Global warming is a reality, but many proposed solutions would be “much more costly to society than the danger it seeks to avert,” according to a June report by National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a conservative Washington, DC, think-tank.
“The world will surely regret it if billions of people are mired in poverty because resources are diverted to solve a nonexistent or trivial problem. On the other hand, the world would regret doing nothing if human-made global warming is a serious problem,” said the report authored by Iain Murray with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.
They suggest “no regrets” programs “that would prove beneficial whether or not human activities are creating a global warming problem” without “sacrificing living standards.” This includes elimination of all subsidies for fuel use since these encourage greater consumption and raise emission levels. The International Energy Agency estimates developing countries spend $220 billion/year on subsidies for energy production and consumption, including $170 billion subsidizing fossil fuels. Even the push by US legislators to hold down consumer costs and punish oil companies for price increases only encourages greater consumption of depleting resources.
Moreover, the report said, government subsidies for energy research and development cost millions but produce minimal benefits and often are allocated “on the basis of political favoritism.” The report said, “The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts note that federal R&D money rarely produces commercially viable technologies.”
Instead, NCPA favors an “X” prize competition that rewards successful independent research—something like the government and private competitions that encouraged early development of the automobile and the airplane.
The center does favor subsidies to remove older, more-polluting cars from the road by replacing them with newer models. Auto manufacturers support this, but collectors of antique cars worry whether it might eliminate classic car rallies.
Drop flood insurance
Another likely controversial proposal is to repeal the US National Flood Insurance Program. NCPA said, “Subsidized flood insurance is responsible for much of the development in coastal areas and in flood plains. Eliminating this subsidy would make us less vulnerable to higher sea levels and increased rainfall.”
The report said, “This 41-year-old program has arguably outgrown its original purpose, which was to provide temporary flood insurance to property owners who were unaware they were in flood-prone areas. Because of full-disclosure mortgage and insurance requirements, nearly all current owners were aware of their area’s flood problems when they purchased or developed their properties. Today, federally subsidized flood insurance encourages people to build homes where they otherwise would not. It encourages lenders to finance mortgages they otherwise would not.” This encourages high-risk development and harms environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands, floodplains, and coastal marshes.
Congestion pricing
NCPA recommends the establishment of more toll roads with “congestion pricing” rates of higher fees during peak hours and lower fees during off-peak times. “Congestion increases travel time, worsens air pollution, increases carbon dioxide emissions, and wastes fuel. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, based on wasted time and fuel, congestion in 437 urban areas cost the nation about $78.2 billion in 2005,” it reported. However, other surveys have shown motorist resistance to congestion pricing or anything else that would raise the cost of automobile travel.
The center favors reform of air traffic control systems to allow pilots to fly more direct routes and avoid lengthy holding patterns and runway delays so aircraft would save fuel and reduce emissions. “The current government-operated air traffic control system, based on a 1930s-era network of radio beacons, hinders innovations that could reduce fuel use and emissions. Specifically, allowing pilots to fly more direct routes between destinations—so-called ‘free flight’—could save substantial amounts of fuel and reduce aircraft emissions by as much as 17%,” according to the report.
Meanwhile, it said, “Barring changes in existing air travel regulations, the imposition of taxes or regulatory controls to meet 1990 emission levels could make it virtually impossible for US airlines to meet the increasing demand for air travel. The Air Transport Association estimates that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would result in a 25-35% reduction in air services.”
The report also favors reduction of regulatory barriers to greater use of nuclear power, reduction of wildfires through alternative forest management institutions, and the use of biotechnology to develop faster-growing trees that can absorb and store large amounts of carbon dioxide.