A question of tactics

Jim Manzi of Planet Gore on Sunday:

Just in case a lot of the global warming debate doesn't seem real, New Jersey has just passed a law that GHG emissions must be 80% lower in 2050 than they are today. As I've said before, I think it is unlikely that, law or no law, this will ever really happen- but it is sobering nonetheless.

Jim Manzi of Planet Gore yesterday:

The WSJ editorial page lauds John Dingell for putting forward a carbon tax!  So do I.

As I’ve argued repeatedly, moving this debate to the question of “How much are YOU prepared to pay?” is the way conservatives head off cap-and-trade or some similar Euro-lunacy.

Ok. Reasonable people can (and do!) disagree about the best ways to attack the greenhouse gas problem. Manzi seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of a carbon tax. I think a tax combined with a cap and trade (or at the very least a trade that incorporates an auction) is the way to go.

But if you acknowledge the crisis, and yet the prevailing wisdom is that the government is moving towards implementing a policy solution you dislike, I'd think that, if you're a reasonable person, you would devote your efforts to swaying political opinion from that solution to the one you prefer. I don't see why, under the same circumstances, anybody would decide to write for a magazine dedicated to stomping out all efforts to fix the problem.

Update: See Manzi's comment. The idea is actually to just torpedo progress with politically unviable options. NIce.

The rest of the point still basically stands, though. If you believe (as Manzi claims to) that global warming is a problem that's getting worse and you acknowledge that growing emissions are adding to it, then you must concede that something needs to change the dynamic. If you don't favor a carbon tax, and you don't favor a cap and trade system, then it's not that you believe some solution is going to present itself without our input. It's that you don't really take the problem seriously after all.

Comments

[Jim Manzi]

Hi,

I have repeatedly argued against either a (material) tax on carbon or a virtual tax in the form of cap-and-trade.

The point of Dingell’s proposal of a carbon tax is to force a vote to highlight that only a small fraction of members of Congress would vote for it. He is doing this to relieve pressure on more aggressive CAFÉ standards that would disproportionately affect the auto industry (his district is in Michigan).

I believe that global warming is a real risk, but not a crisis. I have outlined my view of the science and politics in a recent cover story for National Review. This article includes a set of specific policy recommendations. You can see it here, if interested:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/3/19/902907/NR%20%20%20Digital%20Article.pdf

Best regards,
Jim Manzi