I read three reasonably interesting columns/articles about climate change last week. The first was an op-ed by a senator from Wyoming arguing that the appropriate response to climate change was to support technological breakthroughs (particularly, of course, for “clean coal”); the second was an analysis in Vox of the “Green New Deal; and the third was a call to abandon carbon taxes in light of the recent events in France. The first, of course, was fanciful and self-interested, as “clean coal” is a punch line to a joke; the second provided evidence supporting the old German saying that “the green tree has red roots;” and the third was unduly, although understandably, defeatist.
There really isn’t any dispute that we need to encourage innovation in a big way in order to keep climate change under control. The question is, how can that best be achieved?
There are only three choices. The first is by forcing technology through regulation. The second is by subsidizing new technologies, which runs the risk of creating Solyndras. The third is by taxing carbon and leaving the rest of the process to the market.
Logically, the GOP should prefer Option #3, since it opposes unnecessary government spending and intervention in markets. And, indeed, some right-leaning economists have expressed support for a carbon tax, particularly when paired with other kinds of tax cuts. Will that position prevail after 2020? More likely, the GOP will simply avoid the issue by continuing to deny that climate change even exists. That way, they don’t have to make any difficult choices that offend their donors.