But the argument for relying primarily on financial incentives has historically not been very persuasive. Democracies tend to adopt policies that yield benefits concentrated among the few and spread costs among the many. Thus we see income or electricity being taxed in many jurisdictions to subsidize renewables, rather than the more economically efficient approach of using taxes on greenhouse emissions to offset reductions in other distorting taxes (like the payroll tax). In addition, of course, many politicians around the world simply distrust markets.
Even in California and the European Union, where cap-and-trade systems for CO₂ have been established, so-called “ancillary” or “belt-and-suspenders” policies that target particular sectors or sources have also been deployed. Both jurisdictions subsidize renewables: the EU subsidizes energy efficiency, while California has a low-carbon fuel standard. To the extent that such policies affect behavior, they distort the patterns of investment and emissions abatement and so raise the total cost of abatement. Moreover, they reduce the carbon price implicit in the cap and trade systems, and thereby discourage productive investment and innovation in abatement technologies.If it persists, this neither-fish-nor-fowl policy architecture will make the path to net-zero both longer and more expensive. A clear focus on incentives will not be easy to obtain as a political matter, but if the heavy lifting is left to the future, it will only become more difficult to achieve.
California has no net reduction in carbon. Most of the carbon taxes are spent on pensions, which are inflation adjusted, or light rail, which is an enormous polluter relative to buses.
Pay me now or...The more costly it is, economically and politically, to get to net-zero, the less likely the world will manage the feat in time to avoid unacceptably large permanent damage. Because policy choices in the near term can have an appreciable impact on those costs, it is in the nation’s interest (as well as the world’s) for policymakers to play the long game. But stating the obvious, alas, doesn’t make it much easier to get from here to there.
You almost got there, you missed the part about you being a pre-industrial of carbon you can prove you have been damaged. You get first claim on the carbon taxes, not California union members, not construction companies.
My tort case went nowhere. I had first claim on some California gas taxes, and my class action lawyers whimped out. I am a pre-industrial user of carbon, except for electronics, a few 10 watt bulbs, and foam, lots of foam. I am a rare meat eater. I am not driving, I take a bus once a week or so.
Why cannot I get into tort court? Because politicians want to rule the green tax, that is why so many politicians are planning to melt trillions in ice; they intend to globally warm with that tax money.
No comments:
Post a Comment