Engineers versus Economists

There is a piece today in the Harvard Crimson lauding the Economics course and in effect its instructor. However there is also a comment placed by someone, I really have no idea as to who this person is, but it is on point. The Harvard Economics Professor professes belief that if CO2 is harmful the solution is an economic one, the Pigou Tax. While we believe that such a tax has merit in certain areas we do not believe it functions here. The person commenting is spot on.

As the individual states:

By way of Example: ... is sold on the carbon tax.  "The essential problem of climate change, scientists  tell us, is that humans are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere, which tends to raise world temperatures. Emitting carbon is what economists call a “negative externality”— an adverse side effect of certain market activities on bystanders." The ability to apply Pigouvian taxes is so addictive that he rather skimmed over the points that the earth hasn't warmed in the last decade, the AGW computer models predict nothing even approaching reality, and nobody really knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere is the best number.

The real issue is that if this is a real problem, and I remain a bit unconvinced having done a bit of work here a few decades ago, then one should seek for a real solution, and that is engineering and not economics. Try to find alternative energy sources, alternative power systems, and let economics play that hand not the hand of taxing which seems to be the standard practice of the left. The terrifying fact is that this Professor is allegedly the economics adviser to one of the dominant Republican Presidential candidates. One should remember that when that candidate was in Massachusetts there was another Professor, this time from MIT, who advised him on health care. Perhaps candidates should be wary of academics, especially economists who have never created a single job, outside of Government work that is.