I did write to Willett off-list and thank him for his comment. But just so everyone understands, here's what I said:
"Thanks for the comments. But don't misunderstand. I circulated the article because I thought it would be interesting and, yes, even provocative, not because I thought its analysis was RIGHT. Sunstein, by the way, is not a political scientist. He's the Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School at the University of Chicago." I'm glad Paul chimed in, and perhaps others will, too. But the person who'd probably most like to hear from you -- and probably most needs to -- is Cass Sunstein. Geoffrey. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Craig Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:52 AM To: GEP-Ed Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared Willett-- Great comment! Right on. I found this paper absolutely fascinating. The reason is that it clearly articulates the kind of thinking that actually drove US policy. It was and is politically salient, while being scientifically and economically narrow and outdated to the point of seeming almost bogus. Amazing. The article seems a relic from the past. Yet it's forthcoming this year in a legitimate journal. So much for Harvard's review process. I also learned about the "Joint Center". AEI and Brookings working arm-in-arm to promote this kind of work. AEI I understand. But Brookings! I'd thought better of them. Scary! Paul Paul Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "willett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "GEP-Ed" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> Cc: "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "NICHOLAS WATTS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:54 PM Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared > > Ok, an interesting comparison of national benefits from national versus > global implementation. But otherwise, wow, a bizarre article. Perhaps > an example of how you cannot do good political science if you base it on > lousy climatology, old economic analysis, and pretend that there's no > such thing as technical innovation and change. If Nordhaus and Boyer's > estimates of the damages from climate change were remotely close to > correct, we wouldn't really be worried about this problem. Yes, George > Bush believes (or some of his advisors/donors believe) that the US would > be economicaly damaged by reductions in CO2. But he also believes that > evolution is unproven and seems to have difficulty distinguishing the > interests of the United States from the interests of the United States' > fossil fuel industry. The countries that are "foolishly" complying with > Kyoto are developing the technology of the 21st century. E.g. try > Googling: Siemens Wind Power, Vestas, REpower AG, Talisman Beatrice > Project, Shell Renewables, or, hey, even the US can do it -- Tesla > Motors. > > Willett Kempton > > > On 29 Aug 2006, at 14:38, Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith wrote: > >> I think this will be of widespread interest. >> >> G. >> ---------------------------------- >> Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith >> Emeritus Professor of Political Science >> University of California >> >> <MontrealKyoto.pdf> > >
