Intellectual Dissonance

Let us for the sake of argument make the following assumptions.

1. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
2. Increased CO2 will raise temperatures
3. Increased temperatures will have detrimental effects on life on the planet
4. The fundamental, principal and primary cause of increased CO2 is human use of fossil fuels

Now that I believe is the general argument. The problem then is; how do we mitigate the detrimental effects? One guesses that it is simply the reduction of human actions resulting in the emission of CO2 if one accepts the above.

Thus how does one reduce CO2 emissions? There are two ways:

1. Reduce use of fossil fuels and the like which emit them.
2. Capture and isolate the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels so they do not enter the atmosphere

Namely the classic law of nature:

Input-Output=Net Accumulation

If we want no or negative accumulation then we need less input, namely fossil fuel usage, OR more output, which is CO2 extraction by technical means. Somehow the second step is forgotten.

Now how does one accomplish a reduction in Output? If one is an economist or politician you tax it. The old phrase is; "if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail" So tax it. That my friends just means more "food" to the monster.

The second approach is; how does one accomplish Output? Simply, one uses the mass technical means available to us. Send a man, person, to the moon, no problem. Extract CO2, well we already have dozens of ways. So why not just do it? No taxes from this approach.

Now Nature has a piece which states:

Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and keep global temperatures within the targets of the Paris climate agreement. If heavy emitters must pay the most, they will shift to cleaner practices. Many jurisdictions have introduced carbon taxes (including Chile, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) and emissions-trading schemes (such as those in California, the European Union, Quebec, Ontario and South Korea). About 20% of global greenhouse-gas emissions are covered, or soon will be. But almost half of those are still priced below US$10 per tonne of carbon dioxide — too low to make a dent in global emissions. A worldwide carbon-pricing system would speed up emissions cuts and prevent carbon-intensive industries from relocating to avoid charges. It would ensure that carbon pricing is effective and emissions are reduced at the lowest possible cost. 

Now the principal author is allegedly an assistant professor of economics. Remember the hammer metaphor. Why in the good Lord's name in a science journal do we have this unopposed view. Tax not Technology! No wonder the French are in revolt.