Just put a carbon tax on everything that has environmental externalities, it's as simple as that, it doesn't make sense to target a specific industry, especially one that uses stranded/renewable energy.
broad-based consumption taxes are the best theoretical response, but politically no one is going to impose them at the levels needed to discourage consumption, and they almost always get perverted in their application with carve-outs and exemptions. Plus where does that money go? At best it's an inefficient recycling paradigm when what we really need is an at-source reduction in consumption in the first place.
I think the idea is that it discourages certain kinds of consumption, and that's carbon-based consumption. Once upon a time, that could have been construed as a broad-based consumption tax simply because there were no non-carbon alternatives. Today, in 2021, that's not the case. Solar is already the cheapest source of electricity, and the relatively higher price of CO2 emitting energy is already a market-based "consumption tax". A carbon-tax just exacerbates and speeds up what's already happening. That's probably acceptable because time is of the essence as far as the climate goes.
The goal should not be to discourage consumption, the goal should be carbon neutrality.
Any industry such as fossil fuel power plants must buy carbon offset credits/tokens from industries or companies that sequester carbon. Then let the market solve the problem. The credits/tokens may turn out to be very cheap.
No credible way to decouple production/consumption from emissions has been found. So no, we do need to start curbing consumption, especially among people in the top wealth quantiles (because they consume the most).
They still aren't decoupled from emissions. IIRC Emissions actually grow faster than GDP, so it's actually worse than a simple coupling: it's a feedback coupling.
All studies that have looked at seeming decoupling of emissions from the economy have found that they decoupling was due to outsourcing the emissions to other countries. Markets cannot solve emissions as long as value is a function of production.
Countries that tax emissions should simply levy a proportional tariff on goods imported from countries that do not tax emissions.
Wouldn't this eliminate the incentive to outsource the emissions? You could even add some margin to the tariff such that it is more economical for countries to tax the emissions themselves rather than pay the tariff.
You do that by increasing the cost of consumption. Everyone has, even wealthy people, have a price point beyond which something is too expensive for them.
I agree, and what better way than to impose a tax on consumption after X dollars. Or perhaps even a general luxury tax for goods that aren't absolutely necessary for your welfare.
Still better would be to start taxing natural resource usage, or even setting quotas with strict penalties. But it's hard to see politicians going along with it and I don't know if it can be monitored sensibly.
I'd go with taxing fossil fuel extraction. Every barrel of oil, liter of nat gas, or ton of coal is taxed. The revenue from these taxes should go towards either a) carbon capture or b) tax credits for lower-income households or c) UBI. The costs of these taxes will propagate throughout the economy and everyone will adjust their consumption accordingly.
> politically no one is going to impose them at the levels needed to discourage consumption
This seems like one of those Overton-window true-if-and-only-if-the-media-say-it's-true things, like the supposed taboo against vaccine challenge trials which was recently falsified in a poll.
> where does that money go?
To the low-income people who are supposed to be the insuperable political obstacle to carbon taxes in the first place?
Politics is hard, yes, but this Overton-window kind of reasoning just drags at any real solution to anything. It's not worth any allegiance.
"it doesn't make sense to target a specific industry"
Normally, we wouldn't want to target one line of business over another because we want the market to figure out where the most value creation is, but it's not always the case.
In this case it makes sense to target people who are literally wasting electricity for supporting a Ponzi scheme. Even if BTC or Crypto is eventually a useful medium of exchange, there's still no reason at all to waste energy in it's proliferation.
Electricity transportation, and to some extent production - is partly socialized in most countries.
The market is not 'all knowing', it's full of asymmetries, we regulate all sorts of things for that reason.
