Friends, there are two constants in the world of "climate change": 1) politicians, journalists, and academics never tire of hectoring the public about the cataclysm that higher global temperatures portend, and 2) global carbon emissions keep increasing, despite the blather of these sanctimonious elites. If leftist piety could defeat climate change, this war would have been won a long time ago, but in fact all this talk is mere, well, hot air. In the meantime, ordinary folks like ourselves have to wonder: are our prospects really as bleak as the opinion leaders suggest? The upshot is that they are not. Climate change introduces substantial uncertainties and challenges, but mankind is, as best as we can tell, quite capable of meeting them. Consider the arguments of this fine article, and indulge yourselves in a big sigh of relief:
https://outline.com/MchEpW
Dr. Waddy: This article is another powerful argument against leftist environmental anxiety. But I didn't understand his apparent approval for a carbon tax which does not attack growth but does control carbon emissions. Did I misinterpret him?
ReplyDeleteTo ask the developing world to abandon its rise from destitution so that portly Al Gore can sleep better is a model of leftist radical presumptuousness and elite detachment. If the third world signs on to natural gas, all that much the better but that means (gasp) continued dependence on fossil fuels and detested American free enterprise . Some scientists think the first person to live one thousand years has already been born; I know - leftists, who are blithe to say "why if it saves one life its worth all of it", are just looking out for him or her when the gas runs out. Yes?
Hmm. No, I think you're right, Jack -- he seems to support a growth-friendly form of carbon taxation. I can see the logic of it too. If you want to pollute the (common) air, then you should pay for the privilege. It would probably make a lot more sense than taxing wealth, income, or land ownership, say -- after all, why would we want to penalize wealth, income, or owning land? Of course, the reality is that any carbon tax would be an ADDITIONAL tax, not a replacement tax, so conservatives are right to see it as a threat to growth and a play for bigger government.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Makes sense. If offered to leftists as a trade for taxes on wealth it would be a revealing test of their intent. (I like to ask leftists if they would trade their abortion "rights" for our gun rights. They don't like that.)
ReplyDeleteLeftists would of course hasten to expand the scope of such a law to include other perceived pollutants (eg. wood stove smoke - people burn wood to save money but that would be of no moment to mostly urban oriented elitists) and would see carbon seeping from every possible portal or orifice ( but imagine what Andrew Cuomo would have to pay after one of his prerorations).
Ha ha. Good point, Jack. Human beings are, intrinsically and biologically, "carbon emitters". The climate change crowd probably sees that as legitimate grounds for population control. Or...perhaps they would assess a "head tax" on every human? More to the point, a "lung tax", based on lung capacity? Or maybe we could make do with a year-long moratorium on breathing... The possibilities are endless!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Mega ditto and I don't doubt they would try such absurdia.
ReplyDelete