Mnuchin and his ilk are captive to greed and and a warped world view. Tp be sure, they fully know that the earth is rapidly moving to the trash heap, yet they embrace a misleading 'free market' approach to our own destruction.
10
A price on carbon,
To fund ‘green’ initiatives,
Would be a good start
10
I've come to think that people who deny the science of global warming should be denied access to the science of medicine.
21
Greed and self-serving ideologies will be the end of life as we know it on the planet.
12
Ms. Thunberg has nothing to gain but a cleaner, less polluted planet. Mr. Mnuchin is influenced by power, greed and Mr. Trump. I believe Greta.
26
"Unearned arrogance is a Trump administration hallmark..."
Perfect!
17
"One virtue of the pageant of preening and self-importance, however, is that it brings out the worst in some people, leading them to say things that reveal their vileness for all to see... First, Mnuchin doubled down on his claim that the 2017 tax cut will pay for itself — just days after his own department confirmed that the budget deficit in 2019 was more than $1 trillion, 75 percent higher than it was in 2016... Then he sneered at Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist, suggesting that she go study economics before calling for an end to investment in fossil fuels."
---
PK is being charitable. I suspect the truth is something closer to this: virtually everyone still associated with the GOP in 2020 is either ignorant, stupid, or so cynical they honestly don't care if what they say is true because they know Fox will repeat it hundreds of times per day while the mainstream media reports upon it as if it's worth taking seriously as something an intelligent person might think. He says it because he can get away with it.
9
I’m with Greta
10
I think we have bigger fish to fry than Steve Mnuchin
2
You go kid!
3
Actually, the national security reporter Did Find Ukraine on a map that had no country names!
Mikey is an arrogant liar, it appears.
So, what's new!
7
There is no truth to the rumor that Steven Mnuchen got his economics degree from Trump University.
4
As we say in Australia “you’ve hit the nail on the head”
6
Corporate welfare, yet again.
5
Thank you for this excellent article. Arrogance and vileness of trumpoidal Mnuchins are appalling. Fortunately, they greatly underestimate Ms.Thunberg’s leadership. For me personally, her character, combining discretion and irresistibility, reminds about this man from Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksel_Berg.
1
Maybe we can elect Greta as our president! Oh, wait, you must be 35. And, you must be born in the U.S.
So darn it, I guess we'll have to forget that idea. We'll have to make do with someone like Mike Bloomberg. We have 357 days until our new president can take office. I hope we can survive.
3
Nero comes to mind do Mnuchin and Trump need fiddle lessons? Or pointed tin foil hats?
1
Let me get this straight (referencing Dr. Krugman's newsletter "Zombie Ideas and Zombie Industries dated 1/28/20). If the IMF's estimate of subsidies to the fossil fuels industry in the USA is $600 billion, and the market value of fossil fuel production is less than $300 billion, then the subsidies are TWICE the amount of retail sales?!?!?! Where else would this happen--$2 subsidy for every $1 in sales? Absurd!
7
There have been five major extinction events in earth history, the last was 65 million years ago during the dinosaur age, when a asteroid six miles across hit the earth in the Yucatan peninsula, killing all large reptiles, leaving mammals to evolve. But there was another mass extinction before the rise of the dinosaurs, scientists didn’t know what had caused this mass die off, so they dug down below the K-2 level (the K-2 level is the visible line created by the material that fell back to earth after the asteroid.) They discovered that the earth had a sudden burst of greenhouse gasses over about 100 years, the gasses were caused by volcanic activity. They found crystals that volcanos form when the erupt, and scientists discovered that small amount of air is trapped inside the crystal. The decided to see if they could analyze that air, to see if they could measure the Co2 levels, methane, and compare it to how much Co2, methane, and other green house gasses are in today’s atmosphere.
What they found was, sobering. What they discovered was, there is more Co2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today, than there was in the fourth extinction. As the level of greenhouse gasses rise, the ocean absorbs it, as the ocean water become acidic, animals can’t form shell. Diatoms are one of the largest and ecologically most significant groups of organisms on Earth, they couldn’t form their shells, the oceans food supply died.
http://tolweb.org/Diatoms/
10
Greta's advocacy for addressing climate change is paramount.
I hope she takes up plastic pollution with as much zeal.
Climate change affects us land dwellers, but plastics affect the other 75%.
4
An unrecognized aspect of the Climate debate is Religion.
Trump has surrounded himself with Evangelical Christians.
The Prime Minister of Australia is an Evangelical Christian.
Why is this important? Because Evangelical Christians are hungering for the 'end time'and 'the Rapture' where the Earth descends into chaos and God comes down to save the believers and reward them with everlasting bliss.
The former Deputy Prime Minister in Australia recently posted a clip in the middle of the fires, looking up to the sky and saying how Climate is 'God's work'we can't understand.
While many commentators have recognized that Evangelicals view the Middle East as the site of the beginning of the end, now is the time to recognize that Evangelical thinking, and their unfulfilled hunger for 'end day'and 'the Rapture' is affecting the lack of response to Climate Change.
From an Evangelical Christian perspective, fighting climate change is fighting God's work and delaying the salvation for millions of believers.
9
If you worry about climate change, you have to think first about how to care many poor people in all over the world who desperately need cheap and easy-to-get fossil fuel and its byproducts right now for their living today rather than rich people who live in rich countries like Sweden and have leisure time to worry about some vague distant future.
2
@Young The destitute do not tend to live in the most sought after places and will be the first to suffer from climate change. Yes, it is a balancing act, but we far, far out of balance now.
13
Greta is a future leader of enormous positive influence.
Correction. Greta is a present leader of enormous positive influence. More power to her, and the new generation, whose future is at stake.
15
Scientists have discovered what caused the fourth great extinction by analyzing air trapped in volcanic crystals. The air in the crystals showed that it was greenhouse gasses, from volcanic activity over 100 years or so the set the stage for the fourth mass extinction. But when compared to the levels of greenhouse gasses today, there is more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today, than 100 million years ago. The same circumstances existed then, as the do today. As the ocean absorbed the Co2 it became more acidic, the higher acid, animals that grow shells, can’t grow shells, coral cant form their calcium shells, the fish that depend on coral reefs, die, those small fish are food for larger fish and so on. The most abundant shelled creature that forms the basis of the food chain, the diatom. When a diatom dies, it releases oxygen into the atmosphere. Trees also scrub the air we breathe taking out Co2 among other things, but it’s the tiny diatom that’s the real producer of the oxygen we breath. In the fourth extinction, as the planet heated up, the food supply was interrupted, eventually killing all life on earth. Then came the dinosaurs and they reigned Supreme for thousands of years, until an six mile wide asteroid traveling at 50,000 miles an hour became a meteor slamming into the Yucatán peninsula.
http://tolweb.org/Diatoms/
This isn’t just about economics this is about the earths survival, and human species survival.
11
What Greta understands better than Steve Mnuchin is the externalities associated with extracting, transporting, and using (burning) fossil fuels. The developed world will begin to internalize and account for these externalities only when we tax the use of these fuels commensurate with their contributions to global warming.
7
How about noise pollution? It suddenly struck me the other day while filling up at a gas station how much background traffic noise there was and how much less there would have been with only electric cars.
But, Republican's understand that the notion of exploitation sells to their base. Exploit the earth! Exploit labor! Why the base doesn't realize how much they are being exploited is beyond me. Maybe it's a matter of pride and not being able to admit it.
5
I'm a little surprised Krugman didn't mention BlackRock's recent letters to CEOs and shareholders—they're moving seven *trillion* dollars out of fossil fuels and other unsustainable areas, which makes one think Greta's economic advice is better than Mnuchin's.
13
Let's replace the continual focus on GDP with unwavering support for GTP (Greta Thunberg Perseverance).
5
Many years ago the great writer C.S.Lewis wrote a book named Men Without Chests. In it he wrote "We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise," and "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
Mr. Mnuchin does not need to study climate change or economics, he is quite intelligent and well informed.
What Mr Mnuchin needs is a chest.
5
"I still often find people — both right-wingers and climate activists — asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth."
Everything we know? Really? I find this really hard to believe--meeting UN climate goals will require significant decreases in consumption in our consumer-driven economy that will likely cause recessions in several huge industries (oil/gas/coal/air travel/aircraft/cement/construction), recessions that may spur economy-wide recession, especially in an economy that is hyper-focused on quarterly profits.
Let me be clear--I still think we must de-carbonize quickly, but sugar-coating how economically painless this will be doesn't help.
5
Mr. Krugman forgot to mention the corrupting effect of the energy industry on resource-rich countries whose populations slide further into poverty while despots and their orbits assemble huge fortunes in kickbacks and graft. It's hard to even put a number on the economic cost of that part of the ripoff. Rachel Maddow's book "Blowout" goes into exquisite detail on it.
10
Best article ever written!! These truths are self-evident, yet they aren't written about or acknowledged as often as they should be.
As inappropriate as the incumbent and his minion's tweet-attacks are, it leaves one to wonder, "Aren't these guys supposed to be providing leadership in the free world? Why are they instead viciously attacking a teen-aged female climate activist? Follow up question: does that mean they're not capable of understanding and fulfilling their job expectations?"
I appreciate your insights on the big picture!
5
Why a 17-year-old is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin.
She's also a better person.
17
@Josh
You answered your own question, because she’s a better human being, than Munchkin.
1
When this epoch of madness ends, Steven T. Mnuchin's tableau of prominent achievements will feature a three quarter trillion dollar budget blowout; his signature on US currency - and a disgraceful attempt to humiliate a 17 year old advocate for action on climate change. Mnuchin shows little by way of rigor, courage or plain human decency. His ego and trophy's, while not on Trump's scale, are just as insidious and drive his self-serving agenda.
5
@Tom
The Republican Party eats their own, so it stands to reason that they attack anyone that isn’t in jackbooted goose stomping lock step. They’ve come to believe that they are supposed to support their president regardless of the damage he’s doing to our relationship with allies, to our standing as world leaders, the country that used to support democracy around the world. We went out of our way to support emerging democracies. The republicans have sacrificed this country for their own political ends, and they’ve done it by attacking the very establishment they represent. In essence they are the very thing they tell their constituents they are against, big government.
In 2008 when Obama wanted to employ some of the ideas that Franklin used, Obama had “shovel ready” infrastructure jobs, that would have been the best opportunity to get the country going faster. If republicans would have stopped and thought about it, it makes sense, employ people to build and repair infrastructure, manufacturers would be making materials for construction, you know the ripple effect, people would have money to spend. What argument did republicans use, their go to, what about the national debt. The Republican Party allowed the population to suffer, because Moscow Mitch decided that it was better to try and get Obama out as a one term POTUS.
6
Two concepts, one tells pretty much the whole story re our woeful current situation, and the other is practically the complete remedy.
The culprit: the love of money is the root of all evil
The cure: the golden rule
4
We have no more choice to address runaway climate disruption than a person with heart disease can choose to continue eating dairy & meat.
In both cases, ignoring the science will continue to kill you faster.
3
Speaking of grifters, this is the new budget item for 2020 in Trumpland. Trump wants the money for big tax cuts for the 1% no doubt.
President Donald Trump’s 2020 budget proposal includes $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over the next 10 years.
Majorities across every age demographic surveyed in a Pew poll from March said no cuts should be made to Social Security benefits in the future, including 81 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds and 79 percent of respondents over age 65.
5
Cold turkey is an impossibility. The externalized costs of fossil fuels should be addressed by a gradually increasing tax to clean the environment and steadily wean the population off oil during the transition.
3
Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth.
I hope Krugman finds an opportunity to explain how this is possible, and maybe also explain why the pursuit of robust economic growth is an unquestionable economic goal.
3
One thing that Krugman asserts:
”I still often find people — both right-wingers and climate activists — asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth.”
I disagree with Krugman on this one thing, but agree with Greta, I don’t think we can be GREEN and live in super large homes, eat lots of meat, fly all over the world, and buy lots of STUFF. Our GDP willl need to fall greatly. Energy consumption is an issue, and I agree with Dr. Hansen and Dr. Lovelock, nuclear is one of THE biggest answers available now, but there is too much fear of Nuclear, and wind and solar are a problem when the sun is not shining and the wind stops blowing.
But either way, we basically keep doing nothing for decades, and will likely continue doing too little. We’ll see if the Eocene returns, or it could be even warmer than that!!
2
@Steven Spurger
It will take the earth thousands of years to fix itself, as it has after every mass extinction, including the last one, 65 million years ago.
1
I'd love for you to expand on this: "Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth."
A lot of climate change literature argues for degrowth and I'd love to see your take on this in more detail.
4
Some countries will do much better at adapting to a low carbon future just because they built better. Even China ghost cities will do better because they are pedestrian oriented from the looks of them. At least they are compact.
Many countries developed an urbanism based on railroads in the 19th century and have only expanded them around their cores and are still providing good public transit. But the US cities exploded after WWII based on the private automobile and the single family home and they are very difficult to serve with PT. WE built our own consumer heavy/oil dependent trap and may be stuck with it until big parts of it flood. If they do, where will even funny money come from as vast wealth evaporates or becomes waterlogged?
Greta comes from the more sensible EU countries. I live out in the deep sticks and we don't even see a bus. And it costs more than a fortune to live closer to the city. Suburban communities closer to the urban core are adverse to increasing density and to becoming more urbanized, And no one ever seems to want low income people anywhere,
Greta has a somewhat affluent background, I understand.
1
@Gluebottle
Greta, may well come from an affluent background, but what she’s arguing for isn’t for the affluent, it’s for mankind.
2
Let's not forget ethanol. Without government subsidies, this stuff wouldn't have a reason to exist.
5
Judge a political party by how it treats children.
“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
(Frederick Douglass)
Greta is a very strong child, along with all the other children around the world demanding political officials address the problem of the environment and climate change.
At the same time, the current Trump administration and Republican party appear to be full of broken men.
10
Do subsidies make the cost of gas less regressive? The wealthy pay the same for gas as everyone else, but they pay more taxes so they contribute more to subsidies. Some countries subsidize gas. Sometimes there are riots when the subsidies are reduced. If what I am saying is correct, then this complication should be part of a conversation about reducing subsidies.
3
People like Munchkin start with an ideology and then use their "degree" to support it. They could not care less what they "learned" in school; that is beside the point. The point is, once they have the "degree" they can use that do tell people they "know" what to do. Whether or not they actually do is completely irrelevant because, in the end, their ONLY goal is to make money any way possible. Trumps cabinet is loaded with grifters just like him. And that is why they are there, to make the world safe for all grifters.
5
It seems obvious to me that the inanity of mnnuchin economics is too easily put aside because the man himself is at once so attractive, so charming and so charismatic.
The Republican economics and ethics are American economics and ethics. This is how the keep winning elections; this the American lifestyle, this is what Americans want.
1
Eco-nomy means house management, it’s not eco-caust, burning the house. So how come it’s happening nevertheless? Because brains are washed with petroleum media.
The world is dominated by a monopoly, the financial plutocracy, which is entangled with another, the fossil fuel plutocracy. For example fracking was financed by Wall Street. Both are even entangled with Literal Islam (Wahhabism, etc.)... thanks to a conspiracy by FDR on the Great Bitter Lake in 1945 with the Abdulaziz, founder of Saudi Arabia.
Is it greed, or outright thievery by, and addiction from, fossil fuel pushers? Because finance and oil control media: how else to explain nuclear killed nobody at Fukushima, while fossil fuels kill ten million a year, and still everybody is indignant about the former? Or how to explain Obama killed hydrogen… which was massively used in Europe already in the 1950s (“urban gas/gas de ville)? Hydrogen, and its derivatives (ammonia, etc.) would enable the storage of renewables, and could be used all over in transportation.
Instead Japan, Germany, are closing nuclear, and switching to coal. Germany fear periods, which can last two weeks, with no wind and no sun. The correct solution should be "green hydrogen" (hydrogen from renewables).
Expanding these new technologies will cause a formidable economic expansion. Fossil fuel economy and finance are fundamentally fascist economic activities: they require only oligarchs, a few workers. Renewable economy is the exact opposite
2
When Bloomberg called Trump in 2016 to congratulate him on winning, Trump asked for advice. Bloomberg said that trump should hire people who are smarter than him. Trump replied: "No on is smarter than me."
There are many smarter than trump, but he never hired any of them. An example Mnuchin. Greta, a 17 year old girl is obviously smarter.
2
What has to change, as it is one of the biggest polluters of the world..... is the airline industry. At any hour of the day, look at the number of airlines flying in the sky. Thousands of gallons of gasoline exuding exhaust right up there....ozone layer??? But that will never change! Change our lifestyle of flying whenever we want? Absolutely never will happen! Going to Florida? just look at how many flights - almost hourly - even just from one single airline...... yet alone all the airlines flying there. But we must be conscious of the environment to placate everyone..... better to accuse that little cigarette smoke, or the exhaust from our car .... but airplanes? Never. Inconvenience us? Never!
2
He's a bully just like his boss, he got is direct feedback from Trump when he treated her like that. These men are not kind and don't want change.....green energy is too Scary for them......just look at how they are trying to hold onto their power. but new day will come, let's hope humanity survives it, bc Mother Earth will be just fine.
Well the grifters have all these people who believe them and not people like Paul Krugman. You know the same people who feel the Coronavirus is no big deal. The measures to contain it (as there is no preventing it or eradicating it) have led to a big sell off on Wall St. All those years of climate change and it's impacts worldwide do not have much of an effect on investors. But a teeny weeny one celled organism can touch off a sell off panic. Next thing you know Mnuchin will tell us all not to worry because we have great antibiotics. Bloomberg suggested as president you should surround yourself with people smarter than you. Trump does the opposite. Kind of like going to the doctor and discovering a person who repairs cars caring for you. Instead of a stethoscope, he has a screwdriver. And that type of thing makes perfect sense to the Trump base.
I am beyond thrilled to see the word "Grifters" used in the main press referring to Trump and his band of incompetents.
3
Thank you once again Dr. Krugman. Just a couple thoughts:
You wrote
“So it may not surprise you to learn that Mnuchin was talking nonsense and that Thunberg almost certainly has it right.”
Drop the “almost certainly” and you will have it right. And Greta is absolutely right to be angry. Very angry.
As far as ever expecting non-nonsense from the likes of Mnuchin; that’s a “when pigs fly” scenario. He is of that ilk that exist in a alternate universe, far removed from the one I wake up to each day. The reality of climate change is of no interest to him as he is removed, or so he thinks, from our real world, from Greta’s real world. And to him the world seen from Davos supports his world view. The Greta Thunbergs and Paul Krugmans are nothing more than slightly irritating background noise. Another glass of fresh, cool, Swiss alpine spring water, and that noise is gone.
Now if we could just serve him some cool, freshly bottled water newly imported from the Flint River in Michigan perhaps his world view might change. Probably not.
2
What far too many refuse to admit is:
There are no jobs on a dead planet.
4
"The International Monetary Fund makes regular estimates of worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels — subsidies that partly take the form of tax breaks and outright cash grants, but mainly involve not holding the industry accountable for the indirect costs it imposes. In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion; yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas.
Without these subsidies, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would still be investing in fossil fuels."
So, we to divest.
Examine your portfolio, 401K, IRA, individual stock holdings, and SELL EVERY SINGLE fossil fuel corporation share you own, NOW, before they are worthless.
Get out NOW, before the institutional investors realize there's no future in ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, et all, and you are the one's holding the bag.
If enough of us dump their stock, maybe it'll get their attention...
1
To combat Climate Change everybody has to, first, be aware of the problem and its solutions, and then, participate.
However the type of action that is needed, like investment in renewable energies,-wind and solar, hydro, nuclear- the building of electric trains, the infrastructure to recharge electric cars, the building insulation codes, etc... cannot be done without government action. Not necessarily should the government make the investment, but it has to step up and provide the direction, the legal frame and the incentives to move expeditiously in the replacement of fossil for clean energies.
But here in the US the government refuses to accept that there is a problem. This is when we the people need to act.
While moving steadily away from fossil fuels is prudent, the argument of massive subsidies to the oil industry is disingenuous.
Not taxing for environmental impact is being counted as a 'subsidy' to the industry. Nearly all human activity has an environmental impact and would have to be counted across the board in order to do a completely fair comparison.
Selectively applying this as a subsidy actually weakens the environment.
Trump wouldn't like Greta. She's smarter than him.
And also tougher.
2
Mnuchin's professors allowed him to substitute Grifting 101 for Econ 101.
BigEnergy has had its bootheel on the throat of world politics for more than a century now. Will we push it off? Can we?
1
Oh, Mr. Krugman, If Mr. Mnuchin took a course on ethics, he would likely melt into a puddle of goo, much the way the Wicked Witch of the West did when doused with water. Mr. Mnuchin long ago sold out his ethics for money and could never go back.
5
Right on!
1
Of course Munchkin doesn't know anything about economics, that's why he's Treasury Secretary.
He's a willful, pliable, sycophantic stooge.
Just like Barr, Pompeo, Ross, DeVos, Carson, Mulvaney -- the whole lot.
Think about it. Every single Cabinet member has been chosen for their "flexible" ethics and willingness to say and do the stupidest and most unpatriotic things to please a wretched individual who has to inflict misery on others to make himself feel better.
That's where things stand, folks.
7
Amen, Professor Krugman!
2
Climate change is already having costly effects, in Australia, in Alaska, in the oceans and estuaries of the world, in Africa, in Syria, in Antarctica. As recently as 2014, I had to argue in a Florida ‘scientific’ meeting, that climate change was real. That our estuaries were collapsing from shoreline acidification tipping point indirect effects. You can’t fix stupid.
3
Make America Greta Again!
6
I often say that you can not fix stupid. Now I have to add or greed.
3
As Chomsky has said, no corporation worth its campaign donations is forced to compete in a free market. All companies do what they can to push their external costs onto someone else. The way they ensure that happens is to buy up politicians. Our Supreme court has been very instrumental in making that happen.
2
It would be more interesting to know how gross amounts and ROI that industry & the <1% get from political contributions.
Invest a $100 million in contributions and pay no taxes on $5 billion in revenues.
2
Greta Thunberg has allies who stand armed and belted right behind her, the central bankers. They are decidedly against asset destruction and an unaffordable future.
I would not dispute every statement in this article, except to say that the overall tone is beginning to slide towards extreme, borderline lunatic left.
It is true that fossil fuels cause general pollution. Coal may be the worst. Coal puts more radioactivity in the air than all of nuclear accidents and atmospheric tests ever did.
Having said this, there is no way that the world can turn away from fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. Anybody who is an economist ought to know this. This civilization is but a temporary pattern on the flow of energy. Take that flow away, the civilization goes away. Restrict the flow to developing countries, they stop developing.
Investing in green energies to continue with the transition, yes. Not investing in fossil fuels, kind of crazy.
2
@mf "... the overall tone is beginning to slide towards extreme, borderline lunatic left." This pretty much sums up the gist of your approach to things. Define "Left". Show your work.
2
Greta speaks truth to power, and this is sorely needed in a world where power is corrupt and self serving. Americans are finally coming to the understanding that their very own democratic government can be and is now just as corrupt and dysfunctional as the “banana republic” governments that we used to feel superior to.
The greed of the oil companies and their leaders is mind boggling; and it continues to continue as our government refuses to regulate and prolongs subsidies. Why should companies who are making staggering profits as well as harming life on earth receive any subsidies? This is wrong both ethically and financially. We could use that money for things like our crumbling infrastructure, which we have done nothing about!
3
The new line of attack on Greta Thunberg is that she does not know what she is talking about. In fact, most of the people who claim they know exactly what they are talking about have achieved very little over the past forty years or so. So I am listening to Greta Thunberg.
I leave Mnuchin to explain his use of one million dollars of US public funds flying around on military planes in his first year of office when all his predecessors had used commercial flights. His attacking Ms. Thunberg from his tottering ethical and intellectual platform is laughable.
3
It is time to stop being amazed the someone like Greta has a better grasp of the truth of our world than an utterly corrupt, totally invested ultra consumer like Steve Mnuchin.
The question is, when do we wake up and stop submitting to these outdated and frankly immoral "values".
We should face the destruction we have wrought to date, and find a new path that accounts for our responsibility to the planet and every single thing living on it.
the ironic thing is, I think most people would feel better doing so...
2
Oh, I gave myself up for dead during the Vietnam era. Government does what it wants and the public can go fish. It's the way money works.
2
Yes, those evil oil people. We can hardly wait until they are put out of business. having made money while others suffer.
And not soon enough.
Imagine how much better life will be without aspirin, IV bags and tubing, microwave ovens, heart valves, air permeable contact lenses, integrated circuits, vaseline, and tires.
2
@Objectivist Nobody is arguing for that.
1
Dr. Krugman mis-represents Mnuchin's position through his ultra-liberal lens. Mnuchin simply states that any reasonable human being would gladly soil the home in which they live in return for tons of cash. It is what the Electoral Majority in the USA have voted for election after election for decades, and a position they will hold until their dying day.
Clean air and water, a sustainable environment, or profits?
America votes profits.
"And so people like Mnuchin claim not to see anything wrong with industries whose profits depend almost entirely on hurting people and ripping people off."
This is so true for the insurance, banking, credit card, credit reporting and student loan industries. Rampant corruption and fraud is destroying this country.
1
Paul Krugman ought to run for President. I'd love to hear Trump and Krugman in a debate.
3
"Why a 17-year-old is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin."
It really doesn't take much to post up better than Mnuchin on the economy...kinda sad to have to say such.
The supply-siders have been wrong for decades and yet they can still fool the GOP faithful. The always hidden in plain sight GOP socialist agenda will continue to increase the deficit and debt. All debt bubbles eventually burst.
The environmental issues will just exacerbate the problems as the cost of repairing the environment will escalate every year. (really killing the growth)
2
We'll Greta wants us to disband our airlines, all non-polluting power generation, and more. Right, we'll get to that right after we cure cancer, and have true world peace.
3
Admirably said. “The Privileged Few vs. the “Many” has been with us since before Medieval times. Macro consequences were never as severe as Modern times, where mankind now is wrecking the planet with willful blindness to man-made climate change. Greta has a right to be outraged. Mnuchin? His watchwords: “Greed is good.”
1
Those pre-university kids around the world are listening to science predicting coastal cities under water, big chunks of territory without fresh water, species disappearing on land and sea, and they are anguished and laser focused on what needs to be done. They'll become voters and a force to be reckoned with soon.
The full belly greedy grifters can try to hide or run, or join the party, because this is the end my friends...
1
According to Open Secrets.org (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=E01&cycle=2020) Republicans in Congress receive 80% of the money thrown at Congress by the oil and gas industry. Is it any wonder that the GOP is anti alternative energy and pro fossil fuel? This is true of conservative politics throughout the world (e.g, Australia and Brazil). So WHO needs to take undergraduate courses in economics (and science)?
Greta Thunberg and other climate activists are right. Period. Climate scientists are right. Period. Conservatives need to face the reality of climate change and what it means to the future of our planet and its inhabitants. They should have the wisdom and courage of a 17 year old.
4
I am writing this from an European country where I just paid nothing for a doctor visit, houses have solar panels on their roofs, university is free and services for young and elderly citizens abound. Greed is at the base of every seemingly irrational choice the US government makes now, in all sectors, across the whole country, affecting the whole world. A few people add a buck to their billions, the rest suffers, including the many republicans who support this insane administration.
2
This is not about a debate about economic theory, it's about Trumpian Hatred, the thread/commonality that unites all Trump disciples. They need devils to elevate and armor themselves.
Re: "...Why a 17-year-old is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin..."
I admire Ms. Thunberg...
If i had children...I'd be proud of them, if they followed in her footsteps;
I've been voting, since the early - mid '70's, and...I HAVEN'T, YET encountered a Republican, who I could, say, '...I admire him / her' about!
1
Anyone serving the interests of Donald Trump is unethical and immoral. There may have been a few serving in his admin early on that thought they could influence him in a positive way, but they are long gone.
Mnuchin, like his cohort in the Clown Car Cabinet, needs no expertise in order to make pronouncements. He does so by the extension of the Divine Right of Kings conferred by King Donald. It is interesting for the rest of us to have the actual, real, true facts of the economic dynamics of pollution. But this dangerous fools are not constrained by such things.
Is the solution to the Fermi paradox found in that bit of wisdom from the young Rabbi? “The love of money is the root of all evil”. Greed is not good. It is destroying our society.
Bless you, Paul Krugman, for speaking truth to power. May you live long past your shelf life.
1
Mnuchin and his peers are failing the marshmallow test, bigtime. Unfortunately, they're failing the test for all humanity and there might not be any marshmallows for anyone. :(
How there's a tax incentive for producing such an old and well established profitable extract as oil is just the pure corruption of politics. You only incentivize, for a short time, new things you need, as free markets already do fine. The Saudis, for example, will produce oil because they make money, and that's incentive enough.
We have a broken government that favors corporations over people. A person is a fool to not be incorporated, as tax laws violate the 14th Amendment of equal protection under the law. Special interests are criminal when government supports them with tax break or taxes that are beyond the negative externality charge.
Very good! I am with Greta too.
Now, who will read it to Trump?
2
President Bernie Sanders; Vice President Paul Krugman! They would change the world for the better.
2
“And so people like Mnuchin claim not to see anything wrong with industries whose profits depend almost entirely on hurting people.”
Steve Mnuchin’s wife is basically Cruella Deville, except no corporate sponsor would have her. If our nation’s collective future is depending on the clarity of someone whose resume contains an executive producer credit for ‘Suicide Skwad’, then we might be in some trouble.
Krugman, if you're really concerned about climate change, stop peddling weak, ineffective market-based bandaids. Pro-business liberals are also part of the reason we have not initiated any meaningful solutions at the level of a Green New Deal.
1
One phrase from Intro Econ that Mnuchin forgot on the final: market externalities
2
One glaring aspect of this opinion by Krugman is the following statement:
"The International Monetary Fund makes regular estimates of worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels — subsidies that partly take the form of tax breaks and outright cash grants, but mainly involve not holding the industry accountable for the indirect costs it imposes. In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion; yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas."
Over 4.5 trillion dollars are spent on subsidies by the rest of the world, which suggests other countries aren't really doing much and perhaps Greta should be traveling to other countries.
1
Thank you -- a clear and concise discussion, persuasive and fun to read. I can see why Donald Trump feels the need to twitter-bomb Prof Krugman.
1
Good reference and comparison between Greta and Mnuchin. And very good definition about Leprechaun Economics... But both Davos and Washington are becoming daily, (news?), too much, repeating themselves ad nauseam. I believe the world is going away in another direction under the leadership of Europe followed by China, let's concentrate a little more on just the news about WTO and Iran's nuclear survival which in my views are much more relevant.
2
Let's say that taxes are 25%.
Then for every dollar of tax cut, that dollar needs to generate $4 of economic activity to tax at 25% and give a tax revenue of $1.
An economic multiplier of 4 for tax cuts does not happen.
1
What if we conceded "that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P."? Shouldn't that be compared to the decline in G.D.P, that will be caused by the collapse of civilization?
7
Paul Krugman reveals two huge challenges, both linked to ethics, for everyone in the world. One certainly is greed which tempts many people, not just the 1%. After all, it’s very difficult to give up the comforts, conveniences, and pleasures that money buys. The other is very tricky indeed and just as ubiquitous: convenience. It may be so that convenience drives the train that keeps fossil fuels and plastic saturating our environment even more than greed. The powerful know well how to use these challenges to sustain the status quo. And in order to make beneficial changes for everyone, considerations of morality and ethics would have to weigh more heavily than those of pleasure and convenience. Tough sell.
3
Krugman is, of course, right about this, and it looks like the field of economics has come a ways in understanding the environmental challenge. It had been that the concept of externalities is mentioned briefly in the beginning of 101, then ignored. It's actually hugely important, as he mostly shows here.
Going further on the "take an economics course" idea in another way, though, it's important that: (a) the field keep evolving; (b) it is offered as a tool, and not in a doctrinaire way, insisting on a simplistic "Just tax it" solution; (c) learns from other fields, such as the ethics he mentions, particularly ecology, as well as philosophy, psychology, and political science; and (d) if professors are not teaching it this way than students should correct them.
We need economists on this issue, as its perspective and concepts are valuable and would be missed if not present or not heard. But it's much better if they are willing to constructively add their perspective to others, challenge their own bedrock principles where necessary, and help us figure out how to deal with the biggest challenge to Greta's generation.
Thanks, Not sure that most people know of the Republicans constantly trying to defund Amtrak in this country. Many people would I believe use passenger service if was more available and had more funding to upgrade the trains themselves. We have only one passenger train going through Wisconsin which goes once a day each direction though the state, the Empire Builder. Coming from the west coast starting in Washington state by the time it gets to Wisconsin on the way to Chicago it is usually running hours late making it difficult to make any connections. It doesn't even go through our capital Madison. The government subsidizes the airlines and roads but the republicans would like to defund Amtrak where there are 20,000 workers. Defunding Amtrak would make Amtrak fail in most parts of the country. Yes the East coast corridors passenger trains would survive but not most of the other parts of the country. When we ride the rails the trains are full and many times totally booked despite the difficultly Amtrak faces every day. The workers on the train are hard working and dedicated and quite wonderful. Checking out a possibly trip to Portugal in the future I noticed there are 40 passenger trains a day between Lisbon and Porto. We can do better here. We are so glad to have gotten rid a few nasty Republicans lately in our state, Paul Ryan and governor, Walker. Hopefully with the next election we can move forward again to help the climate and the state of passenger rail .
5
Republicans should have listened to George H.W. Bush. He was absolutely correct when he called supply-side economics by its proper name - voodoo economics.
2
Capitalism, the 'magic of free markets' doesn't price externalities well. Redwood lumber is not priced based on the replacement cost of the redwood, as long as 'old growth' trees still exist. So capitalism encourages cutting them all down.
Capitalism encourages the chemical factory to dump it's wastes into the river, if they can. Absent "burdensome regulation", they can. The people downstream getting their drinking water from that river can just fend for themselves - to capitalism, water filtering, and bottled water are 'business opportunities', not indictments of wanton polluters.
Mnuchin and his cronies will promote fossil fuels, and ignore the impact of climate change driven by the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as long as they can profit by it. The costs of surviving the storms, mitigating the sea level rise, and navigating the geopolitical complications of droughts, water shortages, and climate-driven population movements will all be transferred to 'the commons'. Mnuchin and his fossil fuel backers will reap their profits, and then leave all the future costs to the future.
There is a solution to this. Vote them -all- out. Quit focusing on this quarter's profits and ignoring the future, and invest with companies that take the same longer perspective. If a teenage girl can understand this, surely the American voter can... can't they?
8
I drive a Prius and my other vehicle, a motorcycle, gets 44 miles to the gallon. When I drive in my western City I am dwarfed by 4 x 4 crew cab pickups and 4 x 4 SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon in the CITY. It’s a city people - not Wranglers High Country ranch set back in a lonely valley!
Infringing on the metro area are fracking rigs and operations releasing significant amounts of methane into the air, which could be controlled by gas and oil companies, but they just don’t seem to want to control that super green house gas voluntarily.
It is little wonder that Americans with a conservative Trumpian bent along with oil related corporations vote for Trump and the Republicans. If the government demanded a carbon tax per vehicle emission or methane release tax it would be like, like, well, like instituting common sense gun legislation.
7
"subsidies that partly take the form of tax breaks and outright cash grants, but mainly involve not holding the industry accountable for the indirect costs it imposes"
This is not real money. This is having someone like Greta say that you owe to Gaia a billion, and then adding it up.
The 600 billion in imagined US subsidies for fossil fuels are however overcompensated by the benefits of $1 million/person = $300 trillion in the US, from keeping people alive and working.
Really, you would expect better from an economist than reporting made up subsidy figures...
5
@novoad: What a surprise. Someone who parrots the Russian party line consistently also proselytizes against defeating climate change. When the Russian permafrost melts, you will be surprised how quickly climate change hurts you too.
1
I seriously doubt that courses in economics would be of any use to Mnuchin. These guys, Mnuchin, trump, Pompeo, et al., are not capable of learning anything -- simply because they already know everything. Any attempt to point out blatant errors in their statements infuriates them but is otherwise ignored.
Pompeo's treatment of NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly is a case in point: after asking her to point to Ukraine on an unlabeled map (which she did), he sent out a snarky note, ending with, "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine." If, as speculated, he meant Belarus rather than Bangladesh, it shows the HE couldn't find Ukraine on an unlabeled map even after it was pointed out. And he certainly didn't know the name of the next country over.
2
Munchkin is just Trump's political tool in his re-election campaign. He will pimp the economy and deny the deficit until the election - just as Trump declared at Davos the US economy is the best ever when the rate of change in GDP declined recently.
It is all about giving voters the false impression that the economy is on the upswing.
1
If Greta is to study economics in college, I suggest Mnuchin be required to get a combined graduate degree in ethics, ecology, thermodynamics, and natural resource conservation.
3
"The bigger issue, however, is sheer greed."
How very true! But every chance you get, you try to undermine Bernie Sanders.
2
I'm with Greta.
307
@CitizenTM Greta's economics do not match what Krugman says. She's not for a tax on negative externalities; she wants them shutdown. She's not for a gradual transition to green tech, but wants it now. She thinks flying in a plane is bad and shouldn't take place. She thinks people should all stop eating meat. Like the Green New Deal, they are not using economics and the powerful forces of free markets to provide solutions, they want pure authoritarianism of their religious faith.
4
@David Greta is probably right. At least more right than the oligarchs.
20
@CitizenTM Me too!
4
Didn't Jimmy Carter ask people to put on a sweater and turn the heat down a little, decades ago? And so many hated him for it. He was far ahead of his time. No doubt the greedy people running energy companies bear the brunt of the blame, but we do all share a little at the same time.
3
Why do the trumpistas reflexively support fossil fuels?
Consider that Russia’s major export is oil and natural gas and the answer is obvious.
2
We have to fight for the future of our planet. It' s also the future of our children. At this point in time it looks like we are watching live trailers of a huge disaster. Signs are everywhere, California, Australia, Houston, the Amazon jungle, to mention just a few examples, in addition to the fact that every year is hotter. This is not 1968 when many of us were thinking that at the end of the 20th century, we would be able to travel at the speed of light, to other planets and save our lives from human or nature disasters. No, Mars is still empty. The moon' s artificial atmosphere is not there yet. But the deniers of children's future act as saying "OK my boys lets go for a ride to Saturn, and some day we will come back to visit the family, at the cemetery". Wow. Good thinking? No way.
1
Billions of dollars in free money going to those who already have all the money is the republican party's definition of a free market,
Millions of dollars going to help fellow citizens with groceries, rent, and health care is their version of communism.
What I would like to see are the numbers WE spend for our military, especially our Navy, to keep the sea lanes safe for the transport of these fossil fuels. How much of the trillions of dollars spent fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq was related to keeping our (and our European allies) as the top dogs in the fossil fuel world.
If we added the taxes we pay for military involvement in the safe transport and care and feeding of oil fields we would probably find that a gallon of gasoline costs US $10 - $20 when it is finally pumped into our cars.
This cannot go on if we expect to leave our children a habitable planet.
4
I am and am not stunned that there has not been a single-issue candidate. Not stunned, because we have refused, and are refusing, to face the new reality we have created. Stunned, because the new reality we have created is scary, and getting scarier by the minute.
Changes to the world’s climate, caused by global warming, render every other issue moot. Taxes don’t matter if the changes that are already happening are not addressed, yesterday.
2
"asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth."
Absolutely wrong. I can point to any number of models and economists such as DICE and William Nordhaus with vastly more expertise in this than Paul Krugman to back this up.
2
Greta Thunberg, the autistic 16 year old environmental activist from Sweden was the smartest person in the room in Davos. Mnuchin couldn't carry her water. None of them could.
This amazing young lady, more articulate and eloquent in English than anyone in Trump's orbit, looks like a pre-teen yet, she sounds like a PhD scientist of long standing well beyond her years.
As a 75 year old tree hugger with deep roots in Sweden (on my dad's side), I am deeply proud of Ms. Thunberg as a fighter for the environment, as well as for representing my Swedish DNA.
10
The true measure of Trump's tax malfeasance is known another 5 trillion in debt by 2024. The encouragement of the rich to avoid taxes fits right with Trump's scam hardened record. The Guardian had an article recently documenting how the oil industry has tried to deny climate change. Big Oil has used their power to keep any efforts being taken to combat climate change. The science has been there since the 80s. Now we have Australia to contemplate. A place where a die hard climate science denier leads the country.
3
To solve a problem one has to reduce it to its essentials. That means eliminating all bias.
Mr. Krugman inspires the emotional reactions we've come to expect, and perhaps Greta is the embodiment of most of what he stands for. Others here are ready for a depopulation campaign...
Greed is making a commodity of atmospheric carbon for Internationalists to sell and make Trillions.
Stop the rent seeking, and invest in technological solutions.
Shame on your Paul Krugman in taking on the "Mnooch." Its like Muhamad Ali of Economics taking on a low intellect high school boxer in a cage fight. The result is well know and we only hope for mercy on the part of the expert fighter.
However, let us all pray that the economy blunders along till the end of the Trumpian assault on it. We don't want to be the last person standing when the music stops in a game of musical chairs...meanwhile keep your savings under a mattress.
1
Given that “we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth” why shouldn’t we apply this fact to the world’s important monetary system and have even more robust growth?
One possible way of doing this by introducing a monetary carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person that would not only lead to a balance of payments system that accounts for both financial and ecological debts and credits but to a global governance system that is based upon cooperation in its battle against the looming climate catastrophe. The commercial, intellectual, ecological and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are seminally presented in Verhagen 2012"The Tierra Solution: Resolving the Climate Crisis through Monetary Transformation" (www.timun.net).
Stated an outstanding economics author and climate activist about this Tierra money system approach: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
2
Thanks for that thoughtful commnetary Mr. Krugman, observations that I anticipated you would make about the shallow Mnuchin. But grifting is the heart and soul of capitalism. The essentials of the system are the interconnected relationships between fossil fuels, automobiles and real estate industries. They compulsively feed and fuel one another in total obliviousness to the destruction they are causing to the biosphere. Life demands the end of the profit motive and the establishment of production for use not profit. Greta is certainly on the right track and so are you.
4
...and Pence is VEEP but can't seem to clean up his family's own gas stations.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-pence-family-gas-stations-indiana-20180713-story.html
2
Dr. Krugman,
There isn't anything I would like to see more than a essay from you on the ethics of personal investing. Because every article like this that calls into question things like subsidies and hidden accounting also includes a reference to it's investors, who are just regular people blindly buying something they know nothing about. I've heard people bragging that they 'earned' 30% on their portfolios this year thanks to Trump's off-the-rails deregulation policies. Until people start admitting that we are all complicit in these schemes I don't see how we could ever hope to stop this train.
2
Changing to renewable energy would of course drive down GDP. The sun shines for free, after all, and hence the earnings of the oil barons - part of GDP - would decrease. Cry me a river!
1
I will take Krugman seriously when the Times eliminates its print edition, stops distributing the paper in trucks and planes, etc etc.
3
And, I might add, move it’s editorial offices to a locale where the majority or energy production is wind or solar.
1
Thank you for continuing to point out the economics behind climate change denial. I live in California where climate change is burning down thousands out houses and hundreds of thousands of acres of forests. We know climate change is real, and we are trying to do something about it, fighting the Trump administration every step of the way. Our whole future and the future of the planet hinges on electing sane, responsible leaders who will face the reality that Greta is already facing.
4
Mr. Krugman,
The world can decarbonize if some scientific advances take place and or if it chooses to go nuclear until those advances take place. Allow me to explain. We cannot at present, store utility grade quantities of power except as small demonstration projects. That means that Solar and Wind power generation requires either nuclear or carbon based power at night or on overcast still days, the kind that occur regularly during winter. Nuclear power is non-carbon, but at least in the US, we have no storage for the long lived and dangerous spent fuel. That leaves the spent fuel sitting at the power stations, many in or near major cities.
Claims of 100% renewable power generation are mostly illusions. In California for instance there are claims of 100% renewable power. The way they achieve this is to produce power during the day with solar and wind. At night they still need power from natural gas power plants, but since the power they produce during the day exceeds the power they buy at night, they claim 100% renewable power!!! Isn't creative accounting wonderful??!! BTW, a teeny detail, because we can't store power, at times California has to pay, other states to take our power.
Power economics is complex. Myself I would rather spend the $ Billions Trump is going to spend towards his wall on research to make solar and wind reliable power sources.
3
@Bruce1253
Batteries are improving by leaps and bounds. So we may have that issue under control in a few more years.
@wanderer
I hope you are correct. In the meantime laws that demand 100% renewable power by a certain date are misguided at best or foolish at worst.
Congratulations, Mr. Krugman, and thank you. This is one of your most striking and best-argued columns, and I've read most of them. Please keep speaking the truth!
3
Thanks excellent as always and consider this reasoning when evaluating subsidies on electric cars. They do go to people who are well off. Those cars will be available in only a few years to people who aren't as well off when the owner takes advantage of the new and better models produced as a result of the boost the industry got for the subsisted purchase. And more new models will be available at lower prices.
The only long-term solution is to use natural resources at an equal or slower rate than that of resource replacement. This will require population decrease (or at a minimum not increase) and a realization that our natural resources, including water, clean air, and permeable land, are drastically undervalued currently.
Middle-class or wealthy families often think they can "afford" 3 to 6 kids, but they are wrong. The Earth cannot afford for families to have that many kids. It is utterly irresponsible and a neglect of our stewardship of the Earth to not encourage voluntary birth control.
The American system of valuing property at the 'highest and best' use with such use being determined purely based on financial calculations totally misappropriates natural resources that our future generations will need simply to live.
One question to close: Why do Republicans love Trump and hate our environment? I mean that as a serious, not rhetorical, question.
@TDD I do not normally comment on my own comments, but felt the need to cite David Quammen's opinion piece today in the NYT, which hits at many of the issues I note above.
Excellent commentary about obtuse Mnuchin, a pompous "economist" (Uh!?) who forgot to report what, 100 milllion dollars, for tax purposes? He ought to be deeply ashamed for insulting Greta, a superbly knowledgeable woman, whose passion to make us aware of the current crisis, Climate Change, is revolutionizing our lazy comportment towards a 'deadly' status quo...and where an increase in frequency and severity of natural disasters is already biting us in our rear end...and beyond. Both Trump and Mnuchin, by denying the science of Climate Change, and trying to belittle Greta, make them despicable specimens of the human species, and highly dangerous to our health. What a mafia we bought ourselves, a clear and present danger to Earth's survival. Their hopefully imminent ouster would be applauded wholeheartily.
2
In 2012, Obama proposed to end all direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies. His 2015 fiscal year budget eliminated them altogether.
Even though we're only talking about $4 billion here, and not the $649 billion that Dr. Krugman is mentioning, the GOP opposed it...
2
Very insightful, as always.
However, the shifting of true costs of a carbon lifestyle can't be entirely the fault of the fossil fuel companies. We are all guilty of ignoring the real future health and environmental costs of our modern society's habits. $2.79 a gallon for gas, it should cost $50/gal; or, book a heavy carbon footprint coast to coast airline trip for $400? Even extend this principle to the true cost of that plastic water bottle, there should be a $10 clean-up tax added to the purchase price of every single bottle. We've all ignored the future damage our actions take for far too long. (And, note, I'm not trying to leave myself out of the blame, as I'll certainly jump in my car and drive to work this morning.)
222
@specs
I have dramatically reduced my carbon footprint over the last three years, though I confess to have been pretty bad before (50K - 100K miles per year flown). My life quality has not shrunk one bit from switching to the use of public transport, moving towards an easy public commute, living in a well insulated apartment building that is about 100 years old, flying 1/10 of how much I flown before, eating vegetarian, avoiding plastic like the plague and so forth. Maybe I could reduce the use of electricity for all the electronics. Anyhow, my only point is - while I cannot say my little thing is enough, I can say it is not difficult and not unpleasant.
37
@specs
Fact is, if you would massively increase taxes the way you're proposing here, the wealthiest would still continue to massively pollute, whereas the other 99% would lose their jobs, would no longer be able to send their kids to college, etc.
That's why no democratically elected government will ever be able to solve the problem in this way.
What we need is for the government to invest in real solutions.
Increase taxes on the wealthiest, invest massively in research and development of clean technologies, and pass bills that make most forms of pollution (plastic water bottle, plastic packaging, fossil fuel energy, ... ) gradually illegal.
Some Western government, and some state governments at home, already launched this process - successfully.
Now, we need it on a federal level too.
And whether it's Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, no matter what Democratic candidate WILL continue what Obama successfully started on this issue.
So even for this reason alone already, staying home or voting for the GOP in November is the worst possible thing to do.
38
@specs Getting rid of the huge tax subsidies and instituting a broadly target carbon tax is a more efficient way to stimulate change than trying to narrowly target huge numbers of individual uses. More fair too, and less likely to be corrupted.
25
A young woman diagnosed with Asperger syndrome must endure lectures from a man who suffers from an autistic political and economic philosophy: libertarianism and neoclassical economics.
13
@Matt : "... A man..." ?
Greta gets nasty comments from the whole right wing, adults who have nothing better to do than blast things about a kid, nothing about the policies, just horrible personal stuff against Greta and her family.
“Given all this, however, why are people like Mnuchin and his boss Trump so adamantly pro-fossil fuel and anti-environmentalist?”
Dude, seriously? Paraphrasing Carville, It’s about the campaign contributions, stupid!
14
Trump and his corporate cabal continue to do everything possible to increase toxic pollution and exacerbate the climate catastrophe. Thunberg is right and, like her, responsible leadership listens to the science rather than repressing and cursing it in fealty to powerful profiteers.
Having any chance of surviving this challenge requires u to have leadership that will stand against powerful corporate interests. We know who that is and who it isn't.
9
This administration has created a circular firing squad on climate change: we cannot address fossil fuel emissions because to do so would disadvantage us in trade against other nations that would continue to use cheaper fossil fuels, and we can’t enter into international agreements (e.g., the Paris accord) to curb such use because we must put America first and base our policy decisions on our narrow, short-term self-interest.
Until a significant majority of Americans can be convinced that “we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth,” we will not address this issue, and good luck convincing a significant majority of Americans when many more Americans get their primary source of information from the Murdoch Empire rather than the NY Times.
20
@IMS We have forgotten how to use our most powerful weapon: trade.
In the 20th century, the EU and America kept the autocrats in check through trade opening and sanctions.
If, together with the EU, we used trade sanctions to enforce climate change efforts, we could achieve results quickly.
2
Why do the middle and working classes of the Midwest and South think that Trump is going to help them? When he is showing no signs of doing so, except maybe by borrowing a $trillion per year in their name and giving them only a little of it, while giving the rich folks most of it. That does not seem right.
14
Greta may be young. She may lack education. And she probably hasn't all the answers (I don't think she claims it either). But she has the type of common sense that too many in the Trump administration, including Mnuchin, are sorely lacking.
I particularly enjoy a Nobel laureate like Paul Krugman cut this self-important "expert in economics" rightly down to size.
Now, please America, can we please have the adults back in power this year? And "adults" here isn't about age.
13
"conservatives don’t want to admit that government action is ever justified." I'm pretty sure that every conservative used a toilet today. As required by government mandate. And paid for by taxes. For 160 years. To reduce the danger to our 'commons' for a liquid-waste pollution externality that will only remain 'external' for so long, before it comes back in the form of cholera and other water-borne diseases.
The 'piehole' of a conservative may not want to admit that taking 'common action' against a threat to our 'public commons' is ever necessary. But the other end of his alimentary canal admits as much on the daily. So, who is being honest?
5
Sneering is what Mnuchin does best as it is good cover for his lack of knowledge about basic economics. Like Trump, he wasn't interested in taking Econ 101.
10
It is astonishingly predictable that Mnuchin continues to supported outdated, dying, harmful industries in service to his plutocratic overlords. Horseless carriages used to be demonized, too. But new and better industries always revitalize the economies that wholeheartedly and enthusiastically adopt them.
Buggy whips, anyone?
7
It would be so refreshing if greed didn't carry the day. But, as always, it's aided by those that prosper. The GOP and all its minions.
We all suffer at their hands. Economic theory does not love subsidies. Free markets don't love subsidies. Yet Wall Street, while talking all Adam Smith, LOVES subsidies.
It is deplorable to watch the earth suffer while people line their pockets with oil money. The GOP is deplorable because they have turned logic and thought upside down to get richer. They have abandoned their mission for money and power. Truly deplorable.
153
@R A Go bucks They line their money with the cash you and your fellow humans give them willingly for the benefit they derive.
But you are right that subsidies are a root cause of economic troubles against free market innovation and the root source are corrupt politicians. You have to take power from government to win, not expect to give them more power and have them just act better per your standards. Wanting money is natural, so you don't give them the ability to waste yours for their benefit.
2
@R A Go bucks Sorry RAGo - the GOP did not abandon their mission for money and power - that was their mission. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and the country's worst nightmares.
3
@R A Go bucks
"...greed..."
Is it greed to want jobs for the 11 million discouraged workers degenerating into drug addicts at home?
Is it greed to want jobs for the 600,000 prison and jail inmates who will be released this year?
Is it greed to want better jobs for the 17 million people who lead unsatisfactory work lives and want something better?
Is it greed to want jobs for the ten million college students piling up debt and drifting through classes without any evidence of cognitive or skill gains?
Is it greed to want jobs for the 200 million illegal immigrants planning to move to the U.S.?
You need a new moral compass.
Look in the mirror. Perhaps it is you expressing your greed for some of the $800 billion a year in gasoline and electricity taxes you fraudulently call "carbon" taxes.
3
I think Paul hit it out of the park this time:
"One can only surmise that Mnuchin slept through his undergraduate economics classes. Otherwise he would know that every, and I mean every, major Econ 101 textbook argues for government regulation or taxation of activities that pollute the environment, because otherwise neither producers nor consumers have an incentive to take the damage inflicted by this pollution into account."
Failure is Trump's hallmark in everything he attempts and everyone he appoints. After all Trump's credentials as expert at failure was well established before he was elected. 6 bankruptcies is more than the total number of bankruptcies of the previous 44. No previous president who got in economic trouble stiffed the lenders. these honorable men eventually paid up every last penny. No shred of honor in Trump just pure unadulterated disgrace.
21
@Eli Do you drive a car? Do you heat and air condition your house? Do you fly? Perhaps you are a rich guy (like Bloomberg and Steyer) who don't care if the price of oil, gas and electricity doubles or triples. Others care a lot.
1
@Erik
Ever hear of Solar? How about Wind ? Geothermal ? or the energy in ocean waves?
Apologists for the fossil fuel polluters don't care about these. They cut into their profits while promoting health and happiness for the people of the earth.
@Getreal No sun, no solar power. No wind, no wind power. Geothermal is a joke, and ocean waves are totally speculative.
And another course in critical thinking.
1
tax cuts do pay for people like mnuchin
Climate change is a science that involves multiple disciplines.
From astronomy to biology to chemistry to geology to mathematics to meteorology to oceanography to paleontology to physics and all of their subdisplines.
Economics is not a science. And economists are not scientists.
There are too many variables and unknowns to craft the double-blind experimental controlled tests that provide predictable and repeatable results that are the essence of science.
Economics is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, sectarian, education, history, education, politics and arithmetic.
There is no Nobel Prize in Economics Science..There is the Swedish National Bank Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
Calling 17 year old Greta Thunberg a better economist than Steve Mnuchin is not relevant to anything that matfers to dealung with climate change. Greta Thunberg is a more mature and moral and informed human being than Mnuchin and his boss Donald Trump and Trump's spawn. But then who isn't?
Still putting a minor on the autism spectrum forward as the international spokesperson for climate change represents a form of child abuse and exploitation by her parents, mass media, governments, agencies with jurisdiction and corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare kings and queens.
5
Enforcing or defending or protecting normalcy seems troublesome to me, too. What is normal anyway? I didn’t assume that you didn’t have any experience with this issue. Just airing my personal thoughts as someone who might understand. What it really comes down to is this—if Greta didn’t want to speak in public she wouldn’t do it. I don’t do anything I don’t want to do. I am incredibly, almost impossibly stubborn that way. This is what she wants.
1
The child abuse is the rest of us who are not acting on the clear signals about climate change/global warming, toxic waste, and overconsumption. You clearly know little or nothing of her story. Nobody is exploiting her.
2
The fantastic amounts of money at stake makes all of this specious, nonsensical denial of the dangers of fossil fuels to our planet and to our species at least understandable. The richest man in the world, Putin, is stashing billions from the only viable export Russia has: oil/gas. The world is a cartel of fossil fuel barons. Hell, the CEO of the biggest of them, ExxonMobil, became the Secretary of State (until he too angered Dear Leader). Time slips away as the only hope is at the ballot box.
Greta Thunberg will be at the prime of her life and the height of her abilities in thirty years and the rest of these jokers will be dust in a box.
2
Paul, when you ask, “ Why a 17-year-old is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin“ (and the UHNWIs “Ruling Elite” < 0.01%ers) — the answer is obvious:
Because Greta understands that the climate destruction of ‘our’ world is the biggest and clearest example in the world of those grifters producing their massive faux-profits almost entirely by dumping the largest and massive load of ‘Negative Externality Costs’ in the history of the world on ‘we the citizens of our world’.
Hiding & Dumping ‘Negative Externality Costs’ on our world to produce ‘front loaded’ faux profits makes Charles Ponzi’s scheme looking like a piker — and any dummy/insane Emperor, like Emperor Trump (who was installed as puppet for the Disguised Global Crony Capitalist Empire UHNWIs).
1
you need to add a few more "america's" and "american" to this piece since america is far and away the greatest culprit in the burning of planet earth. earth won't survive with america on it.
@cse, Huh? Ever hear of China, India, Russia and Brazil? We could be "green" tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent.
1
Hi Dr. K! To me the biggest problem with climate change is the nonlinearity of complex systems. That we have finally been able to emit sufficient levels of CO2 and methane to actually “move the needle” on global climate is what I worry about, especially given the recent evidence that the rate of change may be beginning to accelerate. In short - as has happened with economic modelling, I am sure future generations of climate scientists will analyze what we are doing wrong, shake their heads and think: “how could they have been so stupid?”
1
I don't regard Mnuchin as a competent economist. That said, I don't believe Greta Thunberg represents the best voice to speak about global warming. She seems to believe that global warming is a simple moral issue, in which we simply need to do the "right thing."
Yes, global warming threatens the human race with extinction over the next several hundred years. It is a long range problem and demands a long range solution.
And shifting from fossil fuels is a big part of the problem. But it isn't the only consideration.
The reason for global warming is not the development of the internal combustion engine, but population growth. This problem was pointed out by Thomas Malthus in 1798 when world population was less that a billion and again in 1968 when Paul Ehrlich published "the Population Bomb," when world population was about 3.5 billion.
Population has more than doubled since 1968.
There is no viable solution to global warming without also tackling the overpopulation problem.
An increasing population increases the demand for energy which increases use of fossil fuels, even as we try to develop solar and wind energy.
Indeed, some global warming is already baked into the cake. World temperatures will increase some no matter what we do. That will change the climate, particularly of the regions of planet earth near the equator.
That will DECREASE carrying capacity of planet earth.
We will pay dearly for neglecting the warning that we needed to use birth control.
2
I would really be interested in how much the oil&gas lobby spends in DC each year and who the recipients are. Perhaps this could be another topic for Mr. Krugman to write about.
2
“ But the grifters — which overwhelmingly means corporations and investors,”
Mr. Krugman forgot to add ‘and Republican Senators’ to the above statement.
@David, Oh but the Democrats in the Senate are OK? How do you think each became a millionaire?
1
Try to digest this: the Secretary of State, a rapture believer, thinks the earth is 3000 years old. What does that tell you about the general intelligence of the entire administration?
That old adage, a fish stinks from the head is apropos. But the complete lack of intelligence at the head precipitates to the entire administration and then to the people.
1
Well said, Paul!
1
Once again a column by Paul Krugman justifies a subscription to the NY Times. If only we had more people with top-notch expertise in their fields who could write this well and this passionately for a general readership on topics this vital to our future.
1
When we extract ores and other materials from the earth, in most respects they can be recovered, recycled and reused. When we burn fossil fuels they are gone, except for toxic residue which raises havoc with the environment. Beyond that, fossil fuels can be used as raw material to create a wide range of products. We often here about reserves of 150, 300 years or more of coal, gas and oil. That may be an eternity in one lifetime but not in the longevity of future generations. What gives us the right to consume it all now, destroy the planet in the process, and leave a legacy of our greed for future generations? Are we being short sighted or what? Paul is correct, it is Steve Mnuchin who needs an education.
Hooray for Paul Krugman! And Greta!
thank you does anyone believe mankind can survive climate change? This story shows how so many of our leaders are too greedy and ignorant to lead us out of he coming disaster.
All Greta does is tell us to listen to our scientists and this drives the right nuts.
1
There are people who focus on the greater good, and at the other end of the spectrum, those who constantly ask: "what's in it for me?"
I know quite a few folks who vote strictly on the latter. It's totally selfish and scorched earth thinking.
Too bad we couldn't take all those fossil fuel subsidies and channel them to clean energy research/subsidies. Instead of drilling oil, we could employ Joe Worker in Solar Panel construction.
"In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion; yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas."
Calculator time folks!
That's 1966.67---- dollars for every human in our nation per year.
A journalist and a teenage activist would be far more competent than Mnuchin, Pompeo, Trump or anyone else in the White House.
“On one side, a number of experts argue that standard models underestimate the risks of climate change, both because they don’t account for its disruptive effects and because they don’t put enough weight on the possibility of total catastrophe.”
The economic cost of trying to ...mitigate the costs of a climate out of control... are staggering. But that’s the least of it.
When the planet starts loosing ecosystems and species, that’s the real cost. Once species and ecosystems start to become disrupted and disappear, we’ll find out just how connected everything is.
Hopefully Republicans start finding out sooner rather than later. Only because it will be cheaper.
But maybe that’s how we learn, when things are horrendously expensive.
1
I don't doubt Paul Krugman's statement that "every, major Econ 101 textbook argues for government regulation or taxation of activities that pollute the environment".
The economist Arthur Pigou conceived in the 20th century of Pigouvian taxes on negative externalities, leading to carbon taxes.
Yet, when we examine the history of government, this prescription, very popular among economists, should be questioned on ethical grounds. History shows the view of government as a source of negative externalities, including the bombing of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the killing of Jews in Auschwitz.
The economists might be working with a different conception of government than that of the historians, leading to their prescriptions. Or perhaps they have more moral tolerance for government's negative externalities than is ethically correct.
Similar to statements such as, "assume perfect knowledge", looking where that leads, before rejecting that assumption, they may be assuming "good government", but don't get rid of that assumption, failing to take the knowledge of historians into account.
If, as I suspect, they use an unrealistic view of government, this may be due to divisions and specialization in academia in different departments, resulting in ethically questionable doctrines.
2
Dr. K is on fire!! Thank you for giving Mnuchin and Pompeo the rip they so richly deserve. Not to mention “rich and fatuous”.
Bravo, Mr. Krugman. Eloquent, irrefutable, and cogent.
Surprising to see that even Mr. Krugman believes and promotes 'infinite growth' and he also believes in the power of technology to enable that. Let's leave aside the fact that technology is just short term practical solutions to long term problems we face and the fact that it doesn't work or does create even bigger problems over the long term - e.g. internal combustion, industrial agriculture, and focus on the issue at hand for the moment.
I am not sure if he is also a proponent of singularity and immortal cyber beings consuming earth's resources in an infinite loop to make our meager existence somehwat bearable with instant gratification, but the issue we are facing today is not only about replacing carbon based economy with an alternative energy source. At least not if we are interested in a solution that is really long term extending over many generations.
The issue here is about completely changing our lifestyles and re-learning to live in complete balance and harmony with our nature.
We might manage to integrate solar and wind in such a way to replace all current carbon based energy resources and continue with our all consuming life styles as if nothing happened for another few more decades. And granted, they are better than burning the planet, but I am afraid we will again realize that by relying on huge solar & wind farms for our insatiable demands, we have disrupted the Earth's delicate balance in some other way that would need addressing urgently yet again.
2
And then there's that small question of 9/11 and everything that's happened since, Putin, Gazprom, and Wall Street not-withstanding. Pretty wild to see Mr. Krugman giving us a peak behind the curtain and telling it straight. Now where is the deep dive with a plan to once and for all release the iron grip of this deep grift? Taxing polluters is a start, but imagine if everything that relies on the fossil fuel paradigm that moves power to the hands of the few suddenly gets shaken up that leads to what comes next? We're 20 years late but is there a ray of hope beaming through? If Bernie gets the nomination and winds up burying Trump, maybe?
Reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels does not have to hurt GDP or economic growth in a substantial manner.
However, outright eliminating all fossils fuels without viable alternatives--there is a lot more to fossil fuel use than simply transportation--will have substantial negative impacts and could even provoke a backlash against climate policies.
Prove that without using api data
Everybody have to do its share to make a sustainable future. But it must be directed by governments. Hope that #46 rejoins the Paris climate agreeemnet.
1
Wow, Professor Krugman! Thank you for telling it like it is!
A man suffers a massive heart attack but survives. A doctor tells him; you must exercise, eat less and more healthy food, quit smoking and cut down on alcohol. The man does none of these things.
His 17-year old daughter tells him; daddy you must listen to your doctor and follow his advice. I want you to live.
Steve Mnuchin says to the man; don´t listen to her, she only 17, she´s not a doctor and she looks a bit funny. Continue as before, you´ll be fine.
Steve Mnuchins attitude is absurd.
8
I fully agree with the article. What bothers me is that it is unlikely that Greta speaks and acts for herself. Rather, she is a puppet used by her journalist father who has finally found his claim to fame. He, and his advisors, are behind every action she takes. It is he who is preening...
1
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
2
Remenber Mnuchin famously said the tax
cuts will pay for themselves This is of course
a whopper with extra cheese
2
I think I need an investment fund that shorts Planet Earth and invests in the long term, like buying "ocean front" property on the coast that's currently 20 feet above sea level, future farmland on tundra and new coffee growing regions (this one's actually a real thing - check into Starbucks). Mnuchin isn't necessarily stupid, but he does know that the wealthy will be just fine in the future world. He and those like him want to preserve and encourage the world oligarchies. Ms. Thunberg is harder to politicize so she's a real threat.
137
@JP "My advice to investors - short Planet Earth securities" - sounds like from fantastic movie about the future.
1
@JP Mnuchin and other oligarchic types are marked by hubris coupled with idiocy if they really think they "will be just fine in the future world." According to the United Nations, the number of migrants is now growing faster than the world population as a whole, and this will only grow worse, of course. What, exactly, will the wealthy in their little villas do when people fleeing heat, famine and drought leave their homelands en masse to "the future farmland on tundra," "the ocean front property that's currently 20 feet above sea level", or "the new coffee growing regions"? Even armed guards with instructions to shoot to kill won't be able to protect them from millions of desperate people crashing their gates.
6
@JP Yes I just finished An Uninhabitable Earth and Yes the wealthy will be fine. You know who else, China and Russia too bc China is building infrastructure to carry food and water a long way and Russia is at the perfect long/latitude and has not used up their natural resources. USA is so under prepared.
4
You can't teach a man right and wrong when his paycheck--present, future, and large--depends on doing what is wrong.
Republican paychecks depend on doing what is morally, ethically, and factually wrong.
Plain and simple.
7
Ha! I'll take a geography quiz against Mike Pompeo any day of the week. That guy couldn't find his way out of a paper bag.
2
Whats better? More Americans with jobs and the responsibility for people with jobs caring about the environment or governments overlooking, regulating and being effective in protecting the environment. Climate change of today is centuries of human growth and failure of humanity to curb population growth and irresponsible use of excessive fossil fuel using vehicles. I would welcome practical solutions not unrealistic knee jerk solutions.
3
I've read many columns from Prof Krugman since before the Iraq war. This one may be the most important yet.
3
Fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. in 2017: $648 billion. Global subsidies for renewable energy: $81 billion. We are choosing to pay a system to kill us rather than to save us.
5
"The bigger issue, however, is sheer greed."
This.
It sums up the article by Mr. Krugman perfectly. As long as greed and corruption rule the debate on climate change, nothing will change. Ms Thunberg doesn't just fight for climate, she fights the corruption of the oil industry that has infiltrated all level over government, including President Trimp and his lackeys like Mnuchin.
3
Unbridled human greed is truly the root of all evil. Which is why a 17-year-old girl from Sweden sees more clearly than the US Secretary of the Treasury. Greta Thunberg is simply not as greedy as Steven Mnuchin, and she never will be.
1
Thanks for this great column, Mr. Krugman! You nailed it! The whole Trump Administration is infused with the same sort of greed-inspired ignorance displayed by Mnuchin. Greta represents the economy of life. Mnuchin the economy of human extinction.
1
The Mnuchins of the world - and that pretty much includes the Republican Party - know full well what is coming. But they still have this idea that with enough money, they and their offspring will be fine. So, "if I can just accumulate enough money now - maybe buy a plot in new Zealand - me and my kids will be fine. The suckers I'm taking money from now will be a moot point anyway."
3
And the biggest grifter of them all is Donald Trump, whose influence has no doubt been bought and paid for by the oil and gas industry, many times over. Trump is not the people's president, he is the president of big money.
There’s an adage, “Like kids in a candy shop.” With candy all over their faces, Republicans, grabbing and gorging and denying with impunity. Weirdly, the “adult” in the room is Greta, a teenager.
It’s our candy shop.
1
Please find a way to put Paul Krugman's article, "Greta versus the Greedy Grifters" into Face Book, several times. We need action, a movement, to control climate change.
Lee
The worse thing ever to happen to the climate change debate is that Al Gore* championed it. By doing so he unfortunately cemented it as a partisan issue where denying the science became part of conservative ideology and a purity test for conservative politicians.
Now if you identify as right wing you HAVE to believe that climate change is a hoax, or a cult or whatever, you just can't acknowledge that it's real and/or a threat.
And in private conservative politicians who aren't religious nuts will take action, there have been bipartisan bills on climate action that have been passed quietly - so the rubes wouldn't find out that their culture warrior colluded with the enemy and believes in facts.
In fact the Australian conservative Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull was ousted by a party room spill inspired by a media campaign from the Murdoch press because he believed the science.
*In retrospect not Al Gore, but Rupert Murdoch and all those who had a allergic reaction to his inconvenient facts, and thus bought the Koch vested interest propaganda without question.
Greed. Short term and short-sighted, all consuming, ignorantly selfish, absurdly psycho-self reinforcing greed seems to be the single characteristic that this gleeful orgy of oligarchs share. Capitalism, appropriately regulated, is a virtual and necessary economic driver. But vulture capitalism, contorted and utilized to simply produce profit for owners and investors, is simply a grand Ponzi scheme, perhaps the grandest, in which consumers and taxpayers are the marks who pay the bills that ultimately come due. Trump and his cronies, his fellow oligarchs both in and out of office and the public eye, and those in the US and their cohorts throughout the world, have personally benefitted from their corrupt manipulations for far too long.
First rate people hire first rate people, second rate people hire third rate people. Donald Trump probably started at fourth rate and hired accordingly. The only criteria for employment in this White House is being a slavishly loyal follower.
Steve Mnuchin has never given an indication he knows much about anything. But he does know how to slather on the puffery.
If Australia can dig 53 new coal mines, how can anyone expect sanity to creep in to the blathering republicans who are bought and paid for by fossil fuel money and the rural voters who think their trucks are as god-given as their guns. Good luck, Greta, but you are really raging against a very corrupt and obscenely wealthy machine...
I’m with Greta ..... Her words, selected to make haiku.
"You are failing us,
We will never forgive you,
And change is coming”
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. Keep sticking it to them with facts. We need you more visible, campaigning and calling out these liars.
2
I'd like to see the Treasury Secretary draw and then explain a supply and demand curve.
The Yale department of economics should hang it's head in shame.
1
As it is, the Republicans, consumed with doomsday discourse, truly believe the world will end, so they are taking the money and running and trashing the planet, which as you might have guessed, makes them the cause of their own paranoia. So someone tell the deluded ones that as it is written, a new world will come forth of peace. That's probably why the Republicans are upset.
1
Why do conservatives accept government action in favor of fossil fuel extraction to the tune of $3 million per person employed in the industry? That appears to be a contradiction to their creed.
The real takeaway from all this is that Greta Thunberg in future should pick on someone her own size, not a wannabe economic genius ex-movie producer like Sec. Mnuchin who doesn't seem to recall that we are in an environment.
2
I worked for a very, very large industrial conglomerate for many years. In that time I was directly involved with energy efficiency and environmental matters. I came to understand and actually admire the system of how environmental progress is achieved even though at times it was frustrating. Environmentalists would always ask for results that were not immediately achievable. Industry would always scream we could not do that for various reasons. Cost, changes in the supply chain, sometimes technical feasibility. Government administrators, who were largely clueless, as were the staffs of congress, would not know where the absolute truth would reside. Eventually, as part of the process, industry would end up moving significantly in the right direction. And the environment was always better. Yes, the consumer sometimes paid a high cost for such products, but usually the benefits were worth it. This ratcheting effect actually produced excellent results starting as far back as the early 1970s. Yes, I am that old. But now we are at a tipping point. The normal time period for incremental improvements is too lengthy. Greta is correct, as is Paul. Mnuchin is not and is an ignorant defender of the past. Greta’s job is too push beyond what seems possible. Others do know how to get there. The problem is those that do not want their gifting to end. But end it must, one way or another. We always understood at some point we were better off being part of the solution. Not the problem.
1
The "Wife" is always right, yes ! , and Mnuchin's lovely wife must certainly got it right in agreeing with Greta in her since removed tweet on the environmental precipice mankind stands before....
Well-done Professor! Well-done Greta! Trump and Mnuchin, not-so-good...
This piece is masterful in its accurate portrayal of the fossil fuel subsidy mess that continues to this day. It's laughable that market fundamentalists continually say that renewable energy subsidies create an unbalanced energy market place when the entire fossil fuel energy industry receives 20X or more subsidies than renewable energy.
Renewables compete in this entirely subsidy lopsided market place because its end-to-end efficiency, including low capital cost, elimination of costly fuel supply chains and zero pollution operation, provides excessive economic benefit. Strip away all subsidies and renewable energy blows away fossil based energy in almost all energy sub- sectors.
1
I just hope people who won't listen to scientists will listen to Greta's emotional appeal.
2
The U.S. has right now has some of the most backward-thinking, calcified minds we have ever seen in power.
Minds so steeped in their own toxic mental waste dumps that they would vilify a 17-year old girl, whose aspiration it is to save the world from a calamity that would have been fully preventable but for such horrible powerful greedy men like Mnuchin. Good God, I hope the whole lot are voted out next election. Republicans and their cronies should be thrown on the waste dump of history (and not recycled!)
1
“But maybe Mnuchin thinks that the I.M.F. should also take some courses in economics- along with the thousands of economists, including every living former Federal Reserve chair, dozens of Nobel laureates, and chief economists from both Democratic and Republican administrations, who signed an open letter calling for taxes on emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Perhaps if Mnuchin were forced to take some crash courses in “climate change economics” by the people Paul Krugman mentions he might learn something, but as far as the “course in ethics” Paul suggests, one need look no further than the beaming photo of Mr. Mnuchin (and wife) holding up sheets of dollars at the Bureau of Printing and Engraving in 2017, to know it’s a bit late for that.
Conservatives hate her because she speaks truth to power.
2
In Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", it took a child to point out that the emperor was in fact naked.
The adults preferred to say nothing, to curry favour and stay in the emperor's good books.
The story could have been written with Trump in mind ... you rock Greta!
3
First and foremost, Mnuchin is a Trump lackey just like all the others. Economist is merely a footnote.
2
I imagined a Mnuchin supporter sneering, "Oh yeah, if you're so smart, why aren't you (and Greta) rich like Mnuchin?"
Which would be a wonderful segue into topics such as how he got his money and how much richer he is than Trump's net worth (if we could get Putin to tell us).
Vape, anyone? Just another ringing bell and flashing red light that alarmingly proves we have become a government of, by, and for the corporation. And, as the Supremes have ruled, that's the 21st century name for "the people." Glad that someone, Professor Krugman, is intelligent enough to call the Munchkin's bluff. Otherwise, it's "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off the cliff we go."
1
In the predicament the world is in now, regulation is probably not enough, nor is trying to guide the profit-motivated "free-market" system though tax incentives. In cases of national emergency such as war or natural disaster the profit-making system is bypassed, or at least directly controlled by government. Government has the power to invest directly and immediately on the basis of the common good, not maximization of profits. Although textbook writers recognize the theoretical importance of indirect costs, many economists in the US still hope to solve the problems of pollution through "free-market" mechanisms. As Krugman sometimes points out, economists who favor "free-market" solutions are themselves heavily subsidized by those who profit from pollution.
1
Greta Thunberg would like to see all fossil fuel consumption cease immediately. While that would be the ideal scenario from a climate change perspective, most of our global food and merchandise distribution system would come a to a grinding halt. Trucks, trains, planes and ships: You get the idea. Add to that oil, coal and natural gas-based energy sources. Economic chaos in other words, something the opinion writer arguably knows something about.
Greta knows nothing about economics. We surely need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and adopt ‘green’ energy but this will take time. And only economics will drive that effort, not uneducated alarmism.
5
Life is always a problem solving process. Where are the solutions to the energy problem? Where are the experts who develop an effective electric power grid stable enough to distribute power nation wide? Why have an endless argument over who gets the money and no arguments over an effective replacement for the gasoline engine. For the few of us who actually try and understand solutions to complex problems like energy, apart from an occasional picture of a wind generator, there is an absolute dearth of expert knowledge. Americans would infinitely rather fight over money than have meaningful discussion of ways to solve tough problems. Today, posing and posturing for the camera is always preferred to rolling up one's sleeves and pitching in to help the country.
1
It would be instructive to read the opinions of the ancestors of today's pollution enablers, those who argued in favor of chattel slavery and child labor. While I believe that all viewpoints are welcome, it is misleading to accept pollution advocates as independent debaters, when the most open secret in the world is that such people are richly compensated for turning public office into a brothel.
5
As a side comment, about Pompeo challenging a journalist who was born in Europe, studied in Europe, and worked in Europe, to point to a country in Europe, is telling of his mental myopia. On top of that, the Ukraine has a very distinctive shape, thanks to the region that started the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine: Crimea surrounded by the Black Sea.
2
Here's the missing piece, what economists haven’t yet figured out how to account and explain, the inter generational transfer of benefit and burden.
The real climate problem (burden) is that all that CO2 we dump will stay in the air above us for a long time. When I burn a gallon of gasoline I release 20 pounds of that heat trapping gas. It dissipates slowly. Five generations into the future a quarter or a half of it will still be up there keeping the place too warm.
1
Beautiful. Now do this for health care please. Show how when we have universal health care the economy won't tank (we'll have vaccination for coronavirus ready to go...), people will be healthier, have fewer untreated chronic diseases, be more productive - AND (this is where I need help) the middle managers, advertisers, eligibility judgers, benefit allocators will find new jobs...When and Where? There must be studies somewhere, and we really need them or people like Bernie and Elizabeth will find themselves whistling in the wind, or quoting Schumpeter. I know it's asking a lot, but if anyone can find relevant data, it is you that I can trust.
Arguments for "robust growth" are as far out in left field as denying climate change is in right field.
Growth as a model for policy has as much credence as climate denial. Snake oil all around.
1
Fast forward twenty years. We should have listened!
1
I suggest that Paul do some study of the emissions and otherwise use of so-called "fossil fuels" (as if the methane of Titan was a result of dead dinosaurs). Decarbonization is good but not without infrastructure to support it. Without sufficient electric storage to cover the entire non-renewable periods of the day, such simplistic symbolic jesters like the prohibition of gas stove/ovens only increase carbon emissions.
1
Regarding costs, please don't forget massive military sums spent protecting overseas oil and gas assets of private corporations. Looking especially at the middle east, these costs too are difficult to calculate.
6
Greta versus the "growth is good" grow baby grow economists.
The only hope for the world is negative population growth and some brilliant economist who can make stasis into a Nobel.
114
@scientella
Western, fully developed economies only grow at 1-2% annually. That's not a lot.
And population growth in such economies stagnates or is negative. The rest of the world is expected to get there once their economies are fully developed too, which is why studies expect a stagnation of the world's population by the end of this century, and around about 11 billion people.
In the meanwhile, it's the US that has the highest carbon emissions per capita, not the people living in poor or developing countries, who (precisely because of their economic situation) still have a positive population growth.
In other words: calling for negative population growth, as a country that already has the economic conditions installed that allow a population to no longer have positive population growth, AND as the country that is the worst culprit of all, in terms of pollution ... sounds a bit hypocritical, to say the least, no ... ?
3
@scientella It was observation mentioned by not only Marx that economic growth under capitalism system depends on constant influx of new population into economy. Then the source were overpopulated agrarian areas from where people were constantly moving into the cities, now it's immigration from overseas. One may expect that negative population growth will hit profit based economy profoundly. So that rich ones will fight each other on individual, intra national and international levels. Remember Rome Empire decline where depopulation also took place. It's hard to imagine what mankind civilization will become if the Earth population will start to extinct due to rapid climate change.
@Ana Luisa
With 11 billion people, there will be little room for the creature we share this planet with. Gradual non-traumatic negative population growth is a necessity.
1
Actually, the folks who ignore the effects of climate change ignore them because those hurt most immediately are poor and non-American. It really is that simple.
8
Present day hucksters sell magically greater growth and tax revenues by way of lower taxes and less regulation. Their math promises infinitely increasing growth and revenues when taxes are zero and regulations are completely eliminated. Just another snake-oil con, but this time with dire global consequences.
196
I'm not sure how much we really care about community, equality, honor, compassion and ultimately, love. Our politics are such a terrible example of humanity. For such divine creatures, we're rotten at citizenship.
I'm not sure how economics will respond to climatic apocalypse; we've done so bad at inequality and concentration of wealth. But, the climate doesn't discriminate like our monetary and taxation policies do: it's the 'real', real deal.
I remember when the subways flooded in New York and the lights went out on 1/4 of the city. Well, who would be 'saved' first? Who would get water? Who would find safety?
This is the climatic reckoning: showing us we are all bound on the same home-planet. We are one. My poison smoke and water becomes yours, and vice versa. No competitive capitalistic homilies need apply. We have no use for the greedy at this point.
Funny that it takes a young girl to make a world listen. Good for her; speak truth to arrogance and ignorance and selfish desires. We're lucky she speaks and lucky our mad, greedy, bully-of-a-President takes her on. Easier to see what truth is, and what lies and deceit and dishonor are. Go Greta.
340
@ttrumbo Well said!
"But, the climate doesn't discriminate like our monetary and taxation policies do: it's the 'real', real deal."
Climate reality is much like gravity, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
6
@ttrumbo -- yes, who would be saved first? Sadly, I suspect it will be the people who can buy their way to safety, buy clean water, buy effective oxygen masks, have household purification systems and pay top price for whatever untainted food exists. Perhaps their homes will become pollution-free zones.
The rest of the world will suffer from illness caused by air pollution, lack of foods untainted by fossil fuel or pesticide runoff, boil their brown water before drinking and hope for the best, perhaps participate in a black market for clean water or oxygen masks.
There will be regions too hot to inhabit or grow food, and too poor to build vast domes to cover people and regulate their climate. They will migrate to the cooler climates, and all in these regions will compete for resources. The competition for these things -- for life -- could be violent.
The rich persons, in their pollution-free bubbles, will watch the global competition, and probably make tons of money selling food and water to the desperate -- until all their customers have passed on.
5
@Lilou Yes, that is one scenario. But, I also see many, many people somewhat ready and somewhat willing to admit the climatic cancer we are spreading and open to change. Change from fossil fuels and such appetites. We can, must and people like you, me, Krugman, billions of others can lead.
7
Dear old Greta is now the publicly-declared hero of the climate change crowd.
We should ask Pope Francis to declare her as a new saint.
Saint Greta.
It doesn't sound bad at all.
12
@Calgarian That assumes the Pope and the fetid institution he straddles has any credibility. I think Greta is doing fine all by herself.
5
@Calgarian Greta doesn't need anyone's endorsement or approval. Her words and actions are sufficient for her to be influencial.
1
@Calgarian Actually it would be entirely appropriate. It is as if she were divinely sent to give the human species just one more chance to survive, a chance we obviously do not even deserve. So I say yes to sainthood for her, without reservation.
2
I know there have been articles talking about tax subsidies given to the oil industry. How about a series of articles breaking it down, so that the average person can see how their tax money supports the oil industry?
386
@ATronetti
There are lots of articles. As Krugman mentions here, it's not the direct subsidies that are important wrt the extraction industry as those are pretty small but rather the externalities that we're not putting directly on the cost of dirty energy: pollution, climate change, etc.
14
@ATronetti
There is the Stern Review, 2007, by Nicholas Stern. The IMF has a report that breaks the subsidies down further, How Large are Global Energy Subsidies, IMF Working Paper, David Coady et al., 2015.
I'm not sure if these studies include all of the hidden costs of fossil fuels. A large part of our military budget goes into securing and protecting shipping routes and assets of petroleum-producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our taxpayer dollars cover only a part of that expense. The remaining costs are passed on to the consumers.
4
Only fifty years ago virtually every economist hailed the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels as economic miracles. Today, nearly every woke economist makes the same claims about the potential of green energy, the next panacea. Inevitably, this new energy sector will present its own set of problems, like for instance, the depletion of rare earth minerals that are essential to the energy storage business. Rare is the economist that will argue that economic growth in itself is a bad thing, when in fact it is the main cause of the despoliation of our planet. In 2050, powered by green energy or not, there will still be around 10 billion people, all aspiring to live a lifestyle that Mother Earth will be hard pressed to provide.
152
@Mr. B
By the 1960s the air in cities was un-breathable due to the internal combustion engine. The lead pollution from the internal combustion engine was polluting with run off. We should have started to look for an alternative instead of trying to clean up a carbon black hole.
20
@Mr. B I think your assessment fails to take into account that with new technologies come new standards, rules, and knowledge of the past. I agree with the premise that economist praised the combustion engine (still to this day very efficient), but since that time science has grown and realizations made so that as we march forward we do so with more knowledge and wisdom than we did fifty years ago.
10
@mary
There were many Cassandras in those days including James Lovelock, "The Gaia Hypothesis", and Pete Seeger. To paraphrase
a Chinese saying:"No one changes until the tiger is eating his leg off".
10
Excellent and seamless argument. There are vast hidden costs in the use of fossil fuels, which also, by the way, make up the basis of many synthetic dyes in fast fashion, and are the basis of cosmetic micro-beads to make your skin glisten.
The fossil fuel industry annually creates tons of plastic pellets which it sends to China. China then melts them down and forms them into toys, plastic packaging, plastic sacs, sport shoes (in large part, plastic), micro-beads for cosmetics, medical devices, and more, then sends these products back to the U.S. for us to buy.
Plastic in the world's oceans is one enormous hidden cost, as marine animals die from eating it and human food supplies diminish.
Asthma is a primary killer of children who live where the air is full of particulate matter from factory and auto emissions, and also from freeways, where tires, made from fossil fuel, shred into micro-bits as they roll, creating a deadly air soup.
Economists regularly fail to count the hidden costs of health care, costs to fishing industries, or the massive government subsidies to fossil fuel producers. Similarly, they ignore the vast possibilities, jobs and money in a new, green economy.
Thanks for this article.
173
@Lilou
Not just tons. MILLIONS of tons.
3
I have closed both my Amazon Chase and Wells Fargo credit cards because of their massive investments in fossil fuels as reported by the Times and brought into focus by Greta. My only regret is that I don't have more money to deprive them of.
8
The concept that the recent tax cuts would pay for themselves is ridiculous given where we currently are on the Laffer curve.
However, it's equally inane to claim (without any evidence) that we can address climate change without real consequence to the way of life we've become accustomed to as Krugman states here:
I still often find people — both right-wingers and climate activists — asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth.
TINSTAFL - there is no such thing as a free lunch.
We cannot lower our carbon footprint without dramatic change and that will certainly affect us all. We need to do it nevertheless but this is a lie just as Trump/Mnuchin lie.
30
You misread Krugman. He did not say all would be well without consequences. He was talking about GDP which is only part of the equation.
15
@James Costello
Krugman said we can decarbonize while still continuing to have robust growth - we cannot.
at the end of the day, what is driving climate change? It's individual consumption led by the population of G13 countries and by all the residents of developing countries who seek to emulate our consumptive way.
4
@NYC Moderate -- So, let's just accept it and make no attempt to mitigate the disaster. Just sit there, as you have been doing, all long. You and 75% of the population. I guess you can't wrap your mind around the fact that you will have to make "sacrifices" whether you cooperate or not. Your old way of life will disappear.
14
Mr. Krugman, thank you for this column. We have become so accustomed to assuming that the public and the environment must suffer for economic health that stripping away that fiction with sound argument can seem shocking. Someday we'll look back on what we've done to ourselves and the planet with the same horror we now look at slavery and so many other once-acceptable barbarisms.
11
Toy fossil fuel alternatives like wind and solar only work when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. They also inflict significant environmental damage in their own right. My impression is that the recent mitigation of energy prices is due to fracking, and not to heavily subsidized wind and solar, as claimed by Mr. Krugman.
Only hydro and nuclear power can provide the 24/7 alternative that will save the world from the catastrophic consequences of the Paris Agreement's zero-net-emissions goal for 2050. Hydro is geographically limited (and is environmentally costly in its own right), so that leaves nuclear for most of the world.
Modern nuclear designs, and in particular thorium-based plants, are, according to their proponents, much safer than Fukushima-era plants, which required active measures to prevent overheating. These proponents include the late physicist James Hansen, who was no less passionate and activist about CO2 emissions than Ms. Thunberg. Their claims should be carefully vetted, but definitely deserve to be taken seriously.
As an economist, I did sign the recent economists' letter on a carbon tax, but not without reservations that I expressed in a Beacon blogpost that can be accessed by searching for "Welfare Obelisk".
4
@Hu McCulloch Thorium technology has been around for quite some time I think, but nothing has been done. Shall we wait for the private sector to do the work needed? Or is your point that a Manhattan project scale government program is needed? Now would be the time, and given all the free money being given to big oil and gas, and the plutocracy in general (not to mention our military industrial sector), resources are surely available. Somebody do something!
3
@Hu McCulloch It perfectly clear that you have not even the most basic grasp on the state of the art in regards to renewable energy sources. Regardless of your uninformed attempt to promote nuclear energy the fact remains that not one design for a nuclear reactor that has been built has ever been shown to be able fail in a SAFE state. Every such design, which by the way includes the reactors at Fukushima, have in the end shown that non-anticipated modes of failure existed that resulted in their failure in catastrophic manner.
I am a PhD Scientist, you say that you are an a economist. Economists are not scientists and are by definition not academically qualified or have a sufficient background to speak to scientific and engineering matters. Indeed, economics is NOT a science and can not be considered to be so by any stretch of the imagination.
Over the last decade, the complete failure of economists to be anything other than mercenary statisticians has been on display for everyone to see. We all saw how that the rationality of the market that economists have preached about for decades blew up in 2008. Economists are not capable of dealing with anything unless it is monetized and while that may be the case in your take on reality it is not true for everyone else. Unexploited nature, human lives, the planet's ecological life support system are just a few things that economists ether ignore or just randomly assign a monetary value to when they are all priceless.
3
@thomas woodruff
A thorium pilot plant was operational in the 1960s, but further development was supposedly nixed by the Pentagon, because these plants cannot be used to make plutonium for bombs as a byproduct!
If anything, that should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
It didn't help that 3-Mile Island (which in fact didn't injure anyone) and then Chernobyl (which was a very different design) spooked the public on new nuclear plants, with the result that not a one has been begun in the US since the 70s (I believe).
1
It is incredible how low the Republican party in the United States has sunk that its leaders insult a brave young seventeen year old who has miraculously succeeded in communicating the inter-generational injustice of climate change even better than those who study the issue. One can quickly contrast to the respectable wing of the Republican party represented by true conservatives like John McCain who championed bipartisan legislation on climate change.
As a dual citizen of the U.S. and Sweden who does research on climate change and moved to Stockholm many years ago, I feel privileged to live in a country where both the public and politicians take it seriously, and where an activist like Grete can gain a voice. Considering that the future impacts of unabated climate change on the U.S. will be even costlier than in many other developed countries and that U.S. companies have the knowledge and technology to lead and even benefit from combating climate change, the current administration clearly goes strongly against the country's own best interests.
And here Mr. Krugman is spot on when he says that greed and selfishness, as well as ignorance, are at the root of the behavior of Mr Mnuchin and Trump and allies. Thirty years after the IPCC released its first report, the science and the evidence base are clear. So if there is one current issue that quite clearly separates those who care about future generations and those who do not, it is climate change.
30
There are two minor points that are never discussed in this arena. The first is that we actually do not have the capacity to base our economy totally on renewable energy sources. We could certainly diminish our dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy considerably, and this would delay the global warming/climate change considerably. The second is that there are too many people on the planet, exceeding its carrying capacity. This is a knotty problem. Who wants to be the first to end their germ line? And how can we expect others to comply if we don't? Established religious thinking does not add any solutions or even allow consideration of this clear and troubling factor.
3
Thanks Paul for your eloquent "greed grifters" mnemonic device. I had trouble remember Greta's name. Now it is easy Greta takes on the greedy grifters. I will never forget Greta. My wife says she thinks "great" for remembering Greta.
Now I need to work on remembering Thunberg. Difficult names are sometimes hard to learn, but then impossible to forget.
Greta Thunberg makes it easier to raise children in our times.
12
@Eli "Greta Thunberg makes it easier to raise children in our times."
Not quite. If we cut fossil fuels, children will freeze during winters.
1
@Eli: Think "thunder."
1
This adage rings true: "Only when the last tree is cut, the last fish caught and the last river poisoned will we realize that we cannot eat money."
24
Krugman is correct and he and the NYT should start advocating bio-gas or renewable organic gas from organic waste in our landfills.
Making bio-gas/organic gas/organic fuel removes methane from the air while producing a fuel that can do everything fracked/fossil gas does: make electricity, fuel vehicles & planes, warm homes, and so forth. (BP's subsidiary Fulcrum advertises its bio-gas fuels planes.)
Bio-gas or organic gas just needs scale which means advocacy. The public and pundits must demand that fossil fuel subsidies be used for renewables instead.
10
@Leslie Freudenheim
It's definitely something.
Hydrogen is - according to some serious scientists - the better route to take.
6
@Leslie Freudenheim: Making biogas from organic waste doesn't solve the problem — at best it slows it down. The carbon in organic waste has already been removed from the atmosphere. Organic biogas just returns it to the atmosphere after making use of it, instead of returning it to the atmosphere unused in the form of methane. Better than the alternative, but not the solution.
We are past the turning point for atmospheric carbon. We have to actually reverse course (and rapidly), not just tread water.
3
Just the line that Davos is the place for the "rich and fatuous" is worth the price of the NYT forever.
21
Bravo
12
"For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas."
This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and Krugman knows it.
Explain where the subsidy is for fracking for oil. You pay geologists to find the correct site. You drill. The oil comes out of the ground. If it takes 20 men to do this, the company gets a $60 million subsidy?
4
@Erik
Total amount of subsidies allowed divided by total number of coal/oil/gas workers comes to about three million per worker employed all over the place. OK?
4
@Erik Tax cuts are also subsidies:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/investing/exxon-earnings-tax-law-oil/index.html
Our military is the single biggest user of oil in the world.
Need I say more?
11
@PATRICK
Yes, but oddly estimates of global emissions don't have a big bump during WW II, when every combatant was burning oil like their lives depended on it.
@PATRICK Indeed. The US military even has its own refineries.
1
This is a brilliant column. The best among the hundreds of Pulitzer-worthy pieces you've written. A hearty bravo to you!
With that in mind, I reluctantly point out that the phrase "gigantic grift" is an oxymoron. If it is gigantic, it can not be a grift, which is definitionally small scale or petty or Swift. I would have gone with "Brobdingnagian swindle" instead.
7
@ToddTsch Nothing wrong with an oxymoron to make an authentic point. :)
2
Should we really take seriously anything that comes out of the Davos party? This is an event held by and for the One Percent, most of whom arrive in fuel-chugging private jets. They talk about the environment without a hint of irony. They’re open to new topics so long as none of them suggest what we all know: that the One Percent have the biggest carbon footprint of all, and the resources to solve many of our global environmental problems - if only they were willing. And God forbid they take their show on the road: to see real places, like Detroit, that have borne the brunt of their pipe dreams.
.
No. I don’t take them seriously and neither should you. And that goes for Steve Mnunchin as it does for the rest of them.
4
The article mentions the $649 Billion subsidy that the US government, meaning the ordinary taxpayers, give to the fossil fuel industry. Because we allow unlimited wealth concentration, a substantial part of this money is skimmed off by the American oligarchs. These people have a virtual political party called the GOP, which is the acronym for the Greedy Oligarchs Party. They fund this party to a substantial degree with their government subsidies. Thus they have been successful in creating a self perpetuating parasitic relationship with the US society, and they will NEVER voluntarily do anything to cure that sickness.
9
"And let’s be clear: Many of those “costs” take the form of sickness and death, because that’s what local air pollution causes." As does polluting the ground water, the soil, and oceans. The real irony here is that the reactionaries, for what else can they be called at this point given their refusal to openly acknowledge what is happening to our only home, don't seem capable of understanding that THEIR lives are in as much danger as every one else's lives. They breathe the same air and live on the same planet.
Just as technology provided new jobs, so would forcing polluters to clean up the mess they've made of the planet. There would be new technologies, new jobs, and various economies would be stimulated. We might even see record breaking growth, not in the stock market but in the economy. It's too bad that too many politicians and cabinet members depend upon the very industries that are ruining the planet: it gives them no reason to understand.
1/27/2020 10:06pm first submit
89
@hen3ry Nicely put. However, there is no irony in this: If you have enough money, you will be able to live in the last habitable place on earth.
1
As the professor points out, the Mnuchins of this world are a despicable lot, who have had to create fantasies (alternate realities) to rationalize their denial. And we, the climate realists, are right to dismiss them, for they are beyond hope. But I put it to you that this is the easy part. It is easy to be ethical in the abstract. The day will come; indeed, it may have already started; when there will be millions of people fleeing from the ravages of a warming planet. And we will have to choose whether to welcome them to share in our relative wealth, or put up walls to protect our privilege. Further out, when institutions have broken down, we will likely have to make that choice on a personal level. Will we share what we have for the common good, or be like the survivalists that hoard their possessions for their own use? While thinking about that, consider that we may be the ones who are fleeing and asking others to show some mercy.
In future situations, our ethics will be sorely tested. Brace yourselves and be ready. Those days could come quicker than you think.
10
@Steve,
Thanks for stating this.
The implications are terrifying and the corporate media does a great job of obscuring the issue.
Artificial intelligence is growing exponentially, which means that within the next few decades, millions and millions of us will be made obsolete, meaning that the plutocrats won’t need to exploit the masses to maintain a lifestyle of unprecedented luxury.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the plutocrats needed people to create more wealth, so workers could negotiate for decent living conditions.
What happens when people aren’t just irrelevant, but they want to continue breathing, eating and staying warm, thereby worsening the climate crisis and making life inconvenient for the wealthy few?
It doesn’t take a genius to see the writing on the wall here, but it does take a lot of courage and a strong stomach.
1
If I remember correctly, Mnuchin is another real estate 'mogul', so it not surprising that his views of economics are, shall we say, 'stunted' like those of his boss.
9
@Melitides
Agree and start advocating bio-gas or renewable organic gas from organic waste in our landfills.
Making bio-gas/organic gas removes methane from the air while producing a fuel that can do everything fracked/fossil gas does: make electricity, fuel vehicles & planes, warm homes, and so forth. Bio-gas or organic gas just needs scale which means advocacy and demanding some of those fossil fuel subsidies be used for renewables instead.
4
Davos is like the GoldenGlobes/Oscars, where the luvvies meet and congratulate themselves and bask in the publicity and attention they think they deserve. No harm in that, at least where the show folk are concerned.But the Davos set always justifying their wealth and power and seldom subject to criticism or rebuttal have consistently been behind events.As they are now. And it only takes a sixteen year old to point out their hypocrisy and self-adulation.Why would they like that?
101
It’s nice to see that Mr. Krugman isn’t always an apologist for the establishment, and yes, the American people should demand an end to the unconscionable grifter class that has decimated our country.
But the leading establishment candidate on the Democratic side of the aisle is also pretty awful when it comes to providing cover for the posh grifter set.
Biden’s climate adviser, Heather Zichal, is a former board member of a natural gas company. When Biden entered the race he assured supporters that nothing would really change.
One of Biden’s biggest fund raisers is a cofounder of a natural gas company: Western LNG.
Biden’s super PAC has a former gas lobbyist on its board.
These people aren’t supporting a candidate who will injure their bottom line.
Anyone who thinks Biden will implement any real change needs to look at who supports him.
We can’t afford to lose another 4 years on the climate issue just because Senator Mastercard Biden needs to appease his corporate masters who are controlling the puppet strings.
We need someone who isn’t owned by the oligarchs, and Biden, while willing to concede that climate change is real, won’t actually do much more than president Trump.
6
@Annie Gramson Hill Yes, but, if the candidate is Biden, don't sit on your hands. Work on getting someone else, but then, please vote Biden who is not Trump.
2
Greta rocks.
11
I'm often reminded of the 2012 Joel Pett editorial cartoon...
"What if it's a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
7
As I read through these comments I am once again struck by the "the task is overwhelming and difficult" trains of thought. I hear this attitude constantly and not just about the climate.
We will never be able to recycle all of our plastics (so why bother). We will never be able to get off fossil fuels (so why start trying). We will never be able to stop...blah, blah, blah. Does the American public even hear themselves anymore? We are crying about the fact that it's going to "cost" us something to clean up a mess we, ourselves, have made. For the love of whatever it is you love, make one simple change tomorrow...and another the next day...and another the next day. Before you know it, you'll be an inspiration to others in your family or your circle of friends, or the world. To be trite, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Stop your whining and take a step. We need to clean up our act and the exercise probably isn't going to kill us either.
10
"why are people like Mnuchin and his boss Trump so adamantly pro-fossil fuel and anti-environmentalist?" Because they can't charge us for clean air yet and have only begun charging exorbitant prices for access to drinkable water. That is why they want to pollute the air and water by spewing filth into the air and water that doesn't belong to them. They haven't figured out how to charge us for sunlight yet.
3
In 2020 Dems should not focus on “climate change” — too abstract and remote — but rather on specific actions taken by Trump and his perverted EPA stooges to guarantee dirty air and dirty water. Be specific. And Yes, run Against Coal. West Virginia, Kentucky and the other coal states are going to vote Trump anyway. Be specific about what Trump and GOP are doing now,to make headway on the
Environment as an effective campaign issue.
4
@William Colgan
Yes! Take on coal. The perishing bird and animal life.
And the horrific coronavirus plague.
@William Colgan ---Ah....yes and they should also mention that cases of black lung disease are on the rise again.
I think it all comes down to;
"Do you like your grandkids?"
I don't have any but I like my grandnieces and nephews.
4
Trillions of dollars lie underground. The movers and shakers of the world own these resources and also own the politicians they have bought and support. The cat is finally attempting to get out of the bag as they're tightening the draw string to protect themselves. As more informed citizens continue to suffer the effects and their own personal experiences with climate change, the time line is getting much shorter for the fossil fuel industries.
7
And maybe Mnuchin can take a course on Compassion and Kindness.
This is what happens when people like Mnuchin have never walked in anyone else's shoes.
Greta Thunberg puts him to shame.
It is his ignorance that shines brightly, not his understanding or Climate Change or Economics.
9
Corporate socialism. And Democrats are vilified for pointing this out?
4
As a friend of mine, a well-known atmospheric scientist commented, “Mnuchin needs to study climate science so he can understand Greta Thunberg.” His ignorance or denial of the climate catastrophe of global warming may be the cause of his inaction on economic policy.
11
Hurting people is the number one priority of the current US administration.
If possible, by also hurting the world at large. And acquiring as much dishonour as possible, of course.
13
I wouldn’t say hurting people is what the administration wants to do but sit is clear the administration doesn’t care if it hurts someone , or who it hurts, as long as the hurt aren’t likely mega-donors and vocal supporters. Not a whole lot better, willful negligence vs intentional. It clear the trump administration needs to go but trumps cult is in denial. They deny science because trump tells them to.
3
If Mnuchin and his buddies weren't afraid of Greta, they would not consider her thoughts or her presence at Davos at all. That the Treasury Secretary of the United States spent even one minute thinking of her, and then tweeting about her, shows how how terrified he and his wealthy friends are of what's coming next.
18
One of the ironies in our Alice in Wonderland world is that subsidies easily become entitlements for those who rant and rave over entitlements for others.
19
Greta Thunberg is our modern day Nemesis, the greek god of revenge who rises up to address hubris among those among us who ravage the planet without consequence to themselves they can understand.
I pray she is not also Cassandra, uttering prophesies which are all true and all ignored.
In a perfect world, the Mnuchins of the planet would not be able to retreat to the aeries but would be forced to build their mansions in the shadow of the smokestacks and coal ash confinement ponds they force on the rest of us mere mortals.
Fossil fuels need more Nemeses and less Cassandras.
17
"I still often find people — both right-wingers and climate activists — asserting that sharply reducing emissions would require a big decline in G.D.P. "
This needs it's own column or several. All those "costs" the naysayers point to are actually increases in GDP. The naysayers draw the analysis box around too narrow a definition of the impact area. It's Dr Krugman's famous babysitting model.
9
Trump and his Administration as protectors of our nation on many levels have proven themselves to be antagonists. It is not just irresponsible to hear the president say global warming is a hoax as seas rise and fires burn right here in the U.S.A., as well as throughout the world, but it is foolhardy.
His challenge to California's and auto makers fuel emission economy makes no sense. And, his weakening of our health care makes even less sense. His antithesis to progress in these fields is disheartening. It is imperative we change course.
12
Mnuchin and Pompeo are living in a Trump-world of chosen ignorance. Greed (an almost universal human condition) is at work in the fossil fuel industry and its political supporters. And realism would dictate that Government solutions to a crisis like climate change while absolutely necessary, will be experienced as heavy-handed, uneven, and overly bureaucratic. Macro-economic analyses notwithstanding.
10
To Mr. Mnuchin: It makes no sense to talk about the economics of the climate crisis if you don't learn the science first. I recommend the "Global Weirding" videos by Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech. They're an easy intro for us ordinary citizens, and politicians, to understand what's happening to the climate and why and how we need to address it.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow
Nature doesn't care about finance or politics. Nature doesn't do reasonable accommodations. Try explaining how impractical it is to eliminate fossil fuels to a fire tornado or a hurricane.
Fossil fuel companies are actively working to make the situation worse. See the new cracking plants and export terminals being developed in Texas. See ExxonMobil's corporate website where they brag about their new discoveries off the coast of Guyana.
The first rule of mitigating the climate crisis is simple. To paraphrase John McCain, Stop, baby, stop! Drilling, that is. Then, put the money that was going into a cracking plant or an oil pipeline into windmills, solar panels, insulation, and research. Hire the people who were drilling and building pipelines to build sustainable energy systems.
The changes we will need to make are profound, which is what the Green New Deal is all about. But first, as the First Law of Holes puts it, when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging! Or in this case, drilling.
17
@writeon1
Thank you for the laugh.
It is no surprise a 17 year old could be a better economist than Munchin or any Republican trickle down economist.
What is aggravating is having the wrong face for the poster child.
Where is our champion of charisma?
Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with life is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
When people worried about climate change, income inequality, capitalism as a sort of feudal structure of systematic suppression try to make their cases, they somehow find people who leave me cold.
Is this girl our best hope for a poster child for progressive thought?
Where is that charismatic champion who says we cannot know for sure about climate, but we can know what to do in case the predictions are correct, who says income inequality can be and should be adjusted by governments because whenever we've done that it's been good for rich and poor alike, who says that immigration is a matter of numbers and self interest and we can and should accommodate more people in an orderly system, who says the 2nd amendment does not allow for individual gun ownership but guns are so prevalent the only way to protect the public is by limiting bullets, who says we need to pack the Supreme Court and neutralize the electoral college?
Don't give me some earnest 17 year old.
Don't give me men so old we have to hold our breath until the end of their sentences.
Where is our champion?
2
@Claudia
"...we can know what to do in case the predictions are correct...."
How long should wait to do whatever it is once we know that the predictions were correct and doom is in sight?
1
Nov 2016 Krugman wrote. "So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened." Uh Wait, What....
1
There is more here than just political ideology and greed, namely arrogant ignorance.
Republicans don't just argue it's not the governments role to limit carbon emissions or that we cannot afford to do so, they continue to argue that climate is not changing, or it is naturally caused, or it is not a problem.
They utterly refuse to examine the science. There is now near-unanimity among scientists that climate is changing, that humans are responsible, and that if we do not stop emitting greenhouse gases soon the consequences for society will be bad indeed. Rather, they sit happily in their ignorance, thinking they know more about climate than climate scientists.
As a scientist, it is that arrogance that bothers me most.
8
"we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth"
I really think we need to explain clearly exactly how this would work. What might our day to day lives be like? The grifters no doubt want us to believe that we'd all have to live in a cave.
I think some regular folk (non-grifters) who haven't accepted anthropogenic climate change can be brought on board through a positive vision that they can understand and accept.
2
The GOP has been anti-environment since Reagan.
The China pictures of people wearing masks to walk down the street are alarming.
Do we want this for the future? Do we want our children to live underground?
6
What do you expect from people who are still work for Trump. All they care about is power and money. They have no concern for the future of humanity or anything else, not even their children. In addition, they are experts at ignoring the facts.
7
"A budget deficit 75% higher than it was in 2016" ought to be in the lead sentence in every democratic candidates' speeches from here til Trump is run out of town on a rail.
Speaking of inexperience, Mnuchin had ZERO experience at all in public policy or governance. Apparently his "qualifications" were being a fundraiser for Donald Trump.
"Unearned arrogance" hits it on the head.
11
“because they don’t account for its disruptive effects and because they don’t put enough weight on the possibility of total catastrophe.”
With the above statement Mr. Krugman describes the Trump voting block.
3
“Business ethics,” in the USA capitalist system where only profits matter, is an oxymoron.
5
The real question is: why are you listening to a 17 year old when you should be listening to the scientists?
Thunberg, well-intentioned, is like reading Cliff Notes on Shakespeare instead of reading Shakespeare.
4
@Harry
We can listen to scientists and Greta at the same time. (Sort of like walking and chewing gum.) There are people out there who may not read science, but might well be moved by a crowd-pleasing 17-year-old.
2
@Harry
Greta's motive is not a desire to preach to the choir, but sometimes it seems as if only the choir is listening. She really is trying to reach the people who should be but aren't listening to the scientists. Those who haven't heard Greta say "Listen to the scientists" haven't been listening to Greta, or at least not listening carefully.
2
@Harry Greta never utters a sentence without reminding people what motivates her: The science! She isn't pretending to personally know how climate scientists worldwide reached the conclusion that we are in dire straits, she simply preaches their findings--and very articulately.
Her sincerity, intelligence, and, most of all, passion are what got the attention of the world. Some crotchety old academic spouting the same message would not have made a single newspaper, much less the subject of a NYT column.
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman, for another great column. Keep 'em coming.
4
What Greta Thunberg and all the science in the world can not compete with is the mystical attachment of the republican party to the voodoo science of the Laffer curve. The idea that cutting corporate taxes will lead to an economic expansion and that the expansion alone will cover any fall in tax receipts, something never proven, is at the core of Republican thinking. Republicans also see government regulation as another form of taxation and so it is natural that any regulations, even if in response to environmental pollution or climate change will not only be opposed but seen as a threat to the american economy.
The idea of regulations and innovations in fossil fuel use to address climate change comes out of good science, but what Mnuchin wants is for Thunberg to embrace non-thinking , and to forget about what the trend line in climate science is showing , because it shows that looking the other way is a sure prescription for disaster.
Mnuchin is doing all he can to get people from asking indelicate questions about the ballooning american deficit and why the expansion is slowing. Could it be that the reason is that Trump wants to run on the economy and that weakness in the economy might reflect poorly on his managerial skills? Could it be that he is afraid to discuss new regulations if climate is to be addressed, it could also be that he is afraid to discus taxes...maybe this is why he likes attacking Thunberg after all , all she talks about is science !
9
I was elated when Ms. Thunberg was chosen as Time Magazine's Person of the Year. It is now my fervent hope that she will win th Nobel Peace Prize. The anger that would produce in the President might be sufficient to get him out of office.
It seems to me that Thunberg is a modern day Amos--one of the Old Testament prophets who tried to called sinners to account. It is shocking that it took a (then) 16 year old person with Asperger's Syndrome to get the issue off dead center. What's wrong with the adults?
17
Indonesia is moving its capital of seven million people inland to a rain forest to avoid the effects of climate change. Throughout history, civilizations have cratered due to serve droughts. Now its going to be a mixture of everything.
People just packed up and left the remains to archaeologists to tell the sad tales.
7
This is happening because we don’t do democracy well. The power of government is not in the hands of the people and the learning, information and skills needed to make that happen are kept from the people .
10
Read Rachel Maddow's 'Blowout'; she cuts to the core of the fossil fuel industry.
11
@Lucy S.
Yes, I am currently reading it - and it reads like a horror story. It should be required reading for everyone.
The figures quoted for subsidies appear quite large so I have
two questions:
1. Do the costs of the subsidies also include the cost of deploying military equipment and personnel in all kinds of remote corners of the world to protect fossil fuel supplies?
2. Would the economy have been better if that $3 Milion per worker was simply handed directly to each of the workers, with the request that they try to find alternatives to fossil fuels?
14
Disaster Capitalism will seek profits after the arrival of the Green Swans gathering on the horizon, heading our way faster than we anticipate. Infrastructure, fuel switching, coastal and regional armoring will demand trillions in increasingly expensive social overhead capital as population and economic growth slows. Model this through.
Look to hands-on innovation at state and local levels, adapted to the best contours of settlement and Ecology. Build the base at county-wide levels, simply assuming that in the thundering silence a potential of grasping legitimacy can be accomplished. ASAP.
3
Greta Thunberg's insights may come from the good instincts mentioned by Paul Krugman, instincts more attuned to understanding the climate crisis than those Mr. Mnuchin developed on Wall Street. But Ms. Thunberg's has benefitted from being educated in a country with a science curriculum sufficient for her to be able to read the IPCC climate report and grasp its stunning consequences. The fact is the overwhelming number of neo-classical economists (those who accept as true the dubious idea of general equilibrium) have ignored or downplayed climate change until recently, or exhibited downright scientific illiteracy over a generation as the global use of fossil fuels has continued its unabated rise. Perhaps the issue isn't who better grasps 'economics 101' but who is more scientifically literate and has more insight into the political economy of our fossil fuel civilization.
35
Well stated, however, it is time to build the list of what must be different in the future state of the world to correct the path we are on, globally, and locally. Start with definition of economic success - growth cannot be the measure any longer as it is not sustainable. And no magic is going to happen to form more energy sources or minerals or ores (or alternative source for that matter) that now pollute the one Earth. Success MUST be sustainability and end user satisfaction with the results: A company in any part of the economies, should be measured as highly successful if its 0 growth and fulfilling end user needs, not greater. Climate change will only be held in check when Growth mindsets change to Sustain the current delivery of goods and services.
7
Sorry, Dr. Krugman, but conservatives cheer government action as long as it extracts wealth from suffering workers, including their most loyal supporters, and moves that wealth to those Americans least in need, as in no competition for Medicare drugs, worthless weaponry purchasing programs and public support for fraudulent, faith-based diploma mills.
26
The indirect costs to the United States to protect the waterways of the mideast so oil will flow uninterruppted costs over a trillion a decade. When you add up the cost of military personnel, cost of ships, cost of contracts to defense contractors to engineer and build ships, aircraft, missiles, anti aircraft guns, fuel.
Plus the cost of training thousands of military personnel to crew the ships, the aircraft. There's the cost of bringing in civilian personnel from defense firms to teach crews how to maintain and operate all those systems
Not only that, there are the millions spent on outside firms, to house and feed military personnel at all the mideast bases.
If we truly turned our swords into plowshares and put even half of all that money into solar installations, hydro, and wind we could probably power 3/4 of our cities without coal or oil.
In addition there are newer more efficient nuclear power plant designs. Not a single American has ever been killed or died from a nuclear plant. Sure nuclear is expensive, but compared to the cost of not doing anything its a bargain.
The Federal gov't owns millions of vacant land in the south and western portions of this country Massive solar installations could be constructed which could power millions of homes and businesses and even sell surplus energy to customers to other states.
This country belongs to voters not the entrenched interests of oil and gas companies. Only voters can change the status quo.
19
@A P
Indeed, the constant push for war remains a welfare program to underwrite the weapons and military industry at an expense beyond rational comprehension or moral justification. The truth is that preventing climate change from inflicting cataclysmic damage to our ecosystem, threatening much of life on earth and civilization as we know it, cannot be accomplished unless we also demilitarize our foreign policy, end interventionist wars and break the grip that both the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex have on our federal budget, foreign policy, economy and government.
10
@A P Nuclear power plants are becoming fast outdated, as in the risks outweigh the benefits vs. alternatives. The US still has no long term solution for nuclear waste, it's still just piling up next to our reactors posing a security and safety risk.
New hydrogen solar panels can produce electricity and at the same time capture hydrogen directly from the air's moisture (no electrolysis) for on-site storage. This will be able to supply most of any household's energy needs without the problem of timing (day/night summer/winter).
1
Mnuchin, like many economists, fails to consider the vast effects of economies on human life. A perfect example is the coronavirus, which probably jumped from the animal world to humans at least in part due to environmental degradation. Loss of habitat for wild species, consumption of wild animals, human overcrowding and a warming planet are the perfect combination for creating stronger, more virulent pathogens. Is anyone paying attention? These masses of virulent DNA are so small that yes, they might even populate the air that Mr. Mnuchin breathes, or slip through the cracks of Mar a Largo. Who can prevent a mosquito from migrating onto those hallowed grounds in Palm Beach? It is wrong to lie to the public. Microplastic pollution is changing the genome of plants, fish, animals and people. No one ever heard of Autism 75 years ago, and the number of rare genetic disease seen in our newborns should be frightening. Religious people must respect Creation. We don't need to see the money.
16
@et.al.nyc Can the Coronavirus's appearance and spread be due to the cultural preference for eating wild animals? We've seen this before with SARS and Ebola. Eating wild animals, (bushmeat' or 'wild meat'), is risky to human health, in addition to harming individuals, species and ecosystems. In today's world, where international travel enables rabid and distant spread of diseases, perhaps cultural preferences in Asia and elsewhere should be re-examined.
2
@Riccardo
The Us's cultural preferences appear to be greed, power and ignorance. How do we change that?
3
Climate change is the 2nd most immediate existential threat to the way we live. The most immediate is Donald Trump. We can't quit fossil fuels "cold turkey." We have to wean ourselves off of em. We can develop the technology to do that. Better gas mileage, LNG, and one thing I have noticed, every time I fill up there is a little gas left in the nozzle that leaks out. That can't be good for the environment. And it could be fixed. The problem is that no matter what we do here in America we can't control the polluters in other countries.
4
"Get rid of fossil fuels", a phrase often used by people who have no clue as to how much energy it takes every day to start up this nation. And when energy gets rationed, the people who suffer most are the poor and no explanation is ever offered on how it will be addressed.
The only viable solution to a reduction in fossil fuels is the mini-nukes. In use by the Navy for years, a history of reliability and safety and no greenhouse gases. Other alternatives: enforce the speed limit at 55, set air conditioning at 78, turn off the lights at night and set thermostats at 65 during the day (all these things require zero investment).
3
@Mark The problem is you've made this an argument of absolutes, and it is not.
The percentage of energy generated in the US from renewable sources is 14.7%. Switzerland is almost 60%, the UK 38.9%, Germany 46%, Canada 65%, and the 800lb gorilla in the room China is 24.5%. Clearly there is some open road between "Get rid of fossil fuels" and a shift to renewable energy.
97.2% of Norway's energy is renewable. 97.2%! And I'd bet they can keep their lights on as long as they wish.
Secondly, why are opposed to investing in our future?
12
@Mark
"...enforce the speed limit at 55,"
Boy, you're looking at massive congestion. It's simple flow dynamics. The faster something - air, liquids, cars on highway - flows the greater the volume gets through a given space. The reverse is true. So if you slow down the flow, the less gets through, so in the case of traffic, the more massive the traffic jams.
There are large numbers of cars, even in the middle of the day, on I-26 going into and out of Columbia. But the traffic moves briskly. Increase the volume at any given time and you'll have thousand of "parked" cars. Do you think that will help reduce carbon?
A better solution would be to get everyone into a non-polluting electric car.
5
Mr. Krugman, may we also add to the cost of fossil fuels the incredible waste of building and maintaining a vast military empire focused on guarding the oil fields and the cost of the people who defend them?
We're engaging in long term wars every decade or so for exactly that reason, to protect oil and oil people, and a lot of those people where the oil exists, they don't like us much at all.
23
Currently, the earth is retaining more heat from the sun due to the rising abundance in the atmosphere of gases that prevent it from escaping into space. That is indisputable and not hard to grasp without going into the physics involved. Starting with Reagan, as good a sign post as any though deception by autocrats is as old as humanity itself, the public has been brainwashed to not trust the government, the same government, without which, legions, generations at this point, would have ended their lives in poverty and without medical care. What’s different about the challenge of climate change is that it is not only the old and poor who will suffer, it will be the generations to come. Soon we will find out if the truism that our species is only concerned with the narrow interests involved in day to day survival will be its epitaph.
10
If more “elites” lived in the actual places harmed by the energy industries there might be more unilateral support for sensible regulation. Energy company employees in fracking areas are not protected by unions and fearing auto industry type of abandonment they vote how management tells them to for fear of losing their jobs.
Here’s a very real scenario in PA; CVX comes to rural Pittsburgh for fracking, elderly subsistence farmers accept
4
As we go further into changing over to renewables, we should plan to deal with the enormous disruptions which will occur.
And that begins will clear delineations of the unintended consequences that massive policy shifts inevitably bring about.
1
Back on track Paul.
Beyond everything you have observed, it is quite egregious for the treasury secretary and president to be condescending to a formidable seventeen-year-old woman, one with a promising future ahead of her.
Nice job.
23
Great piece and unassailable, in my opinion. The economic activity unleashed by innovation in sustainable energy is formidable - and proven by dramatic price declines and rapid spread. One of the greatest attributes of sustainable energy is that a good proportion of it is distributed down to the individual consumer level (e.g. rooftop solar, etc). However, therein lies the rub - the fossil fuel behemoths cannot monopolize distributed energy. As I tell my Republican friends, "Sell your fossil fuel stocks and modernize!"
19
Unless Greta goes to Beijing and convinces the government to stop their mass environmental destruction for an economic gain that has made its ruling class extremely wealthy, nothing the west does matters.
If stopping climate change and leading a more sustainable life on the entire planet is really the goal, then the answers currently begin and end in China.
4
@CNNNNC How about if we start by holding the USA responsible for the greenhouse gasses that it has put into the atmosphere for the last 100 years? Its only recently that the Chinese have deigned to exceed our pollution emissions. And on a per-capita basis we still eat everyone's lunch.
32
I’ve heard people complain that China has twice the carbon footprint of the US. What they don’t mention is that China has over four times the population of the US.
13
@CNNNNC
The Chinese are on a trajectory to eat our lunch in electric vehicles. They put a hefty tax on gas powered vehicles. So you are right, but not perhaps how you think you are. They also are managing to deploy nuclear power plants while our last two efforts, in Georgia and South Carolina, were financial disasters. Yes, too much coal burning, I grant you that.
What happened to the US, leader of the free world and most indispensable of nations? Apparently we don't care about leadership any more. Late Boomer capitalism. Me generation.
21
The biggest problem is scores of workers will be made irrelevant by AI, self-driving vehicles, robotics and the transition away from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. To obtain jobs in the new economy, most workers will need to be retrained. Thus, we need free trade school and college education to help us get the high-tech jobs of the future.
10
the advent of spreadsheets & accounting software was supposed to lead to the demise of Accountants, yet there are now more Accountants than ever, and I expect that other forms of employment will be generated in the future
6
Elon Musk has created a company Tesla that is all about reducing carbon, electric cars and solar, yes I know electricity production can and does create carbon, but try running your diesel pickup off solar panels.
Last time I checked he had more money than Trump and His treasury secretary by a very large margin. People like Musk are the future Trump is the past and the youth of America has to vote like the futures depend on it because it simply does.
18
@Chris They can vote now by buying a Tesla and other cars that are better for the environment.
3
I was curious how much of that $5.2T dollar global fossil fuel subsidy was in the form of "tax breaks and outright cash grants," and the linked Vox article claimed that this amounted to roughly $500B per year, globally. A study by the European Wind Energy Association claimed that global subsidies in renewables was roughly $90B per year in 2011. So, I see a (very) rough ratio of 5:1 in direct public spending towards fossil fuels versus green energy.
I don't want to discount in any way the very-important point Dr Krugman makes in highlighting the indirect costs of global fossil fuel use (the lion's share of the annual $5.2T which he and Vox quote), but it still steams me that we human beings are consciously and actively spending five times more money in feeding our fossil fuel addition than we are in combating it.
The cherry-on-top of kicking our addiction to fossil fuels is that we will also emerge from under the authoritarian thumb of plutocrats. Fossil fuel sales account for about 70% of Russia's export revenues, and I don't think one has to be too much of a conspiracy theorist to connect the stories of surreptitious Russian support for our current corrupt Administration to our Administration's blind eye towards climate issues and apparent love of fossil fuels.
Let's stop holding the hand that holds us down. I'm with Greta.
35
Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to climate change, they can’t admit it even exits let alone advocate for any reasonable steps to combat it because their whole house of cards collapses.
19
No one yet can tell anyone what the specifcations of earths climate is, are the specifications closer to when the wearth was covered in ice, NYC was covered with a sheet of ice a mile high,. Or is the spcification closer to when the world had no ice at all, florida was under water and an inland sea covered the US.
@Jimd specifically the earth's climate is by default chaotic, especially for an unprecidented 7.5 billion people - over half of whom live modern urban lives. Since industrialization we have kicked the wild climate bull we are riding with enormous amounts of co2.
We are taking a volatile underpinning of our long term well being and disrupting dramatically at the worse possible time - as our population approaches 10 billion or more and as our resources get stretched to the breaking point .
3
Two points: First, changing the energy paradigm from fossil fuels to renewables is one of the greatest profit-making opportunities of all time. The fossil fuel industry should be champing at the bit to get into this. We’re at the start of a new economic K-wave that will power the global economy for most of this century. We should not delay. Second, the fossil fuel industry might get trillions in subsidies (god knows why) but they also have trillions invested in infrastructure much, but not all of which, will become stranded assets. So engaging the fossil fuel industry on those levels is needed to move the needle.
8
Krugman is figuring in the knock on negatives of fossil fuels but not their knock on positives. Without them the world and national economies would be much smaller, and we would all be much poorer. And it's not just the paycheck of roughnecks. Everything in the economy would be harder or impossible without powered transportation and powered equipment. Degrowthers would applaud such an outcome. Those who want a thriving economy are against it. Butit's a leap from recognizing how important fossil fuels have been to assuming they must continue to be important. Fossil fuels were a necessary phase, but we should move away from them now, and what better way than to tax them to encourage development of alternatives and also bring in a little revenue.
9
@Robert David South You are correct, without fossil fuels our planet could not support the population it has at the wealth level it has. The thing is, it is not sustainable. It can continue for and undermined number of years, but not indefinitely. It has lasted longer than many thought. Back in the 1970's, my dad thought that oil would run out by the late 1980's, that did not happen. It will, at some point, get to where it is not economically viable to explore for and tap remaining reserves and at that point, if we are still relying mainly on oil and gas, there will be a cataclysmic decline in humanity. Renewables and population control have a much better chance of making sure that civilization can continue much further into the future. We all love our cars and, it is true, fossil fuels got us to where we are today. Thing is, they are not the energy source needed to get far into the future.
19
@Robert David South
"Without them the world and national economies would be much smaller, and we would all be much poorer."
I beg to differ: smaller does not equal poorer. More often, simpler is better. I've not driven an automobile for years, so I'll add that the slower we move, the more time we have to appreciate what is right around us, the beauty of this Earth and her creatures, the fresh air, the sky, the sun, moon and the stars.
Fossil fuels were not "necessary". They were a capitalist opportunity to extract and make $$$$. And disastrously over-populate the planet.
3
@Kelly R. Donley
nuclear is the only answer sustainable, there is not enough solar, wind, bla bla...
Gigantic grifts are understatement if you take into account the additional sways they have on either block or redirect academic researches on other alternative energy paths. There were numerous potential and workable energy generating options were bought or closed off so they can keep the well greased machine running with costly consequences while keep the average voters and workers in the dark. And with the help of the likes in the wh.
6
What it all boils down to is that if you are a capitalist you want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. The fossil fuel industry is a capitalist dream, a very few players control almost all of it and the last thing they want is full cycle accounting having to be baked into the price of what they sell. Full cycle is accounting for all costs, from exploration to incorporating the costs of the waste of what they sell. The cost of keeping global temperatures steady, the cost of clean air, all the costs. If they were required to do that via a tax, their product would quickly be replaced by renewables that have a much lower total cost. In addition, renewables are a harder product to establish monopolistic control over (oligolistic really). That is the last thing that they want. Like so much in our world, money rules. When that happens, capitalists very much want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs.
30
@Kelly R. Donley Making things binary makes them lower resolution and that makes it easier to sell wrong conclusions. It is possible to believe in using the market system (being a "capitalist") and in regulating it. Krugman makes that clear. The tragedy of the environmental commons isn't an inevitable consequences of capitalism, it's just a consequence of unfettered greed enabled by government corruption.
3
There is nothing to quarrel with about what PK says, but I think the real reason that Trump and his sycophants complain about and reject climate-change arguments is that they viscerally reject what they consider “political correctness.” The world was just fine back when (circa 1958-75), so any kind of improvements in lightbulbs or flush toilets (improvements meant to make the world around us more functional and less pathological) are likely to be regarded as mere manipulation in the enforcement of a prim propriety of no substance. The only way to overcome such resistance to reality is to provide as clear-cut a cost-benefit analysis as possible, providing specific and especially visceral examples, such as every time Miami Beach, Charleston, Norfolk (site of major naval maneuvers and stationing), and Atlantic City are flooded to an extreme extent, which happens with some frequency.
3
@Mary Mendell Trying to convince those who at this point do not believe an overhaul of our energy economy is needed with objective evidence seems to me to be a fool's errand. There is evidence aplenty already - more will have no effect on them. The only choice is to vote into office people who will get us back on a path that has at least a chance of averting the worst effects of the climate crisis.
7
I think that a large part of the reason why these grifters are not villainized by the general public (compared to say big tobacco), is that everyone drives a car. NASA in 2010 declared that automobiles were the worst climate change pollutant in the world. People (voters) still cannot visualise how they will survive without their chevy. The only way change will happen (in terms of both the political will to end subsidies and the subsequent crash of the oil industry) is with an industry decimating alternative to cars. We love our big cars though so whoever invents the alternative better make it compelling.
5
Economics is not an end in itself. Its the study of money flow and monetary behavior given the realities of the world.
Example: if you and a small community are shipwrecked, some would fish and other gather food on shore. This newly formed economy gets determined by these realities: Fish are hard to catch, but coconuts might be everywhere.
That's economics.
Its derived from the physics of fishing, and the logistics of climbing trees. It has no meaning by itself. And that is what Greta understands.
10
@H Smith Well and simply said. That's why Mnuchin doesn't get it.
1
There is one country which wants the planet to drastically warm. Russia. That’s why they have invested so heavily in the Arctic. Melting sea ice means new trade routes. Warming temperatures make Siberia more habitable. It is a profitable situation for them. Yet another road which leads from Trump to Putin. And yet another reason for Kremlin oligarchs to invest in propaganda in the US to create the illusion of an intellectual debate around this issue. It’s not just energy companies with their skin in the game. The science is definitive. And even Russia, once the Siberian permafrost is destroyed and warming becomes exponential, will realize too late that they made a short-sighted investment at the expense of human life.
34
When Mr Mnuchin understands physics I will be interested in
his opinion on global warming. He may say that we have no
adequate model for global climate, and that is true. However no economic model can account for the physics of global winds, ocean temperatures, carbon dioxide emissions, and the other parameters of global physics that are poorly understood but immutable as laws of physics. And economic models can be modified with experience, physical models can be modified only with understanding. The models of economics are modified by understanding, but the laws of physics are immutable regardless of our understanding of them. When the poor are dead because of our arrogance, Will Mr. Mnuchin care? When our children deal with physics as a reality, both he and I will be dead. How can we teach men who are illiterate in the realities of physical science that they are governed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are impersonal; they operate regardless of personal preference or political persuasion. economics does not trump physics. Please, pay attention to that teality
17
Might we not reconsider economic activity by restricting to the active economy, the money that moves around and profits all. Money that is sequestered by the gazillionaires is effectively removed from the economy. This money is dead: it is not spent, not invested in actual industry or stuff that creates riches for the masses, pays for proper education, health care, infrastructure, etc, just in sterile financial self-perpetuating money. Once we remove this money, what is left? What then is the real size of the real economy of the us, and how does it compare to that of countries that reinvest in society?
Thank you for your ever fascinating columns
Nicholas moore, france
11
As Niall Ferguson so cogently pointed out:
“60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China… but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem…which is frustrating because it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter...If you’re serious about slowing CO2 emissions and temperatures rising it has to be China and India you constrain...I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.”
She isn't in those places because they'd laugh at her ridiculous posturing.
The climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. It has been hotter than it is now thousands of times and it has been colder than it is now thousands of times. If planet earth wants to superheat or freeze out human beings, there's not one thing we can do about it.
It is the height of human arrogance to believe we can "fix" the climate and adjust the temperature to a perpetual level perfect for human existence.
3
At this point you may be right that it's too late and humans are doomed. a serious case can be made for that. But 20 30 or 40 years ago that was not true. Had we started then, and yes we knew about this then, we could have significantly prevented where we are today, except for people like you saying it can't be done then too. frankly, my best suggestion to you is to read Paul Krugman column today and see one of the major reasons why we are in this predicament and who we've been subsidizing to this point. also, stop reading Ferguson. he may support your existing biases but in the long run you'll figure out that he's just supporting the extremely wealthy.
32
@Fir I guess two questions come to mind: what part of Ferguson's comment was wrong?
And second, the planet has been hotter than it is currently literally thousands of times over millions of years. To assume that somehow we can either stop the current warming trend (if there indeed is one globally) or even reverse it is to assume god-like powers humans will never have.
The only people this current "climate change" hysteria is favoring are big government advocates and those who see the lower classes as chattel, to be disposed of when the need arises.
Take the arguments about climate change you're hearing to their logical conclusions: higher taxes and/or justification for war (to eliminate humans who are "destroying" the earth) are the end result. Neither will dial back the temperature.
Oh yeah, and why is "climate change" not "global warming" anymore? Any idea?
Human arrogance ruined our climate. Maybe human arrogance can also fix it.
There's a useful new term for climate ignorance and inaction:
omnicide
We can work together to solve problems, or we can go down to reality as the planet ejects its apex predator.
Waste, greed, and acting as wholly owned subsidiaries of marketing will not solve the problem of poisoning the earth, air, and water on our finite planet.
18
@Susan Anderson Everytime the term Anthropocene Extinction comes to my mind, I get a small chill. I do what I can but it seems so small. I'm one of those who believe it is too late, because I'm most interested in flora and fauna disappearing. But I'm very worried about my niece and nephew.
What we CAN do, we SHOULD do, and prepare for a changed world. If we don't ignore protection of resources, we have no chance at all.
6
Borrowed from this terrific article by Richard Flanagan from Tasmania (Australia): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/opinion/sunday/australia-fires-climate-change.html
How Does a Nation Adapt to Its Own Murder?
Australia is going up in flames, and its government calls for resilience while planning for more coal mines.
2
@Elaine
Have courage, my dear friend, have courage, and keep trying.
We have only one life to live.
1
BlackRock, the largest investment vehicle in the world, is divesting its clients from coal. But you can pick up those shares -- if you want to.
4
An obvious difference between Greta and
Trump is in their age.
When scientists project what will hapen in 40 years
from now, Greta will be 57 while Trump would be ... 119.
Greta and people of her age are correct to expect that
there is a high probability that they will be still alive,
and Trump is correct to think that very probably
he will be dead by then and so he does not care.
29
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for your insightful opinion and the facts that it is not advanced age and paper shuffling experience that assures truth and honesty, but insights and innocence of young people who have not been trapped into the corruption money in bank accounts offers. It is refreshing to hear the young voices of innocence calling out the liars of old.
18
I don’t know why a teenager is heralded by the media and is supposed to get us all riled up with climate change alarm when the evidence of this happening is not even remotely apparent where I live here in NY. I would sooner trust an adult scientist with incontrovertible proof that climate change is occurring than a hyper-emotional teenager who has been robbed of her innocence by nefarious adults. The coronavirus is a much more urgent threat happening right before our eyes - let me see Greta address that at the United Nations.
1
Coronavirus is just the latest version of SARS. We all saw how that turned out. Greta Thunberg won a Nobel Prize.
10
Greta Thunberg isn’t a genius, or the bearer of incontrovertible proof that you crave. She is a figurehead and would have remained insignificant but for her idea of starting a schoolchildren strike every Friday for a better future. Her enduring significance is due to the real fact that people the world over are increasingly worried about extreme weather events and rising temperatures, and organizing to pressure the decision makers to do what they must to reduce the negative impacts of human activity on the environment.
5
@Ben Ben, Greta was indeed nominated but she did not receive the Nobel prize. That does not diminish her contribution to the conversation.
@Ron Smith: the consensus among the “adult scientists” is that we have evidence of climate change but it seems you are unwilling to listen to scientific consensus and prefer to believe the few nay-sayers in the scientific community instead. Who are these nefarious adults that robbed Ms Thunberg of her innocence? The people like you with their heads in the sand, unwilling to admit that change is needed if our children are to inherit a livable planet.
1
Here in Florida, a bit of thought is going into building a new nuclear plant, but I doubt that anything will happen. Among other things, nuclear plants may be too vulnerable to incompetence like the construction project that ruined the containment dome of a valuable, if aging Florida nuclear plant, which had to be shut down.
After years of showing little interest, the state's largest utility, FPL, is installing lots of solar power farms. They've become cheap.
9
@David Martin Exactly! Just as the automobile was once dismissed as a passing fad because it was too expensive at first, so economies of scale and other factors have now made renewable energy very cheap indeed.
2
If the manuscript was indeed leaked from 'the White House' one must ask who would most benefit from Trump's removal.
Hint: He would become President if Trump leaves before the election.
3
Trump also fights to increase pollution so the oil/gas/coal show can sputter on. And so he fights against regulations that would save lives AND save consumers money by hastening the adoption of EVs. Nothing cuts costs of a product like increased adoption by manufacturers and consumers, right?
So our wrong-way Administration is missing another boat -
"General Motors will invest $2.2 billion to build EVs in Detroit
Detroit-Hamtramck will build battery electric trucks and SUVs, starting in 2021."
Two plants, Detroit/Hamtramk and Lordstown, scheduled for shuttering, instead moving to producing EVs and batteries. Lots of skilled jobs. Probably would have happened a bit sooner without the harmful efforts of the current Administration to return us to the smoggy skies of the sixties and seventies.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/01/general-motors-will-invest-2-2-billion-to-build-evs-in-detroit/
14
One of you best thought pieces, Paul. Thank you
15
The thing about global warming - which is the term used before the fossil fuel kings changed it to 'climate change' because it played better in focus groups - is that as the planet warms, each degree increase in temperature makes the progress of warming faster, analogous to a football team moving from its own ten yard line to the opposing team's 20. The closer you get to the goal line, the more likely you are to score, because the long pass or run is no longer necessary.
This acceleration of growth applies not only to the warming of the planet but the monetary cost of fighting it off. And in my mind, Team Warming is first and goal from the nine year line.
8
The present situation isn't something that has been imposed on us by some aliens. Our own greed, gluttony and unholy love for luxury in everything and anything is what which is driving this dependence and need for the polluting fuels and industries. How was the country when we rode on horseback, ate local produce and limited our commercial activities to within a few kilometers? Of course we cannot go that far back to halt this environmental assault. But are we really ready to give up some comforts, step back if you can, for the sake of the future generation?
12
@Yoganandh The greed and gluttony of fossil fuel billionaires is far greater than that of the average citizen of any country. What we need is government regulation to rein in the fossil fuel industry. Drying our clothes on clothes lines, and the like, merely gives an illusion of control. The one best thing the average person can do is not have children, because population increases are a major cause of climate change.
9
@Frances: I’m not sure about that. I think that the average person, if given the opportunity, could be just as greedy and destructive as any of the billionaires. At least here in the USA.
1
@Frances Not having children is a big no no in our part of the world for most! But all can educate children about being responsible in whatever they do or choose. Billionaires also encourage us people to consume more than our real needs for their own benefit and this is where we have make our own choices.
"...In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion."
Several countries have tried to reduce these subsidies recently and every one of them has suffered mass protests and been forced to retract.
As it is currently constituted, modern society cannot get by without fossil fuels and subsidies.
We should be working full time to fix this situation, but we must do so without collapsing the economy, and no one has figured out how yet. It WILL be painful. If you think a person of normal means can drive a 3000 lb vehicle whenever they like and remain sustainable, you're deluding yourself. Cities, lifestyles, and jobs will have to be redesigned so that most people can live decent lives without an automobile. Flying to Europe for two weeks? Forget it. Commercial aviation has to go, along with SUVs and the morning commute.
We are addicted, and breaking an addiction is painful and dangerous. But we're not going to break the addiction, and here's why: the normal people will revolt unless they believe that the sacrifices hit Jeff Besos as hard as Joe Sixpack. And that isn't going to happen. Flying to Davos on private jets to discuss taking away cabin-class air travel is the modern equivalent of "let them eat cake."
10
@mlbex Obama made a huge contribution by forcing auto manufacturers to design and develop more fuel efficient vehicles. Trump is now trying to roll those regulations back. Governments HAVE to play a role by passing regulations if we are to have any impact on this issue.
2
@Mark Crozier :
"Governments HAVE to play a role by passing regulations if we are to have any impact on this issue."
I also believe that this is true, and I salute Obama for the improvements he made. They were a start, but they were not enough (not Obama's fault... he faced massive resistance).
The governments so far have tried simply raising the prices, and that hasn't worked anywhere.
If we can't redesign our systems, there is no hope except for draconian measures by governments, enforced by massive police action. The things I suggested have to be implemented by governments, with the support of the people.
It's a sign of how desperate those "left behind" are if they'd rather believe Republicans who obviously are lying to them over Democrats that want to raise taxes on the rich to expand their healthcare and educational opportunities.
Trump's basic approach has been to take the record economy handed to him by Obama*, add 60% to the deficits in 2018 and 2019 with tax cuts and additional spending, take healthcare away from 2-3 million people, and brag about how wonderful everything suddenly is.
Fortunately, the Fed continues to print money and cut interest rates to keep the economy on sound footing and stock market humming, overcoming his tariffs, which of course are paid by Americans not China, to the tune of about $500-$800 per family.
*Critical variables at all-time record level when Trump took office included: The number of persons with jobs; real median household income; stock market; real GDP per capita; and real household net worth.
6
Good column.
You triggered my passion and prompted me to share my life work (since the oil crises of the 1970s) in solving the problem of providing energy for a developing planet.
It was clear to me in the 1970s that there was not an infinite supply of fossil fuels. When you run the numbers on hydrocarbons, it becomes evident that we can't stay on the path we are on and must begin to work on and invest in developing and deploying an alternative source of non-fossil energy.
We have technical solutions, which at scale could replace fossil energy, but it will require an international agreement to harness the considerable scientific and engineering resources to make the shift.
It can be done and because the global effort will clean the air and water and promote a much healthier food chain, all humankind will experience a higher quality of life and longer life expectancy.
Readers should think about the enormous number of well staffed and resourced labs in the U.S. and the world that could be mobilized to give priority to generating very cheap electricity, mainly from solar energy, both on Earth and in Space to provide the world with the inherent capability of the Sun's energy to bounce electrons into conductors to perform the same functions that are now carried out with fossil fuels.
With cheap electricity we could desalinate water for agriculture, make jet fuel from air and water, and sequester carbon absorbed from the atmosphere to restore the pre-industrial balance.
12
@james jordan
"It was clear to me in the 1970s that there was not an infinite supply of fossil fuels.
Climate activists and climate deniers argue over whether the current global warming and its environmental damage is caused by burning fossil fuels, or whether it is a natural phenomenon. Incredibly, climate deniers don’t understand that humanity can’t keep burning fossil fuels forever – that we will eventually run out. What do we do then? Die off, or switch to renewable energy sources, which deniers fight so fiercely today?
At today’s current consumption rates, known reserves of oil will run out in 50 years, natural gas in 52 years and coal in 153 years, according to the British Petroleum Statistical Review. There are unknown reserves, but they are limited. If unknown reserves are 6 times known reserves, and World demand increases by a factor of 6 as population and living standards rise, we would still run out in a few decades.
Moreover, there is a big problem with fossil fuel resources – the Energy Return on Investment (EROI). In 1930, the energy in 1 Barrel of Oil was enough to extract 100 Barrels of oil from the ground, with an EROI of 100/1. Today, the EROI for conventional oil wells are much lower, about 10/1 to 15/1. The EROI for tar sand and shale oil is even smaller. At some point in the future, the net energy from fossil fuels will be too small to sustain society.
Existing conventional oil wells are drying up. New wells are getting more difficult to find.
Never knock the notion of kids bringing adults to tears with their graceful concerns of youth with a view we have all lost or are accustomed to. The world will be the children's.
18
The unsustainable western lifestyle is at the heart of this problem. Americans are particularly guilty of wanting "more." Just look at the size of your trucks and houses and all the other toys you use. Look at the lack of public transportation. Look at the preponderance of plastics and all the other petroleum-based products that are clogging the environment. In spite of the advances in technology that seem to mitigate some of the environmental problems created by driving enormous vehicles and living in houses that are way too big, this way of living is unsustainable. Strangely, or not, it's all subsidized so it seems less of a problem than it is. Folks, we're all addicted. We need to admit we have a problem. Only then will things change.
24
@mrfreeze6 Very nicely put, mrfreeze. Yes. We are very comfortable living in a way that adds to global warming and need, each and every one of us, to look at ways we personally can and will contribute less to this problem (taking public transportation if possible, walking, bicycle riding, keeping our homes cooler and putting on warmer clothes when inside, using cold water to wash clothes, drying clothes on a line, etc) . This is the starting point. We then need to connect with others politically, who are also so inclined, to help shift our living structure to one that is sustainable and lends itself to sustainable life on Earth.
8
@Patti Bezzo Fossil fuel businesses need to be regulated and clean energy supported *by governments*. Individuals are not to blame for driving to work when there is nowhere they can afford to live within walking or bicycling distance. They can't afford to move every time they change jobs within an area. They are not responsible for shortages of public transit. Many even hate their commutes. They are not responsible for needing a house or a car that can accommodate several people. This is not a case of greedy individuals, but greedy corporations and paid-off politicians.
7
@Frances Grimble @Patti Bezzo
While an individual cannot, as an individual, make choices from a set of more sustainable options that do not exist, it also is the responsibility of individuals to work together to make those choices available. Most people working for societal change agree that systemic change comes from the bottom and works its way up.
Certainly leadership counts, but the people usually don't go where they don't want to go. The unfortunate part is that demagogues can often convince the people that they want to go somewhere that is not in their long-term interest.
And Donald Trump is taking the Republican Party exactly where its big donors, particularly the fossil fuel extraction industry and also the wealthiest and biggest individual and corporate contributors, wants it to go, even though they at least profess to dislike his personal grifting. But for them the ends justify any means.
The take-away is that individuals have to show that "lifestyle changes" are not costly (a Tesla Model 3 can be driven at under 5 cents a mile, compared to over 10 cents a mile for an Internal Combustion Engine car getting 25 mpg. And the purchase cost is getting affordable as the efficiency of mass production reduces manufacturing costs.
For automobiles in particular, but likely all products, manufacturers and retail outlets are not required to demonstrate the equivalence of sustainable products to the customers. A recent report indicated that auto dealers often hide EVs.
3
Free market capitalism has proven to be the most effective mechanism to advance economic growth and elimination of poverty. At the same time, our entire civilization depends on fossil fuels, coal and gas for electricity, oil for cars and airplanes and trucks and ships. The issue before us is how to maintain our living standards while transitioning away from our fossil fuel dependence. Or put another way , how do we maintain our free market capitalism and move away from our fossil fuel dependence. As much as i’d like to sneer at the phony Mnuchin, I can see his point that the transition to renewable energy will not be advanced by fighting the giant fossil fuel corporations but by working with them to create the transition without economic pain and dislocation.
@lester ostroy Good luck with that. Actually, the whole idea of Capitalism, since it depends on production and consumption, is at the heart of eco-destruction. There is no evidence that Capitalists can regulate themselves no matter what the danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children
16
Blaming capitalism is misguided. Like democracy, it is the worst system, except for everything else.
You’re reading a lot into what Mnuchin actually said.
Thank you for another insightful article. Not only is the corruption and socialism for the polluters upsetting, the truth is these industries are dying anyway. The future is in alternate energy and bio food! Europe is taxing cars with high CO2 emissions depending on the level and it can be quite expensive. Carmakers are fully engaged in building electric and hybrid and hydrogen cars. Time for America to look to the future and not support these damaging, dying industries. Even now, more people work in alternative energy areas.
12
I don't understand how the CEO's of the carbon industry can keep building pipelines, using fresh water to frack and disposing of it deep in the earth, allowing wells to spew forth noxious gases, and developing more as they press for national park lands. I don't understand why these wealthy companies are not using their significant funds to develop and promote renewable energy systems. Yes, you would think these men of means would look beyond the next quarter. You would think they just might look at the money to be made developing renewable systems and helping to protect our environment. You would think ... but, sadly maybe not. Not only have they failed Econ 101 but they are failing their investors and failing us all.
27
@Rev Wayne
Valid point Padre. Big fossil fuels companies, not "Energy" companies, as energy is derived from the matter of fossil fuels, have forsaken the world and our future for the military that is the largest consumer that endangers it.
4
@Rev Wayne
Unfortunately, the answer is quite simple:
1) They want to do what they have developed skills and equipment to do and can make more money at than changing to something else.
2) There is no incentive to change as for a small campaign contribution they can keep on doing it, and, if they even care, they have convinced themselves that there is no problem with doing it.
What capitalism has become is what the rich have made it and not at all what Adam Smith envisioned and warned about.
Right wing politics portrays a simple test: pro capitalism as it is = pro American. Whereas any suggestions that capitalism needs to be fixed is labeled socialist and anti-American.
We are not a country of simpletons as certain groups treat the public. Our problems need perspective which includes all of society and future inhabitants of the planet. Trump and co. operate on short term bragging results.
That is why he needs to go, and someone who actually understands how economy is supposed to work for the good of all, be in leadership position. Trump hasn’t a clue and is out of touch with today’s thinking.
10
@S. G. Well put S.G. We all live on a very small planet and need smart, innovative forces to help us survive with the increasing problems we all face of global warming and the detrimental effects that could end our existence as we know it.
4
Yes Greta, and all you young people, the sky is falling, from the weight of heavy molecules and the ignorant apathy of the older generations, with some exceptions such as here. The usable portion of the atmosphere is only three miles high and above that, thin air that is insufficiently thin to breathe without extra oxygen. Imagine what three miles is. Use a map and measure a familiar landmark distance to comprehend this. Some cynics will say that's pretty far. It's about 16,000 feet. Now go out and visualize that distance, perhaps to a mountain or a coast across a lake. To those that may think it's a lot of atmosphere, I tell you not when you consider the century plus we have polluted it, starting with coal and on to oil and now carcinogenic chemicals that kill unknown. Imagine that distance. That's all we have.
And the water. All that pollution finds it's way ultimately into all water. For example; a coal fired power plant emits sulfur that was in the coal, especially bituminous found out west, and that sulfur joins with water molecules in clouds that ultimately coalesce around dust and pollution particles and form rain drops. That rain then enters the environment as sulfuric acid. It kills trees and water borne life. Whole forests have been destroyed.
Keep the faith though to inspire you. Even Trump this week proposed planting a Trillion trees. That's a good meeting point for all of us. He is learning as we do. Thank you for inspiring him and us as well.
19
@PATRICK plant a trillion trees? I think you can add that one to the list of promises made but never kept. Such as infrastructure, “great” healthcare, a tax cut for the wealthy that will benefit all of us. Etc.
9
I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but in this unjust world, sometimes you have to applaud goodness in the climate of bad. A week and a half ago I planted three "Red Delicious" apple seeds after drying them out a few weeks, and two days ago, the first apple tree seedling sprouted. I intend to plant more in the tradition of "Johnny Appleseed" who famously started orchards here in PA. and other states. My motive is that the future has food, not only a means of repopulating trees.
2
@PATRICK : Trees, and the rest of the biosphere, are temporary C02 sinks. Living things die and decompose, releasing what they have stored.
The real long-term storage is in the lithosphere; that is the oil and coal stored underground. And it takes millions of years to replenish.
4
My hope is Mr. Hoskins who is the subject of The NY Times article, “How The G.O.P. Became The Party Of The Left Behind,” reads this column. Yes, it’s true, Bill Clinton over-promised the government’s role in transitioning rust belt laborers when he signed NAFTA.
But, I’ve yet to understand how manufacturing laborers justify their defection to the Republican Party, whose identity is solidly behind candidates who preach less government. And to top it off, they elect a candidate who backs up his promises with nothing substantial, and during his election campaign was the embodiment of an emperor with no clothes.
New energy and burgeoning industries are the future for the labor worker. It’s Democratic Presidential candidates who will concentrate on Main Street, not Wall Street. That will only happen with a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
22
@Scott The answer to your question is racism, according to nearly 20 regression based analyses.
@Andre Dev
Hi Andre, unfortunately, that seems to be true. Very sad, because without realizing it, they are holding America back, at the same time. Just as the African American community is holding back the country by threatening not to vote if there isn’t a person of color on the Democratic ticket. America needs to let go of special interests to fight the gerrymandered, voter oppression, scheming Republican minority who has shown what they are willing to do to hold on to power.
1
To me, the people who are truly greedy are those who have their eyes on the money other people have earned by providing goods and services people willingly paid for at prices they were willing to pay. People like Greta Thunberg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.
@Cal Elson So you think Greta Thunberg et al hope to get a slice of the profits earned by the oil and gas industry? Exactly how would that work?
As for willingly paying the prices charged by fossil fuel industries, if one owns a car or some other form of technology that uses their products exclusively, at what point is she exercising freedom of choice?
11
@Cal Elson. It is the word “earned” that needs to be parsed: one man’s earning oft is another man’s exploration. Inequality is not in itself a social evil, it offers incentive and choice; gross inequality is simple injustice. Work hard and you deserve property and security, that is the promise of America - but not the reality; we need government for the People rather than for just the few.
10
@Cal Elson I guess, like Steve Mnuchin, you didn't pay attention in introductory Econ. As Dr. Krugman points out: "every, major Econ 101 textbook argues for government regulation or taxation of activities that pollute the environment, because otherwise neither producers nor consumers have an incentive to take the damage inflicted by this pollution into account".
I'd say the truly greedy are those who are happy to profit obscenely while inflicting great costs on the rest of us. They're not "earning" all those profits; they're evading the true costs of their activities.
25
Another subsidy is the trillions we spend on oil-based wars in the Middle East. Why don't the oil companies hire there own armies? Oh, that's right, for a small investment in lobbying, we do it for them. Then we pay them for the gas they made from the oil we gave them. Seems fair.
38
What we are witnessing is the logical result of the comment by that great waste of political skin, Ronald Reagan, to wit, government is the problem, not the answer. A more destructive nostrum doesn't exist. It gives license to everything Mr. Krugman describes. It validated the worst capitalism and the worst politics since the gilded age, at the end of the 19th century. We can hope that there will be another Roosevelt on the horizon .
57
@L. Adams Well said. And we need both Roosevelts: FDR to push through a Medicare for all system (or at least for those who want it), and Teddy Roosevelt to break up the big tech monopolies.
22
A great column. Thanks for pulling it all together so concisely.
So much of dealing with climate change is simply a matter of changing our perspective. For years we've seen oil as a necessity and other solutions as "too expensive," but if we view the cost of destroying the planet, the whole perspective changes. Keep writing and making that point to the public.
27
I live in a state that, politically, is little more than a handmaiden to the extractive industries. Our current governor seems to have achieved a perfect score on the Koch scale of bought politicians. We're trying to recall him but it's a slog through the courts and then, when his term is almost up, an election. Remind you of anyone?
Ironically, it was the much-detested Sarah Palin who sponsored the sanest tax and royalty arrangement and got it passed. When she passed on to glory, her successor promptly got it rescinded and we went back to subsidizing the industries that snicker at us.
Also ironically, our state is melting.
64
Thirty years ago the economist William Nordhaus calculated that coal use was actually a net negative for GNP, given the health costs and premature deaths associated with increased pollution. And that was not even factoring in climate change costs!
34
I agree with the author in general, but the law of diminishing returns implies that there is a significant variation in costs associated with the rate at which decarbonization takes place. There is nothing more expensive than a crash program. It may well be worth it, but the faster you eat lunch the more extensive the side effects.
2
It's clear that Greta Thunberg speaks the truth, and that she concurs with the conclusions of many, many scientists. Steven Mnuchin, on the other hand, simply repeats propaganda from Trump and his minions. An article in Slate.com states "'Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right' concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastrn University at a February 2017 conference."
Why do so many on the right prefer believing propaganda rather than actual facts? Again, Slate.com suggests that the tenacity of many of the right's beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes."
We seem to have failed to educate many Americans in the areas of science and logic. It appears that close to 40% of our fellow citizens cannot see the difference between fact and fiction. This is a major and potentially catastrophic situation that needs to be tackled before November 2020.
49
Pathology and Propaganda!
Two concepts to which those who are left to care about the future of America and democracy here should be paying close attention.
1
What kind of top government official dismisses, insults, and picks on a teenager, who is trying to do the right thing by practicing civic responsibility to help save the environment and planet for future generations? Trump-Republicans, that's who!
What is wrong with these Republicans, and what do they think government is for anyway? Why are they so determined to make everything worse for everyone but themselves?
Paul nailed it: "Once you concede that the government can do good by protecting the environment, people might start thinking that it can guarantee affordable health care, too. The bigger issue, however, is sheer greed."
The pathetic bottom line is those with wealth are obsessed with not paying taxes that sustain society, people, & the environment. An article last week described how lots more wealthy people are contributing to Trump's big fundraisers because they want Trump to lower their taxes again. Evidently they don't care if society collapses, the deficit skyrockets, and their paramount business interests and investments depend on polluting the planet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-is-attracting-a-new-crop-of-big-donors-including-many-who-have-never-given-before/2020/01/21/a8229a6c-30c6-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html
There is a counter movement by another group of wealthy people to pay more taxes:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-wealthy-who-argue-that-they-should-be-paying-higher-taxes
Bet who will win?
29
How do all those genius economists now issuing dire warnings about the climate change crisis reconcile their decades-long aggressive advocacy of globalization, and offshoring those unpleasant negative externalities of staggering amounts of pollution to developing countries without those annoying environmental regulations in the name of Ricardo's utterly absurd "economic efficiency"?
Also, when was the last time the "economics consensus" was right?
About anything?
People like Mnuchin are simply not willing to make the jump into the near future where the worlds nations, particularly the largest emitters, do not move aggressively to transition away from fossil fuels. The world of Mnuchin economics will not respond quickly enough to avert significant changes in the world's climate. Once set in motion these climate changes will be self reinforcing. These are exactly the sorts of broad ranging problems that governments were designed to deal with. It is outside the capabilities of private business alone at this point in time to take on the transition to a society that is not dependent fossil fuels. I would rather live in Greta's future world than Steve's.
11
Agreeing with Prof. Krugman is not enough. Get involved. Join makeitfair.us. Look up THE AMERICAN ANTICORRUPTION ACT. Without direct citizen involvement, we will not change the destructive course we are on today.
Prof. Krugman is a superbly trained Nobel laureate in economics. He understands that the externalities of fossil fuels are ruinous. Then there are more economical solutions to energy extraction then digging buried fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them. This is becoming more apparent as the horrors of climate change and the negative health effects of air and water pollution become even more apparent because of increasing scientific knowledge.
But Prof. Krugman is an economist and not a political activist. He gives us the reasons for action, but he doesn’t specify the actions that are needed. In the United States, we need to get money out of politics. If the fossil fuel industry has so much profits and the political structure the United States allows direct payments to elected representatives (campaign contributions) and unlimited political propaganda (Citizens United) we won’t get to a safe and healthy world.
15
“ And burning fossil fuels is a huge source of environmental damage, not just from climate change but also from local air pollution, which is a major health hazard we don’t do nearly enough to limit.”
If Dr. Krugman’s assessment reflects the consensus of economists regarding fossil fuel damage, they are indeed under estimating economic damage. Perhaps even greater impact of increased carbon output is the absorption of carbon dioxide into the ocean and its coral bleaching, acidification, warming waters. The tremendous marine loss and habitat destruction would impact human dependence on marine harvesting. In the next 50 years, ocean resources loss could potentially account for 90% reduction in global marine resources. Yes, a complete collapse.
Is this hysteria of ecological extremists? No. Just as climate change has outpaced projections these past 20 years, ocean impacts have been almost completely ignored by politicians and economists alike.
18
Serious question for Professor Krugman: what does a progressive carbon tax look like?
If we make oil industry pay for their pollution, they'll pass that along to the consumers of their products, which is pretty much everyone. That's fine and we should be paying the real cost of fossil fuels, but wouldn't that basically be like imposing an indirect sales tax? Ethically (and thinking back to yellow vest protests in France), I imagine we'd want to soften the blow for those of us with lower incomes. What would that mechanism look like?
7
@D Never mind the mechanism. Given the vast subsidies for fossil fuels, ending subsidies, and thus reducing or eliminating the industry's profits, the money could be used for clean energy and for public transportation (e.g., electric buses). In France, the yellow vests might stop protesting if they had a cheap way to get to work. How about them e-buses?
6
@Alan Wallach The electricity for the buses has to come from somewhere. There won't be enough renewable generation available for about 100 years to support all of the devices currently operating on fossil fuels so every time that additional electric load is added to the system, much of it will come from a fossil fuel generator. My 92 mpg Tesla gets around 35 mpg if I figure in generating losses. It still releases far less pollution than gasoline because most oy NY's fossil fuel generation is Natural gas, but fossil fuels are still involved.
3
Carbon Fee and Dividend is one interesting approach to consider. It’s basic mechanism was proposed by George Shultz (yes, that one). Check out HR 763, which is one popular version.
3
This is an overly simplistic column. I am very much in favor of the installation of renewables but the answer is not nearly as simple as Dr. Krugman postulates. The amount of energy that is delivered by fossil fuels is far greater than what people understand. Switching to air source heat pumps in cold climates just moves carbon emissions and increases them. It also puts many more devices into use that are loaded with refrigerants with up to 600 times the Global Warming Potential of methane. A report was released last week that refrigerants are responsible for 50% of Arctic ice melt so the solutions are not clear as he believes. Germany has been transitioning off of fossil fuels for 30 years and their carbon footprint has not gone down for the last 8 years Part of it is the closing of their nuclear plants, but it is also because they have brought the CO2 footprints of their residences down by 28% during that time by switching to heat pumps. That put more load on their fossil fuel generating plants so the CO2 emissions moved there and increased. They can't install renewable generation fast enough to keep up. Storage technology to support a renewable infrastructure is many years away. Plus many of the people that most want these renewable technologies installed don't want them where they live. They want someone else to deal with it. Until these issues are addressed, there will be major difficulties in transitioning to a renewable energy system.
4
To say do nothing because it is hard, is exactly the wrong suggestion. If it is hard now, it is only going to get harderer. So now is the easiest and best time to do something, anything.
Start with reducing subsidies. To 0 in a few years. Add pollution taxes and increase them over time. Disincentivize investment in fossil fuels. Yes, consumers will be burdened. That will only reduce consumption of fossil fuel energy and increase the demand for renewables. Subsidise renewables. Incentivize investments in renewables.
Need to take those steps so industry listens and invests in tomorrow.
7
Grifters indeed. T and M are, of course, only minor players, slaves to who they are and who they have become. As Arthur Rimbaud wrote in 1873:
I only find within my bones
A taste for eating earth and stones.
When I feed I feed on air,
Rocks and coals and iron ore.
(Paul Schmidt translation)
Rimbaud had visited the the then coal-burning capital of the world, London. He, like Greta, was a teenager.
8
There is one branch of economics Mnuchin understands: vulture capitalism.
He and the Trump administration represent the beliefs of those who regard the environment as just one more thing to extract value from and then move on to the next target.
They believe there will always be something down the road. They are not worried about the race to the bottom, because they always expect to be the ones who come out on top.
Looting is much easier than building - and if it looks like things are going to come crashing down in the climate crisis, they figure that’s all the more reason to maximize gains while they can.
33
@Larry Roth
Indeed, billions of people are going to die, so ALL the more reason NOT to:
1) be one of the poor
2) be responsible
3) be one of the people who is going to die
It never occurs to them to prevent ALL the dying in the first place.
5
Professor Krugman makes a category error when he writes that Mnuchin doesn't understand the economics of the fossil fuel industry. He knows that even Milton Friedman, libertarian icon, argued that what economics called "externalities" had to be regulated by government (Friedman preferred market mechanisms like cap and trade, to direct government administration).
But Mnuchin isn't managing the economics of costs of natural or human resources. He's in the business of managing the economics of power. Specifically, that the repudiation of renewable energy/conservation (associated with coastal elites) for the only energy source that can power muscle cars, oil. This, to keep Trump's 30% who'll turn out for primaries when directed by him so that he can spike the heads of Senators on pikes.
That underlying threat of being "primaried" out of their seats is what keeps Republican Senators in line. Rumor has it, that if a Senate vote on Impeachment was by secret ballot, Trump would be handily ejected from office.
But, who knows, may Mnuchin is, in secret, "Anonymous," sacrificing his reputation to try to keep Trump from playing with the launch codes.
8
In 1981, while in College my coursework included Economics 101 and another Economic Science on pollution. This was the year that many scientists were writing about the climate using super-computers to tabulate data. Even then, the data was showing that climate change was a concern as the numbers provided evidence of toxins in air quality around the planet was reaching alarming evidence of acid rain, carbon emissions, and Cloral Floral Carbons (CFC's) the latter of which caused ozone holes in Antarctica.
During the same period, the federally funded Super Funds for toxic site cleanups around the nation continue to cost millions of dollars a year for Corporate environmental damage in America alone. The other issue included the cost to the public health issues of Climate change which is in the trillions today as a result of air pollution alone. When we look at the world we leave behind, full of toxins due to corporate polluters, Greta Thunberg stands on the right side against further pollution of this planet.
18
"And so people like Mnuchin claim not to see anything wrong with industries whose profits depend almost entirely on hurting people."
Why would they? Spreading pain and misery in the course of profiting off government subsidies is Steve Mnuchin's bread and butter. As lead investor and chairman of mortgage servicer OneWest, he illegally foreclosed on elderly tenants to maximize the profits the company could squeeze from housing assets that it had obtained under questionably generous terms from the federal government. He is one of those people who, immersed since birth in the rarefied social stratum of wealth extractors, effortlessly glides between opportunities to liquidate and divert the assets of actually productive working people into his own bank account.
82
It has been a long, long time, but I recall from an undergraduate economics class that for market capitalism to work properly, you need an accurate price signal, so that assets can be put to their most productive use.
The price of any good and amount of that good produced should settle at the point where the supply and demand curves intersect, However, if the supply curve does not accurately reflect the marginal costs of production, including the cost of all externalities, then the curves will intersect at a lower price and greater quantity than is optimal. Assets will be misdirected as a result.
It seems to me that the Secretary of the Treasury should be interested in having an efficient economy, where all assets are put to their highest and best uses because the price signals are accurate.
16
Then there goes almost all alternative energy development — it is ALL subsidized by the government (taxpayers). Oops.
Professor Krugman: could you please define what constitutes a U.S. fossil fuel subsidy? As far as I know the only item in the U.S. tax code that would apply specifically as a subsidy to fossil fuels is the depletion allowance and it doesn't come close to $649 billion as you stated.
3
@C.G. He explained: the amount of money it takes to counteract the damage producers cause but aren’t charged for
24
No regrets in life but lessons learnt!
I am a geologist who has spent his entire working life in the oil and gas upstream industry (over 35 years).
I am proud of my work and the great technical achievements we made.
But I know now that this industry is unsustainable. It is simply the "coal industry of tomorrow".
Oil and gas are still needed today because the alternatives are not sufficiently developed, yet. But we should all work as hard as we can to develop and implement these alternatives and eventually wean ourselves from our dependence on oil and gas. It is a moral imperative! It is a life imperative! It should be amongst every government's highest priorities!
I have promised myself that I will spend my retirement years participating in initiatives that benefit the environment. That is the least I can do.
Those who still deny and obfuscate the reality of a marching climate disaster are displaying an incredible dishonesty and selfishness. They will be forever discredited and they should be removed from positions of power as soon as possible.
372
I too have worked in the oil and gas industry, for over 41 years. What I don’t understand is why the industry does not lead the way into developing renewable energy. They are perfectly positioned with the engineering and scientific talent already in place and R &D structures in place. It would be an easy step for the majors to take and position themselves to lead the way. These are educated people. Surely they recognize that they are major contributors to global warming and that they are destined to follow the coal industry. Why not make the shift and lead the way?
181
The major oil companies are ALL devoting MASSIVE R&D money to renewables and alternatives. What are you talking about?
This article from TWO YEARS AGO
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/big-oil-is-investing-billions-in-renewable-energy.aspx
And this one form last year
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300574
It pays to be informed. Without BIGOIL’s research, we would be decades behind, and they would be failing in their duty to shareholders to be not just prepared, but a MAJOR part of renewable energy breakthroughs and markets.
7
@Ike Moffett
I am not totally convinced that "Big Oil" is genuinely and convincingly 'investing massively in renewables'.
Yes the O&G industry is fully aware of its upcoming obsolescence, which will likely happen over decades rather than years, but even then there will always be a market for petrochemical products, even long after we have stopped simply 'burning' oil and gas.
But the transition is slow for a number of reasons; the main one being 'return on investment': it is still far more lucrative to produce oil (and gas, to a lesser degree) than to produce electricity from wind or photovoltaics. A good reason to evolve is simply image / re-branding. The companies nowadays prefer the term 'energy company' rather than oil and gas, simply because the public opinion should be more accepting under that name and this industry still needs to retain a 'social license to operate'.
O&G companies have a lot of technical expertise, but little applies to renewables - this may change quickly once the transition is really engaged.
I noticed that the European international oil companies are more advanced in this transition process. The US companies are lagging behind (especially Exxon). National oil companies are (most of them) completely absent on this front.
17
Free markets are insufficient to deal with the climate crisis. And it IS a crisis, which it is too late to alleviate as long as energy companies can make more money by stripping carbon-based fuels out of the earth than by pursuing alternatives. If the private sector won't invest in alternatives, the public sector must do so with the private sector footing the bill.
Climate knows no boundaries, but one can look at the role of the US government in the 19th century, massively subsidizing the railways. As it turned out, railroad investors overbuilt and many (most?) went bankrupt before long; but there can be no argument about the overall success of the public role in building the nation. That's the way to reduce our carbon footprint, world-wide.
21:35 EST, 1/27
12
The country does seem to be moving towards cleaner energy. Money has been moving out of fossil fuels and into companies involved in alternative energy. Alternative energy equipment makers and utilities have seen their stock prices soar over the last year. Even big oil companies such as Total,Royal Dutch and BP have investments in wind and solar. Economics 101 says that as solar and wind get cheaper,they should do well. The one area that is not given enough discussion is nuclear which according to many is needed to finally get us off of fossil fuels.
6
Hello from flyover country. The past few days have been packed with news. But here is one observation. Greta Thunberg, Coco Gauff, and Billie Eillish. Three remarkable young women , all under the age of 20. This is our future. Now , we just have to get the boys with the program.
113
@christina r garcia They are all remarkable young ladies. However, Greta has some serious emotional and physical issues (this is per a book her mother wrote). She has ASD with anxiety so bad she is sometimes rendered mute and she has an eating disorder.
As a mother of young adult children, I would not have facilitated her crossing the ocean to the US at age 16 and being exposed to bullying via social media. She has an even more affected and psychologically fragile sister who has also been distressed by some of the unpleasant responses to Greta.
5
@Priscilla
Then she is to be commended for her courage and determination, as an autonomous human being, with all the burdens that she carries, for living her truth. And I have no doubt that a major part of the anxiety she lives with is caused by her clear sightedness about the lack of a future that she sees for herself and her generation, if she doesn’t continue to do what she’s doing. Previous generations have made enormous personal sacrifices for the greater good. This is hers. Do not take it from her. Support her, and her actions, to make her burden lighter. Apparently you would be in good company as Mr Mnuchin’s wife, Louise Linton does too.
19
@Priscilla
That is not what is about. Greta like Joan of Arc wanted to do something about power . I. Greta’s case it about stopping the Climate change and it’s fossil fuel enablers.
You seem to be suggesting that this is harmful . If Greta stops her duster from suffering the effects of climate change as well as many others that is certainly a valid trade.
I am a bit concerned in that you seem to devalue a woman’s outreach to politics. Maybe you prefer that teenage girls stay home and confine their activities to following the rules of their fathers and husbands. If true , who defeated those independent instincts in you?
12
Anything, anything at all, that the executive branch can do to unwind anything, anything at all, that is on the RIGHT wish agenda that is doable before they hit the wall they WILL DO. Anything before the sun finally sets on all of this. They know that unwinding all of this will take a century at least. Thanks Doc for staying on this the way you do.
8
The indirect pollution subsidies you mention are called economic externalities. The fossil fuel industry is bigger than $5 trillion and if $5.2 trillion of its pollution is shucked off onto the rest of society, what value do they really bring? Joe Romm has said if we mobilized a World War II-like effort to deploy all the renewable energy we already have, we'd be able to stop carbon emissions. But the political alliances the fossil fuel industry has prevent this. It is corruption in the highest places, with bought-out conservative politicians, who are leading to the climate's demise.
19
@David I am all for renewable energy but there are limitations to it's use, even as technology improves. Generating energy is one thing. Regulating the flow and converting it into a usable form is another. Then there's storing it (for example, storing solar energy to use during the night) and transporting that energy to populations that need it.
For example, Scotland can produce oodles of wind energy, but it has a small population with many sparsely populated areas. People are surprised to learn that Florida, where I live is not ideal for solar energy (due to the number of cloudy, rainy days). Per a calculator Google has, a solar system on my roof (I have a shady lot) would provide me only $40 of power per month but cost $35,000.
There are many uses of oil that are not overly polluting and natural gas is environmentally friendly.
1
@Priscilla - Fair enough i think, but how are you for wind, wave, or geothermal where you are? Could any of the alternative sources of green energy fit you in place of solar if we mobilized as David depicts?
Well, Krugman, you’re simply wrong about ‘conservatives’ being against all government action- there’s colossal military expenditures, persecuting scapegoat populations such as illegal immigrants, and supporting certain entitlements just until re-election would no longer be an issue for them- say, this December...
38
@artikhan Don't forget controlling women's bodies.
Remove the subsidies, grants, write-offs, etc. and the price of gas at the pump would be north of $5-$6 a gallon. That would be an inspirational price. Inspiring all manner of carbon fuel replacements and transportation alternatives.
23
@Ralph Averill
Also there’s matters not so easily priced into the cost of gas and coal- wilderness and wildlife preservation, more of a living earth for the next generations to maintain relationships with... plussall of the other costs mentioned.
5
@Ralph Averill if the government subsidies were removed from the estimated cost of solar panels for my Florida home, the cost would go from ridiculous to insane. Full cost of a system to save me $40 whopping $ per month: $35,000.
U.S. hit peak carbon emissions in 2007.
Notice it started coming down after Obama took office and changed the mpg. rules for automakers, coal factory rules, government tax breaks for greening your home, and did away with the old lightbulbs among other things.
Policy - it works.
Also notice there has been an uptick last year - after Trump took office.
161
Economics will eventually take care of this problem. Smart investors who put their capital behind sustainable energy are going to get very rich, while oil and gas will be seen for what it is - an investment in the horse-and-buggy industry just as the Model T was rolling off the line.
But we can’t wait for “eventually.” The crisis is right here, right now, and Trump, Mnuchin et al who continue to obstruct meaningful action on climate change are literally enemies of humanity.
If we don’t get these folks out of office in November, or hopefully sooner, we really are lost. We’re simply out of time.
79
@David Economics won’t save poor people in hot countries or in low-lying island nations. And rich countries won’t welcome them all as refugees.
1
Our modern day robber barons don't want to concede that government regulation can be a public good for the very reason that it supports their greed by diminishing the power of the populace and placing it firmly in the hands of corporations. The same reason Facebook doesn't want regulation, et al.
Government power is rife with those pesky attributes like oversight and accountability which is anathema to those who wish to run the government from the board room.
18
Will this article reach the people who really need to know, the people in states that keep electing climate change deniers, or do-nothing legislators who are just as bad? Facing the catastrophe of the worst case scenario, or even a more moderate catastrophe, if there is such a thing, governments should be rushing to take action, and do it now, i.e. right away, to make the point.
Dr. Krugman's assertion that with a little government incentive in the form of a carbon tax and cancelling the huge fossil fuel subsidies, will free markets to get this done can't be emphasized enough. The tax would not even be an imposition if a transfer tax, given back to the payers immediately, to help switch their energy needs to renewables. The energy will even be cheaper in the long run, if not immediately. And there will be many more workers employed to do this than in the fossil fuel industry--a boost to economic growth.
To put this another way, Everyone Will Benefit. Clean air, lowered health risk in addition to stopping the runaway storms, fires, and almost guaranteed sea level rise with the ice caps melting on the warming course we are now on.
One other thing. Reprint this with the references citing and explaining the science. That's what really needs to be taught, and every day just like a weather report, but about the health of the planet and the dangers we are now facing--a collaborative teaching effort that will also show the way how to take action now.
Everyone Will Benefit.
17
@Loveman0
Excellent idea! — Weather broadcasts should detail carbon pollution data like the financial news does with the stock market quotes on the local and national media news.
In July 2008, Oil peaked at 147 dollars per barrel, I believe precipitating the WORLD recession. We have recovered since only because the price of oil has remained low since then. I will note that in January 2015 before Trump began his campaign, the price of oil was 29 dollars per barrel. Now it's at 59 dollars per barrel.
5
Not surprising from Mnuchin, whose best claim to anything is that he's his father's son. Even his wife, not known for the profundity of her insights, seems to be more aware (albeit briefly, until her post was taken down) of the disaster staring us in the face than he is. In the end, the sneers that GT has been subjected to by Trump, Mnuchin, et al., only serve to confirm what an extraordinary young person she is.
16
@DGM, actually Mnuchin seems competent at producing movies, including the Lego Batman Movie. He should go back to that occupation.
1
It would be nice if Dr K explained why countries subsidize fossil fuels.
Every vehicle in most of the world runs on fossil fuels. Electric ones mostly run on 100% natural gas. In wealthier countries, fuel and utility taxes are extremely regressive (ignoring air travel). So a negative tax on these is...progressive.
Further, manufacturing is often highly competitive internationally and energy intensive so subsidizing both utility bills and the domestic transportation network helps with competitiveness.
Perhaps most importantly, markets only work when movement is affordable. Workers have to be able to move to different employers to have any leverage, and customers need a viable choice of stores to keep prices low. The more a country is spread out, the more important this is.
So yes, conservation is important. But in much of the world, taxing our way to a greener future is mostly a fantasy.
3
@Alan
Increased cost for oil based energy would make non-oil based energy alternatives more attractive; present demand for gasoline guzzler vehicles would decrease; there would likely be an increased drive for “break through” innovations for non-oil based energy suppliers; cash rebates even free transit could offer an incentive for those choosing mass transit; reliable high speed trains could also be subsidized with oil consumption taxes like Europe could reduce long distance travel by cars; air travel by helium balloons might be reconsidered; cost of solar energy panels could be greatly reduced by increased demand and rebates; tree plantings and use of green belts and expanded parks to reduce carbon pollution.
1
@Alan "In much of the world" they don't suck down even a fraction of the hydrocarbons we do in the US. We are not talking about taxing someone else, just ourselves, —slowly progressively giving everyone a chance to adjust. Someone has to pay for cleaning up the mess. Who should it be if not the folks making it?
"Remember Munich" . Seemed like those two words were all that was needed to boost our defense budget in response to some wiggle behind the Iron Curtain. Brought every congressman to pliant attention.
Now we are faced with a merciless enemy that promises to keep her (as in Mother Nature) threats of death, destruction, and chaos , and will never show up for a peace conference or disarmament talks.
"Remember Munich" was great acquisition stimulation for more missiles, bombers, submarines, warheads etc., but won't work for such benign gadgets as solar panels, windmills and insulation. Luckily, we do have a genuine hero leader. Maybe "Listen to Greta" can be our rallying cry.
7
I liked this column until it stated that we can decarbonize while achieving robust growth.
Why must everything always revolve around growth? It's always the same: growth, growth, growth ...
9
@Clem
That is very "first world" of you to say! I am not trying to go ad hominem here, but you are sharing a perspective that overlooks about 3.5 billion people who don't live in successful economies; growth is needed until everyone can participate in a healthy and dignified life. It's not fair that almost half the world population suffers for lack of growth (and fair distribution of its benefits) Also, it's not that growth can ever come without problems. But a careful society could shift the burden of growth or spread that burden not to bear harder on the already less fortunate folks in the world.
The role of the mobility of international capital in fomenting misery on 3.5 million people while further rewarding the already well off needs attention and correction. When growth is positive for communities as when corporations exploit low wage communities, nonetheless bringing jobs, the same corporation effectively imports low wage jobs into western settings.
It is not growth per se that is behind pollution and poverty - it is unregulated growth driven by international capital unchained from regulation and without ethics or morals. Laws are the best substitute for the lack of ethics and morals - we need laws to contain and direct international capital in ways that are conducive to the improvement of the human condition. Growth, per say, is not incompatible with that.
3
@Clem
Yep, and "ambition, ambition ambition."
and "Success, success, success".
and "Compete better, compete better, compete better".
I don't like extreme competitors and the world and Nike love them. It's an almost pathological mindset (Lance Armstrong, Steve Jobs) - they can't accept defeat- (Serena Williams) . They always make someone a loser.
I like cooperators.
1
People are dying because of pollution of the oceans by plastic, air by coal particulates, atmosphere by CO2 and methane, and land by toxic chemicals in electronics and plastics (again) discarded in landfills. Sea level rise makes millions homeless -- ask the people of Bangladesh and the pacific islands, and contributes to untold misery and further deaths,
Therefore, destruction of the planet's climate and ecology should not longer be regarded as economic issues, but rather as criminal actions, no less the the crimes against humanity tried at Nuremberg.
16
Subsidies reduce the retail price of a commodity. That makes the commodity, whether it’s milk, eggs, coal, or oil, cheaper for retail buyers. This can be done to prop up an ailing industry like coal or to boost an emerging sector like renewables.
Subsidies can also be motivated by a desire to help the poor, like keeping lifesaving fuels such as heating oil accessible to low-income households
much of the "subsidies" the report highlights are actual handouts to the poor, almost all of it.
@Joe Yo
You are factually wrong, my friend. The "report" you mention, if you're talking about the IMF estimates, itemize direct subsidies to fossil fuels industry; The stuff you are talking about, as if fuels are cheaper because, for example, EXXON does not pay income taxes, are not what the IMF is "estimating." The mechanism you must be talking about, since EXXON would never allow profits to sag, is that EXXON would charge more at the point of distribution if they couldn't cheat on taxes. Probably true!
But that is misleading. If EXXON paid its proper taxes those revenues could fund subsidies to PEOPLE who may need lower prices at the pump and the whole society, including wealthy folks gassing up their yachts, would pay closer to the fair cost of fossil fuels.
A good consequence of that would be that paying the full cost stimulate folks to look for alternatives. Alternative fuels. Sustainable fuels. No use making up logical arguments for the status quo - the planet is being killed and we need interventions from regulatory agencies and taxing agencies to reduce fossil fuels use and encourage less polluting forms of energy consumption. Oh, duh. Krugman already said that...
3
It seems to me that you have confused handouts to the wealthy with handouts to the poor. While it is true that an increase in fuel costs disproportionately hurt low income people, they also disproportionately bear the costs of pollution be it exhaust from cars on freeways or lead in water. The pirates have convinced us that in order to prosper or prevent social anarchy, we must feather their nest. They are liars each and every one.
@Joe Yo What is your source for these statements?
It should be clear that there's a massive divide between those who use their minds to arrive at insights, and those who use them to justify their beliefs. Mnuchin et al, like those defending Trump's efforts with regard to the Ukraine affair, will trot out any notion that supports their agenda (such as "market rationality" and play down others (such as "externalization of costs") to make their case. Yet Mnuchin, is not like the average climate-change-denier in that within his "heart of hearts" he knows better and still chooses to gas-ligh the electorate.
Consider then that economists like Paul are actually attempting to explore the relationship between economics and ecology, while others are trying to deny there is any relationship whatsoever. Everything connects and those connections tend only become obvious during a crisis.
And 2020 begins the decade of climate-change crisis...
19
Excellent article. Greta may not have learned about negative externalities in economics and the role of corrective public policy, yet she articulates the economics far better than Mr Munchkin. Besides, his behaviour betrays arrogance.
35
Bringing environmental costs into anything enables an endless amount of costs to be attributed to the "cause".
Fact remains without fossil fuels the world economy would be considerable less than the $5.2T cost.
Even Paul Krugman, should he live as a vegan, sedentary, non- fossil user, has a large environmental impact. Well above that of billions of others in this world.
A perfect fossil fuel free world would be perfect. Facts are though that at present it is not achievable as we don't have the technology at a suitable cost.
Even when they perfect electric vehicles at a competitive cost it will take decades to remove the 1.4 Billion fossil vehicles that exist now.
I would say at the moment Mnuchin is right, Greta remains an idealist.
We must begin changes before they are immediately profitable once we realize that such changes will be necessary. The attitude of ‘if it’s not instantaneous, it’s not worth it’ is suicidally myopic.
9
All the more reason to support the research and advances in fossil-free energy, rather than rejecting the science and continuing to subsidize and encourage stagnation with fossil fuels.
10
@Jerry Engelbach Absolutely. And the obvious choice is nuclear energy. No other existing technology has the ability to achieve scale in a relatively short period. And improved safety measures have dramatically reduced the risk of nuclear plants blowing up.
5
"Sheer greed" hits the bulleye, consistent with the Trump Administration's wholesale perversion of the missions of federal agencies, away from the public good and warped to cronies and donors within respective industries. This perversion of missions goes beyond mere policy changes: the sweeping corruption damages America in several ways. For example, in international responsibility and image, in not protecting citizens from the harms of increased air and environmental pollution measured in higher mortality and illness, in the economic penalty and loss of future economic competitiveness, in the negligence and abuse of ecosystems flying in the facing of overwhelming climate science consensus. This perversion of federal agencies' missions, whether dismantling EPA regulations protecting public health or stealing public land thru the shrinking of national monuments, taken collectively, should be an impeachable high crime by virtue of not upholding an oath to preserve and protect America and Americans. When will governing for the the greatest good for the most citizens return to the thinking of Republicans, let alone a Republican president?
27
I had this discussion in the early nineties with a right-wing authority who could not understand what I was talking about. And I had the same discussion in the late nineties with an Economics Nobel prize winner, we agreed easily (I learned that the ocean water level had increased by one-half meter in the last two decades). The only conclusion I can come about is that extreme selfishness values only present consumption while people who value the future will think about preserving the planet. Can we all live together?
31
Love ya Paul and this article is (almost) spot on, but you have to get over your growth obsession. You state: "Everything we know, however, says that this is wrong, that we can decarbonize while continuing to achieve robust growth." That is a big assumption given that the only time in the last 20 years when global emissions have declined was during the Great Recession of 2009 (in other words, when there was negative growth).
But let's assume that we can continue to "grow" AND reduce global carbon emissions. More growth will still mean more consumption, more biodiversity loss, resource depletion, air and water pollution, hazardous waste, fisheries collapse and on and on. There is no evidence to suggest that economic growth can be completely decoupled from resource consumption, nor has this ever happened to my knowledge.
The answer is staring us in the face. Stop growing and start sharing. Rich countries are plenty rich enough. We just do a lousy job of sharing the wealth. Poorer countries still need to grow of course, but even then, there is a limit to how big the global economy can become on a finite planet. And quite likely we have already surpassed this limit.
41
I agree totally and have just sent a similar comment. One thing that I disagree with most nyt commenters is on recognizing immigration’s effect on population growth in the United States and therefore on the environment. This will never be discussed although it is one of the most important national issues.
3
@Mark B You're fundamentally right, but it seems to me you're equating (economic) growth with use of natural resources.
Think of the growth in an economy where we have enough medical professionals, where we have an abundance of excellent teachers in a world class K-12 system, where we've a food distribution system such that no one need worry about going to bed hungry, and so on. Not to mention the R&D involved in increasing the longevity of products we use but with less resource consumption.
That's lots of jobs that would count as growth.
I expect you get the point.
1
If Greta Thunberg had only given the part of her speech where Paul Krugman here voices agreement, then it would have been much more reasonable. Sure, fossil fuel subsidies are bad for the world. But that's not all that she said. She also said that "net zero emissions" is cheating, and then said, "Until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero."
I have long been concerned about global warming, just like other reasonable people. I support carbon-free electricity, I support energy conservation, etc. But I don't know how to interpret "real zero" as part of any credible plan. The best I can do is take Thunberg seriously but not literally, which it seems to me is what Krugman is doing. But this is disappointing; there are too many people these days whom I am expected to take seriously but not literally.
@Greg Kuperberg The EU is committing to reduce CO2 emissions by over 50% before 2030. We are going in the opposite direction. I'm ashamed to be American, in fact I use my burgundy passport when I travel to get better service.
14
As usual, members of the Trump administration charge others with their own failings. Mnuchin seems to have forgotten that Trump's chief economic adviser, Lawrence Kudlow, has a degree in history, not in economics. And the person Mike Pompeo should ask about finding Ukraine on a map is Donald Trump.
46
I'm with Greta.
The US has borrowed over $1 trillion (roughly equivalent to 5% of GDP) since the first week of January 2018, and has very little to show for it other than credit fueled bubbles in the economy and stock market.
Economy bubble:
The heavy govt borrowing to offset the loss of tax revenues is injected into the economy via govt spending.
Stock market bubble:
The corporate tax 'savings' was used for stock buybacks, not business investment or wages.
Let's face it, Mnuchin does not understand how the economy and stock market works. Mnuchin also does not understand the much larger existential threat: there will be no economy after this planet becomes uninhabitable.
27
Aside from burning fossil fuels being "a huge source of environmental damage, not just from climate change but also from local air pollution" - let's not overlook damage due to spills and leaks throughout the whole process - at the source, through the shipping network (tankers and pipelines), to refineries, and on.
10
I am glad Professor Krugman is stating the obvious. By the time the U.S. political system figures out what needs to be done the human race may be all dead. We are probably the only major society on earth financing our own destruction. So much for living in an advanced civilization.
68
@Michael Cohen Yes The US is financing its own destruction------------- in many, many more than one way. Example-- By not financing basic research --the source of new industries and wealth--instead giving taxes reductions so that they can invest in other countries---instead of their own. The wealthy and Trump are in large part totally oblivious of their country. They are rootless----All there is in their mind is their pocket book.
7
@a rational European May be so. If you look at U.S. history the American government has been bad a lot of the history. For some reason we still end up as a powerful nation. Our luck may run out this time.
3
@Michael Cohen This might seem like a non-sequitur, but humor me. Recall that the SETI Project. It has been listening for signs of extra-terrestrial radio transmissions signals from other technological civilizations for 50 years, and has never heard a peep.
Space and time are vast. Carl Sagan and other credible scientists believed that intelligent life must have arisen elsewhere given the large number of galaxies and planets. So let's accept that. Why don't we haven't we heard them?
Now for the bummer hypothesis. Its been but 300 years from the invention of the practical steam engine to today. In a blink, the human species has invented several ways to destroy itself. But we retain the fears and attitudes of our ancestors that squeeze out rationality when stressed. What if intelligence inevitably leads to self-destruction? If so, there may have been (and may yet be) many intelligent civilization that light up and burnout in but a moment.
And so, in the vastness of space and time, we just keep missing one another because there's so little time to send out the waves -- and so little time to receive them.
Have a good evening.
4
Thank you Dr Krugman for backing up what the government of Quebec is telling our citizens.
The technology is here but it is the economics that is stopping solutions.
The new head of the UN Environmental Programme is not a scientist he is an economist. Not just any economist but Mark Carney Governor of the Bank of England and Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2008 when our economists saved our bacon.
11
The incredible arrogance of members of the Trump administration should be taken as a sign that they consider themselves immune from any repercussions political or otherwise. The reason for this one must suppose is that they no longer believe they're liable for their words or actions. Considering that there is no longer a check on the Executive branch by either the Senate, the U.S. Justice Department or even the Supreme Court they seem to be right in this assumption. They certainly don't seem bothered by the upcoming election in November. Maybe someone like Mnuchin knows something we don't.
16
You say that conservatives don’t want to admit that government action is ever justified. I assume you mean action on fossil fuels. On controlling women's bodies, action seems to be completely justified.
72
Professor Krugman needs to explain the concept of Negative Externalities (that he overviews here) in greater depth. It's worth a full column. Even a series of columns. People do not seem to fully understand it (e.g. Mnuchin) and reaching a point where most people understand it is critical to moving forward on climate change. It's really not all that hard.
5
@Howard
Purely because they would rather not
@Howard I'm not sure people like Mnuchin (or me) understanding Negative Externalities is going to change anything. Because, as Prof. Krugman says, the big issue is greed, pure greed.
We should know this very well in Australia, since both major parties receive much funding from the fossil fuel industry. Just how much we don't know, because they don't even have to disclose it! But most estimates are "a lot". But the idea that politicians are stupid or simply don't understand is I think wrong. They are simply corrupt.
And we should be clear that, as Prof. Krugman says, it's not a matter of emissions curbs hurting the economy as a whole. It's a matter of them hurting particular economic interests, those same ones that have the politicians in their pockets. These people are already filthy rich, but they just want more and more.
My comment here is, in any kind of practical sense, both apropos of nothing and apropos of the heart of the matter. It feels to me as if present circumstances are giving us a direct window into history of a kind that we have not had before during my lifetime. Greta Thunberg is an extremely plausible picture of the charisma of the actual Joan of Arc. The clarity and power of her vision is literally earth shaking. And Trump and his supporters are giving us an undeniably plausible description of 1930s Germans and their mental processes (other than the very small minority like Dietrich Bonhoeffer).
17
@Robert
Good grief. My grammar! I should have said, "The clarity and power of her vision ARE literally earh shaking."
1
With respect to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, how much is spent each year by the US military in the Persian Gulf to safeguard the flow of oil?
36
Microeconomics gives us a powerful set of basic concepts for understanding the world. A few brave people have said that these concepts are wrong, and that this explains some of the terrible mistakes that we are making (like our environmental policy). Greta is one of these brave people. She is not alone. There are a number of dissenting experts - Polanyi for example - who say that microeconomics is built on a foundation of wrong ideas. In this debate, which puts fundamental ideas like growth, self-interest, and yes the supply-demand curve on the chopping block, Mnuchin is surely irrelevant. Krugman is far smarter, and far more dangerous, as the author of a well-regarded microeconomics textbook and as a very subtle apologist for his profession and for ideas like endless growth. I am pretty sure that Greta has rightly aimed her critique at people like him.
2
@JK I also would like to read a column by Professor Krugman speaking to the issue of more and then more, growth. Our present economic system seems to me to be the perfect Ponzi scheme. Surely at some point the paving over of the world is not good.
2
@JK
Just because some people don't understand the concepts doesn't mean the concepts are wrong. And just because some people abuse the concepts to satisfy their greed doesn't mean the concepts are wrong.
The concepts are a basis for decision-making, not a substitute for decision-making. The economic decisions our leaders make cannot alter fundamental economic truths but can be guided by them to decide the best way to achieve our stated goals whether economic, environmental or otherwise.
1
@JK
Krugman is correct. PERIOD.
Conservative economic theory seems to be rooted in the goal of total deregulation so that one person can make money today, which causes great expense for someone else tomorrow. That is exactly the model that the fossil fuel industry employs.
They don't care who they hurt in the future just so long as they don't have to pay for the losses. They consider government intervention that attempt to curb such losses as a loss of liberty for them.
If the fossil fuel industry has to comply with such regulations, that will require investment on their part which will reduce immediate profits. But those diverted funds results in someone else's profit and a huge reduction in other people's losses which then allows then to invest and prosper from the money they have saved. I don't have any data, but I would not be surprised if the ratio of dollars saved by others far exceeds the upfront cost dollars made by the polluters.
The only way to achieve this restoration of a balance of losses versus profits is through government intervention, through taxation and regulations. And there you have the reasons why Steve Mnuchin is dead wrong and Greta Thunberg has got it right.
19
The fossil fuel industry is now in the same mode as the tobacco and chemical industries of the past (and really are still mostly unchanged);
> Deny you've done damage (even when you know you have);
> Subsidize fraudulent science to provide cover to your position, as you know most of the public can't spell "science";
> Buy up your Senators and Representatives and be sure to employ their friends and families - insist on writing new laws and regulations for them;
> Spin up the PR effort to convince the public that you're there to protect their jobs and those "elitists" are only interested in eradicating their honorable work.
Regrettably, this works predictably well, at least in the US...
36
Steve Mnuchin is a unethical individual who is willing to go along with any and all amoral rolling back of policy, implementation of new policy that is damaging to the public at large, reallocation of federal funds approved by Congress for specific purposes, and generally draining the national coffers - all on behalf of the ruling class, which is he is a part of.
Mnuchin is a banker and former Goldman Sachs alumnus. He is no economist. There is a huge difference in approach, outlook and purpose between banking and economic policy making.
Greta Thunberg is a precocious, highly intelligent, empathetic young lady who will go very far. She's already achieved much in her young life, speaking in forums few ever address.
Mnuchin is right to worry. Greta's generation will make Mnuchin and his co-conspirators answer for their crimes against humanity.
This weekend, there was news that Mnuchin's wife tweeted in support of Thunberg and then deleted her tweet. That, in my mind, just goes to show how unwise these oligarchs are in their personal associations as well as business. If your life mate doesn't share your values, then... ?
Trump will come to an end. It is up to us to replace him with a president who will move us out of the perilous position we are currently in, in a principled and steadfast manner. The dealmaking, triangulating, and compromising of the last 40 years is got us into the muck we are up to our eyeballs in. Ethics, forward vision and empathy will get us out.
54
@Rima Regas Trump, alas, is a symptom. History, when (if) it writes the story of the Fall of the Republic and the damage it caused as it fell, will identify Mitch McConnell, not Trump, as the individual most responsible. Trump's a garden variety sociopath who happened to be super-empowered with an inheritance. McConnell is something altogether different:
-- The Palpatine to the vain Darth Donald
-- The world's greatest hacker, exploiter of the bugs in the Operating System of the US, aka The Constitution.
McConnell, Trump and the rest have systematically disabled our Operating System's error correction features, and, as a result, where all headed towards a system crash.
7
@Eben
Thank you. I wish more people got it, as you obviously do.
2
Greta Thunberg is the most important person on the planet now. 17 years old , wise, poised and willing to fight where no one has. We should all be honored to have her working for bettering the planet.
63
@Jim Gordon Hear, hear! Though not a climate scientist, I am an earth scientist and so probably have a better perspective on the science of climate change than most. When Greta says "I want you to panic!" she is absolutely right. We should all be panicking.
As you can see I live in Australia and, yes, I for one am thinking about where I can escape to.
15
@Jim Gordon
Fully agreed.
Yes we should panic.
We have fallen asleep on top of a volcano and we pretend that the deep rumblings are nothing to worry about.
Some even have the arrogance to say that climate warming is beneficial to humanity. To this I would reply: only if it finally wakes up from our drugged slumber. And we may not have much time left to save what's left of earth ecosystems.
3
@A. Nonymous Suggest you review the opus of your countryman, George Miller. Mad Max has great tips for survival where we seem to be going.
When the first ones came out they were fun to watch. Not so much anymore. Catch Soylent Green, too, which used to be entertainment.
The grifters will continue to win and profit from making people sick until we are able to rid our government of those who support them. And that won't happen until we are able to amend our Constitution to put political power back in the hands of the people. This includes abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate, repealing voter suppression laws, and allowing those who committed crimes to vote. Until then, the grifters will be allowed to put money over people's lives.
5
It's time we elected someone who can cry poor for the 99.9%. It's time for someone to cry that the fossil fuel industries are killing us. It's time for the cry that low marginal tax rates at the top (for the rich) are killing us. It's time for someone to cry that income inequality is killing us.
That's the way Trump & all business/republican types campaign & govern: They cry poor. They cry that, whatever they're against, is killing them. They cry they need relief.....from everything.
For the umpteenth time I write again, if we don't elect Elizabeth Warren, we're out of our minds. The entire decision comes down to, if you're going to govern for the status quo, what's the sense of running for election?
3
The most amazing thing, what truly boggles the mind, is that Trump and his band of villains straight out of the 1960’s Batman series are still being accorded the respect their offices hold rather than being treated for the common base thugs they are. These are the worst men and women our generation produced, and the system has been so corrupted by capitalism and greed that they were able to seize power and threaten both democracy and our Constitutional system of government.
19
Mnuchin is, and always has been, a twerp and almost every utterance out of his mouth elevates his twerp status. It is indeed all about greed -- the fossil fuel industry (supported by twerp government officials like Mnuchin) is trying to wring out its last decade or so of profits (and government subsidies) at the expense of the planet.
One other point however, Paul: Yes, the fossil fuel industry is a big contributor to the planet's demise, but the food we eat (consider all of those ads for double-bacon cheeseburgers, fries, and a coke) is even worse both for our individual health and the health of the planet. As an economist, it should be fairly easy for you to put together a column that illustrates how much each person can contribute to the planet's health by eliminating meat (beef and pork) from their diet in favor of a plant-based diet -- it dwarfs anything we can accomplish do by driving fuel-efficient cars, recycling, etc.
5
My left shoe is a better economist than Steve Mnuchin.
Definitely Greta is significantly more intelligent, honest and analytic in her thinking than that abomination whom his own father is ashamed of. And he is a mensch and powerful ex-partner at Goldman Sachs where he ran Equity Trading with intelligence and integrity.
10
The arrogant manipulators of public opinion in the administration of Donald Trump like Steven Mnuchin must hate it when Paul Krugman writes a very straightforward column, exposing their dishonesty and ignorance.
In other words, when Paul Krugman has both common sense and the analytical conclusions of every respected economist who has studied a particular issue on his side, the grifters can only mumble to themselves while they desperately try to think up new lies to cover their tracks.
It is a mismatch between Mnuchin and Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old young woman from Sweden who has charmed every person concerned about pollution and global warming.
She stands head and shoulders above Trump’s Treasury secretary.
19
To make the observation that Greta Thunberg knows more than Steven Mnuchin is to imply that Mnuchin still knows SOMETHING. Clearly, there is no evidence to suggest that.
14
@UC Graduate oh, I don’t know. Remember, he makes a reasonably effective Bond villain. I think he knows how to do that.
1
@UC Graduate
He knows where his bread is buttered. That's all he knows and wants to know.
2
Maybe Steve Mnuchin should get a degree in filmmaking before producing any more great art such as Mad Max:Fury Road, The Conjuring 2, and The Lego Batman Movie.
2
Economics and climate change aside, it's hard to calculate the deep and long lasting damage Trump and cohorts like Mnuchin are doing by thoroughly degrading America's reputation and standing as an influential leader on global issues. In international dealings, as in marriages, reputations and trust are hard earned, and once lost, may take a very long time to recover, if at all.
Here we have a public servant working for the most powerful nation on earth, telling the world publicly that we prefer oil greed and corporate grift over their interests, or anyone's interests, no matter how dire the consequences. And, gratuitously insulting a 17 year old, just because it'll get a few snickers in the Boardroom, and in the bathrooms at the next Trump rally.
Imagine the world without US influence, because that's what this wrecking crew is achieving.
8
in a true capitalist free market system the courts would be structured to allow individual or class action suits against polluters that would prevent or provide redress for what is seen as the market's failure to take into account external costs. in a fascist system the government colludes with industry to bury those external costs along with those who are injured by them. now which system do you think we have in the US right now?
7
Mathematics that every American child learn at school:5-5=0
Mathematics that you learn at Mnuchin school: 5-5=10.
In real life the Reagan administration was the first to apply the supply side economic. On September 30, 1981, the US debt was $998 billions After four years of supply economic the debt was $1.8 trillions on September 9, 1985. Ask the people of Kansas how supply side economic worked there? But after all it is working for the rich people, Corporate America, the 1% and...Steve Mnuchin.
8
Thank you Paul, and thank you Greta.
13
No. Thank you Greta.
Paul, until you endorse Bernie, you are just contradicting yourself. And you know what I mean.
Perhaps Mnuchin needs Greta to give him a tutorial on climate change, since he so badly needs to get up to speed.
And the tax cut will pay for itself? Good grief, really?? Perhaps Greta can also get him up to speed on Economics 101 since he finds it a bit confusing.
3
You should have mentioned Maddow’s book “Blowout” which documents the subversion of democracy by extraction industries.
"The oil & gas industry has weakened democracies in developed & developing countries, fouled oceans & rivers, & propped up authoritarian thieves & killers. But being outraged is, 'like being indignant when a lion takes down & eats a gazelle. You can’t really blame the lion.'"
The outright purchase of the Republican Party by Koch-like forces combatting climate change has been sad and predictable.
5
The hottest flame I've experienced lately was on Redditt for defending Ms Thunberg (and I've been on the receiving end of lots of Bernie bro shots) who want to smear her as shilling for the "globalists." In the new Doublethink world, going to Davos to earn the ire of Mnuchin is tantamount to consorting with the enemy. It's sad enough when our president picks a fight with someone who's over 50 years younger than he, but when our Secretary of the Treasury weighs in for no apparent reason other than to please the boss, it's clear we've been taken hostage to a cult.
16
The hubris of this Cabinet, to wit, Mnuchin and Pompeo, never fails to spew forth its venom. On the one hand, it is beyond condescending to insult Greta Thunberg. But on the flip side, and considering the source, Ms Thunberg should consider it a badge of honor. She is so above this nitwit Mnuchin, in character, maturity, and now in the study of economics. But to dig a little deeper, I ask where are all those fiscal conservatives who under President Obama predicted nothing short of Armageddon with a rising deficit? And now...the silence is deafening that under the "leadership" of Trump Inc our deficit has climbed to over $1 trillion dollars, "75% higher than it was in 2016." Unconscionable greed is the culprit buried within the DNA of our oligarchs and anointed monarch sitting on his throne in the Oval Office. But here is the deal. Greta is the future, she and millions of our younger generations who are smarter and wiser "grown-ups" already, with ethics and moral compasses, too.
6
@Kathy Lollock Fortunately, Thunberg has mastered the art of adopting the insults lobbed against her and turning them into accolades. I can’t wait to see her new Twitter bio!
1
One could also argue that "a 17-year old is a better economist" than a Nobel prize-winning economist who has his own column in the NYT.
We're still waiting for the imminent Trump cash, Mr. Krugman, 3 years on since your call.
2
@Jason W So you think business will go on as usual while the planet suddenly shifts to a new equilibrium point? The climate system lags behind emissions by about 30 years. Three years is way too short a time span to take any comfort. Brace for impact in all arenas, including the overall economy. It's just physics.
1
@Jason W If you think that 1 trillon dollars deficit, year after year, as far as the eye can see, is not going to hit the fan, sooner or later, I have bridge to sell you.
1
Bestow Greta with an Honorary Ph. D. in Economics!
3
Yes Mnuchin can certainly tell this young lady to study economics, he has vast experience in the art of alternative economics, known as swindling, along with his opprobrious commander the prevaricator in chief.
A whole crew of blackguards, enriching themselves at the public trough of others money.
:Mnuchin was a member of Sears Holdings's board of directors from 2005 until December 2016, and before that was on Kmart's board of directors.[5] After Sears went bankrupt, the company that formerly owned it sued Mnuchin and ex-CEO Edward Lampert for "asset stripping" during their tenure.[6] During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Mnuchin bought failed residential lender IndyMac. He changed the name to OneWest Bank and rebuilt the bank, then sold it to CIT Group in 2015. During his time as OneWest CEO and chairman, the bank became embroiled in several lawsuits over questionable foreclosures.
13
The likes of Steve Munchin, trump and co. don't even " come to Greta's ankle" as we say in French. Meaning they are really low on the totem pole, when Greta will do great things in the world instead of destroying it like trump. Go Greta!
4
This young Woman has more integrity and dignity than the entire Trump Regime, combined. And for Mnuchin to sneer and insult her is merely revealing his complete lack of character. Not that anyone voluntarily working for Trump would possess any.
Perhaps he should use some of his fabulous wealth to buy some compassion. No, that’s too much to ask. How about a chin, or some vowels for that utterly bizarre name ?
Hello to Louise the Trophy Wife. How’s the Shopping ???
8
Steve Mnuchin is a unethical individual who is willing to go along with any and all amoral rolling back of policy, implementation of new policy that is damaging to the public at large, reallocation of federal funds approved by Congress for specific purposes, and generally draining the national coffers - all on behalf of the ruling class, which is he is a part of.
Mnuchin is a banker and former Goldman Sachs alumnus. He is no economist. There is a huge difference in approach, outlook and purpose between banking and economic policy making.
Greta Thunberg is a precocious, highly intelligent, empathetic young lady who will go very far. She's already achieved much in her young life, speaking in forums few ever address.
Mnuchin is right to worry. Greta's generation will make Mnuchin and his co-conspirators answer for their crimes against humanity.
This weekend, there was news that Mnuchin's wife tweeted in support of Thunberg and then deleted her tweet. That, in my mind, just goes to show how unwise these oligarchs are in their personal associations as well as business. If your life mate doesn't share your values, then... ?
Trump will come to an end. It is up to us to replace him with a president who will move us out of the perilous position we are currently in, in a principled and steadfast manner.
The dealmaking, triangulating and compromising of the last 40 years got us into the muck we are up to our eyeballs in. Ethics, forward vision & empathy will get us out.
4:24 PST
4
Citizens United and ALEC will protect and insure that fossil fuel industries are protected by some 100 lobbyist per senator in DC . billionaires choking on filthy air and drinking water from polluted waters will not get them to give up a dollar of their profits ,they will fight to their dying breath to leave billions to spoiled brats like Trump.
5
Steve Mnuchin is a fatuous fool and joins the ranks of Barr and Pompeo. The 1T deficit was predicted - the GDP growth needed to be greater than 3%. Instead it’s been puttering along at 2016(1.57%), 2017 (2.22%); 2018 (2.86%) - in the middle of the pack. Regardless of the stock market the US is Mediocre. But then we don’t have any real economists at the helm.
3
Are you still wondering, Professor Krugman, why Republicans are intent on making the planet uninhabitable? It's really quite simple: Liberals are bad. Destroying the environment makes liberals unhappy. Therefore destroying the environment is good. QED.
7
I think this column is completely unfair to Steven Mnuchin. In the world of Donald Trump Steven Mnuchin is eminently "qualified" to be Treasury Secretary. Of course he doesn't have an advanced degree, or degree in something relevant like animal husbandry like energy secretary Rick Perry. Unlike White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham who doesn't have a college degree at all, Steven Mnuchin did graduated from college. Most importantly, Steven Mnuchin is rich, and he will defend whatever hallucinatory crazy talk that comes from America's "The Stable Genius."
8
So who really cares what a "fat cat" like Mnuchin says? I guess his corporate paymasters do, and the head-in-the-sand climate denial crowd. But they will never be convinced--probably not even when the ocean waves start lapping on the second story of their waterfront vacation properties. Yes, he should study some science I suppose, but who would every admit such a fool into a legitimate program to study it?
5
She also cares deepy about the future of Earth, and not just because of her teen age, but because she cares. I cannot think of even one U.S. politician - local, state, federal - who truly cares. Besides, the greedy corporations, many of them polluters, who give campaign contributions, wouldn't let a member of Congress vote his conscience anyway
5
Clinging to wasteful and greedy ways of life is not a bug, it's a feature. It is the intended meaning of "Make America Great Again". Don't believe me? Watch one of his rallies. At some point in his incoherent ramblings, Trump will rail against energy- or water-efficient appliances, or environmentally friendly products. In 2016 the joke used to be about hairspray; now it is (literally) toilet humor.
4
It's extremely unfortunate that you Paul, don't have any mind-share in the Mnuchin head.
We appreciate your argument and your perspective. I am very sorry that the administration doesn't.
We appreciate your trying. Thanks.
1
Great article. Just one necessary reminder. These are not "grifters" we are dealing with. That word can not come close to describing what it is these monsters are doing to the world. A better word would be, simply, evil. For that is what they really are. They are evil.
2
The Holy Innocent doesn't know what she is talking about.
Nor do most economists. She has a better excuse.
1
The human depravity required to be a right-wing science and manmade global warming denier is astounding.
The only reasons to indulge in such a stance are a sadomasochistic death wish for oneself, humanity, and the entire animal and plant kingdom...and psychopathic greed.
Or as Greta Thunberg said so eloquently at the UN Climate Action Summit:
"People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!"
"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight."
"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions?"
"There will not be any (realistic) solutions or plans presented...here today, because these (C02) numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is."
"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you."
"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not."
"Thank you."
---
Just say NO to the Gas Oil Petroleum party.
882
@Socrates
In the end, you know, when things get sufficiently bad, these greedy boards of directors and upper management types will probably all decamp to artificially self-contained estates with private mercenary guardians--probably one step ahead of the angry people bearing pitchforks and torches (or their more modern equivalents).
These people actually think they're going to have enough food, water, and air conditioning to survive indefinitely, because they think their money will enable them to purchase all that. But I don't think the world is big enough for them to isolate themselves forever.
Maybe they think the science will have advanced sufficiently by then for their private rockets to take them to terraform Mars, far from the hordes fighting over dwindling resources . . .
It just seems they have no sense of a common fate.
52
@Socrates
Thank you, Socrates, for quoting an extended swath of the remarks of Greta Thunberg at the UN Climate Action Summit. Her precocious wisdom and sincerity are much more important to ponder than the predictably dishonest efforts of Trump, Mnuchin and other Republican apologists for the fossil fuel industry to bully her.
40
@Glenn Ribotsky
The Koch brothers have a compound in Colorado that fits your description.
What pathetic fools, blinded by greed and grift. I am a sure their kids will turn against them.
24
Mr. Krugman introduced me to the word “kakistocracy” a while back. I am very grateful, as life since 2016 allows me to use it often.
5
Steves knowledge of emissions emanate from a first hand source and explains to some extent his need to wear glasses..
1
On top of this, check out the Rolling Stone article about the radioactive waste hazards of the brine waste from fracking.
4
@Bruce Mergele A truly frightening account of the dangers of the brine waste. I have emailed the article to several folks, one of whom is my granddaughter interested in studying environmental engineering in college.
Maybe everyone heading the EPA should have such a degree as well as everyone working at the agency?
Mnuchin showed again he is a mnumbskull (hat tip Dr. K.) occupying another administration seat for bullying and spreading economic voodoo (hat tip Bush 41-1980).
6
After Trump gets bounced out of the White House to the Big House, Mnuchin will go back to producing Hollywood movies. What economic theory advocates imposing sanctions and tariffs on our friends around the world, causing harm to American consumers and businesses, damaging our relationships with our allies, Art of the Deal Trumponomics?
1
Greta is also a grifter... lest you forget. He handlers are using her, mark my words this will not end well for her.
1
Nobel prize winning economist agrees with Thunberg; calls Mnuchin out for gross ignorance and greed.
2
Mr. Krugman has it right again. I believe that anyone who supports trump now, is either greedy, racist, or ignorant, or any combination of the three.
10
And a child shall lead them.
3
"Given all this, however, why are people like Mnuchin and his boss Trump so adamantly pro-fossil fuel and anti-environmentalist?"
Right question, Paul. Your answer, however, is dead wrong after three years of Trump.
They are pro-money. If being anti-environment is going to make them richer, then by G-d, they'll be anti-environment and pro-fundamental Christianity. On the one hand, they'll fill their coffers and then some and, on the other hand, their allies' deity will undo the damage. Meanwhile, you have oligarchs like Betsy DeVos making sure future generations of Americans are none the wiser.
See? They can't possibly lose.
8
AI editor prevents me from commenting on Krugman columns.
Yes Mnuchin can certainly tell this young lady to study economics, he has vast experience in the art of alternative economics, known as swindling, along with his opprobrious commander the prevaricator in chief.
A whole crew of blackguards, enriching themselves at the public trough of others money.
:Mnuchin was a member of Sears Holdings's board of directors from 2005 until December 2016, and before that was on Kmart's board of directors.[5] After Sears went bankrupt, the company that formerly owned it sued Mnuchin and ex-CEO Edward Lampert for "asset stripping" during their tenure.[6] During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Mnuchin bought failed residential lender IndyMac. He changed the name to OneWest Bank and rebuilt the bank, then sold it to CIT Group in 2015. During his time as OneWest CEO and chairman, the bank became embroiled in several lawsuits over questionable foreclosures.
4
Paul, as you've said, we live in a black-is-white, right-is-wrong, up-is-down period. So scoundrels like Mnuchin and Pompeo can get away with economic and political murder--literally. And thanks to the Propaganda machines in place to support them, there's little hope for lasting change. Just band-aids where the Democrats come in every 10 years or so to clean up the latest Republican disaster. But even that has a shelf life. As you've also said, "Banana Republic. Here we come!"
1
I didn’t know you admired little girls too!!
A course of poison would do moochin better than courses in economics and ethics, both of which would be wasted on these thugs.
1
Krugman is always on point.
1
Even Louise knows better.
My tie-breaking vote for the next Nobel goes to Louise...
Peace, economics, literature - who knows...
Maybe all three...
PS
If they were really a progressive couple, Steve would let her sign the money some of the time...
What sad pathetic little men. The entire right-wing media bubble has decided to attack a child because they have no better response to what is plain for all to see. Climate change is here, and is damaging our countries right now.
You can see their odd obsession in this very comment section. If some of these people had spent a sliver of time reading independent scientific analysis rather than delving deep into the backstory of a Swedish teenager like a bunch of creeps, they might have actually learned something of use.
3
@Dan M
You are mistaken in your belief that they don't know the science. Of course they know. They just don't care.
1
I wonder what goes on inside Mnuchin's head. Does he really believe what he says? Or is he an ultimate cynic, loving only his job and perks, ready to say anything in fealty to his boss? Is he afraid of his boss?
3
Teenage Thunberg says the world is coming to an end soon.
It is not.
2
Didn't Mnuchin get this treasury job because no one else wanted it? And his Ivy-league education is because of familial legacy. And he's performing for his master, trumpy, or he'll be out on his ear. He exemplifies the dim-witted sycophant.
4
Grifters ? Name calling now, eh. How low can he go ?
1
“Maybe he should take a course in economics — and another one in ethics.“
Maybe he should have his head examined.
I can now assume that Prof. Krugman is now on board with Bernie & the Green New Deal or is the ever present, never ending, creeping incrementalism still alive & kicking?
No tax cut has paid for itself. None.
Obviously this grifter Stevie is a liar.
Bush, Jr lied about tax cuts paying for themselves, as did RR.
3
Addressing the role of oil in the world is important. It goes into everything, powers everything, moves everything, and electrifies and heats almost everything.
But why are the Republicans so entrenched on growing oil? Because they are the military since 1861 and they are the biggest world user of oil.
They might claim it is needed to maintain our defense, but does it? I say no. It actually endangers us as we are resented for our military wars, and looking at the future, might cause the collapse of civil society, as is happening now, when unimaginable amounts of real estate are destroyed, crops fail, and the world may be a problem if we continue on this gluttonous path of climate destruction.
The evidence that proves all this being known by the Republicans hell bent on making us Hell, is the tax cuts through each Republican administration. They don't believe we will be here to pay it back so they really don't care about the debt and deficit.
So I'll leave you with a topic to explore for further enlightenment; it's about religious belief of the doom and gloom kind as the Republicans have failed to truly understand the prophets, instead, believing in profits in the here and now.
The swamp drainage plan won't work if Trump keeps building a bigger dam around his administration's corruption and self-dealing.
Everything Trump has done is to benefit him and his rich cronies! He doesn't give a damn about anyone, but himself. Not even his own grandchildren!
1
Mnuchin mistakes arrogance for intelligence. I thought he was Jewish, but he apparently missed the story of David and Goliath.
Once again the Trump administration emperors have no clothes.
And Greta Thunberg had more sense and integrity in her little finger than this grifter posing as treasury secretary of the US.
1
In this election year, American voters will probably not respond well to being overly inundated with detailed policy proposals concerned with combating climate change. Better to keep pictures and videos of the world burning and flooding, along with severe weather events, at the top of the news on a regular basis. Unfortunately, Australia and Antarctica and the North Pole are all far away from the United States. But the US is experiencing droughts and heat waves and wildfires just like everywhere else. And it's not just a matter of global warming inducing climate change; the oceans are acidifying. If we significantly disrupt the global marine ecosystem, humans will not survive the shock.
We need an American president and Congress who can lead and work with the rest of the world to fight for the health and safety of our shared planet. This is not a hoax or a game. This is for all the marbles. We either adapt or we will be pushed to the side. The choice is ours to make, and time is not on our side.
9
@Blue Moon The pictures and videos of the fires in California have been pretty moving for me as well. Not that I needed an extra push to believe that action on climate change was urgent, but some of those videos of people driving through tunnels of flames look like literal hell on earth.
2
@Hans
I completely agree with you. Policy talk can take us only so far. We need to get visceral so people really pay attention. This is a matter of life or death, particularly for our children.
1
What matters is not an individuals' brilliance, pedigree, or wealth but their humanity and honesty.
13
Greta Thunberg is an amazing young woman, still a girl. Her impact on the world is astounding.
Certain rare personalities, if I may say so are born with that unique gift, a usual and better term is charisma, which may have been overused.
There maybe others who have been born with that or similar gifts but they're not ready to sacrifice. Greta was. She did and hopefully will continue to do so. We all should admire her for that. Our adoration will make her feel rewarded, which she richly deserves. TIME made her person of the year, which was reserved for Nancy Pelosi, until Greta arrived on the scene. That's OK.
Perhaps, Greta's work will excite enough people to do enough to halt the march towards doom and possibly to reverse the course.
17
Thanks Paul. Have you heard about the Bank for International Settlements' paper called a "Green Swan event"? The idea is central banks should buy the dangerous assets and dispose of them or make them solar/wind power creators instead of say coal electricity producers .
The Reserve Bank of Australia appears to have been suggested: it's been worried about climate change for years, so we've had stories on our ABC, the SMH and others about the BIS idea.
But the Australian government won't permit this to happen. Being a total climate denier, and also rude about Greta, the opinion here seems to be turning against the government after we lost so many of our native animals, after months and months of warmer temps, drought and then the terrible bushfires.
19
Remember when Obama and the Democrats tried to end the fossil fuel subsidies?
MoscowMitch went into blitzkrieg, total war, no holds barred and was able to undermine Obama's effort to do the right thing, and protect his billionaire benefactors' tax-payer funded welfare payments.
108
@Dadof2 Obama was too nice to be effective. The Paris agreements are, in fact, counterproductive: it fools people into thinking action is being taken but in practice they are a bunch of meaningless promises by 2050. Even the worst countries "committed": Russia, Australia, Brazil, ...
We need someone bold like Trump but mentally healthy and on the side of people and the planet. Someone who's also not afraid to question existing trade agreements to exclude or penalize climate change deniers. That person will find support: from Europe of course, but also some centrists who have seen the light like Schumer, who voted against USMCA because of a lacking link to climate change efforts.
Anyway, you know who I'm talking about!
3
How did Greta get to Davos? Did she walk? Where did she stay and how was it heated. My question is, who put her up to this and what is their interest. Bet I know.
1
She took a train. Europe actually invests in their public transport infrastructure instead to caving to the auto and oil lobbies.
189
She took a train. Europe actually invests in their public transport infrastructure instead to caving to the auto and oil lobbies.
8
@one percenter Bet you don't.
10
Greta Thunberg rightfully has her admirers and not just amongst the climate activists she inspires, even if she incenses the pro-fossil fuel folks like Mnuchin. But I wish the climate activists, while appreciating her ability to call attention to climate change, also took seriously Greta's lead by example of walking or taking a train (or boat) rather than driving or flying everywhere. Getting the corporations to change would be easier if more people were willing to change their consumption habits.
23
Corporations don’t respond to acts of altruism or conscience.
The only force they respect is economics. Take away their profit base and they’ll scramble to change.
3
Remember December 2018, when the market was dicey, Mnuchin was vacationing in Cabo San Lucas, and he sought to calm the markets by writing that he'd called the CEOs of the six largest US banks and had been reassured that they had "ample liquidity"? The stock market immediately tanked because investors figured that if the Treasury Secretary was worried enough to be calling bank CEOs then something big and bad was happening.
It was all a mistake of course. Mnuchin was simply out of his depth then. As he his now.
303
@Alexander Bain
The word on the street was that Mnuchin knew exactly what the response would .be, shorted millions of shares of stock, making a killing while others were getting murdered.
11
@Alexander Bain -- "Mnuchin was simply out of his depth then. As he his now."
Then, right here in thedonaldtrumptopia, where up is down, left is right, and 'right' is long gone, he's the Perfect man for the (hatchet) job.
5
Just go back to the incentives. Specifically, the incentives for oil companies. It is likely that there is enough oil for another 50 years, with profits. In this equation, environmental damage is not even a variable. Companies are not going to react by themselves. Government has to intervene.
18
I am so excited to see that Dr. Krugman is continuing to cover climate change issues! Thank you! The more attention the media pays to this issue, the better. I’d love to hear even more about economics and climate change. For instance, Elizabeth Warren has an interesting plan for discouraging investment in fossil fuel companies, and other companies that are profiting from denial and climate change. It’s called the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, and the idea is that all companies would be required (by the SEC) to disclose how their business would be affected by various climate change scenarios. What do you think about that idea, Dr. Krugman? Or how about a column on how government procurement programs could give a boost to green manufacturing? I’d also be excited to see more columns on regulations. What is the best way to hasten the transition to electric vehicles? What is the best way to ensure that new construction is energy efficient? And then there is land use. How can we fix the farm bill to discourage the overproduction of commodity crops? I’d love to hear more!
23
@E
If any reader can cite any specific policy recommendation on any issue ever offered by the astute - if more often given to easy kvetching than concrete proposals of remediation - Dr. Krugman, please remind us.
The economic idea of your average tree stump is likely to be more accurate than those of the Trump administration, or the supply-side Republicans. At least the tree stump is not wrong.
61
Actually, taxes overall rose after the tax cut, in 2018 vs 2017, barely. And apparently again in 2019 over 2018. And they are estimated to rise yet again in 2020. So perhaps they DID pay for themselves. Actual numbers anyone can look up online...
2017= 3.33T
2018= 3.34T
2019= 3.44T
2020est+ 3.64T
1
So why is the deficit growing? And please don’t grouse about entitlement programs. Apart from Medicare, people pay in, no options, they deserve services for their money.
12
@Roy P This is apparently not true, although it is being promoted by some sources. See https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-bill-did-not-cause-revenue-rise and https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-itself-2018 and
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/us-tax-revenue-dropped-sharply-due-to-trump-tax-cuts-report.html
Rather than looking at absolute dollar amounts, look at the ratio of taxes collected to GDP and the taxes collected adjusted for inflation. When those are taken into account, tax revenues have fallen, according to cnbc, by 2.5% from 2017 to 2018.
13
@sherri I think you've found a "kind" way to say that "figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure."
3
One way I think the Thunbergs of the world are a bit off track is focusing on producers of fossil fuels, rather than also focusing on the intense consumers of fossil fuels.
The air travel industry is the first that comes to mind. Two good starts would be to (1) tax jet fuel used in international flights, which is currently untaxed; and (2), to put stiff taxes on private aviation.
Both of these are in effect carbon taxes, but of a progressive sort. The well to do are those who use these, unlike taxing gasoline (still not a bad idea) for which a Bentley driver and a landscaper driving an F-150 pay essentially the same amounts.
9
@Jim S. Agree 100%, but you're leaving out bunker fuel (ships). Shipping containers and fossil fuels don't reflect the environmental damage.
There should be an additional tax for docking cruise ships, which are a terrible source of local pollution (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/nyregion/cruise-ship-exhaust-shore-power-nyc.html).
2
When I was in law school in the early 70s there was a book published which was very popular at the time. The first Earth Day had recently occurred. TANSTAAFL was the title. It was an anagram for There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody has to bear the cost of pollution. We don't buy iron for steelmakers. Why should they get to pollute for free? This book should be published again and widely publicized. No one needs to take any economics classes.
10
@James Ricciardi Assuming that someone is guilty, wouldn’t it be the consumers? The problem for progressives is that you can’t blame the end user if you want to win political points.
3
@John
Most of us realize this kind of response is baseless. Consumers do not research, innovate, subsidize or create the products that pollute. We are, in fact, the victims. Call it capitalism.
8
@Mary Businesses don’t exist absent of demand. If consumers stopped buying gas and oil then the industry would go bankrupt. Consumer demand drives what’s sold in a capitalist society.
1
I was watching a program about the development of Houston as a dynamic diverse world city, and was particularly surprised by the explanation of the low property and state tax—the city and state of Texas receive money from the petroleum industry that goes into a kind of state sovereignty fund. Also, Residents of Alaska receive a couple of thousand dollars each year from the petroleum-extraction industry, a pay-off to the citizens that is in danger of going dry, hence the push to go into the currently protected national parks and preserves. This is why so many Americans who don’t work in the fossil fuel industries resist addressing climate change—whole states are dependent on the cash. So as much as I agree with Prof. Krugman on just about everything, we should be sensitive about seeming to smear regular folks with the same greedy brush as corporate executives.
4
@jsk There is no difference for those who profit from the system, with the expressed notion of doing so at the expense of others, whether they be personal or corporate.
4
@jsk
As a Houston resident (and native Houstonian), I don’t believe this is accurate. Yes, the state accrues royalty monies from some land holdings which have oil, but I don’t believe any of that money funnels to Houston or any other individual city. I know that oil royalties fund the Permanent University Fund, which benefits the university of Texas, Texas A&M and a few other schools in the state. Taxes are low here because our ultra conservative legislators refuse to spend money for the public good.
11
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez points out that if you don’t have an economics degree, like Greta, they’ll mock you for not having one. If you do have one, like AOC, they’ll claim it’s illegitimate.
They will happily deny logic, science, and environmental consensus in order to protect oligarchy. Not surprisingly, economics fares no better.
953
@Matt -- "They will happily deny logic, science, and environmental consensus in order to protect oligarchy."
They also deny Democracy, and quite jovially, when need be -- ethics has never been their strong suit. More like an empty suit.
45
@Matt : Ocasio-Cortez MINORED in economics -- her BA (not masters) is in international relations.
3
@Concerned Citizen
A quick online search reveals... "Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics."
49
What are the sources of the subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry with some idea of their sizes?
This article cites a total, but does not indicate the sources or their relative sizes.
Clearly we charge consumers gasoline taxes to help pay for highway construction and maintenance. This should not count, as the same costs would exist in an all electric fleet, all powered by non-fossil fuel power generation.
Clearly there are "depletion allowances", but what are the sources and sizes of the Fossil Fuel subsidies?
1
@Mark Joh You have to be careful reading Dr. Freidman. Although he will point out his bias, he does it in such a manner as to have it "breeze" by. I would suspect most of the "trillions," he quotes are the added costs of health care due to pollution.
1
@Mark Johnson "direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually."
"There are many kinds of costs associated with fossil fuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015" alone.https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
3
@Mark Johnson Krugman does have a link citation for his claim: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf
You may argue with the models used, but they are trying to account for the end-to-end cost to society (health effects, climate change consequences, of our use of fossil fuels. Who should pay for that? The individual consumer? or the producer? or society (the collective consumer)?
6
People on the left make it sound like no one wants fossil fuels, that the world has already voted against their use, that what people really want is high cost alternatives. I suppose that all makes sense to highly paid professionals, government employees, academics and media types. They also don't mention that the developed nations don't control fossil fuel use by about 3/4 of the world's population. What the campaigners against fossil fuels really propose is lower living standards and higher unemployment for the next 50 or 100 years to achieve the doubtful goal of lowering the entire world's temperature by perhaps 1 degree. Is that crazy, or what? Why are people listening to them?
3
@Ronald B. Duke
In re to: "People on the left make it sound like no one wants fossil fuels, that the world has already voted against their use, that what people really want is high cost alternatives."
No. What people want is low cost alternatives. Fortunately, unsubsidized renewable energy is now most frequently the cheapest source of energy generation.
This means not "lower living standards and higher unemployment for the next 50 or 100 years" but precisely the opposite.
34
This would make sense, if there had not been so many impressive developments in alternative energy sources in the past decade. But there have been, and that's part of what Krugman means by saying that assuming less use of fossil fuel must mean a lower standard of living is excessively pessimistic. It would mean a lower standard of living for super-rich oil industry executives, but not necessarily for the general public.
18
@Ronald B. Duke, Your arguments don't hold much water for multiple reasons:
1. You imply, Dr Krugman is laying out his arguments because he is one of the people on the left, and not because of he is an outstanding scholar in his discipline who just happen to be sympathetic to liberal causes. (actually if you reversed your argument and state that inquisitive minds tend to liberally inclined, I would agree with you)
2. 3/4 of the world population uses much less than the 3/4 of the produced fossil fuels. Also the detrimental effects of climate change exerts much higher load on these regions and, coincidentally, alternative, renewable energy sources (eg solar) could be most efficient in Africa, Middle East, Australia in the long term.
3. Speaking of highly paid professionals - sorry to disappoint, academics and government employees barely meet the average income levels at this day and age. If you look for highly paid people - did you happen to watch the parade of collectible watches and scribing instruments displayed by Trump's defense team? Now you know, those are highly paid professionals, in my vocabulary
9
Greta should respond, "Maybe you should go study some science before you dismiss the vast majority of the world's scientists and their concerns about fossil fuels and climate change." The Trump administration and his supporters like to point to past problems with scientific 'predictions' as reasons to not believe climate change scientists. They obsess over a period in the 1960s/early 1970s when a small group of scientists suggested the Earth might be entering another Ice Age, and the news media went wild for a few months. They also like to point to Paul Ehrlich's book about the population explosion and how many of his 'predictions' have not come true (many have). That was one ecologist and his book was about possibilities rather than firm predicitons. They never consider all the things science has gotten right. I would not be printing this comment on my computer right now and posting it via the internet if not for solid, excellent science. Fossil fuels would never have been developed into the huge industries they've become without science. Moreover, it's totally different to criticize one scientist's over-hyped views than to dismiss consensus of thousands of scientists after decades of detailed research. I suspect that Mnuchin (and Trump) didn't take very many hard-core science courses and doesn't understand the scientific method. He should pay attention to his own education gaps before scolding teenage Greta about what he perceives as hers.
93
@Patricia Maurice
Don't worry, Greta will long outlive Trump. She will have plenty of time to reflect on who was right and wrong.
6
@BillH I hope so. If you read Scenes from the Heart you will realize that she faces many challenges, sadly.
7
They also fail to take into consideration that many people and governments did take heed of the predictions. Then they took action and actually solved the problem. Case in point, the hole in the ozone and the ban on aerosols. Rush Limbaugh routinely points this out this “false prediction” conveniently forgetting the ban that allowed the atmosphere to heal itself.
2
All that subsidized money currently going to fossil fuels could easily subsidize the purchase of electric and hybrid electric cars, as well as support attendant industries.
15
@Barbara Snider Only, you can’t take money that doesn’t exist and pay for something. The subsidies listed are largely hypothetical. What is actually being proposed is a large tax on fossil fuels which would not produce that amount of revenue assumed.
2
@John
It is not hypothetical, the fossil fuel industries receive tens of billions of $ in tax cuts and in being able to use developing energy fields to be subsidised by the government.
"United States
Congressional Budget Office estimated allocation of energy-related tax preferences, by type of fuel or technology, 2016
According to a Congressional Budget Office testimony, roughly three-fourths of the projected cost of tax preferences for energy in 2016 was for renewable energy and energy efficiency. An estimated $10.9 billion was directed toward renewable energy; $2.7 billion, went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission. Fossil fuels accounted for most of the remaining cost of energy-related tax preferences—an estimated $4.6 billion.[44]
According to a 2015 estimate by the Obama administration, the US oil industry benefited from subsidies of about $4.6 billion per year.[45] A 2017 study by researchers at Stockholm Environment Institute published in the journal Nature Energy estimated that nearly half of U.S. oil production would be unprofitable without subsidies.[45]"
"Environmental law institute assessed the size and structure of US energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.
4
@John
"The subsidies listed are largely hypothetical. "
Krugman's article reads:
"The International Monetary Fund makes regular estimates of worldwide subsidies to fossil fuels — subsidies that partly take the form of tax breaks and outright cash grants, but mainly involve not holding the industry accountable for the indirect costs it imposes. In 2017 it put these subsidies at $5.2 trillion....For the U.S., the subsidies amounted to $649 billion, which is about $3 million for every worker employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas."
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf
IMF report states:
"The discussion is primarily about consumer price distortions, but producer subsidies also arise when firms receive direct or indirect support (e.g., prices above supply costs, preferential tax treatment, direct government budget transfers, or paying input prices below supply costs) that is not passed forward to lower consumer prices (OECD, 2018)."
"In aggregate, 96 percent of the pre-tax subsidy in 2015 reflects *consumer-side subsidies* and 4 percent producer-side subsidies. For petroleum and natural gas, consumer subsidies primarily stem from the setting of domestic petroleum and gas prices below international prices in energy exporting countries."
In other words, the fossil fuel market is distorted in favor of continued use of fossil fuels, and this distortion is allowed, and to a degree, actively supported by governments.
It's not hypothetical.
7
"The bigger issue, however, is sheer greed."
Sheer greed is the reason for the existence of today's Republican Party. Doesn't matter if the issue is climate change, trade, workers' rights, or the doings of the local school board, sheer greed is what drives them. Nothing else even comes close.
429
@pedigrees
". . . sheer greed is what drives [Republicans]. Nothing else even comes close . . .".
Well, I believe that Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Barr are Republicans and they've been clear in stating that they are very much driven by their Christian faith.
It is at our great peril that we underestimate the power of fundamentalism and evangelicalism to control our lives.
31
@Karl Gauss
Agreed to both. Greed is the power behind the throne, and greed and false religion* are the occupants of the throne.
* Behind any megachurch is greed. It's a safe assumption although there might be one handful of exceptions.
14
@Karl Gauss You left out that Pompeo and Barr LIE as easily as they breath.
If they are so much driven by Christian faith (laughable), then why do they daily violate one of their clearest and most widely known passages in the Bible?
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Not much room for misinterpretation on this one. From observation, they are neither Christians nor faithful. I broke those two concepts apart as they also pledged Oaths of Office. Oaths broken as soon as their breath was expelled on the last syllable of the pledge.
8
An annually escalating fee on fossil fuels, with 100% of the collected revenue rebated to all individual taxpayers on an equal-share basis, would go a long way to correct this market failure.
As it stands, the victims of pollution pay for the privilege of being poisoned. It's the definition of unfairness and perversity. Sure, we get the value of using fossil fuels. But its like a farmer selling you food, then dumping all his waste in your yard and walking away.
Fee and dividend would invert this situation. In effect, the fossil fuel companies would pay consumers to stop using their product. All you have to do to get paid is use less than the average amount of carbon. Those who use more than average would be net payers. What could be more fair? The big users--the big car, big house, jet-set types--are causing more damage.
This approach would also allow for an orderly weaning off fossil fuels. If the fee starts low but ramps up quickly, no community or profession would suffer an immediate dislocation. There would be a 10-20 year transition to economy-scale green alternatives, and to alternate employment and business activity in and supporting those green industries.
Fee and dividend would also highlight those areas where direct regulation was still needed. So rather than throwing (expensive) regulations at the wall, they could be targeted to attack those areas where they'd be most effective.
13
Krugman is most certainly right about the economics of a national and international investment in decarbonization: the main idea is that we will not lose in some mercantilist way if we invest in new non-polluting forms of energy.
He's not persuasive when he talks about conspiracies and "grift," not because he is inaccurate. It is grift NOW, but our economy has developed over a couple of centuries of industrialization, during which, mostly, there was no such concept of the cost of pollution or the cost of global warming. The result is the same: we have to fight the current grifters. But we also have to understand that this kind of economy happens with no one plan, no conspiracy. In the future, if we keep choosing to let things happen, we will naturally drift into another form of grift and self-destruction. We have the planning tools of the 16th century and are trying to apply them to the 21st.
5
Hesitate to say something so simplistic about a subject about which I have studied so little (like Greta but far older and significantly more degreed), but hesitation in this case is not enough to deter me.
The fundamental problem with economics is that we confuse business, the enterprises that generate income and distribute it in the form of salaries, wages and captial gains (most often inequitably) do not follow economic priciples. As Dr. Krugman implies, they ignore them.
Perhaps because of our three score and ten (and as Paul says, surely greed) what passes for economics in our daily lives squeezes out most mention of any cost that does not fit neatly into a quarterly report. Environmental, social, any long-term costs remain unaccounted for, existing only as ghostly possibilities until catastrophe gives them sudden flesh, and then someone else (usually taxpayers) has to clean up the mess.
In short, when we encounter economics as displayed in the business section of newspapers or presented by the talking heads on TV, we are reading or listening to sheer fantasy.
And unlike J.R.R. Tolkein's Ring Trilogy and its many imitators, this fantasy and the businesses that run on its imaginings do us great harm.
13
What seems so stunning about this situation is that it is a suicide pact in the form of economic denial.
In a country that prides itself on innovation, how are the opportunities in manufacturing, installing and maintaining solar, wind and geothermal systems not viewed more positively? Even big tobacco saw the writing on the wall and diversified. Sad!
53
@Ray Zielinski
It isn't a suicide pact. It is mass-murder.
Our constitutional system was always designed to work in the favor of those who have. The system was never designed to foil those whose intentions are especially bad.
The system was also always designed to educate and motivate for industry and not civics or the kind of philosophical thinking that causes people to evaluate, reevaluate, and improve the conditions of our society. That is why anti-intellectualism has flourished over the centuries in this nation to the point where we have 325 million helpless people at the hands of a few wealthy thousands.
This presidency should be a lesson for everyone not only to vote, but to question the motives of those who would want our votes. This presidency should be the lesson that all Americans learn about what is possible and what is not.
If we want it, we can have it. If we believe that we could never have it, then we never will.
56
Fair enough. But I’m astonished that economic self-interest hasn’t played more of a role in corporate planning. Cynically, I suppose it’s reasonable to speculate that fossil fuel CEO’s reason that they won’t live to see the full consequences of their actions. But, don’t they have families to consider?!
My fear is that corporate American will believe alternative energy is feasible the day Exxon-Mobil, BP and others own the sun.
9
@Ray Zielinski
Many of them are earning so much they'll be able to make their own island bunkers from scratch. Maybe that is the crazy plan. Then again, maybe there is no plan and the reality is that these smart fools (look up smart fools and Robert Sternberg), is that the education this nation gave them was good enough to teach them how to game the system but not live a life of ethics and wisdom?
I think it is the latter.
While you're reading or watching Sternberg's video at the 2017 APS convention, look up another academic: Sanford Levinson, in connection with "Our Undemocratic Constitution."
The problem isn't only with corporate America. It is far deeper and will take far more than one election cycle to correct.
9
Trump and his band of grifters are moving as fast as they can to sell off our environmental common resources to the highest bidders (with discounts for insiders, of course). Crushing any countervailing force - regulation, administrators, scientists - may be the longest-lasting impact of this maladministration. It's a tragedy and I have trouble not blaming his voters for it.
753
@MW
There's lots of blame to go around. Trump's maladministration was all very predictable - all of it.
Hearing voters complain on the Democratic side about how they didn't like Hillary, how they felt slighted by Bernie's treatment, how they felt that both sides were terrible and how no one was worthy of their votes, I grieved at their lack of imagination and foresight. This all was avoidable.
On the Republican side of the ledger, there is only money and power. They have always been that way. Trump has allowed the Republicans to shed any pretense of civility in their quest for money. Nature is there only to be exploited and in 2016, the stars aligned and they have taken full advantage of their luck.
This was all avoidable.
63
@MW Is a “decarbonized” future possible? No. Not if you look at the facts which Krugman clearly didn't. Last month the NYT reported that Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, set the price of its IPO at a level that would raise $25.6 billion, a sum that is expected to make it the world’s biggest I.P.O. Do you think for a billionth of a second that the Saudi's, the Nigerians or anyone else in OPEC is going to stop drilling for oil? It's NEVER going to happen in our lifetime. NEVER. Every ounce ...& I mean every ounce is coming out of the ground into our cars & factories. Oil is the source of Saudi Arabia's power. The kingdom relies on oil revenue to pay for its massive domestic & military spending. Just to break even, the Saudis needs a pump as much oil as possible. Huge production cuts would force Saudis to drain their shrinking pile of cash, borrow money or scale back dividends paid by Aramco. According to CNN oil output from non-OPEC countries is expected to surge too, by a record 2.3 million barrels per day in 2020. That would easily top the previous record of 1.96 million sets in 1978. The US shale oil revolution is a big contributor to the coming gush of oil. US production is expected to climb by 1.1 million barrels per day in 2020. Norway & Brazil are also expected to add 1 million barrels per day next year. In the next ten years, we will be drowning in an ocean of oil. That's our reality. There's absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. Nothing.
2
@MW
You should have absolutely no problem blaming the deplorables for what they have wrought. I certainly don't, and I am including all the Bernie supporters who voted Trump in a snit when their guy got roundly defeated in the Dem primary because they were just too misogynist to vote for a highly qualified woman who scored the highest on honesty -- yes higher on honesty than St. Bernie - in 2016, and handed PA, Wis and Mich to Trump and so by gave him the election. A deplorable is a deplorable, no matter how they got there.
Conservatives are always moaning about people taking responsibility for their actions -- and they NEVER take responsibility for their actions -- biggest hypocrites that ever walked the face of the earth.
18
"In short, Greta Thunberg may be only 17, but her views are much closer to the consensus of the economics profession than those of the guy clinging to the zombie idea that tax cuts pay for themselves."
I wish this were so, but the economics of Thunberg or of a Bernie Sanders are viewed suspiciously or dismissed as socialistic by the consensus of the economics profession. I know this from my continual knowledge of what is taught in American economics departments. Do not try going against the economics of a Milton Friedman is the rule in most departments.
13
@Nancy In the Scandinavian countries, which have a higher standard of living than we do here, "Socialism" is considered "Civilized."
Public schools are "socially" accepted for the common good. Public libraries are another example of government-supported institutions. They are not considered socialist.
Providing medical care and food security--why are these considered "Socialist" exactly? Would you prefer seeing the elderly and the poor living in the gutter, kids uneducated, no resources such as libraries? "Civilized." That is what I expect on EVERY level of this country.
Protecting the environment, our Common Home (our ONLY home) is the top priority, and I am with Greta all the way. Without Mother Earth, we have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
6
@Nancy Fortunately the community of economists, like all communities, does not solely consist of people from the U.S.
4
@Nancy Your comment is suspect and without any proof. Milton Friedman is useless now and can be put on a shelf. Thunberg, Warren and Sanders have wonderful ideas that will help the world. Socialism works all over so please do some homework. Try France, Germany, England and Canada to start and see how their health care systems work. Plus they are doing far more with wind and solar power.
3