Posted on 08/03/2011 7:18:06 PM PDT by Coleus
Economist Greg Mankiw does so here and here.
the virtue of market-based policies to deal with externalities is that they are more efficient than command-and-control regulations. In the case of carbon emissions and global climate change, putting a price on carbon is supposed to be a better substitute for government micromanagement.
Apparently, that lesson is lost on the writers of the bill now making its way through Congress. Although the bill changes incentives by putting a price on carbon, it also offers a large dose of command-and-control regulation. Essentially, the sponsors don't seem to believe that getting incentives right is enough.
Then there's this piece he did for the New York Times:
Among policy wonks like me, there is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D.
That's assuming we need to reduce carbon emissions of course, a proposition that becomes more dubious by the moment. As I've noted, most of the global-warming alarmism is based on politics, not science. Politically, cap-and-trade would enrich a whole lot of Wall Street traders happy, Blood and Gore. Scientifically, there is scant proof that cutting carbon emissions would have any effect on climate proportionate to the cost. What we need is a cost-benefit ratio and scientists can't come up with it.
In any event, Mankiw is perfectly right in his cost-benefit analysis. A carbon tax offset by an income tax cut would be good for the economy regardless of the effect on carbon emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
That's about all I can come up with in response to this insanity.
THE RUNNING joke in Washington is that nobody has read the 900-plus-page energy bill sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), which the House will consider in coming weeks.
We got the clown Democrats out of control of congress just in time. If this Congress even looks like they are seriously considering this POS the entire bunch needs to be strung up.
agreed. the biggest flaw, is that it will have not have ANY effect on Global warming,
(even if it was happening... which it isn’t.
warming was from active Sun during 1980-2000.
earth has been cooling since 2003, not warming.)
But the part that jumped out at me was the advocating of a GLOBAL tax. Um, .... set by whom? Administered by whom? Collected by whom? Enforced by whom? SPENT on what? And spent on whom?
Global warming, carbon, energy and even taxation are almost besides the point. The article recommends GLOBAL socialism (i.e., global communism).
It has only the two flaws — the cap, and the trade. Thanks Coleus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.