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.
A wobble with your words, though not their sense: I think that the best incentive to emit less carbon is the one that has been in place since fossil fuels were discovered -- the market charges for fossil fuel so everyone has an incentive to use less at the margin. The result is that the year-over-year cost in carbon of the marginal unit if GDP is falling. I realize that this never gets us to zero net carbon. But the mechanisms on which a carbon tax relies are those provided by the market. So when we hear of alternatives to a carbon tax, the ones that rely on a non-market mechanism seem to be growing the baby out with the bath water.
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.
On natural monopolies, a part of the problem is that we work within a set context. We think of an existing monopoly and assume that it is entirely natural, but it isn’t. Competition in power distribution doesn’t happen because the government doesn’t allow open use of utility easements by new entrants. Imagine a world where neighborhoods owned the distribution from local substations, and your HOA negotiated for power supply. (OK, not that HOA, but a competent one.)
On man-made monopolies, it seems like your point is intellectual property. Again, we’re stuck within context. The anarcho-capitalist response is for law to be a service that competitors provide. In such a situation, we’d likely have more law than libertarians think we ought to have, because much of it is socially useful. IP might be one such thing.
On externalities, the long sweep of history shows lots of institutional innovations outside of government proper that limit externalities. The problem is one of scale. Handling the tragedy of the commons for gracing around a water hole is a small problem that local customs can handle. Carbon emissions seem a touch tougher. Nonetheless, the question is whether market or governments are better. So far, government hasn’t delivered much on carbon emissions, while the market is responsible for conserving fossil fuels like it does every economic input, resulting in less carbon emitter per unit of marginal GDP.
On the military, see again the anarcho-capitalist approach to law as a service.
I’m not saying that these are winning arguments. But you said you had not heard anyone address them from a libertarian perspective.
Natural monopolies - you hit on one of the problems, competence. A competent HOA isn't much different than a competent government.
Man-made monopolies - I don't see that competition has any ability to solve the biggest difficulties. One entity has to decide what gets a patent, copyright and how long it lasts.
Externalities - if one looks at wells in California (and elsewhere) clearly the "water hole" issue isn't solved. While markets are involve in addressing CO2 emissions, for better AND worse it is also true that some of the incentives are created by government.
Military - I don't see where you are going with this one either.
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.
Of course we should recognize that a carbon tax is very much a hybrid. It is a market approach implemented by government. A large part of what governments are doing to address climate is market oriented, just with intermediate objectives that aren't necessarily efficient ways to address carbon. ... Kind of like how carbon emissions reduction isn't necessarily an efficient way to address climate change.
Not to debate, but to understand what you mean by "carbon emissions reduction isn't necessarily an efficient way to address climate change?" To clarify, I did not mean to pass over eliminating regulatory obstacles to nuclear and other zero C2 emitting technologies.
I was thinking that less carbon emissions, whether using less fossil fuel or carbon capture, might not be a primary component of addressing the issue. It seems pretty likely fossil fuel CO2 emissions worldwide will continue to increase for decades. If so, mitigation might be more important, whether that be better infrastructure to deal with a different climate, adding particulates to the atmosphere to block solar radiation, or something else not even on my radar.
By the way, I agree the safety regulations for nuclear are a bit excessive but don't think having none is better so that means addressing regulation is likely an issue of better government rather than letting markets sort it out.
"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.
A wobble with your words, though not their sense: I think that the best incentive to emit less carbon is the one that has been in place since fossil fuels were discovered -- the market charges for fossil fuel so everyone has an incentive to use less at the margin. The result is that the year-over-year cost in carbon of the marginal unit if GDP is falling. I realize that this never gets us to zero net carbon. But the mechanisms on which a carbon tax relies are those provided by the market. So when we hear of alternatives to a carbon tax, the ones that rely on a non-market mechanism seem to be growing the baby out with the bath water.
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.
There are authors who explore a lot of these.
On natural monopolies, a part of the problem is that we work within a set context. We think of an existing monopoly and assume that it is entirely natural, but it isn’t. Competition in power distribution doesn’t happen because the government doesn’t allow open use of utility easements by new entrants. Imagine a world where neighborhoods owned the distribution from local substations, and your HOA negotiated for power supply. (OK, not that HOA, but a competent one.)
On man-made monopolies, it seems like your point is intellectual property. Again, we’re stuck within context. The anarcho-capitalist response is for law to be a service that competitors provide. In such a situation, we’d likely have more law than libertarians think we ought to have, because much of it is socially useful. IP might be one such thing.
On externalities, the long sweep of history shows lots of institutional innovations outside of government proper that limit externalities. The problem is one of scale. Handling the tragedy of the commons for gracing around a water hole is a small problem that local customs can handle. Carbon emissions seem a touch tougher. Nonetheless, the question is whether market or governments are better. So far, government hasn’t delivered much on carbon emissions, while the market is responsible for conserving fossil fuels like it does every economic input, resulting in less carbon emitter per unit of marginal GDP.
On the military, see again the anarcho-capitalist approach to law as a service.
I’m not saying that these are winning arguments. But you said you had not heard anyone address them from a libertarian perspective.
Natural monopolies - you hit on one of the problems, competence. A competent HOA isn't much different than a competent government.
Man-made monopolies - I don't see that competition has any ability to solve the biggest difficulties. One entity has to decide what gets a patent, copyright and how long it lasts.
Externalities - if one looks at wells in California (and elsewhere) clearly the "water hole" issue isn't solved. While markets are involve in addressing CO2 emissions, for better AND worse it is also true that some of the incentives are created by government.
Military - I don't see where you are going with this one either.
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.
Of course we should recognize that a carbon tax is very much a hybrid. It is a market approach implemented by government. A large part of what governments are doing to address climate is market oriented, just with intermediate objectives that aren't necessarily efficient ways to address carbon. ... Kind of like how carbon emissions reduction isn't necessarily an efficient way to address climate change.
Not to debate, but to understand what you mean by "carbon emissions reduction isn't necessarily an efficient way to address climate change?" To clarify, I did not mean to pass over eliminating regulatory obstacles to nuclear and other zero C2 emitting technologies.
I was thinking that less carbon emissions, whether using less fossil fuel or carbon capture, might not be a primary component of addressing the issue. It seems pretty likely fossil fuel CO2 emissions worldwide will continue to increase for decades. If so, mitigation might be more important, whether that be better infrastructure to deal with a different climate, adding particulates to the atmosphere to block solar radiation, or something else not even on my radar.
By the way, I agree the safety regulations for nuclear are a bit excessive but don't think having none is better so that means addressing regulation is likely an issue of better government rather than letting markets sort it out.