You’re going to have to elaborate on this. Just how is China’s government supposed to ‘go under’? The Chinese government is a dictatorship. It has killed millions of its own people. It’s perfectly capable of deciding that having a few million people die in the grand cause of economic development is acceptable, and of defending itself against any outrage that may develop over that. It’s also capable of recognizing the political calculus that doing something about global warming hurts it’s people today, but doing nothing hurts the people of some future administration long after the current leaders are dead. And that will always be the case - even fifty years from now. Because those leaders will still be faced with the fact that any cost they impose on the people at that time to halt further greenhouse gas emissions will only benefit people a generation or two down the road.
In an era where almost every goverment in the world is racking up huge debts to give current citizens benefit at the expense of future generations, what makes you think they’re going to behave differently with respect to global warming?
While we’re at it, how come the left is so adamant about saving future economic costs of global warming, while advocating spending today that also imposes fiscal costs on future generations?
No, it’s you who is denying economics. I understand the externality cost of carbon. What you apparently don’t understand is that if you apply an externality tax on carbon in one country, and that has the effect of increasing the externality in another, it does nothing. The externality still exists.
Now, I don’t think carbon taxes would be completely offset by increased carbon output in other countries. But even if 20% of the carbon simply shifts elsewhere, that changes the whole economic equation. It makes the carbon tax less efficient.
It does, huh? Just like the revenue from Social Security payments was put away for future generations. We both know that any revenue from carbon taxes raised in the United States will be used to either give people other tax cuts, or to pay down the deficit, or to pay for more social programs. If you think you can find the political will to impose a carbon tax on the public and then send that money to pay for levee construction on the coast of Africa, you’re nuts.
I agree, and I never said otherwise. So maybe the 53 billion that you want as a down payment on high speed rail should be used for that. Have you done the math to figure out if that money might be better spent that way? Or maybe the money should be applied to the deficit to encourage economic growth that will compound and make future generations so wealthy they can deal with it on their own. Somehow I never hear those arguments from your side.
Which means he can’t be an environmentalist?
Yes - and thank god someone with the green eyeshades is trying to inject a reality check here. Are you anti-economics? Why don’t you follow the economics? Are you a denier?
Climate scientists are not holy sages. Their recommendations have to be balanced against a lot of factors they are not expert in. Such as economics.
Quite true. Which is why in my last message I said that this is an affliction that affects everyone. Bias is insidious.
