Friday, June 13, 2008

Another list

  • Joseph Aldy, Resources for the Future
  • James Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  • Richard Howarth, Dartmouth College
  • Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University
  • Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University
  • William Nordhaus, Yale University S
  • ergey Paltsev, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • William Pizer, Resources for the Future
  • David Popp, Syracuse University
  • John Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future
  • Kathleen Segerson, University of Connecticut
  • Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University
  • Robert Stavins, Harvard University
  • Richard Tol, Economic and Social Research Institute
  • Martin Weitzman, Harvard University
  • Peter Wilcoxen, Syracuse University
  • Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
So what do they have in common??

They are the economists consulted by the US Government Accountability Office on what should be done about climate change. You can read the report, or you can read the summary
All of the panelists agreed that the Congress should consider a market-based mechanism to establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions and supported implementation of the policy by 2015. Opinions varied on whether the Congress should implement a cap-and-trade system or a tax to control greenhouse gas emissions, with eight panelists preferring a cap-and-trade program with a safety valve (sometimes referred to as a hybrid system), seven preferring a tax, and three preferring a cap-and-trade program. All of the panelists agreed that the policy should target all sectors of the economy, and the majority believed that it should include all greenhouse gases. For example, one panelist stated that by establishing a price on emissions from all sources in the United States with no exceptions, the policy would equilibrate the marginal cost of reducing emissions across all sources, making it economically efficient.

The panelists varied in their views on the stringency of the market-based regulatory mechanism that they supported to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.25 For example, in proposing an initial price on emissions, seven panelists said it should range from less than $1 to $10, six said from $11 to $20, and four said it should be greater than $20 (2007 dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent).26 In addition, while most panelists said the price should increase over time, they varied in their views on the preferred rate of increase. For example, some panelists provided estimates ranging from 2 percent to 5 percent per year adjusted for inflation, while another panelist said more generally that it should be reevaluated periodically (for example, every 5 years) and rise as marginal damages of climate change rise. Some panelists noted the importance of a long-term commitment to establish a price on emissions and the flexibility to adjust the price and rate of increase as new information becomes available. For example, one panelist stated that certainty in setting emissions reductions goals was necessary for firms that would have to make substantial investments in new emissions reduction technologies.


Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

The obvious method (if one believes this AGW nonsense) is for the UN to tax the "polluting" oil producing countries at source.

Obviously, that wouldn't go down well with the crypto Communists, whos' objective is to hamstring the Capitalist Democratic West.

Lets see them try to collect from Saudi or the Soviet Un,,, I mean Rossia.

PS they can also pay for cleanup as well. Love it!

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says, revealingly,

"[...] Soviet Un,,, I mean Rossia."

When in your sick cloud-cuckoo paranoid mind will you finally decide that the Cold War is truly over? What are you at "war" with exactly, and when will your imaginary "war" end?

I think you just need to see a doctor. Try that some time.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

So what part of perpetual KGB rule don't you understand? Routine nuclear bomber flights to NATO territory,etc....

Anonymous said...

None of them was smart enough to get a real degree in a rigorous discipline like science or math?

David B. Benson said...

A Nony Mous 6:02 AM --- :-)

You win the booby prize!

Ed Darrell said...

But, Markey, the UN Charter prohibits the UN from taxing.

Reality clouding your view these days?

Ed Darrell said...

A nit:

I'll bet it's "Sergey Paltsev," with the capital "S" from the previous line.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Ed. But surely in the interests of saving the Planet, all right thinking enviro whackos should be in favour of taxing the evil oil producers. I'm sure the next Inter Governmental Conference on Climate Change would look kindly on changing the UN Charter for such a worthy cause.

Can we count on your support Ed?

Anonymous said...

"all right thinking enviro whackos"

Trust a paranoid conspiracy theorist to judge what "right thinking" involves...

"So what part of perpetual KGB rule don't you understand?"

The part where you refuse to see a doctor. No, seriously, don't you ever get tired of worrying about Reds under your Bed? Do you keep wondering how you can get rid of that voice in your head that sounds like Fidel Castro?

Go see a doctor, seriously.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

John Mashey said...

[I posted somethign last night, but it seems to ahve gotten lost].
In any case, easy one.

Those are the experts for the recent GAO report.

As a group, their estimates of appropriate carbon taxes, mostly starting 2010-2015, mostly are in the $10-$20 range per ton CO2, i.e., $.10-$.20/gallon gas.

Bring it on! That will really scare everybody, if they notice.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

bi. Don't you know that Communist/Socialist/Nazis, always pretend their opponents have a medical condition, eg:

"Russian activists say her ordeal confirms what they've argued for years: punitive psychiatry did not end with the Soviet Union."

TokyoTom said...

Thanks for bring this to our attention, Eli.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse whines,

"Don't you know that Communist/Socialist/Nazis, always pretend their opponents have a medical condition"

In other words, I (MarkeyMouse) am not paranoid in thinking there's a phantom Soviet empire out there to get me, because if there's anyone who wants to convince me that there's no phantom Soviet empire, it's the phantom Soviet empire itself!

The sheer circular stupidity of this is just amazing. (Then again, circular stupidity is what conspiracy theories are about...)

Really. just go see a doctor. You can wear a tinfoil hat if that makes you feel safer.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Anonymous said...

Old Markey is battling manfully here, and Mr Bijingles is recommending doctors appointments. All very good.

I saw a small comment that commo/crypto/fasco/soco China is now beating the best. Rather amusing that old Rabett and Mr Bijingles seem to think that what they say is meaningful. Of course Rabett and Bi will immediately stop buying made in China goods(not). You guys, you really are a set of funny people.

Hey Rabett, com'on, put up a list of UN highflyers who will say boo to China. World's smallest list. How about high priest Algore telling the Chinese to stop it. Talk about a political career that will quickly go further down the toilet. Jimmy Hansen can go to China and complain about emissions- he really will be able to complain about his message not getting out because nobody will ever hear of Jimmy again.

Ah, you're funny guys Rabett.

China has now clearly overtaken the United States as the world's leading emitter of climate-warming gases, a new study has found. The increasing emissions from China - up 8 percent in the past year - accounted for two-thirds of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, the study found.

The report, released Friday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, is an annual study. Last year, for the first time, the researchers found that China had edged ahead of the United States as the world's leading emitter. (International Herald Tribune 13/June/08)


Anonymous said...

John S says,

"Old Markey is battling manfully here, and Mr Bijingles is recommending doctors appointments. All very good."

Or to put it in Plain English: `yes, MarkeyMouse is talking conspiracy woo, but he's on our side so that's OK.'

You couldn't find the guts to outright affirm or deny MarkeyMouse's paranoid ideas on "perpetual KGB rule"?

It's fine. I understand. The presence of climate conspiracy theories is a great embarassment to you inactivists. So you have to avoid commenting about them, even while depending on them to keep your do-nothingism afloat.

Are you a marketer of tinfoil hats, perchance?

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Anonymous said...

bi. You are a complete idiot.


Putin is and was KGB. Gorbachev was Andropov KGB sponsored Lawyer.

PS. I see you haven't challenged the substance of any of my posts on Taxation of CO2

Anonymous said...

As long as Rabett is handing out prizes in the form of carrots, instead of karats or even carats, I have no interest in taking part in his contest to determine what this list of folks have in common. Unbelievable as it may sound to him, not all of us share his belief that carrots are worth their weight in gold -- or gems, for that matter.;^)

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse (?) says:


Wow, you'll cite any random web site to prop up your paranoid fantasies, won't you...

"I see you haven't challenged the substance of any of my posts on Taxation of CO2"

If you've just stuck to your supposed "substance" and left out the conspiracy fluff, then maybe I'll care.

Otherwise you should really just go see a doctor.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism