View Single Post
  #105  
Old 06-13-2006, 08:57 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,887
Sigh.

DrDeth's list misses "fuel switching" and conservation, both of which would be advanced by a carbon tax or a more complicated tradeable emissions program.

Coal puts out about 4 times as much CO2 as oil does, for the same BTUs. Natural gas is even less carbon intensive. All fossil fuels are not alike.

Methinks his list is driven more by ideology than by facts and tough-minded analysis. Which is a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbguy
This always seems to be the assumption, but itís not clear to me why itís true. Wouldnít more efficient energy use lead to more growth, at least long term? How does inefficient resource use benefit growth?
Well, of course the effects of large-scale climate change would hurt potential output in a big way. For example, If the Atlantic currents that warm northwestern Europe cease --as they have in the pre-historical past-- the world would be a lot poorer. Set that aside though.

More pollution control equipment - or shifts to more expensive fuel sources - raise the costs of producing a set amount of output: more machines (and R&D) are required and/or more labor.

Estimates say that perhaps 0.1% - 0.2% of real GDP growth might be sacrificed by a strong program to reduce emissions. That's relative to a (conservative) long run GDP growth estimate of 2.5%. cite. Some industries would lose jobs, others would gain.

It would hit people's wallets, but it would hardly be noticed in the growth figures. I mean, it's not like we're talking about a $2 increase in petrol prices or anything.