In a recent New York Times article, economist Robert H. Frank–“The Economic Naturalist”–argues that fighting global warming through government intervention entails a small cost and promises a large benefit. Yet to cast serious doubts on his claim, all we need do is quote from U.S. government and IPCC reports. We find that even in a textbook implementation, it’s not obvious that government mitigation efforts deliver net benefits.
Of course in the real world, if the politicians and/or EPA starts intervening in the energy sector, their actions will be far from the economist’s theoretical ideal. Then the case for such policy activism falls apart.
Frank’s Pros/Cons of Intervention
Frank’s opening paragraphs nicely summarize his views on climate policy:
… Continue ReadingFORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede.
Two characteristics of industrial wind power crucially inform the public policy debate.
First, wind turbines have little or no “capacity value”; i.e., they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand. Therefore, wind turbines cannot substitute for conventional generating capacity responsible for providing reliable electricity to customers.
Second, a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from wind has less value than a kWh of electricity from a reliable (“dispatchable”) generating unit; i.e., from a unit that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever the electricity is needed by electric customers.
These issues are important because “wind farm” developers and lobbyists have misled the public, media and government officials by making false claims and by using terms intended to confuse their listeners.
To address this problem, this post explains a few key electric industry terms that are important in understanding the critically important differences between the quality and value of
… Continue Reading(i) the high cost, intermittent, volatile and unreliable electricity produced by wind turbines and
(ii) the lower cost, reliable and more valuable electricity produced by generating units that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed by electric customers.
[Editor’s note: Part II in this five-part series examines Dr. Ehrlich’s failed predictions in energy. Part III examines Ehrlich’s conservation(ism) views.]
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”
– Paul R. Ehrlich, quoted in Stephen Dinan, “Climate Scientists to Fight Back Against Skeptics,” Washington Times, March 5, 2010.
“Everyone is scared shitless [about the attacks from climate-science critics], but they don’t know what to do.”
– Paul Ehrlich. Quoted in “Climate of Fear,” Nature, March 11, 2010.
Paul Ehrlich is back in the news regarding Climategate and the IPCC controversy. How ironic! Dr. Ehrlich’s multi-decadal over-the-top pronouncements of doom-and-gloom, and his arrogant behavior towards his critics (Julian Simon in particular), might qualify as Malthusgate.…
Continue Reading