I said nothing of the sort. Of course subsidies work, it just tends to be very inefficient. Lots of money put in for not a lot of output. For certain things with very high positive externalities, of course they should be subsidized... university education included. It isn't even really a subsidy. University educated individuals pay more than enough additional tax over high school educated individuals to pay for the government's share of their education.
Wrong. Unless carbon emissions are perfectly inelastic wrt price (a hint: they're not), raising the cost will decrease consumption, all else equal.
As are subsidies. What's your point?
Subsidies are also bad for the economy, BECAUSE SUBSIDIES ARE JUST TAXES SOMEWHERE ELSE. It's a zero sum game... every dollar in subsidies comes from taxes somewhere else in the economic system. Consumption taxes such as a carbon tax, tend to be very efficient (least bad for the economy).
Man, you throw up such ridiculous straw men. Alright. I think you know you're being disingenuous with your quibbling on carbon/carbon dioxide (it is accepted that within this context carbon refers to CO2). And no, breathing would not be taxed. Let me clear this up for you. We tax the release of formerly sequestered CO2 or equivalent. Sequestered means it was at one time taken out of the carbon cycle, usually as fossilised carbon deposits. In order to gain a carbon tax 'credit' you would have to remove carbon from the cycle in a fairly permanent way: fixing it in minerals, pumping it into former natural gas deposits, decomposing it into some inert carbon compound, etc. Fuels like ethanol, wood, etc. are exempt because they have a net zero effect on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's not complicated... let me know if you want me to go into more depth.
So subsidies work, but are inefficient and are bad for the economy? You might think my straw-man arguments are bad, but your thoughts are simply confused on this issue. How about I spell it out simply for you: subsidizing actual processes or technologies that have a direct relationship to reducing carbon dioxide or other GHG's that you are so very worried about. How about that? Or to state it differently, investing in processes and technologies that maintain the enormous economic plus of cheap energy, but reduce the gases that so concern you.
A tax blandly applied does nothing directly. In particular, it merely makes the cost of fuel more expensive for those who have the most trouble purchasing it. You
assume that applying a tax will reduce consumption, but you will have to tax very heavily before you reduce consumption to any large degree. That will come at a great cost to many people who will have no other alternative but to pay - whether they have to drive to work or keep their homes and families warm in the winter.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that in situations such as this, subsidies tend to be very inefficient while taxes would work quite well.
What evidence? What is it that you are measuring? What specific results have been selected? I supposed if your ends were to just make energy more expensive, then sure, taxes will work to do that. They'll make every downstream product dependent in one shape of form expensive as well.
Subsidies can be direct in nature; many have been. They can be used to encourage research that is directed; they can be utilized to enable companies to reduce investment risk in pursuing viable technologies or processes; or they can be direct investments into actual purchases of new products or processes that focus directly on something specific. Taxation ads expenses and reduces the capacity to purchase or invest - quite possibly in the very things that might actually reduce energy consuption.
Yes, subsidies are enabled by taxes, but you have to first take into consideration how the tax is generated. Set it too high and you drag the whole economy down; apply it too broadly and it is punative to to those who can least afford it but by virtue of their specific situation, and must pay at a higher rate. You can apply it equally at the source, but that does not mean that every situation is equal. That's not theory, that's reality.
Once can your arrogance shines through, afransen. I'm well aware of the carbon cycle, thanks. But just to let
you know, reading theory and actually seeing systems in action are very often two different experiences. So when you get to that point in life and start paying taxes, have a home, and raise a family, you might start seeing that the world is not a theoretical black and white space. You will have to engage in ambiguity of things.
Your tax scheme is predicated on assumptions. There is still no direct proof that carbon dioxide has generated the slight (less than one degree) warming of the last century. There is no evidence that temperatures will rise by four degrees over the next century (courtesy of
scenarios based on computer-generated assumptions founded on incomplete data that is adjusted to get certain results).
This thread is about Throne Speech, not carbon taxes or global warming. Can we get back to that?
