Via Yglesias, Brad Plumer writes:

Via Julia Whitty, here’s a new study from a trio of Columbia psychologists that tries to settle this question. Test subjects were broken up into two groups, and each group was allowed to pick between pricier and cheaper versions of various items like airline tickets. Group A was told that the more expensive items included the price of a “carbon tax,” whose proceeds would go toward clean-energy development. Group B was told that the costlier items included the price of a “carbon offset,” whose proceeds would go toward clean-energy development. Exact same policy, just different names for each.

You can guess what happened next. In the “offset” group, Democrats, Republicans, and independents all flocked toward the pricier item. They were perfectly happy to pay an extra surcharge to fund CO2 reduction—even Republicans gushed about the benefits of doing so. Not only that, but most of the group supported making the surcharge mandatory. In the “tax” group, however, Democrats were the only ones willing to pay for the costlier item. Republicans in this group were much more inclined to grumble about how much more expensive the tax made things. Labels really do matter.

Here is the study:

tax –

After a stunningly non-confrontational chat with Jon Stewart last night, the authors of Superfreakonomics have now taken to the USA Today Opinion blog to continue pushing their nonsense. While they deliberately cited increasing global temperatures — as well as legitimate concerns such as oil wars and ocean acidification — the fact remains: they have gone way too far off the beaten path to successfully walk this one back. As has been the case throughout this episode, they continue to grossly oversimplify and commit numerous logical fallacies in order to make their seemingly-compelling contrarian argument.

I’ve identified 22 flaws in this latest 920 word piece. Let’s look at them individually.

Imagine for a moment that a terrible, unforeseen threat to humankind had suddenly arisen, one so grave that it endangered the very future of the planet. Two teams of respected scientists immediately set to work, trying to find a solution to the impending disaster.

Flaw 1: Catastrophic climate change is not an ‘unforeseen threat’. Scientists began warning about the threat of increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as early as 1896. 172 countries (including over 100 heads of state) met in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to work on a collaborative solution. Referring to climate change as an unforeseen threat is not accurate.

Flaw 2: Equating mainstream climate scientists — who overwhelmingly advocate reducing emissions to prevent and minimize the impacts of climate change — with the few who advocate geoengineering as a primary solution is extremely misleading.

The first set of scientists returned with a potential solution, but it had some shortcomings. It was expensive, with a price tag in the trillions of dollars. It also required nearly every human being on the planet to change his or her behavior in fundamental ways. And even if the scientists’ scheme worked, it would take decades for the benefits to be felt.

Flaw 3: The job-creation and other economic benefits associated with developing, manufacturing and deploying clean energy technologies are well documented. Citing the economic costs of a solution without accounting for the economic benefits — despite being good enough for the Congressional Budget Office — is fundamentally dishonest. Further, the economic models such cost estimates are based on tend to undercount low-and-zero carbon alternatives and underestimate innovation.

Flaw 4: Putting the impetus for changing behaviors on individuals rather than policymakers is disingenuous at best. Smart public policy can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions without having an unpleasant impact on individual behavior. The changes in individual behavior such policies would bring about are undeniably changes that lead people to lead healthier lives. Eliminating subsidies for factory farms, switching out coal-fired power plants with natural gas or renewables and investing in public transportation rather than bailing out automakers are three simple examples. Further, assuming that drastically changing the earth’s atmosphere can be solved without changes in human behavior is a prime example of the nirvana fallacy, in which solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.

The second set of scientists returned with a very different answer. Their solution cost less than one-thousandth as much to implement and did not require anyone to change his behavior. The scientists could get their solution up and running in roughly a year, with the benefits to be felt immediately. And if the simple fix turned out to not work as expected, it was quickly and easily reversible.

Flaw 5: While the hypothetical scientists advocating an emissions reduction strategy had a ‘potential solution’, the scientists advocating geoengineering offered a ’solution’.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is excellent journalism:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The piece continues:

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Thank you, Seth Borenstein, for this top-notch article.

More on this from A. Siegel, Matt Yglesias David Roberts and Brendan Demelle

Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner:

When Paul Krugman, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Joseph Romm, Bradford Delong, Brad Johnson, Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick, David Roberts, Tim Lambert, Felix Salmon, Corbin Hiar, William Connelly, Oliver Willis, Scott Lemieux, Ezra Klein, Daniel Davies, Brian Dupuis, and Mark Thoma have all published scathing criticisms of your book — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong. I mean, wow.

And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations.  Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.

But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy.  I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar.  Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book.  If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order.  Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.

P.S. This is not fooling anyone.

Here is the chapter everyone is so upset about:

Superfreakonomics –

Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA). You can view a section-by-section summary and the full text of the legislation here.

Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.

Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a “crackdown on carbon speculators” and “stricter scrutiny for biofuels.” Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.

Brad Johnson writes that: “Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions.” Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: “Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they’re calling it a ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment’ program — and they’re promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals.” Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday’s unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.

Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that “transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill’s focus on their area — which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” legislation.” Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that “Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility.”

Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: “So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won’t be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it’s going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process.” This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.

Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: “James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.”

Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: “Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times.”

Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: “Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation.”

A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: “From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling … thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar.”

David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: “Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.” He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer’s “bungling” of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate’s last attempt to address global warming.

Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. While — as others have pointed out — the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act is several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President’s desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.

In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to extract several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.

The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals’ side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus’ insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support — despite all evidence that such support would never materialize — has been a major detriment to Democrats’ ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus’ attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.

A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators — led by Sherrod Brown — who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: “They don’t get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this.” While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, “it’s a fight worth watching closely.”