All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 1, 2019 - Skeptoid
18:07
Skeptoid #695: Fighting Global Warming with Economics

There's always been an easy solution to global warming on the table, and it won't hurt the economy. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Self-Interest and Electric Cars 00:08:38
Global warming and what to do about it, unfortunately, became political hot buttons.
When people let their politics take over their thoughts and actions, we end up with half a society believing in science and the other half rejecting it.
But there is one thing that can be even more influential on people's behavior than their politics, and that's threatening their wallets.
Fighting global warming with economics is coming up next on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Fighting Global Warming with Economics.
Must we find ourselves stuck between two terrible choices?
To either do nothing about global warming and suffer unaccountable planetary and economic damage, or to shoot ourselves in the foot by destroying our own economy in order to stave it off.
These are the two options most often bandied about by those with minimal understanding of either climate science or economics.
And fortunately, nobody that I've heard is advocating for either one.
Today, we're going to look at a science-based proposal that's already underway in many foreign countries.
Considering a solution to a problem that comes from outside the political sphere is a challenging concept for many people.
As many draw their science positions from their favorite political party, they tend to embrace whatever policies their favorite politicians endorse.
Such solutions tend to be duly based on divisive politics and not on science, since science doesn't have a political affiliation.
Today we're going to look at a solution to global warming based on economic theory, the science of human behavior, and how people make decisions based on incentives and self-interest.
What that means to you, no matter who you are, is that this is a solution aimed directly at your own self-interest.
In short, it intends for you to make money.
If making more money is of interest to you, I invite you to listen further.
The main thing I want to obliterate today is the straw man argument frequently repeated by deniers of climate science, which is that addressing global warming would, quote, destroy the economy.
As it's true that some political figures, and some scientists too in their roles as private citizens, do advocate for social and economic overhauls and wealth redistribution that include reductions of carbon emissions, we need to be very clear about differentiating between political initiatives and science initiatives.
Climate science deniers will often take the most extreme of these political initiatives and mischaracterize them as the only alternative to doing nothing to address global warming.
We hardly need to point out the false dichotomy.
There is a proposed solution to global warming well founded upon economic theory, and it would have little to no impact on economic growth.
The plan is simple, a carbon tax.
If you emit carbon dioxide, those emissions are taxed.
One of the fundamental principles of economics is that we should tax the behaviors we want to discourage and incentivize the behaviors we want to encourage.
The reason is both simple and obvious.
Economic theory shows, and history proves, that people act in their own self-interest.
Design a system in which it becomes profitable to avoid CO2 emissions, and people will do it willingly.
This brings us to another fundamental of economics, the difference between self-interest and public interest.
Many people who accept climate science say that it's in everyone's self-interest to avoid CO2 emissions, since doing so will save countless trillions of dollars in the future.
This is wrong.
That's public interest, not self-interest.
Here's an example of what we mean by that.
Let's say the bank where everyone keeps their money blows up in Times Square and thousands of hundred dollar bills come raining down.
It would be in the public interest for everyone to pick up no more than their own account balance.
So maybe you and some of your like-minded friends would take only that.
But if you think most people wouldn't run around grabbing all they could stuff into their shirt, you're delusional.
We have centuries of studies of human behavior and also just plain common sense to know that's exactly what would happen.
People respond to incentives that appeal to their self-interest, like picking up more $100 bills.
How could we get people to take no more than their fair share?
Well, economics gives us the answer.
We change the incentives.
If we applied a $200 penalty for every bill that people pick up above their fair share, nobody would grab more than that, and everybody would realize the best possible outcome.
Only with such a system of incentives and penalties in place does it become true that picking up no more than one's own fair share becomes in everybody's self-interest.
Applying incentives and penalties is how economists get self-interest to match the public interest.
This brings us to the next fundamental of human behavior, the tragedy of the commons, defined in 1833 by economist William Lloyd.
This is when a system which depends upon people acting in the public interest fails due to the fact that people actually act in their self-interest.
For the sake of illustration, let's assume the hypothetical that for everyone to buy an electric car is the best way to fight global warming, a public interest outcome.
But every transaction has more than one side to it, and when you buy an electric car, an internal combustion car sits unsold at the dealership next door.
Your purchase has reduced the supply of electric cars, thus increasing the demand for them and raising their price, while the unsold internal combustion car now has a higher relative supply.
Higher supply and lower demand means its price comes down, and then they look more attractive to the next person who's car shopping.
So your purchase of an electric car, seemingly counterintuitively, incentivizes someone else to buy an internal combustion car, thus negating any benefits to the environment you were hoping to catalyze and triggering a tragedy of the commons.
No matter how much you personally might choose to act in the public interest, the fact will always remain that most other people will act in their self-interest.
Any plan and any action to address global warming that depends on people choosing to act in the public interest is doomed to failure in a tragedy of the commons.
This is not a guess or an opinion.
It is a fundamental tenet of economic theory.
In fact, carrying this concept further, it doesn't take all that much cynicism to see that any individual act to fight global warming, like cutting out steak dinners or putting solar panels on your roof, incentivizes someone else to do the opposite.
The Case for Carbon Taxes 00:06:36
We are living right now in a tragedy of the commons, because as the planet warms and the oceans rise and die, we're doing little more than depending on public virtue, which we know must fail.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Malaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finish the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
So here's how a carbon tax could work.
Before you counter that any new tax hurts the economy, hear how such a plan is laid out by economists not to do that.
Taxing carbon emissions is not so much a new tax as it is a price correction.
Carbon emissions has a cost that is not already built into its price.
And what that means is that it's underpriced considering its environmental impact.
Imagine if a nuclear bomb costs 25 cents.
They'd be used all the time and the planet would be a wasteland.
The effect of carbon is much slower than that, but the fact that hydrocarbon fuels are so cheaply and easily accessible has meant that they've been overused in that same way.
So really, all we're talking about is correcting the price of carbon to more accurately reflect its effect.
The tax could be applied at the gas pump, on your utility bill, maybe even at the supermarket, anywhere there is consumption of a product with a proven carbon cost.
In most proposed models, these taxes would add up to probably no more than a couple of hundred dollars annually per person.
But, and it's a big but, this won't actually have any net cost to people.
The reason is that the best way for the government to use that tax money is to give it right back to everyone as a tax rebate.
The more you choose carbon-neutral products, the less you pay at the register, and the higher your tax rebate will be compared to what you spent.
This system automatically places the public interest outcome into everyone's individual self-interest, and it comes at a negligible cost to the economy.
Again, I reiterate, this is not an opinion piece.
Check the references on the transcript page for this episode at skeptoid.com for plenty of scholarly articles laying out the science behind how and why this works.
And let's be clear that any claimed, quote, harm to the economy is negligible to begin with and is more than offset by the savings alone to human health from closing coal-fired power plants.
In 2018, the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum EMF 32 report said of various carbon tax models: In every policy scenario, in every model, the U.S. economy continues to grow at or near its long-term average baseline rate, deviating from reference growth by no more than about 0.1 percentage point.
We find robust evidence that even the most ambitious carbon tax is consistent with long-term positive economic growth, near baseline rates, not even counting the growth benefits of a less disrupted climate or lower ambient air pollution.
That the effectiveness of carbon taxes are widely accepted around the world is shown by the number of such programs.
Currently, over 40 governments, including the European Union member nations, impose some form of carbon tax.
And China, the world's largest offender, has been testing them in some provinces in preparation to roll out the world's biggest such program beginning in 2020.
The United States and Russia are nearly alone among the biggest economies in failing to implement any such program, although a number of American states have their own carbon tax systems given the lack of a federal one.
Finland led the way with a carbon tax in place since 1990, with Sweden close on its heels in 1991.
Generally, these carbon taxes range from about $10 to $130 per metric ton of CO2 released.
Most of these carbon taxes around the world are currently implemented as cap-and-trade programs, which place the incentives on companies rather than on consumers.
A benefit of cap-and-trade programs is that they are easier to implement, as it's much more politically palatable to impose a burden on an industry than on the pocketbooks of the people.
According to most economists, either could get us to where we need to go if they're properly designed.
However, most economists, given their preferences, would still choose the carbon tax.
For those of you interested in learning more about how a carbon tax would provide huge benefits to the United States without significant impact to the economy, I recommend a 2019 publication from the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, available for free, on the economics of a carbon tax for the United States.
Economics Beyond Political Aisles 00:02:49
And there's a link to that on the transcript page for this episode at skeptoid.com.
So in conclusion, I will leave you with two thoughts.
One, for those of you who embrace climate science and one for those who reject it.
To those who embrace it, you are wrong when you say it's in everyone's self-interest to act on global warming.
Nothing helpful will result from wishful thinking that everyone will suddenly abandon self-interest.
To those who reject climate science, you are wrong when you say action to curb emissions will hurt the economy.
And even more wrong when you go hyperbolic and claim it will destroy the economy.
The science of economics is a friend to all, no matter what side of the political aisle you prefer.
And some more friends to all are our awesome premium members like Lisa, Kevin Rubach, Matt Kittler, and Mossweg from Sydney, Australia.
Thanks to all of you for appreciating the value in Skeptoid as a free educational resource and helping to make its production possible.
Your support pays for our team and keeps the server running and the lights burning.
Other ways you can support us include visiting the Skeptoid store and checking out our t-shirts and books, or even just share an episode with friends on a road trip.
Thank you for keeping us going for the past 13 years.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection