I'm with you on being more supportive of oil and gas production, but I disagree that abundance requires the perennial use of fossil fuels. There is no reason battery storage, nuclear and geothermal can't be major energy sources in the future. I certainly don't care for the climate activists and wish Democrats would ignore them, but we can eventually get to an economy where all the energy is clean.
It doesn't require people to pay higher prices either. The IRA gives money to all kinds of clean energy technologies and doesn't impose taxes. Permitting reform would allow clean energy of all kinds to thrive without making things more expensive.
Renewables can be oversold, but they do a lot of good and have expanded a lot. Here in Texas, wind is a huge source of power and it and solar helped us a lot during the scorching hot summer two years ago. Battery storage technology is getting much better and that will go a long way towards helping with the problem of intermittency.
The most important thing for Democrats politically is to stop catering to climate activists on things like blocking drilling, pipelines and terminals. They don't represent any actual voters and that will become apparent soon. Candidates and elected officials just have to be willing to ignore them and be yelled and protested against. But doing all that doesn't mean abandoning clean energy.
Agree 100%. The other part is to continue to get the word out that if you have the ability to charge at home (which most Americans do) an EV is not a sacrifice but actually more convenient and cheaper to operate than a gas car.
Depends a bit on fluctuating gas prices and regionally varying electricity costs, plus whatever upfront costs one incurs to install a 220v in the garage and acquire the actual car itself.
Buying a reasonably fuel efficient 2012 Camry and some gas now and then is still a lot cheaper than an EV, in 2025.
IRA is not a free lunch. It increased the deficit, which in turn raised long term interest rates. Although (correctly) excluded from CPI, the cost of money (long term rates) are very real costs for households (auto loans, home loans, small business loans, etc.)
It’s reasonable to think that, eventually, fossil fuels will just be more expensive and largely fall out of the picture. Not obvious, but reasonable. Sensible abundance Dems thus explain that what they want to do is accelerate the inevitable transition.
Where I think Barro is spot-on is in pointing out that this “acceleration” is anti abundance and anti populist. I don’t read Barro as taking a view on long run energy prices. That’s not his beat. I think Barro has the correct instinct that if these investments really made energy cheaper, then private interests would develop them. He is calling out that subsidies to accelerate the transition to zero emissions are about zero emissions, not cheaper energy.
IRA contribution to long-term interest rates is unknown, but my guess is it's negligible. For me, I want to accelerate the transition. Clean energy of all sorts is already much less expensive and permitting reform is a necessity to getting it going. That's true for every kind whether renewable, nuclear or geothermal. Abundance means more of stuff and subsidizing clean energy combined with permitting reform is how to get more of it. The subsidies are best for overcoming the initial cost barriers so it can become cheaper. Longer term that means lower prices.
As far as increasing the deficit goes, I'm way more worried about what they're doing in Congress now, but that's a whole different topic.
Thanks for the reply, BTW. I'm on Substack and if you're interested my website is below.
"IRA contribution to long-term interest rates is unknown, but my guess is it's negligible."
Penn Wharton Budget Model has IRA increasing the debt by $750B over 10 years. Even a small impact on e.g. the 10yr treasury rate translates into a huge increase in aggregate debt payments for households. You don't have a leg to stand on here, I'm afraid. I never claimed the impact was massive, but it's clearly not negligible. US long term interest rates are considerably higher than other rich countries. That's largely because of our fast growing debt. The more debt we need to raise, the higher the interest rate we need to pay to find buyers. Sure, any individual line item has modest impact, but it's death by a million cuts here. Directionally, clearly this was a policy that increased deficits and thus rates.
I'm with you on the permitting reform, but I'm not sure what your claim is vis a vis green energy subsidies. Are you saying we should spend on subsidies to accelerate the transition because of emissions? Or because we can actually make energy cheaper faster (including the cost of subsidies)? Josh's whole argument is that it must be the former. If it was the latter, he argues, then it wouldn't be so necessary to court progressives (over moderates and conservatives).
Personally, if permitting was easy (big if) then I fail to see why subsidies would accelerate anything. Why wouldn't private money be willing to invest in these projects at scale, if they're really cheaper energy (and permitting is easy)? If the upfront investment is enormous and it takes forever to earn back the up-front spend, then it really just isn't cheaper energy...
The liberals/left would be foolish to just abandon green economics and head back to a cheap energy mentality. The reality is that, yes, investments in sustainability are expensive now and they will lower living standards now, but the impact of not shifting to a more sustainable economy will be devastating down the road. The mitigation costs of climate disasters are astronomical. You think migrants are a problem now? Wait until climate disasters really kick in and whole countries become uninhabitable. Is this a difficult political position for Democrats in elections to come? Yep, it sure is and we need to be honest about it. But just as conservatives have (rightly) argued that there’s a U.S. debt crisis in our future that’s politically difficult to deal with now, there’s a climate cost crisis in our future as well that liberals have the burden to carry.
According to the IPCC, assuming there's limited government mitigation and the worst-case scientific models about cloud cover are the right ones, in what year does GDP stop growing?
Actually, the economic impact of climate change is net positive. The equator is populated and the poles are not. Meditate on that, my friend.
Anyways, you missed the whole point of the article. Barro was operating in the framework of electoral reality. You seem to fully agree with him that emissions reduction is, in fact, costly, and those costs are unpopular. So democrats need to stop lying to themselves. You just seem to think climate change is so important that it’s worth losing elections over because… yeah.
I’m going to ignore the idiotic firsr half of your response. As for the second half, yes I agree that climate action is difficult politics at times. But public opinion drifts. In the 2020 election, green economics was marginally positive for Dems. After four years of high inflation, obviously it wasn’t in 2024. But its a mistake to assume 2026 or 2028 will be exactly like 2024. And perhaps, in most elections, its an issue that needs to be fought to a draw or even a marginal loss we have to make up with other issues. But if we start a race to the bottom with a party that is wiling to give endless tax incentives to oil companies, cut cushy deals with petrostates and oppose all climate actions, not only will we be making a bad policy decision, we’ll encourage the Republicans to find new depths and they will find it … and in the process we’ll hand this issue to them forever.
The IPCC is among these estimates, and they came up near the lower end.
My view that the net effect is positive is only slightly different from the scholarly consensus, which is that its negative but quite small. I get there by assuming that technological innovation will help us better adapt. The scholarly estimates do not assume any technological innovation.
So I'm "idiotic" for having a view that is a tiny bit different from the scholarly consensus. You probably think the effects are hugely negative. And you're wrong. Feel free to provide any evidence.
This is an issue where I have elitist views but I understand the ground reality as well and agree with you. The way to thread the needle would be to keep producing more oil to keep energy prices very low and tax it just enough such that voters don’t notice or don’t complain and use that to keep subsidizing green energy. I watched the panel discussion that you had linked to in the last post. It was a good discussion.
There is an element to this where progressives very much dislike reality and also are fairly indifferent to progress ironically. Feeling right is much more important to that side of the coalition than affecting positive change in the real world - incremental otherwise. And for the centrists among us this is exhausting even when our values align with them far more than MAGA world. It’s an endemically unstrategic way of interfacing with the world. But when ivory tower battles about “theories of power” at your modus operandi this is what you get.
Sad state of affairs. Hope in the coming decade or two they come back to caring about winning elections and affecting change.
Josh is, indeed, very serious. This column illustrates that too many of the rest of us are not (and that, of course, includes plenty of the unmentioned "conservatives"). Liberals are too prone to the notions 1) the only good ideas come from government and academia and 2) capitalism left to its own devices produces nothing of meaningful value and is populated by leaders of doubtful morality. Rightists are too prone to doubt that any good ideas come from government and academia and too confident that capitalism left to its own devices bestows on everyone exactly what they deserve. So-called middle of the roaders are hopeful but skeptical in each direction. Today their views appear to count for nothing.
By the way, what is it with this newfound casual contempt the center left now has for anyone who works in the nonprofit sector? It especially galls me because, I’m someone who’s actually run campaigns and worked in high level government offices, I have so much more actual political experience that all you eggheads who think your degrees make you political made men … and now that I work in the nonprofit sector, I know first hand that most of what these center-left tough guys say about philanthropies is total bullshit. (Yes, I’ve worked for Fortune 500 corporations too, so that argument won’t fly with me either.)
Mr. Barro, Have you been to Phoenix lately? Global warming is very real, and it’s starting to hit home in a very big way both economically and habitability. You’ve shown yourself be a condescending fool (more carbon?), or simply a sock-puppet of the new right, please unsubscribe I can get this shit for free on Fox or Newsmax….Joe Grant
I'm with you on being more supportive of oil and gas production, but I disagree that abundance requires the perennial use of fossil fuels. There is no reason battery storage, nuclear and geothermal can't be major energy sources in the future. I certainly don't care for the climate activists and wish Democrats would ignore them, but we can eventually get to an economy where all the energy is clean.
It doesn't require people to pay higher prices either. The IRA gives money to all kinds of clean energy technologies and doesn't impose taxes. Permitting reform would allow clean energy of all kinds to thrive without making things more expensive.
Renewables can be oversold, but they do a lot of good and have expanded a lot. Here in Texas, wind is a huge source of power and it and solar helped us a lot during the scorching hot summer two years ago. Battery storage technology is getting much better and that will go a long way towards helping with the problem of intermittency.
The most important thing for Democrats politically is to stop catering to climate activists on things like blocking drilling, pipelines and terminals. They don't represent any actual voters and that will become apparent soon. Candidates and elected officials just have to be willing to ignore them and be yelled and protested against. But doing all that doesn't mean abandoning clean energy.
Agree 100%. The other part is to continue to get the word out that if you have the ability to charge at home (which most Americans do) an EV is not a sacrifice but actually more convenient and cheaper to operate than a gas car.
Depends a bit on fluctuating gas prices and regionally varying electricity costs, plus whatever upfront costs one incurs to install a 220v in the garage and acquire the actual car itself.
Buying a reasonably fuel efficient 2012 Camry and some gas now and then is still a lot cheaper than an EV, in 2025.
IRA is not a free lunch. It increased the deficit, which in turn raised long term interest rates. Although (correctly) excluded from CPI, the cost of money (long term rates) are very real costs for households (auto loans, home loans, small business loans, etc.)
It’s reasonable to think that, eventually, fossil fuels will just be more expensive and largely fall out of the picture. Not obvious, but reasonable. Sensible abundance Dems thus explain that what they want to do is accelerate the inevitable transition.
Where I think Barro is spot-on is in pointing out that this “acceleration” is anti abundance and anti populist. I don’t read Barro as taking a view on long run energy prices. That’s not his beat. I think Barro has the correct instinct that if these investments really made energy cheaper, then private interests would develop them. He is calling out that subsidies to accelerate the transition to zero emissions are about zero emissions, not cheaper energy.
IRA contribution to long-term interest rates is unknown, but my guess is it's negligible. For me, I want to accelerate the transition. Clean energy of all sorts is already much less expensive and permitting reform is a necessity to getting it going. That's true for every kind whether renewable, nuclear or geothermal. Abundance means more of stuff and subsidizing clean energy combined with permitting reform is how to get more of it. The subsidies are best for overcoming the initial cost barriers so it can become cheaper. Longer term that means lower prices.
As far as increasing the deficit goes, I'm way more worried about what they're doing in Congress now, but that's a whole different topic.
Thanks for the reply, BTW. I'm on Substack and if you're interested my website is below.
https://coldpoliticaltakes.substack.com/
"IRA contribution to long-term interest rates is unknown, but my guess is it's negligible."
Penn Wharton Budget Model has IRA increasing the debt by $750B over 10 years. Even a small impact on e.g. the 10yr treasury rate translates into a huge increase in aggregate debt payments for households. You don't have a leg to stand on here, I'm afraid. I never claimed the impact was massive, but it's clearly not negligible. US long term interest rates are considerably higher than other rich countries. That's largely because of our fast growing debt. The more debt we need to raise, the higher the interest rate we need to pay to find buyers. Sure, any individual line item has modest impact, but it's death by a million cuts here. Directionally, clearly this was a policy that increased deficits and thus rates.
I'm with you on the permitting reform, but I'm not sure what your claim is vis a vis green energy subsidies. Are you saying we should spend on subsidies to accelerate the transition because of emissions? Or because we can actually make energy cheaper faster (including the cost of subsidies)? Josh's whole argument is that it must be the former. If it was the latter, he argues, then it wouldn't be so necessary to court progressives (over moderates and conservatives).
Personally, if permitting was easy (big if) then I fail to see why subsidies would accelerate anything. Why wouldn't private money be willing to invest in these projects at scale, if they're really cheaper energy (and permitting is easy)? If the upfront investment is enormous and it takes forever to earn back the up-front spend, then it really just isn't cheaper energy...
The liberals/left would be foolish to just abandon green economics and head back to a cheap energy mentality. The reality is that, yes, investments in sustainability are expensive now and they will lower living standards now, but the impact of not shifting to a more sustainable economy will be devastating down the road. The mitigation costs of climate disasters are astronomical. You think migrants are a problem now? Wait until climate disasters really kick in and whole countries become uninhabitable. Is this a difficult political position for Democrats in elections to come? Yep, it sure is and we need to be honest about it. But just as conservatives have (rightly) argued that there’s a U.S. debt crisis in our future that’s politically difficult to deal with now, there’s a climate cost crisis in our future as well that liberals have the burden to carry.
According to the IPCC, assuming there's limited government mitigation and the worst-case scientific models about cloud cover are the right ones, in what year does GDP stop growing?
Actually, the economic impact of climate change is net positive. The equator is populated and the poles are not. Meditate on that, my friend.
Anyways, you missed the whole point of the article. Barro was operating in the framework of electoral reality. You seem to fully agree with him that emissions reduction is, in fact, costly, and those costs are unpopular. So democrats need to stop lying to themselves. You just seem to think climate change is so important that it’s worth losing elections over because… yeah.
I’m going to ignore the idiotic firsr half of your response. As for the second half, yes I agree that climate action is difficult politics at times. But public opinion drifts. In the 2020 election, green economics was marginally positive for Dems. After four years of high inflation, obviously it wasn’t in 2024. But its a mistake to assume 2026 or 2028 will be exactly like 2024. And perhaps, in most elections, its an issue that needs to be fought to a draw or even a marginal loss we have to make up with other issues. But if we start a race to the bottom with a party that is wiling to give endless tax incentives to oil companies, cut cushy deals with petrostates and oppose all climate actions, not only will we be making a bad policy decision, we’ll encourage the Republicans to find new depths and they will find it … and in the process we’ll hand this issue to them forever.
Not idiotic at all. You probably haven't looked into the issue much, and are basing economic projections on activist nonsense.
A recent literature review found that estimates ranged from 1-3% of GDP loss by 2100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069621000280?via%3Dihub
The IPCC is among these estimates, and they came up near the lower end.
My view that the net effect is positive is only slightly different from the scholarly consensus, which is that its negative but quite small. I get there by assuming that technological innovation will help us better adapt. The scholarly estimates do not assume any technological innovation.
So I'm "idiotic" for having a view that is a tiny bit different from the scholarly consensus. You probably think the effects are hugely negative. And you're wrong. Feel free to provide any evidence.
You deserve a cherry picking trophy for your study citations … nice work. I’m sure your idiot friends on Reddit are so proud.
lol what? I referenced a recent broad literature review that includes the IPCC. Name one study you think they missed. I’ll wait..
You are just digging in further and further while I cite real studies and you just hurl insults.
This is an issue where I have elitist views but I understand the ground reality as well and agree with you. The way to thread the needle would be to keep producing more oil to keep energy prices very low and tax it just enough such that voters don’t notice or don’t complain and use that to keep subsidizing green energy. I watched the panel discussion that you had linked to in the last post. It was a good discussion.
There is an element to this where progressives very much dislike reality and also are fairly indifferent to progress ironically. Feeling right is much more important to that side of the coalition than affecting positive change in the real world - incremental otherwise. And for the centrists among us this is exhausting even when our values align with them far more than MAGA world. It’s an endemically unstrategic way of interfacing with the world. But when ivory tower battles about “theories of power” at your modus operandi this is what you get.
Sad state of affairs. Hope in the coming decade or two they come back to caring about winning elections and affecting change.
Josh is, indeed, very serious. This column illustrates that too many of the rest of us are not (and that, of course, includes plenty of the unmentioned "conservatives"). Liberals are too prone to the notions 1) the only good ideas come from government and academia and 2) capitalism left to its own devices produces nothing of meaningful value and is populated by leaders of doubtful morality. Rightists are too prone to doubt that any good ideas come from government and academia and too confident that capitalism left to its own devices bestows on everyone exactly what they deserve. So-called middle of the roaders are hopeful but skeptical in each direction. Today their views appear to count for nothing.
By the way, what is it with this newfound casual contempt the center left now has for anyone who works in the nonprofit sector? It especially galls me because, I’m someone who’s actually run campaigns and worked in high level government offices, I have so much more actual political experience that all you eggheads who think your degrees make you political made men … and now that I work in the nonprofit sector, I know first hand that most of what these center-left tough guys say about philanthropies is total bullshit. (Yes, I’ve worked for Fortune 500 corporations too, so that argument won’t fly with me either.)
Mr. Barro, Have you been to Phoenix lately? Global warming is very real, and it’s starting to hit home in a very big way both economically and habitability. You’ve shown yourself be a condescending fool (more carbon?), or simply a sock-puppet of the new right, please unsubscribe I can get this shit for free on Fox or Newsmax….Joe Grant