If It's Hard, Why Do It? After All, We'll Only Die.

Thus says Robert Samuelson. Apparently because there is no "silver bullet" solution to global warming - because we don't currently have the technology to zero out carbon emissions, and because there would be serious economic costs, why bother?

I won't bother debunking Samuelson's absurd suggestion that we could "adapt" to the conquences of a 2-foot rise in sea level. Even if he's right and we could only cut the rate of increase in carbon emissions in half? To me that sounds like a foot less of the U.S. coast underwater.

To be fair, Samuelson does encourage support for new technologies. But for some reason he de-couples caps on carbon emissions with such innovation. Where does he think the incentive for the new technologies is going to come from, if not from businesses eager to get out from under the burden of CO2 caps?

The reality is that Samuelson resists placing any responsibility on the corporations producing the CO2 in the first place. He wants to place the whole burden on consumers (through carbon taxes) and government (through r&d subsidies). Now I wonder, why would that be?