Thursday, July 04, 2019
Carbon debate lacks honesty
https://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/low-carbon-energy/renewables/2019/carbon-debate-lacks-honesty
.
...imagine a world where the consumer knows the cost of externalities inherent in the product's price.
...imagine two refrigerators standing beside each other with identical total prices, yet one indicates a high cost of externalities (already paid as an indirect tax by the manufacturer on the elements of the product), and the other quite the opposite. Which would the consumer choose? I imagine both would have a market, and in any case the consumer is paying for their desire more rationally, with a more realistic description of the price, in terms of the item's ''footprint'', (or the item's technology), environmentally (or socially) speaking.
...you get what you pay for, is a premise easy to understand. A tax on a thing's cost to society is not onerous, if it is clearly stated, equitable because it relates to the thing itself, and fair because all things are treated the same way.
.
...imagine a world where the consumer knows the cost of externalities inherent in the product's price.
...imagine two refrigerators standing beside each other with identical total prices, yet one indicates a high cost of externalities (already paid as an indirect tax by the manufacturer on the elements of the product), and the other quite the opposite. Which would the consumer choose? I imagine both would have a market, and in any case the consumer is paying for their desire more rationally, with a more realistic description of the price, in terms of the item's ''footprint'', (or the item's technology), environmentally (or socially) speaking.
...you get what you pay for, is a premise easy to understand. A tax on a thing's cost to society is not onerous, if it is clearly stated, equitable because it relates to the thing itself, and fair because all things are treated the same way.
