Global Warming

I accept that there are more pressing priorities than global warming. But the following logic makes sense to me:

1. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations mean higher global temperatures.

2. Faster changes in global temperatures mean higher damage and abatement costs.

3. These damage and abatement costs are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels.

Therefore, the market price of fossil fuels will be too low without political action.

Since future generations have little political clout, it is more likely that we will underreact to this problem than overreact to it.

Further, and in any event, assuming that carbon taxes are introduced on a revenue-neutral basis (and they pretty much would have to be) taxing carbon is bound to be more efficent than whatever tax it replaces. It would basically be flat and correlated to consumption, not spending. And since every advanced economy is bound to become less carbon intensive in the future, in the long run it would mean smaller government. It's hard to see why the right hasn't embraced this wholeheartedly.

Jack Layton, Enemy of the Earth?

I received a political message from a mustachioed gentleman responsible for Canada's social democratic party yesterday. In consultative style, it asked me what I thought the highest priority for my elected representatives should be, although it must be admitted that the choices were presented in a persuasive, rather than social-scientific.

One of six or so choices was "Ending Gouging at the Gas Pump." (This along with fighting ATM Fees.) This seems a bit odd, since I thought it widely accepted in progressive circles that higher gas prices are a good thing. Indeed, it is sound left-wing policy to impose a Pigovian tax on carbon consumption. I suppose the lure of populist ignorance about the workings of microeconomics proved a bit too tempting.

Does Dion have the subtlety of touch necessary to exploit this? Probably not.