"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Waxy Markup

Adam Siegel is trying to plow through the details of Waxman-Markey so there is one more reason for me not to. 

I am trying to get a grip on the whole business and hope to have something to say after  the dust settles. For the present, I am in favor of anything other than going to Copenhagen empty-handed and am somewhat reassured by Krugman's acquiescence

I've never really followed legislation through the negotiation phase before. I've heard it isn't pretty. That assessment turns out to be correct. 

I'll point to useful articles as I come across them. 



6 comments:

EliRabett said...

You have heard the dictum that you should not inquiry as to how sausage and laws are made.

Dan Satterfield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Satterfield said...

I find the politics of climate change legislation very frustrating. Still, from what little I know on the bill, it's better than nothing. Krugman certainly has a point.

Arguably, better public education= better policy. OK, I admit, that's the optimistic view.

David B. Benson said...

I'll never understand WM.

Makes me dizzy...

thingsbreak said...

@David

Here's Waxman-Markey in a nutshell:

We want climate legislation passed to get the ball moving domestically and have something to bring to the table at Copenhagen, in large part because that's the only way to coax China into cuts.

In order to do so, we're going to give loads of money (by not 100% auctioning credits) to industry and otherwise water down the bill so that enough coal and manufacturing state Dems will vote for it.

We will accept it as a necessary but insufficient *start* on the way to deep, meaningful cuts by 2050.

David B. Benson said...

I doubt Adam Smith would have approved...