This is downvoted but is actually a good take.

A failure mode of environmentalism is attaching it to random other progressive ideas. "Let's have a carbon tax and use it to fund universal healthcare!" I want a carbon tax, and I want universal healthcare, AND I want them to be completely disjoint. I will argue for each independently on their merits.

Otherwise both magnify each others' vulnerabilities. For example, say universal health care is funded through a carbon tax, and this tax works really well and emissions plummet. Now universal health care suffers? What a stupid outcome!

Robust government programs are independent with separate funding (see Social Security). Make a big carbon tax, have it fund an equally big carbon dividend, and run it independently from everything else on the progressive or conservative wish list.

This cuts the other way too. No, a carbon tax should not fund conservative pet projects like eliminating capital gains. That has to live or die on its own merits, not tied to environmentalism. The carbon tax must be its own thing to endure.

Hypothecation and/or ring fencing is generally bad policy anyway, but it has a certain appeal.

Here it’s mostly seen when people argue that road taxes (VED) and fuel taxes should be spent on roads.

I’m with Churchill on the one: “Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense…Such contentions are absurd, and constitute…an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense.”

Churchill has a pleasant way with words, but the logic of argument simply boils down to "no u". Not everyone agrees that parliament is sole sovereign over citizens' lives. Many believe that Parliament's legitimacy derives from consent of the governed, and that taxes should be justified for a purpose, not arbitrary demonstrations of "might makes right".

Ironically, if the U.S. had national healthcare system for which the government had to pay directly, it may not have been basically the only country on Earth to reject climate change.

Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs. The U.S. doesn't because it doesn't pay for it directly - it's the citizens themselves that have to pay for it.

Ultimately, the U.S. economy is still negatively impacted by an unhealthy population/workers, but since it's not a direct impact for which the government has to pay out of its tax funds, it doesn't care nearly as much about that impact.

>Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs

It doesn't work that way in practice. It's a weird argument and nobody would ever buy it as there is no obvious cognitive (and politically valid) path from climate change policy to healthcare policy. This is true for America, and Canada and Australia and I suspect every other country.

Also, your underlying assumption, that the American government either has no incentive or is uncaring with respect to keeping the American public health, is just wrong and probably betrays your ideology. Both parties, Dems and GOP, care about people.

Medicare and Medicaid together are the federal government’s biggest expense. That’s not counting other federal health care spending, like VA or ACA related items, nor does it count state contributions to Medicaid. Or CHIP for that matter.

About 20% of Americans have Medicaid, and about 20% have Medicare. There is some, but not much, overlap, so the total percentage doesn’t hit 40%. Health care needs to be better in the US, but it’s misleading to suggest that huge amounts (trillions of dollars) of government money aren’t already being spent on it.

If you look at the numbers, the various levels of government in the US spend more on healthcare, as a percent of GDP, than most(all?) European countries. So if this was a thing that would push policy on climate change, it would be a bigger lever in the US than in Europe.

the government is the citizens. The government has no money of its own, and can't pay for healthcare without taking the money first from the citizens.

The tax should be used for undoing the destruction caused to the environment.

This is the problemn and you illustrate it perfectly. If you propose a plan that introduces a carbon tax with the revenue returned back to the economy, progressives will attempt to kill it. For progressives, an environmental policy is only sound if it goes with massive government expansion. Nobody cares about the environment. It is always ideology first.

Governments to determine policy goals, design efficient markets.

Taxes to discourage undesirable behavior.

Investments to encourage desired behavior, outcomes.

Regulation to ensure markets are fair, safe, competitive.

They're just tools. Why all the fuss?

Why do people keep arguing about the tools? eg "Taxes are theft!"

Is it because some don't want to argue about the policy?

The point of a carbon tax is to fund and/or incentivize research into non-carbon energy production, or carbon removal technology. If you just offset other taxes, for a tax-neutral result, then there's no (macro) tax incentive so how does that happen?

market competition leads to better manufacturing techniques that avoid the tax. Local optimization leads to global optimization. To argue otherwise would be to argue that taxes overall have no effect on business behavior, which is clearly false.

I don't know why you are being downvoted. We are seeing gasoline tax money moving to other budgets (not env, not energy) in my country.

No. The point is not the revenue, the point is to eliminate the market distorting externalities. If anything, this is actually a free market solution.

No, a tax is not a free market solution, it's the exact opposite.

A carbon tax is specifically imposed to force markets to consider externalities. That is a free market solution. The opposite would be quotas and bans.

I actually favor quotas and bans to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.

The problem with the externalities argument is that nobody really knows what they cost. A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreement on price in buy / sell transactions. A tax representing the "externality" is just a politically made-up number. So it's sort of free market but not really.

> The problem with the externalities argument is that nobody really knows what they cost.

One asks to what degree do we not know the costs? And these costs aren't ketchup economic prices but actual primary environmental effects. You can't buy your way out of those by having the central bank provide more liquidity.

> A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreement on price in buy / sell transactions.

This is worse because the market not only has no way to price these cost but it is _blind_ to them. That you don't realize this means you think 'free markets' are 'magical'

> A tax representing the "externality" is just a politically made-up number. So it's sort of free market but not really.

FTI: Your free markets don't exist without politics.

> This is worse because the market not only has no way to price these cost but it is _blind_ to them. That you don't realize this means you think 'free markets' are 'magical'

Not the guy you're replying to, but you're wrong. This isn't a debate about effectiveness, it's about whether the tax is a free market solution or not. No one is arguing that the market isn't blind to it; this very well could be a case of a market failure and a tax may very well be the correct solution, it is not however a free market solution. A tax is government interference in the market and is by definition not a free market solution.

> That is a free market solution.

No, it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions. End of story. Taxes are government interference in the market; this isn't debatable, it's just a fact.

A tax is only opposite a free market to the extent that it distorts the market. The more direct and simple the tax, the freer the market. And when the tax is directly addressing externalities that are normally not paid, it makes the market less distorted.

> And when the tax is directly addressing externalities that are normally not paid, it makes the market less distorted.

Agree, but that doesn't make the tax a free market solution. A free market solution would be a solution from the market, not a government imposed tax.

Totally off topic. But I’m curious. With your line of thinking I guess all gonverment imposed rules are anti free market.

So if we remove those completely, take away rule of law, abolish property rights and all of that.

Would there then exist a market to speak of at all? Would it be “free”?

Markets exist with or without government, governments make markets more stable and handle cases of market failures, and markets do fail. But under no case is government intervention a free market solution. Lack of government does not abolish rules or property rights, it just changes how those things are enforced as it leaves everyone to defend their own property and it leaves enforcement of rules to private security forces.

I'm not claiming government intervention isn't good; I'm simply arguing you can't call it a free market solution, because it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions.

What would be the process for establishing rules?

Briefly.

A carbon tax is the most market-friendly approach on the table, so is de facto the free market solution, short of "do nothing."

No. While it may be the most market friendly approach, it's not a free market approach. There is not de facto free market solution, it's entirely possible the free market has no solution; that does not make the best available solution a market solution.

How will you lower the transaction costs enough that it's practical for polluters to pay compensation directly to all >7 billion victims?

One can agree that the tax should be implemented without agreeing with its categorization as a free market solution.

"Solution that maximally utilizes the free market to sort out the details and implementation", perhaps?

Then we can avoid disagreement over the definition of "free market solution"

Finally, someone who actually understands the conversation being had. Absolutely correct; carbon taxes might be the best solution available, but they are not a free market solution.

You seem to be the only one in this thread with the clarity of thought to see the obvious.

It is a market solution.

No, the opposite would be confiscating your oil by force. Compared to that, taxing the externalities is extremely free market.

Why is this being downvoted? It’s factually accurate.

The implication that “actually, it’s all the lib’s fault” is absurd.

Two wings, same bird.