My column at FoxNews.com today…
President Obama wants to pay you to support global warming regulation. What he isn’t saying, however, is that his enticement won’t come close to covering what the regulations will cost you.
My column at FoxNews.com today…
President Obama wants to pay you to support global warming regulation. What he isn’t saying, however, is that his enticement won’t come close to covering what the regulations will cost you.
A cap and trade emissions scheme is, in effect, a very significant tax on manufacturing (an essential contributor to standard of living) and on energy (a commodity for which families and businesses both have relatively inelastic demand).
Setting aside whether C02 levels can drive catastrophic global warming, an emissions tax is going to be reduce useful economic activity. The more costly the tax, the greater the reduction in useful industry and in consumer use of energy as well.
Perhaps a large tax to “save the earth” was tempting to tax raisers, back during a period when there was good economic growth (1982 – 2007). Given the subsequent popping of a generally underrecognized economic bubble that is now leading to a significant, hurtful contraction in useful economic activity, the case for an emissions tax is becoming all the weaker. Adopting an emissions tax would be equivalent to further kicking the economy while it is on its way down anyway. The timing for a thoughtful, balanced debate about an emissions tax seems apt. The perils of kicking useful economic activity have seldom been more clear.