2 ms·
If it costs $100 to remove, then that should set the price. If you can set a reasoned price on a externality then charging anything less is subsidizing the pol
by grayfaced 5y ago
If it costs $100 to remove, then that should set the price. If you can set a reasoned price on a externality then charging anything less is subsidizing the pollution.
- novok 5y agoI agree that creating an upper bound price is powerful, because it economically incentivizes those companies to figure out cheaper ways to save on that tax, like not emitting in the first place :p
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoWhy not look at it as costing $10 of externalities plus $90 worth of steel bars that you’re preventing? That combination would make a $100 removal cost a good goal. Or at least something that includes both the positive (stuff is good, jobs are good) and negative externalities (carbon is bad).