What to do about climate change?

A new Cato study, by Indur Goklany, suggests that instead of carbon taxes we should spend money on better water policy, drought prevention, anti-malarials, sea level protection, and so on.  In general we should make the world as wealthy as possible.  Here is the link, the piece is intelligent throughout and well worth reading.

Two questions suggest themselves.  First, is the choice either/or?  I don’t see arguments against a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  Second, is there really enthusiasm for the proposed measures or is the real intent to do little or nothing on carbon?  Since this is both a Goklany piece and a Cato piece, an interesting question arises: who exactly is now obliged to push for anti-malarial foreign aid?  Cato?  Goklany?  Either/or?  Both?  Or is it enough to just make the comparison once and leave it at that?


Comments for this post are closed