amazing article of forbes On Tuesday, he argued that tough measures are needed to effectively combat climate change, including more than doubling gas prices.
The climate crisis is the “emergency of our time.” I will write Nils Lökke and “We must use every tool at our disposal to fight it.”
One such measure, Roque suggests, would be to force fossil fuel users to pay the “social cost of carbon,” but imposing a carbon tax would magically It does not explain how global warming will be resolved.
Instead, he points out that: paper The law made the extraordinary and unprovable claim that 1°C of global warming would reduce global GDP by 12%, but the cost must be passed on to the biggest offenders.
When applied to cars, the real social cost of carbon amounts to “about $9 per gallon,” Locke argues, so “applying the true social cost would more than double the current price.” I will.
“This will be very unpopular, but this is the hard truth: Fuel taxes are the only area that comes any closer to covering the full social cost of carbon emissions,” he said in a show of defiance. claim.
Currently, the cost of carbon is being paid by everyone, “particularly those who are most vulnerable and have the least resources, and no government can afford to cover the difference,” he asserts.
“In reality, it seems impossible to pay the full social cost of carbon, but there is growing evidence that the costs of inaction are even higher,” he argues.
In other words, the best way to prevent people from taking advantage of readily available and affordable fuel (one of the biggest historical factors lifting people out of poverty) is to either make it unavailable or Or make it affordable and unavailable.
To make his case that the climate crisis is real, Roque points to impacts “from rising sea levels to food shortages to uninhabitable land,” which some readers find completely uncontroversial. It may seem that way.
“Now is the time to act before we reach a tipping point where recovery is no longer possible,” he warns.
wise man advice The author, Harvard-trained physician Michael Crichton, immediately comes to mind.
Before making expensive policy decisions based on climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models accurately predict future temperatures for 10 years. 20 would be better.
