This is Gernot Wagner's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gernot Wagner's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gernot Wagner
Economist at the Environmental Defense Fund in New York.
Recent Activity
You guys are too much. Thanks for the plug. Hey, do I still have blogging privileges on your site? How about an interview with my publicist, that I write myself?
Toggle Commented Jan 21, 2012 on Preemptive strike at Environmental Economics
1 reply
Originally on Market Forces: David Owen asks a provocative question in the current New Yorker: If our machines use less energy, will we just use them more? He more or less says yes. The real answer comes in two parts. For now—over days, weeks, months, and even years—energy efficiency will... Continue reading
Posted Dec 20, 2010 at Environmental Economics
Art Carden has a great piece on the Grinch saving Christmas, using Pigouvian taxes and the bargaining business. But it reminds us again that even Coase missed the mark, when it comes to things outside of Whoville's small arc. So to Art's welcome take on a Yuletide tradition, We humbly append a climate-change addition: Since Whoville Whos’ chanting affects only the Grinch, Bargaining is the solution that works in a pinch. Climate's a problem that affects the whole planet, Coasian bargaining is much too small to span it. A price on carbon is the better path, all we need now is the political math. Failing that, to be sure, we have the EPA, not a first-best choice, still it may win the day. To save the world's Whovilles, we need a solution that in the end puts a firm limit on carbon pollution. Cap and trade is the most certain way to give every Who joy on this and future Christmas Days.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2010 on Was Pigou a Grinch? at Environmental Economics
1 reply
The real question is whether we will run out of atmosphere before we run out of oil, coal, and gas. The evidence on that is clear. And the solution is, too. To quote one Tim Haab: "But there WILL be alternatives, forced by higher prices--and no other mechanism is that powerful."
1 reply
WH, thanks for your note. No, the planet most certainly didn't notice CCX. The emissions reductions that did occur were puny compared to what's necessary to make a difference. That's the point: volunteerism won't do for this one. It's a rounding error at best, counterproductive at worst.
1 reply
CCX folds. The WSJ rejoices. What's in it for the planet? Continue reading
Posted Nov 20, 2010 at Environmental Economics
Edward L. Glaeser makes the case for simplicity in addressing climate change. I couldn’t agree more with his premise. The basic economics are indeed simple. Climate change might be the largest market failure the world has ever seen. To correct it, put the right incentives in place: correct the fact... Continue reading
Posted May 21, 2010 at Environmental Economics