View Single Post
Old 04-09-2019, 11:26 PM   #13
GullFoss
#1 Goaltender
 
GullFoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

I think the climate debate is over in terms of "What's causing it?" It's obviously human activity. It's not really debatable. And it's been that way for decades. I don't think you'll find a right of center government argue they don't believe in climate change. And when those left of center insinuate this, it's like saying "conservatives hate gays and immigrants." Sure some people at the fringe do, but the real truth is that a lot of people realize the "now what?" doesn't have a simple answer.


1) the costs of climate change - we don't know how large these damages will be or how they will be distributed. If we don't know the costs with any degree of certainty, it's very difficult to know what the cost-benefit analysis suggests we do.

2) abatement doesn't work unless every country participates. Does it make sense for Canada to put in place abatement policies if the largest emitting countries will not? This is the "what about China argument" and it has merit because polution has no borders.

3) Should we focus spending to reduce emissions or spend to mitigate the issues caused by global warming. Ability to tax and spend isn't limitless. High taxes kill competitiveness. As do abatement policies that drive up taxes and input costs.

4) how do we allocate costs of abatement or mitigation across the population. Is it really a simple as "polluter pays?" For example, carbon taxes hit rural families harder, hit those in colder climates harder, hit families harder, hit poor people proportionately harder. Also ability to abate via carbon tax is a market solution and market solutions only work under the assumption of efficient markets (which is a false assumption) so it will has significant unintended consequences. Also the rebound effect makes the carbon tax very suspect in terms of efficiency - if the world uses less oil, the price of oil falls and then we use more oil because it's cheaper. Government directed solutions via regulatory and investment framework might be better than a carbon tax.

5) Are we able to materially abate carbon emissions with current technology at an affordable cost? Solar has massive limitations in terms of cost, efficiency and enviornmental considerations. Wind and hydro have limited deployment opportunities. Nuclear scares those on both sides of center. Carbon capture technology is limited.

6) Is it more important that developing countries bring citizens out of poverty or "save the planet". Fossil fuels are affordable energy and energy is a critical driver of development. So advocating emission reduction at all costs and using a global carbon tax at the center is effectively racist because rich countries have the means to outspend poor ones - both in pollution and in abatement.


---
The liberals will have you believe that because humans cause climate change, the obvious answers is that we must act immediately and follow the recommendation of policy wonks and economists. The real story is substantially more complex. I'm not sure conservatives have the answer, but given the issues noted above I'd rather we reduce carbon emissions a little slower and not ruin our competitiveness. For now.
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post: