I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as Krugman but the attempt to reduce the use of from renewable energy is likely a huge mistake (in terms of dynamic efficiency):

Not that long ago, calls for a move to wind and solar power were widely perceived as impractical if not hippie-dippy silly. Some of that contempt lingers; my sense is that many politicians and some businesspeople still think of renewable energy as marginal, still imagine that real men burn stuff and serious people focus on good old-fashioned fossil fuels.

But the truth is nearly the opposite, certainly when it comes to electricity generation. Believers in the primacy of fossil fuels, coal in particular, are now technological dead-enders; they, not foolish leftists, are our modern Luddites. Unfortunately, they can still do a lot of damage.

About the technology: As recently as 2010, it still consistently cost more to generate electricity from sun and wind than from fossil fuels. But that gap has already been eliminated, and this is just the beginning. Widespread use of renewable energy is still a new thing, which means that even without major technological breakthroughs we can expect to see big further cost reductions as industries move “down the learning curve” — that is, find better and cheaper ways to operate as they accumulate experience. …

But there is no longer any reason to believe that it would be hard to drastically “decarbonize” the economy. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that doing so would impose any significant economic cost. The realistic debate is about how hard it will be to get from 80 to 100 percent decarbonization.

For now, however, the problem isn’t technology — it’s politics. …

What can I say? You should know how this article ends. 

This morning I answered the question: "How's blogging going?"

Blogging is tough these days. Other than Pruitt dismantling Federal environmental policy and ignoring/undermining benefit-cost analysis (and then there is Zinke) I'm not finding much inspiration. 
 
In case anyone was wondering.

Note: The big news is that the New York Times allowed me to copy and past these excerpts. 

Posted in
  1. John Whitehead Avatar

    From the email: “Yeah, it’s not all that great these days … just gotta keep plugging away.”
    Thanks!

  2. jroumasset Avatar

    Krugman regards the panel tariff as a done deal though it seems likely to be overturned by the WTO. But he’s right that panel tariffs are a bad idea, albeit for the wrong reasons. Subsidizing an industry on the grounds of job creation is bad economics. China got half a billion people out of poverty not by subsiding job creation but by increasing productivity. Subsidizing the production and consumption of solar energy does not pass a benefit-cost test, i.e. said subsidies shrink the economy and lower productivity. We cannot assume that subsidizing a soon-to-be outmoded technology provides an economic miracle of learning-by-doing. (The US and Spain learned to do the wrong thing while China ate their lunch.)
    Solar power will presumably make large inroads into electricity generation in the coming decade (see e.g. “Endogenous Substitution among Energy Resources”), along with batteries to combat the intermittency problem. (Recall the warning by Joskow and others against comparisons between intermittents and other technologies on the basis of levelized const.) But the role of government is to facilitate the efficient transition. It’s wrong to retard the transition with tariffs but also wrong to accelerate it with misguided subsidies.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading