From CIP mailing list.

Recently a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the Wall Street Journal piece, “A Conservative Answer to Climate Change” by former Republican Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker--which is the latest of many calls by certain Republicans and industries for a “carbon tax.” (A tax on carbon dioxide, definitely not the same thing as carbon.)

My friend found my response helpful so I thought you might, too. (I recommend at least skimming the original article for context.)

I disagree with its premises and with its reasoning even on its own (wrong) premises.

They assert without evidence that the “risks associated with future warming are so severe...” As I argue in MCFF this is a 35-year-old argument that would have to prove a combination of runaway warming and human inability to adapt, quantified by accelerating temperature rises and growing numbers of climate-related deaths. But the temperature rises are small and climate-related deaths are at record lows. Thus, we can conclude that our energy technology is not the cause of climate danger but the solution to climate danger.

And if we did face a catastrophic threat from CO2 emissions the kind of mild CO2 tax they propose would be way too timid an action--and way less effective than removing technophobic restrictions on nuclear.

My experience with both Schultz and Baker is that they enjoy taking stands that ingratiate themselves to the cocktail party elite. I am sure this anti-fossil fuel positioning will help them achieve that goal. It will surely not protect poor people from our naturally dangerous climate nor from their natural energy poverty.