I guess you've seen Krugman's post replying to Hansen regarding C&T vs. T&R. This is an example of how, despite being at the outer edges of mainstream punditry, Krugman is really just a slight variation on the conventional wisdom stance.
Sortition says:
Hmm…, I guess html is not accepted in comments.
Matthew G. Saroff says:
You can use the link icon to do this.
It's the thing that looks like a chain 2 icons to the right of the youtube link:
"[O]n the left […] people […] are outraged at the idea that we’re going to make saving the planet basically a business decision, aligning private incentives with environmental goals so that doing the right thing becomes a profit opportunity rather than a moral duty. That, I think, is what’s behind the furor over cap and trade."
Not his finest hour.
Matthew G. Saroff says:
Yeah, that argument is bullshit.
People don't like cap and trade because it's repeatedly been a failure.
I guess you've seen Krugman's post replying to Hansen regarding C&T vs. T&R. This is an example of how, despite being at the outer edges of mainstream punditry, Krugman is really just a slight variation on the conventional wisdom stance.
Hmm…, I guess html is not accepted in comments.
You can use the link icon to do this.
It's the thing that looks like a chain 2 icons to the right of the youtube link:
It shoud work: Krugman's post replying to Hansen
Yep, it works.
And by the way, Krugman is not above patronisingly psychologizing people who happen not to agree with him (and to whose arguments he cannot provide substantive answers):
"[O]n the left […] people […] are outraged at the idea that we’re going to make saving the planet basically a business decision, aligning private incentives with environmental goals so that doing the right thing becomes a profit opportunity rather than a moral duty. That, I think, is what’s behind the furor over cap and trade."
Not his finest hour.
Yeah, that argument is bullshit.
People don't like cap and trade because it's repeatedly been a failure.