Putting a price on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is the cheapest, most economically efficient way to reduce emissions. Here is a statement of consensus from economists saying the same thing:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.htmlCarbon taxes overcome the two primary reasons for opposition to action on climate change:1)
The huge cost. Reducing GHG emissions is very cheap. What makes it expensive is government micromanagement (eg, MRETs, subsidies etc) - which makes about as much sense as asking the government to make and sell computers to us. There are simple ways to reduce emissions that people understand, the government can implement, and which have popular support. But they are the most expensive options. The cheap ways to reduce emissions are technically complex and beyond the reach of direct government intervention.
2)
International cooperation. The currently preferred global mechanism is an emissions permit trading scheme. However this requires the creation of what is essentially a global currency, and it requires trust that all foreign governments will manage it correctly. That is a huge, and largely undeserved leap of faith. It also requires massive direct transfers of money between countries, which makes negotiations impossible. The alternative is a minimum agreed tax on GHG emissions. This is far simpler. Each country keeps it's own revenue, raised internally, and gets to "spend" it internally, for example by reducing other taxes.
All it takes is for people to get over their emotional over-reaction to the T word.
More info:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.htmlI will be giving my first preference votes in both houses in the upcoming federal election to whichever party has the balls to publicly support carbon taxes. Malcolm Turnbull, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown have all publicly supported carbon taxes in the past. John Howard has supported and emissions trading scheme, which is the next best option from an economic perspective.