This article is the third in a series. You can read the first post here. and the second one here. “Gratefully, nature does not have to wait another century or so for the air’s CO2 concentration to double before reaping benefits from enhanced water use efficiency. It has already begun to profit in this regard from the approximate 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution began.” In my last article I wrote about increased plant … [Read more...]
Indiana Economists Endorse ‘Carbon Tax’ — But Should They?
Fifty Indiana economists advise bad science and bad economics. Recently, 50 Indiana economists issued a public letter to their state’s legislature endorsing a “carbon tax” as an economically wise way to curb global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fundamental premise of taxing CO2 emissions is that they cause more harm than good (and thus are what economists call a “negative externality” — a cost of doing business not borne by a firm but foisted off … [Read more...]
Indiana Economists Endorse “Carbon Tax”—But Should They?
Recently fifty Indiana economists issued a public letter to their state's legislature endorsing a "carbon tax" as an economically wise way to curb global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fundamental premise of taxing CO2 emissions is that they cause more harm than good (and thus are what economists call a “negative externality”—a cost of doing business not borne by a firm but foisted off onto others—the typical case with pollution). Economists are right to say that taxing … [Read more...]
What’s the ‘Most Important Figure You’ve Never Heard of’?
Get ready. You’re about to meet “the most important figure you’ve never heard of.” SCC. No, not SEC—Securities and Exchange Commission. (And you sports fans thought that was Southeastern Conference!) SCC stands for “social cost of carbon.” Which should prompt you immediately to ask two questions: “What’s that?” and “What’s that?” Okay, that’s one question. But you need to ask it twice. The first time, you want to know what it means. The answer, according to Wikipedia, is (take a … [Read more...]
What’s Wrong with a Carbon Tax?
The old joke is that if you put all the world’s economists end to end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. That’s another way of saying that economists routinely disagree with each other—often completely. Nonetheless, much of the public and many journalists treat a recommendation from a group of economists like the word from Mt. Sinai—as long as they agree with it. That kind of response was widespread when, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, a group of economists … [Read more...]
The Curbelo Carbon Tax as Wealth Redistribution
No matter how you look at it, the Florida Republican’s new proposal is bad policy. Environmental policy as a tool of wealth redistribution is nothing new. The latest example is a proposal for a greenhouse-gas (GHG) tax just introduced by Representative Carlos Curbelo (R., Fla.). Curbelo’s tax would start at $24 per metric ton of GHG emissions, growing 2 percent per year above inflation and an additional $2 per ton every two years if emission-reduction goals are not met. Those goals rise … [Read more...]
A Humorous and Devastating Critique of Green Economics
Just a brief note to recommend the reading of Tim Worstall's Chasing Rainbows: How the Green Agenda Defeats Its Aims. For fullest enjoyment, understand from the start that you must imagine its whole text being said aloud by an Englishman in a tone riddled with sarcasm. Think of Fawlty Towers or some such. Worstall, a Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, is an economist and businessman. His "Introduction" actually teaches some basic economic principles, such as comparative advantage and the … [Read more...]
What’s Wrong with a “Carbon” Tax?
James Baker, chief of staff to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state under George H.W. Bush, and George Schultz, secretary of state under Reagan, have endorsed a "carbon" tax plan that is just plain wrong from the git-go. Stephen Moore explains why in "The Carbon-Tax Scam," but here's the gist: Even if it succeeded in ending all United States carbon-dioxide emissions (and it's only designed to reduce, not end, them), it would fail to accomplish the end used as its justification: … [Read more...]
