Source: The Corydon Democrat

the difference bet'n science and economics
June 30, 2009 | 02:21 PM

Yes, this is partly a matter of science and partly of economics. Re the science, this is determined by those working in this particular discipline who are publishing their results in peer reviewed scientific journals -- this is a refereed playing field, where facts are checked and fouls are called. Those saying climate change is not partly driven by human activity are not publishing their claims in these journals, only in non-peer reviewed books, magazines, op-eds or on the internet. They can not legitimately claim to refute the theory until or unless they argue in the refereed arena of the scientifc journals. They can't because their claims were refuted years ago. Unless they come up with something new, that they can support in the journals, the scientific debate is indeed over.

Re the economics, the bill can be debated based on the economics. There are parts that are overly complex and intrusive. However, the fact is that cap and trade is the least cost means to deal with the problem. The approach has been applied successfully to phase out lead from gasoline, to lower emissions of ozone depleting chemicals and to lower emissions of SO2. It isn't all about causing folks to turn off lights, it is about creating the incentives for folks to develop the technologies that emit less -- there are plenty of analysis from MIT and others that show the costs to be minimal.

Finally, what everyone is forgetting is that the Surpreme Court (this one w/Justice Roberts) ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. The EPA is therefore required by laws passed in the 1970s to deal with it. They will do so if there is no legislation by implementing over 300 regulations that will make this bill look like a bargain. It isn't a choice between this bill and nothing, it is between this bill and something very, very expensive. That is the sad truth.