The Atlantic Home

Social Security and Medicare need to pay for something like an additional 800,000 people per year retiring for each of the next 20 years. That's above the normal number of retirees. The percentage of the population that is retired will steadily increase until "the bulge passes through the snake", and boomers start to die. It's that shift in ratio between working and retired that makes the whole thing such a problem. A 2% increase in the tax isn't going to do it.

As for the environment, the idea is that we increase energy prices in the U.S. as they've done in Europe and have $8/gallon gas and expensive electricity. That forces everyone into small cars, and makes alternative energy financially viable. Although the alternatives are so far out of the money now that we'll also have to forbid construction of conventional plants and subsidize the green stuff.

When U.S. and Europe are both driving Smart cars everywhere, taking trains and powering things with windmills, then we have to do something about the third world. The idea of restricting carbon output for the entire world means it's a zero sum game. They can't grow their output unless we shrink ours.

People hope that advanced technologies come along that will make green energy reasonably cheap, but if that doesn't happen, the only thing to do to stop China and others from emitting CO2 (since they have all the industry that will have fled the West), is to impose carbon-based tariffs. China is already the number two source of CO2, and headed quickly for number one. We think we can impose tariffs because they sell us so much stuff, and can't do without our markets.

So while it's true that Krugman would not tell a starving child to piss off, that's the effect of the green agenda. The third world can't industrialize without taking CO2 output from the rich world, not if the total world output is to remain constant. Put another way, they can't build a factory unless we close one. They can't drive a car unless an American gives up his. In that competition for carbon permits, we will win and they will lose.

What's more, the expense of doing all this makes it that much harder to find money to give them to improve their lives. Of course, aid has been so poorly spent so far that it probably won't be much of a loss. But unless they can build factories and sell to us the way Asia has done, there's not an obvious path to improved standards of living.

Of course, all this changes if the technology improves to the point that it's better than conventional, CO2 emitting sources. But if you had that technology, you wouldn't need the CO2 permits and controls. I seriously doubt the research is going to go any faster because we've made the country poorer.