Articles by Jason D Scorse

Subsidizing drivers needs to end

This article in the NYT highlights the absurdity of current transportation policy. While New York City is trying to get federal funding to help it pay for a congestion pricing and traffic congestion policy, the federal government is, at the same time, handing out large tax breaks to help people reduce the costs of driving to work. It's yet another example of government policy gone awry, badly.

The solution isn't sexy, won't get you on TV, and doesn't make for great headlines that will earn prestige: eliminate all government subsidies, and either cap pollution or tax it. It's not rocket science.

Think again

This article in today's NYT highlights new research that shows that locally produced food in some instances may actually be more energy intensive than food imported from hundreds or thousands of miles away. While this may surprise many environmentalists, it shouldn't.

A lot of factors contribute to the total energy/carbon footprint of food, and the distance the food travels is only one dimension. But there are many other reasons to question the "local is always better" logic.

For example, importing grains can be an amazingly efficient way for areas lacking in water to conserve water resources. Dried grain is light, doesn't require refrigeration, and is nutritious. Areas like the Midwest that receive lots of rainfall are great areas for grain production, while deserts in California are not.

There is an added dimension as well. Many developing countries rely on agricultural exports to generate foreign currency so that they can buy medicines, cellphones, clothes, and all sorts of goods that help them improve their material standard of living. If everyone in the developed world suddenly stopped importing their food, they would be further impoverished.

None of this is to suggest that food miles are not something to be conscious of, but they aren't the only thing. One of the insights from economic analysis is always to focus on the root of a problem, because of the law of unintended consequences. If energy consumption or carbon emissions is the real problem, then policies aimed directed at energy or carbon costs are the best way to address the issue, not a secondary dimension such as food miles.

Here are some

Last week I discussed the basic arithmetic associated with population and economic growth, which will make it impossible to dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions without major improvements in technology. (Some commenters protested, saying that current technology is sufficient, but they are mistaking the ability to reduce emissions based on current levels of income and population and what emissions will be as countries grow and economies expand.)

For reducing the climate crisis

There are ongoing debates about the best way to address global warming, with most centering on whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme is best (or some combination of the two). There are also some lively, though less extensive, debates about the extent to which we should balance our attempts to reduce global warming with mitigating its effects.

I would like to shift the focus a little and ask the question: which policies will best promote technological innovation? Simple demographics and economic trends make it impossible to significantly curtail greenhouse gas emissions without major technological advances.