If you're a global warming climate change true believer (and I'm not) you probably want to "fix" the problem while doing the least damage. In that case, accordingto Bjorn Lomborg in today's Wall Street Journal, carbon taxes are not the way to go:
All the major climate economic models show that to achieve the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature rises under two degrees Celsius, we would have to impose a global tax on carbon emissions that, by the end of the century, would cost the world a phenomenal $40 trillion a year. Even the wealthiest of nations would have trouble paying that price.
That's $40,000,000,000,000 per year. That's 2.8 times the 2008 U.S. total GDP. That's 2/3rds the world's total GDP(pdf file).
So what's the solution? Frankly, I say let nature take its course.
But if you're a climate change true believe, you probably want a choice. According to Lomborg, there is a better choice than devastating the world economy and throwing millions into poverty:
An expert panel including three Nobel Laureate economists concluded that devoting just 0.2% of global GDP—roughly $100 billion a year—to green-energy R&D could produce the kind of breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.
And that would work much better than carbon taxes, cap and trade, and all the command and control methods the left prefers. Of course, it could be the left prefers those methods because they allow them to control you. Could it be?
Comments