The New York Times is not having a good week on the environment.

[wtmusic]

First, the Tesla embarrassment (which, truth be told, has enough blame to go around).



Now columnist Joe Nocera, in a very confused op-ed in support of Keystone XL titled, "How Not to Fix Climate Change", attempts to convince us that lowering the price of oil will make us use less of it:

If you really want to eliminate expensive new fossil fuel sources, the best way is to lower the price of oil, which would render them uneconomical. But, of course, that wouldn’t exactly lower demand either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/nocera-how-not-to-fix-climate-change.html?_r=0

Nocera was duly hammered by James Hansen and Joe Romm at Climate Progress, who aren't economists (but didn't need to be).

I get the impression Hansen has given up on fee-and-dividend for a straight carbon tax - not because it isn't a better idea, but because policy wonks seem to have a very difficult time grasping an idea in which the government rewards its citizens with a cash payout. Do we need to rename it the "Carbon Lotto?"

[NYC_SKP]

1. What a tool. Obviously we need to tax the hell out of fossil fuels, use the proceeds to good ends.

And discourage burning of them.

And don't even start with me on that pack of lies Tesla test.

[hatrack]

2. Huh? That doesn't make any kind of sixth-grade economic sense . . .

Good thing they deep-sixed their environment team, huh?

Pathetic.