by Zoe Pollock
There is, on the surface, a basic economic logic here. In general, the government should not rig the market to subsidize product A over product B. However, if product B creates the negative externality of emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then you have a compelling reason to rig that market, one that any economist would grasp. ...
The problem is that Will thinks climate science is a giant hoax. And obviously if you think carbon emissions are harmless, then you won't support any program to mitigate them, because even a dollar spent to reduce climate change is a dollar wasted. So, when Will is instructing his readers to oppose this or that carbon-reduction program, perhaps he should note his scientific premises.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.