Funny how this all boils down to ever increasing Big Government, eh?
New study makes the case for supply-side climate change policies
A pair of economists, Fergus Green of the London School of Economics, and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute have published an interesting paper that attempts to integrate and synthesize the economic and political attributes of restrictive supply-side climate policies.
The paper, “Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies,” is a long read and at the same time, advocates the need for a universal climate policy “toolkit,” one that goes beyond focusing on restricting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
And according to David Roberts, writing for Vox, the two economists may be onto something that climate activists have long been campaigning for – shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals. (snip)
The economists argue that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.
“In our experience,†the authors write, “the climate policy community has for too long been excessively narrow in its preference for certain kinds of policy instruments (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade), largely ignoring the characteristics of such instruments that affect their political feasibility and feedback effects.â€
I think we should start by banning all city, county, and state governments from using fossil fuels for their operations that have voted for ‘climate change’ policies, even if just a resolution in support of something like the Paris Climate Agreement.
Surprise: Economists declare that a single mind making decisions for everyone is more efficient. This is pretty basic and can be applied to everything. Their measures for efficiency though are tied to reducing greenhouse gasses, as if that is a dire need, not on improving the quality of life for citizens or lifting people out of poverty. If all you care about is lowering a trace gas in the atmosphere by some barely measurable percentage, then naturally it’s worth creating a global dictatorship to do it. For efficiency!