Joe Biden geht einen besseren Weg im Klimaschutz
Ein Doktorand an der Universität von Georgia hat mit diesem Aufsatz einen Preis gewonnen und die FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) brachte ihn. Ich finde es interessant, um zu verstehen, wie die aktuelle US-Regierung mit dem Thema Klima umgeht. Titel des Artikels: “Joe Biden’s unconventional climate gambit may be what the US needs”. Schauen wir mal rein:
- “At his Leaders Summit on Climate this year, US president Joe Biden unveiled a plan to more than halve US greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Unlike previous attempts to counter climate change through carbon taxes, this proposal included extensive government investment and regulatory changes.” – bto: so weit, so gut. Das kennen wir ja. Er selbst ist ja dann schon lange nicht mehr im Amt.
- “In economic theory, climate change is a conceptually simple, though inconvenient, problem: it is simply a negative externality. A negative externality occurs when one person’s behaviour adversely affects another in ways she cannot (legally) control. In an unregulated market, too many of these negative externalities are produced. In the case of climate change, we each produce too much greenhouse gas because we do not consider its effect in ruining the climate for others.” – bto: Wir haben nichts davon zu verzichten, weil der Nutzen zu abstrakt ist. Abgesehen davon ist es mit Blick die Entwicklungsländer, die für ihre Bürger eine Verbesserung erzielen müssen, ohnehin ein unsinniges Vorgehen. Wir brauchen Technologien und da setzt Biden an – was gut ist.
- “Economics has an off-the-shelf remedy: tax it. This creates disincentives to the activity, which offsets the externality effect. A cap-and-trade scheme such as the EU uses has a similar effect.” – bto: Richtig, es wird immer teurer.
- “Biden’s climate change strategy eschews this straightforward gambit. Instead, we get a complex mix of supply-side investment and regulation targeted at specific sectors. It is the kind of government meddling traditionally regarded with suspicion by “mainstream” economists, and indeed I hear many economists make this complaint. When such an elegant correction to a market failure exists, why risk a more unconventional strategy? (…) The problem with the simple story of climate change as an externality is just that: it is too simple. It neglects important dynamics in adapting the economy to climate change, which require a more extensive response than a carbon tax.” – bto: Es gibt keine globale Besteuerung und deshalb gibt es einen Anreiz zur Verlagerung.
- “The first of these is the supply side of the economy. The traditional story says that, left to our own devices, we consume carbon-intensive products, and therefore a tax is required to divert our consumption away from them. In turn, this incentivises businesses to produce more carbon-efficient products because demand for them has risen.” – bto: Das setzt aber voraus, dass man wirklich wechseln kann, geht nicht immer.
- “Many goods which we want consumers to switch to are public goods, goods which a private actor would have little incentive to provide. The bipartisan infrastructure bill includes the installation of electric vehicle charging stations across the US. This kind of provision would not automatically arise without direct government investment — and however much you tax my petrol car, I will not go electric unless you give me a place to charge it.” – bto: Allerdings galt das vor Jahrzehnten auch für Tankstellen. Insofern stimmt es nur teilweise.
- “The second is the economics of innovation. Goods are not simply “supplied”; in many cases, they need to be invented. It has been known in economics for some time that in a free market, research and development is underprovided. Paul Romer won the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics for this discovery. Even if you create demand for more carbon-efficient energy, the private sector will be too slow to innovate to supply it.” – bto: Hierbei geht es aber um Grundlagenforschung und in der Tat sollte da viel mehr geschehen. Besser als Windräder aufzustellen.
- “This argues strongly for the inclusion of large government expenditures on R&D for carbon capture and energy storage, as in the bipartisan proposals.” – bto: Man beachte, Carbon Capture ist ebenfalls ein Thema in den USA (hier tabu, weil es ja den Druck zur Veränderung des Lebensstils reduziert und damit zum gesellschaftlichen Umbau)
- “Finally, the textbook story ignores dynamic effects. Many green energy sources benefit from “learning by doing”: the more we produce and consume them, the more efficient they become. This is something ignored by a carbon tax, which taxes the carbon produced today but does not take account of the carbon we might save tomorrow.” – bto: Es ist auch der technische Fortschritt, der die Zukunft rettet.
- “Although this might not look like a plan the textbooks would have prescribed, it may be better for it.” – bto: und wohl besser als alles, was wir hier so anstellen.
