I’m not sure why we need one in the first place. There has been no statistically significant warming in almost 18 years. More importantly, there’s no hard scientific proof that the Modern Warm Period, or even the brief increase in global temperatures that occured from around 1980 to 1996, was the result of CO2. Anyhow
How high would a carbon tax really have to be to rein in climate change?
Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson published an opinion piece in the New York Times a week ago calling for a tax on carbon — and the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions is suddenly back in the news.
But do current economic models place a realistic price tag on carbon? A new paper from the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute says “No.â€
Professors Nicholas Stern and Simon Dietz contend that current models grossly underestimate the actual risks and costs of global warming. If we want to have the market rein in carbon pollution, say Stern and Dietz, we need to place a much higher price on carbon pollution.
Why do we really need one? If Believers would just give up all use of fossil fuels and make their own lives “carbon neutral”, that’d go far to solving the issue. Let’s skip to the final conclusion
Specifically, instead of considering $20 or $30 per metric ton an optimal level, that figure will need to be in the triple digits.
“The only question,†Komanoff concludes, “is: How fast do we get to triple digits, and how high up above $100 dollars per ton do we take it?â€
And where would all that money go? The Government, of course! And this economy destroying tax would somehow magically stop hotcoldwetdry.
