I agree that fossil fuels will continue to be used for a longish time, but I think it is important to create incentives (and I know of no better one than a tax on net CO2 emissions) to emit less. Of course this is not an alternative to mitigation. There will be need for lots of investment in mitigation if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow. And I mean by removing obstacles, cost-benefit based regulation of each technologies respective risk.
I'm a big fan of markets. I suppose my views fall closer to libertarian than liberal or conservative but I came to see the importance of all three long before reading Three Languages. Maybe more than the author. That said, I'm always perplexed by strong proponents of libertarianism and free markets. I've never heard a libertarian address what seem to me to be the difficult issues for markets to handle without government creating the market.
1 - Natural monopolies
For example, how do we use markets to build and maintain grids to distribute water, power, etc.?
2 - Man-made monopolies
Is it possible to have a market that balances the competing needs of creators and users related to patents, copyright, etc. instead of government setting the rules?
3 - Externalities
Yes, in many cases the best answers involve government using markets but markets don't do much here in the absence of government.
4 - Military
5 - Help for the poor, or maybe more accurately, those who can't care for themselves. Ok, I've heard arguments that in the absence of government programs, charity would fill the void. Maybe. IDK.
I fully agree about the superiority of markets in areas in which they can possibly work. There is no way a markets can work on the damages that are created by the increase o CO2 in the atmosphere. And I take that MY preferred policy, a tax on net emissions of CO2, is nowhere on the political landscape as evidence of the failures of political decision making, but that's were we are.
"In a better intellectual environment, the views that Friedman and I hold would have much higher status than they actually do."
Agreed.
Jeffrey's untimely death is a huge loss.
I agree that fossil fuels will continue to be used for a longish time, but I think it is important to create incentives (and I know of no better one than a tax on net CO2 emissions) to emit less. Of course this is not an alternative to mitigation. There will be need for lots of investment in mitigation if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow. And I mean by removing obstacles, cost-benefit based regulation of each technologies respective risk.
I'm a big fan of markets. I suppose my views fall closer to libertarian than liberal or conservative but I came to see the importance of all three long before reading Three Languages. Maybe more than the author. That said, I'm always perplexed by strong proponents of libertarianism and free markets. I've never heard a libertarian address what seem to me to be the difficult issues for markets to handle without government creating the market.
1 - Natural monopolies
For example, how do we use markets to build and maintain grids to distribute water, power, etc.?
2 - Man-made monopolies
Is it possible to have a market that balances the competing needs of creators and users related to patents, copyright, etc. instead of government setting the rules?
3 - Externalities
Yes, in many cases the best answers involve government using markets but markets don't do much here in the absence of government.
4 - Military
5 - Help for the poor, or maybe more accurately, those who can't care for themselves. Ok, I've heard arguments that in the absence of government programs, charity would fill the void. Maybe. IDK.
I fully agree about the superiority of markets in areas in which they can possibly work. There is no way a markets can work on the damages that are created by the increase o CO2 in the atmosphere. And I take that MY preferred policy, a tax on net emissions of CO2, is nowhere on the political landscape as evidence of the failures of political decision making, but that's were we are.