Timmy elsewhere

Gracing the letters page of the  Telegraph:

SIR – Having read the Stern Review, the various IPCC reports and multitudes of economic papers on what to do about the entire problem, assuming we accept that there is such a problem, it is clear that the policies being recommended by those experts are: a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system, or subsidies to new technologies.

All of the economists say the same thing. Any one of the three are viable and whole solutions.

Cap-and-trade limits emissions; a carbon tax provides the incentive to reduce them to the needed level; and subsidies will replace emitting with non-emitting sources of energy.

So now my question: having hired Lord Stern at some expense, having analysed his recommendations at presumably greater, why is the Government now insisting at gargantuan expense in doing what Lord Stern said we should not do?

We only need to choose one of the three – rather than be charged thrice to do all of them.

Tim Worstall
Messines, Portugal

3 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. The answer to your question is that politicians see “green” taxes as a means of raising more revenue, controls over emissions as a means of increasing their power, and subsidies as a system of patronage.

  2. Missed an opportunity there, Tim.

    Something like: “As I explain in my new best selling book, Chasing Rainbows, ….” in the lead in to get a bit more interst.

    How are sales going, BTW?

    Tim adds: Really don’t know. Not a clue in fact. We get US distribution in a couple of weeks time I think and review copies are going out there. That should provide a boost….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *