What’s the safest way to fight climate change: by centralized planning or through the market?
Sir, Tim Harford writes: We should do more to encourage innovation that attacks the climate change problem… The most obvious first step (among several worth trying) is a stiff tax on carbon dioxide emissions” “Let’s innovate a way out of our climate crisis” October 13.
I agree 100% with that. The real question though is what is to be done with the revenues of such stiff tax? There are different options.
The first to allow governments to manage these, setting it up for good results, but also a quite likely having it much captured by the war-on-climate-change profiteers.
The second to share out these revenues equally among all citizens, like by helping to fund a Universal Basic Income, and so that it is the market that will take the decisions on what’s to be done.
Of course there are also pseudo market solutions, like those carbon emission permits trading that handed over to speculators, a market in non-transparent carbon emission indulgences.
Sir, I am totally for the sharing out all those tax revenues among the citizens option. That would minimize the distortions, and align everyone’s incentives in the fights against climate change and poverty.
PS. In May 2016 you published a letter I wrote on how to fight the pollution in Mexico City, which was based on these arguments.
@PerKurowski
Posts
