Sticking with the global warming theme ?

The latest print edition of National Review features an article from Jim Manzi of the Manhattan Institute that spells out the poor economics associated with cap-and-trade legislation. Manzi avoids the battle over climate science and focuses instead on the practical impact of cap and trade.

First, assuming that the popularly quoted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections are correct, he reminds us that ?[b]ecause of its geographical position and mix of economic activities, the United States is expected to experience no net economic costs from such warming through the end of the century, and to begin experiencing net costs only thereafter.?

Manzi then methodically spells out why the cap-and-trade plans under discussion now make no sense economically. He ends the piece by reminding people to pay attention to the economics:

Clarity about costs and benefits is the enemy of the Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade] proposal. To get drawn into the details of tweaking allowance schedules or emission limits, in the hope of avoiding the appearance of obstructionism, is a sucker play. No amount of tinkering is going to change the fundamental reality that even a perfect implementation of the Waxman-Markey concept is a very poor economic deal for Americans. ? At the other extreme, to make this an argument about climate science by attacking the global scientific establishment, or to engage in a debate about worldviews and socialism ? that is, to operate on a high rhetorical plane ? is also a sucker play, because it allows advocates of Waxman-Markey to continue to avoid the hard issue of costs and benefits. We should keep coming back to one practical question: What do we pay, and what do we get?

Those who are interested in a debate about the science might enjoy reviewing the forum the John Locke Foundation co-sponsored earlier this year in Hickory. In addition, those who would like to learn how ?clarity about costs and benefits is the enemy? of climate policy proposals in North Carolina might enjoy reviewing this 2008 report.