i really should be punished for linking to this guy, but here goes...
link.
read this carefully, being mindful that this individual put bread on the table for years by being "creative" in how he framed and presented unpopular ideas. there are a few things to note straightaway.
observation one: holding up gregg easterbrook as an authority on much of anything is the first sign of a fraudulent argument. convincing evidence for the prior statement. and more. and more.
observation two: focus carefully on the following:
As conservatives would expect, these gains were largely the result of technology -- the catalytic converter in automobiles and reformulated gasoline -- and not by pedaling to work or undoing the Industrial Revolution. Smog was reduced mainly by innovation, not austerity.
translation: dirty hippies on bikes and communes are wrong, wrong, wrong. if they could put down their bongs long enough to see what was happening in the real world, they'd wake up and spend their time focusing on chemical engineering and taking jobs with oil and coal companies. because that's where people make a difference. d'uh. this is a classic view of the market solving problems. when the problem becomes significant, it becomes advantageous to make changes so the market will respond. all hail the invisible hand, sing the praises of the market. but we're soon presented with this...
But only the government can create the incentives for Americans to work on this problem with urgency and seriousness.
i don't think this gerson fellow is serious about being a conservative. at least conservatives like grover norquist are honest: saying that they want to strangle the shrunken government in the bathtub. government ain't the answer, it's part of the problem. so are we talking about aconservative answer to this problem or a market-based economic answer to this problem?
As in the case of fighting Los Angeles smog, this type of government regulation would create economic incentives for the development of new technologies -- incentives that do not exist in the free market.
he wants the problem solved, and he wants market forces that don't exist in the current market to solve the problem. so someone needs to create a force to effect change.
But the problem is much more likely to be solved if someone has a direct economic interest in solving it.
and we're back to the invisible hand again. look, i'll make this easy. there's a problem. gas is expensive. pollution is abundant. congestion on roads is abyssmal with broad estimates that it costs drivers in big cities around $1000 a year and drivers in more rural areas $200 a year. we're already at a point where a solution is needed and there are string effects on individuals that should be generating market pressure for solutions. but it's not happening
we have an expression where i work that has a surprising amount of wisdom in it: "if it was easy, someone would have already done it". if there was a cheap, easy solution, no one doubts it would have been implemented. but there isn't. if gerson had taken the time to look at existing government expenditures along these lines, i doubt he'd come to the conclusion that more market-based incentives are necessary as there are numerous ones in place.
maybe it's time to consider really alternative approaches. if one wishes to stick with the market, a more consistent proposal would be to price gasoline such that it reflects the true costs of it's production, storage, transport, monitoring and use. inclusion of these types of externalities has been attempted on large scales before with some success. however, there are powerful political andbusiness forces which make this a difficult sell here in the states. an alternative would be remediate the problem and charge the people causing the problems (air polluters) directly. make every road a toll road. put meters on smokestacks the same way we have meters on our gas and electric lines coming into our house so that we can charge for output (industrial waste) in addition to input.
or we could just get more people to ride bikes. you want to know something nice about that idea? it's proven to work. there's no r+d budget. there's no policy papers. give a bike to everybody in the united states capable of riding. we might solve the obesity and health care crisis at the same time. we could use the extra money to prop up social security and pay down the national debt. there, all national probelms solved. you're welcome.
-posted by scott