3 ms·

Even granting the first sentence, the second doesn't follow. Some sources of oil are cheaper or easier to get to than others; you could put a 100% enforceable b

• DennisP 11y ago
  But in the real world a simple limit can't be enforced. We're unlikely to avoid going over the limit unless we put a price on carbon emissions to make burning fossil fuels more expensive. Searching for cheaper fossil fuels is exactly the opposite course of action.
  • eru 11y ago
    Why? Even with a price on carbon, you'd still want to burn the cheapest oil.
    • DennisP 11y ago
      If oil is cheaper on average, you need a higher price on carbon to have the same effect. If you manage to get that higher price, the end result is the same as if your cost of production didn't drop in the first place. So why invest in dropping the cost of production?
      • eru 11y ago
        You are mixing up different actors. At a given tax, the consumer and producer want the lowest production cost. At fixed price to the consumer, the government wants the lowest production cost, so that the tax can be higher.
        • DennisP 11y ago
          That's assuming the government's goal is to raise revenue. A lot of carbon tax proposals are revenue neutral, with the goal of achieving specific carbon reductions. Fossil fuel producers may still compete with each other on cost but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they're somehow benefiting society by doing that.