From the strange bedfellows department. . . .

It's not often that the politician I agree with most on a major political issue is John Dingell, but check this out. Now, I realize that it is entirely possible that Dingell is taking an extreme position in order to scotch any reform at all, but a carbon tax is a sound idea and perhaps Dingell's position will get it a wider hearing.

This brings up a larger point. The political blogosphere tends to divide into red and blue, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's not enough to disagree with people, they must be proven to be inadequate human beings and destroyed. I submit that this has gotten worse on the internet, and hinders good government. Please, people, less calling names, more engaging ideas.

Happy Labor Day!

Respect to all those who provide something that people want to pay for today.

Check this article out -- if economics was better understood by the population at large we'd have a lot fewer Democrats. If the political discourse in the United States focused more on costs and benefits, we could get a lot further.

With that said, this article ignores the externalities caused by carbon usage. If all the costs of an action aren't borne by the people who take it, you'll get more of it than is societally optimal. A carbon tax is one way to restore those costs and make sure that the true costs of energy use are factored into every decision. Greg Mankiw wrote my intermediate macroeconomics textbook, so, I suppose it's only natural that I would follow him into the Pigou Club.