Kurgman: Cassandras of Climate Change (I CANNOT understand the US's refusal to LEAD on this issue)

[Triana]

Yea, I know - profits/money. But there comes a point where much of that money will be of help to no one - or damn few - if not be downright worthless. The US's priorities on this are ALL WRONG. We have already waited WAY TOO LONG. And STILL piddling. UNCONSCIONABLE!
_ _ _ _ _

September 28, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Cassandras of Climate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet. If you’ve been following climate science, you know what I mean: the sense that we’re hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything to avert it.

And here’s the thing: I’m not engaging in hyperbole. These days, dire warnings aren’t the delusional raving of cranks. They’re what come out of the most widely respected climate models, devised by the leading researchers. The prognosis for the planet has gotten much, much worse in just the last few years.

What’s driving this new pessimism? Partly it’s the fact that some predicted changes, like a decline in Arctic Sea ice, are happening much faster than expected. Partly it’s growing evidence that feedback loops amplifying the effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are stronger than previously realized. For example, it has long been understood that global warming will cause the tundra to thaw, releasing carbon dioxide, which will cause even more warming, but new research shows far more carbon dioxide locked in the permafrost than previously thought, which means a much bigger feedback effect.

The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras — gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.

MORE...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=2

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. The collective greed of US big business will literally kill us all.

[Triana]

2. I guess so. Unless somebody in DC has the spine to stand up to them and

get their damn PRIORITIES in order!

[RKP5637]

3. And many never react 'till it strongly effects them, their bottom line.

As long as greed is profitable US big business will plow on... it's the dark side of runaway capitalism. None give a damn as long as they are in what they perceive as the winning circle! Problem is we will all lose and their sacred profits they worship will be useless in the big picture. The US tends to be reactive and not proactive, so, probably little will happen in a timely manner. We have a government run by corporate politicians for the most part, as long as this continues, they will for the most part look out for their own interests first...

[Triana]

5. Yea. The "I got mine and I'm comfy, f*ck you" defense. Selfish, immoral cretins. n/t

[Romulox]

4. Wait a minute. Doesn't Krugman champion "free trade" with the developing world???

How does one reconcile advocacy for increasing environmental regulations in the developed world with simultaneos advocacy for "free trade" with countries with little or no environmental regulation?

Sounds like more "triangulatory" bullshit. :hi:

[Triana]

6. Hey! Ask him! Leave a comment. I don't like triangulatory bullshit.

If that's what he's doing I want to know why (or how he explains it).

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Of course this isn't 'triangulatory'

This is about stopping worldwide famine, flooding and more. Krugman is right about this.

[Romulox]

9. I wasn't question concern about global warming. I was asking how that fit in with "free trade"

I've never seen Al Gore, Paul Krugman, Bill Clinton or any of the "free trading" Democrats even attempt to explain this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. It's concern about global warming. You questioned it.

Your method of questioning it was by calling it 'triangulatory bullshit'. There's no need to try to hide from what you posted.

[Romulox]

11. Nonsense. This sort of debate where you tell me what I think is pointless.

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. In #4 you say "Sounds like more "triangulatory" bullshit."

I feel I'm on safe ground whan I say you think what Krugman wrote in the OP is "triangulatory bullshit".

[Romulox]

14. Right, but you are wildly INFERRING from that I deny global warming

Global warming is an imminent threat. I do not now (nor have I ever) denied this.

That out of the way, I've said four times that the point of my comment was to determine just how concern for the environment can be reconciled with advocacy for "free trade" (something for which Paul Krugman has long been noted.) I expect that his silence on that matter is my answer, as he has printed reams on his advocacy for "free trade" while not even considering this question.

I am sure that my point is very clear to you now. No need to argue a point nobody has made on this thread: we all agree that climate change is a serious and imminent threat.

Now then. How does "free trade" with low regulation countries help solve this problem? :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. No, I never inferred that

I inferred that you didn't want people to listen to Krugman. That's why you called it 'bullshit'. And used the adjective 'triangulatory', despite that seeming to have nothing to do with this (what triangle were you talking about? But it's an adjective used, in a different context, against Bill Clinton, so I guess you thought you could use it here too). I assume you didn't want them to listen to him because you don't like his views on free trade.

It's very easy to reconcile concern for the environment with advocacy of free trade. You want civilisation to continue. You want free trade in that civilisation (which needs it's continued existence). There. Easy.

I'll let him explain:

The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory — the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy — that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.

And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.

And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.

What’s happening here, I think, is that people are relying on what Paul Samuelson called an economic “shibboleth” — they’re relying on some slogan rather than thinking through the underlying economics. In this case the shibboleth is “free trade good, protection bad”, when what the economics really says is that incentives should reflect the marginal cost of greenhouse gases in all goods, wherever produced — which in this case happens to imply border adjustments.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/climate-trade-obama/?apage=3

See? He wants a level playing field.

[amandabeech]

16. You should have just posted this first. n/t

[Romulox]

18. Logic problem: if it's OK to impose tariffs to achieve "non-economic objectives"

why aren't social justice, egalitarianism, and class mobility worth protecting with tariffs? As to all of these things, Paul says "compete, and let the chips fall where they may!"

Again, I don't see any attempt to reconcile two seemingly diametrically opposed points of view. Just a quick an easy exception that Paul has pulled out of his hat without any discussion of his methodology whatever. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Maybe Krugman is more internationalist than you are

and he sees free trade as increasing those things, over the whole globe. He's not as laissez-faire as you're painting him here, though.

[Romulox]

21. That's another way of saying he doesn't think things like social justice, class mobility

are worth deviating from his otherwise slavish devotion to "free markets"--at least if they involve Americans (how provincial!)

"he sees free trade as increasing those things, over the whole globe"

He'd see free trade as decimating the American middle class, if he were paying any attention whatsoever. :hi:

[amandabeech]

8. I'm glad that I'm not the only one thinking that.

Are you also thinking that all that green industry will move to China and that our solar panels and wind turbines will be made in the most ecologically destructive manner?

[Romulox]

12. The poster above objects to the very question, so it's an uphill climb.

:shrug:

[amandabeech]

17. I think that the key to his or her posts is the last one in which he or she

links to a post in Krugman's blog in which Krugman, in a convoluted way, argues that trade barriers to effect policy changes like combating global warming would be okay.

Why the poster continued to be extremely difficult with you instead of just coming out and saything the Krugman seems to be making an exception now and linking to the blog post is beyond me. It would have been simpler and much less obnoxious. I was surpised to see that the poster is a mod.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I don't see myself as being difficult

or obnoxious, surprisingly. I was pointing out that 'triangulatory' was a meaningless adjective to apply here; and that dismissing what Krugman wrote about climate change as 'bullshit' because of his stance on free trade wasn't a valid argument. Since he said it was 'bullshit', the question he asked in #4 looks like a rhetorical one, to me. When it became clear he wanted an actual answer on what Krugman says about this, I thought it worth looking for a recent comment by Krugman on trade and climate change, and found what I quoted, quickly.

[Romulox]

22. You're still misrepresenting what I said.

:hi:

[Frank Booth]

23. One of the many things wrong with the US position is that there's a ton of money to be made in

green energy, but we're not taking advantage of it. Unlike our government, the Chinese government is throwing massive subsidies at their green energy industries.