Fixing things on a blackboard and fixing things in real life are not the same. A recent article in Science, viewed by many to be the premier scientific journal in the United States (if not the world), presents a depressing example of this distinction.
Purportedly to combat anthropogenic climate change, the 23 authors propose a complex international network of carbon taxes, tariffs, and regulations on heavy industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal is yet another example of economists claiming that corrective taxes can fix “market failures,” leading to optimal outcomes virtually anywhere.
Oh, please. The main problems with these exercises are (1) the theoretical perfections to be achieved through policymaking depend on information that governments do not have and cannot obtain, and (2) assumptions about the incentives driving policymakers do not square with reality. However, the recent Science article goes beyond these problems and presents a solution that is useless even in theory.
To qualify as a climate policy, a proposal should, at the very least, show a significant impact on the climate. That is not the case here. If everything goes as planned (and it won’t), this yet-to-be-created web of new and modified laws and regulations will cut CO2 emissions by only 2% by the authors’ own estimates. Expressed in millions of tons, as is done in the article, it sounds like a lot of impact, but this reduction will yield an undetectable effect on temperatures even if the annual cuts remain in force for the rest of the century.
In this Aug. 13, 2014 photo, a truck drives through an array of mirrors at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System near Primm, Nevada. The site uses over 300,000 mirrors to focus sunlight on boilers and tubes atop 450-foot towers heating water into steam which in turn drives turbines to create electricity. (John Locher/AP)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/solar-border-e1792516032348.jpg?w=1024" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/solar-border.jpg?w=1024" alt="A truck drives through an array of mirrors at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System near Primm, Nev. The site uses over 300,000 mirrors to focus sunlight on boilers." class="wp-image-2494668">
In this Aug. 13, 2014 photo, A truck drives through an array of mirrors at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System near Primm, Nevada. The site uses over 300,000 mirrors to focus sunlight onto boilers’ tubes atop 450-foot towers, heating water to steam, which in turn drives turbines to create electricity. (John Locher/AP)
To estimate the effect of the proposed policies, we ran the Environmental Protection Agency Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change. The result? At most, a 0.027-degree centigrade reduction in global temperatures by the end of the century. This predicted impact is much smaller than the normal variation in the surface temperature record, and thus would not be detectable. Moreover, that calculation incorporates assumptions that exaggerate the likely impact. Our similar analysis of U.S. GHG policies alone predicts impacts even smaller.
Let’s recap. An article in Science proposes new and modified laws, regulations, and trade agreements across the globe requiring the buy-in of thousands of legislators and even more bureaucrats for the purpose of moderating global warming by an immeasurably small amount. Has Science gone religious? Is cutting CO2 so virtuous that neither the impact nor the costs matter? What, then, is the point?
Perhaps the article’s subtitle gives the game away: “Emissions could be reduced, with minimal impact on production, while generating billions in public revenues.” Climate policies too often seem to be schemes to transfer wealth and power to special interest groups and spending programs.
A prominent example of this absurdity is the California Ivanpah solar power plant, the owners of which, with multibillion-dollar market caps, received billions in subsidies to generate “renewable” electricity while using huge amounts of natural gas to do so and creating substantial environmental damage.
SUPREME COURT APPEARS SPLIT ON ALLOWING BOULDER’S COSTLY CLIMATE CHANGE LAWSUIT TO PROCEED
There are many others. In addition, there have been billions in research and travel grants, endless international conclaves in resort locations, and career-enhancing publications. None of this has an impact on climate.
Whatever the point may be, it isn’t science. And this article in Science is neither that nor is it economics.
David Kreutzer is a former senior economist at the Institute for Energy Research. Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
