You're watching...
Cornell University Professor of Economics Robert Frank argues a tax on CO2 emissions is needed to prevent global warming risks.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Okay communicating the novel idea for -- guys that save the planet.
And balance the budget all the same time our next guest says that a carbon tax we'll do just that.
But also means the price of a gallon gasoline could go up well past six bucks a gallon want to bring in a man with a plan Robert -- Professor of you know.
Looks at Cornell University.
Thanks for being with us today -- you're proposing a 300 dollar tax on every tonne of carbon.
We emit into the atmosphere in the US -- it may -- one point six trillion dollars a year in new revenue.
It's quite a tax increases and -- It's a big tax increase yes and it's it's a tax on carbon but on CO2 emissions so that's the distinction but.
The the notion.
That the taxes designed to deal with -- is that there's some non trivial risk.
That we're gonna suffer catastrophic.
Climate change in the next century.
We thought it was a long way off now scientists are telling us that there's new evidence linking the recent extreme weather that we've been seeing.
To the gradual trend of global warming.
We don't know that this is gonna happen there is by one estimate.
From MIT -- one in ten chance that.
The average surface temperature of the earth will rise twelve degrees Fahrenheit in the next.
Hundred years that's a huge temperature increase that's it's like -- -- barrel of a gun.
That's got one loaded chamber at a ten would you wanna pull the trigger on are -- like that -- -- -- -- -- I wouldn't.
Mean these are bringing they -- and have all of them over going to look the other way because Sondra and so actually 10% chance of something -- -- -- -- -- -- take that.
I'm want to take that risk but what I'm wondering here is that is that you know in the first that a quarter this your first four months of this year the energy information agency of our federal government cannot said this a week or -- -- maybe a week ago all our.
CO2 admissions in the US went down to levels not seen in twenty years we put out.
Less.
As at as little -- -- -- -- -- 1992.
Not because of government -- not because of some carbon tax.
But because.
Of private market forces you know utilities gave up coal when they saw how cheap Nat gas was.
If something like that our kids and things are common mission probably going to want you here have -- what are -- gonna get -- -- -- an organized for much -- -- -- anybody -- -- things.
Exert no one's gonna understand either one of us please let me finish what do we need a carbon tax for if the private market.
Just reduced our carbon emissions early this year to.
Not levels that's in twenty years.
The private market will not reduce carbon emissions by an amount sufficient to deflect the long term risks that we face.
Again nobody's sure what's gonna happen you don't know what's gonna happen I don't.
The climate scientists they don't know either but they say there is.
Non trivial chance that we face catastrophic change so then the question becomes.
Not one to argue about but just that to ask as a practical matter how much would it cost to do something about this.
Yes and the astonishing answer is that wouldn't cost very much and you wouldn't create -- a whole lot of dislocations.
What I point six trillion dollars I think -- it's an emotional debate so far and it really needs to become a much more.
Calm reasoned discussion of what our options are.
OK so one point six trillion dollars not a big price that they found that a huge price to -- David thank you so much for joining us and good luck with your -- -- I'm tonight thank you.
Are.
