Articles by David Roberts

Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation

If you read only one article this week -- nay, this month -- make it this one from the increasingly indispensable Eric Pooley: "Surprise -- Economists Agree! A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change. So why is no one writing that?"

The point is that despite what you read in the media, there is in fact a fairly broad consensus among economists about the costs of climate change mitigation. Namely:

1. The costs of inaction are far higher than the costs of action, and
2. the costs of action are fairly modest -- between 0.5 and 1 percent of GDP by 2030, a far, far smaller impact than the current economic crisis is having.

This is why, in the words of economist Robert Stavins, "There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions ... should be a central element of any domestic climate policy."

Why is the media so bad at conveying this consensus? That's what Pooley investigated in more detail in his discussion paper [PDF], which Joe Romm covered here and which is also an absolute must-read. The reasons are basically twofold:

The game plan: The mother of all energy bills

(hat tip to Joe Romm for the title) The next big green priority after stimulus will be energy. It is possible that some of what I describe below will be broken out into separate bills — for instance, Markey and Platts in the House and Bingaman in the Senate have put forward freestanding Renewable Energy […]

South Carolina governor joins Wisconsin's and Michigan's in pushing back against coal

Yesterday the governor of South Carolina -- yes, South Carolina -- announced that he is opposing construction of a new coal plant in his state.

Why? Because a weak economy has demand down, the cost of coal has nearly tripled, and the prospect of tougher mercury and CO2 regulations from the Obama administration threaten to as much as double the cost of the project.

Because it's an economic turkey, in other words.

The head of the S.C. Department of Natural Resources also came out in opposition, citing worries about mercury pollution in fish and increased CO2 emissions.

This comes a few days after Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle announced that the UW power plant would eliminate coal (replacing it with biomass) by 2012.

And that was about a week after Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm's state of the state address, wherein she outlined a plan to free her state from coal. (Technically, reduce reliance on coal electricity by 45% by 2020.)

Governors in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, all working to free their states from the grip of the enemy of the human race.

Dirty friggin' hippies!

The game plan: starting with a bang

In the last few posts, I focused on the lay of the land — the groups and institutions that will shape efforts to tackle climate/energy problems in the early years of the Obama era. Given that landscape, how will it all play out? What’s the Obama/Democrat strategy? What’s the green roadmap? Obviously, circumstances and unanticipated […]