To the Editor:
Robert H. Frank’s call for a carbon tax is deeply misguided. By raising energy costs, carbon taxes would be economically stultifying, and deeply regressive. They would render the United States less competitive on world markets and ultimately trigger industry and capital flight.
For all that pain, there would be no gain. With China and India set to dominate global greenhouse gas emissions for a century, unilateral action by the United States would have virtually no impact on the trajectory of global average temperatures. And it would be unilateral: there is no prospect for global greenhouse gas controls anytime soon. Besides, as the International Energy Agency points out, United States carbon dioxide emissions have already fallen by 430 million metric tons (7.7 percent) since 2006, “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.”
Let’s be honest: a carbon tax is simply another tax that advocates believe would be more palatable to the public because it’s painted green.
Kenneth P. Green
Washington, Aug. 29
The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
To the Editor:
What's new on AEI
|The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
|What Obama should say about China in Japan|
|A key to college success: Involved dads|
|China takes the fight to space|
Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.
This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.
During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.