“Let it be noted that a Koch organization co-sponsored a pro-carbon-tax event, and may the three other campus organizations reciprocate by bringing in a strong voice against pricing carbon dioxide–even that of the world’s leading energy philosopher, Alex Epstein, who would lambaste Inglis’s talk title as fatally imprecise.”

On August 27, The College of Charleston is hosting a Forum on a Free Enterprise Solution to Climate Change. The speaker is Bob Inglis, a former Congressman (R-SC) who lost a reelection bid in 2010 with 29 percent in the Republican primary, partly due to his alarmist/activist position on climate change, including his advocacy of a carbon tax.

Since his defeat, Inglis founded RepublicEN, a nationwide group “educating the country about free-enterprise solutions to climate change.” Inglis, holding an undergraduate degree in political science from Duke University and a J.D. from the University of Virginia, runs republicEn (same group, alternative caps) within the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

Inglis’s talk next week came is co-sponsored by the Center for Public Choice & Market Process, a Koch-funded center run by my friend Pete Calcagno. Other sponsors at the College of Charleston are the Department of Political Science, the Sustainability Institute, and the Master of Environmental Studies.

Let it be noted that a Koch-funded organization co-sponsored a pro-carbon-tax event. And may the other three co-sponsoring organizations have the commitment to open debate by bringing in a strong voice against pricing carbon dioxide–even that of the world’s leading energy philosopher, Alex Epstein, who would lambaste Inglis’s talk title as fatally imprecise–nothing will “solve” climate change.

Five Questions for Inglis

Here are some questions that Inglis should consider/answer in his talk, questions that a critical audience will have in mind.

What is “conservative” or “Republican” about introducing a qualitative new tax to the existing corpus of federal taxes, especially one based on an exaggerated Malthusian alarm about what is arguably a nonpollutant (carbon dioxide (CO2)? Short of a constitutional amendment (and even that might not be enough), what is to keep politicians from spending the money rather than “dividending” the collected revenue (the former characterizing H.R. 6463, the Curbelo $23 per metric ton tax)? What are the energy-price effects and the climate (temperature, sea level) effects of your proposal using standard models? Can your new tax be implemented without tariffs against goods imported from countries that do not have similar tax regimes? If so, what does this do to investment/import/export decisions from the US side. If not, what does this mean regarding bureaucratic judgment calls and the growth of government? Can your tax be implemented without equity adjustments? If so, what does this mean for lower-income consumers? If not, what does this mean for bureaucratic judgment calls and the growth of government?

May there be a two-sided debate, and may the best ideas win at the Inglis seminar next week in Charleston.