Regulation to reduce emissions is a sham and a shame

I favor a smartly-conceived carbon tax over regulation of energy consumption. The costs of regulating consumption directly usually far exceed the benefits. For example, the Paris Climate Accord would yield on $0.11 in benefits in climate change for every $1 spent even if every country meets its promise.  A well-conceived carbon tax, on the other hand, could yield up to $2 in climate benefits for every $1 spent. 

For more information, I encourage you to read https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/thinking-smartly-about-climate-change/.

My preferred proposal is the Carbon Dividend Plan. This plan uses the tax to pay administrative costs and then return the remainder to Americans on a per capita basis. The result is to increase the price of carbon-intensive goods and services, reduce the production and consumption of carbon-intensive goods and services, increase the incentive for finding new and better ways to capture emissions and to produce energy. Moreover, since the vast majority of the tax revenues return to people on a per capita basis and rich people tend to consume more carbon-intensive goods and services than poor people, the Plan reduces income inequality and rich people bear the brunt of the cost of reducing emissions. The Plan could easily be expanded to address methane and other emissions that contribute to global warming.

Reducing emissions efficiently requires answers to many questions. What is the best way to produce energy? Is producing energy differently better than using technology to capture carbon as or after it is emitted? Is geo-engineering or painting all roofs with reflective white paint the best solution to climate change?

No one person or group knows the answers to these questions. I trust the decisions of millions of people making billions of decisions with good incentives more than the decisions of less than 1000 politicians in Washington DC. The Carbon Dividend Plan is a good start to creating good incentives.

Why politics is a sham and a shame

Politicians put party over principles.

Politicians focus on political expediency instead of practical excellence.

Politicians resort to demagoguery and slogans to solve our complicated problems. We need clear discussion and careful analysis.

The minimum wage is a sham and a shame

A high minimum wage is an inefficient method of reducing poverty. Here is a list of disadvantages.

1. An increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities. (David Neumark,Peter Shirley, Industrial Relations, April 2022, Peter Cove, Congressional Budget Office)
2. The decrease in employment opportunities fall disproportionately on the workers with the least skills. (David Neumark,Peter Shirley, Industrial Relations, April 2022, Cato, Sep. 2021)
3. The decrease in employment opportunities fall disproportionately on young and Black people. Lord help the person who is both young and black.
4. Racism helped create the initial minimum wage legislation. (WSJ, Feb. 2021, Sowell, 2009, pp. 94-95, footnote deleted, WSJ, April 2022)
5. A minority of the benefits of the minimum wage accrue to poor people. (Congressional Budget Office)
6. An increase in the minimum wage leads to a decrease in other types of compensation. (AIE, June 2021)
7. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a more efficient way to help the working poor. (WSJ, Oct. 2020, Bloomberg, Oct. 2020)

The REAL solution to reducing poverty is to increase the job skills of the low-wage workers. We could start with improving the education children receive in under-performing school systems and early childhood interventions.

I fear that the political will increase the minimum wage will continue. 

1. The minimum wage gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Advocating for an increase in the minimum wage lets politicians posture that they care about poor people.
3. An increase the minimum wage increases the demand for what Joe Biden calls "good union jobs" and unions are a primary base for funds and votes for Democrats. 
4. Politicians love power and the minimum wage puts them in charge.
5. The job losses caused by the minimum wage are not obvious.

I also don't anticipate a surge of support for the actions I think are needed to improve the quality of education in low-performing school systems. Teachers and their unions and associations are another primary base for funds and votes for Democrats.

Focus on reducing emissions is a shame and a

Steven Levitt is wise and knowledgeable. 

TSA checkpoints are a sham and a shame

Kriston Capps reports: "Using the same formula* as the researchers (and some similar assumptions), I estimated the same costs for airport pre-boarding security. TSA checkpoints have an annual cost per life saved of $667,000,000—two-thirds of one billion dollars."

Why does the government require screenings if the cost per life saved is so high? 

1. TSA gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Regulation gives politicians the ability to reward some constituents to create a base for funds and votes. 
3. Politicians love power and regulation puts them in charge.
4. The inefficiency of TSA is not obvious and many people say that no cost is too high to save a life. Of course, many of these same people make choices that unnecessarily reduce their expected life.

The Green Agenda is a Shame and a Sham

I agree with Lomborg's assessment of climate change with the WSJ assessment that politicians pursuing the "Green Agenda" insist "on ignoring reason, logic, truth and economics." Here are some key points on which I think we agree.

1. The climate is warming.
2. Human activity is contributing to the warming.
3. How much human activity contributes is unknown.
4. Efforts by the USA and Europe to address climate change will be ineffective unless China and India cooperate. 
5. A smartly-conceived carbon tax is a much more efficient way to reduce emissions than government regulation of production and consumption. 
6. The Carbon Dividend Plan put forward by the Climate Leadership Council is a blueprint for a smartly-conceived tax.
7. The costs of regulating consumption directly usually far exceed the benefits. For example, the Paris Climate Accord would yield on $0.11 in benefits in climate change for every $1 spent even if every country meets its promise. 
8. A well-conceived carbon tax, on the other hand, could yield up to $2 in climate benefits for every $1 spent.
9. I trust the decisions of millions of people around the world making billions of decisions to achieve efficient reductions in emissions more than the decisions made by 535 politicians in Washington, D. C.

I fear, however, that politicians prefer government regulations to reduce emissions to a smartly-conceived carbon tax. Four factors create my fear. 

1. Regulation gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Regulation gives politicians the ability to reward some constituents to create a base for funds and votes. 
3. Politicians love power and regulation puts them in charge.
4. The inefficiency of regulation relative to a smartly-conceived carbon tax is not obvious.