4 thoughts on “Debate: The pros and cons of carbon taxes”

  1. Posted 12/11/2018 at 09:15 | Permalink

    A carbon tax set initially at a modest level and incrementally increased as experience of its effects become clearer is the way to go. But don’t underestimate the difficulties of implementation. The ‘carbon content’ of all products and services (including imports) would need to be estimated. In a similar way to VAT, carbon-added could be assessed and taxed but this is not an easy or simple job.

  2. Posted 14/11/2018 at 20:27 | Permalink

    Regarding who gets the compensation, a fee is being charged for the right to pollute a common resource. As such, that fee should be equally divided among society. If costs are being internalised, there is no need to pick out one group as recipients for that compensation.

    Jamie Whyte isn’t playing by the rules of fair debate. In the main, he is not arguing about the pro/cons of the mechanism of the Carbon Tax, but whether or not it is necessary. He says economists don’t know the net cost, but surely doesn’t mean they couldn’t give it a try? Indeed, lots of them have and published a large body of work on the matter.

    The most substantive point he makes is one of carbon leakage. However, it has to be put into the context that all governments need to raise taxes, and most do so from damaging taxes on output. So the worse that could happen it appears to me is a straight swap.

    As it happens, most countries, like China want to reduce fossil fuel consumption for many reasons, not just global warming. I really don’t think getting a competitive advantage from carbon leakage is a policy goal. Why else are they looking at carbon taxes/cap and trade themselves?

    Easy win for Prof Booth.

  3. Posted 07/03/2021 at 19:08 | Permalink

    Apart from the fact that this article does not actually provide an economic debate on the mechanism of the carbon tax, it seems that the author wishes to employ the victim-blaming phenomenon as an example of an economic transaction incurring an externality. The attempt to justify his misogynistic views only serves to discredit this article as an economic debate. The suggestion that nobody really knows the net costs of climate change and therefore we should ‘just wait and see’, is really a regressive and pointless conclusion from an economist. The suggestion that we can simply adapt to a warmer climate incurring no immediate costs exposes a clear disregard for those already disproportionately affected by rising temperatures in developing countries.

  4. Posted 07/09/2021 at 23:18 | Permalink

    The carbon tax is the most equitable method for carbon use to pay for its pollution.
    The system needs to be employed by law similar to other sin taxes on alcohol, tobaccos, and even sales taxes.
    The tax rate on carbon products should be attaches to objective CO2 tonnage contributed to the atmosphere. An Objective authority “EPA” would establish the standards and the measurement. The taxes would be implemented gradually, in order for the economic adjustments can be gradual, progressively increasing over time .

    The eventual increases, would cause competitive advantage for alternative energy sources and conservation measures.

    With this process carbon emissions would be financialized on the balance sheet and income statements. Conservation and renewable sources would become competitive with the true cost of carbon emissions, which have had a free ride to alter the atmosphere. Intangible carbon emissions will become accountable. Money talks.

    John Cockerill

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.