Gloomy Gussage

Matt Yglesias identifies a new "neo-contrarian" position on global warming - it's happening, but there's no real possibility of voluntarily limiting CO2 emissions.

Sadly, I kind of agree with that position. Even if we impose a tax on carbon that lowers our fossil fuel usage, those fossil fuels are just going to get burned by someone else. China, already the world's top polluter, is increasing its emissions at 10 times the rate we are, and shows zero political inclination to curb them. If we make oil cheaper with a carbon tax, China et. al. will just use more.

Does that mean a carbon tax (or an equivalent cap-and-trade system) is a bad idea? Of course not! A carbon tax would spur development of alternative energy technology, which will reduce the total amount of fossil fuel that ever gets burned. As we dig up more and more oil and coal, the next barrel gets more and more expensive to dig up; the day that solar becomes cheaper than oil and coal is th day that carbon emissions drop like a rock. So we should definitely work to bring that day closer, and a carbon tax is a good way to do that.

But will unilateral reduction in U.S. carbon emissions make a dent in world emissions? Much as I'd like to say it would, I'm increasingly sure it wouldn't. Technology is our only hope. If that's "neo-contrarian," so be it.