>>1918467You can also reduce emissions by forcing people making pollution to stop doing what they are doing.
Carbon tax is the more "correct" way, in the sense of basic economics, because it gives zero fucks about what is making the emissions, it just says "we need do less of that across the board." Damn near all economists agree, according to established economic theories about government interference in markets.
It's about saying "releasing carbon costs us all money (through extreme weather events, climate change, fines and penalties under international treaties, climate refugees, etc...). If you are going to release carbon, then you need to pay us back for the damage you're doing. It will be a fixed dollar amount no matter what you're doing."
No one pays less money per metric ton of carbon emissions. No one has to pay extra money per metric ton of carbon emissions.
No handouts to favourite industries to help them "decarbonize." Because then you are saying "some of you are more valuable than others." Even worse, you're paying for those handouts from taxes, so you're taking money away from everyone to give it to a handful of people.
>consumersYes, they should pay if they are wanting to do things that release carbon, like taking planes or driving cars.
>kill the domestic industryIf your domestic industries are shit and can't afford the carbon tax, yes, they should fucking die! Die! Die! Die! They may be producing something valuable, but they are releasing carbon that far eclipses the value of their product.
If my hobby was ripping $300 of copper wire out of street lights and making $50 in bracelets to sell at the farmers market, the city should absolutely sue my fucking ass for it. The product is in no way equivalent to the value of what it's destroying. There's no way I could reach an agreement to pay the city for their wire at a fair price. My hobby only exists because I can get away with theft.
