One of thirty-one photos recently published in The Boston Globe:
Imam Hashim Raza leads mourners in prayer during a funeral for Mohsin Naqvi at al-Fatima Islamic Center in Colonie, N.Y., Monday, Sept. 22, 2008. Naqvi was a Muslim, a native of Pakistan (he emigrated to the U.S. with his family when he was 8 years old and became a citizen at 16) and a U.S. Army officer. He was killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol last week in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)
So, are the benefits that might flow from a carbon tax (defined at the monetarized value of the temperature reductions that might follow) greater than the costs of the same? Energy economist Richard Tol’s review of the published economic literature suggests that the monetarized damages that follow from a ton of carbon emissions at the margin (if mean estimates of future climate change from the IPCC are to be believed) likely works out to about $2. Hence, if a carbon tax is set above $2 dollars, it will may very well deliver more social costs than benefits. [Emphasis added].
Now Cato’s a libertarian think tank and not keen on taxes of any kind – but this is an attempt to discredit even revenue neutral carbon taxes (and, above all, to have a slug at Matthew Yglesias who has suggested that Cato “prefers to steadfastly defend the rights of industry to unload air pollution unimpeded” to backing good policy).
Via Alex Barker @ the FT. Alex is right. This has got way out of hand.