Great points! Yes, the tangled web of dependence on subsidies will make progress very difficult.
But a carbon tax is another subsidy. It’s basically a ‘reverse’ subsidy designed to discourage (unabated) fossil fuel use. So it’s a reverse subsidy for renewables.
A carbon tax would create a whole other web of measurement problems. Trying to measure and audit someone that everyone of us makes (co2) would be a massive expansion of bureaucracy. Of course, you could only target say power plants but then you’d have to figure out how to reliably replace the electricity.
Ultimately, a carbon tax (especially if it floated ontop of the complex bureaucracy) would simply drive up the cost of energy for everyday voters.
This is a really interesting point. I suppose I would propose that the tax be modulated according to the effect - not the cost - of the local taxes or regulations
It might be really interesting to lay a $50/tonne tax down and note to California that their state regulations undoubtedly costing in the $200s+ entitle them to... $50 off
I'm a big fan of the concept that a carbon tax is the best weapon against worse implementations, maybe even in retrospect
Why bother going through all the complications and convolutions of what current regulations and subsidies would be duplicated by a carbon tax? Clearly if a carbon tax is ever adopted it will simply be piled on top of the existing mountain of anti-fossil fuels/pro green energy provisions.
Great points! Yes, the tangled web of dependence on subsidies will make progress very difficult.
But a carbon tax is another subsidy. It’s basically a ‘reverse’ subsidy designed to discourage (unabated) fossil fuel use. So it’s a reverse subsidy for renewables.
A carbon tax would create a whole other web of measurement problems. Trying to measure and audit someone that everyone of us makes (co2) would be a massive expansion of bureaucracy. Of course, you could only target say power plants but then you’d have to figure out how to reliably replace the electricity.
Ultimately, a carbon tax (especially if it floated ontop of the complex bureaucracy) would simply drive up the cost of energy for everyday voters.
This is a really interesting point. I suppose I would propose that the tax be modulated according to the effect - not the cost - of the local taxes or regulations
It might be really interesting to lay a $50/tonne tax down and note to California that their state regulations undoubtedly costing in the $200s+ entitle them to... $50 off
I'm a big fan of the concept that a carbon tax is the best weapon against worse implementations, maybe even in retrospect
Why bother going through all the complications and convolutions of what current regulations and subsidies would be duplicated by a carbon tax? Clearly if a carbon tax is ever adopted it will simply be piled on top of the existing mountain of anti-fossil fuels/pro green energy provisions.
Thanks for reading! If you want to discuss strategy, please send me an email at tfisher at Cato dot org
No relation.