Lieberman–Warner is expensive, but what are the benefits? This bill is a solution only to the extent that global warming is a problem in the first place and only to the degree to which the bill reduces that problem. There are reasons to question both.
While a full discussion of global warming science is beyond the scope of this analysis, it is worth noting that science is now taking a turn away from alarmism. The release of carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere and a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, has at least some warming effect on the planet, but the reality of global warming falls well short of being a crisis. Both the seriousness and the imminence of the threat have been overstated by environmentalists and politicians alike.
In particular, there is a growing realization that the extreme claims popularized in the media— most notably that a rise in sea level will inundate vast coastal areas and that deadly hurricanes like Katrina are linked to global warming and have become more common—are not well supported. The World Meteorological Organization and many scientists dispute such claims, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects a sea-level rise of approximately seven to 23 inches over the next century, not the widely publicized 18 to 20 feet in former Vice President Gore's book and documentary An Inconvenient Truth...
Furthermore, no matter how great a problem global warming may be, the Lieberman –Warner bill, assuming that it works as intended, would alleviate only a small fraction of that problem...Thus, the impact of Lieberman–Warner on overall emissions trends is modest, given global emissions growth. By most accounts, even in the unlikely event that America meets the targets of this bill, worldwide emissions would continue to increase, only at a slightly slower rate...
In sum, America's Climate Security Act of 2007 promises significant economic pain for little environmental gain. The costs are simply out of line with the benefits. Our analysis puts the cost of preventing carbon dioxide emissions at $49 per ton in 2015 and $68 to $88 by 2030, amounts that are generally in line with five other analyses of this bill. (See Table 1.)
But according to several prominent resource econamists, that is more than the dollar value of the harm that each ton does to the environment in the form of increased global warming. One analysis puts the cost of damage at $7.4 per ton of carbon dioxide and rising by about 2.5 percent per year, a fraction of what Lieberman–Warner costs per ton.If true, this bill would prove a textbook example of a solution that is worse than the problem.
It is at this point where I would normally make an impassioned plea to write your senator and tell them that this bill is economic suicide, but our own Senator Harkin is a co-sponsor of this legislation and as Harry Reed declared yesterday, those that disagree are essentially head in the sand naysayers. It is doubtful that you will persuade any of them that this is an act of lunacy now that they have their eyes on the revenue stream this scheme will produce.
Also see: The Five Myths about global warming legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment