“A carbon tax of over $300 per ton would be necessary to reduce emissions to an annual rate consistent with stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

“A number of leading economists … have made an effective case that the net cost of emissions controls could be much reduced by using the revenues from such taxes … to reduce the more misallocative provisions of our current tax code…. They are correct to make this point, but this is primarily a case for tax reform, not a case to finance this reform by large tax increases on fossil fuels.”

 – William Niskanen, Fall 1997

This excerpt in our series comes from Niskanen’s essay section, Would Governments Approve Effective Control Measures? The previous posts are listed in the footnote. [1]

The record to date does not provide a basis to expect the major governments to approve effective measures to control carbon dioxide emissions. …

[Editor note: This continues a series on the climate views of the late William Niskanen from his Fall 1997 symposium essay, “Too Much, Too Soon: Is a Global Warming Treaty a Rush to Judgment?” Last week’s posts were:

1. Part I: Key Questions
2. Part II: Physical Science
3. Part III: Moderate Warming Scenario

Part IV today reprints his section, “What’s the Hurry,” followed by my concluding comment]

—————–

“Since 1990, when [William] Nordhaus endorsed this approach, no substantial information has developed that would make the case for more comprehensive and costly measures such as a carbon tax or emissions permits.”

– William Niskanen, Fall 1997

“[A mandatory] abatement strategy … will prove to be both costly and ineffective…. [A] rush to judgement on the optimal response  to the increase in temperature is the greater danger [than adaptation].”…