Reuters AtlertNet posted an article today on an a new study suggesting that we combat global warming by taxing the rich people in individual countries. The article states:
"Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Let's think about this for a minute. First of all, the dangers of carbon dioxide are not settled science. Power Line posted an article on June 28, with the following opening paragraph:
"The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons."
Second of all, do you really think that American politicians, many of whom travel extensively, creating huge carbon footprints, will pay the taxes levied on them for that footprint (or will they find a way to force the American taxpayer to pay)? If you check the archives of this website, you will find that on July 3, I posted an article showing how much Congressional travel has increased over the past ten years. Somehow I can't see any fines coming out of their own pockets.
Thirdly, let's look at the concept of taxing the rich because they use more resources. Manufacturing creates a fairly large carbon footprint. That footprint is part of creating things that the rest of us use. Beef production creates a larger carbon footprint than farming in general. Some environmentalists have suggested that we stop eating beef. Why are we even considering giving these people that kind of control in our personal lives? America in general has a much larger carbon footprint than Zambia, for example, but what does America contribute to the world in the process of creating that footprint? How many life-saving drugs come from America? How much food do we send to needy countries or disaster victims?
When you begin to move against entities with large carbon footprints (I'm not talking about pollution--I'm talking about the use of enegy), you begin to move against people who create things and produce products that we all use. To tax them will not improve the environment--it will simply decrease the wealth of the entire planet! Less goods will be produced and consumed, jobs will be lost, and there will be more poverty. Universal poverty is not the answer to global warming.
Leave a comment