Welcome to Dr Lincoln's blog

Welcome for visiting my blog. Hope you enjoy the visit and always welcome back again. Have a nice day!


Garnaut - compromise or not? consistent or not?

Comments on “Double dissolution only chance on ETS: Garnaut”, 28/01/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Garnaut-says-double-dissolution-gvts-only-chance-o-pd20100128-24RCU?OpenDocument&src=hp7&rf=s

Garnaut is the federal government's former advisor on climate change and emissions reduction/trading policy. He produced a report for the government last year.

He is now saying that only a double dissolution has a chance for ETS.

Double dissolution may create a political opportunity to bring in an ETS earlier, possibly by months, but will that hastiness and political expedience guarantee Australia will get a good ETS?

Garnaut is contradictory to his earlier view that the ETS was so bad it would be better to scrap it and restart again.

Why a change of heart or thought or thinking or reasoning?

A person of fundamental contradictary

Comments on Bjorn Lomborg “Axe the tax if you want to go green”, 28/01/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/axe-the-tax-if-you-want-to-go-green/story-e6frg6zo-1225824114850

The author is arguing for using the most effective means to cut emissions using a carbon tax if we have to do it. On the other hand, he does not believe the price signal to raise the price of emissions on the development of new technologies. Instead, he is arguing for government spending on creating technologies.

One has to wonder what consistency the author has.

Does he believe private entrepreneurship responding to price signal? Or does he believe that only government spending can create the required technologies?

We don’t know where this person is really trying to ask us to go.


How many order's best?

Comments on Geoff Carmody “From Rio to Copenhagen the model was wrong”, 13/01/2209, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/from-rio-to-copenhagen-the-model-was-wrong/story-e6frg6zo-1225818572530

Carmody proposes to use a consumption tax based approach to emissions reduction in the world.

It is a very awkward and distorted one from an economist that has forgotten or foregone basic economic principles, even though a tax based on consumption may be equivalent to a tax on emissions directly.

Why not tax emissions from their sources and directly?

It appears that it is all based on a country’s self interest, as opposed to what is the best policy for the world as a whole.

It seems it is all based on a country’s self interest. It is another form of special interest groups.


Is economics rich countries'?

Comments on Andrew Elek “The G20: principles for meeting the global challenge of climate change”, 7/01/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/01/07/the-g20-principles-for-meeting-the-global-challenge-of-climate-change/

Although the article touched about the so called self selection of big groups like the G20, it has not advanced any effective measures or principles for such groups to avoid or mitigate that tendance among those groups or perceptions among others outside those groups.

Why don't people devisee some principles or processes that can improve the representation of those groups? For example, to have a principle of voting weight associated with any members that are actually representing not only themselves but also some others outside those groups? This will create some incentives for group members to take the interests of others outside the groups.

A second issue that the article also touched but failed to have a sound economic principle is equal per head emissions. If emissions represent a market failure, why don't economists apply the sound economic principles of tackling market failures such as externalities associated with emissions?

I guess it is all related to self interests that rich countries will have to shoulder the main costs if such well founded economic principles are applied. It is a well entrenched problem of economics it is perceived to be rich countries' tool to disadvantage the others and when it does not suit the rich, it will be abandoned.

For example, why is it the case for "convergence towards equal emissions per head by an agreed date, such as 2050", proposed in this article, as opposed to now or even back dated to the past?

Where is the user pay principle? Where is the property right that economists and everyone talk about?