Oh My - then when we get to the coal part of the discussion, Bailey doesn't understand what externalities are, and starts bloviating about how coal is "not all bad". ugggghhh! pathetic.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Oh My - then when we get to the coal part of the discussion
ugggghhh! pathetic.

The Government/regulations does not allow the Coke ovens to sell the electricity they generate.
Roberts "It is a market failure"

Since nobody else is giving updates... I guess I'll contribute with a link.

Sounds like lots of words no verifiable action, just what President Obama seems best at and what the Chinese wanted.

Quoting piscivorous: Sounds like lots of words no verifiable action, just what President Obama seems best at and what the Chinese wanted.

Now we'll need an expert to translate for us what the final agreement implies.

Doesn't Manitoba have a carbon tax as well? In any case, one of the reasons the left is skeptical of the carbon tax is because they don't understand the breakdown of the Republicans. Right now, it's very fractured and small groups like Club for Growth are able to command a tremendous amount of influence within the party. CfG (and its supporters) is about half corporatist and half of the more libertarian leaning members. Right now there's an semi-alliance in the intellectual right with these finance types on legitimate technocratic grounds, and because they have common enemies within and without the party. The power of this group would collapse if it splits on the more finance and anti-government types versus the pigouvians and more moderate technocrats with expertise outside of finance (and more experience with government). And where is the issue of disagreement? In what way is Larry Kudlow different from a Greg Mankiw or a Bruce Bartlett?
The later guys support a Carbon Tax. A pigouvian revolt would weaken the club, and might be the trigger for splitting the technocratic base of the Republicans. Their power might

I think it was Will Wilkinson, though that obviously inspired a lot of reactions.

But, the thing is, Virginia and Ed Glaeser are simply right about housing regulation. The fact that most liberals won’t listen, due to distrust, is a problem not only for liberal/libertarian amity, but for the poor people hurt by bad regulation. From the classical liberal side, we become distrustful when liberals say they are perfectly willing actually to perform the cost-benefit analysis, but then somehow find that there is always a net benefit. That’s fishy! And so we come to suspect that this seemingly reasonable willingness to honestly and rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of regulation is a front for what they really want: everything.

What's needed is calm reasoned discussion. Perhaps what Copenhagen actually reveals is that we need to do more to develop a real consensus to act. There plenty of debate yet to have, for my view check out http://libertariancomment.com/climat...rtarian-to-do/