Nobel Peace Prizes and Sound Policy

This morning my wife and I were going to the airport and discussing the environment. The mantra in many schools now (she was a school teacher) is reduce, reuse and recycle. I wonder about that kind of talk - does it really make any long term sense? Is it based on a sound set of values or is it based on the current civil religion that Mr. Gore was awarded the Nobel for yesterday. That got me to think about a set of policy tradeoffs. As we went through the security line, I thought about the policy that the Carter administration advanced which abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board. The elimination of the CAB had several positive effects. By eliminating the absurd price regulation it created a lot more opportunities to fly. It also encouraged a lot of people who had not previously flown to fly - many on discount airlines like Southwest. At this point I think Mr. Gore and others in his cult probably would think the democratizing of air travel would be a good thing. I would agree.

But then you need to think about another outcome which was, even with more efficient jets, to increase our carbon footprint. All those people flying meant more carbon usage - that, in theory, increased the contribution to climate change. Question, was the elimination of the CAB a good policy?

Anyone who believes in markets would say a resounding yes. But some of the extremists in the movement that Gore is the titular leader of would say no. I find that strange.