Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
ands, and qualifi cations. But the idea that an army of scientists around
the world is perpetrating a giant hoax just seems silly.
I would then study the literature on impacts. The evidence here is
much murkier because we are making uncertain climate projections on
rapidly changing future societies. But I fi nd the projections very unset-
tling. I might have a fi ne beach house and read that it is likely to wash
into the sea. Or perhaps I am a ski fanatic and learn that the skiing sea-
son is getting shorter. I read about the forced migration of millions of
people and wonder whether they will spill over to my town, state, and
country. I worry about whether we are destroying many of the natural
wonders of the world that I would hope to visit with my children and
grandchildren. I conclude that we have enough problems without add-
ing another huge mess to the pile.
Finally, I turn to the policymakers. I learn that many activists favor
a cap-and-trade approach, which sets up an allocation of allowances to
emit CO
2
and gives them away to “deserving” parties. They might give
the allowances away to industries or to environmental groups, and
some might go to poor countries with weak governance. I also see that
activists are proposing regulations on automobiles, power plants, appli-
ances, and lightbulbs. I heard one of my favorite conservative talk show
hosts denounce this as “lightbulb socialism,” and that sounded funny
and right. As a conservative, I don't like the smell of extensive regula-
tions and political allocation of valuable permits associated with cap
and trade.
How about turning it over to the market? I quickly realize that we
defi nitely cannot rely on the free-market solution, which involves a zero
price of carbon emissions. A zero price is the wrong answer because it
ignores the external costs of emissions to other people, to other coun-
tries, and to the future. So I recognize that some kind of governmental
intervention in the market is necessary to slow global warming.
I turn to see what the economists say here. Many of them are advo-
cates of something called a carbon tax, which would impose a tax on
emissions of CO
2
and other greenhouse gases. It would be a “Pigovian
tax,” which is a tax on a negative externality. It would accomplish the
