Niklas Blanchard is a Ph.D candidate in Human Capital Management at Bellevue University. He is generally a huge econonerd, and spends a lot of his time analyzing everyday phenomena from an economic perspective. His interests include monetary economics, complexity theory, network theory, and behavior economics.
This blog is not affiliated with Bellevue University, nor do the opinions expressed within represent the opinions of BU as an organization, or anyone individually (besides Niklas, of course)
Modeled Behavior 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ July 28th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
mike shupp
Messieurs and Mesdames Angry Bear, Cowen, De Long, Dresner, Klein, Kling, McArdle, Mendel, Thoma, Udall, Yglesius, etc.
I understand you get lots of email from Concerned Souls With Solutions to the world’s problems, so I’m addressing a bunch of you, with the faint hope that one or several of you will read this through and think it worthy of address on your blogs. The idea seems to be new; I hope it provokes some debate and even some thought. Forgive my intrusion upon your time; I take this approach because it promises to bear more fruit than being the 178th post in a 300 post comment string….
—————————————————————————————–
A PENALTY FOR GLOBAL WARMING – A Modest Proposal
At present two distinct viewpoints on the topic of global warming are commonly presented in the United States. One group (“believers”) argues that global warming is occuring and will eventually, likely before the end of this century, cause hardship and economic distress around the world. Proponents of this view feel that human actions have contributed to this warming, that alternative human actions such as taxes on carbon emission can help reduce the degree of warming, and that major industrialized nations should begin immediately to address the problem. The second group (“deniers”) does not accept that global warming is an immediate concern, doubts the predicted magnitude of the problem, and is strongly opposed to taxation or other government coercion aimed at allieviating an imaginary crisis.
Using order of magnitude numbers, believers would accept spending $25B per year to avert possible worldwide economic and environmental costs of $1000B per year. If they are correct and global warming is averted or reduced, the cost will have been justified. If they are wrong and data eventually shows global warming was not a threat, the cost will still have been bearable and it might have secured some desirable environmental effects.
Deniers would spend nothing. If they are correct, we would save $25B per year for spending on more desirable goals. If they are wrong, $1000B per year in the distant future is a bearable cost when spread across the world’s population, especially since $25B per year in the hands of individuals would certainly haved increased the wealth of the world more than wasteful government schemes.
Deniers will accept global warming as a problem only if it occurs despite anti-GW programs; believers will realize their error only if deniers control the spending and global warming fails to appear. Neither alternative will seem crystal clear until say the last quarter of this century, so there is little possibility for compromise. The debate has been politicised.
Inevitably, deniers will be the victors in these arguments. Spending nothing will always trump spending something, and the costs for being wrong will be long deferred. On the other hand, such a policy is morally obnoxious. It is pleasant to think that the warmer climates of 2075 will permit Canadian farmers to enjoy the yields of present day Kansas and Oklahoman farmers. It is not so pleasant to imagine what rice farmers in say coastal Bengladesh and Indonesia will face as rising seas inundate their crop lands. And since the rice farmers are not in the position of shaping the global climate agenda, it seems unfair to punish them for decisions made by American politicians. (“No man is an island,” “the Good Samaritan”, “Christian behavior” — you all know the drill.)
There’s a problem with incentives here. Let me suggest something new.
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD COMMIT ITSELF TO SPEND
ONE BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY FOR ALLIEVIATING THE EFFECTS OF
GLOBAL WARMING IN NATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES FOR
EACH DAY IN WHICH AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS 5 DEGREES
CENTIGRADE WARMER THAN IT WAS ON THE SAME DAY IN THE YEAR 2000.
This could amount to $365B per year — more than the USA currently pays for Social Security, about half the amount it currently spends on Defense programs. Economists might want to tinker. Climate scientists might want to tinker. But in general, we should pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor to something like this idea. We should make it a Constitutional amendment if necessary to show our intent. We should encourage our European and Japanese and Chinese friends to make similar pledges. And in the end we should deliver on our promise, just as a “Leader of the Free World” might be expected to do.
Consider. To GW believers, this is the order of magnitude cost we can expect to bear for doing nothing about global warming. It’s large enough to point to as the cost for neglecting our global responsibilities. They should find such a pledge quite reasonable. GW deniers expect to spend nothing on global warming; they should whoop with glee and sign as soon as the paper is spread before them. And for the next 60-100 years, GW believers will back up their arguments by reminding GW deniers of the cost of failure; GW deniers will look at that approaching wall of spending and ask themselves how certain they are it will never be reached.
Over time, I suggest this will change our climate policy.
——————————————————————
Needless to state, each of you is absolutely my favorite economist/political scientist on the internet, and I read your blog religiously, six or seven times a day, in search of Holy Insight, and of course you can present these ideas as your own. I’m not after personal glory but to bust open a logjam in the current, sterile argument.
mike shupp
(mikeshupp030@gmail.com)
Thursday ~ May 5th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Champ
What a joy to find such clear tinkhing. Thanks for posting!
Thursday ~ June 2nd, 2011 at 2:51 am
Jim Kainz
The “secret” $600 trillion Derivatives Market which most Americans have never heard of presents an opportunity to pay off the National Debt without cuts to Medicare benefits. A small 0.5% transfer fee when these billion dollar contracts execute would raise over a half trillion dollars yearly in addition to any other deficit reductions we take. See “How to Pay Off the National Debt” by Kainz on amazon or barnesandnoble.com.
Friday ~ September 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 am
georgesdelatour
I see an obvious problem. According to many estimates, the most extreme warming will occur in the Arctic Circle. And the effects in the Arctic Circle are likely to make Canada, Norway, Russia etc very very rich indeed. Trade will grow, mineral extraction will become easier etc. The idea of the US government giving them a billion dollars a day for making them richer seems a bit silly.
Friday ~ September 23rd, 2011 at 11:12 am
georgesdelatour
Half the world’s population is in India and China. Both those countries are self-governing, and both are choosing – with all facts on the table – to go for rapid economic growth plus extra CO2 rather than slow growth / no growth with less CO2. It’s their choice. Why should the US pay them a billion dollars a day for the consequences of their own actions?
Monday ~ August 13th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Rinkos monetarizmas | ww.lt - keletas įdomių blogų pasiskaitymui
[…] keletą metų buvo aišku, kad S.Sumnerio, D.Beckworth’o, N.Rowe, B.Woolsey, N.Blanchard’o, ir dar keleto makroekonomistų idėjos yra smarkiai susiję ir tuo pačiu skiriasi nuo kitų […]
Tuesday ~ November 20th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Madison Cooper
Hi Admin,
I am Madison Cooper and one of the members of a financial community.I had just visited your site and I came to know that you have excellent posts in your site. I would like to write an unique article for your site modeledbehavior.com and that will be absolutely free and in return all I need is just one link within the article.
Please let me know if you allow me to write an article for your website.
Sunday ~ March 17th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
test
The supervisor just yelled in any way of us. I’m showing y’all, I always get the negative managers with no management training.
Friday ~ October 18th, 2013 at 6:55 am
ファッション 通販
非常にすぐにこの web ページはすべてのブログの視聴者、それの素晴らしい記事のための間で有名になるだろう
Tuesday ~ September 30th, 2014 at 12:43 am
porady.dailyblog.pl
Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search Engine
Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted
keywords but I’m not seeing very good results. If you know of any please share.
Cheers!
Sunday ~ May 9th, 2021 at 12:32 am
groundswellbasscoast
Found attribution to your 2007 Economic update slides, with Smith and Ozimek particularly “financial sector profits as fraction of all corporate profits.” Any chance you have current data to show how they’ve fared through COVID?
Thanks in anticipation, BERNIE(retiree climate activist)