Enter your email address for daily updates:
Delivered by FeedBurner
This is Bob Murphy's testimony on the optimal carbon tax, given Thursday, July 17, 2013. It's excellent. His written testimony is here.
The best my Senator, Barbara Boxer, chair of the committee, came up with was to attack not Murphy's argument, but his funding.
I did not see the testimony (the video would not load on my phone) but the written testimony is interesting.
It is obvious the Koch Bros. are behind this so-called nonprofit.
Ive read the written testimony and it was all completely factual. I doubt that most climate scientists would argue with his assessment of the climate aspects and otherwise it was an argument about the discount rate that is not calculated per the guidelines. It is very unfortunate that Barbara did not contest anything he said. We should expect a t4ue battle of ideas to include at least a rebuttal.
If there is an error in what he said, why not point it out so we can debate it.
I've been following the CAGW issue since the 1980s, when I was briefed by the IPCC's chief scientist, Sir John Houghton. Most of the arguments I have seen do not revolve around the science - although much of the data, science and modelling are disputed - but about the net benefits of costly emissions reduction policies. The "catastrophic" aspect of any warming has never been demonstrated and, as Murphy contends, you have to make heroic assumptions using dubious discount rates to come up with a figure which justifies action. The arguments for low discount rates to give greater weight to future generations make no sense to me, given that the IPCC's modelling of increased emissions depends on global per capita income increasing by about 5-7 times by the end of the century. If any issues do arise, those future generations will be better equipped than we are to address them, with far more resources and decades of innovation. But I suspect that they will be bemused at our ill-founded concerns.
One aspect confuses me a bit.
The discount rate should be close to what the prevailing interest rates are, right? Then, shouldn't the discount rates be even lower than what he has talked about, making the future gains even more attractive?