Wall Street Journal On-line

Frustrated with the limits of public policy to tackle global warming, some scientists say the time has come to engineer a way to control the weather. The idea might seem appealing, says a science scholar, but it could have potentially harmful ramifications.

Climate engineering has become a popular topic among a group of scientists who are skeptical of the potential other environmental remedies, from carbon taxes to alternative energy, James R. Fleming, a professor of science, technology and society at Colby College, writes in the Wilson Quarterly’s spring issue. But the potential fixes being discussed reflect an overconfidence in technology, Mr. Fleming says, as well as an ignorance of the history of failed efforts to control the weather. See full story here

According to the CBO report issued April 25th “Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.

The CBO noted that the proposed cap-and-trade allocation method “would increase producers’ profits without lessening consumers’ costs. In essence, such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers—among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens—to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households. .” CBO Report on Cap-and-Trade

Senator Inhofe of the EPW, noted in discussing the CBO report “Far from being good for the economy, as advocates say, C02 allocation schemes will disproportionately burden the poor, raise taxes, increase government spending, raise gas prices, raise home energy costs and decrease wages. It is hard to imagine the CBO issuing a more devastating indictment of proposed C02 cap-and-trade schemes. The CBO report should be viewed as a stern warning to our elected leaders to avoid symbolic solutions to an alleged climate ‘crisis’ that places the financial burden on America’s poor and working class.”

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits. A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway. See full story here