Thursday, May 22, 2008
Disingenuous carbon regulation
Glenn Reynolds links to Megan McArdle:
We seem to have a grand national amnesia when it comes to carbon and flying. Cap and trade isn't going to do any good unless we do less of things like drive and fly--and most of the city loving coastal types I know want to do much, much more flying, because international travel is incredibly important to them. Yet a few long haul flights a year are the carbon equivalent of driving an SUV in an exurb.
Either we get upset about doing less driving and flying, or we get upset about climate change. We cannot simultaneously fix both problems.
It is not amnesia. It is disingenuous intellectual dishonesty. There is a difference.
3 Comments:
By 
Neil Sinhababu, at
Fri May 23, 04:38:00 AM:
Well, systems like cap and trade will produce incentives for developing means of transit that produce less carbon. High speed rail, for instance, and vehicles with better fuel economy. You'd expect demand for these sorts of things to increase under cap and trade.
One thing that's always bugged me is the SUV prisoner's dilemma. If everyone on the roads has a gigantic car, I need a big one too for safety. But if everyone has a small car, I can go small and fuel-efficient without being terrified that my little car will get punted across the road by a Hummer.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 23, 06:41:00 AM:
Neil, you're on to something with the SUV "prisoner's dilemma" (not sure that's the right game, but I get your point), but not so much because of the collision risk. I think it is more convenient to ride high off the road because if you are low (such as in the small sedan I drive) you cannot see around or through big SUVs. So with all the SUVs on the road you need to get some altitude to see what's going on.
By 
, at
Sat May 24, 01:52:00 AM:
Why dont those politcal hacks start by keeping their big fat lying pieholes shut and cutting off all that HOT AIR and admit that GLOBAL WARMING is a big fat hoax and lie
