Pinky wrote:Turdacious wrote:Pinky wrote:The inefficiency of regulators, and the inherent inefficiency of most types of regulation, is another reason for people who favor smaller, more efficient government to push for the taxation of emissions. It can (and should) replace regulation.
2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.
Are you referring to the fact that people in poor countries burn dirtier fuels than we would like them to, and that their demand for clean air will likely increase as they become wealthier? In any case, the amount that the developing world pollutes does not lessen the harm that our pollution causes, especially when you consider that all of the harm is not global.
Agree with your first point, but they are a powerful lobbying group and Congress has never demonstrated the sense to regulate so effectively.
Re the second point, I'm stating that not only do poorer countries burn dirtier fuels (and burn them in a dirtier manner), but also that market forces in their countries and ours make this economically advantageous for them. I agree that their demand for clean air/water will increase as they become wealthier-- but this assumes that they can effectively transform their economies into ones that make this possible. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that other less developed countries will not embrace these polluting industries.
We have pretty effectively limited our air pollution for the most part (largely by exporting it); the localized harm is mostly in areas that naturally collect pollution (like LA). Unless I'm mistaken, carbon and similar taxes will do little to reduce gross pollution, just the areas where it happens. Muller's argument (and I haven't read his paper, just the editorial) seems to be that the pollution in the developing world will have the largest effect on total environmental damage.
There are few mechanisms in place to regulate international pollution that damages neighboring countries-- those would probably have to be set by treaty, and both the polluting and polluted countries would have to agree to them, and agree to effective enforcement. Both have never been effectively done.
IMO the biggest weakness of the climate lobby is that they don't take the dynamics of economic growth/development and pollution seriously-- especially the developing country aspect. A pollution limiting model has to seriously consider this, and requires real buy in by these developing countries to work. Refusing to acknowledge this aspect of the argument is the biggest weakness of the climate change argument-- and until they are even willing to acknowledge it, it makes their argument very hard for me to take seriously.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule