What school of economics is this perspective from? I'm not aware of it. Isn't a tax on "Externalities" simply using some politically correct claim as an excus

What school of economics is this perspective from? I'm not aware of it. Isn't a tax on "Externalities" simply using some politically correct claim as an excuse to take money? EG: if the government puts a tax on production for "pollution", what reason is there to believe the money isn't just being taken to profit the politicians? Its not like they spend the money on abating pollution. Finally, I think there really is no such thing as an "Externality". If you build a plant next door that is polluting, you're going to owe me money. This is an internality, it is part of your operating cost. I will sue you, and in any fair system, the damage you do to my persons or property is something I can recoup. If you're afraid that the ability to sue for such damages is impaired, then get rid of the EPA and other government regulations that provide cover for this pollution. Lawsuits are a form of market pricing of the cost of doing wrong. And generally, most businesses will try not to do wrong because it is a lot easier to just do things right the first time than face the liability of injuring people or property. of course, removing limitations on liability is important for this. IF that's what you meant by a "Tax on externalities" then great.