viagra
Skip to content

Cap-and-Trade, costs without effects

Martin Feldstein writes about “unintended” consequences.

“..until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction. The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households. And to get political support in key states, the legislation would abandon the auctioning of permits in favor of giving permits to selected corporations.

…The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.”

full artile here

Sphere: Related Content

More on this topic (What's this?)
Cap-and-Trade to Follow
Right Out of the Used-Car Sales Book
Fun with numbers
Read more on Carbon Trading, Global Climate Change at Wikinvest

Related posts:

  1. News Effects on Dow Jones index
  2. “Hidden Tax” of Regulation

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*