Links - Some CCW
Counter conventional wisdom on the environment and elsewhere
Here are some quick hits each of which is a good dose of counter conventional wisdom.
Let’s start with a couple on the environment. First, for those of us concerned about the environment and climate change in particular, Ronald Bailey has one word: plastics. As he concludes:
As the debate over plastics and their alternatives continues, it's crucial to consider the full environmental impact of our choices and embrace innovations that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our planet.
Second, also for those of us concerned about climate change, Roger Pielke Jr. has two words: not wind. To expand on that a bit, here is Pielke’s conclusion:
That is right. In my view, costs are not the limiting factor for the expansion of wind beyond its niche. Wind power could be completely free and it would still be low density, low capacity, and experience age effects.
Think of this analogy — walking from place to place is pretty much free. But is is also low density (i.e., it takes a long time compared to alternatives) and it is low capacity (e.g., it is difficult to ship goods by walking). Speaking for myself, there is also an age effect.
Does walking have a role to play in global movement? Sure it does? Is it capable of assuming a major role in the global energy mix? Unlikely.
Energy realism means prioritizing math, physics, politics (yes), and the societal demand for reliable and accessible electricity (and also of course, economics!). With the world committing to accelerating decarbonization — which I support — real progress can only be made by looking to energy sources that are reliable and accessible, which means more dense, higher capacity, and here for the long term.
That is not wind energy.
People root for their favorite energy source like they root for their favorite sports teams. Speaking of sports teams, Art Carden has three words: stadiums aren’t magic. As he says in the article:
As economists never tire of pointing out, however, government funding for stadiums throws bad money after good. Instead of going after what C. Montgomery Burns called “the American dream: a billionaire using public funds to build a private playground for the rich and powerful,” cities would put the money to better use filling potholes, improving schools, or just cutting taxes.
Fortunately when we do redistribution, it isn’t always directed to billionaires. To this end Jeremy Horpedahl has four words: consider after tax & transfer. From his post is this graph borrowed from the work of Coleman and Weisbach, which he is summarizing:
This indicates the U.S. has a pretty well calibrated redistribution system. Everybody initially gets richer. The rich get richer faster. The rich have a lot of their gains taken from them and given to the lower three groups who then get richer too at what becomes roughly the same rate as the rich on net.