Utopia, you are standing in it!

Like most libertarians, I favor drug legalization for the simple reason that people should have control over their own bodies, even if they’re doing something stupid.

But I’ve never claimed legalization is a zero-cost policy. Instead, as I wrote in 2018, “I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of legalization.”

These two flowcharts both make the same point about why the War on Drugs is foolish.

Apparently, voters and politicians are beginning to get the message. More and more states have moved in the direction of legalization.

Have the results been positive?

In an article for National Review, Aron Ravin has a very critical assessment of legalization.

…the old-fashioned, party-pooper folk with whom I find myself sympathizing tend to fall back on one point: Weed is unhealthy. Since 2002, the proportion of Americans twelve and older who reported having used marijuana in…

VW ID. model

When it comes to personal transport Germans aren’t exactly rushing to play along with the infantile mythology of climate neutrality, contrary to the wishes of their supposedly ‘green’ leaders. Sales targets look increasingly like wishful thinking.
– – –
Germany wants to have 10 million electric cars on the road by 2030 in a bid to meet its climate targets, says DW.com.

But it’s not just the cost and limited range that’s deterring drivers to go along with this ambitious plan.

Germany’s long-established car industry is embarking on a historic transformation to try to shrink its carbon footprint.

Tim Hazeldine writes ($) in the Herald today on how the Climate Change Commission has gone so far off-target. It is hard to excerpt, the whole article is excellent.

Our climate change policy should be solely about climate change. “You can’t kill two birds with one stone” is a cliche but it is not trite. It is true and important in almost every policy context. Yet the Commission considers it should in future “consider broader well-being factors, like eradicating poverty, safeguarding food security and addressing other environmental outcomes”. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Exactly. It is not that those other outcomes are undesirable. But insisting emissions policies also solve those other problems puts our emissions targets at risk. Allowing other objectives into the decision making carries a huge emissions penalty. Second-best emissions policies have roughly no effect on emissions.

It is farmers, other businesses, entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors, scientists, workers, and…

A new paper in the journal Climate Policy says “Keep climate policy focused on the social cost of carbon”. Its abstract:

In the context of climate change, the application of cost-benefit analysis to inform mitigation policies can help to achieve the best outcomes and avoid the worst: spending trillions of dollars but failing to get the job done.

The job, of course, is to cut emissions.

The costs of a climate policy are the abatement costs of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) (or other greenhouse gases). The standard measure of the benefits of a climate policy is the social cost of carbon (SCC), which measures the avoided economic damages associated with a metric ton of CO2 emissions. Recently, however, there have been calls for an alternative approach to policy evaluation that ignores the benefits of avoided climate damages and instead focuses only on minimizing the compliance costs of a given…

Chevy Bolt [image credit: GM Authority] No hope of ever breaking even on that model now, if there was any to start with. Another edition of the recurring lithium-ion safety issue in the world of EVs: battery ’emissions’. 
– – –
DETROIT (AP) — General Motors is recalling all Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles sold worldwide to fix a battery problem that could cause fires.

The recall raises questions about lithium ion batteries, which now are used in nearly all electric vehicles.

President Joe Biden wants to convert 50% of the U.S. vehicle fleet from internal combustion to electricity by 2050 as part of a broader effort to fight climate change.

Critique of Hobsbawm’s Marxisant approach

In the third of his mighty trilogy of histories of the long nineteenth century, The Age of Empire: 1875 to 1914, as in its two predecessors, Hobsbawm makes no attempt to hide his strongly Marxist point of view. Every page shouts his contempt for the era’s ‘bourgeois’ men of business, its ‘capitalists’ and bankers, the despicable ‘liberal’ thinkers of the period and so on. From time to time his contempt for the bourgeoisie rises to the level of actual abuse.

The most that can be said of American capitalists is that some of them earned money so fast and in such astronomic quantities that they were forcibly brought up against the fact that mere accumulation in itself is not an adequate aim in life for human beings, even bourgeois ones. (p.186)

Replace that final phrase with ‘even Jewish ones’ or ‘even Muslim ones’…

This economist clearly has faith in IPCC climate models and theories, but he may be in for his own shock by putting all his climate eggs in the carbon dioxide emissions basket. Meanwhile, brace for economic pain.
– – –
The vast expense of ending global warming [Talkshop comment: reality may differ] will trigger a blow to the world economy that is as damaging as the 1974 oil shock, a top international economist has warned. The Telegraph reporting.

A scramble to cut carbon emissions is likely to send energy prices rocketing and hold back living standards for years to come, Jean Pisani-Ferry said in a report published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Mr Pisani-Ferry – a public policy expert who has served in senior economic roles in the European Union for decades – said that although the bill is both manageable and necessary to halt climate change…