UNCG economics professor Andrew Brod’s op-ed in today’s N&R discusses global warming. Bear with the long pull quote — I highlighted the interesting parts:
Fortunately, people finally seem to understand the fallacy of requiring proof…..they see climate change as a serious problem and believe that government should do be doing more to deal with it. This is encouraging, and it represents an impotant step for the American public. As with a personal addiction, no solution is possible until the problem is acknowledged.
But are Americans ready for the solution? After all, there is much wishful thinking on this subject. For example, the Bush administration believes that new technologies are the answer. (Crossing its fingers for new technologies is also the administration’s solution to what the president has called our addiction to oil.) Unfortunately, investing in technology isn’t a magic wand, and most experts believe that new technologies are unlikely to make a significant dent in our greenhouse emmissions…..
Whether we like it or not, dealing with climate change will involve real trade-offs and real costs. But according to a recent study by the British government, which recommended an array of taxes and emissions controls, the costs may be moderate, on the order of global income per year. For the median U.S. household, this would currently imply a reduction in income of a few hundred dollars annually.
Dr. Brod finishes up by asking if “we” should impose a carbon tax. I get the feeling he thinks we should, so government can do what’s best for the American public. But if technology’s not the answer, then what will the government invest in to reduce greenhouse gases? Programs limiting us to one square of toilet paper?
I disagree that global warming has spent years on the back burner of public policy, as Dr. Brod asserts. I’d say the environmental issues have been prominent since the EPA was created in 1970, about as long as Al Gore says he’s been championing the cause. It’s certainly been on the front burner since 1992, when Gore wrote “Earth in the Balance.” to help get himself elected vice president. Forget the fact that the Clinton ticket’s opponent in 1992, George H.W. Bush, signed major legislation in 1990 to help improve air quality. And if Gore’s been on it for this long and things are this bad, you have to wonder about his effectiveness.
The thing is, legislation has worked. I admit it. The air’s clean. Environmentalists should be praising themselves. Instead we get hystreria. Political hysteria. Makes you wonder if liberals are ever happy.
