4 ms·
IMO, as long as the tax is inline with the actual external costs it of other forms of energy generation it's not a bad thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext
by onemoreact 15y ago
IMO, as long as the tax is inline with the actual external costs it of other forms of energy generation it's not a bad thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) It's basically renaming a sin tax as a green subsidy but there is value in having that tax even if it's revenue is mostly wasted.
- scarmig 15y agoI agree in principle with the idea that carbon-based energy has a ton of negative externalities (megatons, in fact...), so there should exist a relative subsidy between it and green. The issue is that creates even distortion between the energy sector as a whole and the rest of the economy, since fossil fuels are already subsidized (through not pricing in the negative externality) and we're adding a separate subsidy to green energy. So we're distorting the market to favor creating green energy over reduced consumption of energy. When what's really needed is simply an effective tax on carbon, and then let people decide the most efficient way to respond.
- onemoreact 15y agoI think they are taxing existing energy sources to pay for the subsidy so on net people using electricity pay the actual cost for green power and other sources based on the actual mix of energy sources used in production. It only the producers who notice the cost difference this tax / subsidy creates.