Skip to comments.The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate
Posted on 05/13/2015 6:05:00 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
To the casual observer, the American right can appear an undifferentiated wall of denial and obstructionism on climate change, but behind the scenes there are signs of movement. A growing number of conservative leaders and intellectuals have come to terms with climate science and begun casting about for solutions. Led mainly by libertarians and libertarian-leaning economists, they've begun to coalesce behind a carbon tax, which they consider the most market-friendly of the available alternatives.
Jerry Taylor, a longtime veteran of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute who recently founded his own libertarian organization, the Niskanen Center, is a vocal proponent of this perspective. About five or six years ago, he says, he was convinced by a series of discussions, mainly with other right-leaning thinkers, that he was wrong on climate policy. His position "fundamentally switched."
In March, he released a new policy brief, "The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax," which argues for a steadily rising "revenue-neutral" fee on fossil fuel producers. Aside from a small portion set aside to cushion low-income households, all the revenue would be devoted to reducing other taxes.
Taylor has in mind a deal that would impose a carbon tax in exchange for the removal of other climate regulations, notably EPA carbon rules and state renewable energy mandates. He's been defending the proposal on Niskanen's blog, mainly against attacks from skeptical conservatives.
On a hot DC day last week, I caught up with Taylor at Niskanen's office housed, improbably, in a buzzing shared workspace filled with attractive millennials and their startups. The muggy weather had him in a natty seersucker suit, full of energy and eager to dig into wonky details.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
The Debate Is Over -- about libertarianism.
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]
Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Libertarians are Liberals.
Not much more needs to be said. It is known.
Yeah, "a deal." Either he's hawg-stupid, or he's been bought off or blackmailed.
The economy is booming and its the golden age of religious freedom in the USA.
Just ask John Stossel.
Leave it to the loons to want to ban what our life form is based on. There is a message in that.
You’re showing your ignorance, Bud.
Says right in the article “recently formed his own” group. He knows where the money is. Nothing more to it than that.
I think the message is, “They’re bats.”
Newt Gingrich became econut too...wanted to make a profit from it!
I would come to terms with climate science if I could find any. I happen to believe in the discipline called Scientific Method to validate science. After years and years of searching for a study which passes the tests and requirements of Scientific Method, I have found exactly...none.
What did those poor hawgs ever do to you?
Whenever a supposed ‘right winger’ or right wing associated person flips, money is always involved. Blackmail may be also, but money is always there in some quantity.
IQ/intelligence doesn’t just vanish. It can be bought or blackmailed into silence, but it does not disappear once established. For a liberal, there never was intelligence to lose. It is fundamentally impossible for a liberal to posses intelligence. Intelligence forbids liberalism.
Ummm ... er ... they’re our traditional college football rivals?
Good analysis. I hadn’t thought about it quite that way.
That is a fine and well reasoned explanation. :)
Oklahoma vs. Arkansas.
(I wasn’t expecting the question ... I’m surprised I came up with anything.)
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.