New at Reason

David Weigel | November 14, 2006

From Nairobi, Ronald Bailey looks hard at the choice between poverty reduction and climate change controls.

Comments

|11.14.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Reality - Nuclear power emits NO CO2.

Reality - Disposing of nuclear waste is not that difficult of a problem. Yucca Flats may not be the best, but it will do.

Reality - Three Mile Island killed nobody, injured nobody. How many people die every year in coal mines?

Reality - Training lots of people to operate, maintain and repair nuclear power plants can be done. EVEN IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TO COLLEGE! See Admiral Hyman Rickover.

Personal observation - The people who are most concerned about global warming are also most opposed to nuclear power. They are called Luddites.

|11.14.06 @ 5:51PM|#

I don't understand the dichotomy. If carbon producing fuels were simply taxed at a very high rate, and other taxes were lowered by an equivalent amount, why would this cause any reduction in economic growth at all? Total costs would be the same, but other forms of energy would simply replace carbon forms. Very soon, I would presume that renewable energy would have a deflationary effect, like electronics technology has today, and actually contribute to more economic growth, since wind, nuclear, solar, etc. would get less expensive over time, as compared to fossil fuels which will get more expensive.

Where am I wrong?

|11.14.06 @ 5:55PM|#

kekbo - In the industrialized nations you're totally correct. I'm not so sure that would apply in developing nations (third world).

|11.14.06 @ 6:03PM|#

If carbon producing fuels were simply taxed at a very high rate, and other taxes were lowered by an equivalent amount, why would this cause any reduction in economic growth at all?

The basic reason is that taxing CO2 production is taxing productivity itself. People do not emit CO2 for the sake of emitting CO2. Rather, it is a collateral effect of actual wealth creating enterprise.

Placing a Pigouvian tax on carbon is placing a Pigouvian tax on productivity.

Total costs would be the same, but other forms of energy would simply replace carbon forms.

Provided such things are even possible at a reasonable price...

|11.14.06 @ 6:06PM|#

J sub D, try neo-luddites.

|11.14.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Brains - I'll go with that.

|11.14.06 @ 7:01PM|#

J sub D, you're completely right, and I hope you're recognized as such by everyone before we're all living in dank caves. (Whether we get to the caves through resource wars or global flooding I leave to be debated--one or the other will occur, if not both).

fyodor|11.14.06 @ 7:19PM|#

kebko,

I think a better answer to your question than MikeP's is that you would be taxing free choice. Taxes that are more generalized, even if they take away just as much money from the consumer's hands, are choice-neutral and therefore don't interfere with the freedom of choice in the marketplace that ultimately drives economic growth.

That said, I think I would have to agree that such an effect would be fairly minimal, if indeed generalized taxes are reduced by a comparable amount. Maybe the even better answer is that a lot of folks simply don't believe that emmissions taxes would be coupled with reductions of other taxes. Still, I personally think the less hardcore among us should back such a plan because it would clearly be better than the arbitrary, top-down, bureaucratic controls we will likely get otherwise!

|11.14.06 @ 8:18PM|#

(I don't have my notes so this is extremely abridged plan I have been workning on)

The following wont stop global warming, nor completely end global poverty, but it will help, without really hurting.

1. At the very least, Subsidies, Tax Breaks, and other Corporate Welfare should be eradicated for anything to do with fossil fuels. They have been at trough far too long.

2. End Agricultural Corporate Welfare, and deregulate. The web of subsidies and regulations in the agribiz keeps us from adopting sustainable farming practices, and makes it difficult to explore serious biofuels. Additionally they artificially lower agricultural prices around the world keeping the thrid world poor, forcing them to despoil their lands in order to stay competetive.

2.5 Frankly, end all conventional corporate welfare.

3. Our government should be required to be Carbon Neutral. Consumers should still have a choice in the matter; but with government acting in this manner, there will be enough critical mass in skills and knowledge among contractors, products and services to adequately serve non-government customers who are willing to pay the premium.

4. (this is the most extreme, and likely would be softly phased in, if at all) A border tariff could be imposed on all prodcuts, services, and travellers crossing the borders, affecting only those things, persons, and services which could not otherwise prove Carbon Neutrality. The funds would go to subsidize carbon offsets to help displace fossil fueled power; naturally if all such things crossing the border wer already Carbon Neutral, there would be no tariff money. Additionally, the pressure from the tariff would encourage domestic industries and services, which would help offset the sense of loss from part 2.5, the end of Corporate Welfare.

=D

|11.14.06 @ 9:16PM|#

The basic reason is that taxing CO2 production is taxing productivity itself. People do not emit CO2 for the sake of emitting CO2. Rather, it is a collateral effect of actual wealth creating enterprise.

That's a much better description of an income tax than a carbon tax. As I understand Kebko's proposition, his carbon tax would be revenue neutral. Presumably we would reduce income taxes to offset carbon tax increases.

|11.14.06 @ 9:20PM|#

I think a better answer to your question than MikeP's is that you would be taxing free choice. Taxes that are more generalized, even if they take away just as much money from the consumer's hands, are choice-neutral and therefore don't interfere with the freedom of choice in the marketplace that ultimately drives economic growth.

Yeah, I think this is a better argument inasmuch as it implicates the market distorting effect of targeted taxes. But in this case, that's the point.

|11.14.06 @ 10:40PM|#

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful answers to my question. It seems to me that taxing carbon would be superior to taxing income as far as discouraging productivity goes, and wouldn't be as arbitrary, since it would essentially be a charge for environmental externalities that aren't captured in the price of the commodity. Nuclear & wind are essentially available today at competitive prices, so I don't even know if a carbon tax would cause much added cost in the long term - it would just steer investment to energy that wasn't burdened with all those externalities.

Also, considering that some tax system like this might be fairly neutral, isn't much of the criticism of Kyoto & other carbon reduction programs disingenuous (such as the title of this post)?

|11.15.06 @ 3:27AM|#

"I do not have the funds for both. My choice is to improve the lot of India's poor or reduce CO2 emissions so the developed world can breathe easier."

I like this guy. If the UN keeps getting people like this doing the talking, I might even come to like the UN.

kebko, I'm happy to say that even if you implement your carbon tax in the developed world (which I think would be a mistake), the emissions from India and China will undo the effort anyway.

|11.15.06 @ 3:45AM|#

kebko,

considering that some tax system like this might be fairly neutral, isn't much of the criticism of Kyoto & other carbon reduction programs disingenuous (such as the title of this post)?

Your whole argument is disingeneous. You have failed to give any justification as to why there should be a carbon tax at all.

To "save the environment"? Or is it to "prepare for the second coming of Christ?" It's really hard to tell the difference...

A tax on productivity is not neutral, as we've already admitted.

it implicates the market distorting effect of targeted taxes. But in this case, that's the point.

Admit it. You want this carbon tax because somehow, it makes you feel better.

Let's keep the discussion in these nice and stark terms:

"I do not have the funds for both. My choice is to improve the lot of India's poor or reduce CO2 emissions so the developed world can breathe easier."

Why should anyone choose poverty to "save the planet"? When, in fact, it isn't clear that we'd be saving the planet even if we made your choice. Nor is it clear that the planet needs saving in the first place.

You can't justify making the choice for grueling poverty in India. Nor can you justify a choice to slow down India's economy, which your distorted tax would inevitably do. And by the same token you can't justify forcing your choice on people in the West, either.

Just for curiosity, do you consider yourself a libertarian? What you're advocating isn't libertarian.

I'm amazed at how many "libertarians" become dictators once "the environment" is the topic of discussion.

|11.15.06 @ 3:54AM|#

That's a much better description of an income tax than a carbon tax. As I understand Kebko's proposition, his carbon tax would be revenue neutral. Presumably we would reduce income taxes to offset carbon tax increases.

I still contend there is a big difference between income taxes, whose goal is to raise income for the government, and carbon taxes, whose goal is to decrease the production of CO2. The former may be taxing productivity, but intelligent governments do try to tax productivity without consequently lowering productivity. Consider the attention paid to the Laffer curve.

On the other hand, the very point of taxing carbon is to lower its production. And if there aren't alternatives to fossil fuels at reasonable prices, marginal economic productivity that causes CO2 emission will simply stop. And the margins could be mighty wide.

|11.15.06 @ 4:32AM|#

MikeP-

Your argument seems almost touchingly naive. Of course, the carbon tax wouldn't be to raise money for the government, it would just be to lower carbon! And all that money the government happened to raise in the process would of course go only to doing good things for the environment. Not into a big pot to be spent on more (pick your pet hatred- welfare queens, bridges to nowhere, military action, pictures of crucifixes being pissed on, gold toilets for Halliburton HQ). And, naturally, if and when carbon emissions are no longer a problem for the climate, the government will give up the revenue and the taxes will go away.
Well, until the Earth starts to get a lot colder (as has been known to happen once in awhile), and we institute the Not Emitting Enough Carbon Tax so that the temperature can stay the same forever and ever. Just as nature intended.

|11.15.06 @ 6:20AM|#

Another way to look at the difference between income taxes and carbon taxes is that the former is a transfer of wealth while the latter is a forsaking of wealth.

An income tax transfers wealth earned in productive enterprise from the earner to the government. A high tax will indeed result in less productive enterpise. But a more modest tax usually doesn't. The earner may even work more so his net pay is more to his liking.

A carbon tax, on the other hand, is not a transfer of wealth from one person or entity to another. A carbon tax -- to the extent it is successful -- is a forsaking of wealth. It leaves oil in the ground that, at market rates, would have been pumped and burned for energy. Instead, either the use of the energy never occurs, or some more expensive resource is used to provide the energy. The difference in economic value between the two circumstances is plain and simply lost to the world. That is the destruction of wealth.

The consequent decrease of atmospheric CO2 may in fact help someone somewhere. It may even help them with a benefit equal to or greater than the wealth lost by leaving the oil in the ground. But it is an utter accident if the cost and benefit are anywhere close to equal with a Pigouvian tax such as this. And the inefficiencies it wreaks upon the economy in the process are legion.

Ron Hardin|11.15.06 @ 8:08AM|#

Just like dummy thermostats, a placebo approach is likely to work best. I recomment carbon-reducing chewing gum and hard candy.

|11.15.06 @ 8:40AM|#

I still contend there is a big difference between income taxes, whose goal is to raise income for the government, and carbon taxes, whose goal is to decrease the production of CO2. The former may be taxing productivity, but intelligent governments do try to tax productivity without consequently lowering productivity. Consider the attention paid to the Laffer curve.

On the other hand, the very point of taxing carbon is to lower its production. And if there aren't alternatives to fossil fuels at reasonable prices, marginal economic productivity that causes CO2 emission will simply stop. And the margins could be mighty wide.

It doesn't matter if governments try to tax income without consequently lowering productivity; it's a fools errand. And no, a carbon tax isn't "a forsaking of wealth" any more than an income tax. Both would be revenue generating irrespective of their goals, and both would reduce productivity. If you're worried about "leav[ing] oil in the ground," what about underutilizing labor by distorting the relative values of work and leisure (this is the effect of an income tax)?

A high tax will indeed result in less productive enterpise. But a more modest tax usually doesn't. The earner may even work more so his net pay is more to his liking.

Only if your hypothetical earner is a complete idiot or both totally destitute and lacking a social safety net (essentially impossible in the developed world). The more we tax income, the less valuable working becomes in relation to leisure and other non-taxable activities (including other utility generating but non-transferable uses of time and labor, like sustenance farming, informal services, etc.). Thus, the marginal value of one increment of income generating work decreases as the income tax rate increases. As I said, trying to tax income without consequently lowering productivity is a fool's errand.

***

In response to Genghis Khan:

Admit it. You want this carbon tax because somehow, it makes you feel better.

Isn't wanting something always an indication that it makes you feel better, or that you think it will make you feel better? I give in: I want things that give me utility.

|11.15.06 @ 8:50AM|#

Oh, and about the Laffer Curve: the apex of that curve represents maximal income tax revenue, not maximal productivity. The point representing maximal productivity is 0.

|11.15.06 @ 9:05AM|#

I read somewhere that 40% of man-made CO2 emissions come from cooking fires. If so, isn't continued economic improvement the key to actually reducing cooking fires/poverty?
How would one tax these cooking fires? How would the world (the UN?) enforce Koyota (or harsher) bans on countries such as China, India, Nigeria, Brazil that refuse to go along?
Is military action o.k. to stop those who cause a 1 degree change in temperature but not those who commit murderous crimes against humans?

|11.15.06 @ 9:22AM|#

Mike P,

You are exactly right. You can play the shell game all you want, but the bottomline is that energy produces productivity which produces wealth. If you burn less energy, you will produce less and be less wealthy. There is no way around it. You can alter the equation somewhat by becoming more efficient, but you are not going to change the fact that without energy you have no wealth. Any one who claims that you can lower energy use without either increasing effiecency or forgoing wealth is either stupid or lying.

There is one way out of this an that is nuclear power. If India goes nuclear, then they can have their energy without the accompanying greenhouse gases. The energy needs to be produced. I don't see how global warming can possibly justify leaving hundreds of millions of people in grinding poverty. If you are not serious about nuclear power, then shut the hell up about global warming.

|11.15.06 @ 9:46AM|#

If you are not serious about nuclear power, then shut the hell up about global warming.

John, you are one of the most intellectually dishonest commenters on Reason. And yes, that is an ad hominem attack.

No one has indicated that they're not serious about nuclear power. No one has indicated that they're not serious about other non-C02 generating forms of power.

Every time you post a comment, you sidestep the arguments at hand in favor of your strawman du jour. It's getting old.

|11.15.06 @ 10:07AM|#

Chirs S,

Your whining is getting old. If everyone is so in love with nuclear power, why is it so hard to build a nuclear plant in this country and why are the same people who claim to be most concerned about global warming are the very ones who everything they can to stop nuclear power? There is nothing intellecutally dishonest about pointing that fact out. I am sorry if the truth offends your fragile feelings. Regardless, do yourself a favor and stop whining about it.

|11.15.06 @ 10:08AM|#

What did Cofi Anon say? Something like global warming critics are out of touch, out of arguments, and out of time? With the added note that it is an economic imperative to solve the problem now? I don't know, I never heard anything to back that up just the statements themselves. I guess that's all NPR felt was necessary to air.

|11.15.06 @ 11:07AM|#

"The basic reason is that taxing CO2 production is taxing productivity itself. People do not emit CO2 for the sake of emitting CO2. Rather, it is a collateral effect of actual wealth creating enterprise."

Preach on. Everybody knows I'm ten times as productive driving my Hummer to work as my hippy co-worker is driving his Prius on the same trip.

|11.15.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Man, if only there were other costs besides poverty reduction that could redirected to efforts to stave off global warming. But there aren't. That's the only thing we're spending our money on. If you want to avoid catastrophic climate change, tearing up that check to CARE is the only possible source of funding.

Oh, well. It's not like more frequent storms, rising sea levels, droughts, and dramatically changed climate conditions are going to harm the world's poor anyway. After all, they're totally not concetrated near the coasts and the equator, or dependent upon agriculture.

|11.15.06 @ 11:23AM|#

"That's the only thing we're spending our money on. If you want to avoid catastrophic climate change, tearing up that check to CARE is the only possible source of funding."

If giving to CARE ever helped anyone you might have a point. The only way to ever get large numbers of people out of poverty is through sustained economic growth. No one has yet to show a way to have sustained growth without increasing greenhouse emmisstions. Every proposal to control greenhouse emmissions slows growth which makes people poor. Even if you only control growth in developed countries, you still hurt poor countries by reducing the market for their goods.

"Oh, well. It's not like more frequent storms, rising sea levels, droughts, and dramatically changed climate conditions are going to harm the world's poor anyway."

That is funny. I am sure you can tell the people in Bombay, "we would love to let you folks have a prosporous society like we have, but to do that would produce greenhouse gases and that would cause bad storms and things, so instead you are going to have to live in horrible poverty." I am sure they will understand Joe.

|11.15.06 @ 11:32AM|#

http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly2.htm

Herman Daly advocates shifting the tax base from value added (labour and capital income) and on to resource throughput (that to which value is added). A carbon tax would be a piece of this.

And as pointed out by John, increasing efficiency is the main way to reduce resource use. Taxation on throughput encourages this efficiency. There have been people working on the details of policy implementation and technology towards this end for over a decade (e.g., http://www.rmi.org/ ).

Nuclear will certainly be part of the answer, but it is only a piece. I have read analyses of the ability of nuclear to replace fossil fuel that show it is not up to the job. Nuclear is not a renewable energy source anymore than fossil fuels, and therefore comes with some of the same drawbacks. Extraction of uranium, though it is abundant, can be expensive and the energy for extraction may exceed the energy output before we get to the point that nuclear is creating as much energy as the current fossil fuel usage.

Any solution will need to multidimensional. Lifestyle changes will make the biggest difference. Companies like Flexcar/Zip Car, and Interface flooring that have implemented more resource efficient business make a lot of money.

As they say at the RMI "Greenhouse-gas emissions are simply the byproduct of the uneconomically wasteful use of resources. The obvious solution, then, is increased efficiency. Being more efficient not only reduces emissions, it also saves money and increases economic competitiveness. In fact, it doesn't even matter whether global warming is happening or not, because the most effective climate-protection measures are things we should be doing for economic reasons anyhow. "

The real doomsayers that are endangering your economy are those that think maintaining the status quo is good for the economy. The challenge of global warming is an economic opportunity that can create wealth. Stop whining and get to work.

|11.15.06 @ 11:54AM|#

"I read somewhere that 40% of man-made CO2 emissions come from cooking fires. If so, isn't continued economic improvement the key to actually reducing cooking fires/poverty?"

Yep. Try this... address the problem directly by providing cheap solar powered water pumps (clean water is the biggest problem in poor countries), and rural electrification using carbon neutral technologies and distributed power generation. This improves the lot of the poor, and reduces the need for those cooking fires. Arguments that poor countries need to replicate the century old, inefficient infrastructures we use in the developed world get in the way of creating efficient sustainable economies in the developing world. Helping China and India build state of the art, efficient power systems (nuclear included, but also decentralized solar, geothermal, and wind) will be one of the most important projects. And hey, you can make money doing it.

|11.15.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Solar powered water pumps and rural electrification are going to reduce cooking fires in developing countries? Well, some of these developing countries already have rural electrification so that part is not going to work. But before throwing out some suggestions like solar powered water pumps as replacements it might be a good idea to actually walk down the street of a developing country to get some feel of whether your alternative energy source seems fitting. Maybe even try to talk to the people cooking over some of those fires. I hate to tell you this, but global warming isn't even on their radar. And they'd give you a strange look if you told them you wanted to take away their barbecued chicken stand and replace the grill with some solar powered pumps. They live on very little money but are successful enough with their grills not to want to try something that might send their customers elsewhere. And it's partly just a custom that would be hard to change. The fires carry the whiff of grilled meats all the way down the block. People like to walk around at night, banter with each other, hang out in the outdoor stalls, order some of the tasty grilled meats, etc. That's not going to change easily.

No, my guess is that the developing world will start to improve its environmental record once the standard of living is high enough for enough people to be able to afford to start caring about it. Perhaps there are a few things that can be done now to help the process along, but be careful of implementing tools and technologies that are either culturally inappropriate or they are simply not ready for.

fyodor|11.15.06 @ 12:43PM|#

MikeP,

You make some good points, which I think are in league with my more simplistic way of putting it.

But I think you shouldn't discount that higher cost energy alternatives would be more affordable if income taxes were lowered, thus alleviating most to all downward pressure on productivity. Remember, production only exists in the first place to meet demand.

The thought occurs that libertarians have often in the past expressed a preference for a sales tax over an income tax for being both less invasive and less obstructive to growth. I wonder if the thinking on that has changed, or if there's any reason to believe that focused sales taxes should be more obstructive to growth than a general one?

|11.15.06 @ 3:21PM|#

I'm a cynical bastard. Ithink it's genetic. Anyway, with a little googling I've come up with this.

40% of U.S. CO2 emissions are from electrical power generation. Refer to ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057305.pdf page 16.

"According to the June 17, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
There are currently 103 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, with a capacity of 98,000 megawatts (MW). During the decade from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, an equal number of nuclear plants that had been ordered were cancelled, which would have provided an additional 107,000 MW. Rather than being 20% nuclear today, more than half of this nation's electricity could, and should have been, produced by nuclear power a decade ago. Had that momentum continued, we would not be burning coal today, or worrying about the skyrocketing price of natural gas."
Refer to http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3224us_plant_locations.html

I, too, am concerned about greenhouse gas emissions effect on the climate. I would just ONCE like to hear somebody from the green/environmental movement to raise his /her hand and say "OOPS Boy, did we ever fuck up!" I'm not, however going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. If I sometimes sound angry at the green/environmental movement, their inability to ever admit to a mistake is the cause. Dammit, even Governor George Wallace admitted to mistakes about segregation. The smart alec hubris from these people is enough to piss off the pope.
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

|11.15.06 @ 5:11PM|#

J sub D,

You can stop holding your breath:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209_pf.html

- JL

|11.15.06 @ 5:26PM|#

Jon - Thank you very much.

Mike Laursen|11.15.06 @ 5:30PM|#

It's a dubious proposition that some undesirable thing (cigarette smoking, CO2 emissions, or whatever) can be discouraged by taxing that thing. The government becomes dependent on that particular social evil as a revenue source.

Larry A|11.15.06 @ 6:44PM|#

Preach on. Everybody knows I'm ten times as productive driving my Hummer to work as my hippy co-worker is driving his Prius on the same trip.

Actually, you are. Compare the Hummer's basic steel construction to the Prious' exotic materials and expensive and hard-to-dispose-of batteries and such, and the Hummer is more ecofriendly.

If carbon producing fuels were simply taxed at a very high rate, and other taxes were lowered by an equivalent amount, why would this cause any reduction in economic growth at all? Total costs would be the same, but other forms of energy would simply replace carbon forms.

If other forms of energy could replace carbon forms at the same cost they would already be doing so. Solar power is daylight-only unless you add expensive and horridly non-recyclable batteries. Even then, no one knows what environmental effects a solar field large enough to power a city would cause. Wind power is just as unreliable, and slaughters birds. Nuclear is an excellent alternative, except that the greens have litigated the building of new power plants out of existance.

If you really want to make a difference, lobbying for a change in the U.S. policy for building nuclear power plants would have far more short-term and long-term benefits than your tax.

|11.15.06 @ 8:34PM|#

"..it might be a good idea to actually walk down the street of a developing country to get some feel of whether your alternative energy source seems fitting."

Well duh?

Of course you would tailor the solution to the location. I am just talking generally. The basic idea I was trying to get across was that you should not wait for developing countries to develop efficient hi-tech solutions to their local problems when developed countries have already found ways to solve these problems more efficiently. Solutions will vary according to the local needs. If people want to spend money reducing poverty in India, for instance, there are ways to do that that will be relatively eco-friendly, and ways that will be relatively eco-unfriendly. Providing the local outdoor grill with a more labor and energy efficient way to cook his food would give him an advantage over his competitors. I doubt many would complain about not having to gather the wood, stoke the fire, and deal with the difficulties of keeping their fire going, no matter the cultural bias.

Of course an electric cooking source is only an advantage when the current method is more eco-unfriendly. In some cases, a gas fire will be the better solution. In those cases too, providing efficient technology will increase the benefit.

"No, my guess is that the developing world will start to improve its environmental record once the standard of living is high enough for enough people to be able to afford to start caring about it. Perhaps there are a few things that can be done now to help the process along, but be careful of implementing tools and technologies that are either culturally inappropriate or they are simply not ready for."

Not ready for? If there is a reliable technology that meets a need, there are very few cultures that are "not ready" for that solution. These are not countries full of children, they are ready for any technology that will meet their needs. Certain technologies require sophisticated infrastructure. These would be poor solutions. Attention to these kinds of details would be important.

"take away their barbecued chicken stand and replace the grill with some solar powered pumps"

Obviously you would not replace a grill with a water pump (not what I was suggesting). But you might replace the contaminated water source and get rid of one step in the cooking process. And hey, a solar powered street light might allow that outdoor grill to stay open later and contribute to economic development.

It is in our interest to help developing countries find the most eco-friendly solutions to economic development challenges. Assuming they are incapable of recognizing the advantages of cleaner more efficient technologies is patronizing.

|11.15.06 @ 8:37PM|#

"Compare the Hummer's basic steel construction to the Prious' exotic materials and expensive and hard-to-dispose-of batteries and such, and the Hummer is more ecofriendly."

Keep drinking the kool-aid. That analysis is deeply flawed (assuming you are referring the one coming out of the Reason Foundation). It feels nice to believe it, but it just ain't so.

|11.15.06 @ 10:14PM|#

Okay, MM, it sounds good on paper. I look forward to seeing your mainstream American face in the streets of these places, trying to sell the locals on the dangers of global warming and the technology that is going to help them deal with not only that but save them money.

Not to be too cynical about it. I think that some or a few of the things you mention might be possible. And it certainly doesn't hurt to try, I suppose. But the point I am making is that developing countries cannot simply leapfrog over what took the developed countries decades, even centuries if you think about the basic structures supporting development, the strained and long hard road of development. It is no more patronizing to point this out then it would have been to point out that it took the West decades to get to where we are today. That poor people in the West in the 19th century were not ready to talk about environmental dangers or the issue with child labor, when they were simply trying to survive is simply related to the idea of the pyramid of values. The rich and upper middle classes, especially the chattering classes, in developing countries, do talk about issues of global warming and pollution. And that's because they are at a point where, now that they are not worried about mere survival, they can afford to think about how else to improve their quality of life. Would it be patronizing to say that a man who is hungry is not too concerned about the smell of the pig farm next door?

|11.16.06 @ 1:45AM|#

Mongeese,

I am not pretending that this is a simple idea to implement.

"But the point I am making is that developing countries cannot simply leapfrog over what took the developed countries decades, even centuries if you think about the basic structures supporting development, the strained and long hard road of development."

They can leapfrog over many of the obstacles if they collaborate with the developed countries that have already found solutions to many of the challenges they are facing. One of the great features of humanity is our ability to transfer knowledge gained in the past to facilitate improved performance in the present/future.

"And that's because they are at a point where, now that they are not worried about mere survival, they can afford to think about how else to improve their quality of life. Would it be patronizing to say that a man who is hungry is not too concerned about the smell of the pig farm next door?"

All I can say is that work by people like Muhammad Yunus (nobel prize winner) shows that direct action works better if it is targeted at the individual scale... give those hungry men next to pig farms a way out of their situation and enough will take it over a quick meal enough of the time that eventually the community benefits. If those means are energy efficient, eco-friendly means, all the better. There is no conflict between economic development and eco-friendly approaches. Bailey's article seems to imply that there is an either/or situation involved. I think it is an AND... win-win.