나쁜 아이디어가 끝없이 재활용되는 경우가 너무 많다. 탄소세가 그중 하나다. 탄소세는 석탄, 석유, 천연가스를 사용하는 발전소와 다른 여러 동력원의 이산화탄소 배출에 부과될 수 있다.
대기 중의 이산화탄소 양을 아는 사람이 얼마나 될까. 100만단위당 400단위를 조금 넘는 수준이다. 대기 중 이산화탄소의 적정량은 얼마나 될까. 극도로 오만한 몇몇 사람이 안다고 자신하지만 사실은 아무도 모른다. 대기의 78%는 질소, 21%가량은 산소이며, 아르곤은 1% 미만, 이산화탄소는 0.038%에 불과하다. 여기에 양적으로 변화하는 수증기가 추가된다.
이산화탄소는 생명에 필요한 가스다. 식물은 이 가스 없이는 성장이 불가능하다. 식물은 이산화탄소를 흡수하고 산소를 내보낸다. 동물은 이산화탄소를 내보내고 산소를 들이마신다. 이산화탄소 분량이 증가할 때 식물이 더 빨리 성장한다는 증거가 있다. 이는 식량 가격이 낮아진다는 것을 의미한다.
탄소세 옹호자들은 이 세금이 위험한 가스의 배출을 줄이는 데 도움이 될 것이라고 주장한다. 다른 모든 조건이 같을 경우 온실가스인 이산화탄소의 증가로 대기의 온도가 높아진다고 그들은 주장한다.
화석연료를 태울 때 소량의 이산화탄소와 다량의 수증기가 만들어진다. 수증기 증가는 구름의 증가로 나타난다. 구름은 열을 가두어 기온을 높이는 동시에 햇빛을 반사하여 기온을 낮춘다. 어느 쪽의 효과가 큰지는 의견일치가 이루어지지 않았다.
과거 지구 대기에 지금 수준의 이산화탄소가 존재했을 때 기온이 더 높은 경우도 있었고 더 낮은 경우도 있다는 사실만이 확인되었다. 또한 현재의 기후예측 모델의 실적이 아주 저조하다는 사실도 알려져 있다. 기온이 계속 상승할 것이라는 예측이 20년 전에 나왔으나 지난 16년 동안 평균적인 온난화 현상은 나타나지 않았다.
지구온난화의 주된 원인은 대기의 이산화탄소 증가이며, 인간이 이산화탄소를 증가시켰다고 생각하는 사람들의 주장이 옳다고 잠시 가정해 보자. 그들은 지구의 기온이 21세기 말까지 섭씨 3도 오를 것이라고 예측한다. 그들의 계산에 따르면 미국의 기여 수준은 대략 0.2도의 기온 상승이다. 이는 지구온난화의 약 7%에 해당된다.
중국과 인도를 포함한 여타 세계의 이산화탄소 배출이 기온 상승 원인의 93%를 차지하는 상황에서 미국에 탄소세를 부과하는 것이 합리적 조치일까. 미국이 아주 높은 탄소세를 부과한다 해도 50년 동안 탄소세의 온난화 축소 효과는 너무나 작을 것이다.
탄소세는 미국 경제에 실제로 대가를 치르게 한다. 에너지와 식품 가격이 더 오르고 사실상 거의 모든 생활필수품 값이 뛴다. 이런 가격 인상은 생활수준 하락, 경제적 기회 감소, 임금 하락, 일자리 감소를 초래한다. 무엇을 위해 이런 희생을 해야 하는가.
지구온난화 로비 지지자들은 객관적인 과학자보다는 편협한 종교의 신자로 점차 변질되는 듯이 보인다. 그들은 자기네 기후예측 모델에 결함이 있다는 사실을 인정하지 않고, 태양 활동 등 다른 자연현상을 이산화탄소보다 더 중요한 기온 상승 원인으로 내세우는 반대자들을 인신공격하고 억압한다. 경제학자인 필자는 어느 정도 수준의 기온과 이산화탄소가 적정한지 모른다. 그러나 일반적으로 인류는 추운 기후보다 따뜻한 기후를 좋아하고 온난한 기후와 습기·이산화탄소로 생산되는 값싸고 풍부한 식량을 더 좋아한다는 사실을 지적할 수 있다.
또한 이 세금의 적용으로 지구온난화에 사실상 아무런 영향을 미치지 않으리란 점을 탄소세 지지자들조차 인정한다. 반면에 이 세금이 시민들의 소득과 취업 기회에 아주 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 것을 우리는 안다.
시민의 자유를 파괴하는 정부의 통제와 세금 없이도 지난 수천년 동안 인류는 서서히 변하는 기온과 해수면에 적응해 왔다. 탄소세 개념을 폐기하는 것이 마땅하다.
리처드 W 란 美 세계경제성장연구소 총재
워싱턴타임스·정리=오성환 외신전문위원
A carbon tax would make no sense
By Richard RahnMonday
Attempting to regulate carbon dioxide is folly
All too many bad ideas get endlessly recycled - the carbon tax is one of them. A carbon tax could be a tax on coal, oil and gas carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? It is a little less than 400 parts per million. Do you know what the optimum level of carbon dioxide is? No one does, even though some have the extreme conceit to think they do.
The earth's atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, about 21 percent oxygen, less than 1 percent argon, and only 0.038 percent carbon dioxide - plus a variable amount of water vapor. The gas is necessary for life. Plants cannot grow without it. They absorb it and release oxygen in exchange. Animals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen. There is evidence that as carbon-dioxide levels have risen, plants are growing faster, which means cheaper food.
The advocates of a carbon tax claim that the tax will help reduce dangerous emissions. The argument is that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas and, everything else being equal, more of it in the atmosphere will result in higher atmospheric temperatures. The operative phrase here is "everything else being equal." When fossil fuels are burned, they produce small amounts of carbon dioxide but large amounts of water vapor. Increases in water vapor show up as more cloud cover. Clouds both trap heat (which increases warming) and reflect sunlight (which reduces warming), but there is no consensus about which effect is greater.
What is known with a high degree of certainty is that at times in the past, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What is also known is the current climate models have a dreadful record of prediction. Twenty years ago, we were told that the Earth's temperatures would steadily rise from then on, yet there has been no average warming for the past 16 years - oops.
Let's assume for the moment that those who think that global warming is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide, and that man has caused the increase, are correct. Those who think that also have a "mainstream" forecast of 3 degrees Celsius of global warming between now and the end of the century. At most, they also estimate that the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2 degrees Celsius, or about 7 percent of global warming. Does it make sense for the United States to impose a carbon tax, when emissions from the rest of the world - notably, India and China - would be responsible for 93 percent of the temperature rise? Even with very high taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions, the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on a 50-year time scale.
A carbon tax has real costs to the American economy. Energy prices and food prices would be higher, and virtually everything else that people consume would cost more. The results of higher prices are a lower standard of living, less economic opportunity, lower real wages and fewer jobs. All for what?
You may have noticed that people who have very strong empirical and theoretical evidence for their point of view usually do not feel a need to suppress dissent. Instead they let the strength of their own arguments and evidence persuade. Yet, the global-warming lobby increasingly exhibits the characteristics of an intolerant religious sect, rather than objective scientists. Rather than admitting that their climate models were flawed, many in the global-warming crowd have resorted to name-calling and active repression of those who have argued that solar activity or other phenomena might be more important than carbon dioxide in determining the earth's temperature.
As an economist, I make no pretense to knowing what the optimum temperature of the earth ought to be and what the optimal level of carbon dioxide should be, other than to note, in general, people tend to prefer warmer over colder climates and less expensive and more plentiful food that comes from more warmth, moisture and carbon dioxide. As an economist, though, I am prepared to make judgments as to whether a proposed tax is likely to have more benefits than costs. Even many proponents of carbon taxes, when pressed, admit that they will have virtually no effect on global warming (even using their very doubtful assumptions). However, we do know that these proposed tax increases will have very real negative effects on people's incomes and job opportunities.
Mankind has adapted to the gradual ups and downs in temperatures and sea levels for thousands of years - without freedom-destroying government mandates and oppressive taxes. The carbon tax idea should be scrapped.
By Richard RahnMonday
Attempting to regulate carbon dioxide is folly
All too many bad ideas get endlessly recycled - the carbon tax is one of them. A carbon tax could be a tax on coal, oil and gas carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? It is a little less than 400 parts per million. Do you know what the optimum level of carbon dioxide is? No one does, even though some have the extreme conceit to think they do.
The earth's atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, about 21 percent oxygen, less than 1 percent argon, and only 0.038 percent carbon dioxide - plus a variable amount of water vapor. The gas is necessary for life. Plants cannot grow without it. They absorb it and release oxygen in exchange. Animals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen. There is evidence that as carbon-dioxide levels have risen, plants are growing faster, which means cheaper food.
The advocates of a carbon tax claim that the tax will help reduce dangerous emissions. The argument is that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas and, everything else being equal, more of it in the atmosphere will result in higher atmospheric temperatures. The operative phrase here is "everything else being equal." When fossil fuels are burned, they produce small amounts of carbon dioxide but large amounts of water vapor. Increases in water vapor show up as more cloud cover. Clouds both trap heat (which increases warming) and reflect sunlight (which reduces warming), but there is no consensus about which effect is greater.
What is known with a high degree of certainty is that at times in the past, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What is also known is the current climate models have a dreadful record of prediction. Twenty years ago, we were told that the Earth's temperatures would steadily rise from then on, yet there has been no average warming for the past 16 years - oops.
Let's assume for the moment that those who think that global warming is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide, and that man has caused the increase, are correct. Those who think that also have a "mainstream" forecast of 3 degrees Celsius of global warming between now and the end of the century. At most, they also estimate that the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2 degrees Celsius, or about 7 percent of global warming. Does it make sense for the United States to impose a carbon tax, when emissions from the rest of the world - notably, India and China - would be responsible for 93 percent of the temperature rise? Even with very high taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions, the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on a 50-year time scale.
A carbon tax has real costs to the American economy. Energy prices and food prices would be higher, and virtually everything else that people consume would cost more. The results of higher prices are a lower standard of living, less economic opportunity, lower real wages and fewer jobs. All for what?
You may have noticed that people who have very strong empirical and theoretical evidence for their point of view usually do not feel a need to suppress dissent. Instead they let the strength of their own arguments and evidence persuade. Yet, the global-warming lobby increasingly exhibits the characteristics of an intolerant religious sect, rather than objective scientists. Rather than admitting that their climate models were flawed, many in the global-warming crowd have resorted to name-calling and active repression of those who have argued that solar activity or other phenomena might be more important than carbon dioxide in determining the earth's temperature.
As an economist, I make no pretense to knowing what the optimum temperature of the earth ought to be and what the optimal level of carbon dioxide should be, other than to note, in general, people tend to prefer warmer over colder climates and less expensive and more plentiful food that comes from more warmth, moisture and carbon dioxide. As an economist, though, I am prepared to make judgments as to whether a proposed tax is likely to have more benefits than costs. Even many proponents of carbon taxes, when pressed, admit that they will have virtually no effect on global warming (even using their very doubtful assumptions). However, we do know that these proposed tax increases will have very real negative effects on people's incomes and job opportunities.
Mankind has adapted to the gradual ups and downs in temperatures and sea levels for thousands of years - without freedom-destroying government mandates and oppressive taxes. The carbon tax idea should be scrapped.
[ⓒ 세계일보 & Segye.com, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]
![[설왕설래] “내 전임자는 바쁘다”](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2024/04/19/128/20240419515315.jpg
)
![[기자가만난세상] ‘세월호 증인’ 팽목항 기억되길](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2024/04/19/128/20240419515247.jpg
)
![[조경란의얇은소설] 아버지가 지금 있는 곳](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2021/10/29/128/20211029514141.jpg
)
![[박일호의미술여행] 싸움은 이제 그만](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2024/04/19/128/20240419515306.jpg
)
