rssOn Climate Change, Conservatives Suddenly Multilateralists
Monday, June 01, 2009 at 4:21 pm
- 7 Comments
Former Reagan administration economic adviser Martin Feldstein today makes the case — oft-mentioned in conservative circles — that the Democrats’ proposal to tackle climate change with a cap-and-trade system would put undo burdens on domestic industries, leading to higher costs for everyone. Instead, the Harvard University economist writes in a Washington Post op-ed, lawmakers “should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.”
Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction.
Citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office, Feldstein says that every 15 percent cut in the nation’s emissions would hike the typical family’s household expenses by $1,600 a year. (The Democrats’ strategy aims to reduce U.S. emissions 83 percent by 2050.) “Americans should ask themselves,” Feldstein says, “whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2.”
Though the argument is far advanced from that of climate-change deniers, it’s curious nonetheless. The United States, particularly this decade, isn’t exactly known for idling around in wait of international consensus before confronting a problem. Why, if climate change will have “serious long-term environmental consequences” would Congress sit on its hands instead of taking action? The question is particularly relevant because the United States, though it constitutes only about 5 percent of the world’s population, accounts for more than 20 percent of its carbon emissions. Are we to believe that reducing that enormous contribution by 83 percent would result in a “very small … decline in global CO2?” And if climate change, as scientists say, both is exacerbated by these emissions and threatens the well-being of billions of folks around the globe, don’t we have a responsibility to curtail our contribution, regardless of what Beijing and New Delhi are up to?
Whatever happened to the ostensibly conservative notion of leading by example?
7 Comments
Comment posted June 1, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Cap and trade strikes me as crazy. Effectively, we Americans will be adding an additional tax to our energy bills. Why are we about to do this? Because the United Nations shouts 'climate crisis'. The problem with the scenario is that the United Nations is a political organization riddled with power grabbing and backroom deals. Why the heck are we relying on their scientific judgment? Why isn't America listening to our own climate commission? Why? We don't have one, that's why. As I said, it's crazy.
The underlying premise of cap and trade–that CO2 drives global warming–is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since Kyoto that are omitted from the reports. Frankly, even to the non-scientist the reports don't pass the smell test — see http://www.energyplanusa.com . America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I realize that the fix was in all along. The UN reports add up to politics not science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. …before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 1:24 am
What the conservitives do not want to raise costs here with a CO2 tax thus forcing production overseas and raising the amount of CO2 created by transportation?
Who do they think they are?
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Cap and trade strikes me as crazy. Effectively, we Americans will be adding an additional tax to our energy bills. Why are we about to do this? Because the United Nations shouts 'climate crisis'. The problem with the scenario is that the United Nations is a political organization riddled with power grabbing and backroom deals. Why the heck are we relying on their scientific judgment? Why isn't America listening to our own climate commission? Why? We don't have one, that's why. As I said, it's crazy.
The underlying premise of cap and trade–that CO2 drives global warming–is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since Kyoto that are omitted from the reports. Frankly, even to the non-scientist the reports don't pass the smell test — see http://www.energyplanusa.com . America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I realize that the fix was in all along. The UN reports add up to politics not science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. …before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Opposition to cap and trade fails to see an opportunity for the United States to lead in yet another revolution related to alternative energy. The prosperity of the U.S. has been driven by its leadership through the industrial revolution and then the technological revolution that saw the rise of the Internet and its surrounding economy. When did the U.S. become a nation of followers?
The premise of cap and trade is not based on the IPCC reports, it is based on the same thing as the IPCC reports, over a century of published and peer-reviewed science that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Cap and trade strikes me as crazy. Effectively, we Americans will be adding an additional tax to our energy bills. Why are we about to do this? Because the United Nations shouts 'climate crisis'. The problem with the scenario is that the United Nations is a political organization riddled with power grabbing and backroom deals. Why the heck are we relying on their scientific judgment? Why isn't America listening to our own climate commission? Why? We don't have one, that's why. As I said, it's crazy.
The underlying premise of cap and trade–that CO2 drives global warming–is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since Kyoto that are omitted from the reports. Frankly, even to the non-scientist the reports don't pass the smell test — see http://www.energyplanusa.com . America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I realize that the fix was in all along. The UN reports add up to politics not science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. …before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Opposition to cap and trade fails to see an opportunity for the United States to lead in yet another revolution related to alternative energy. The prosperity of the U.S. has been driven by its leadership through the industrial revolution and then the technological revolution that saw the rise of the Internet and its surrounding economy. When did the U.S. become a nation of followers?
The premise of cap and trade is not based on the IPCC reports, it is based on the same thing as the IPCC reports, over a century of published and peer-reviewed science that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Pingback posted September 1, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
[...] The Washington Independent » On Climate Change, Conservatives Suddenly Multilateralists washingtonindependent.com/45117/on-climate-change-conservatives-suddenly-multilateralists – view page – cached #The Washington Independent RSS Feed The Washington Independent » On Climate Change, Conservatives Suddenly Multilateralists Comments Feed The Washington Independent Biden Time Is Cheney Going to Call Odierno and Petraeus Conspiracy Theorists? Minnesota Supreme Court Hears Coleman-Franken Contest — From the page [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
