Op-Ed: Would Nelson Mandela Remove Statues of Lee and Jackson? By David Montgomery

Those who want to ban or destroy all symbols of the Confederate States of America need to learn from Nelson Mandela. For no particular reason, I put the movie Invictus in my Blu-ray player last night and viewed it for the first time. It is the story of how Nelson Mandela used the national rugby team of the apartheid government as a means of national reconciliation. Their rugby team, known as the Springboks, were hated by Mandela himself and the black majority as a symbol of apartheid, and an opening scene shows white faces rooting for the Springboks and black faces rooting for their opponent England during the first international match after sanctions on South Africa were lifted.

In a later scene, the South African Sports Union votes to change the name and colors of the Springboks to erase what they saw as symbols of racism. Does this sound familiar yet? Mandela intervenes and insists that the Springboks retain their name and colors. He explains that the Springboks and their colors are revered by the Afrikaaners and that preserving them would be a significant gesture of reconciliation toward the white minority. In another notable scene, Mandela attends a rugby match in which many whites were waving the old Union flag of the apartheid regime. When his assistant whispers that they should be banned, he whispers back that “it is their constitutional right, and we decided already not to ban the flag.”

Invictus no doubt exaggerates the success of Mandela’s support for the Springboks, though South Africans of all colors are now Springbok fanatics. Nevertheless, it was a part of Mandela’s much broader policy of forgiveness and reconciliation, a policy that prevented South Africa from descending into the madness of Zimbabwe and made it a more successful multiracial country than any other in Africa.

Unlike Mandela, politicians of both parties in the United States are pandering to uninformed animosity toward any person, thing or symbol associated with Secession or with how the South fought the Civil War. It is particularly galling that the Republican Governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, approved the midnight removal of statues of Civil War soldiers by the mayor of Baltimore.

No matter what you think about a historical event or period, erasing the memory of it is always a bad idea. So is destroying symbols that are meaningful to other groups of fellow citizens. It is said that history is written by the victors so that history books say little or nothing about the motivations, conduct or virtues of the losers. We know a great deal more about what the Romans thought of the Carthaginians than what the Carthaginians thought about themselves or the Romans. Our fellow Americans who served the South deserve more of an effort at understanding.

Tearing down statues of predecessors is a universal practice in countries where succession is based on intrigue or coups rather than democratic processes. Stalin and Khrushchev both removed depictions of prior leaders and struck reference to them out of official histories. So does every new dictator who murdered his predecessor along with his supporters or clan.

Surely, no one wants to follow these examples in dealing with the South and the Civil War.

Granted, there are times when seeing a statue toppled is gratifying and consequential – the fall of communism was celebrated throughout Eastern Europe by destroying statues of Lenin, and I cheered as much as anyone at the confirmation that we had won the Cold War. Statues of Hitler and Nazi monuments likewise were eradicated quickly after the Second World War, and Germany banned the Nazi flag just as we seem to be heading toward banning the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

But not all examples of triumphal destruction of symbols of the previous regime are good ones. Greeks celebrate the soldier who wrapped himself in the Greek national flag and jumped off the Parthenon when forced to desecrate it by Nazi invaders. Muslim victors have destroyed the religious symbols of conquered peoples from the time of Mohammed to the reign of ISIS. The same liberals who were outraged when radical Islamists defaced ancient Buddhist monuments are now applauding the destruction of monuments of the Confederacy.

Unfortunately, some of those who want to remove memorials to Confederate soldiers and leaders and other symbols of secession put the Confederacy in the same moral category as Nazis and see the removal of all signs of the Confederacy as no different from the elimination of Nazi symbols. And they adopt the same triumphalism as ISIS.

That is historically inaccurate, morally indefensible, and an atrocity against civil society. First, let’s take our own example of misdirected outrage. The statue to the Talbot Boys lists the names of men who died in the Civil War. Very few Confederate soldiers owned slaves, and historical accounts that pay attention to who they were and why they fought overwhelmingly to conclude that they fought for the same reasons as all other American soldiers throughout history: to defend their loved ones and communities against aggression and out of loyalty to the men standing next to them. They have been buried side by side by Union troops and given the same recognition as American veterans.

The Southern leaders targeted by Maryland’s governor and the mayor of Baltimore are no less worthy of memory and respect. Robert E. Lee was more conflicted than most. He was opposed to slavery, wanted to work toward its abolition, and tried to prevent secession. It was only after he concluded that Lincoln would not deal peacefully with the South that he took the job offered by his home state of Virginia to lead its army. Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest tactical commanders in history, and his character and ability need to be recorded and remembered. I honor both men highly and am outraged at seeing their statues removed and names erased. And I am no neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

Granted, there are also statues of evil Southern aristocrats who maneuvered the South into Civil War and scoundrels who benefited from it, but remaining aware of misdeeds and their consequences help us to identify similar acts and politicians today. There are a great many statues of figures not associated with the South or slavery that I would like to see torn down first, not to mention almost all signs naming bridges after politicians.

What I find morally indefensible and a civil atrocity is the accompanying effort to depict anyone who defends the display of the so-called “Confederate flag” or monuments honoring Confederate heroes as a white supremacist or worse. That is at its most innocent a reprehensible form of bullying and name-calling intended to silence anyone who would defend those symbols. In its worse manifestations, it is an incitement to violence, as we have seen in the recent physical attacks by Antifa groups against peaceful citizens of a less left-wing temperament. At most malignant, such name-calling is a predecessor to the kind of laws that let Canadian and German officials jail or fine anyone who flies a prohibited flag or says something offensive to a sensitive group.

Destruction of symbols important to many for innocent reasons is also politically stupid, as Nelson Mandela clearly saw. To paraphrase Mandela’s lines in Invictus, he pointed out to those who disagreed about preserving the Springboks that “we have to live with those who are passionate about this symbol, and destroying it will just alienate them from the united country we want to build. The rainbow coalition contains white as well as other colors.” He could see the difference between symbols of innocent loyalties to teams and the banners of armed resistance to his government. He was also willing to eviscerate the militant arm of his own party.

The destroyers of Civil War heritage do not seem to share Mandela’s understanding. They demonize everyone with a different understanding of the South and its role in the Civil War and pursue a triumphalist strategy that is destined to achieve just the opposite of what they wish. They may frighten many into silent acquiescence with their destruction of treasured symbols, but at the same time, they create much more sympathetic feelings toward the very few true white supremacists who exist today.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Op-Ed: Disaster Relief and Flood Insurance by David Montgomery

President Trump’s economic, political, and moral instincts are right when he calls for $6 Billion in Federal aid for Houston. To take the last first, giving aid to those who have lost much or everything is right for civil society and government as well. The problem both face is how to do it effectively. That requires planning and rebuilding far beyond the scale of clothing drives or even what effective, community based relief organizations like Catholic Charities (a plug for my favorite charity) can do. Hence the role for government and the moral obligation to support that funding.

Offering aid with no strings attached is politically wise, especially because it is not political payback. As another columnist pointed out, Houston was one of the few regions in Texas that Hillary won, so that everyone should understand that this is not generosity motivated by Red-state favoritism. President Trump has not had much time to promote his program of infrastructure spending, which is the one part of his platform with bipartisan support. His unconcern with the budgetary consequences of this relief effort should reassure Democrats that he is sincere in his desire to spend. At the same time, his deference to the governor of Texas and the good things the Governor said about him will please his base and other Republicans. Rarely does a politician get to make both sides happy.

It is on the economic side that questions might be raised about the implications of such an increase in spending, starting with how it will be fit into the Federal budget. Will the increase in Federal spending to rebuild the area of Texas ravaged by Harvey derail plans to reduce taxes? Will it have to come out of defense or other high priority spending? Or will it be added to the already enormous Federal debt?

I will argue that the correct economic answer is to let the additional spending ride directly into the Federal deficit and debt. This is also the most likely procedural outcome. Both these conclusions rest on the unexpected and extreme nature of the event. The whole point of saving and borrowing is to make it possible to minimize unnecessary economic harm from unexpected events. True, we have done a lousy job of saving as nation, but that does not mean that we should not tap into our continuing ability to borrow when an extraordinary need arises.

The problem with the rising national debt is that it is driven by the intended and predictable growth of spending on entitlement programs – a classic case of living beyond our means and passing the problem onto our children and their children. Nevertheless, the United States government remains able to borrow additional funds, and an occasional unexpected expenditure need not alter the timing of policies intended to deal with longer-term problems of national security, economic growth and debt reduction.

The alternatives to additional borrowing are reducing planned spending on other programs or increasing tax revenues. Both alternatives are political minefields, and would forego the long-term benefits that restoring military strength and tax reform are expected to provide. Politically, further cuts in domestic programs would strengthen Democrats opposition to the Trump budget and increase Republican defections, and taking away from increases in defense spending would outrage Trump’s base (and me, to make my preferences clear). Tax reform is already stalled because of lack of ways to offset revenue loss from rate reductions and increases in investment incentives. Its problems would just be made worse if revenue must be raised for Houston as well as offsetting tax reductions.

The most worrisome consequence of this additional borrowing is very arcane: how it will affect the Federal Reserve System’s plan to correct its balance sheet. A great deal of the recent increase in Federal debt was acquired directly by the Fed and put on its balance sheet as an asset, and the Fed has announced a schedule for selling off that debt. A new increase in borrowing by the Federal government could upset the Fed’s delicate calculation of how its selloff will affect interest rates and as a result slow its progress toward a normal balance sheet which puts it less at risk.

Procedurally, there is no obstacle to increasing the Federal deficit to accommodate disaster spending. Anticipation that disasters requiring added Federal spending will on occasion occur is the reason why the Congressional Budget Act allows the budget to be revised through Reconciliation Instructions.

The paramount procedural question is how to deal with the Federal flood insurance program. Economists (including me) have long criticized that program for subsidizing flood insurance in a way that encourages development in vulnerable areas – and even my friends in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have concluded that the increased economic damage done by tropical storms is due to increased development rather than increased storm activity.

Now it is pretty clear that the extent of subsidization will become politically relevant – when the reserves of the flood insurance program are deleted by claims for damage by Harvey. Since flooding from Harvey is characterized as a 500 year event, it is likely that the reserves of the flood insurance program would have been deleted even if premiums were much higher. That is why additional Federal aid to Texas is justified. At the same time, the magnitude of the loss should signal policymakers that rates for Federal flood insurance should be increased to levels based on an actuarially sound calculation of expected payouts. After all, the definition of “insurance” is pooling of funds to share risks not a free payout for damage.

That premium is still likely to be less than the rate that a private insurer would require, for reasons also made clear by Harvey. Whereas the Federal government can use its borrowing capacity to cover claims in excess of reserves, the ability of even large insurance companies to do the same is limited. Therefore private insurers must include a risk premium to build reserves against the possibility of the “gamblers ruin” while the government does not need to do so. That is why there has to be cap on the amount of coverage provided by the Federal government to avoid driving private insurers out of the market.
Extraordinary disaster relief is another form of risk spreading that is appropriate for unforeseen events, and government insurance spreads that risk over the largest possible pool. But that does not excuse subsidies in the form of premiums that do not generate enough revenue to pay foreseeable claims.

Unfortunately, the political calculus for this most needed reform leads to the opposite conclusion from the economic one. But if predictions of sea level rise and increased storm activity with climate change do turn out to be even partially correct, ending flood insurance subsidies will become more and more necessary and extraordinary relief after the fact will be less justified. There is little reason to believe that the growth of the Houston area was driven by subsidized flood insurance, but that is not true of many other areas that could become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Including the Eastern Shore.

Therefore, I anticipate comments similar to those made in response to an earlier column in which I defended reduction of Federal funding for Bay cleanup in favor of an interstate compact. My answer is the same, though I will be less colorful. We cannot move toward national policies designed to promote the common good unless some of us are willing to stop taking Federal money for things we could do for ourselves. Because of where I live, I would surely pay a great deal more for flood insurance if I could not get some from the Federal program. My choices of where to live and how to build would likely change if I did bear those costs. That would be a good thing for the economy as a whole, even if it changed the amenities that some of us could afford.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Is Message More Important Than Facts? By David Montgomery

Never have I thought I would write a column about something that was written about me.  The self-referential topic makes my head spin.  Nevertheless, a recent article that claimed I had single-handedly (well, with one colleague) held back progress on climate policy for 25 years makes me think there is something worth sharing.

Since I have a perverse sense of humor, my first reaction was to send a copy of the article to many friends, asking them to help me celebrate one of the finest compliments ever paid to me.  But the column provoked too many disturbing thoughts to leave the matter there.

The article was titled “Unmasking the Climate Deniers.”  Its stated purpose was to “investigate more deeply the forces driving delay” in climate policy.  In itself, that is an interesting and admirable topic.  Political scientists could analyze the dynamics of American politics, the polarization of the electorate, the dominance of constituency service in the US Congress, and the ability of a minority to block legislation.  Experts in international affairs could examine the incentives to join a treaty to manage a global public good and the difficulty of enforcing such a treaty.  Policy analysts could evaluate the actual legislative proposals and regulatory actions to ascertain whether they would achieve their purposes in a cost-effective way.  Public opinion specialists could measure the depth of public support for action.

Instead, the writer knew that the answer was much simpler: “Throughout the 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute…repeatedly relied on economic models created by two economists, Paul Bernstein and W. David Montgomery, to argue that pro-climate policies would be devastatingly expensive.”  The author then cites studies he claims we did in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998, and drives the nail in our coffin by reporting that “the first two authors of the report Trump cited [in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement] are Bernstein and Montgomery.”  He concludes from all this that “The same arguments – and people – used by the fossil fuel industry to block climate policies decades ago are back.  For the sake of humanity, we must not let them succeed again.”

The idea that studies that Dr. Bernstein and I were responsible for the slow progress of climate policy is so absurd that all it deserves in itself is a good laugh.  But if we realize it is a symptom of much deeper problems, it deserves more attention.   Unimportant as this article was, it was a perfect example of four disturbing trends in public discourse: carelessness about facts, unwillingness to listen to the reasoning of those we disagree with, uncritical acceptance and repetition of statements by politically congenial sources, and finally, the wholesale politicization of academic disciplines.

The article reveals quickly how careless advocates are about facts.  We could start with the title of the article, because neither Dr. Bernstein nor I have ever denied that there is a scientific basis for concern about climate.  Continuing down his list of grievances, the author obviously did not read more than the title of my (Dr. Bernstein and I had not yet met) 1991 study, because that is all the hyperlink in his article provides.  Had he even read the executive summary, he would have seen my conclusion that a carbon tax or gasoline tax would be much more cost-effective than fuel economy standards in achieving greenhouse gas reductions.  Hardly a torpedo against carbon dioxide controls, unless any criticism of any climate policy, no matter how bad, makes you a denier.

Sometimes distortion of facts is an intentional effort to deceive, but in this case it may just be intellectual laziness and bias so deep that it eliminates all thought of checking facts.  This tendency shades over into the more deadly disease of unwillingness to confront the actual substance of arguments that reach distasteful conclusions – or even read what those arguments say.  The author calls Dr. Bernstein and me “co-opted scholars” because, among other things, we pointed out flaws in the Kyoto Protocol.   

His citation to our 1996 work on the Kyoto Protocol is a hyperlink to a Greenpeace broadsheet against Exxon, which is also the apparent source of his only criticism of the substance of our work: “they ignored the negative costs of climate change, and suggested that clean energy would never be price competitive with fossil fuels.”

The problem with this criticism is that in the case of Kyoto, there were no benefits to ignore, and we were and are right about renewables.  Our critic either failed to investigate those possibilities or suppressed what he knows.  

The Kyoto Protocol never gained much respect among experts on climate policy.  Researchers at MIT’s Joint Center for the Science and Policy of Climate Change wrote: “Kyoto Protocol … costs are borne by the United States—the U.S. pays almost two-thirds of the global cost …”  

The consensus of climate scientists on the benefits of Kyoto was stated by one of their number: “. . . the long-term consequences are small. . . . The influence of the Protocol would, furthermore, be undetectable for many decades.”

Substantial costs to the United States, as we said, and virtually no effect on global warming.

The problem with attacking us for suggesting that clean energy would never compete with fossil fuels is that we are correct.  According to the Energy Information Administration, even by 2022 the cost of wind and solar will still exceed the cost of natural gas fired generation (and they do not count the amount of additional backup capacity that must be built because wind and solar are not always available when needed).

It is very disturbing that our critic does not seem to care whether what we wrote was right or wrong.  All he needs to know is who funded some of the work and what its conclusions were.  A diatribe by Greenpeace was all he needed to read.  

A short paper I wrote in 1998 is my critic’s last piece of evidence that I am a mouthpiece for the oil industry.  It was based on testimony I gave at a Congressional hearing alongside the chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, Janet Yellen.  My conclusion was that “Given her assumptions, Dr. Yellen’s analysis is internally consistent and compatible with mainstream economic analysis. However, … Dr. Yellen has assumed worldwide permit trading and very extensive purchases of these permits by the U.S., whereas the Kyoto Protocol includes only limited trading possibilities and may preclude such extensive U.S. purchases.  If these assumptions fail to materialize, the administration’s estimates of permit prices and GDP costs will need to be adjusted upwards by a factor of ten or more.”

I am rather proud of that testimony, and was complimented on it by Dr. Yellen’s staff at the hearing.  Citing it as evidence of my bad faith simply shows that my critic never bothered to read it.

In a previous column, I discussed the false statements made about how my colleagues and I performed the study cited by President Trump, including claims that we failed to account for jobs created by renewable energy and that renewables make electricity cheaper.

Our critic brought to my attention that this is exactly what Greenpeace stated in a broadsheet dated May 2002.  That is not only the only source of our critic’s knowledge of what we did, it makes the same statements as the attacks on our most recent work.

These statements were untrue in 2002 and untrue now.  It appears that the environmental know-nothings have been quoting each other and not bothering to read the works they condemn for at least the past 15 years.  

That is not unusual.  True believers do tend to associate with and believe only one another, but scientists and scholars are expected to consider and evaluate all points of view.  

What makes me most unhappy is the author’s biography: “… a former research fellow at … the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, [he] is a doctoral student in the history of science at Stanford University, where his research focuses on climate politics and the manipulation of science “ A topic that does not even pretend to weigh the evidence for whether its hypothesis is true or false.  

My own PhD is from Harvard; I have taught at Stanford and participated from 1980s to the present in Stanford’s Energy Modeling Forum, where the models the author of this diatribe dismisses as “co-opted” were presented, peer-reviewed and published.  To me the most disturbing aspect of all this is that those two institutions are turning out graduates with so little capacity for logical thought and such careless research practices.  To put it more simply, how can you claim to be doing a PhD when you never learned to do your homework?  

I truly hope that some historians getting PhD’s at Stanford learn how to do more than write propaganda, but perhaps that is how far the liberal arts have fallen.  Being rewarded for careless and politicized scholarship, this young man may well join the ranks of professors who have abandoned all pretense of rigor or objectivity and perpetuate the views they taught him on another generation.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Climate Policy Lessons from California by David Montgomery

California was the first state to enact comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and a key part of that plan – the emission trading system – will sunset in 2020. Paradoxically, environmentalists are leading the opposition to California Governor Brown’s effort to extend and improve the cap and trade system, and businesses are supporting it. This conflict serves as an illuminating case study of the difficulties that states face in making climate change policies work.

The cap and trade system has been hailed as the great achievement of California’s climate strategy but it has been hamstrung by the proliferation of regulatory measures. Although Governor Schwarzenegger highlighted emissions trading in his Executive Order that introduced the strategy, he made the colossal error of turning design of the strategy over to California’s existing bureaucrats. As a result, the “Scoping Plan” that emerged was 80% regulation and at best 20% cap and trade. The bulk of the emission reductions would come from fuel economy standards, mandates for alternative fuels and renewable electricity generation, efficiency standards, regulations on shipping and trucking, industrial process standards, etc. listed in a 198 page appendix to the Scoping Plan. The cap and trade system would clean up around the edges to achieve the remaining reductions.

As a result, the ability of the cap and trade system to achieve certainty in emission reductions while minimizing cost was destroyed. The proliferation of command and control regulations (known in California as “complementary measures”) made the cost per ton of emissions avoided in the transportations sector several times higher than the cost per ton of emissions avoided in the electricity sector, and doubled the overall cost of achieving California’s goals.

There were several reasons for this failure to rely more heavily on cap and trade, and they are still in play. One is clearly bureaucratic incentives and inertia. The Air Resources Board was given the lead, and its approach to air quality regulation has always been heavily command and control. Every other state agency was invited to submit its ideas on how to reduce emissions, and naturally every one suggested more regulations that it could issue and administer.

There is also simple arrogance. The California Air Resources Board has a long history of asserting that it has a better understanding of technology and economics than the industries it regulates, and has not hesitated to tell them what technologies to develop and adopt. Cap and trade means leaving these decisions up to individual businesses, and the ARB has never been willing to relinquish that power.

Although one environmental organization, the Environmental Defense Fund, was from the start a strong supporter of cap and trade, many environmental organizations preferred strict command and control regulations for the ostensible reason that they gave greater certainty that reductions would be achieved. Underneath this rationale, which is entirely specious with a cap and trade system that puts a strict limit on the total number of emission permits that may be traded, is their desire to use regulation to achieve purposes beyond its ostensible objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In particular, these environmental organizations and allied trade associations prefer the regulatory approach because it promotes specific fuels and industries that would not survive if a cap and trade program were used exclusively. Thus California’s low carbon fuel standard mandates use of ethanol and other biofuels, creating a market and increasing profits for their producers. California’s renewable portfolio standard requires utilities to buy solar, wind and other “renewable” energy sources no matter how their cost compares to natural gas. California’s electric vehicle program creates a market for battery manufacturers and car-makers like Tesla. And so on to creation of smaller and smaller market niches for favored “Green” industries that could not exist otherwise. Relying solely on cap and trade would be at least equally likely to achieve California’s climate goals, but cap and trade would direct investment to the most cost-effective approaches and in the process leave behind more costly but politically favored fuels and technologies.

The so-called Environmental Justice movement took this opposition to cap and trade even further, though the fact that greenhouse gases are no more concentrated near their sources than half the world away should have kept climate policy off their radar. Nevertheless, EJ activists raised specious concerns about cap and trade allowing factories and powerplants to continue polluting poor neighborhoods. They then demanded increased funding for unrelated policies or programs benefiting their constituents as the price for moderating their opposition.

Willful ignorance has been encouraged by the California press which panders to the Environmental Justice movement with misrepresentations of how cap and trade works combined with horror stories about how it would allow industries to continue to pollute poor neighborhoods. Some news articles characterize cap and trade as allowing businesses to pay to pollute, without mentioning that the overall cap guarantees that emission targets will be met. Others moan about how the greenhouse gas cap and trade program failed to solve pollution problems unrelated to climate change.

Some real problems with the California climate strategy were raised by businesses concerned about how the system could damage to their ability to compete with out-of-state suppliers. For some products and regulations, this is not an issue and for others it is critical.

For example, all suppliers of fuels into California, no matter where they are located, must comply with the low carbon fuels standard, and likewise suppliers of electricity. But oil refiners outside California are subject to neither California’s regulations of emissions from the refining process nor its cap and trade program.

These costs are borne only by California refiners, and since gasoline is a fungible commodity easily shipped to California from other states, tighter regulations or high prices for emissions allowances could cause California refiners to shut down. If this were to happen, there would be no reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, just a shift in those emissions from California to other states. And since those emissions do no local harm, the result would be costs to California with no benefit for global warming.

To deal with this problem, it is necessary to identify industries that are vulnerable in this way and to modify how they are treated under both regulations and cap and trade. This is an unavoidable problem when states attempt to go it alone in dealing with the global phenomenon of climate change. But it also invites rent-seeking by industries and accusations of caving in to big business or big oil.

All of these obstacles to adoption of a sensible and cost-effective policy can be seen in the controversy over renewal of authority for a cap and trade program. The specific bill supported by Governor Brown deals with some of industry’s concerns, by restricting the authority of state agencies to issue new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions covered by cap and trade and by limiting both how high and how low the price of emission allowances can go.

All of this makes perfectly good sense. The legislation would prohibit the Air Resources Board from issuing new regulations requiring additional reductions in emissions from refiner processes. This provision has been attacked as caving into big oil, when in fact it does nothing but reduce the chances that California refineries will shut down and be replaced by refineries from outside the state with even higher greenhouse gas emissions. It has no effect on California’s total emissions, as the overall cap under cap and trade takes care of that. And if additional emission controls at refineries are cost-effective at the price of carbon established by cap and trade, they will be undertaken anyway.

Likewise setting upper and lower limits on carbon prices is a balanced and useful step. Many environmentalists complained about how low carbon prices were in recent auctions by the state of some permits. By setting a lower limit on carbon prices, the cap and trade system gives a more consistent incentive to reduce emissions, and by setting an upper limit it gives businesses more certainty about future regulation. In this the cap and trade system comes to resemble a carbon tax. In typically inconsistent fashion, the same Environmental Justice organizations that oppose Governor Brown’s approach have come out in favor of the carbon tax that it emulates (https://www.bna.com/carbon-tax-next-n57982086840/ ).

Nevertheless, Governor Brown’s proposal has aroused the ire of all those opposed to cap and trade in the first place, and the Environmental Justice movement has already been offered its pound of flesh. In companion legislation, existing industrial facilities are required to install the best available controls to reduce their other, non-greenhouse gas emissions.

No wonder other states are slow to emulate California’s lead in establishing a cap and trade system. What governor wants to take on the headaches now plaguing Governor Brown as he faces interest groups that want to distort the cap and trade system, weaken its ability to achieve cost-effective emission reductions, keep provisions that weaken in-state businesses, or just demand payoffs in the form of additional unrelated programs to benefit their constituencies? California has provided more enlightenment about how difficult it is to construct an efficient, market-based program than about how to do it well. It will be instructive to see who wins in the current battle to reauthorize cap and trade.

Editor’s Postnote: The voters of California approved the continuation of the state’s Cap and Trade program for ten years. Read a full accounting of the election results here

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

A Radical Proposal for Immigration Reform by David Montgomery

On Monday June 26 the Supreme Court announced its decision on President Trump’s executive order on travel from certain countries. That event has made me decide to describe more completely my own thinking on immigration. I have two firm opinions: First, President Trump’s temporary travel plan is a fully justified action designed to make it more difficult for potential terrorists to enter the country. Second, I am convinced that we should allow any immigrant who can demonstrate good moral character and willingness to work to enter and reside in the USA.

To reopen our country to the kind of immigration that brought most of our ancestors here, it will be necessary to abolish all statutory immigration quotas. But it will also be necessary to vet thoroughly every individual who wishes to emigrate to the United States to determine that they satisfy the test for character and willingness to work. I would apply the same test to all immigrants who have not yet become citizens, welcome those who pass whether they entered legally or illegally and deport immediately all felons, gang members, and those exploiting the welfare system.

Aside from establishing procedures that could be used to vet all potential new residents, a travel ban directed at potential terrorists is beside the point of how we should treat law-abiding potential entrants and those already here who have committed no crime other than crossing the border or remaining in the United States illegally. These immigrants have not come from countries that harbor terrorists. They are for the most part individuals and families of Hispanic descent who have crossed our southern border. The real debate about immigration deals with these immigrants from Latin America, and I believe that having them here in the United States is a very good thing.

Our American culture and faith have been greatly enriched by our Latin American brothers and sisters. The culture of the Southwestern United States, our literature and music, and most of all our Christian faith would be much poorer without them. Not to mention the lives and families of descendants of Northern European immigrants who met and married someone from Latin America.

As a Roman Catholic, I am reminded of our common heritage because Our Lady of Guadalupe is revered as the patron saint of the United States as well as the rest of the Americas. Indeed, the entire North American church would be declining in numbers if it were not for immigrants from the rest of the Americas. While attendance of those born in the USA is declining in the Roman Catholic Church, our numbers are growing because of immigrants from Latin America. And, as a Catholic I regret to admit, Evangelical churches are doing even better, as they provide community and welcome as well as an energetic presentation of the Gospel.

Not only do Latin American immigrants fill our churches, they obey our laws. A study by the very conservative Cato Institute finds that relative to their population, there are far fewer immigrants in prison than native-born Americans. This is true of both legal and illegal immigrants. Refining the data, there are fewer Hispanic immigrants in prison relative to their population, whether they are here legally or illegally, than native-born Black Americans or any other ethnic group except Whites and Asians. Asians have the lowest ratio of prisoners to population, and even Hispanic illegal immigrants have a lower ratio of prisoners to population than do all ethnic groups together. Across the board, prison is more associated with being native-born than being an immigrant, possibly because immigrants have not grown up under the corrupting influence of the American welfare system.

There are also practical reasons for advocating removal of quantitative limits on immigration.

On balance, immigrants make a net positive contribution to the US economy. That is obvious for highly-educated Asian immigrants, but it is also found to be true for Hispanic immigration. A study by the politically neutral consulting firm IHS Global Insight finds that Hispanic immigrants will create through their work more value than they receive in wages and government transfers. Increased immigration of Hispanics is forecasted to lead to higher employment and income for the non-immigrant population. That is, those of us born in the USA are better off financially with immigration than without. And that is pretty amazing, considering how hard the liberal welfare state makes it for an unskilled worker to retain his or her self-respect and avoid the Scylla of crime and Charybdis of welfare.

There is also an important economic problem in pay and employment conditions for illegal immigrants. Callous employers can offer lower pay to undocumented employees who are frightened of rising onto ICE’s radar. This is a reason for supporting amnesty as a matter of simple justice. It is also a reason some might oppose amnesty to keep a source of cheaper labor available. Unfortunately, this problem cannot be cured just by legitimizing the status if illegal workers.

The demand for undocumented labor is in many ways a product of our counterproductive minimum wage laws and high labor taxes, which make employment of less-skilled but useful workers unprofitable for many businesses. But once the workers who are now paid below minimum wage achieve legal status, they will be “protected” by minimum wage laws and many will lose their jobs.

Thus there is a real danger of unemployment among new and formerly illegal Hispanic immigrants, caused by minimum wage laws and high labor taxes. With increased legal immigration, there are likely to be more workers unable to find the legal jobs, even though they could have found work as illegal immigrants being paid what their employers could afford. But it is unjust to banish those who aspire to a better life because our own perverse policies prevent them from getting work. So the immigration question brings front and center the failure of the liberal approach to the working poor.

It cannot be right to offer legal immigrants a choice between crime and welfare in order to survive. The failed policies of minimum wages that make it impossible for the less skilled to find work and welfare programs that pay unmarried women to have children would threaten the ability of many immigrants to support and keep their families together. Thus welfare reform and abolition of unreasonable minimum wage laws must accompany abolition of immigration quotas if newly legal immigrants are to continue to find work. I believe this is possible.

President Trump’s election proved that American working families have seen how the progressives abandoned them, and those working families in turn rejected the candidate who would continue that liberal condescension. Illegal immigrants now living in the US are likewise victims of the liberal welfare state, not the seekers of welfare that they are so often painted. I have been fortunate to avoid crossing paths with any of the Hispanic gang members, drug dealers and other felons whom we must find, arrest, and remove permanently from our society. Every illegal immigrant I have met wants to work hard, earn his or her own way, and be part of American society. They reject both crime and welfare as ways of life. What more could a conservative want, or a hard-working non-immigrant family not recognize as a kindred spirit?

So we not only to repeal and replace all immigration laws, we need to repeal and replace the Great Society programs that drive the unskilled and semi-skilled into crime or dependence on government — both of which enhance the power of the state.

Neither is easy. For the good of the country, we should welcome all but the potential terrorists and those who have been criminals or unwilling to work in their home countries. In charity, we need to replace entitlements with incentives to work and income supplements that provide a decent living to those, and only those, who work and earn as much as they can.

There has been an idea of how to do this for a long time — a broader form of the Earned Income Credit knows as the negative income tax.

The idea behind the negative income tax is that it is not enough to allow all families below some income level to pay no taxes. Under proposed tax reforms, this zero-bracket income for an average family would rise to at least $24,000 per year. With a negative income tax, working families with incomes below this or some other chosen benchmark would receive a refundable tax rebate equal to some percentage of their actual earnings. For example, there could be a payment of 10% of every dollar of earnings up to $24,000, resulting in a total income of $26,400. Earnings between $24,000 and, say $36,000 would incur zero tax liability. Earnings above that upper limit would be subject to the standard progressive tax brackets. This system creates no disincentive for work at any level of income, and the rebate percentage and bracket levels can be set to provide a living after-tax income for those willing to work and earn their share.

The change is worth making. What we can achieve is an increasingly Christian country, greater freedom and self-respect for those now prevented from working by minimum wages and welfare or victimized in the underground economy, stronger families, and over time likely less crime and drug use in groups weaned from welfare.

How much hope is there? I would like to see President Trump propose combining repeal of all quantitative immigration limits in the 1917 and 1964 Immigration Acts at the same time that he establishes secure borders and extreme vetting. At the same time, I want the President to propose elimination of all means-tested entitlements and substitute a negative income tax for all those able to work. And “able to work” must include most unmarried mothers and working age males who are exploiting the easily availability of disability payments and opioids created by his predecessor. This could also make the expanded negative income tax budget-neutral.

This program should appeal to the progressives who condemn what they perceive to be President Trump’s attitude toward immigrants, or else reveal their hypocrisy in giving lip service to open borders while really wanting to maintain the welfare programs that keep certain minorities dependent on their largesse and therefore willing to vote to keep them in power.

But the most important message is one from President Trump to his base and crossover voters. He needs to convince those conservative working class families that immigrants (with the obvious exceptions of Islamic terrorists and Russian, Asian and Hispanic gang members) share their interests, values and faith and are looked down on by the same elites. I would like him to convince his base and formerly Democrat supporters that immigrants do them no harm, and that the harm comes from those who perpetuate the welfare state and the minorities that live off welfare and crime rather than honest, individual effort. Then, I think there is hope for a country that welcomes those who are prepared to work hard and join American society.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Why? By David Montgomery

Are the Left’s persistent and vituperative attacks on Donald Trump and his supporters based on misunderstanding, emotion, or strategy? I have been convinced at various times that one or another of the three motivations was behind some particular attack, and my responses have been intended to deal with the specific motivation I inferred.

Now that the Left’s violent and unrestrained rhetoric has achieved its predictable outcome of homicidal attacks on Republican Members of Congress, it is even more important to find an effective way to neutralize that rhetoric. And the first step, for me, is to reflect longer on what motivates the Left in this campaign.

Leading up to the shooting of Representative Scalise and his colleagues, the incitement of violence from the Left became more and more explicit. As soon as Inauguration Day, we had Madonna saying “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

Then we have the constant dehumanizing of President Trump and his family by the talk-show hosts and comedians showcased by the media opposed to him. It is impossible to watch the most popular late night talk show without seeing and hearing caricatures of the President and tasteless jokes about every aspect of his appearance, family and character.

This shades over into the substitution of speculation about Trump’s motives and prejudices for substantive debates about the merits of his actions and policy proposals. Thus his eminently sensible efforts to screen out potential terrorists from entry into the USA are evaluated by the media and activist judges based on campaign statements and attributions of religious bias rather than on their merits. His efforts to reform ObamaCare are described as willingness to let people die without healthcare rather than debated as approaches to saving an obviously failed system. His well-reasoned efforts to extricate us from an overly-burdensome agreement on climate change illegally ratified by his predecessor are attacked by claiming that the President does not believe in climate change, as if it were the secular version of the Immaculate Conception, rather than debating the legality of bypassing Senatorial ratification of treaties. He is accused of obstruction of justice by the same Democrats who demanded the FBI Director be fired for the very reasons given by President Trump.

Democrats in Congress, failed candidates whose message on public policy has narrowed down to a single word “Resist,” and an activist Attorney General contribute to the demeaning of the President and his advisors with accusations of personal malfeasance based on sheer speculation and frivolous lawsuits.

The personal attacks escalated recently with Kathy Griffin’s foul display of the severed and bloody head of the President, and even worse with the performance of Julius Caesar portraying the Roman Emperor as Donald Trump and celebrating his assassination. Though some sponsors acted properly to drop the offenders, they were endorsed by fellow-celebrities for their courageous efforts to influence public perceptions. I didn’t realize it took courage to attack Donald Trump in Manhattan and Hollywood.

The rhetoric spilled over into overt physical violence against anyone who would defend the President or express conservative views in public. Demonstrators from “Resist” and other Leftist organizations rioted to prevent their appearance at Berkeley and other universities that once defended free speech, and assaulted students who indicated their support for the speakers or the President.

And then this verbal and sometimes physical violence culminated in the attempted assassination of Republican members of Congress by a gunman radicalized by the Left.

How can this be dealt with? If the hostility toward all things Republican were based simply on misunderstanding of the actual content and consequences of our policy proposals, the response would be easy. Many of us are decent writers and have the requisite expertise in climate and environmental science, environmental economics, regulatory economics, tax policy, financial regulation, labor issues, healthcare, international relations, national security and other disciplines to explain the problems that our policies address and their likely consequences. To the extent that we think the slogans and arguments of the Left are based on misrepresentations and falsehoods, the challenge of correcting those errors should be our first priority. Then, we could hope, with better understanding the fear and anger could abate.

But the way in which blatant and easily refuted misrepresentations are continually resurrected and repeated, and the unwillingness of those shouting them to listen to contrary points of view, suggest that correctable ignorance is not the primary reason for attacks on the President and his policies. The nation seems to be too committed to choosing sides on policies based on the perceived character, appearance, mental state or biases of political players ever to pay attention to the real good or bad consequences of policy proposals.

That suggests that emotion or strategy or both, not simple misunderstanding of his policies, are the drivers of current agitation against the President.

It is easy to make the case that emotion is the driver. Generations younger than mine have been taught from childhood that their feelings are all that matters. When your parents, teachers and college professors encourage you to believe that how you feel is more important than what is true or right, that everyone is entitled to his or her own facts, and that there is no such thing as objective truth or moral absolutes, then nothing does matter except the emotions that a politician or policy evokes. When you are as stupid, self-centered, and publicity-seeking as most entertainers and celebrities, the notion that some people actually think about things probably never entered your atrophied brain. And President Trump can present himself in a manner that is repulsive even to those who, like me, are convinced that by and large his policies are the right ones for our country.

If some or all of these reasons for unrestrained emotional responses were the primary drivers of the current malaise, we would be right to reiterate the need for civility in politics as our primary response. We could hope that the shooting of Representative Scalise and his slow and painful recovery would be a corrective shock bringing a majority back to their right minds.

So that leaves us with the likelihood that there is a strategy behind the incitement of hatred and violence that we have seen. According to Rusty Reno, editor of the journal First Things, there is such a strategy, designed and directed by the wealthy, largely white elite that runs the Democratic Party. Disconnected from the middle and working class voters necessary for the party to win, those elites can only hold onto voters by inventing new forms of discrimination for them to fear. Until the election of Donald Trump, they generated that fear by pushing an agenda so radical that it was guaranteed to generate resistance, and then labeling anyone who objected to that agenda as a bigot, a homophobe, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

How else, Reno asks, can we explain a President facing ISIS, Russian aggression, North Korean nuclear weapons, an expansionist China and the slowest recovery from recession on record making transgender bathrooms his highest priority? Most of us probably thought that election of the first black President would be the end of race-baiting, yet during his term we experienced repeated assassinations of police officers in the name of “Black Lives Matter” and banners proclaiming that “Republican Hate Kills.”

According to Reno, the Democratic Party came back from its defeats as the party of segregation during the civil rights era by promising to “promote and protect those who feel ‘excluded’ or ‘marginalized.’” But those promises to African-Americans, women and other minorities have been fulfilled. We have made immense progress over the past 50 years in eliminating discrimination based on race, sex, religion and other differences.

Once real discrimination ended, Democrat leaders and their sycophants in movies and the news media had to invent claims of discrimination to keep their coalition together. They found a new group they could label as marginalized in lesbian and gay activists. Then after winning on issues like gay marriage, they needed to invent discrimination against even more obscure sexual orientations. In the process, Democrats wrapped an activist agenda centered on LGBTQ privileges that have no direct appeal to most voters in a narrative of discrimination that they expect African-American and Hispanic voters – not to mention wealthy whites — to accept automatically.

To make that narrative work politically, there has to be a villain. To create a villain, the demands have to be so extreme that they will provoke opposition. Since political correctness has by now intimidated most of those outraged by this social agenda into silence, it becomes easy to claim that all those willing to take a public stand are bigots. Transgender bathrooms were a perfect ploy. The demand is so contrary to any sensible view of human nature that it generates widespread outrage, and all those who express that view can be labeled “haters.” Then the mostly rich, white liberals who run the party can sustain their power by promising even more protections from these symbols of oppression.

Now there is someone else to hate – Donald Trump. Someone the same elites can label racist and sexist based on his own statements. The vehemence of the blogosphere and the unanimity of sicko comedians makes it clear that many of them can’t imagine any reason to stop, not even boredom at repeating themselves and certainly not escalating violence. That their strategy and that of the liberal elites is to create a new symbol of oppression in order to maintain their hold on power is a very compelling explanation.

It is also a strategy to continue the intimidation of voters who voted for Trump in order to express how fed up they are with the radical program and condescending attitudes of the liberal elites. What better way to demonize the deplorable racists, sexists and homophobes who voted for Trump than by harping continuously on his gaffes and impetuous actions? We Trump voters might eventually get fed up with being accused of being white supremacists or worse and vote out those who condemn us unjustly, but we can be put down over and over again by making our choice for President out to be a boob or a monster.

I don’t disagree that Donald Trump has shown a talent for turning victory into defeat nearly as great as his talent for turning defeat into victory in the election. Just as he shows his chops as a negotiator by getting health care reform through the House of Representatives, he surrounds himself with a firestorm of criticism for firing the FBI Director. It would be a great help to take away his tablet and restrain his willingness to validate every criticism by responding to it. But if it were not for Trump, the strategy behind the rising storm of hatred would be diverted to creating some other symbols of oppression against which the elites running the Democratic Party can pretend to stand.

In response, those of us who are appalled by these developments must continue trying to explain clearly and objectively the basis for the policies we favor. We must also practice and encourage civility rather than emotional rants about policies and politicians (though I think celebrities, entertainers and opponents of free speech are still fair game).

That will not be enough. Continued engagement in electoral politics to keep the coalition of hard-working, faithful, family-oriented, financially stressed and totally ignored voters who elected President Trump together is the only antidote to the strategy of demonization pursued by the elites who think they own the Democratic Party.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

The Poison Pill in the Paris Agreement on Climate by David Montgomery

The knee jerk combination of vitriol, psychoanalysis, and tears with which the media greeted President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has blinded reporters to the really interesting facts that just a little digging would have revealed. The Paris Agreement only allows parties to increase their promised emission reductions, so as it is now written and interpreted it provides no way for President Trump to correct unwise commitments made by his predecessor. This poison pill is what forces President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement rather than unilaterally revise the US commitment.

In many ways, the Paris Agreement was a step forward in the negotiating process.  Unfortunately, the commitments made by President Obama were strategically unwise, probably unlawful, and excessively costly for what they would accomplish. Therefore, for a long time my favored option was to remain in the Paris Agreement while altering the severity and form of the U.S. commitment.

It was only late last week that reports on President Trump’s decision process revealed that my preferred solution, and probably President Trump’s, was impossible under the terms of the agreement. The wording of the Paris Agreement only allows national commitments to be made more ambitious, not less.

Thus the United States could have upped the ante, moving from a commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28% in 2025 to a commitment to reduce emissions by, say, 40%, but it could not change the number to anything less than 26%. Nor could the US replace its quantitative commitment with statement of intentions to adopt policies like carbon taxes that cannot guarantee a specific outcome.

As long as the Paris Agreement does not allow the President to modify the U.S. commitment up or down, my opinion tips toward favoring President Trump’s decision to take the only possible route to void the commitments made by his predecessor. I have several reasons for that conclusion.

First, by ratifying the Agreement without Senate approval, President Obama violated the separation of powers set up by the Constitution. He claimed that he could use his authority to enter into Executive Agreements to ratify the Paris Agreement. Until President Obama, Executive Agreements were only used to implement laws passed by the Congress or treaties approved by the Senate. According to a friend who negotiated some while in the State Department, Executive Agreements “deal with details so mind-numbingly boring that Congress would neither want nor be able to deal with them.”

For example, he negotiated an Executive Agreement that US forces could enter a particular Southeast Asian country using their military orders in lieu of passports, on both military and civilian flights. That is a far cry from making a commitment to take actions with major effects on the US economy that Congress had consistently voted against. The Paris Agreement is in substance a treaty and the President improperly violated his obligation to get the advice and consent of the Senate to treaties. That had to be fixed, and a dangerous precedent for unconstitutional exercise of Presidential authority removed.

The second major flaw in the design of the Paris Agreement is that it gives the countries most responsible for future climate change an opportunity and an incentive to back out when it is their turn to take on costly burdens. Suppose the US and Europe do meet their commitments through 2025, and those actions significantly reduce the chances that there will be catastrophic consequences of climate change. China, India and others made no commitments to start deviating from their currently planned emissions growth until 2030. If in 2030 they decide that the reduced likelihood of catastrophe is sufficient protection from climate change, and that meeting their commitments would have an unacceptable cost, they could simply withdraw from the agreement and enjoy the benefits gained by our costly efforts. There would be nothing we could do about it.

The third thing President Obama got wrong is making an absolute commitment to a specific numerical target for emission reductions. While the Paris Agreement made the important step forward of eliminating previous insistence by the international community on targets and timetables, Obama unilaterally brought them back in the US commitment. He should have stated his intentions in a way that recognized the Constitution and sovereignty of the United States. That is, a President can describe the policies he intends to propose and give an estimate of their effect on emissions, but he must do so in a way that recognizes the unavoidable truth that future Congresses and Presidents might adopt different policies. That is the only honest thing for a President to do and it is the only one that does not involve an unacceptable sacrifice of US sovereignty.

Finally, the cost of sticking with Obama’s commitments would have been too high. On this I agree fully with the Administration’s reasons, and had reached the same conclusion myself while working on the NERA study cited by the President. Being mentioned by the President has put my colleagues in the crosshairs of the anti-Trump know-nothings and their worshipers in the media. My NERA colleagues have been demonized for being cited by President. (Me, too, but I don’t give a damn because I’m retired and the Trump-haters can no longer hurt my career or livelihood). In any other era, being singled out for citation by the President from a host of studies with similar conclusions would be the highest honor an analyst could get. Better than an Academy Award. But hate for Trump is so deep that it blinds reporters to obvious facts and prevents them from even reading what they vilify. I call them know-nothings because those who demonize NERA have not even bothered to read the report. All a Trump-hater needs to know is that Trump found NERA’s work helpful. Therefore, even if the study is dead right, its authors must be destroyed.

The press has also uncritically repeated false allegations by politically motivated opponents of the President’s decision. Let’s look at them.

Claim: NERA looked only at a worst case. Fact: the study contains 5 cases and shows how inferior Obamas choice of overbearing regulations is to a carbon tax. Claim: NERA failed to include jobs generated by renewable energy. Fact: the methodology guarantees they are all in there. The problem is that they are not enough to make up for all the jobs lost due to higher costs and slower growth. Claim: NERA ignores how renewables make electricity cheaper. Fact: NERA got it right by using the same official government estimates of technology costs that were used in studies made in the Obama Administration that reached the same conclusions. Claim: NERA assumes industry wont change to lower costs. Fact: NERA assumes industry chooses the absolutely lowest cost ways to comply, even though no real business would have the required perfect information and foresight to achieve. The list of patently false misrepresentations of the study Trump cited could go on and on.

It is particularly ironic that NERA is accused of choosing a worst case for analyzing the Paris Agreements, when all it did was assume that the regulatory policies instituted and explicitly planned by the Obama Administration were put in place. Just because policies are dumb doesn’t mean analysts should assume something else to make them look better.

There are ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are much cheaper than the regulations Obama planned and issued. But none of them can be done on the sole authority of the President, or meet the hard and fast commitment Obama made on emission reductions. The choices Obama did make, to go around Congress with Executive agreements and broad interpretations of authority to regulate, would have led to the regulatory morass and immutable targets that most economists agree constitute the worst possible way to attack climate change.

For example the carbon tax, which I support, would not guarantee 26-28% emission reductions and requires Congressional approval, but it lowers cost tremendously. Even better, it provides a safety valve if it turns out more costly to meet the targets than we now guess and automatically gets larger reductions if it turns out cheaper. What is there not to like about that? The pessimists on technology get assurance about costs and the optimists can count on even faster progress than under regulations. But to choose such an approach, the existing US commitment to a hard and fast target has to be torn up. If changing our commitment to a more rational and less costly policy like a carbon tax is not allowed under the Paris Agreement, then President Trump’s decision to exit is the only responsible one.

This is a real shame, Some good could be done through the Paris Agreement, but it is not likely without the sensible intervention of US negotiators to veto the self-serving statements and policies that will be advanced by countries (and staff of international organizations) with less interest in climate than in enriching their bureaucrats and elites. Surprisingly, even in the Obama Administration US negotiators were pretty good at this task. It was in the big head-of-state meetings that things went awry.

Participation in meetings under the Paris Agreement is also important for coordinated action that is consistent with national interests and effective in dealing with the consequences of climate change. Even if national interests do not lead to keeping temperature increases below levels that some self-appointed moralists believe constitute “dangerous human interference,” more limited emission reductions can reduce even further the already low probability that climate change will cause very bad things to happen. And coordinated international action is absolutely necessary to make the poorest and most vulnerable populations more resilient and able to adapt to change that will be likely to occur.

But the fault is in President Obama’s poison pill, not President Trump’s decision to exit the Agreement. These good consequences of continued engagement in the Paris Agreement must be weighed against the cost to the US of adhering to badly chosen commitments that violate Constitutional principles. That is the kind of prudential judgment that we elect Presidents and members of Congress to make.

Since exit is itself a lengthy process, perhaps the Paris Agreement can still be revised to remove the foolish provision that commitments may only be increased. That would allow the President to correct his predecessor’s errors while continuing to be part of a potentially useful process. This is exactly what the President stated his intention to be: “I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.”

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

A Memorial Day Tribute by David Montgomery

Seventy-three years ago next week, Pfc Raymond Richard Stednitz landed at Omaha Beach with the 29th Infantry Division. It was his first day in combat, and he survived.

Ray was born and grew up in Hoboken, NJ. He married Rita Basso on April 19, 1942 and had three children – Ray Jr, Helene and my wife, Esther. Ray died in St Michaels in 1999. While terminally ill, he wrote a journal that chronicled his entire life. He served on active duty for 58 months, starting even before war was declared, and his account of those years provides a fitting reflection for Memorial Day.

World War II disrupted some of the most important years of Ray’s life. He met his wife-to-be on July 5, 1940, on a blind date arranged by his brother. They had only been dating for a few months when Roosevelt mobilized the National Guard, which Ray had joined some years earlier. At the time, Ray was working as a shipfitter at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. It was a skilled job, going down into the hull of a ship after worn and damaged parts had been removed to make exact templates for replacement parts, and it paid well.

Because of his work, Ray was offered a deferment by the Commandant of the Navy Yard, who left the choice up to him. Ray writes that the activation of the Guard “was supposed to be for only a year. I guess I’ll never know if I made the right decision. Hitler was rolling through Europe and nobody here seemed worried…. A new draft for Service Personnel had just started and I probably would have got drafted later on. But I decided to spend the next year with the guys I knew.”

He and his friends were sent to Fort Dix, New Jersey, where their first job was to build the camp where they would spend the next few years. “I knew my way around a hammer, saw and tape measure and did a lot of carpenter work. Unlike the Navy, there was no such animal as a carpenter or fitter, you made do with whatever was around.” Ray’s unit was a heavy weapons company in the 44th Infantry Division. He thought the winter of 1941 was miserable at Fort Dix, but the trip home to Hoboken took only about two hours.

On Saturday, December 6 his unit was on its way back to Fort Dix from maneuvers near Fort Bragg. “It was the day we were all looking forward to. Back to camp in a few days and for some of us a discharge in a day or two, then back home to a normal life.”

“Around midnight some kid came into our camp saying that it came over the radio that the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor.” Shortly thereafter, the 44th Division was reorganized and Ray’s regiment became the independent 113th Infantry Combat Team. After the Coast Guard captured a group of German saboteurs nearby, the 113th was assigned to augment the short-handed Coast Guard in patrolling the coast. “We roamed the highways along the coast for a couple of days, then off to Fort Monmouth” and then were sent to Eatontown Woods, 50 miles from home in Hoboken. “We patrolled the beaches from Ft Hancock on the south side of Sandy Hook and Seabright all the way down to Long Branch, which was more populated and about 15 miles away.”

“Our night headquarters we occupied the Highlands Police Station, the next town north of Sandy Hook. We had a jeep with a 30 caliber machine gun mounted on it for any emergency that might arise.”

“Around the end of March, on one of my visits home, Rita and I decided to get married, no engagement, no waste of time, we weren’t sure what would happen tomorrow.” They were married in April, 1942.

Ray’s regiment remained in New Jersey until March 1944. His first son was born on Christmas Eve, 1943. “My son was only two months old when we were told that we were moving out of the woods in Eatontown and were being replaced by some reconnaissance outfit. … I managed to make another trip home before leaving Eatontown for Fort Dix the next morning”

From Fort Dix, the 113th was sent to Fort Meade. “It was a madhouse and the first thing we had to do when we got there was to get a GI haircut. The first one for me ever. It seems that GIs from all over were assembled here. Our outfit was split in half. Half were sent to the Pacific and half to Europe.”

Ray’s unit was moved to Brockton, Mass, an embarkation port and staging area. They arrived around noon and found they would be leaving the next day for England. Ever resourceful, Ray hitchhiked into Boston and caught the next express train to NY where he caught the train into Hoboken. “I got there about 9:30 or so and I said by-by for a little while to my little girl. The time never went so fast, I knew it would be awhile until we saw each other again.” When Ray returned to Brockton, “the place was wide open and I guess that they expected that a lot of GIs would make that ‘last visit.’” Ray and about 3000 men boarded the passenger liner “Brittanica” and joined a large convoy that fought its way through the remaining U-boats to England.

Ray was not fond of England. “We slept on ironing boards with straw mattresses. … Their food was no better, they cooked everything in the same grease, including fish.”

From here on, I will just transcribe Ray’s memoir.

“However, things got worse. On the morning of June 4th, we went down to Southampton where the 29th Division were getting ready for D-Day and I was assigned to the 175th Infantry as a replacement machine gunner in Co. D, 1st Battalion. It would be quite a while before we would get a decent meal. We were now on K rations. A meal in the size of a Cracker Jack box. Three boxes a day, all protein, but you were always hungry.”

“We boarded a destroyer the afternoon of the 4th and joined a multitude of all kinds of vessels in the channel, and after dark, headed for France to land on a beach designated as “Omaha” Beach and the landing site for the 29th Infantry Division, with the 1st Infantry Division on our left.”

“We were supposed to land on the morning of the 5th, but the weather got bad, the sea got awful rough and they decided not to land and backed up into the center of the Channel. A little better weather was predicted for the next day and “IKE” decided to go in rather than wait for another “good tide.” So on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944 around 6 AM our 175th Infantry Regiment started landing on Omaha Beach, Normandie, France.”

“We went over the side of that destroyer on nets along the side and boarded little LCVP’s which held about ten men, and headed for shore. We were about fifty feet from the beach when we got hung up on an obstacle. A Coast Guardsman was operating the boat and he did the best job possible. Anyhow my guys got out in about three feet of water and waded the rest of the way to the beach. I looked at my wristwatch and it said 7:08 and I think it stopped there as it got all wet along with the rest of us.”

“Already there was sinking and burning of all types of our craft everywhere. There were also bodies laying all over the beach, which we tried to hide behind. That was a long day and we didn’t get off the beach until late afternoon. It was the worst beach of all out of the five landing sites. Eight thousand men died on that beach that day.”

Where Omaha Beach was a day of horror, the fighting was not over when Ray got off the beach. He tells the story of the rest of the war in one paragraph, and never talked about it to his family.

“The rest of the war was history. I wrote to Rita whenever it was possible and so did she, but I always told her that things were not too bad and would see each other again soon. The coldest winter in 57 years, we lasted it out, thank God, and on the 27th day of April 1945 we took the little town of Hitzacker on the Elbe River, the end of the line for us, the war was over and on the 8th day of May it was over for everybody, the terms of surrender were signed, Hitler had committed suicide. I had a few days to rest and write letters.”

Ray does not mention that at some point, he was wounded and awarded a Purple Heart. He may have been at the one of the most ferocious battles of the war on “Purple Heart Hill” on June 18, 1944. The 1st Battalion was positioned in front of the 175th regiment when it attacked German positions on the way toward St. Lo. After it took a small rise known as Hill 108, the Germans struck back with artillery and infantry counterattacks. More than half the battalion was reported killed or injured in the ensuing day of fighting. 1st Battalion was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation and the French Army’s Croix de Guerre with Silver-Gilt Star for its stand on Hill 108.

Once the fighting ended, Ray’s unit moved through several towns on occupation duty until “the boys upstairs got organized with the separation system. You needed 65 points to be eligible to go home. I had 127 points and on the morning of 6 June, they told me to get my stuff together and leave in a couple of hours … they were going to fly us home.”

The epic journey home was one of Ray’s favorite stories. He and his buddies went by train from the Weser River to a small town in the south of France, where “all of a sudden we were the cream of society, especially if you wore the Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Combat Infantry Badge.” At their next stop, “on the chow line in the kitchen tent was a German POW handing out food. We recognized each other immediately. I had captured him in France. He was glad that it was over, too.” Next came a ride on stripped down B17s to Casablanca and then hopping from one flight to another to make the fastest possible trip home. I heard stories about getting home and about his time at Fort Dix, but Ray never talked about his experiences in Europe.”

Ray’s reflections on the war are those of a man who did his duty but never wanted to be a soldier: “Somewhere along the line I discovered that military life was not meant for me. Wearing a uniform with all kinds of medals and braid never appealed to me. I still feel that there are more important things in life than soldiering, especially in the infantry. However, when the chips were down, I gave a good account of my self.”

“I missed one of the most important parts of a father’s life, seeing his son grow up and learning how to walk. Those 18 months they can never give me back. It definitely had an adverse effect on the future.”

Ray came home, but he still gave a good part of his life for his country.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Trump’s Budget and the Bay by David Montgomery

Although no details are yet available, President Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint “Eliminates funding for specific regional efforts such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay, and other geographic programs. These geographic program eliminations are $427 million lower than the 2017 annualized CR levels. The Budget returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to State and local entities, allowing EPA to focus on its highest national priorities.“

I have mixed reactions to this proposal.  It can be argued that the Bay is a national and global asset, and that its benefits extend far beyond the 7 states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.   As seen in the picture below, the jurisdictions in direct contact with the Bay are Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.  The watershed includes New York, Delaware and West Virginia where the headwaters of rivers and streams feeding into the Bay are located.

In more practical terms, the Federal government sets expectations for the Watershed Implementation Plans that the states must develop in order to comply with Federal Clean Water Act standards for the Bay, yet the states bear the cost of compliance with Federal standards.

There is nothing unique about this combination of Federal standards and state implementation, as it derives from the basic design of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.  The Federal government decides on what standards should be met for air and water quality, in part because emissions and effluents from one state almost always travel across state boundaries to affect other states.

It is left up to the states to create plans for achieving the standards set by the Federal government.  These plans are reviewed by the Federal government, usually by modeling how the specific provisions of the plan would affect future air and water quality.

Once the plans are approved, each state must implement the plans through whatever combination of legislation, regulation and economic incentives it chooses.  Thus the actions taken by each state form part of what should be a cooperative solution for the region and country as a whole.   Maryland benefits from reductions in emissions from coal-fired powerplants in upwind states like Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia, and those states benefit from improved recreational opportunities and less costly seafood from the Bay.

Many studies have been made by environmental economists of the benefits of improved air and water quality, and how those benefits are distributed across different regions and populations.   Thus there is probably a study of how the benefits of improvements in water quality of the Chesapeake Bay are distributed to residents of different states.  Recreational benefits, for example, are usually allocated by distance so that the Bay states themselves would gain most of those benefits.  Improved fisheries would benefit the entire market for seafood from the Bay, and also the watermen who live in the Bay states.  

Nevertheless, there is no broad provision in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act for allocating cleanup costs based on the distribution of benefits.  That distribution was no doubt in the minds of the members of Congress who enacted those two laws, and in the process for setting and meeting standards that they created, and it falls out of the laws as written.  In one case, Title IV of the Clean Air Act, Congress set up a trading program to limit emissions of acid rain precursors, and was specific that costs would be borne by the states where the emissions occurred.

Based on all this, I see no particular claim that the states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed could make for funding of Bay cleanup by other states, any more than California could claim that it should be compensated for achieving smog goals in the South Coast Air Basin.

All this is consistent with the great principle of subsidiarity, that decisions should be made at the lowest level of government that can deal effectively with a problem.  

But on the other side of the coin, it is unclear that as individual states, each of the 7 watershed states has the incentive, information or ability to carry out its part in a cost-effective management system.  The so-called “headwater states” of New York, Delaware and West Virginia, are not on the Bay and get no direct benefit from its cleanup.  Pennsylvania borders part of the Upper Bay, but its share of effluents (largely from the Susquehanna) is claimed to be far greater than it share of the Bay’s waters.  

For this reason, there are a number of interstate agreements intended to coordinate action and planning across these states, in particular the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement signed in 2014.  It is described as being a  “plan for collaboration across the Bay’s political boundaries [that] establishes goals and outcomes for the restoration of the Bay, its tributaries and the lands that surround them.”  It is administered by the Chesapeake Bay Program, which has an Executive Council composed of the governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Administrator of EPA.   

Federal funding may not be necessary to clean up the Bay, but it can certainly be an effective lever for gaining cooperation in this multi-state activity.  Not only can such funding grease the wheels by sharing the cost of particularly contentious tasks, the threat of withholding federal funds can be an effective tool in gaining compliance with plans previously agreed by the states.  In particular, Pennsylvania frequently appears in the news as failing to meet its commitments or reduce effluents sufficiently for Maryland and Virginia to meet federal standards in their waters.

There is an alternative, but one that would also require some initiative from the Administration to bring about.  Unlike the Delaware River Basin Commission, all of the commissions and other agreements about Chesapeake Bay Cleanup are voluntary agreements of states based on each state’s own legislation.  The Delaware River Basin Commission is a formal Interstate Compact, ratified by the U.S. Congress and enforceable under Federal law on all members .  Creating a Chesapeake Bay Interstate Compact including the 7 watershed states would make plans and commitments enforceable by any member of the Compact against another member.  

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has responsibilities for water supply that may or may not be useful for the Chesapeake Bay, but its management of pollution control and flood control would be.  The DRBC can itself finance and build waste treatment plants, and plan for the balance among different sources of effluents.  It also devises its own funding mechanisms.  A similar Commission for the Chesapeake would certainly be able to design and implement an effluent trading program for the entire watershed, which is the only way to make one effective.  In principle, there should be a way for the Commission to develop a single, comprehensive Watershed Implementation Plan binding on all its members.

This is not an entirely original idea, as I discovered after writing this article.  The Environmental Law Institute published a paper  that discusses the merits of an interstate compact for the Chesapeake Bay at much greater length.  I think that decisions on where effluents should be reduced, by what means, and at whose expense should be a responsibility of the 7 watershed states, and not require an external party like the federal government to impose them.  In line with the principle of subsidiarity, a watershed compact appears to me to be the lowest level of government capable of dealing with the problem effectively.  

Perhaps the proposed withdrawal of federal funding for Bay cleanup could provide the impetus for more effective coordination of the efforts of the responsible states.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

 

Dealing with Uncertainty with Climate Change by David Montgomery

Several weeks ago I attended a workshop put on by MIT climate researchers that dealt with current uncertainties in climate science and useful directions for climate research. I have worked with the folks at MIT since I was in graduate school, and specifically on the science and economics of climate change for just about 30 years. As usual, talking to them at this workshop suggested some new ideas that I wanted to share.

The general sentiment on climate policy among these researchers was that the best we can expect is a modest slowing of the rate of temperature increase.  Recent work from MIT also reveals that forecasts of the possible impacts of climate change still differ dramatically.  Combining these two insights reveals a large gap in our current understanding – we do not have a good handle on who is most likely to be affected, where and how, under realistic scenarios for temperature increase.   The immense popular and scientific literature on the effects of climate change has generally assumed no action to reduce emissions and no smart adaptation to avoid damages.  So the stories of melting icecaps, retreating shorelines, epidemics of tropical disease, heat waves, droughts and floods are largely intended to communicate what might happen if we do nothing.

At the other end of the scale, immense effort has gone into figuring out what it would take to keep global average temperatures from rising by more that 1.5 to 2ºC, levels that some believe would avoid all “dangerous human interference with the climate.”  

Once we recognize that the best outcome of global action to reduce emissions is likely to be significant temperature increase and a good bit of damage, the uselessness of studies of no action and ideal action becomes clear.  What we need to understand are the risks posed by temperature increases of more than 2 degrees at a temporal and geographic scale that is useful for planning.  In addition to work done at places like MIT, reports of a United Nations organization known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are useful references. The IPCC utilizes climate experts from around the world to write their reports, and I was a principal lead author of the second of their big reports on climate science and policy

The first step toward understanding our knowledge of climate risks is to realize how uncertain current forecasts of temperature increase and impacts really are. To make such a forecast there are several steps:

Predict future economic growth and technological breakthroughs in order to forecast greenhouse gas emissions

Compute how much temperature will increase based on predicted greenhouse gas emissions

Predict changes in precipitation (rainfall) and other geophysical and weather-related impacts

Assess how those changes will affect human populations

A forecast of total global emissions is sufficient to drive forecasts of temperature increase, since the major greenhouse gases have the same effects on temperature no matter where they are emitted (black carbon is different, but that is another story).  But different models give very different results for temperature even when they assume the same increase in emissions.  As a result, the lPCC has concluded that if the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reaches twice the level observed from 1850-1900, that will cause global average temperature to rise by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C above what it was back then. And the IPCC states that it cannot say whether the high, low or middle of that range is more likely (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf)

Since the pre-industrial level is estimated to be 275 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, doubling is conventionally set at 550 parts per million.   Depending on the emissions forecast, we could reach that point between 2050 and 2075 or even later.   And somewhere between those dates, temperature increase would be between 2 and 5ºC.  The picture below may help clarify this.  It is from MIT’s 2015 Global Energy and Climate Outlook, and it shows predictions of greenhouse gas concentrations from a number of sources.  According to the MIT Outlook, we would hit 550 ppm around 2065, and at that point temperature increase could be 1.5 to 4.5ºC above pre-industrial levels.  According to more pessimistic forecasts, we could hit 550 ppm and expect 1.5 to 4.5ºC increases as early as 2050.  Forecasts that hit 550 ppm much later than 2075 assume very strong measures to reduce emissions in every country and are not very likely.

Although only total emissions matter for temperature, where they are generated matters for thinking about reducing emissions.  That is where pessimism about avoiding climate change comes from.  The chart below breaks a middle of the road forecast of emissions out across countries, based on their plans in accord with the Paris agreement.

Source: Energy Information Administration 2016 International Energy Outlook

Even if we do not make any additional efforts, emissions from the OECD countries (USA, Canada, UK, Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ etc.) will in total be stable or decline due to slow population growth and technological progress. China will be by far the largest single source, eventually surpassing all of us, and total emissions from India, the Middle East and Russia will be right behind.  By just 2040, the OECD will decline to 32% of global emissions, and will continue to shrink.   

Thus far the only countries that have made commitments to reduce their emissions in the next decade are in the OECD.  All of the rest of the world puts economic growth and strategic advantage ahead of climate in their national priorities.  Even if they adhered to the Paris Agreements now under review by the Administration, China would remain on this path until at least 2030 and then consider slowing the growth in its emissions.  India made no quantified commitment, nor did most of the rest of the non-OECD countries, which see no way to rise out of poverty without increasing emissions.

Putting this political realism together with the uncertainty of temperature response, we should be planning for more than 2ºC and possibly up to 5ºC temperature increase in the next century.  To do this in a systematic way, and to address the greatest risks first, we need to assign probabilities to the effects of temperature increases on a geographic scale that distinguishes places where there will be large and harmful changes from places where there will be lesser impacts.

That gets us to steps 3 and 4, where things get really hard.  One thing that all models agree on is that temperature change will not be uniform around the globe.  Therefore temperature forecasts need to be specific to different locations.  Unfortunately, the models differ widely on what will happen at any particular location.  Models generally agree that the greatest temperature increases will be in polar regions, but that the largest changes in precipitation and water availability will be in the tropics and further south.  Unfortunately, they do not agree on the critical details of where within the equatorial regions those changes will occur.

The pictures below show predictions of changes in rainfall for Southern Africa from 17 different models, stated for comparability as the change in rainfall for a 1ºC increase in global average temperature.  Forecasts need to be at this finer scale because effects of temperature on precipitation are even more localized than temperature changes themselves. So picking Botswana, we see that colors range from bright red to bright green, indicating that rainfall could either decrease (red) or increase (green) dramatically.  Not much use for planning water supply or flood protection or public health or where and what kind of crops to plant in the nation of Botswana, let alone in the Kalihari or the Okavanga Delta.

Source: “Regional climate change of the greater Zambezi River Basin: a hybrid assessment”

  1. Adam Schlosser & Kenneth Strzepek Climatic Change (2015) 130:9–19

Effects on the people who live in these places and their opportunity to make a living come next will differ, depending on which of these contrary forecasts come to be.  And those human impacts will depend on how capable the affected people and societies are of innovating and adapting to change, and on how their governments invest in and encourage actions in advance to reduce harm.

I take three important lessons from this.   First, potential future effects of climate change on people are much more uncertain than forecasts of future emissions and temperatures.  Impacts in the latter half of this century could be quite tolerable, if the 1.5ºC forecast is correct, because that is the temperature increase at which the IPCC foresees few harmful effects.  What the consequences of temperatures higher in the range might be is subject to all the remaining uncertainties about geophysical and human effects.  

Second, even though we can recognize the uncertainty, we cannot quantify the risks that different populations face.  That is, no one has connected the results of a full-sized general circulation model on the distribution of temperature to a disaggregated model of weather and geophysical effects in a way that would let us attach probabilities to the human impacts of climate change.  The study that produced the analysis of the Zambezi basin takes this calculation as far as rainfall, but only incorporates the variations across models of rainfall.  It does not bring in uncertainty of emissions, temperature increase or consequences of changes in rainfall for agriculture, disease, etc.  This is an active field of research, but not an easy one and one that should get high priority in funding climate research.  Without it, all we get are basically scientific anecdotes of what might happen, with no idea of how likely those events are or where it would be most cost-effective to prepare for them.

Third, none of this implies that the US and the rest of the OECD should do nothing to reduce their emissions, but what we do should be flexible and realistic.  It is not in our power to reduce emissions enough to prevent potentially dangerous climate change, nor can we compute the odds on how much damage our policies would avoid.  Even if we were able to forecast what policies would accomplish in reducing emissions, there is still that 1.5 to 5 range of possible temperature change and the huge disagreement about the regional effects of temperature change on weather and other impacts.   This convinces me that insistence on setting targets for reducing emissions in order to have certainty about emission reductions is badly misinformed.  We can, on the other hand, have confidence that a carbon tax set at a tolerable level will make a difference in emissions and will reduce the likelihood of the worst possible outcomes. That modest step seems to me to be one we should all be able to agree on, while concentrating on developing science and policies that could contribute to helping the most vulnerable areas and peoples to adapt to what is coming despite our best efforts.

 

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.