ECONOMIC VIEW: "One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax," by N. Gregory Mankiw, New York Times, 16 September 2007, p. BU6.

The wargame I ran with Cantor on global warming and Asia pushed for a cap-and-trade answer more than carbon taxes, which, if I remember correctly, finished a close second in voting. I never got the argument on taxing back then, but am warming up to it now thanks to solid arguments like this one offered by the always impressive Mankiw. Worth contemplating. Why did our group reach for cap-and-trade? I think part was the--then--recent glow cast by Kyoto, where the problem perceived wasn't the modality but the defined pool of players (India and China given a pass). Also, plenty of appreciation for the regional SOx and NOx schemes in the U.S. and the great successes there. But in the end, the tax route may logically trump on this more globalized pollution issue. SOx and NOx cap-and-trade schemes may work because the causality is more readily appreciated in a regional sense, while global warming is just that--too global for such schemes to work in the intended way (as Europe's experience to date seems to indicate). Anyway, read up and get smarter.