Crooks kritikk av klimaloven ligner på litt av kritikken jeg har omtalt i en lengre artikkel i dag.
It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitters will not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual.
Om helsereform:
The crux of the US healthcare problem is the incentives that encourage over-production and over-consumption of services. Addressing that would alter the way healthcare is paid for and delivered to all Americans. At that scary prospect, Congress looks away. Debate thus revolves around how much of an increase in coverage you can buy for $1,000bn over 10 years in subsidies and other outlays. That is a good question. But legislators aim to duck the bigger challenge: controlling long-term growth in costs per patient.
Mer generelt:
The president has cast himself not as a leader of reform, but as a cheerleader for “reform” – meaning anything, really, that can plausibly be called reform, however flawed. He has defined success down so far that many kinds of failure now qualify. Without hesitating, he has cast aside principles he emphasised during the campaign. On healthcare, for instance, he opposed an individual insurance mandate. On climate change, he was firm on the need to auction all emissions permits. Congress proposes to do the opposite in both cases and Mr Obama’s instant response is: “That will do nicely.”
Uffda!
Da er det en gang for alle slått ettertrykkelig hull på tanken om at Obama ville løse alle USAs og verdens problemer over natten.Den noe svakere forhåpningen, at han ville gjøre noe med viktige problemer Bush hadde gjort relativt lite for å håndtere, så som CO2-utslipp og det store antallet uten helseforsikring, er imidlertid ikke tilbakevist fullt like effektivt. Denne forhåpningen er altså admittedly svakere – men er det så åpenbart at den fortjener betegnelsen Weak, Weak, Weak?