|
Why I'm (slightly) less pessimistic about global warming
 More WaPo nonsenseLast week, a large group of economists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners, 15 former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and two former treasury secretaries-- Democrats and Republicans -- issued a manifesto endorsing what's been called a "carbon dividend" plan. This would be a good start. Here's how it would work. The government would tax CO2 emissions. The idea is to prompt Americans to use less fossil fuels and to prod businesses to focus on renewables and energy efficiency. That's a standard carbon tax. What defines the "carbon dividend" plan is that all the money collected would be rebated to households. Under one proposal, the government would slap a $43 tax on each ton of CO2. That would equal about 38 cents on a gallon of gasoline, says economist Marc Hafstead of Resources for the Future, who studied the plan. It would raise about $180 billion in the tax’s first year, he says. If the "dividend" -- the tax rebate -- were distributed evenly, that would be about $1,400 per household. Meanwhile, if the tax were increased 3 percent annually, there would be (according to the estimates) a dramatic reduction in U.S. fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases. Without the tax, projected CO2 emissions would be 5.4 billion metric tons in 2035. With the tax, the total would be 3.6 billion metric tons, a 33 percent decline. Still, this would hardly eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions. Replacing that fossil fuel with exactly, what? Not nuclear. Oh, you mean the little people should do without. How about higher food prices? Oh, the little people should just starve. Yellow vests coming to an American town near you. Where is my pitchfork?
Posted by: Tyranysaurus McGurque5763 2019-01-23 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=532629 |