Jan
Cap-and-trade will increase CO2 emissions
The big sales point of cap-and-trade is that it will reduce CO2 emissions, and thereby save the world from self-destruction. Blah, blah, blah, we’re all going to die, we know.
Just like progressive taxation–in the minds’ of liberals–does not increase government revenues and instead simply punishes those who work hardest in society, cap-and-trade will not reduce CO2 emissions and instead simply punish the producers of goods in developed nations. In fact, you really think about it, cap-and-trade will increase carbon emissions.
You see, liberals make projections based upon “static” behavior. They assume that new legislation causes no behavioral changes. Again, looking at progressive taxation, high earners work less, restructure their income, stash money in tax-free bonds, move businesses (and even themselves) out of state or out of country, and a number of other things. In the case of cap-and-trade, businesses in developed nations will outsource business to undeveloped nations that get a free ride in cap-and-trade (actually, a profitable ride), or will simply not be able to compete due to the higher costs of running a business in a developed nation. In other words, developed nations (who ironically have the best emissions control) will pollute less because they will produce less, and undeveloped nations will pollute more, a lot more, as they pick up the slack and produce in very high polluting manners.
But emissions control is not really the goal of cap-and-trade, and any thinking person can see this. It’s about control and punishment, not to mention money in the pockets of politicians, academia and all the various middlemen who take their share along the way.
Leading climate scientist James Hansen has some thoughts on this subject. Here’s a taste, click on through to read the whole article.
The problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if—as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased.
Possibly related posts:
There’s a worse effect.
Government interference with people’s lives can happen any time for largely arbitrary reasons. The more it happens and the more significant the effect of the interference, the less anyone can make reliable long term plans. If you can’t make long term plans (because of arbitrary interference outside your control) then you get into the habit of making short term plans instead (seems obvious, huh?) and when you are making short term plans then the “quick buck” comes up trumps over any attempt at sustainability.
Foolish meddling with the tax system and upsetting the principles of property ownership is systematically teaching the population to work in less sustainable ways and making them less concerned about the long term effects of their actions. This in turn provides better justification for additional interference and round it goes again.