Travis Roach
  • Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • CV
  • Current Classes
    • MBA 5042
  • Media

"The Bet"

8/25/2016

 
I recently started what I thought would be a small skirmish on Twitter with an old friend and fellow PhD econ student from my Texas Tech days. This is by no means the first, nor last, time we'll do this; It's a funny way for us to catch up. The topic at hand was whether or not CO2 should be taxed. The spat then escalated into a 140 character at a time debate on whether or not CO2 is actually a pollutant leading to global climate change. 

One of the most useful subtweets in this debate was the so-called libertarian bet proposal by Kaz (@chris78701). After a crazy start to teaching this Fall semester I am finally putting together my `bet' as well as addressing some other ideas that came up in the Twitter conversation.
  • I am 100% certain that CO2 is a chemical compound that leads to the `greenhouse effect'. We've actually known this since 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel prize in chemistry.
  • I am 98% sure that the recent warming is mostly due to the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that are a result of increased energy consumption. I say mostly because there are of course other anthropogenic factors at play including deforestation which has the same warming effect but is not caused by more energy consumption per se (by the way, we've been causing climate change through deforestation for a lot longer than we've burned fossil fuels)
    • Related: I dogged other people for not providing peer reviewed support for their arguments (and haven't received one yet). Here are two that I find useful for both sides of the argument. 1) Here is a rigorous paper that takes the (very) few papers that do exist in the literature that reject human-induced climate change and tests them on their merit. Spoiler alert, they don't hold up. 2) Richard Tol has been one of my favorite economists for some time because he approaches the issue of climate change with the level of skepticism I hope to maintain. Here is his 2014 paper outlining the literature and the incorrect `97% consensus' among climate scientists. He finds that the true consensus is closer to 91%. 
  •  I am 55% sure that global warming will be net-positive for some communities due to the "greening" effect. This was a weird argument that popped up in opposition of a CO2 tax. Still, though, it is true that some areas (especially in the American southeast) will benefit from global climate change because they will have longer growing seasons, more rain, or both. However, just because local production increases doesn't mean that worldwide impacts are not felt locally. As Michael Webber thoroughly explains in his book, access to water has caused wars, ended empires, you name it. So, will a longer growing season in the midst of (even worse) fighting in the middle east or a war with China be net-positive? Maybe.

That's all for now as I have to prep for class. Cheers.
LM
9/3/2016 07:19:58 pm

CO2 will never be taxed because it will deter companies from producing it. The EPA and regulatory agencies as well as environmental advisers make to much of a profit by setting up regulations, and then making more ways to avoid them.

Im so bored that im writing on this blog #rowdy


Comments are closed.

    About the Blog

    This is the blog containing resources for all courses and presentations. For updates on required current events readings, podcasts, and videos subscribe to the RSS Feed

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    July 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2014
    February 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011

    Categories

    All
    Addiction
    Apple
    Banks
    Beer!
    Campaign Finances
    Capitalism
    Causation
    Champagne
    China
    Communism
    Conspicuous Conservation
    Cost Of College
    Cotton
    Creative Destruction
    Demand
    Democracy
    Drought
    Elasticities
    Elasticity
    Election
    Electric Cars
    Employment
    Environment
    Ethics
    European Union
    Federal Aid
    Firm Decisions
    Freakonomics
    Freedom
    Free Trade
    Game Theory
    Gender Gap
    Gender Inequality
    Government Aid
    Government Debt
    Human Capital
    Incentives
    Income
    Income Effect
    Income Inequality
    Inferior Goods
    International Trade
    Investment
    Iran
    Job Growth
    Jobs
    Korea
    Labor
    Labor Demand
    Lady Gaga
    Learning
    Metacognition
    Moral Philosophy
    Normal Goods
    Normative
    North Korea
    Obama
    Occupy Wall Street
    Oligopoly
    Parking
    Pizza
    Post Hoc
    Product Differentiation
    Profit Maximization
    Public Economics
    Recession
    Sanctions
    Schumpeter
    Signal Theory
    Sin Tax
    Strike
    Substitution Effect
    Super Bowl
    Supply And Demand
    Teaching
    Texas Tech
    Twitter
    Unemployment
    Unions
    Utility
    Wage Differentials
    Work Study

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • CV
  • Current Classes
    • MBA 5042
  • Media