It is better to tax the negative outcome, because then the choices about what replaces it are not being made directly by the government, and that can reduce cos

It is better to tax the negative outcome, because then the choices about what replaces it are not being made directly by the government, and that can reduce costs and to an extent scale up more quickly. But, US politics seems too dysfunctional for a carbon tax, so unfortunately we’re left with deciding whether to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.