"...and sometimes it's hard to get the feedback in before the posts go behind the (presumably spam-blocking) no-comment wall.

for instance, I meant to ask, on the recent 'world class' post: so are you even against market-based mechanisms for reducing (or maybe just 'managing' at this point) greenhouse emissions? the conflict with Montreal goals seems like a relatively minor implementation issue within a generally sensible policy, certainly a better alternative than other possible approaches (renewables mandates, crash 'Apollo' tech development, carbon tax, etc) that are kicking around. I'm guessing you're opposed to any sort of policy on greenhouse emissions at this point - which might be a rational enough position, as you freq argue - but in the light of the currently-unavoidable pressure for such a policy, I feel like the 'right' kind (global in scope, economically efficient) of approaches merit support, no?

and, happy New Year! "

Right. I leave them open for five or 10 days at most, especially when I'm not available to monitor and delete the bot spoor.

The point here is that the policies proposed empower politicians rather than addressing the putative problems. This isn't news, it has been argued from the beginning that this would happen. And, this isn't correctable using political systems. Nail, jello, wall etc.

It is a mistake in my view to try to deal with these issues as political issues. While it is true, as you say, that the defects could be corrected, it is unlikely that this will happen. Throw open a policy for reform and it will be crufted up with even worse stuff because the incentives have not changed. Politicians have higher imperatives than good policy or good governance.

Even if by miracle politicians rose above their narrow interests you still have the problem of hard won consensus which is nearly impossible to reform by civil means. That consensus was won at great cost and few are able to abandon sunk costs and cut their losses before collapse takes the decision out of their hands.

But suppose we have multiple miracles and the consensus is abandoned, the sunk costs are written off, and an improved policy is hammered out. In due course it will be subverted too. We know that now, and have no excuse for surprise. These are people we are talking about.

And so another few years will go by, maybe a decade, before the failures become too stinky to ignore any longer and we are back where we began, though the situation has gotten worse in the meantime.

In this way politicians retain power. The worst thing for them would be to solve problems, and so diminish the hobgoblins they brandish as justification for the powers they seek.

I know that none of this matters. Nothing will change, or not soon at any rate. Give it a few hundred more years.

Still, we have problems that do require attention. Solutions will come, if at all, from individuals and groups working in their own interests. Perhaps the solar revolution that Oliver looks forward to optimistically will happen? Perhaps something else. We can't know. It is for this reason that I seek to increase the volume and quality of the information stream to the social mind. I do little, but every bit helps. There are legions beavering away at solutions for current problems. Most are nonsense, some less so. If there are answers, that's where they will come from.

it's because of the pitfalls of politics that I'm much more interested in cap and trade approaches than, say, the Pigou Club. while obviously the caps are set politically, at least the trading is left to the private sector, so that decisions made about what kinds of mitigation projects to undertake are made solely on the basis of cost per carbon equivalent reduced. it encourages 'individuals and groups working in their own interests' to experiment widely to find ways to get the most bang for their buck and doesn't foolishly commit us to any one particular technology or solution. especially given the likely alternatives (taxes, mandates, etc), it seems like the best way to keep the issue as much out of political hands as possible.

There are two problems. One is the assumption that reducing emissions will have a useful effect. Another is the assumption that this can be done. Neither is well supported.

It isn't emissions that need reduction, it is concentration. The damage has already been done and we will face the consequences for 100 years even if we cease all emissions immediately. The consequences will be greater if we continue to emit, especially at ever higher rates, which seems the most likely scenario. But the effects of proposed reduction schemes would be inconsequential, even trivial.

Besides, we've already seen how this system can be gamed in Europe's foolish implementation. It is certain that if it continues and expands to other places that the games will become ever more creative. The larger the stakes, the more clever and creative opportunists are attracted to the game. It is foolish not to respect the abilities of such opponents.

Trading is already in the private sector. There are already numerous motivations for individuals and institutions to constrain themselves, not least the high and rising cost of energy. What if instead of creating new bureaucracies to squander some of this precious energy while supporting scoundrels, we stop subsidizing energy and let that existing trading system work its constraints on society?

This would not only reduce energy consumption, and so some emissions, it would motivate those above mentioned creative opportunists to game that issue, perhaps developing clever hacks that reduce the cost of energy leaving them margins to reap. Some of their hacks will dismay us if we are focused on emissions, but some will delight us as well.

If the social mind has clear and accurate information about the relative merits of energy sources and the likely consequences of their use it favors those methods that have less emissions.

Many doubt that desirable outcomes can be produced by open and honest social systems that rely on the aggregate behavior of diverse individuals. They look for methods to force individuals to act in ways dictated by small groups of elites who are overly impressed with themselves, and who enrich themselves at society's expense.

I look forward to arguments by those who have the time and expertise to demonstrate the effectiveness of open systems. I'm willing to admit error, I can take a lesson as well as give one, but my money is riding on open systems at this point.

"it seems like the best way to keep the issue as much out of political hands as possible."

Unfortunately, this may be true. Are we looking for good systems or simply trying to prevent the worst systems from increasing their scale and scope? The latter I fear. Still, detailed arguments for open systems would be useful, would help them come about in a few hundred rather than a few thousand years.

And it's young bucks like you who still have agile brains who are most suited to the task.

Pigovian taxes don't empower politicans. If you shift taxes from bread to oil there will be no difference in empowerment.

It is legitimate for governments to tax to raise revenues. They tax too much for the good of society. That has not always been so but may not always be so. Using the tax system to persue political objectives is an abuse. There's nothing new about sin taxes, but they aren't good things.

To claim that shifting taxes from bread to oil in pusuit of political objectives does not empower politicians seems clearly false.

I agree that governments spend and tax too much.
I also agree that the Pigovian idea is old - Arthur Pigou lived almost a century ago.
I don't agree that using sin taxes is an abuse. I would say it is just trying to optimize the tax collecting, just like you always try to optimize the government spending.

It's not clear what optimize means in this context. A sin tax is not efficient or undistorting as a revenue generating method.