Debt as important as climate

That's the case Tom Friedman makes in the NYT. For human existence on the planet, perhaps not, but for the United States of America, absolutely. The seeming inability of American legislative and executive branches to behave in a fiscally responsible manner is a big source of frustration to me personally (for example, in the healthcare debate that I opted out of).

Real men debate gas tax

That's what Tom Friedman thinks; Morgan Downey dismisses such a tax as futile, although unfortunately the link to his previous arguments for this points to the Friedman article instead. Downey also suggests that if it were done the proceeds should be spent on transportation, and that a Vehicle Efficiency Market, which appears to be a revenue-neutral cash transfer from buyers of less-fuel-efficient vehicles to buyers of more-fuel-efficient vehicles.

Perhaps it will merit deeper investigation later, but offhand the VEM concept doesn't resonate with me because it would take years for its effect to be seen on overall consumption (given the replacement rate of cars and trucks) and does not alter the incentives of anyone who's already sunk money into purchasing a vehicle.

Environmental Economics makes the point that calculating revenue isn't as simple as multiplying current consumption by tax rate, given the elasticity of demand, and hosts some debate on what the revenue might actually look like.

In general I think a gas tax would be good for overall energy efficiency and emissions reduction; my preferred forms are this clever revenue-neutral idea which avoids the Jevons Paradox, or something that looks like Waxman-Markey. I'd be happy to debate if and when more specific arguments against are offered.

The advantages of autocracy

From Tom Friedman's latest NYT op ed:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

In general I find Friedman lacks the nuance to push thinking on very complex issues, but he shines when driving home simple ideas in an accessible way. This is a great example. Many promoters of democracy don't seem to appreciate how it is (as a result of the same minority protections which enable it to preserve political rights) inherently bad at making hard societal decisions. You can see it in the need to pander to agriculture and coal special interests in order to pass climate legislation, and you can definitely see it in the current battle over healthcare and more broadly any political action around long-term fiscal issues like Social Security and Medicare entitlements. It is very easy for elected officials to kick hard decisions down the road, and as a result hard choices get put off and Social Security and Medicare end up as effective Ponzi schemes that dwarf Bernie Madoff.

Obviously these principles apply very directly to any sort of environmental sustainability issues, although rich-country democracies have actually done a pretty good job of non-climate environmental regulations (and China's track record is horrible).

There are probably other counterexamples waiting to be made of times when democracies did make hard, long-term decisions - readers?