[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
tomgray <tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>
>Good point. Why don't we just institute a $50/ton carbon tax, use the
>revenue to reduce income taxes, and let the market sort out the
>technological winners?
>
Presumably, a tax like the above should be based on some kind of
estimate of the damage done by a ton of carbon.
Since that is difficult to determine, I suppose that $50 per ton might
be a decent place to start, so long as we realize that the figure might
need to be adjusted up or down as more evidence is obtained.
I would also suggest that we not stop with carbon. Let's establish
some kind of tax on all hazardous emissions, instead of the current idea
of "credits." What the current system does is to reward those who
have polluted in the past with allowances that allows them to
pollute at a lower cost (per pound of pollutant) than a newer
enterprise. In some cases, this bizarre system has led investors to
prefer to purchase an older, more polluting, less efficient generating
asset over the construction of a more up to date model, since the
older unit was not appropriately penalized for the damage it was doing.
I would hold out one caution, however, for the nukes in the group.
The last time that a carbon tax was proposed, (in 1993) the final
proposal ended up including nuclear generated electricity in the
calculation of carbon output as a sop to the fossil industry's demands.
I once calculated that the tax would be essentially an 8000 % tax on
uranium, since the cost of the uranium used in a nuclear plant is
a miniscule portion of its operating budget.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE
References: