The debate regarding global warming has seemingly been reduced to two different arguments.
One, is global warming occurring? In this argument, critics attack data which is used to support the global warming thesis, e.g. do rising local temperatures reflect global warming or changes in land use? The one hundred year record of rising global ocean levels along with shrinking polar ice caps has largely settled this argument.
In the second, the different sides debate if global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide or by the solar activity or by some other contributor (water). However, this debate is largely unnecessary since many physical phenomena have multiple contributors.
In mathematical terms, instead of arguing whether global warming is f(x) or f(y), we could just accept that it is both (f(x,y)). And this makes sense. When one does an energy balance around the earth, the earth must radiate to space (when at steady state) enough energy to balance the solar energy coming in. So, if the incoming solar energy increases, the temperature of the radiating layer must increase too.
However, planetary science teaches that the energy balance only sets the temperature of the radiating layer not the temperature of the planetary surface. So, by increasing the altitude of the radiating layer (by increasing the concentration of gases which absorb/emit in the infrared such as carbon dioxide), the temperature at the surface increases since one sees temperature decrease as one goes up.
This is the accepted explanation of the Venus surface temperature (and why it is cooler in the mountains).
But getting back to earth, the real question which is not addressed with global warming is "Should we care?" As the US attempts to compete with Asia, if we increase our cost of electric power (by requiring fewer CO2 emissions), more manufacturing will shift from the US, they will build more coal burning power plants, and the only thing we will have accomplished is to decrease the GDP of the US.
In addition, sea levels have increased over the last century with little negative effect. Furthermore, we can ask the question: what if there was global cooling? Then we would have crop failures, longer and harder winters, and all sorts of issues. Rather, the opposition to global warming seems to be "change is bad" and causing serious damage to the economy is ok.
So where’s the middle ground? The US imports huge amounts of oil. This import has many negative effects. It forces us to prop up Hugo Chavez’s regime and the Middle East. It represents about half of our foreign trade deficit (depends on the current oil price). And it represents a significant threat to our national security.
How do you fix this? You tax gasoline heavily like Europe and use the money to eliminate corporate income taxes (which many corporations avoid mostly anyway). This pleases the environmentalists (higher gasoline taxes mean less consumption and carbon dioxide emissions). This pleases the patriots because the reliance on oil is reduced. And this pleases everybody else because eliminating corporate income taxes would be a huge stimulus for the economy leading to many jobs.
Note: To keep Congress from spending the money instead, one might have to include a clause which kept spending from rising above the rate of inflation or the tax would sunset.
Disclosure: long S&P 500 Index Funds, foreign index funds, and DIA
