1\ Just got "Global Warming Gridlock" in the mail from @ewinsberg
I'll be adding to this thread as I read the book
Thanks Eric!
I'll be adding to this thread as I read the book
Thanks Eric!
2\ "Two degrees of warming" is the "Six feet apart" of climate propaganda; a piece of scientism that makes for good marketing.
3\ I wonder what evidence the author would adduce for the effectiveness of the UN and IMF
4\ I don't really understand his reason for preferring a carbon tax to cap and trade.
He seems to be saying the costs of warming are unknowable, but the costs of mitigation are also unknowable...therefore tax not cap?
He seems to be saying the costs of warming are unknowable, but the costs of mitigation are also unknowable...therefore tax not cap?
5\ Obvious pot shot: this book, which treats the US like an unruly teenager to be brought into line by global elites, was published in 2011
Same year hicks with horizontal drills unlocked Appalachian shale gas, allowing the US to lead the world in CO2 reduction
Markets win.
Same year hicks with horizontal drills unlocked Appalachian shale gas, allowing the US to lead the world in CO2 reduction
Markets win.
6\ This "state capacity as source of growth" assumption is so shaky that any theory you build on it will crumble.
I've excoriated it elsewhere.
I've excoriated it elsewhere.
7\ Ok, something the author and I might agree on: the impetus for the FDA's creation was large food producers seeking to expel foreign competition. Food safety laws remain an absurdity.
8\ Great example of how global warming hysteria turns good people into bad people.
The author abandoned his belief in liberlism because Greta scared him.
Those who try to create utopias always end up creating hell.
The author abandoned his belief in liberlism because Greta scared him.
Those who try to create utopias always end up creating hell.
9\ This passage puzzles me. Leaving aside the fact that better reactor designs already exist and are blocked by regulators for no reason, why would we need new designs to go from 436 to 1,500 reactors?
Nuclear is already the safest form of energy known to man.
Nuclear is already the safest form of energy known to man.
10\ This claim is so insane that it needs no comment. I can't even imagine how the author would go about supporting it.
11\ I didn't say enough in this earlier tweet.
Countries are never punished. Only individuals are punished. Countries don't trade. Individuals trade.
Stripped of their favorite rhetorical sleight of hand, statists find their policies sound illiberal.
Countries are never punished. Only individuals are punished. Countries don't trade. Individuals trade.
Stripped of their favorite rhetorical sleight of hand, statists find their policies sound illiberal.
12\ Here is a fairy tale about the Clean Air Act heroically forcing new technology on recalcitrant capitalists.
Actually, the Act had the *precise* opposite effect
(more detail in following tweet)
Actually, the Act had the *precise* opposite effect
(more detail in following tweet)
13\ The Clean Air Act followed a classic pattern: move the market to a (putative) better position, then freeze it there forever, such that the long term result is worse
14\ A quibble, but the author takes a swipe at the US, saying Sweden's healthcare system "delivers a healthier population"
Actually, Sweden's lack of violence, obesity, and cars delivers that difference. The residual is about 0.5 years, less than measurement error
Actually, Sweden's lack of violence, obesity, and cars delivers that difference. The residual is about 0.5 years, less than measurement error
15\ Here's something I didn't know
The author claims the 1970s oil shock caused *electricity* prices to rise. I thought he had to be wrong, because we used so little oil for power
But EIA confirms: oil burn took big share from gas in the 1970s! Why? Next tweet explains...
The author claims the 1970s oil shock caused *electricity* prices to rise. I thought he had to be wrong, because we used so little oil for power
But EIA confirms: oil burn took big share from gas in the 1970s! Why? Next tweet explains...
16\ Because regulation of gas prices ("To protect the consumer!") led to a shortage of production
I swear, these regulatory mysteries always have the same ending
And yet we never learn...
I swear, these regulatory mysteries always have the same ending
And yet we never learn...
17\ This is not a substantive criticism, just an economic fallacy that crops up all the time, and it's fun to point out
A firm that invents a longer lasting product doesn't lose anything by selling it to you. They just charge you more for it.
A firm that invents a longer lasting product doesn't lose anything by selling it to you. They just charge you more for it.
18\ Here the author advances a baroque "appropriability" theory to explain why utilities don't innovate
But the real answer is known: utility commissions regulate price through rate bases, and EPA through mandates, so there is little incentive to innovate
Regulatory self own.
But the real answer is known: utility commissions regulate price through rate bases, and EPA through mandates, so there is little incentive to innovate
Regulatory self own.
19\ The idea that a wise FCC broke up the "natural" Bell monopoly is one of the hoariest myths in all of public policy
None of the facts are remotely in dispute
The FCC created the telecom oligopoly in 1934 and defended it for 60 years
cato.org/sites/cato.org…
None of the facts are remotely in dispute
The FCC created the telecom oligopoly in 1934 and defended it for 60 years
cato.org/sites/cato.org…
20\ "The poor will be particularly hard hit by warming"
This is exactly backwards. The poor are hardest hit by global warming hysteria.
The only cure for poverty is wealth, and wealth is hastened by access to cheap fossil fuel energy.
This is exactly backwards. The poor are hardest hit by global warming hysteria.
The only cure for poverty is wealth, and wealth is hastened by access to cheap fossil fuel energy.
21\ Author trots out the usual geologic and economic fallacies:
1) Sea level *will* drop by hundreds of meters in the next glacial unless we heat the globe
2) H2O scarcity is always and everywhere a political phenomenon
3) To avoid flood deaths, get rich through fossil fuel
1) Sea level *will* drop by hundreds of meters in the next glacial unless we heat the globe
2) H2O scarcity is always and everywhere a political phenomenon
3) To avoid flood deaths, get rich through fossil fuel
22\ Deaths from coastal flooding are down a gazzilion percent in recent decades
Why?
Because poor countries like Bangladesh got richer through capitalism, including access to fossil fuels.
Limiting carbon emissions kills the poor in a very direct way.
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Why?
Because poor countries like Bangladesh got richer through capitalism, including access to fossil fuels.
Limiting carbon emissions kills the poor in a very direct way.
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
23\ Here's the "stronger storms" canard (left)
1) What matters isn't storm strength but deaths, and we know that fossil fuels have let us cut storm deaths by 90% this century (top right)
2) There's basically no evidence of increased storm energy (bottom right)
1) What matters isn't storm strength but deaths, and we know that fossil fuels have let us cut storm deaths by 90% this century (top right)
2) There's basically no evidence of increased storm energy (bottom right)
24\ The author strays into philosophy only to step on the Rawls rake
(Rawls is a laughingstock among economists, because his "veil of ignorance" would call for complete communism on the first day of creation. Rawls asked "what" but forgot to ask "when")
(Rawls is a laughingstock among economists, because his "veil of ignorance" would call for complete communism on the first day of creation. Rawls asked "what" but forgot to ask "when")
25\ Here the US gets its ritual dragging for having refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol (right)
But thanks to its enshrinement of property rights (US landowners own mineral rights to the center of the earth), the US invented fracking and cut CO2 more than any other country (left)
But thanks to its enshrinement of property rights (US landowners own mineral rights to the center of the earth), the US invented fracking and cut CO2 more than any other country (left)
26\ A book ostensibly about tradeoffs makes its first mention of costs on p.237: something like $51 trillion from 2020 to 2050 *just* in the 3rd world
3rd world wealth is ~$90T
What will Deepak's grandkids prefer? Slightly lower sea level, or two thirds an additional economy?
3rd world wealth is ~$90T
What will Deepak's grandkids prefer? Slightly lower sea level, or two thirds an additional economy?
27\ A puzzling claim from the ivory tower
How can globalization be "in tatters" when deregulated telecom, trade, manufacturing, and energy markets have lifted billions out of poverty and knit them together in a web of commerce?
Seriously, which data is this guy looking at?
How can globalization be "in tatters" when deregulated telecom, trade, manufacturing, and energy markets have lifted billions out of poverty and knit them together in a web of commerce?
Seriously, which data is this guy looking at?
28\ On p. 272 the mask finally slips: global warming policy is a reversion to crypto-communism and allows elites to play god with 8 billion lives:
29\ Ok, I finished it
It's the standard Technocrat's Mirage: "Existing bureaucracies are bloated, corrupt, hidebound. But if you will just appoint a smart fellow such as myself, I will implement an infinitely subtle and complex set of new policies..."
Yikes.
It's the standard Technocrat's Mirage: "Existing bureaucracies are bloated, corrupt, hidebound. But if you will just appoint a smart fellow such as myself, I will implement an infinitely subtle and complex set of new policies..."
Yikes.
30\30 Sadly, the book doesn't address the science of global warming at all. Too bad, because the science is worse than the policy prescriptions, and a lot more fun to demolish.
With apologies to @ewinsberg for calling his baby ugly, thank you nevertheless for an enjoyable read!
With apologies to @ewinsberg for calling his baby ugly, thank you nevertheless for an enjoyable read!
