Ok, but if you don't want to impose a constant rate, what does that
figure of $25-30 per tonne of carbon dioxide then apply to?
Suppose, for coal, an equivalent subsidy was considered for its energy
independence and social benefits (saving the jobs of miners in areas of
Germany the Social Democrats hold very dear), isn't it much easier to
just have no tax and no subsidy?
And likewise for gasoline, why add another layer of complexity? Why not
just fold it into the general decision as to what the best level of the
gasoline tax should be?
And finally, what is the "no brainer" decision then that you were
talking about that policy makers aren't making even though it's such a
"no brainer"?
I am left a little bit confused as to what you are actually proposing
that is different from what is in fact widely done.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
