Drilling makes us more dependent on foreign oil

Just thought I should point out that US oil reserves are not inexhaustible, and that most of the oil in the world is still elsewhere. If we continue to feed our addiction to oil-based energy by producing more in the US, that means, when our reserves are depleted, we will end up having to feed that addiction by buying more oil from abroad. On the other hand, if we shift to other forms of energy (which unfortunately include coal), we can hopefully break that addiction and really end our dependence on foreign oil.

My title is a bit of an exaggeration, I admit. Drilling doesn't necessarily make us more dependent on foreign oil, but it doesn't make us less dependent either, except in the short run. It shifts our dependence into the future. It makes us more dependent in the sense that we will remain dependent for a longer period of time (but be less so initially).

While I'm on the subject, a nice slogan for the Pigou Club, courtesy of Al Gore, via Battlepanda:

Tax what we burn, not what we earn.

Should we develop alternative fuels?

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I'm going to go with "no" -- at least if by "fuels" you mean carbon compounds that are used to release energy through combustion. Combustion of carbon compounds produces carbon dioxide, which aggravates global warming. If we're running out of oil, let's just run out, start driving less, flying less, doing less of things that produce greenhouse gases, and doing the remainder more efficiently. Or else let's find replacements that don't involve "fuels" in the sense I described: try electric cars that run on power from wind, solar power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, etc..

From an environmental point of view, running out of oil is a good thing, an opportunity to slow down climate change, and are we now to try replacing that oil with other combustibles? When opportunity knocks, close the curtain and pretend you're not home?

If the government is going to subsidize anything, let it subsidize alternative sources and uses of electric power, or solar heating, or something like that. Why subsidize products that are going to aggravate our environmental problems?

Pigou and the Anthropophagi

Why does the salmon here cost more than the chicken? There ought to be a tax on chicken.

Why?

On chicken and meat and eggs and dairy products.

Why?

Because farm animals are bad for the environment.

How?

They contribute to global warming.

How?

They produce methane, which gets in the atmosphere and adds to the greenhouse effect.

People produce methane, too, you know.

That's why I think there should be a tax on people also. Cannibals need more vegetables in their diet anyhow.

The Pigou Club on YouTube

This video was posted several months ago by Razela (i.r.l. Jamie Bernstein, but not apparently Leonard Bernstein's daughter of the same name) on YouTube, as a response to a video by Bill Richardson asking for ideas about energy.



She also has a blog with embedded videos, but I couldn't find this one on her blog.

Carbon Taxes

Apparently, the public in most countries supports Pigovian carbon taxes, but economics students (at least those at Gettysburg College) don't.

Oil Demand Elasticity

In the light of the story in column 5 of today’s Wall Street Journal, I’d like to amend my application for membership in Greg Mankiw’s Pigou Club. To quote my earlier position,

I have to confess that my rationale is not 100% Pigovian. It seems clear to me that, even if Al Gore is only a little bit right about the causes and consequences of global warming, the optimal Pigovian tax is extremely high – much higher than what would be politically feasible (in the US) even in my wildest dreams. Energy demand is just not elastic enough, even in the long run, and the social costs of global warming are too high. So, for practical purposes, I see any increase in energy taxes more as a nondistortionary tax than as a Pigovian tax. There is a standard argument that taxes don’t do any harm if they don’t change behavior; in this case, changing behavior is gravy. (As for global warming, well, I’m just glad I’m going to die in another 40 years or so.)

“Energy demand is just not elastic enough, even in the long run…” After today’s news, I’m not so sure:

Oil consumption fell in the developed world last year for the first time in more than 20 years…

Never mind the rest of the article; the first half of the headline is enough. I thought oil consumption might fall eventually, but I was sure it would take a big recession to accomplish that. But instead here it is: good, old-fashioned demand elasticity. Make energy more expensive, and people just buy less of it. I feel like a kid who is old enough not to believe in Santa Claus but then sees a man in a red suit climb out of the fireplace.

I still think the optimal Pigovian tax is considerably higher than anything that might conceivably be politically feasible in the US. But I’m willing to say now that this is more a problem with the US political climate than with the enormity of the economic problem surrounding climate change. The economic problem is still a big one, but perhaps not so gargantuan as to be unsolvable. And I guess I can be a true Pigovian now, rather than a Ricardian masquerading as a Pigovian.

I temper my newfound optimism, however, in a couple of ways. First, as implied above, given political reality, I do not think a Pigovian tax would be sufficient to solve the problem (especially when you recognize that the US – indeed the whole developed world – is only part of it). Second, I’m not quite sure this guy in the red suit is really Santa Claus: a lot of what has happened recently is a shift of energy-intensive production from the developed world to the developing world, and most of the products are still consumed in the developed world, so it’s not clear how much of this ostensible reduced demand is really just a geographic shift in where the energy is used to satisfy existing final demand. Still, I didn’t expect to see anyone in a red suit coming out of the fireplace, so I’m pretty impressed, even it’s just Uncle Joe who decided to do something crazy after the 20th eggnog.

Join the Club

In reaction to this, I’m ready to join Greg Mankiw’s Pigou Club (people who support Pigovian taxes on carbon-based energy to deal with global warming – or other detrimental external effects of energy consumption – in an efficient way). There are a few reasons I might not be accepted, though:

1. I’m not sure that anonymous bloggers are qualified for admission.


2. I have to confess that my rationale is not 100% Pigovian. It seems clear to me that, even if Al Gore is only a little bit right about the causes and consequences of global warming, the optimal Pigovian tax is extremely high – much higher than what would be politically feasible (in the US) even in my wildest dreams. Energy demand is just not elastic enough, even in the long run, and the social costs of global warming are too high. So, for practical purposes, I see any increase in energy taxes more as a nondistortionary tax than as a Pigovian tax. There is a standard argument that taxes don’t do any harm if they don’t change behavior; in this case, changing behavior is gravy. (As for global warming, well, I’m just glad I’m going to die in another 40 years or so.)


3. I’m not sure Greg Mankiw reads my blog regularly enough to catch this post.

The argument commonly advanced against Pigovian taxes is that we cannot measure the relevant quantities well enough to ascertain the optimal tax. For example, in the (Toronto) National Post article linked at the beginning of this post:

The problem with a Pigovian gasoline tax is that it means using the same tools that failed planners everywhere over the past century. None of this stuff is measurable. What is the planned reduction in gasoline consumption? And what's the price to be set at? How high will the tax have to go before it changes behaviour enough to reduce demand? Will the government just wing it and see what happens? Will the alternative behaviour be any better or create new externalities and unintended consequences? What does government do with the money collected -- except launch a program of subsidies and spending to run alternative economic initiatives?

Since I’m convinced that the optimal tax is much higher than what is politically feasible, the uncertainty about the exact number is not a problem for me: I just advocate the highest tax possible. More generally, though, one might always set some reasonable lower bound and argue that the tax should be at least that high. The Post’s argument, as I commented in Greg Mankiw’s blog post (linked at the top), is essentially saying that government is generally incompetent, so whenever there’s a problem that the private sector can’t fix, the only reasonable approach is to ignore the problem. And then I proceeded to apply the same logic elsewhere:

The problem with using government-supplied police officers to protect citizens from crime is that it means using the same tools that failed planners everywhere over the past century. None of this stuff is measurable. What is the planned reduction in crime? And what are the wages of police officers to be set at? How much of this so-called police protection will have to be supplied before crime is sufficiently reduced? Will the government just wing it and see what happens? Will the police forces be any better than criminals, or will they create new externalities and unintended consequences? Where will the government get the money to pay these police officers?

I realize that a few anarchists won’t regard this as a reductio ad absurdum, but I’m not an anarchist myself. The debate does continue, however, and you can read it in the subsequent comments to Greg Mankiw’s post.