Comments on: Unilateral or Worldwide, Waxman-Markey Fails Standard Cost/Benefit Tests (CO2 "leakage" makes bad even worse)

By: We won’t solve global warming through voluntary effort | Kevin Burke

We won’t solve global warming through voluntary effort | Kevin Burke — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:42:29 +0000

[...] gasoline? The whole point of market prices is to do these calculations for us.The usual result is overpayment for little actual benefit.3) When the laws are set up so that the cost of pollution is low, it [...]

By: China Goes ‘Green’ – Collecting the Pot at the Climate Policy Poker Table — MasterResource

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:17:24 +0000

[...] without the wholesale transfer of US manufacturing industry to China, (called “leakage“) under a stringent U.S. carbon-dioxide régime, the putative positive climate impacts of such [...]

By: Climate Economics 101 & Policy Activism — MasterResource

Climate Economics 101 & Policy Activism — MasterResource — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:58:26 +0000

[...] conclusion, I refer readers to my earlier post on the cost/benefit calculations of Waxman-Markey, showing that its advocates have not demonstrated [...]

By: Trading Eights » One Controversial, Uncertain, Imperfect Chance: Is It Worth It?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:32:50 +0000

[...] say Bravo! to the few pundits, like Jim Manzi and Robert Murphy, who have tried to use respected economic models to perform a cost-benefit analysis of [...]

By: "Green" China: Big PR vs. King Coal (move over dung, primitive biomass, and Waxman-Markey) — MasterResource

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:25:14 +0000

[...] symbolic measures. Indeed, U.S. industry would move to China to transfer emissions (called “leakage“) under a stringent U.S. carbon-dioxide [...]

By: Another Look at the Costs/Benefits of Waxman-Markey: A Dog that Won’t Hunt — MasterResource

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:57:08 +0000

[...] an earlier post, I tried to show that this view is simply false. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on [...]

By: Cost/Benefit Analysis Cannot Justify Waxman-Markey’s Aggressive Targets — MasterResource

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:53:09 +0000

[...] explained this point in a previous post, but since then Resources for the Future (RFF) has released an excellent primer on climate [...]

By: We won’t solve global warming through voluntary effort – Kevin Burke

We won’t solve global warming through voluntary effort – Kevin Burke — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:27:40 +0000

[...] usual result is overpayment for little actual [...]

By: Tom Jefferson

Tom Jefferson — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:51:42 +0000

One question, who is going to feed the world after the USA industry is shut down?

Basic? No?

By: C3H Editor

C3H Editor — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:09:47 +0000

I have found this series of postings very helpful and will be re-reading this particular one again to get my arms around.

One quibble that I have is following comment: “Yes, worldwide commitment to the aggressive emission schedule in W-M would avert climate damages that would otherwise occur….” If Chip’s world impact analysis is correct, then o.5 C increase will be avoided (probably less, since Chip assumed a perfect implementation). I’m curious as to what “climate damages” will be averted by an aggressive global W-M policy, if temperature avoidance amounts to only 0.5 C.

I actually think this is an important clarification that is needed for all policy makers. If facts (actual climate damage averted) can’t support your statement, then it just muddies the water and the debate.