If you have not yet read Paul Krugman’s long piece (very long for a newspaper) on Building a Green Economy, you should. And, you should also read Steven Landsburg’s responses to it here, here and here.
I have three problems with Krugman’s piece. First, I think he is far too dismissive of the critics of AGW. While I personally believe in AGW, I am a moderate on the issue and I roundly reject the catastrophist prophecy that hitches itself to the solid science on the topic. That said, the critics make many strong points that need to be taken seriously. Krugman’s haughty dismissal is a shockingly anti-intellectual moment in an otherwise well thought out article.
My second problem with the piece is its lack of ecological external validity. In a piece that is over 7700 words long, Krugman devotes just a few short paragraphs to the 800 pound gorilla – China and that nation’s unwillingness to participate in any international regime that will threaten its chosen energy path. It is apparent through their actual behavior (and not to the sentiments to which they pay lip service at international gatherings) that China and other “developing” nations do not believe that AGW is a real problem. Nations responsible for half of the world’s carbon emissions – and the growing half, that will be responsible for 60%, 70%, 75% in years to come – insist that they be left unregulated. Krugman graciously allows that “the actual business of getting cooperative, worldwide action on climate change would be much more complicated and tendentious than this discussion suggests.” That is an understatement. No agreement that leaves China and other producers untouched will pass the US Senate. It will be lucky to get 50 votes, let alone the 60 a bill needs to attain cloture. The 67 votes needed to ratify an international treaty is an impossible dream. Still, Krugman ignores those realities and insists “(i)f the United States and Europe decide to move on climate policy, they almost certainly would be able to cajole and chivvy the rest of the world into joining the effort. We can do this.” No, we cannot. Not without the Senate. And the Senate will not come without China. And China does not want to play in this game.
The third and final problem with Krugman’s Green Economy is that, for all its depth and length, he never once mentions geo-engineering. If I am correct and cap and trade, cap and tax, or any other international carbon schemes are unworkable fantasies, then what is left is adaptation and mitigation through technological means. And, even if we did somehow manage to come up with an international agreement, we probably would still have to embrace adaptation and mitigation. The real Green Economy will certainly include investments in Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology. It may well include more esoteric approaches like marine cloud whitening.
Personally, I hope that Krugman’s opus is a last ditch effort to sell cap and trade to the public. I think it is time to give up on that fantasy and to focus on approaches that give us the best chance to produce results. Unfortunately, many of the bureaucrats and statists who most strongly push cap and trade do so not because it is necessarily good environmental policy, but because of the massive revenue it will generate for the State. The lure of those riches will keep them pushing for C&T long after it ceases to make sense from a pure policy standpoint.
