Those advocating for a tax on carbon – its aficionados are legion in Pittsburgh and statewide – to both reduce pollution and foster “green” energy to combat supposedly “man-made” climate change should consider the words of economist Don Boudreaux.
In a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, Professor Boudreaux reminded that “there’s no way that government officials either can know the optimal ‘emissions reduction goals’ or have any real incentives to be guided by them.”
“Any such chosen goals cannot possibly be based on any accurate economic knowledge,” he continues. “Such goals would at best be arbitrary, with a good chance of being set too high given political elites’ long-standing proclivity to focus on carbon emissions’ downsides while ignoring the upsides.”
Boudreaux notes that the upsides “are, in a word, modernity”:
“Carbon-based fuels have powered modern economic growth – growth which is, by far, history’s greatest benefactor of humanity.
“Modern economic growth has ended starvation.
“It has put solid roofs above our heads, solid floors beneath our feet, indoor plumbing and safe emissions-free electric lighting throughout our homes and potable water at our fingertips.
“Our immense prosperity shields us from toxic bacteria, as well as from deadly indoor cold and heat,” the George Mason University scholar says.
And nowhere is that carbon-based legacy, and, concomitantly, the resulting economics legacy, more instructive than in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Steel. Coal. Glass. And, of course, there’s much more.
Thus (and as Allegheny Institute President-emeritus and senior advisor Jake Haulk often reminds), how sadly ironic it is that those who seek to demonize carbon-based fuels in promotion of cost-inefficient “green” energy continue to benefit from the progeny of that legacy.
How’s that? We speak, of course, of the philanthropic foundations and cultural, medical and educational institutions – “all part of the legacy of capitalistic fortune-making,” as Haulk reminds — that continue to contribute so much to the fabric of modern-day Pittsburgh.
Back to the carbon tax.
To borrow Boudreaux’s concluding sentiment, why in the world should we authorize “The State” to “dramatically reduce our access to a fuel source whose record to date is unambiguously positive”?
Carbon-tax proponents most assuredly believe the public to be dolts –and that biting the carbon that continues to feed all of us somehow is sound public policy.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
