[y66]

From Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner at NYT:

Mr. Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Mr. Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Quote

The most troubling — and from our point of view the most disappointing — development of the Trump era is not the president’s own election and subsequent behavior; it is the institutional corruption, weakness and self-betrayal of the Republican Party. The party has abandoned its core commitments to constitutional norms, to conservative principles and even to basic decency. It has allowed itself to be hijacked by a reality television star who is a pathological liar, emotionally unsteady and accountable only to himself. And Republicans have embraced presidential conduct that, had it been engaged in by a Democrat, they would have denounced as corrupt, incompetent and even treasonous.

We disagree with those who think that Mr. Trump’s removal by his own party would weaken democratic accountability; if anything, the opposite is true. The United States has only two major political parties, and it needs both to be healthy, rational and small-d democratic. They are our system’s most durable and accountable political institutions and they comprise its first and most important line of defense against political demagogues and conscience-free charlatans. By reasserting its institutional prerogatives — by setting limits to the depredations and recklessness it will accept — the Republican Party would be acting to deter hijackers in the future. In doing so, it would defend our democracy, not weaken it.

In any event, the Republican gamble that the party can ride out the Trump era without suffering tremendous damage is looking worse every day. As Republican lawmakers have privately told us and others, they know Mr. Trump will not change. The incontestability of his psychological defects and character flaws has finally sunk in. What remains to be done is for Republicans to prevent what many of them privately know is quite likely for their party if Mr. Trump remains their leader: a crash landing.

In that sense, Mr. Trump’s presidency has become to the Republican Party what Vietnam was to President Lyndon Johnson. By 1965, Johnson saw Vietnam for the unwinnable quagmire that it was, but he feared and ultimately bowed to the short-term consequences of withdrawing. “It’s like being in an airplane and I have to choose between crashing the plane or jumping out,” he told his wife. “I do not have a parachute.” We know today that Johnson made the wrong decision.

Increasingly, it is dawning on Republicans that they are making the same mistake. But they do have a parachute, one named Mike Pence. The vice president would continue many of Mr. Trump’s policies, if that’s what they want, but potentially without all the dysfunction, a result that conservatives could live with and that the voters could judge for themselves in 2020.

In a recent column about the sudden possibility that Britain would change its mind about Brexit, the economist Anatole Kaletsky remarked: “In times of political turmoil, events can move from impossible to inevitable without even passing through improbable.” The same is true of Trexit.

Of course, Mr. Trump’s exit is a long shot. In democracies, sick political parties usually need years in the wilderness before they can heal. We have not talked ourselves into being confident, or even particularly optimistic, that the Republican Party will treat its own fever. But if there is one thing that the age of Trump has clarified, it is that “unimaginable” and “impossible” are not at all the same thing.

[y66]

Matthew Miller posted this astute tweet today:

Quote

It’s the single smartest thing the committees could do to conduct effective oversight but they never will because the members won’t give up the air time.

He was referring to this comment by St John's Law professor John Q. Barrett:

Quote

@HouseJudiciary @RepJerryNadler @RepAdamSchiff et al. need hearings w/ skilled questioners for longer than 5 min. time blocks. See Sen. #Watergate Comm. approach in '73, Sen. #Byrd in '73 confirmation hgs., GJs, etc. Alt. will be stalls & perjury clouds like #Whitaker yesterday.

[andrei]

 johnu, on 2019-February-08, 16:22, said:

Current building codes in many parts of the country mandate better and better energy efficiency compared to older building codes. Higher required R ratings for insulation, better weather sealing, better furnaces and air conditioning, etc. Remodeling in most areas require upgrading to current building codes in the remodeled areas. Many commercial buildings are already being remodeled to be more energy efficient because it saves money in the long run. Currently, many buildings are already being built to LEED standards.

So you write like 5 sentences trying to convince yourself that it is doable.
And then, immediately after, this:

 johnu, on 2019-February-08, 16:22, said:

Realistically, it's not economical to retrofit every building in the US in the short term, but as a goal, why wouldn't you want to aim high, not low?

LOL, what changed?

 johnu, on 2019-February-08, 16:22, said:

As for high speed rail travel that replaces planes for domestic flights, have you not heard about the hyperloop train (and competing ideas like mag-lev trains which are getting closer to 400 MPH in tests)?

By way of comparison, commercial planes cruise at less than 600 miles per hour.

Hyperloop (and mag-lev) started out as more science fiction than science fact, but technology is starting to catch up with theory. Don't be intentionally stupid. Do some research on your own and don't repeat right fringe talking points.

So are you saying that 10 years from now America will be criss-crossed by high speed trains using a technology that is not yet in use?

We need more plans like this.

[johnu]

 andrei, on 2019-February-09, 14:52, said:

So you write like 5 sentences trying to convince yourself that it is doable.

I don't need to be convinced. Building energy efficient buildings is a fact and is being done every day of the year. If all the building codes are updated to the latest standards, all new construction can be "green".

Quote

And then, immediately after, this:

LOL, what changed?

I don't think we will have the money or the resources to retrofit every old building to the highest energy standards in 10 years. 10 years was an admirable goal, much better than saying we will accomplish the Green plan within 100 years. In any case, this was just a preliminary outline of a call to action.

Quote

So are you saying that 10 years from now America will be criss-crossed by high speed trains using a technology that is not yet in use?

We need more plans like this.

You are right. We should go back to horse drawn carriages and covered wagons to cross the country.

Short term, high speed bullet trains are in heavy use in many other countries around the world. I didn't want to mention them because it would make it seem as if America wasn't great again.

[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2019-February-09, 17:00, said:

Short term, high speed bullet trains are in heavy use in many other countries around the world.

I am a big fan of investment in mass transit.
I also like the Green New Deal.

However, I am skeptical whether its possible to deploy high speed rail in the US in a timely fashion.

From a traffic perspective, the best places to deploy high speed rail is the Bos < -- > Wash corridor and SF < -- > LA, however, the route structure is high populated and there's really no way that you can get anything built without extensive use of eminent domain. I'm not sure whether this would be the wrong thing to do, however, I suspect that working out the politics around land ownership would take forever and a day...

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2019-February-09, 17:57, said:

I am a big fan of investment in mass transit.
I also like the Green New Deal.

However, I am skeptical whether its possible to deploy high speed rail in the US in a timely fashion.

From a traffic perspective, the best places to deploy high speed rail is the Bos < -- > Wash corridor and SF < -- > LA, however, the route structure is high populated and there's really no way that you can get anything built without extensive use of eminent domain. I'm not sure whether this would be the wrong thing to do, however, I suspect that working out the politics around land ownership would take forever and a day...

I live a little north of Washington D. C. We are currently trying to put in the Purple Line for the D.C. subway system. To say it encounters difficulties severely understates the situation. Same with the subway system in general in the (many) years I have lived here. Same with I-95. Of course the same can be said many places, but this is a very built up area.

A few years back we took a trip, leaving from and returning to Dulles in VA instead of BWI in MD. There was some delay coming back and we landed at Dulles at 3 in the afternoon. You cannot drive a car from Dulles to MD starting at 3 in the afternoon. Basically you just can't.

[Winstonm]

Good description of how the pardon power is not absolute:

Quote

by Sam Berger
January 9, 2019


As the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election continues to close in on President Donald Trump and his closest advisors, there have been reinvigorated concerns that he will attempt to use his pardon power to undermine the investigation.

While concerns about the lengths to which Trump will go to protect himself and his inner circle from accountability are well-founded, there are important limits to the pardon power. The president’s pardon power cannot be used to: (1) pardon state crimes, (2) remove federal civil liability, (3) pardon impeachment, or (4) pardon crimes that have not already occurred.

The first three limitations and their application to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation have been thoroughly explored, including in a detailed report by Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, Caroline Frederickson, and Conor Shaw. But the fourth limitation has not received similar attention.

This fourth limitation is important because it constrains Trump’s ability to protect co-conspirators from federal criminal liability for a conspiracy that involves the use of the pardon power. A conspiracy to obstruct the investigation that includes the use of the pardon power could not be subsequently pardoned by Trump; a pardon can only apply to actions that occur before it is issued, but in this case any obstructive pardon would be a continuation of the conspiracy, so the crime would be ongoing. Put another way: you cannot pardon a crime when the pardon itself continues the crime.

https://www.justsecu...s-pardon-power/

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2019-February-09, 17:57, said:

However, I am skeptical whether its possible to deploy high speed rail in the US in a timely fashion.

I can't disagree. Even "low" speed rail is hard to deploy quickly. And there are budget concerns about where the money is coming from, besides engineering problems with tunnels and bridges that will take time consuming design and construction. Realistically, 10 years is just enough time to get projects started (and maybe some smaller parts completed), but if we never start, nothing will ever get done.

[y66]

From David Roberts' excellent overview The Green New Deal, Explained at Vox:

Quote

The top three challenges facing the GND: paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

As you’ve probably gathered by now, the GND is much more ambitious than most policy ideas that have been bouncing around Washington, DC, the past few decades. Moving it from idea to legislation will involve overcoming obstacles almost too numerous to list.

Because the GND is, at its core, an argument for radical change, it is certain to inspire reaction — a defense of the status quo. And as Albert Hirschman wrote in his 1991 book The Rhetoric of Reaction, the arguments will cluster around the three core reactionary themes (quoting Hirschman): “futility — the claim that all attempts at social engineering are powerless to alter the natural order of things; perversity — the argument that interventions will actually backfire and have the opposite of their intended effect; and jeopardy — the idea that a new, possibly more radical reform will threaten older, hard won liberal reforms.”

Those arguments will take innumerable forms. I will focus on one key question the movement must answer and two key constituencies it must win over.

1) How are you going to pay for it?
2) Winning over the public
3) Winning over Democrats

...

3) Winning over Democrats

Veteran Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer came of age in an era in which Democrats were on the defensive. Bill Clinton won with a “third way,” pledging fealty to markets and an end to big government. Ever since, Democrats have been backing into progress, moving incrementally, accepting basic conservative critiques of muscular social democracy.

And as the Republican Party has become more rabidly conservative and corrupt, congressional Democrats have developed a particular culture. They see themselves as the Good Guys, the ones who still care about good government, fiscal responsibility, and bipartisanship. They are loathe to break norms the way the GOP routinely has. They don’t want to fight dirty.

More than anything, it is that culture of caution and manners with which GND proponents must contend. The idea of adopting bold policy pledges with no care as to whether they draw any bipartisan support is deeply alien to congressional Democrats. They live in fear of Republican attacks, which are faithfully echoed throughout DC media. They don’t want to “stick their heads up” or “give Republicans ammunition.” They are hoping, on some level, that if they keep their heads down and don’t distract anyone, voters will focus on how much they don’t like Trump.

“Even the most progressive of the progressives suffer from a certain Stockholm syndrome from living under neoliberalism for 40 years,” says Chakrabarti.

But there is no way to soft-pedal something like the GND. There is no way to pretend that it is incremental or fully “paid for.” There is no way to pretend that GOP leadership, so deeply in hock to fossil fuel funding, is going to offer any kind of support for any part of it.

The GND offers Americans a bracing new alternative, not a hesitant step forward — a rejection of Republican dogma and fossil fuel energy, not a compromise with them. To rally Americans behind it, Democrats will have to “paint the picture and the vision,” Chakrabarti says. “You have to sell the American people that this is possible to make it possible.”

More than any process or jurisdictional issue, this is the choice that will face Democrats in coming years: to respond to Trump by promising a return to ordinary politics, or to respond to Trump by promising to strive for something genuinely new and better.

“What does America get if Dems take power in 2020?” Chakrabarti asks. “Either that can be a boring, crappy vision that no one’s going to get excited by, or it’s going to be an exciting vision that people will want to come out and vote for.”

The activists who have kickstarted this unlikely movement are well aware that they are the underdogs in this fight. The GND “would be a direct blow to some of the wealthiest and most powerful interests in the world,” says Weber, “and they’re not going to accept it lying down.”

He knows that tons of fossil fuel money is gearing up to descend on the movement. And he knows that Democrats will be difficult to rouse. He knows that even if Dems take power in 2020, any legislation will eventually have to contend with the Senate, where the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be run by West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who literally shot the last climate bill (which was a hell of a lot less ambitious than a GND).

“Even if we get the politics right, I still think that we’re going to need sustained mass protest, extended labor shutdowns, and general strikes to begin as soon as possible after Election Day 2020,” says Weber. “That’s going to take convincing the American people that this is an absolute moral and economic necessity, and the only thing standing in the way of it happening is the political class.”

It is a long shot. But as the IPCC has made clear, long shots are the only shots left. It is not the elderly members of Congress who will live with the havoc forecast by climate scientists, it is the young activists who are amassing on their doorsteps and in their offices. Those young activists are looking ahead further than the next election cycle. Their families will suffer the consequences of these choices.

But they believe that history is on their side. “The most powerful force known to humans is ideology,” says McElwee. Republicans have pushed through “radically unpopular policies because of their commitment to ideology.” But today, he says, “young people have the ideas that people want to be associated with. We shape ideology and that’s incredibly ***** powerful.”

Climate politics is, now as ever, a choice between changes that seem impossible and a future that seems unthinkable. For years, US politics has denied and avoided that choice. In their own way, Democrats — the “adults” who want to reserve the power to make these decisions — have avoided it just like Republicans.

Facing it squarely means radicalism. Now, a real response to climate change, a response on the scale of what the crisis demands, is on the table. It is an option. It has a name.

Whether America can work its way past polarization, paralysis, and structural barriers to change to actually grasp that option, to take a leap into a new future, very much remains to be seen. But there can be no more ignoring the choice.

[kenberg]

About the Green New Deal. No doubt I will have to think some about this. One of the first things that strikes me when we compare it with the New Deal of the 30s is that it is apt to require more explanation to garner support. A lot more. In the 1930s there was the WPA. Yes, it did some good things for parks and other public places, but a guy who was out of work would say "I need a job, this will create jobs, I am for it". The pay off from the GND might require more thought. Already they are either seeing a problem or making excuses, however you want to put it: "Veteran Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer came of age in an era in which Democrats were on the defensive.". Ok, but so? Dump Hoyer and Pelosi? Maybe. Maybe not.

People can understand direct self-interest..People can also understand and support long term good for the nation, maybe even long term good for the world, but more effort is required to secure this support. People are skeptical of idealists. Often with good reason.

So maybe this can catch on. Maybe.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2019-February-10, 12:54, said:

About the Green New Deal. No doubt I will have to think some about this. One of the first things that strikes me when we compare it with the New Deal of the 30s is that it is apt to require more explanation to garner support. A lot more. In the 1930s there was the WPA. Yes, it did some good things for parks and other public places, but a guy who was out of work would say "I need a job, this will create jobs, I am for it". The pay off from the GND might require more thought. Already they are either seeing a problem or making excuses, however you want to put it: "Veteran Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer came of age in an era in which Democrats were on the defensive.". Ok, but so? Dump Hoyer and Pelosi? Maybe. Maybe not.

People can understand direct self-interest..People can also understand and support long term good for the nation, maybe even long term good for the world, but more effort is required to secure this support. People are skeptical of idealists. Often with good reason.

So maybe this can catch on. Maybe.

One important thing to recall is the the GND is very much a work in progress. Occasio - Cortez refers to it as a Request for Proposal. The legislation is intended to be a broad and aggressive statement of priorities. Specific legislation can get slotted underneath it.

FWIW, I hope that the GNP does not distract from tax reform which consider equally significant. (Here's my prioritized list)

1. Radically simplify the income tax code by eliminating nearly all deductions. I understand the desire to do all sorts of fancy social engineering, however, at the end of the day a complicated tax code is a tax code that the wealthy can exploit. I’d much rather have a flat progressive tax code and accomplish my social engineering end through direct cash payments. (In addition to making tax avoidance significantly more difficult I suspect that folks would appreciate being able to file their tax returns on “an envelope”. And, while folks will miss their deductions, at the end of the day I suspect that they’ll care more about the total amount that they pay)
2. Treat capital gains, carried interest, etc. as income
3. Introduce a Value Added Tax. As a rule, I don’t like consumption taxes because of their regressive nature; however, tax avoidance and off shoring is a very big issue for modern developed economies and consumption taxes are one of, if not the, best ways to deal with this sort of issue. The collective purchasing power of a country's inhabitants is one of its most significant natural resources. A consumption tax allows government to charge companies to access this resource. (VATs are also extremely efficient)
4. Wealth tax: “Capital” by Pikerty makes a good case why this is desirable. (I don’t think there’s much point arguing how high this should be until the rest of the details get worked out). This should be combined with a significant offshoring tax to make sure that folks don’t try to park their wealth in Cayman Islands and the like.
5. Financial transaction tax
6. Commercial real estate worth more than, say $10 million dollars, is available for sale at its assessed value. (You can assess your real estate at whatever value you want, but if you try to lowball things to dodge taxes, someone else gets to but your property for what you claim its worth)

Personally, I think that this type of scheme which combines radical tax simplification with significant tax reforms would popular enough to be able to overcome people’s desire to maintain their deductions.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2019-February-10, 13:15, said:

One important thing to recall is the the GND is very much a work in progress. Occasio - Cortez refers to it as a Request for Proposal. The legislation is intended to be a broad and aggressive statement of priorities. Specific legislation can get slotted underneath it.

FWIW, I hope that the GNP does not distract from tax reform which consider equally significant. (Here's my prioritized list)

1. Radically simplify the income tax code by eliminating nearly all deductions. I understand the desire to do all sorts of fancy social engineering, however, at the end of the day a complicated tax code is a tax code that the wealthy can exploit. I’d much rather have a flat progressive tax code and accomplish my social engineering end through direct cash payments. (In addition to making tax avoidance significantly more difficult I suspect that folks would appreciate being able to file their tax returns on “an envelope”. And, while folks will miss their deductions, at the end of the day I suspect that they’ll care more about the total amount that they pay)
2. Treat capital gains, carried interest, etc. as income
3. Introduce a Value Added Tax. As a rule, I don’t like consumption taxes because of their regressive nature; however, tax avoidance and off shoring is a very big issue for modern developed economies and consumption taxes are one of, if not the, best ways to deal with this sort of issue. The collective purchasing power of a country's inhabitants is one of its most significant natural resources. A consumption tax allows government to charge companies to access this resource. (VATs are also extremely efficient)
4. Wealth tax: “Capital” by Pikerty makes a good case why this is desirable. (I don’t think there’s much point arguing how high this should be until the rest of the details get worked out). This should be combined with a significant offshoring tax to make sure that folks don’t try to park their wealth in Cayman Islands and the like.
5. Financial transaction tax
6. Commercial real estate worth more than, say $10 million dollars, is available for sale at its assessed value. (You can assess your real estate at whatever value you want, but if you try to lowball things to dodge taxes, someone else gets to but your property for what you claim its worth)

Personally, I think that this type of scheme which combines radical tax simplification with significant tax reforms would popular enough to be able to overcome people’s desire to maintain their deductions.

Would it be possible to have a graduated VAT where the consumption is the lesser and the production pays more? I had not considered a VAT because - as you say it is a regressive tax. I am wondering about ways to make it less so or at least less damaging to the lower earners.

I do think a wealth tax makes sense.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2019-February-10, 18:07, said:

Would it be possible to have a graduated VAT where the consumption is the lesser and the production pays more? I had not considered a VAT because - as you say it is a regressive tax. I am wondering about ways to make it less so or at least less damaging to the lower earners.

I'm not sure how much good that would do...

Economists often talk about the "incidence" of a tax which is a fancy way of describing what portion of a tax is passed on to consumers as opposed to be borne by producers. (It depends very much on how the price elasticity of demand compares to the price elasticity of supply. In cases where the consumer doesn't have any good substitutes for the good in question and needs to keep purchasing the good, most of the tax gets pushed down to them)

It sounds as if you want to try to tweak the VAT such that intermediate goods get taxed more than the final sale to the consumer. I don't think that this would necessarily work since the issues surrounding tax incidence would percolate through the system. You MIGHT be able to do something where you varied the vax based on incidence, but this would be pretty complicated.

I think that a better way is to stick with a simple VAT, but use the $$$ to rebate money to the consumers through a permanent income or some such.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2019-February-10, 18:07, said:

I do think a wealth tax makes sense.

All homeowners in the US already pay a wealth tax in the form of property taxes. In areas with high property values, you can have very high property taxes.

And there are state and federal estate taxes if the value of an estate exceeds a certain value. You can think of a wealth tax as installment payments on a future estate tax but you don't have to wait for up to 50-60+ years to collect.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2019-February-10, 22:15, said:

All homeowners in the US already pay a wealth tax in the form of property taxes. In areas with high property values, you can have very high property taxes.

There's no federal property tax. I don't know about other states, but in MA property taxes are only paid to the city/town.

And I'm not super rich, but I've done pretty well in my investments, so my home is only about 15-20% of my net worth.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2019-February-11, 00:19, said:

There's no federal property tax. I don't know about other states, but in MA property taxes are only paid to the city/town.

And I'm not super rich, but I've done pretty well in my investments, so my home is only about 15-20% of my net worth.

That means people are familiar with the concept of a wealth tax although it is called by more a more specific name. The difference is that the wealth tax would go to the Federal government.

[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2019-February-10, 22:15, said:

All homeowners in the US already pay a wealth tax in the form of property taxes. In areas with high property values, you can have very high property taxes.

And there are state and federal estate taxes if the value of an estate exceeds a certain value. You can think of a wealth tax as installment payments on a future estate tax but you don't have to wait for up to 50-60+ years to collect.

The reason that people are discussing implementing a wealth tax has to do with the .1%.
I doubt that anyone on this discussion group falls into this category.
As such, not sure why we would equate it with a property tax.

(Also, estate taxes have been gutted over time. That, in part, is how we got into this mess)

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2019-February-11, 03:44, said:

The reason that people are discussing implementing a wealth tax has to do with the .1%.
I doubt that anyone on this discussion group falls into this category.
As such, not sure why we would equate it with a property tax.

(Also, estate taxes have been gutted over time. That, in part, is how we got into this mess)

A lot of people are apparently shocked at the idea the Federal government would tax people's (wealth) assets. Property taxes are an example where peoples homes and other property are taxed based on their (assessed) value. Auto license fees are also usually a tax based on the value of a person's vehicle(s). The only point in bring this up is that both are in effect a wealth tax that we already have. As are estate taxes.

True, 99+% people would never come remotely close to being rich enough to have a pay a wealth tax if the threshold is $50 million in Warren's original proposal. That won't stop Republicans from raising fake alarms about how the average businessman, farmer, etc is going to have some of their money taken away. Just like they were successful in drumming up their lower and middle class base to support raising estate tax limits, which they were never going to have to pay, just in case they won a mega lottery or inherited a fortune from a previously unknown relative, or some other unlikely stroke of incredible luck.

[Winstonm]

I wonder how much positive effect it would have if Individual-1 removed Stephen Miller from the administration. Miller seems to be the main anti-immigrant/white nationalist bug in the ear of the president.

I doubt Individual-1 cares enough about the specifics to even know what is being discussed between the Rs and Ds to reach a compromise that keeps the border open. The current stoppage of talks has all the earmarks (to me) of a Miller intrusion. The Dems want to limit the number of beds available to ICE for illegals living within the borders (in the interior), which was Obama's number. Rs are refusing that number with a claim that everyone picked up by ICE who is living in the interior is dangerous, including those picked up for traffic violations and other minor offenses.

A couple of quotes show the administration's and the Rs diingenuous talking points:

Quote

President Trump set the tone early Sunday morning, tweeting that Democrats “want a cap on convicted violent felons to be held in detention!” Republicans on the Sunday talk shows echoed him: “How in the world after that speech does he sign a bill that would reduce the bed spaces available for violent offenders?” asked Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.)

It is simple to see that all they are doing is using a broad brush to paint a picture of all illegals immigrants as violent. Such is not the case.

[y66]

From Coral Davenport's October 2018 interview with William Nordhaus at NYT:

Quote

Where has carbon pricing been successful? Where has it failed?

We learned with the European Union that once you go beyond the simple, idealized version of carbon prices and into implementation, it’s a very different thing. One of the things we found out: One of the problems with cap and trade [a system in which governments place a cap on countries’ carbon-dioxide pollution and companies then pay for, and trade, credits that permit them to pollute] is that it is dependent on predicting what future emissions will be. But if those projections are wrong, the system fails.

With the E.U., their projected carbon emissions were high, but the actual carbon emissions were low, and the carbon price fell drastically, from $30 to $40 per ton down to single digits. So the price was so low it did not have an effect in lowering emissions. It was flawed design. If the models had predicted too few emissions, and the price had gone to $1,000 per ton. we would have had a different problem.

The carbon tax has different problems, but not this one. The price of carbon is independent of the amount of emissions.

When I talk to people about how to design a carbon price, I think the model is British Columbia. You raise electricity prices by $100 a year, but then the government gives back a dividend that lowers internet prices by $100 year. In real terms, you’re raising the price of carbon goods but lowering the prices of non-carbon-intensive goods.

That’s the model of how something like this might work. It would have the right economic effects but politically not be so toxic. The one in British Columbia is not only well designed but has been politically successful.

How do you think a carbon tax could get bipartisan support?

Things change over the long run. What is toxic or opposed in one generation gradually becomes accepted in the next. Social security took a long time. It was opposed for many, many decades but since Reagan is has been widely accepted.

On carbon taxes, people’s views have changed from being very hostile, to conservative economists embracing this, to the I.P.C.C. saying, this is the approach.

I have to be hopeful that, if we continue to work on this, the public will get there on the science, and make an exception to the toxicity of taxes. It will help if it’s tied to something popular — if, as a result of the revenue from a carbon tax, you get a check in the mail, or it funds health care.

In terms of implementation, it’s not much more difficult to implement than a gasoline tax. Gasoline taxes are very easy to implement.

Do we have enough time to avoid the warming that will bring severe and damaging effects of climate change?

It’s not going to happen in time for 1.5 degrees [Celsius]. It’s very unlikely to happen for 2 degrees. We’d have to be very pessimistic about the economy or optimistic about technology for 2 degrees. If we start moving very swiftly in the next 20 years, we might able to avoid 2 degrees, but if we don’t do that, we’re in for changes in the Earth’s system that we can’t begin to understand in depth. Warming of 4, 5, 6 degrees will bring changes we don’t understand because it’s outside the range of human experience in the last 100,000 to 200,000 years.

We’ve been going backward for the last two years. Maybe we can stop going backward and start going forward.