|
No
Global Warming Crisis
by
John R. Lott, Jr.
by John R. Lott, Jr.
DIGG THIS
John McCain,
Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations
that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. John
McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency.
After consulting with Al Gore, Barack Obama feels that the problem
is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until
he becomes president.
Ironically,
this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have
been cooling dramatically over the last decade. Global temperatures
have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming
that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of
climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made
global warming.
A conference
in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists
together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.
Yet, we just
keep on piling on more and more regulations without asking hard
questions about whether they are justified.
New mileage
per gallon regulations were signed
into law last year that will mandate that cars get 35 MPG. The rules
will make us poorer, forcing people to buy products that aren’t
otherwise the best suited for them. More people will die because
lighter cars are less safe, but we are told this is all worth it
largely because of global warming.
But much of
what gets passed is arbitrary. Was there anything scientific about
picking 35 MPG instead of, say, 30 MPG other than the desire to
do more? And how do these regulations fit in with all the gasoline
taxes we have that are already reducing gas use?
To see if
all this makes any sense there are really four questions that all
have to be answered "yes."
1) Are global
temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s
to 1998, but "there
has been no net global warming since 1998." Indeed, the more
recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant
cooling.
2) But supposing
that the answer to the first question is "yes," is mankind responsible
for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures?
Mankind is responsible for just a few percent of greenhouse gases,
and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes
warming (e.g., the
Sun).
Over
100 leading climate scientists from around the world signed
a letter in December stating: "significant
new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis
of dangerous human-caused global warming." In December a list
was also released of another
400 scientists who questioned the general notion of significant
manmade global warming.
3) If the
answer to both preceding questions is "yes," is an increase temperature
changes "bad"? That answer is hardly obvious. Higher temperatures
could increase ocean levels by between seven
inches and two feet over the next 100 years.
Although some
blame global warming for seemingly
everything, according to others higher temperatures will increase
the amount of land that we can use to grow food, it will improve
people's health, and increase biological diversity. Even the
UN says that a mild increase in temperature would be good for many
regions of the globe.
4) Finally,
let's assume that the answer to all three previous questions is
"yes." Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that
is still not clear.
If we believe
that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate
all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no
electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people
are claiming from global warming.
You want to
pick a tax that just discourages carbon emissions to the point where
the cost of global warming is greater than that of cutting emissions.
Too little
of a tax can be “bad” because we would produce greenhouse gases
when their costs were greater than the benefits. But too much of
a tax also makes us poorer because we won’t be getting the benefits
from cars or electricity even when the benefits exceed the costs
that they would produce from global warming.
What
is often ignored in the debate over global warming is that we already
have very substantial taxes on gasoline, averaging 46
cents per gallon in the US. Even if one believes that gasoline
use should be restricted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the
question is whether our taxes are already restricting use "too much"
or "not enough.” But simply saying that carbon dioxide emissions
are bad isn’t enough.
In
fact, William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale and former
member of President Carter’s Council of Economic Advisors, puts
the “right” level of gasoline taxes at around 10 cents a gallon
today, reaching 16 cents per gallon in 2015. Nordhaus’ analysis
assumes that the answers to the first three questions are “yes.”
If anything, while gasoline taxes are partially used for such things
as building roads, it seems quite plausible that, even accepting
Nordhaus’ assumptions, current gasoline taxes are much too high
to deal with the harm from global warming.
However
good the intentions, the debate over global warming is much more
complicated than simply saying that the world is getting warmer.
It is too bad that these questions won’t be getting a real debate
this election. The irony is that those who sell themselves as being
so caring aren't careful enough to investigate the impact of their
regulations.
This article
was originally published at Fox News.
March
4, 2008
John
Lott [send him mail] is the
author of Freedomnomics:
Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t
and The
Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003).
Copyright
© 2008 John Lott
John
Lott Archives
|