David Brooks of The New York Times appears to be a moderate Republican of conservative bent. This blogger's personal politics are somewhat different, but he and I are in agreement on the virtues of a carbon tax without special deals for special interests.
In a column this Tuesday, Brooks conjures a modern-day Jeremy Bentham--that is to say, a utilitarian with a taste for social engineering--and a contemporary David Hume, a philosophical skeptic. Brooks's Bentham would attack global warming by gathering "the smartest people in the country and he'd figure out how to expand wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal sources to reduce CO2 emissions." Etc. Brooks's Hume would say, "I don't know how to generate clean energy, and I don't know how technology will advance in the next 20 years. Why don't we just raise the price on carbon and let everybody else figure out how to innovate our way toward a solution?"
"The people on Mr. Hume's side believe," continues Brooks, "that government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don't think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation."
This is exactly what I think too. As for the alleged factual errors or misrepresentations in my previous post about natural gas ads, they are addressed separately.