Global Warming Redux
There has been no global warming for 16 years. All the predictions of the climate models have been wrong. The global warming alarmists have no explanation. Even if current action were justified, the case for unilateral action (that doesn’t include china, India, etc.) is almost non-existent. And, for the time being, the case for watchful waiting is much stronger than the case for incurring economic costs today to avoid the consequences of warming 100 years from now.
But if there comes a time when action is justified, almost everything the federal government and the state of California and the city of Los Angeles are doing is the wrong thing. As Greg Mankiw wrote in the New York Times:
Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed.
The Earth was cooled and warmed numerous times during the past million years. One day is warmer than another — even during the same time of year. I believe it’s important to protect the environment. But I don’t believe Americans (or anyone else) is prepared to live in caves and only eat produce they’ve grown and fertilized with their own fecal matter. There has to be a balance between what we can reasonably do to prevent global warming versus what we can do to mitigate the results.
A carbon tax is one way to encourage people to converse energy. However, I’m not ready to embrace another tax just to say we’re doing something whose benefits are unproven.
A carbon tax is just another tax that hurts our economy. Those in support of it just don’t understand the consequences.
A carbon tax would definitely be the most efficient way to reduce emissions of CO2, the greenhouse gas of most concern. By efficient, I mean it would get the most bang for the buck — with much less negative impact than regulations (such as CAFE standards) or subsidies, mandates and loans for non-fossil fuel technologies. However, to my knowledge, none of the countries that have adopted a carbon tax (or carbon trading scheme) have eliminated the expensive, inefficient and counterproductive subsidies, mandates and loans for non-fossil fuel technologies. Why? Because if the cost of CO2 emissions rises, the most likely response is to improve the efficient use of fossil fuels or increase conservation efforts — rather than switch to energy alternatives that are way more expensive.
Would a CO2 tax not greatly increase the cost of energy? I would think that would hurt GDP in the short run.
No matter if the seas rise, or we are running out of resources, we will be just fine. A good study of history shows that “the end is near” happened all the time and it never actually happened. All this fear will do is hamper the markets and slow growth.
Y2K Virus
I am not someone who you would call a full-blown tree hugging environmentalist, but I find it hard to believe that all these CO2 we are putting out in the atmosphere is not impacting the world.
It is known that the majority of carbon dioxide being put off by humans is being absorbed by the plant life in the ocean. While this is occurring, it is also possible that a slight difference is throwing the earth out of balance.
The debate is still out!
I feel like this is like the classic frog in a boiling water, and all these debates just delay our realization on this.
I think Yusuf makes a good point, certainly something so complex and yet sensitive, there is bound to be some ramifications.
Most people believe in global warming, however, most aren’t clear on exactly how fast this effect will transpire.
The rate cannot yet be determined, but if true it is known to be more than 100 years. Thus, most governments put it off since the costs are so high.
CO2 is a prerequisite for all plant life and therefore all animal life as well. Rising CO2 levels are a benefit to plant life and the planet. So the relevant question is, does CO2 produce negative externalities for human society. CO2 emissions do not produce negative externalities in the way that ground level ozone, lead, mercury, dioxin, fecal coli-form bacteria, particulate matter and fertilizer runoff produce negative externalities. Rising CO2 levels could be a feature or a bug depending on other factors which effect climate and depending on how man chooses to adapt.
The historical record is on the side of CO2 being a net positive. In last 100 million years, CO2 levels were once higher than 2000 ppm. In earlier periods, with much higher CO2, the earth was warmer,wetter, ecologically more diverse, less desertified and had much less ice. Declining CO2, over the last 100 million years, corresponds closely with a colder, drier, desertifying and frozen planet. Given a choice between the former climate and the latter, I choose the former.
So barring any conclusive proof, that humans will be harmed in either the near term
or long term by CO2, a Carbon tax would be just that, another tax. In addition to the tax, there would be all the associated book keeping and auditing work which a tax implies. It would require more government, at all levels, to collect as well.
I’m sure the Obama administration wouldn’t be opposed to a carbon tax, but the fact of the matter is that such a tax would be DOA in the House. instead, the administration is forced to regulate through the EPA. Another instance where GOP anti-tax orthodoxy leads to worse policy outcomes.