Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Harvard Professor and Guardian author Kenneth Rogoff thinks the best way to tackle climate change is to impose a global carbon tax, then use the money to help China and other poor countries eliminate their energy poverty and dependency on coal.
We must tackle global energy inequality before it’s too late
There should be a worldwide tax on emissions backed by help for developing countries to cut CO2
While denizens of the world’s wealthiest economies debate the fate and fortune of the middle class, more than 800 million people worldwide have no access to electricity. And more than 2 billion have no clean cooking facilities, forcing them to use toxic alternatives such as animal waste as their main cooking fuel. Furthermore, per capita carbon dioxide emissions in Europe and the US are still vastly higher than in China and India. What right do Americans, in particular, have to complain as China increases production in smokestack industries to counter the economic slowdown caused by its trade war with the US? To many in Asia, the inward-looking debate in the west often seems both tone deaf and beside the point.
…
Any solution to the problem requires two interconnected parts. The first and more important is a global tax on CO2 emissions, which would discourage activities that exacerbate global warming and encourage innovation. Equating the price of CO2 emissions globally would eliminate distortions whereby, say, a US-based firm might choose to relocate its most carbon-intensive production to China. Moreover, a worldwide carbon tax would achieve in one fell swoop what myriad command-and-control measures cannot easily replicate.
The second critical component is a mechanism that impels emerging and less-developed economies to buy in to emissions reduction, which can be very costly in terms of forgone growth. In recent years, the biggest contributor to the global increase in CO2 emissions has been fast-growing Asia, where roughly one new coal plant is being built every week. For advanced economies, where the average coal plant is 45 years old, phasing out such facilities is low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. But in Asia, where the average age of coal plants is only 12 years, the cost of taxing plants into oblivion makes doing so virtually impossible without outside aid.
…
Kenneth Rogoff is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. He was the chief economist of the IMF from 2001 to 2003.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/06/global-energy-inequality-tax-emissions-co2
The author, Professor Kenneth Rogoff, is a person of influence; as a former senior figure in the IMF, and as a senior economics professor at one of the USA’s most prestigious universities, his economic theories are helping to shape global policy and the economic ideas of America’s next generation of leaders.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Honestly this is the stupidest thing ive tread this week, he wants to tax me, so china and india etc etc can have cleaner energy, even though those countries have the money to build nuclear generators and supply cheap electricity 😐
And he charges 50,400/yr to dispense it, plus fees and food, of course.
Sunny,
Not to mention, they both had the money to build nuclear weapons, missiles to deliver them as well as submarines etc., as did Pakistan and as is Iran, assuming they don’t already have them, of course.
Something does not compute.
This Harvard “genius” wants the developed nations to give them money for “clean” energy (which renewables are not but I suspect that’s what he wants), even though they had the money to build nukes. Would it not make more sense to make them dismantle their nukes for the money first? There is no way CO2 is going to do nearly as much harm to Earth, even if you believe it is bad, as nukes being dropped on other nations and an all out nuclear war will do to the planet and all Mankind. (Apologies to Trudeau and the “woke” for term Mankind.)
If Earth is truly his concern, should nukes not be at the top of his list?
Not only is China given a pass on their emissions now they want us to pay the second largest economy the right to do so? Why aren’t more people paying attention?
That would be because the MSM will only present leftist BS.
From the article: “Any solution to the problem requires two interconnected parts. The first and more important is a global tax on CO2 emissions”
It’s never going to happen. Some Western nations with stupid politicians may try to implement something like this, but you can bet the U.S. is not going to be a party to it.
The EU bureaucrats have made noises in the past about trying to enforce such a CO2 tax on nations that don’t go along. Let’s see what happens when they try to strong-arm Trump with such tactics. If they are smart, they won’t go there.
The Mad Mullahs are trying to strong-arm Trump, too, but that’s not going to do them any good because Trump fights back. Unfortunately for the Mad Mullahs, they are not smart, and will suffer as a result.
I’ve been hearing this phrase “cultural site” used by Trump in addressing the Iran problem and his critics are naturally taking the worst interpretation of the phrase and claiming Trump is going to destroy Iran’s “cultural sites”, which his critics claim would be a war crime. I’m not sure Iran has that many cultural sites, maybe they are thinking Trump is just going to bomb all the mosques in Iran.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this and Trump is a precise individual. He said “cultural site” for a reason. If one considers Trump a sane man, and I do, then about the only thing he can be talking about when he refers to “cultural sites” is there must be high-value Iranian military bases/sites located near or even in some religious site in Iran; put there in hopes the U.S. would not bomb that particular facility, and it looks to me like Trump is telling the Mad Mullahs that their tactic is not going to work.
I think the Trump administration is primed and ready to take out the Mad Mullah’s nuclear and rocket manufacturing facilities at the next major Iranian provocation. If another American is killed that can be linked directly to the Mad Mullahs, then it’s going to be “game on!”.
Taking out the Mad Mullah’s abilty to make nuclear weapons and deliver them is one of the most important things Trump can do as president. And after Trump takes them out he should tell the Iranians that if they rebuild he will hit them again.
After Trump hits Iran hard, they probably won’t be in much of a mood, or have the ability to rebuild. And there is a good chance the Mad Mullahs won’t be in power and the Iranian people can get back to living their lives under better conditions.
I saw a video this morning on tv of 52 F-35 Stealth Fighters taking off from a Utah air force base, one right behind the other. Trump is definitely a showman, even in war. It may be especially valuable in war.
And to Tucker Carlson: Don’t worry Tucker, Trump isn’t going to get us into a forever war. He can do all the damage he needs to do by air and when it’s over there will be no need to send in large numbers of American troops because Iran will have all it can handle just keeping their country together after their entire miiitary is destroyed.
Nothing is more important that preventing religious fanatics like the Mad Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons. The United States must do whatever it takes, including a forever war, to put a stop to these maniacs.
But it won’t take a forever war. What are the Iranians going to do after their military is destroyed? Terrorist actions are all they can manage. And the Iranian people may have something to say about them continuing to be a terrorist sponsor. The Iranian people may decide they would much rather join the community of nations in peaceful pursuits.
Whatcha bet China would take our money and build new coal fired power plants.
China and India should build as many coal plants as they need to satisfy domestic requirements. It would be great if they emitted similar pollutant levels as western plants, that would help their air quality problems.
Applies to Africa too.
Planned China? Another wicked solution, albeit to a hard problem, is the fastest way to force sociopolitical progress.
I can’t say that Harvard Economics Professor Kenneth Rogoff is a Chinese asset, but I can’t exonerate him either.
He certainly qualifies as a ‘useful idiot’ though which gets him over the ‘balance of probabilities’ threshold i.m.o. I don’t think it would take that much to get him up to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Just find out how much the Chinese are paying him, or else section him.
OT USA should get out of Middle East Europe, Asia and the rest of the world and protect itself and the Americas as it always did before Rossevelt Viva North and South America we can survive much better alone
I’ve said this for years: if the US moved its military to do nothing but secure its borders and tell the rest of the world “you’re on your own” it would serve us right…
…of course, that won’t happen. Some property owned by a big political donor in some country somewhere will be harmed and we can’t have that.
A lot of good it would do us to hide in the United States if Iran or North Korea gets nuclear weapons. If we value our freedom and our lives we will need to deal with reality and the problems that exist there. Hiding behind our border won’t protect us from evil. We have to be pro-active against evil.
Climate Crisis/Tax/Money for Marxists. Nice scam.
The Left’s knowledge of real-world issues (basic simple concepts and simple important facts that are constraints) appears to be limited to what they have learned from watching PBS and CNN.
The US has a $400 billion-dollar per year trade deficit with China that Trump is trying to deal with.
The US and the EU are financing China’s expansion now.
Is it possible that this guy is clueless about the US debt? Of I forget it is politically incorrect or the Left to talk about debt, as all they want to do is to spend more money.
US entitlement spending is growing faster than revenue which is not sustainable. Congress’s plan is to kick the can down the road until there is a crisis.
The Left’s ‘plan’ is a climate new deal where we waste trillions of dollars on sun and wind gathering in our country.
Germany has proven sun and wind gathering (28,000 wind turbines installed) cannot be used to get to carbon neutral. Sun and wind gathering tops reducing CO2 emission at the point where power storage is required.
Germany has reached that point now.
“The Left’s knowledge of real-world issues (basic simple concepts and simple important facts that are constraints) appears to be limited to what they have learned from watching PBS and CNN.”
See: California’s new law against the “gig economy”.
See: Taleb’s “Skin in the Game”.
Etc.
The Left’s main problem (other than they don’t have a main problem), is that they honestly believe in their credentials (obtained in academia which of course does not reflect the real world) and that they can outsmart natural science (i.e., supply and demand, human nature, etc.).
How many more aircraft carriers could they build with that? and militarized islands in the South China Sea?
Or moon shots?
Canada actually sends money to China for aid…I think there should probably be a “means test” for foreign aid: “Do you build aircraft carriers?”.
Or have nuclear weapons.
Or space stations. Or lunar rovers.
Or concentration camps.
Or one of the largest militaries in the world.
I thought renewable energy projects created economic growth. And that this economic growth would finance more renewable energy projects.
You meant they don’t?
Lots of red ink there. Oops, that’s a pun, my bad.
“impose a global carbon tax, then use the money to help China and other poor countries eliminate their energy poverty and dependency on coal.” In other words, impose energy poverty on ourselves (and we don’t get to use the coal), and with that energy poverty, we would also have regular poverty.
Brilliant. Impose a carbon tax which will transfer capital to China, while simultaneously raising the cost of production in the west. What is left of high-carbon manufacturing in the west will then move to China for cheap capital and lower production costs.
Is this guy on the People’s Army payroll or something?
Is Professor Kenneth Rogoff fluent in Mandarin Chinese? If not He had better start learning it. Hs brain farce would assure China was the world leader in years rather than decades. Yet he claims to be a Professor of Economics.
The Democrats have become the party of the professional class.
These folks make their money bloviating. President Trump, on the other hand, takes risks. Taleb would say that Trump has skin in the game. We need more entrepreneurs like Trump. They know how the things actually work. The bloviating professional class don’t and they bear no consequences when their bloviations lead to other people’s ruin.
…. so they can funnel even more money into their military . . .
What an .. well, I’ll leave that up you you to fill in
this might be worth of attention
‘Arson is not caused by climate change’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7860635/Australian-bushfire-crisis-183-people-arrested-24-charged-starting-fires.html
Global warming isn’t warm enough for some, throw them to sharks.
The simplest solution is for the USA, Russia, Qatar, Australia, India, China, Brazil and Canada to create a cartel which will cooperate with OPEC nations to control fossil fuel production rates and gradually increase prices. This will allow alternate technologies to compete with fossil fuels. Rich nations wishing to do so can give their money to the Chinese Fascist Empire if they wish, but it makes more sense for the USA to keep oil production steady at say 12 million barrels of oil per day and tax the higher profits as prices rise towards $150 per barrel over the next 20 years. And if that can’t make biofuels, nuclear, and other technology compete, then they may have to divert some funds to build more nuclear power plants.
Why on earth would any sane person want to increase energy prices just so unreliable energy sources can be a little bit less cost inefficient?
Fernando doesn’t seem to understand that the US government doesn’t own an oil company. At least not yet, while we still have a constitutional republic.
And what about Alberta and its huge tar sand deposits? The higher the oil price, the more incentive there is to extract and deliver oil from tar sands.
OK, so he should show us all a great example and turn over all his property and money to China – today. And while he is at it, he should quit Harvard and go work in China for free.
I did not think my opinion of Harvard could go any lower, and then something like THIS comes out.
The fact that Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University, was the Chief Economist of the IMF from 2001 to 2003 goes a long way to explaining the damaging effect that the policies of the IMF had, around this time, in all of the Third World Countries.
Great idea. Not only that a carbon tax will weaken industries in developed countries which already constitutes an indirect subsidy to China, but this guy also wants to make it open and obvious for all. And those people make public policy decisions. Any leader of a country that seriously contemplates this will have to face the wrath of the voters in short order.
For practically his entire term, President Trump has been imposing tariffs on China in order to coerce the Chinese to negotiate fair trade deals with the USA which prevent the Chinese from stealing American intellectual property, where neither side has a built-in advantage.
So now the “brilliant” Professor Rogoff (or should he change his name to Ripoff?) proposes that CO2 emissions in low-emissions countries be taxed and the money given to China, so that the Chinese can continue to run their inefficient and dirty coal plants and steal American jobs, basically wiping out everything President Trump has achieved. China would probably use the money to build more islands off their coast to harass international shipping and steal fishing rights from the Philippines, Taiwan, and other neighboring countries. NO THANKS!!!
This may be news to the distinguished Professor, but all coal-fired power plants are not equally polluting. Those in America have had to install baghouses to control particulate emissions and scrubbers to control SO2 emissions since the 1970’s (with efficiencies above 95%), and emissions of those pollutants in the USA have decreased while the total power produced has increased, according to the EPA.
There are no such environmental laws in China, and smog over major Chinese cities is much worse now than it was over the most polluted American cities back in the 1960’s. If the Chinese government is content to let its own people choke and gag on ash and acid rain, it’s not our responsibility to pay them to clean it up. For the people of China, CO2 is the least of their worries. Most of that pollution is washed by rainfall into the Pacific Ocean long before it is blown over our west coast.
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” – John Kenneth Galbraith
In economics, the assumption of ceteris paribus, a Latin phrase meaning “with other things the same” or “other things being equal or held constant,” is used in determining causation. It supposedly helps isolate multiple independent variables affecting a dependent variable. But in reality nothing remains the same in the world of finance, supply and demand and all the non quantifiable influences on the economies of countries. Hence modelling becomes a surreal pursuit. It is very similar to climate “scientists” doing all their calculations based on the assumption that the Sun emits a constant stream of energy but this is false because it is a star and subject to constant gaseous eruptions that confound prediction.