Let's face it humanity, we're not G-d. We're not supermen that can ameliorate all the world's problems. We are not only inherently limited by our human faculties, but the reason why economics exists as a study in the first place is because this planet has a fixed amount of resources, and we need to best figure out how to properly distribute that scarcity. So, in short, we are limited by what we can fix. That means we have to prioritize which global problems are more important. Rather than give into the Leftist tendency of determining everything on an emotional whim, it's much better to calculate the social good produced by focusing on each problem, thereby creating a proper list. The good news is the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a Danish-based think-tank, already has taken on such an endeavor.
Back in 2004, this center asked world-renowned economists (many of them Nobel prize winners), as well as politicians and even college students from third-world countries which issues should take priority. Guess what? They essentially came up with the same list. Looking at the analysis of this survey that Bjorn Lomborg compiled in his book Cool It, AIDS/HIV treatment came out on top, figuring that for every dollar spent would create $40 of social good simply because fewer sick and dead people means less social disruption. Malnutrition came in second, coming out with $32 of social good. You want to know where carbon taxes ended up? Dead last! And for 2008, guess where global warming ended up? Dead last! For every dollar put into fighting global warming with a carbon tax, you do about two cents of social good. I guess that must be Big Government hard at work.
For argument's sake, let's just say there's a possibility, albeit a small one, that my skepticism in global warming theology is misplaced. Let's say there is indeed a global warming issue, in spite of the aforementioned prioritizing, and if we don't stop the growth in temperature increase, it will doom us all. The Copenhagen Center already has given into the alarmism, and has thus done its analysis on the issue of global warming, much like it did with global prioritization. I'm not a fan of their suggestion of using a modest carbon tax to fund R & D for developing climate-altering technology. I do want to play a round of Devil's Advocate--always a fun game to play, but I digress. I'm not a fan of heavy taxation. Much like Thomas Paine, I opine that government is, at best, a necessary evil. It is possible that a miniscule carbon tax might have to be done to fund this research simply because we are approaching the Tragedy of the Commons. Public goods are not excludable, and as a result, are more prone to abuse. Although climate is not a good, per se, it does become an issue because one does not bear any costs to emitting carbon. Because of that, it wouldn't be in one's self-interest to invest in global warming the way one would invest in health care, i.e., in their pure self-interest. This way, at least there are tangible costs to your actions. However, I would respond in kind that China and India will become two huge emitters, and unless those two nations improve their lack of economic freedom, I don't see much of this getting better over time. The counter-argument to that is if we can develop cheap alternatives, they will have the incentive to buy the new technology without comprimising their economic development. Of course, I will ultimately opine if people actually took responsibility for their own actions rather than let the problem compound, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Rights without any sense of responsibility is just one big mess.
That set aside, all of this, of course, is a longshot. It would be nice to see this level of realization at Copenhagen this week. However, all they can see is major reductions in carbon emissions acting in concert with major carbon taxes. In all likelihood, it will end up being the same Keynsian dreck we have seen over the years, just a different application.
No comments:
Post a Comment