Comments on: Mankiw & Turnbull on climate change compensations

By: More thoughts on the CPRS : Core Economics

More thoughts on the CPRS : Core Economics — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:19:13 +0000

[...] now. It isn’t all about durable appliances but how we use electricity at the moment. I agree with Harry Clarke that shielding users from those signals is likely to be a risk not worth taking. It is better to [...]

By: Frontier Economics proposed modifications to the CPRS « Climate Dilemma

Frontier Economics proposed modifications to the CPRS « Climate Dilemma — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:00:36 +0000

[...] Harry Clarke states “Turnbull’s attempt to give them more to ease electricity prices is not good [...]

By: hc

hc — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:32:11 +0000

Quote: “In the New York Times, Greg Mankiw provides one of his characteristically clear treatments on climate change policy. If you substitute Obama for Rudd and congress for the Coalition, it could read like the Australian debate.” Sounds like support to me although I did read this prior to your second piece.

My view is that compensations to electricity producers is unnecessary. It is because I favour free trade that I support border tax adjustments that internalise externalities and which provide protection for competitiveness based on real resource costs.

By: Joshua Gans

Joshua Gans — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:24:48 +0000

Harry, I did not agree with Mankiw’s conclusion as it applied to Australia. I suggested that more compensation to generator’s would be a bad thing but I still think it is better to have what we have than give up.

My point was that international trade was good. Let me know if you disagree.