More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Henry Blodget

Henry Blodget

Posted: February 23, 2010 11:02 AM

A Simple Carbon Tax Would Cost Only $2.50 a Gallon and Could Save the World

What's Your Reaction:

True, it is not certain that global warming will destroy the earth. But nothing is certain when you're talking about climate change.

The cost of doing something about that potential climate change, meanwhile, is small relative to the possible benefit.

As a result, argues Robert Frank in the NYT, we should phase in a $300/ton carbon tax, which will result in U.S. gas prices rising by $2.60 per gallon. The Europeans have already adapted quite nicely to gas prices that are $4 a gallon higher than they are here, so the argument that this will destroy the country seems a bit hysterical.

If we do nothing, meanwhile, global temperatures seem almost certain to rise, no matter who is doing the predicting. The consensus model at MIT, which includes the forecast of global warming denialists, shows a zero-percent chance of no temperature increase over the next century -- and a 10% chance of a catastrophic 12-degree one.

Given the odds that global warming will inflict serious global pain over the next century, the cost of taking action seems low.

Of course, because the causes of global warming seem natural and unobjectionable, we won't take action, especially in a country in which cheap gas has come to be viewed as a constitutional right. As Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert puts it:

"If climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets."

See also:

10 Countries On The Verge Of Crippling Demographic Crisis

 

Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget

 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:20 PM on 03/03/2010
"True, it is not certain that global warming will destroy the earth"

Well, I think it's the worst idea ever if you aren't sure if or what you are trying to stop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
I'm actually a radical leftist
06:35 PM on 02/23/2010
There should be a tax on methane emissions too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
01:20 PM on 02/23/2010
Political reality has closed this option. Here is a better alternative that can garner the support necessary fast enough to help address the problem.

The rising price of oil is likely to cause another financial cataclysm in the next couple of years.

Ordinary water is an alternative to oil when it is used to supply fractional Hydrogen, a little known breakthrough.

See: "Newly Discovered Hydrinos can Provide Cheap Power for the World" at www.american-reporter.com

We are developing fractional hydrogen to allow water to become the fuel for hybrid cars. A few gallons might power an automobile 1,000 miles; as one barrel of water can be the equivalent of 200 barrels of oil.

These engines will be designed to run when the car is parked, providing up to 150 kilowatts of electricity to the local power company. No wires needed. The vehicles might be able to pay for themselves!

See: http://www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more.

Two laboratories have validated fractional Hydrogen. More, including the national labs, ought to do so without delay.

Once ordinary water becomes a clear alternative to oil, it will become obvious that cars as power plants will be an inexpensive alternative to building new coal or nuclear plants.

Sale of electricity from a parked car - Vehicle to Grid (V2G) - power, was demonstrated at the AAAS meeting last week. With 10 kW, the car earned $30/hr. Imagine what 150 kW might earn.

Markets might rapidly reduce the need for fossil fuels!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirenForSanity
Hi De Hi Hi De Ho Times
12:01 PM on 02/23/2010
"The Europeans have already adapted quite nicely to gas prices that are $4 a gallon higher than they are here"
They also have more public transportation. The increase per gallon would increase expenses for rural residents significantly. Many are already commuting to low wage employment and they simply cannot afford the additional burden.
photo
HeevenSteven
20 Minutes into the future.
11:41 AM on 02/23/2010
Can't call it a tax though, that's against tea-bagger religion; so we'll have to call it a Creation Preservation Initiative, or a Wealth Preservation Rebate....or sumpthin'...
12:47 PM on 02/23/2010
What would be the purpose of the tax? Where would the money go? Taxing as a means to control behavior is socialism at it's highest point.

And, why does questioning man made global warming always result in insults and accusations of believing in Creationism, or flat earthism? Neither of these are true and neither have anything to do with the questioning of a, so called, "settled" issue? If the science is settled, robust, accurate, and repeatable it should easily stand up to questioning. It should even welcome questioning as an opportunity to educate.

And finally, why can't all of the extremely educated devotees to man made global warming, socialism, share the wealth, etc. get jobs and create jobs to support whoever it is that you believe need to be supported? As is constantaly expressed by most of you, the rest of us are idiots and you are so much more educated. You would think you could make your own wealth and spread it any way you choose. Why do you need the rest of us who believe if we earn it we can keep it, spend it, or share it any way we choose? It's called Freedom, and its what America was built on.
photo
HeevenSteven
20 Minutes into the future.
01:56 PM on 02/23/2010
There ya go.. thanx for the idea!

The Freedom Preservation Initiative!.