DISQUS

jamie · 1 year ago

I think you are right about the institutional analysis of permits v. tax.
But, pretend that you DID think global warming would be a serious problem (a position the vast majority of climate scientists endorse). And, being a rational politician, you realized that any solution that has the word 'tax' in it will be politically dead in the water.
From this view point, doing nothing is not really an option. If warming gets to 550 ppm, then the effects could be irreversible and devastating. Planting trees will be too late.
On the other hand, a carbon permits scheme and the handouts that go with it will definitely be a drag on economic growth. But really, not a huge drag on growth. The US economy is very resilient. It would be worse for 3rd world countries if they actually had to forgo growth. But they probably won't-instead, they'll just buy renewable tech from us when it gets cheaper. This means that western caps on carbon emissions will not effect warming as much. But they still could conceivably slow it down somewhat. Maybe the higher price of carbon will cause a technological breakthrough. It's feasible. And if not, the price of carbon permits is not terribly high anyways.
I am not 100% persuaded by this analysis, since I think the permits scheme will be too watered down to do much, and 3rd world carbon emissions will overwhelm it. But your analysis would be much stronger if you confronted this view point, in which warming is really a serious threat, and think about the dangers of waiting if warming is that bad.

Mark · 1 year ago

You make a strong argument about the practical irreversibility of conferring property rights. However, I hope that your are just being cheeky by saying: "If global warming does turn out to be a problem in a few decades, then unleash the carbon sequestering trees, or what have you." Otherwise, such flip comments suggest a profound lack of scientific understanding.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · 1 year ago

Will, I'm interested in learning more about the evidence and knowledge you've synthesized to come to the conclusion that "the probability that global warming is a significant problem is low."

Dain · 1 year ago

We should assume it's as bad as the scientists say, given our collective ignorance of the subject on this comment board. Given that, taxes can be overcome - companies can choose to pay them - but caps are a mandate to reduce carbon emissions. We should favor the latter course, no?