Thread by @aldatweets

Here's my problem with @washingtonpost's attack on @AOC's GND proposal: WashPo's core claims have no basis in evidence. Let's just look at a couple, w a focus on carbon pricing, and some implications
washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-…

1a. There is baseline claim that market mechanisms are the best known way to efficiently reduce pollution: "Pollution pricing is not untested theory. It is the policy that ended acid rain, ahead of schedule and more cheaply than projected." It's a common myth, so let's go slow

1b. Is it true? No. Cap and trade was important to the reduction of sulfur dioxide in emissions in US. But guess what. AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, Europe achieved the same goal using "command and control" regulations ec.europa.eu/environment/ar…

1c. If two places achieve the same result by different means, it follows that either of those means works. The Post could equally have written, ""Command-and-control is not untested theory. It is the policy that ended acid rain in Europe." Market here is adequate, not best

1c. In fact, the big environmental gains of the 80s—curbing sulfur dioxide, and curbing ozone-harming emissions—resulted from technological improvements in minor economic sectors (the big threat on ozone ended up being US strawberry lobby, oddly enough) jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/…

2a. Which brings us to, is 1980s enviro policy even relevant? No. Repeat after me: carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are not remotely analogous. The most thorough destruction of the 80s eco analogy is David Victor's magisterial Global Warming Gridlock cambridge.org/core/books/glo…

2b. It's appalling (but not surprising) that the new serious climate people seem to have no familiarity with Victor. His work should be the bedrock of even the most austerely centrist policy.

2c. Which brings us back to the Green New Deal. The Post never quibbles with the GND's analogy to the New Deal, bc if it did it would have to abandon its entire argument

3a. One more thing on Cap-and-Trade—Is there really no basis in evidence for wanting market mechanisms to do all the work? What about California? Well, Cap and Trade has probably moderately increased pollution in some poor neighborhoods journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/a…

3b. Meanwhile, its aggressive "command and control" measures—renewable portfolio standard, auto efficiency standards, building codes—do the heavy lifting. Cap & Trade revenues fund good community investments. thenation.com/article/green-…

3c. Seems obvious that one should conclude: direct regulation, plus targeted investment, together reduce emissions and achieve social justice goals at the same time

4a. But wait—doesn't the IPCC report—aka, the world's top scientists—call for a really high price on carbon? Sort of—and not the way WashPo claims. Is the Washington Post suggesting several hundred dollars per ton tomorrow? No. So they are not in accord w IPCC.

4b. Actually it's worse. WashPo editorial says the IPCC finds that a carbon price of "$100, $200 or even $300" to ton is enough to keep warming to 1.5C. Click link and what do you see? Come on WashPo
(IPCC called for a "mix of stringent policies.")
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

4c. In fact, IPCC's most robust projections distinguish bt different pathways, as I explain here. Most effective way to slash emissions and make ppl safe (SSP 1) looks *way more* like GND than Wash Po proposal (I wrote this long before @AOC's GND came out)
thenation.com/article/mainst…

4d. Or see @CarbonBrief explainer. An SSP 1 world would undoubtedly have a carbon tax, but it wouldn't be able to achieve SSP 1 results without *substantial* help from large gov't intervention
carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-…

5a. So what's the bottom line here? The @washingtonpost is using a misread of the IPCC, and a misread of 1980s policy, to advocate a GND that looks like a proven loser (a version just failed in Washington State), while refusing to take srsly the New Deal precedent's econ model

5b. As @drvox wrote "Carbon taxes are a useful tool but a dangerous fetish."

The real fetish here is market gradualism. You know the brains of the "reality-based community" are in thrall to a fetish when they can't even muster real data for their claims
vox.com/energy-and-env…