New at Reason
Steve Chapman looks ahead at the debate over what to do about global warming, and sees disaster.
Comments to "New at Reason":
I think it will be a very hard thing for libertarian voices to regain much credibility in the global warming debate. For years most prominent ones denied the science to the point of absurdity, one guesses because they feared that this was one of those problem that the Magical Mystical Market could not solve. They are of course correct. Laissez-faire government policy is and would be a disaster for the environment. Letting people make voluntary exchanges completely unregulated leads to environmental disaster. This is not to say we should kill the goose that lays the golden egg of prosperity (which I think the market is) in order to clean up the goose's droppings which stink up the yard and make it unlivable. But one thing we should realize is that even the "free market solutions" now being touted by libertarians (now that they finally admit GW is real and a problem) involve government regulation (without the government noone would 'trade carbon emissions' for example, but then again without the government enforcing tort law I could dump pig sewage into you yard). You can't have markets without vigorous government, though a government that is too vigorous can hamper markets to the point of killing them. It's fine to talk about reaching the level of regulation which best protects liberty and choice, but lets let the libertarian purists (government bad!) know that they just will not be taken seriously in the GW debate. After all, they earned that.
kohlrabi | April 12, 2007, 9:04am | #
Ken,I think you're confusing libertarians with anarchists, esp. with regard to tort and property rights.
ed | April 12, 2007, 9:05am | #
Ken, I would stop saying things like "Magical Mystical Market" if you yourself want to be taken seriously.thoreau | April 12, 2007, 9:07am | #
What ed said. There were a few good points in your post, Ken, but you ruined it.You know the thing you said about damaging credibility? I thought it was a reasonable point. I also thought that you did a good job of illustrating the point.
I’m still not convinced there is anything that can be done to stop global warming. But I am convinced the fear of GW buttresses the case for the consumption tax, which is evidently now being retooled as a “carbon tax.” Regardless if GW can be stopped, or even needs to be, I’ll take anything that replaces the punitive, invasive nature of our current tax system. I don’t mind using the irrational fears, overly dramatic inclinations, and the herd mentality of liberals to get what I want. I’m a whore like that.
Bagel | April 12, 2007, 9:10am | #
Ken,Please explain why you need a "vigorous government" to have a market or is that statement only relative to global warming and environmental issues?
We all need to step back and ask What Would Tocqueville Do (WWTD)? ;)
One-O-One | April 12, 2007, 9:20am | #
Bagel, I'm sure Ken can handle himself, but you are picking on one of the few things he got correct. In any market, when two individuals willfully enter into a contract, that contract only has value when it is certain to be fulfilled. The government essentially ensures those contracts are fulfilled through various means. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Government does so fairly vigorously.JasonL | April 12, 2007, 9:21am | #
Let's get this out of the way. Libertarians are never taken seriously per se. When our interests in small government align with other more significant interests, those interests will occasionally adopt our rhetoric.Also, waiting until the satellite discrepancy was resolved to decide that the data all was in agreement doesn't to this day strike me as foolish.
Also, we don't have any information from the alarmist camp about what their proposals will cost and what the benefits will actually be. For people who are all reality based and stuff, that is pretty thin gruel. If I spend two trillion, do I get one degree difference in 75 years? This is not an unreasonable question.
What is unreasonable is the idea that man made global warming is real, so we must assume the worst outcomes of the spread and tar anyone who suggests caution as a denialist who should have no credibility.
SugarFree | April 12, 2007, 9:22am | #
Now that Ken has struck us a mortal blow with the classic "Ha ha, I told you so!" school ground argument, maybe we can move on to carbon tax proposals... unless someone else is interested in being a whiny douche...Here's why a carbon tax / income tax swap will never work: Too many people on the left and in the Green movement want to have the solutions to Global Warming severely impact and cripple our economy.
Anti-globalization protestors, Greens, Deep Ecologists, Marxist anarchists (oxymoron that they are), low-impact lifestylers, and every other quasi-leftist, anti-capitalist group has a core tenant that the modern economic and consumerist atmosphere of America and the First World is morally wrong. It is a religious mission for them. They will not be happy until the way they live is the way you live and they are content to use any means necessary to force it on you.
SugarFree | April 12, 2007, 9:30am | #
kohlrabi,Don't take Ken's conflation of libertarians and anarchists away from him... it's the only argument he has.
Well, that and his libert-freude.
thoreau | April 12, 2007, 9:30am | #
JasonL-Fair points, but what would you say about the subject of reputational risk? Would you say that it's generally a good thing when people and organizations and businesses are only trusted to the extent that their claims prove to be reliable? Do you regard this as a useful mechanism in the marketplace of ideas? If not in the marketplace of ideas, what about in the marketplace of medications, or the marketplace of automobiles, or some other consumer product?
One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology. Whether we like it or not coal is going to be around for a while and discovering ways to burn it more cleanly seems to be an important thing to encourage (whether one buys into CGW or not).
Smappy | April 12, 2007, 9:38am | #
SugarFree,I believe the real reason carbon taxes wouldn't work is because there will always be other countries that don't tax carbon. So the carbon emitters can just relocate. The only way to make them work would be offsets in other taxes/regulations, which Chapman gives only a little discussion of at the end of the column.
Also, I like how you go from deriding Ken's schoolyard argument to saying carbon taxes won't work because of the character flaws of the environmentalist movement. Pot, Kettle, etc.
joe | April 12, 2007, 9:39am | #
The government also invested in alternative energy in the 1990s and 00s, and now solar is growing at about 30% per year.Also, since you don't seem to realize this, large trucks and SUVs are EXEMPT from fleet CAFE standards. The average fuel economy of vehicles covered by CAFE standards has risen along with the standards. Bringing up the gas mileage of SUVs doesn't demonstrate that efficiency standards don't work to improve efficiency; it demonstrates that the lack of fuel efficiency standards doesn't work.
Imperialist | April 12, 2007, 9:44am | #
The United States cannot solve global warming by taxing its own citizens. The emerging economies in China, India, and the third-world will wipe out whatever effect carbon taxes in the US might provide.The only logical solution for global warming is for the US to conquer the rest of the world, then make Al Gore the regent of the newly acquired territories.
JasonL | April 12, 2007, 9:45am | #
thoreau:I'm really saying a couple of things.
1) I don't think saying "We don't know," up to the point the satellite data was resolved should harm anyone's credibility. If you falsified or misrepresented data, that should harm your credibility.
2) The amount of false or misrepresented data is not large, so the ding to credibility shouldn't be large. Skepticism is almost always warranted. It is inaccurate to depict the broad libertarian position as 'deceitful' or even 'wrong', because there was at least as much commentary along the very reasonable lines of "uhh, you are asking us to spend trillions of dollars and you can't tell us what we are buying".
I don't think saying "There's no need to prepare for war" up until Pearl Harbor should harm anyone's credibility.
A plain 'ol consumption tax is more marketable, less intimidating, more realizable, and perhaps as effective as a carbon tax. Even if it isn’t as effective, that fact that it is possible makes me think that is where our energy should be expended. Pardon the pun.
Bagel | April 12, 2007, 9:54am | #
One-O-One,I understand how government can act to enforce the fulfillment of contracts, enforce torts, etc. but in no way does that make government a necessity for a market.
Conservative Dictionary | April 12, 2007, 9:57am | #
Cab,Not all consumption (or production of consumables) is equally carbon-intensive.
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 9:58am | #
Bagel,Well it is probably the case that markets are pre-political entities. At least pre-political in the sense of trade between communities. Of course in re: intra-village trade what is political and what is "social" may be difficult to tease out.
JasonL | April 12, 2007, 9:59am | #
joe:You are misrepresenting your confidence level in our ability to prepare given what we know. Even now, we have a range of no big deal to pretty bad. Maybe we need to prepare for war by having some rifles. Maybe we need nukes. You are sure you want to argue for building nukes because the concept of war exists?
Maybe the margin of effectiveness of each additional dollar we throw at this is small enough that we are as prepared as we can be.
ed | April 12, 2007, 10:00am | #
Anyone remember the story of the three bears? Substitute climate for porridge. Are the GW alarmists actually saying that our current climate is "just right" and that a bit of warming (or a bit of cooling) will lead to catastrophe? How fortunate for we humans that our climate is "just right". How ever did we survive the last ice age? Or the warm period before it?SugarFree | April 12, 2007, 10:01am | #
Smappy,If I was pointing out their character flaws on a Green discussion board, I'd accept being argumentally equivilent to Ken. I believe doing it here is discussing the motives behind our ideological opposites. Motives are always in play when examining arguments; if they weren't poor Ron Bailey couldn't be skinned alive every time he posted because of a few shares of oil stock. (Hell, I have mutual funds... one of the companies I'm invested in could be selling puppy meat to taco stands for all I know.)
I don't see why we both can't be right about carbon taxes, I was just merely pointing out that reason will never sway moral objections*. I was only trying to offer a piece, not the whole puzzle.
*I swear on a stack of Inconvenient Truth DVDs that is not a magazine pun.
Conservative Dictionary (joe), I hear you and agree that if the sole goal is curtailing certain emissions a carbon tax would be better. However, I just don't see a carbon tax as doable politically. I'd rather have a less effective consumption tax than what we have now, that's all.
Chris Monnier | April 12, 2007, 10:15am | #
> One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology.No, a carbon tax would accelerate the development of cleaner coal technology. Assuming CO2 being emitted from each big power plant could be measured (I think this is a pretty safe assumption), the amount of carbon tax a given power plant would owe could be based on the metered CO2 it emitted. If a power plant emitted less CO2, it would pay lower carbon taxes.
It wouldn't make sense to meter CO2 coming out of cars or smaller emission sources; for those cases a simple standard tax (X dollars per gallon, etc.) would make more sense.
joe | April 12, 2007, 10:19am | #
ed,It isn't the absolute temperature - people and wildlife live successfully in different climates, and at different elevations above sea level, right now.
It's the rapid change that's the problem. The communities and ecosystems in each climate have developed and adapted to succeed in that climate.
R C Dean | April 12, 2007, 10:20am | #
Regardless if GW can be stopped, or even needs to be, I’ll take anything that replaces the punitive, invasive nature of our current tax system.Sure. But who really believes that the carbon tax will replace the income and payroll tax system?
And to get rid of the punitive/invasive nature of income and payroll taxes, you have to abolish them entirely. A 10% income tax still requires just as much government intrusion into your affairs as a 50% income tax.
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 10:21am | #
Chris Monnier,Alright that makes sense. However, the carbon tax proposals I've seen taxed the material itself - the coal - instead of what was coming out the pipe.
joe | April 12, 2007, 10:22am | #
Cab,I see a carbon tax as more politically feasible, because one can reduce one's level of taxation by changing one's behavior.
Thank you, Chris Monnier, for pointing out that mistake in Chapman's article. A carbon tax taxes carbon outputs into the atmosphere. Coal plants that sequester their C02 aren't going to be taxed alongside plants that send it through a smokestack.
val | April 12, 2007, 10:24am | #
It's the rapid change that's the problemWhat rapid change joe? The completly unrealistic worst-case scenario in the IPCC report? Or the one that you have in you infinite wisdom for seen. Oh I know, its the one Al Gore talked about.
Matt | April 12, 2007, 10:25am | #
That way, we'd get environmental improvements and a lighter load on companies and workers. Meanwhile, the total tax burden on the economy would be unchanged.Yep, and red light cameras give us safer intersections...yeah..that's it....
Not disagreeing they're preferable, and more preferable is the offset, but the problem is that you're backing into a tax cut when things get better. This is great, but the govt won't stand for that.
However, the carbon tax proposals I've seen taxed the material itself - the coal - instead of what was coming out the pipe.
It's like when I was in grad school at UF. They came up with a "stormwater management utility" which was, essentially, a tax. I could very easily put in rain barrels, grass pavers for a parking area, and reduce my runoff to almost nil, but the process to get my bill reduced was horrendus to impossible.
I assume it's still in force, but I don't know.
Anyway, over the long run it probably won't matter much what Europe or the U.S. or Japan does.
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 10:28am | #
Matt,Interesting.
Also, lot of the technological fixes for coal are of course pretty hypothetical.
joe | April 12, 2007, 10:29am | #
val,I'll treat your feelings about the IPCC report, Al Gore, myself, and everyone else who's done a better job than you of figuring out the global warming problem with all the respect they're due. See "credibilty, libertarians and global warming."
At least the America First Committee had the decency to get off the state once their ideas were routed by reality.
ersatz joe | April 12, 2007, 10:47am | #
And we'll treat all your comments regarding peoples mothers with the all the respect they are due as well.Aside from Joe, does anybody really believe that these hypothetical carbon tax revenues will be used in a way which could be construed as productive? The externality (appeal to buzzword) argument takes as a given that the revenue from a tax intended to capture the extenal costs will be used to directly mitigate that external cost, when in fact it is much more likely the tax will be used in wrong-headed, if not counterproductive ways.
val | April 12, 2007, 11:01am | #
val,I'll treat your feelings about the IPCC report, Al Gore, myself, and everyone else who's done a better job than you of figuring out the global warming problem with all the respect they're due. See "credibilty, libertarians and global warming."
At least the America First Committee had the decency to get off the state once their ideas were routed by reality
joe,
Ignoring your sidesteping and smugness, my question as before is: what rapid changes and what reality are you refering to? Out of the multiple scenarios presented in the IPCC which one are you trying to mitigate? Considering you keep refering to rapid changes, it sounds like you are talking about the most unlikely (by IPCC's own admition) scenario.
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 11:03am | #
P Brooks,I'm sure they be as effectively used as tax dollars generally are.
R C Dean | April 12, 2007, 11:04am | #
Brooks, I think the argument must be that tax itself, by burdening the production of C02, will Save the Planet merely by being levied.Any other argument for the tax founders upon the Facts of Life: arguing that it will supplant our current tax system is willfully naive to the point of stupidity, and claiming that the revenues will be used to mitigate climate change is wishful to the point of delusion.
Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 11:07am | #
PBrooks,I am not sure use of the money for mitigation is at all important.
A shift in the structure of the economic load government places on the market towards materials throughput (including carbon) and away from labor and income changes the incentive structure and shapes behavior.
The mitigation comes from this, not what is done with the money.
It is a different issue whether or not government should be in the R&D biz...
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 11:08am | #
No one is discussing the level of this tax.According to William Nordhaus's 2000 book, the optimal carbon tax would be less than $20 per ton of CO2 emitted today, rising through the decades as the costs of newly added CO2 emissions accumulate.
To equate this to something we can relate to, the present day optimal carbon tax on a gallon of gas is less than 20 cents -- well below the current transportation-based tax on a gallon of gas.
And since the economic concept of a Pigouvian tax does not dictate how its revenue is used, the optimal carbon tax is already subsumed entirely by the current tax on gas.
Are these the carbon tax levels people are talking about?
uncle sam | April 12, 2007, 11:09am | #
I see two sides getting snarky and engaging in snark escalation.Notice how you feel when you snark. Just like when you were in school or arguing with your sibling.
Does anyone have any idea how much CO2 is released in order to support the government and all its activities: bureaucracies, subsidies, war-making, etc.?
I thought not.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 11:15am | #
Anyway, over the long run it probably won't matter much what Europe or the U.S. or Japan does.If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.
joe | April 12, 2007, 11:17am | #
"Brooks, I think the argument must be that tax itself, by burdening the production of C02, will Save the Planet merely by being levied."Exactly, it's about building in a competitive advantage for less-carbon-intensive means of producing goods, services, and energy. If A costs more than B, we will see more B and less A.
Gore's cabon tax plan explicity states that it would replace the payroll tax - not because Social Security and Medicare payments reduce global warming, but because of the effect on the tax on carbon-intensive operations.
Sal Paradise | April 12, 2007, 11:22am | #
Well said, R C Dean."Of course, no one wants to pay more in taxes. Here's the good news: We don't have to. Some economists propose that carbon tax revenues be used to finance equal cuts in income and payroll taxes."
I'm not sure how anyone can type, or say, this with a straight face.
P Brooks | April 12, 2007, 11:22am | #
"I am not sure use of the money for mitigation is at all important."Neu Mejican, it is obvious from reading previous threads that you spend a lot more time thinking about this stuff than I, but I am mired in my old-fashioned "cause and effect" analytical framework. Is the carbon tax to be nothing more than penance, in the manner of Italian princes buying indulgences in order that the Pope might afford a larger and more elaborate Easter Bonnet?
joe | April 12, 2007, 11:22am | #
Mike P,Norhaus's reasoning that the "last" ton of carbon in the atmosphere is more damaging than the "first" is illogical. The last ton doesn't do more severe damage because it is any different than the first, but because the first and second and third are already in the atmosphere.
If you drown in 8 feet of water, is it the water at the bottom of the pool that's responsible, or at the top? That question doesn't make any sense, it's all of the water in the pool. Any one gallon is just as reponsible as any other gallon, regarless of when it went in.
And when did transportation infrastructure stop needing funding, just because of global warming? People driving around with ICE-powered cars impose a cost in terms of environmental quality, and a cost in terms of road construction.
Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 11:24am | #
An interesting article which look critically at Nordhaus's model...http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/All_Models_Are_Wrong_(SDR).pdf
"As in many of the integrated climate–economy
models, Professor Nordhaus makes many other assumptions, assumptions that
work against his conclusions, assumptions that are not questioned or tested.
These include:
ž Consumers and producers make decisions that are consistent with global,
intertemporal optimization under full information. (We never make mistakes
in economic decisions; the distant and delayed effects of our decisions, even
those occurring over centuries, are fully internalized.)
ž Instant or rapid equilibration of factor inputs to prices. (The economy and
energy demand respond to prices very quickly; there are no significant lags
in the turnover of carbon energy consuming capital stocks, the development
of new technologies, changes in settlement patterns or transportation
infrastructure, and so on.)
ž Energy efficiency improves and the carbon intensity of the economy falls
exogenously. (Technology improves automatically and without costs, delays,
or ‘‘side effects’’.)
ž All non-energy resources are excluded. (Interactions between climate change
and other issues are unimportant.)"
P Brooks | April 12, 2007, 11:31am | #
And, further, how can it be that the situation is so dire that immediate drastic action is required if it doesn't matter what we spend the carbon tax revenues on?This severely weakens the argument.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 11:33am | #
joe,If you understood and/or believed in margins, you'd probably be a libertarian.
If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?
Besides, I think the increasing optimal level of the carbon tax through the decades is due more to the fact that future generations will be much richer than we and can therefore bear a higher tax better. Apologies if my statement on their CO2 piling onto ours was taken as the sole or principal reason.
And I did not suggest that transportation taxes would be reduced at all. I merely said that the carbon tax on gasoline -- since, as you note, the theory is that it's the tax qua tax that matters -- should be applied to transportation as the current tax is, not added on top of the current tax and applied to something else.
Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 11:33am | #
PBrooks,Let me, again, proclaim that I am a carbon tax skeptic.
There are more important changes to policy that can have a bigger impact (changes in building codes and zoning requirements, for instance).
Our current system of labor taxes rewards technology that reduces the need for labor (but is indifferent to CO2 production). A system that rewarded technology that reduced CO2, but was indifferent to increased labor would have an impact on the kind of capital investment that occurs.
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 11:42am | #
Dave W.,If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.
You do realize that this would cause tremendous damage to the economies of Europe, the U.S. and Japan, right?
Mike Laursen | April 12, 2007, 11:43am | #
Don't take Ken's conflation of libertarians and anarchists away from him...It's not like Ken came up with this conflation out of thin air. The idea that anarchism is the only true form of libertarianism has been ensconced in Libertarian Party culture since the 1970s. Of course, Ken may have missed that Hit & Run is far from being a cackle of capital-L Libertarians.
joe | April 12, 2007, 11:47am | #
P Brooks,"And, further, how can it be that the situation is so dire that immediate drastic action is required if it doesn't matter what we spend the carbon tax revenues on?" Because incentivising the economy is expected to be the solution. Have a little faith in the capacity of free enterprise to innovate in response to the profit motive!
Mike P,
"If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?"
This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem. And yes, in that circumstance, the first foot of water matter just as much as the last foot. Without that first foot, the last foot wouldn't drown me.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 11:50am | #
Grotius | April 12, 2007, 11:42am | #Dave W.,
If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.
You do realize that this would cause tremendous damage to the economies of Europe, the U.S. and Japan, right?
Relative to global warming related damage, you mean? I must confess I don't, but I would like to.
I do know that there are options that fall in between "unrestricted trade with China" and "ban on trade with China." For example: "trade with China to an extent depending upon their environmental reform."
Seems like this would be a good issue for the HnR writers to be exploring. In place of the kind of things they are writing about global warming now. *hint, hint*
One puzzling problem is that we have had similar global warming experiences prior to this one - and it's only recently that we started burning carbon-based fuels. So what caused the previous global warming. I'm a libertarian who is sympathetic to low growth and promotion of alternative renewable energy sources and can think of many reasons to curtail carbon fuels. Global Warming doesn't make my top 5. And many have pointed out the boondoggles that arise from legislating such behaviors.
Francisco Torres | April 12, 2007, 11:55am | #
Letting people make voluntary exchanges completely unregulated leads to environmental disaster.Indeed. Which is why the most regulated markets ever - those of the Eastern Block, led to a veritable natural paradise on earth... oh, wait. Not.
Francisco Torres | April 12, 2007, 11:58am | #
You can't have markets without vigorous government, though a government that is too vigorous can hamper markets to the point of killing them.Ken, would that not be the solution? If an unhampered market pollutes the most, and the idea is to pollute the least, then why not kill the markets?
You cannot have it both ways.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 12:00pm | #
"One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology. Whether we like it or not coal is going to be around for a while and discovering ways to burn it more cleanly seems to be an important thing to encourage (whether one buys into CGW or not)."We could reduce man's contribution of CO2 by 60% if we switched from coal to nuclear.
R C Dean | April 12, 2007, 12:06pm | #
If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.Glad so see someone else realize that the only way to curtail carbon output in a meaningful way is to do it (a) globally via (b) a Global SuperState or (c) a trade war.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 12:21pm | #
"It's the rapid change that's the problem. The communities and ecosystems in each climate have developed and adapted to succeed in that climate."It hasn't been proven that there will be a dramatic rapid change.
JasonL | April 12, 2007, 12:22pm | #
I think a carbon tax is the best of crappy options. I wouldn't mind one that is offset by payroll tax deductions or income tax deductions. I also wouldn't terribly mind one that layers on top of those taxes but only marginally.My position: We don't know and can't assign a probability to great harm that could be credibly be offset by great expense on our end. We also have to pay taxes somehow and there are externalities to be accounted for. Lower other taxes, create a carbon tax, and you don't create great national expense and might stave off deep eco loonies.
joe | April 12, 2007, 12:40pm | #
"Glad so see someone else realize that the only way to curtail carbon output in a meaningful way is to do it (a) globally via (b) a Global SuperState or (c) a trade war."Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.
That would be a real treat. It would certainly sow accord. But it would appear to ber a difficult problem to negotiate.
Did anyone else see the BBC documentary on the "Global Warming Swindle?" I found it fairly convincing and looked into some of the original research, i.e. the Mann article that gave birth to the ridiculous "hockey-stick" graph showing a sudden jump in earth's temperature in the 1960s. The satellite data show the world is warming, but that doesn't prove it has anything to do with carbon. Mars is warming too and its ice caps are melting. I think it's premature to start starving people and hamstringing industry just in case.
jimmy smith | April 12, 2007, 12:46pm | #
How much global cooling will it take to get rid of the bullshit? Whatever happened to running out of landfills? Tobacco, anyone? War on Drugs? War on Education? Oh yeah, we won that one. Terrorism? What will be the next crisis du jour? Thank god I'm an atheist and old.jp | April 12, 2007, 12:49pm | #
One quibble with Chapman's article:He writes, "the Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency has violated the law by not regulating auto emissions[.]"
I think it's important to be clear about what the Supreme Court held in Mass. v. EPA because the left will probably use it to beat people over the head. The Court did not hold that the EPA violated the law by not regulating auto emissions. What it held was that the EPA violated the law by not providing a justification for its decision not to regulate that was sufficient according to the Court's reading of the governing statute and regs.
In other words, the Court didn't hold that failure to regulate cars' CO2 emissions was unlawful. It held that, regardless of whether the EPA decides to regulate or not to regulate, its decision must be supported by reasons that satisfy the statute/regs.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 12:57pm | #
Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.This reminds me of some of my recent political development. In the 2000 election, I was indifferent as between Bush and Gore. I didn't vote for either. I voted, but abstained on the presidential choice.
Prior to 9/11 I was okay with Bush, until he announced that we were pulling the US out of Kyoto. Then I became mildly irritated with Bush and began to wish I voted for Gore.
Now, after 9/11, and especially after the announcement of the pre-emptive war doctrine in summer 2002, I became what was commonly called a "Bush hater." So much so that I left the US.
However, as I was becoming a Bush hater, and leaving the US, I listened to the Bush administration on Kyoto and became convinced that pulling out of that was the correct thing to do. It was hard for me to listen to an administration I "hated" so much, but sometimes ya gotta do that.
No pint, I guess. I just find it funny that the thing that got me started down the road of "Bush hating" is something where I have come around to the Bush camp.
Imperialist | April 12, 2007, 12:58pm | #
Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.That would be a real treat. It would certainly sow accord. But it would appear to ber a difficult problem to negotiate.
Two scenarios that lead to a treaty. Both parties get something of value to offer, and they are willing to give up something in return for getting access to what the other party has. One party has enough of an advantage to force the other to agree.
How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 1:04pm | #
This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem.According to the IPCC 4AR, if atmospheric CO2 levels were magically frozen at today's levels, the warming in this century would be a measly 1°F. The environmental damage due to that amount of warming would be minor indeed.
Making people today pay an extreme price to reduce damages seen on a graph in a hundred years due to CO2 emitted by their much wealthier descendants fifty years hence would be insane.
Thus the optimal carbon tax today is a relatively modest $20 per ton. If I recall the last time I ran the calculations, that's still about 1% of US GDP. Of course, that also doesn't count any carbon sinks, which one would hope would be included as well in any globally harmonized tax.
And yes, in that circumstance, the first foot of water matter just as much as the last foot. Without that first foot, the last foot wouldn't drown me.
But the person standing in the water knows that five feet is safe. The person putting in the last foot knows six feet is unsafe. He knows there are already five feet. He is the one adding the marginal amount of water that turns a harmless pool into a deathtrap. There is no way you can blame the first foot for the damage caused by the last foot.
An MRI comparison of our two brains thinking about this might be very interesting...
After years of seeing Reason writers misrepresent the state of the science, I'm Shocked, I say, Shocked to still see so many commenters here clinging so desperately to the idea that the wrong guys to believe are the scientists and that we should rather believe the same exact shills who made such a good living throwing up chaff for so long.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 1:18pm | #
How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.the US, Europe and Japan get together and tell China:
- if your emissions are down to level x1, then we trade with you in the unrestricted manner you have come to enjoy.
- if you emissions are only down to level x2, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y2 Euros in the aggregate.
- if you emissions are only down to level x3, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y3 Euros in the aggregate.
.
.
.
- if you emissions go up to level x99, then we will ban trade with you.
where x1
joe | April 12, 2007, 1:18pm | #
Imperialist,"How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs?"
They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living. In exchange, we (both) invest in the tools necessary to achieve this - the development of new technologies and the proliferation of less destructive practices using existing technology.
The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete. The green left has realized this for a decade or more.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 1:20pm | #
How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.the US, Europe and Japan get together and tell China:
- if your emissions are down to level x1, then we trade with you in the unrestricted manner you have come to enjoy.
- if you emissions are only down to level x2, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y2 Euros in the aggregate.
- if you emissions are only down to level x3, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y3 Euros in the aggregate.
.
.
.
- if you emissions go up to level x99, then we will ban trade with you.
where x1 < x2 < x3. . .< x99, and y2 > y3 > . . .0.
Then tell China that they will effectively decide their trade level by the level of emissions. No trade war, just a progressive schedule with many choices for them coal burning Chinese to choose between.
If trade rights with China are limited because of its emission levels, then China trading rights can be auctioned off by the governments of US, Japan, Europe (and anyone else who plays along).
Problem solved.
(sorry about multiple post -- trouble with > sign)
I'm Shocked, Shocked that some of the same people who accused their opponents of cherry picking data to make a case for no action are now cherry picking the upper edge of a very wide error margin while suggesting that "THIS is what scientists say."
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 1:29pm | #
Dave W.,Rather than your progressive schedule of emissions and trade, how about China accounting for all CO2 emitted during the production of every individual thing they export, and the rest of the world applying a CO2 emissions tariff to those exports that have not yet been subject to the full globally harmonized CO2 tax.
I'm not arguing that this is necessarily workable, though it is no less workable than your suggestion. But it does hew more closely to the spirit of the original article: minimize government interference and maximize market incentive.
But oh how I hate Pigouvian taxes. Say that China accounts for and collects tax for every pound of CO2 emissions. Under Pigouvian theory, China gets to spend the revenues as it wishes; the tax already served its purpose as an incentive. Now say that China chooses to spend the revenues as a tax rebate, exactly proportional to the carbon tax collected, exactly to those who paid the tax.
Carbon tax collected. Carbon tax spent.
Problem solved.
joe | April 12, 2007, 1:33pm | #
Mike P,Our "wealthier descendants" won't be so wealthy if global warming continues unabated.
You're drawing a false distinction between the first foot of water and the last foot. If our descendants emit "the last ton" of CO2, it won't be because they decided it would be really kewl to do so, but becasue they (like us) have inherited a system in which their continued existence and prosperity is dependent on a carbon-intensive lifestyle and economy.
The practices and technology that have raised CO2 to modern levels aren't simply going to stop, they're going to expand, and emit ever-more carbon. If we don't change them, the result will not be merely the carbon we are emmitting today, but the higher levels of carbon emitted by a wealthier, larger population in the future.
The guy dumping the last foot of water in the pool isn't commitng a novel act. If this metaphor is to be accurate, he must dump that water in because the first foot was dumped in, and nothing was done to make it possible for him to avoid adding the last foot.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 1:34pm | #
Rather than your progressive schedule of emissions and trade, how about China accounting for all CO2 emitted during the production of every individual thing they export, and the rest of the world applying a CO2 emissions tariff to those exports that have not yet been subject to the full globally harmonized CO2 tax.That probably is a better plan. Both our plans are better than Kyoto.
I wish HnR and Al Gore would be generating this kind of idea "above the fold" instead of foisting all the heavy intellectual lifting on folks like you and me, MikeP.
C'mon Steve Chapman. Steve-O! the Steve-meister! You can do it! Think, my man, think! Think hard!
Imperialist | April 12, 2007, 1:36pm | #
The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete.Care to explain this more fully? What is the new equation?
joe | April 12, 2007, 1:38pm | #
Mike P,Subsidizing carbon-intensive production would tend to increase the amount of CO2 produced. Agreed.
The point I'm getting from this is that the revenues collected by a carbon tax shouldn't be used to subsidize the operations of carbon-intensive industries. OK. That's fairly obvious.
Am I missing something?
joe | April 12, 2007, 1:44pm | #
Imperialist,Old-fashioned thinking assumed that advances in technology were always more polluting than the old method. For the first century and a half of industrial history, this held up pretty well.
But not anymore. Natural gas plants are cleaner than old-fashioned coal plants. Priuses are cleaner than Suburbans.
Not to mention, greater wealth can (not "will," "can") be used to implement cleaner practices. A factory can only afford scrubbers once it is making a certain amount of money.
The new thinking is that there are choices to make in regards to how wealth is spent and what technologies are used, which can have the effect of reducing pollution.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 1:47pm | #
joe,I was being half facetious. But the larger point is that this globally harmonized carbon tax is going to be collected and spent by various governments. Some governments are going to find direct or indirect ways to maximize their own wealth, intentionally or unintentionally subsidizing further carbon production.
Some governments are going to be run by Robert Mugabe.
Requiring Robert Mugabe to collect a tax is somewhat stomach-churning. Pressuring or invading his country because he refuses to collect the tax is even worse...
jimmy smith | April 12, 2007, 1:47pm | #
How can anyone believe that a government that created the IRS laws are going to "solve" global warming? C'mon, get real!!! The incentives are political, 3 trillion US dollars at stake. Where is Stossel now? Gimme a break.Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 1:58pm | #
Another point about the carbon tax.Too much of this discussion is in terms of transportation (not that transportation isn't an huge piece of the picture).
The largest source of energy consumption in the US goes towards heating and cooling buildings, and is mostly unnecessary.
Current building technologies can reduce this source of energy consumption dramatically. In many climates you can get of the need for a heater/air conditioner completely. The up front costs are greater (although smaller than you would think), but pay for themselves quickly in energy savings.
Part of the problem is getting people to take this long-term savings into account when they build. How to structure a carbon tax so that it encourages smarter up front investment is the challenge, as I see it.
Here is an example of how to do it using 20 year old technology...
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid379.php
joe | April 12, 2007, 2:00pm | #
Mike P,"Some governments are going to find direct or indirect ways to maximize their own wealth, intentionally or unintentionally subsidizing further carbon production."
Nice assumption there, that wealth = (and will always =) greater carbon emissions. What about whale oil? Aren't you afraid that governments will use their carbon taxes to subsidize industries that burn whale oil?
Herb Schaffler | April 12, 2007, 2:01pm | #
"After years of seeing Reason writers misrepresent the state of the science, I'm Shocked, I say, Shocked to still see so many commenters here clinging so desperately to the idea that the wrong guys to believe are the scientists and that we should rather believe the same exact shills who made such a good living throwing up chaff for so long."But not all climate scientists are in agreement that CO2 is significantly driving climate, let alone man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Some scientists believe it is the sun that is driving climate and temperature. Astrophysist Willie Soon did a graph that shows Actic temperatures going back to 1880 which coincides with the sun's activities and not with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Imperialist | April 12, 2007, 2:02pm | #
The new thinking is that there are choices to make in regards to how wealth is spent and what technologies are used, which can have the effect of reducing pollution.I understand all that. But I have been to China and seen their current state of affairs. Even the best technology available is going to produce a dramatic increase in CO2 product in aggregate long before China raises its standards equal to those in the backwaters of Europe.
The question is not should we try to halt global warming. It is how can we limit the damage as China and India modernize.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 2:07pm | #
"They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living. In exchange, we (both) invest in the tools necessary to achieve this - the development of new technologies and the proliferation of less destructive practices using existing technology.""The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete. The green left has realized this for a decade or more."
One thing the green left hasn't come to realize is that no other form of energy than fossil fuel with the exception of nuclear for electrical generation will produce the standard of living that we are used to.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 2:08pm | #
Our "wealthier descendants" won't be so wealthy if global warming continues unabated.They also won't be so wealthy if today's governments overreact to global warming and slow the growth of economies as a result.
The guy dumping the last foot of water in the pool isn't commitng a novel act. If this metaphor is to be accurate, he must dump that water in because the first foot was dumped in, and nothing was done to make it possible for him to avoid adding the last foot.
No. Each new ton of CO2 adds a certain risk of a certain level of damage, i.e., a marginal economic cost. Each new ton of CO2 adds a certain marginal economic benefit, or it wouldn't have been generated.
The carbon tax is designed so the emitter getting the benefit of the production pays the cost of the damage. If the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit, the emitter will either change his process or terminate his production.
The marginal damage due to new CO2 emission will be greater in the middle of this century than at the beginning. Due to improvements in production and leveraging of higher wealth, the marginal benefit will likely be greater as well. Thus the optimal carbon tax -- that tax whose costs to the economy are less than the costs of the environmental damage prevented by it -- will rise as the years pass.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Aren't you afraid that governments will use their carbon taxes to subsidize industries that burn whale oil?No. Whale oil is more expensive than coal.
joe | April 12, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake,In the 1400s, wealth was as closely tied to tilled acreage as it is tied to energy use today.
Imperialist,
"Even the best technology available is going to produce a dramatic increase in CO2 product in aggregate long before China raises its standards equal to those in the backwaters of Europe."
TODAY. Using TODAY'S technology and practices. That's rather the point here - we need new and better technologies and practices.
All of this hand-wringing about environmental protection being a plot to keep China poor ignores a rather important point - the Chinese themselves are eager to move to cleaner operations. They're leading the world in green building, not because they want to sacrifice their well-being, but because they themselves recognize that it is essential to their well-being.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 2:26pm | #
"I wish HnR and Al Gore would be generating this kind of idea "above the fold" instead of foisting all the heavy intellectual lifting on folks like you and me, MikeP."Al Gore isn't interested in any solutions that don't require new massive governmental intervention.
Imperialist | April 12, 2007, 2:33pm | #
TODAY. Using TODAY'S technology and practices. That's rather the point here - we need new and better technologies and practices.Unless you work in some secret lab where miracles are being made, there are no technologies coming in the near future that will stop the problem. They can most certainly reduce the problem to much smaller problem than using even 1990s technology, but there is no magic bullet coming that I know of.
All of this hand-wringing about environmental protection being a plot to keep China poor ignores a rather important point - the Chinese themselves are eager to move to cleaner operations.
I have been to Moscow many times. Russia is the world's largest third-world country. It is paradise compared to Guanzhou (china's second largest city). My co-worker has been to both Guanzhou and Mumbai. Guanzhou is paradize-squared compared to Mumbai.
Even if the Chinese and Indians are meticulous in their green practices, their production of CO2 is going to swamp any reductions that the US can realistically achieve without destroying the US economy.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 2:35pm | #
"In the 1400s, wealth was as closely tied to tilled acreage as it is tied to energy use today."The problem is that no other form of energy is as cheap or efficient as fossil fuel is for vehicle transportation. No other form of energy in existance can generate as much energy as fossil fuel can for vehicle transportation.
uncle sam | April 12, 2007, 2:35pm | #
Does anyone have any idea how much CO2 is released in order to support the government and all its activities: bureaucracies, subsidies, war-making, etc.?(Remembering that even a government accounting agendy has claimed that half of the cost of government is pure waste.)
I thought not.
Dave W. | April 12, 2007, 2:41pm | #
Al Gore isn't interested in any solutions that don't require new massive governmental intervention.Yup, and Steven Chapman and the HnR crew are not interested in any solution that require considerable economic sacrifice in the investor class. That was why I mention both buddy Al and Steve-O. they write / talk about this stuff with ideological blinders on. It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't.
R C Dean | April 12, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.The problem, joe, is that countries either (a) won't agree to the kinds of things necessary to drastically reduce carbon output or (b) won't follow through on their commitments in the absence of an enforcement mechanism.
That enforcement mechanism boils down to either (a) a Global SuperState or (b) a trade war.
They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living.
Those different ways will be more expensive and/or less effective at raising the standard of living. Otherwise China would be adopting them without our "getting" them to do so. Your answers begs the question.
[China is] leading the world in green building
Boy, there's a statement that begs for a link. I thought they were leading the world in building new coal-fired power plants.
If being green were the cheapest and easiest way to get rich, we wouldn't have to worry about taxes and treaties and trade wars to get there, would we? Well, its not - being green means making sacrifices, and those aren't sacrifices that people will make willingly, which is why there is no way to get there without force.
Be honest about this, greensters, and quit pretending that people are putting CO2 into the air for the pure spite of it.
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"What is it about global warming issues that tends to make people really nasty to each other?"The fact that it's based on faith like religion. People fight over issues in which they can't prove.
Reinmoose | April 12, 2007, 2:43pm | #
What about people?! People are ultimately responsible for using energy, and therefore for emitting too much carbon dioxide. The population of the world continues to grow at a staggering rate, and what are we going to do about it?! We have to do something, don't we?!We should only allow people to have one child, we should establish a maximum age for living, and castrating some others wouldn't be such a bad solution either. We should reward those who use less energy with credits, allowing them to live longer before voluntary suicide, and if they show the ability to significantly reduce their energy usage, maybe even have 2 children!
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 2:49pm | #
Nice assumption there, that wealth = (and will always =) greater carbon emissions.If wealth generation is not related to greater carbon emissions, then all this talk of a carbon tax is pretty moot.
Yes, there will be realms of wealth production where alternative energy sources are superior to carbon. Yes, there will be more of these realms the higher the tax on CO2 is.
But if you outright say that there are cheaper ways to generate wealth than burning carbon, then why worry about anthropogenic CO2 at all? The market will discover and exploit these cheaper means of production all by itself, thank you.
JasonL | April 12, 2007, 3:00pm | #
"It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't."Heh. Hehheh. Hee.
Reinmoose | April 12, 2007, 3:02pm | #
Mike P makes an excellent point from the point of view of someone who studies economics.The trick is of course to make people realize the actual costs of their consumption, which subsidies (such as those on the Oil industry) fail to allow. Ken (the very first post) and some of ya'll keep referring to the current situation as being caused by the market, when in reality, the current situation is a result of regulation and subsidization. If we didn’t subsidize oil and roads, do you think people would drive all over the place if they had to pay through the ass for gas and had to pay out of pocket to use roads (albeit, it wouldn’t be coming out of their taxes)? If we didn’t subsidize roads and oil, do you think people would choose to spend their money living in the middle of f’ing nowhere, or would they live someplace where it wouldn’t cost them as much to get to the store/work/school, etc. With such an increase in population density, energy consumption per person would drop, ambient heating costs would reduce significantly, infrastructure costs would reduce drastically… I mean how much brain power does it take to see that subsidies are really the only thing that need to change in order to improve quality of life, freedom from over-taxation, and the environment?
Rattlesnake Jake | April 12, 2007, 3:08pm | #
"This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem."A problem that hasn't been proven to exist.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 3:21pm | #
It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't.I do not actually advocate carbon taxes or tariffs. I do however accept that they may be the least bad result we can expect from the politically charged atmosphere that the global warming debate has become.
Nonetheless, I find that the meager economic benefit due to the optimal carbon tax, along with the meager decrease in warming resulting from that tax, make giving governments -- not only the US government, which is sadly one of the best governments out there, but every government -- the power to collect and spend this tax a far more costly and risky proposition than simply dealing with global warming.
In the twentieth century governments killed outright upwards of a hundred million people. The damages caused by global warming are peanuts compared to that. Addressing global warming in ways that hinder economic growth and global interdependence while constructing new strategic and trade blocks merely to try to deal with carbon emissions would be a serious disaster.
R C Dean | April 12, 2007, 3:22pm | #
The trick is of course to make people realize the actual costs of their consumption, which subsidies (such as those on the Oil industry) fail to allow.Whenever people start talking about charging back for "externalities", I always wonder if they are planning to charge back for both the externalized costs and benefits of a given behavior, or only the costs.
Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 3:28pm | #
"being green means making sacrifices, and those aren't sacrifices that people will make willingly, which is why there is no way to get there without force."RC, look at this company
http://www.interfaceinc.com/
They have increased their profits by adopting green practices. They are not alone. Many green practices are worth doing just for the sake of increasing profits.
"quit pretending that people are putting CO2 into the air for the pure spite of it."
Knowledge is a big hurdle.
If people don't know that there is a better, more profitable, and greener way to do things, they will just keep doing things they way they do it now.
Be honest and quit pretending environmentalists are just acting out of spite.
People don't always do the thing that is in their best interest because they don't know how.
If we go back to the logic of a carbon tax, it is supposed to give them an incentive to learn about the existing technology that will go a long way towards solving this problem...
Neu Mejican | April 12, 2007, 3:29pm | #
and to find newer, better ways to do things in the future.Reinmoose | April 12, 2007, 3:40pm | #
"Whenever people start talking about charging back for "externalities", I always wonder if they are planning to charge back for both the externalized costs and benefits of a given behavior, or only the costs."I'm not talking exactly about "charging back" (I think I know what you mean with this phrase), simply not taking peoples money and forcing them to make economic decisions based on false premises. For example, if I decide to take the train to DC, I'm doing so paying both for the train ticket AND for the roads and oil I'm not using. It's a false choice. Why force people to make irrational choices when they're perfectly capable of making rational decisions without the government's help? Your implication of "charging back" benefits is exactly what leads to subsidies. It's the idea that something benefits us, so we should pay more for it in our taxes so we don't have to pay so much for it at the vending location.
PS: Can someone explain to me how to get things to appear in italics?
Will Allen | April 12, 2007, 3:43pm | #
Lemme know when the carbon tax advocates agree to create it via a Constitutional Amendment which also explicitly prohibits income and payroll taxes. I'll be willing to negotiate any other details at that point.Gahan | April 12, 2007, 3:44pm | #
"If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?"Presumably not, since you'd be dead.
MikeP | April 12, 2007, 3:46pm | #
Can someone explain to me how to get things to appear in italics?<em>This is in italics</em> but this isn't.
Reinmoose | April 12, 2007, 4:10pm | #
oooooooooooooooomerci bien, VikingMoose! (to whom I am of no relation)
das ist sehr informativ!
joe | April 12, 2007, 4:11pm | #
Imperialist,"magic bullet" is your term, not mine. I'm talking about technological progress in that direction, not the magical energy machine being sold in Sears next Wednesday.
"Even if the Chinese and Indians are meticulous in their green practices, their production of CO2 is going to swamp any reductions that the US can realistically achieve without destroying the US economy."
1. That wasn't my point. I was just refuting the assertion that environmental progress must necessarily mean strangling growth in China. That certainly isn't how the Chinese.
2. For a time, perhaps. The way technological advancement works is that small progress opens the door for greater progress. No one is talking about this problem going away tomorrow.
joe | April 12, 2007, 4:13pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake,"The problem is that no other form of energy is as cheap or efficient as fossil fuel is for vehicle transportation." You counting externalities in that measurement? Probably not.
How efficient is a product that floods millions of people out of their homes?