3 ms·
They count as subsidies the difference between optimal carbon taxation and current taxation. Which in some analyses needs to be counted but subsidies can be a
by JamesBarney 7y ago
They count as subsidies the difference between optimal carbon taxation and current taxation. Which in some analyses needs to be counted but subsidies can be a misleading term for it.
- Wohlf 7y agoThat is an incredibly misleading definition, to the point the term loses all meaning. It would be more honest to say "by not accounting for all negative externalities".
- alexandercrohde 7y agoAgreed. I think externalities need to be accounted for, but regardless, intentionally using misleading language "for the right cause" is never justified imho.
- gridlockd 7y agoEven if we counted it as subsidies, the calculation would still be complete bogus, or "controversial" as the paper puts it. It goes like this: Take the "excess death" figure from the WHO (already a questionable number) and multiply it by the "economic value" of that person. That would be two million dollars for an Australian, $300,000 for a Chinese person and still about a $100,000 for someone from Tanzania. In other words, we're not assuming those excess deaths are the old and sickly who eventually succumb to a lifetime of pollution, but the young and healthy who have decades worth of earnings ahead of them.