But if you believe, as the majority of climate scientists do, that warming has a large probability of being catastrophic, then some price has to be put on it.

Jamie, if this wasn’t just a typo, I would urge you to go reread the latest IPCC report. They say the THC isn’t shutting down, that sea level rises in 21st century will be in the ballpark of 30 – 60 inches (don’t quote me on that, but it’s that range), and if you really parse their human impacts section, they are saying (though not in so many words) that there is a definite probability that there will be net benefits from warming in 21st century.

So again, I know people like Hansen are saying we have to act very quickly to avoid catastrophe, but I don’t think he is in the “consensus” here.

But if you believe, as the majority of climate scientists do, that warming has a large probability of being catastrophic, then some price has to be put on it.

Jamie, if this wasn’t just a typo, I would urge you to go reread the latest IPCC report. They say the THC isn’t shutting down, that sea level rises in 21st century will be in the ballpark of 30 – 60 inches (don’t quote me on that, but it’s that range), and if you really parse their human impacts section, they are saying (though not in so many words) that there is a definite probability that there will be net benefits from warming in 21st century.

So again, I know people like Hansen are saying we have to act very quickly to avoid catastrophe, but I don’t think he is in the “consensus” here.

If we don’t get noticeably more projected damage than the tax costs us, then I say give up on the tax.

If we don’t get noticeably more projected damage than the tax costs us, then I say give up on the tax.

redo of second half:
——————–

But is this because:
Prob(TOpt<0) >= Prob(TOpt>0)

or is it because:
Distance(TPol,TOpt) > Distance(TZero, TOpt)

or is it neither of these, i.e.:
TOpt is likely > 0
Distance(TPol, TOpt) likely <= Distance(TZero, TOpt)
but nevertheless
Cost(TPol) > Benefit (TPol)

redo of second half:
——————–

But is this because:
Prob(TOpt<0) >= Prob(TOpt>0)

or is it because:
Distance(TPol,TOpt) > Distance(TZero, TOpt)

or is it neither of these, i.e.:
TOpt is likely > 0
Distance(TPol, TOpt) likely <= Distance(TZero, TOpt)
but nevertheless
Cost(TPol) > Benefit (TPol)

Let’s define some terms:
TZero = The current tax rate of zero.
TOpt = The (unknown) true optimal tax rate
TPol = The tax rate resulting from the political process
Benefit(TPol) = The (unknown) true benefit of having a tax rate of TPol, compared to TZero. This is the benefit from more accurate pricing of externalities. (This can be negative if TZero is closer to TOpt than TPol is).

Cost(TPol) = The cost of the political process, and all other costs associated with setting the tax rate at TPol.

Now, anyone who says what Will/Jim are saying must be saying this:

Benefit(TPol) < Cost(TPol)

But is this because:
Prob(TOpt= Prob(TOpt>0)

or is it because:
Distance(TPol,TOpt) > Distance(TZero, TOpt)

or is it neither of these, i.e.:
TOpt is likely > 0
Distance(TPol, TOpt) likely 0
but nevertheless
Cost(TPol) > Benefit (TPol)

???

Let’s define some terms:
TZero = The current tax rate of zero.
TOpt = The (unknown) true optimal tax rate
TPol = The tax rate resulting from the political process
Benefit(TPol) = The (unknown) true benefit of having a tax rate of TPol, compared to TZero. This is the benefit from more accurate pricing of externalities. (This can be negative if TZero is closer to TOpt than TPol is).

Cost(TPol) = The cost of the political process, and all other costs associated with setting the tax rate at TPol.

Now, anyone who says what Will/Jim are saying must be saying this:

Benefit(TPol) < Cost(TPol)

But is this because:
Prob(TOpt= Prob(TOpt>0)

or is it because:
Distance(TPol,TOpt) > Distance(TZero, TOpt)

or is it neither of these, i.e.:
TOpt is likely > 0
Distance(TPol, TOpt) likely 0
but nevertheless
Cost(TPol) > Benefit (TPol)

???

For those who like to frame mitigation as a public good that needs to be subsidized, I think I can reframe my point in those terms, too. Growth is an underprovided public good that needs to be subsidized. But it also contributes to warming. If growth is a tax on mitigation, and mitigation is a tax on growth, then what do we end up with? Again, see Jim.

For those who like to frame mitigation as a public good that needs to be subsidized, I think I can reframe my point in those terms, too. Growth is an underprovided public good that needs to be subsidized. But it also contributes to warming. If growth is a tax on mitigation, and mitigation is a tax on growth, then what do we end up with? Again, see Jim.

Briefly, just for the heck of it:

A carbon tax that is >0 but still too low is still necessarily better than a carbon tax of 0;

It doesn’t matter one teensy bit what % of global warming is attributable to human activity.

Briefly, just for the heck of it:

A carbon tax that is >0 but still too low is still necessarily better than a carbon tax of 0;

It doesn’t matter one teensy bit what % of global warming is attributable to human activity.