Wall Street Journal Poll of 60 Economists:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117086898234001121.html
Lately, Michael has been casting doubt the contribution of economics or
economists toward
solutions, yet it appears that reason prevails even in the dismal science.
"A majority of the economists said a tax on fossil fuels would be the most
economically sound way to encourage alternatives. A tax would raise the
price of fossil fuels and make alternatives, which today often are more
costly to produce, more competitive in the consumer market."
Some early evaluations of economic policy options drew the same conclusion,
although to have the greatest impact
on carbon emission reduction, the tax should be reinvested in the
development of non-fossil alternatives. Recent US energy policy proposals
call for such reinvestment in the form of incentives and loan guarantees
for
new nuclear power plant construction, as well as substantial funding for
biofuel, clean coal and renewable energy programs. What is missing from
those proposals is the means to pay for alternative energy investments: a
fossil fuel tax.
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
