Related Articles
2
Crossing the 400 parts per million rubic...
General

This month the earth entered a new climatic era. We now live in a world in which carbon dioxi...

+ Read More
0
Planning for yesterday: Why are we build...
General

When planners, architects and designers build major pieces of infrastructure they, very prude...

+ Read More
0
Video: How to communicate uncertainty ar...
General

Uncertainty surrounding climate change is often used as an excuse for inaction. But people ma...

+ Read More
0
Balancing efficiency and resilience: a r...
General

Over the course of evolution, ecosystems have perfected their strategies for long-term prospe...

+ Read More
Thursday 1st January 1970
Contributor:
Otilia | Profession | 07.09.2014 | 04:54
The reaction in France is telnilg indeed. A carbon tax is more honest than cap-and-trade - a tax where bankers take a percentage. So France is honest and sensible and goes for a carbon tax and we see the reaction:As I noted above, for the zealots nothing is ever enough except perhaps the total collapse of modern civilization or a mass die-off. For the opposition whatever Sarko does is automatically wrong anyway. And for the public we finally get to see just how green they are: it stops precisely when they have to start paying for it. Pretty soon they'll be skeptical of the science too. And there's plenty to be skeptical about.The only acceptable way forward is cheaper alternative energies. The dilemma there is that only by using them will they actually become cheaper.
Bicha | Profession | 06.09.2014 | 12:48
Roger,I think Marc is more alligned to my thiinkng than yours on policy. I agree with his position that what matters is:"what is spent and by whom".and that:"a tax funded slush fund for adpaptation policies"would be anything but detrimental to welfare globally.The best public policy is to stand out of the way and let people adapt. That is what they have always done.Likewise, public policy should behave more like those private individuals and execute in a manner sympathetic with needs vis-a-vis climate.But that just means doing sensible things that have always been done, e.g.Build infratructure that is suitable for the climatic demands that will be place d on it.Don't allow building in flood plains.Make sure building codes are suitablly robust (but not too robust) to address EXTERNAL climatic risks (i.e. make sure my house won';t kill someone else if a hurricane hits, but allow me to build a shack if I like in the middle of nowhere).
Hassan | Profession | 06.09.2014 | 11:55
it seems this is boiling down to a detbae about is policy required or is ot not.For that type of normative point of view you need to identify the policy need. The need to mitigate against climate impact is not in itself a justification for policy. Humans have been doing that effectively for millenia. ou really need to identify the market failures. Why wouldn't people act to choose the "right" amount mitigation of climate impact on their own. Why do we need to tax poeple to pay policy wonks like you to come up with great schemes to tax people more money to pay for stuff that people don't want to buy based on their own preferences?I have asked this question before, Roger, and not received an answer. As a political scientist employed to provide research on policy, how do you ensure you remain an "honest broker"? How often have you concluded "no policy is required"?