[helene_t]

Increasing taxes on poluters means (assuming that the overall tax burden is a seperate issue) less taxes on non-poluters. It will hurt some industries and benefit others. I don't see why it would hurt the economy as a whole.

But it may depend what is understood by "the economy". If you mean the standard of living, and you think that less polution does not increase the standard of living, then it will hurt the "economy" because industries will be forced to produce in an "ineffective" way. But of course, the whole idea of enviromment protection is that the enviroment is worth protecting, hence the quotation marks.

If you mean the GDP, I wouldn't expect it to matter much. In the short term, there could be some adverse effects of the transition to a new tax regime (whether more polution-targetting, less polution-targeting or in some third direction) and there could be a positive effect of moving some of the demand from imported fuels to domestically produced alternatives (wind turbines, more expensive but less gasoline-consuming cars etc). And then there're the administrative costs of the regulations and/or tax regime themselves.

[whereagles]

The ice caps act as a "heat sink" to absorb the heat trapped by the greenhouse effect (to see why, see a textbook on thermodynamics). When/if the caps melt, the trapped heat won't have anywhere to go and will start warming up the atmosphere.

Result: a rapid increase of the world's average temperature.

On the other hand, it's true that CO2 concentration has been much higher than it is now and nothing much happened (except for a few mass extinctions...).

[Al_U_Card]

One of the bigger "items" is the permafrost. It contains dead plant matter that is frozen. As it thaws out, the dead matter decays, using oxygen and increasing CO2 emission. There is one heck of a lot of permafrost in NA and in Siberia....

[pbleighton]

"Increasing taxes on poluters means (assuming that the overall tax burden is a seperate issue) less taxes on non-poluters. It will hurt some industries and benefit others. I don't see why it would hurt the economy as a whole.

But it may depend what is understood by "the economy". If you mean the standard of living, and you think that less polution does not increase the standard of living, then it will hurt the "economy" because industries will be forced to produce in an "ineffective" way. But of course, the whole idea of enviromment protection is that the enviroment is worth protecting, hence the quotation marks.

If you mean the GDP, I wouldn't expect it to matter much. In the short term, there could be some adverse effects of the transition to a new tax regime (whether more polution-targetting, less polution-targeting or in some third direction) and there could be a positive effect of moving some of the demand from imported fuels to domestically produced alternatives (wind turbines, more expensive but less gasoline-consuming cars etc). And then there're the administrative costs of the regulations and/or tax regime themselves."

Helene, this is WAY too sensible.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 24 2007, 09:28 PM, said:

BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful?

I've been quite clear about my thoughts on this subject the last twelve times we've discussed this: I'm strongly in favor of a carbon tax, coupled with an emissions trading scheme.

I'm am skeptical about most of the alternative energy schemes that I've seen coming out of congress. Far too many of them look to be pork barrel projects. Simply put, I don't trust congress to be able to make intelligent decisions about the relative merits of bio-diesel compared to "clean" coal compared to wind / solar / nuclear / whatever.

The problem that we are facing is that the CO2 emissions are a classic example of an externality. People don't bear most of the costs associated with burning fossil fuel. Taxing carbon emissions is simplest and the most direct way to address this problem. As a result, its also the least distortionary.

Tax carbon and let the market make an intelligent decision how the economy should adjust.

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Jan 25 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

Helene, this is WAY too sensible.

Sorry, I forgot that you play EHAA. I'll never do it again.