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.