This is Bob Murphy’s testimony on the optimal carbon tax, given Thursday, July 17, 2013. It’s excellent. His written testimony is here.
The best my Senator, Barbara Boxer, chair of the committee, came up with was to attack not Murphy’s argument, but his funding.
Jul 21 2013
In a post today, George Mason University economist Robin Hanson reports on an interesting interview with Bill Raduchel. The whole interview is interesting, by the way. Robin highlights Raduchel's conclusions about, when he was "assistant dean of admissions for Harvard and Radcliffe colleges," finding good students. ...
Jul 20 2013
Ad hominem is contextual. Daniel Kuehn, a frequent commenter on this blog, defends Senator Barbara Boxer's questioning of who funds the Institute for Energy Research, the organization under whose auspices Bob Murphy testified on Thursday. His general point is that it's legitimate to point out who funds research and...
Jul 19 2013
This is Bob Murphy's testimony on the optimal carbon tax, given Thursday, July 17, 2013. It's excellent. His written testimony is here. The best my Senator, Barbara Boxer, chair of the committee, came up with was to attack not Murphy's argument, but his funding.
READER COMMENTS
Luke J
Jul 21 2013 at 2:22am
I did not see the testimony (the video would not load on my phone) but the written testimony is interesting.
It is obvious the Koch Bros. are behind this so-called nonprofit.
Ken P
Jul 21 2013 at 2:48am
Ive read the written testimony and it was all completely factual. I doubt that most climate scientists would argue with his assessment of the climate aspects and otherwise it was an argument about the discount rate that is not calculated per the guidelines. It is very unfortunate that Barbara did not contest anything he said. We should expect a t4ue battle of ideas to include at least a rebuttal.
If there is an error in what he said, why not point it out so we can debate it.
Michael Cunningham
Jul 21 2013 at 3:56am
I’ve been following the CAGW issue since the 1980s, when I was briefed by the IPCC’s chief scientist, Sir John Houghton. Most of the arguments I have seen do not revolve around the science – although much of the data, science and modelling are disputed – but about the net benefits of costly emissions reduction policies. The “catastrophic” aspect of any warming has never been demonstrated and, as Murphy contends, you have to make heroic assumptions using dubious discount rates to come up with a figure which justifies action. The arguments for low discount rates to give greater weight to future generations make no sense to me, given that the IPCC’s modelling of increased emissions depends on global per capita income increasing by about 5-7 times by the end of the century. If any issues do arise, those future generations will be better equipped than we are to address them, with far more resources and decades of innovation. But I suspect that they will be bemused at our ill-founded concerns.
Prakash
Jul 24 2013 at 11:14pm
One aspect confuses me a bit.
The discount rate should be close to what the prevailing interest rates are, right? Then, shouldn’t the discount rates be even lower than what he has talked about, making the future gains even more attractive?
Comments are closed.