they might by moved by public opinion. Either way, members may be more inclined to reach across the aisle and give renewed attention to the issue.
6/
B. Expect (likely confused) public outcry and be ready to direct that public engagement (and enragement) towards Congress.
C. Work with members on both sides to outline a climate (and permitting) package that could be ready for action before June 2027.
This is key:
5/
🧭What does this mean for federal climate advocates?🧭
A. Be ready for a ruling that severs GHG regulation from the Clean Air Act. This outcome could be set in stone for decades, post Loper Bright.
4/
3. The odds SCOTUS ends up ruling in favor of the agency on endangerment are too high to discount.
Recall C.J. Roberts wrote his own dissent in Mass v. EPA and he joined Scalia's. It is also doubtful both J. Kavanaugh and J. Barrett break ranks without the Chief.
3/