There are always plenty of reasons to be pessimistic in any age (and being anti-utopian is not even pessimism). I think our current bout is partly a reaction against the rhetoric of Right-Neoliberalism (as I have now learned to call it). Rather than refute head-on the idea that there was a steep or near infinite trade-off between growth and equity, a certain progressive strain of thought decided, so much the worse for growth. "Sour grapes." Maybe the worst aspect of this is the zero-growth, neo-arcadianism attitude to climate change.
ACC is the aspect that most worries me. I think (I could be factually wrong, I know, becasue I have no real expertise) that the dead weight loss of a carbon tax is low meaning that a zero carbon world would be really cool and getting there would not mean much loss. But the whole framing of the issue -- avoiding catastrophe, we need to repent of our sinful lifestyles and embrace "simpler" more "natural" life (I grew up Sothern Baptist and I've heard a lot of those sermons) -- just puts people off.
I agree, but I'm thinking that even the positive loss is not large. More mundanely, I'm trying to highlight the difference between the deadweight loss and the total revenue, which is what some folks mean by the cost of the tax
There are always plenty of reasons to be pessimistic in any age (and being anti-utopian is not even pessimism). I think our current bout is partly a reaction against the rhetoric of Right-Neoliberalism (as I have now learned to call it). Rather than refute head-on the idea that there was a steep or near infinite trade-off between growth and equity, a certain progressive strain of thought decided, so much the worse for growth. "Sour grapes." Maybe the worst aspect of this is the zero-growth, neo-arcadianism attitude to climate change.
Indeed. Insightful.
ACC is the aspect that most worries me. I think (I could be factually wrong, I know, becasue I have no real expertise) that the dead weight loss of a carbon tax is low meaning that a zero carbon world would be really cool and getting there would not mean much loss. But the whole framing of the issue -- avoiding catastrophe, we need to repent of our sinful lifestyles and embrace "simpler" more "natural" life (I grew up Sothern Baptist and I've heard a lot of those sermons) -- just puts people off.
Carbon tax has negative deadweight loss!
I agree, but I'm thinking that even the positive loss is not large. More mundanely, I'm trying to highlight the difference between the deadweight loss and the total revenue, which is what some folks mean by the cost of the tax
“excess burden”...