By Magnus Henrekson & Mikael Stenkula
Opportunities for cronyism abound when government programs are launched, followed by large pools of subsidies, targeted R&D funds, and cheap loans to corporations.
pull down to refresh
related posts
24 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11 Mar
Suppose one did believe in anthropomorphic climate change. How would you suggest the market could address those concerns without government subsidies and regulation?
reply
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Mar
You could just do pollution, right? It's the same sort of problem. Maybe the difference between real and anticipated damages is important, though.
There are basically two modes of action that I've seen discussed:
- Conscientious consumerism: similar to organic, fair trade, free range, etc.
- Civil suits: people could sue the polluters/GHG emitters for damages and internalize the externality that way.
reply
75 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11 Mar
The tricky thing with tort when it comes to climate change is how do you measure damages? And who has standing to bring suit? And telling people to be more conscientious could work on the margins but probably not at scale.
I haven't thought much about this, but I think I'd be most likely to support some kind of subsidy to clean energy research, but without picking and choosing projects. Like, if you are a company that can generate electricity with lower GHG per kwH, we will subsidize you at a certain rate per GHG/kwH reduced. Something like that.
reply
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Mar
I suppose you could also tax exempt those businesses, rather than actually subsidizing them.
Big picture question: If no one can demonstrate damages, what's the point of taking any actions?
Shouldn't the government have a pretty substantial burden of proof before they start redesigning society with our expropriated money?
reply
65 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 11 Mar
Good question. I'd agree that the government has a substantial burden of proof. That being said, based on the majority opinion of western voters it seems like they've met the proof.
I'm a big critic of current climate policy by the way. I think it's very destructive and wasteful... largely for reasons you mentioned: we can't really measure what benefits it brings but the economic costs are very high.
Still, I would be persuaded that we should do something, and it seems like the least destructive way would be to subsidize/tax-exempt clean energy in the least corruptible way possible. Then, voters can decide on how large that subsidy should be.
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Mar
I don't think they've met the burden of proof with voters. If they told people what the economic costs were going to be of climate policy and how uncertain the science actually is, there would be very little support.
My preferred course of action would be increasing animal welfare protections that put factory farms out of business. That's estimated to be a much larger contributor to climate change and it's a practice most Americans find pretty grotesque. However, it's out of sight and out of mind.
Edit: that's my preferred method after tax breaks. I'm pretty much always in favor of tax breaks.
reply on another page