I’ve looked quite hard – though I haven’t read Worstall’s book – there is absolutely nowhere that he examines why we need to put a tax on ‘carbon’. It is just layers of assumptions and belief in experts.
Please mind – Worstall actually gives very clever reasons to why a carbon tax would be a good thing, even if the climate thing were not true. But that would mean he’s using the climate as an excuse to push things he happens to like, wont it? There is the odd mumbling about solar power, and titanium dioxide, and fuel cells, and “billions “of people dying from climate change. But why would you operate a battery-powered car when you have a tankful of gas? And why would one listen to Worstall when he is busy deferring to experts other than himself ?
Windfall of cash could come to California because of global warming?
As a measure of the quality of air in our country, the U.S. EPA maintains data and statistics that quantify air quality from 1980 to the present. Based on the U.S. EPA's own data, the national ambient air quality standards for certain target pollutants have all steadily and dramatically reduced. As a national average:
- Carbon monoxide has been reduced 82%
- Ozone was reduced 28%
- Lead has been reduced 89%
- Nitrogen oxides have been reduced 52%
- Particulate matter as PM10 was reduced 38%, and fine particulate matter as PM 2.5 has been reduced 27%
- Sulfur dioxide has been reduced 83%
Regardless, according the Obama administration and its supporters, the quality of the air in our country is literally killing our kids.