You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger. While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic. Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.
—
The New York Times ran an op‐ed last week extolling the virtues of a carbon tax by trying to poo‐poo the idea that a tax on carbon emissions (which are produced by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas during the production of 80% of our nation’s energy supply) would produce a negative impact on our economy. The Times’ editors attempt to do this by running through a couple of examples where they claim the imposition of a carbon tax has produced economic benefits (or at least, was somewhat neutral).
Economist Dr. Robert Murphy takes the Times to task on this in his post “The NYT Gets It Wrong on Carbon Tax.”
Murphy is a senior economist at the Institute for Energy Research, research assistant professor at Texas Tech, and also the lead author of our Working Paper (soon to be Cato Policy Analysis) examining the cost for a carbon tax.
In his response to the Times, Murphy points out the Times’ editors’ favorite example of a carbon tax done well—British Columbia—actually serves as a counter‐example when looked at a bit more carefully. Not only did British Columbia’s economy suffer after the establishment of a carbon tax, but also, the revenue‐neutrality of the BC tax is not a real‐world possibility in the U.S.