Money is certainly relevant to climate change. But not in the way most people think. I still hold that the natural order of human progress is to slowly decarbonize our energy sources, as I discussed here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/decarbonizing-progress
We can accelerate the process by correcting the inputs that go into the market. Market actors like individuals and businesses do not currently have to consider the negative externalities of their fossil fuel use. Placing a tax on carbon would correct the inputs and bring about better outputs with minimal (if any) cost.
Such a tax is a good idea and necessary for system level change, but wouldn't there be a significant cost? I mean, someone has to pay the tax, and all costs end up in the end products no matter who the nominal tax payer is. Right?
In the aggregate probably not much. The whole idea of taxing externalities is that its a actually neutral impact. Certain individual players will certainly pay more, but that's actually the point.
Money is certainly relevant to climate change. But not in the way most people think. I still hold that the natural order of human progress is to slowly decarbonize our energy sources, as I discussed here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/decarbonizing-progress
We can accelerate the process by correcting the inputs that go into the market. Market actors like individuals and businesses do not currently have to consider the negative externalities of their fossil fuel use. Placing a tax on carbon would correct the inputs and bring about better outputs with minimal (if any) cost.
Such a tax is a good idea and necessary for system level change, but wouldn't there be a significant cost? I mean, someone has to pay the tax, and all costs end up in the end products no matter who the nominal tax payer is. Right?
In the aggregate probably not much. The whole idea of taxing externalities is that its a actually neutral impact. Certain individual players will certainly pay more, but that's actually the point.