Metsfanmax wrote:Freedom of choice. No one would put up with an absolute ban on a such a widely used product in this country (cf. Prohibition), so it would likely be political suicide to try and push for one. Cigarette taxes are indeed a combination of both an effective revenue-raising tool and a tool to help keep the public health cared for, as the link demonstrated. You're making an inaccurate assumption about the way smokers operate. It is simply not the case that everyone is a hardcore addict that will pay whatever price they need to continue smoking. As they point out, one obvious reason why high taxes keep smoking rates down is that it often convinces people who are not yet smokers to stay away, or those who once smoked and no longer do from getting re-addicted. Of course this doesn't work on everyone, but there's a smooth relationship there -- the more you raise taxes, the more people you stop from smoking, and the right balance needs to be found.
The two links you've provided in this regard don't actually show any causation evidence. There aren't even quotes from ex-smokers saying "I quit because smoking is too expensive." I'm sure there are people who quit smoking because it's too expensive and because of health risks, but I simply don't know how many people quit smoking merely because the tax increases from 5 cents to 20 cents on a pack of cigarettes. I have anecdotal evidence - I was a smoker - and I quit because of health risks, not because of the cost. And a government does not need to raise the tax to 100%; if the government was interested more in dramatically reducing tobacco use (and not in generating revenue) it could raise a tax that was prohibitively expensive that is less than 100%. For example, raise the tax from 5 cents to $3.00 a pack (so that a pack now costs upwards of $15). Additionally, and maybe more importantly, tobacco costs more or less depending on the jurisdiction.
In the case of carbon emmissions, we don't live in a perfect government world. The government wants polluters to exist and therefore any tax on carbon emmissions, in my opinion, will be based primarily on revenue generated and not on "the right balance" as you put it. I guess we'll see, but even politicians ardently in favor of reduced pollution levels and the carbon emmission tax still receive funds and are lobbied by polluters.
Metsfanmax wrote:Your assumption about the carbon tax is incorrect. The market does not work like that. It doesn't need to be impossible to continue developing oil and natural gas for a shift in the industry to occur. All that needs to happen is for competing technologies to operate on a level playing field (which they currently don't). The price for carbon is artificially low because the global warming externality is not accounted for in the price. When we are paying the correct price for it, other technologies will naturally appear more viable, and the industry will gradually shift toward the better technology.
I also only advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Pigovian taxation inherently requires that the money be returned to consumers to offset the damage that would otherwise be done to them. I would not be as happy with a bill where the government kept some of the revenue (though I recognize this is difficult to achieve in Congress these days). But I also think global warming is a concern, and perhaps in this case perfect is the enemy of the good.
See above (and you know my inherent distrust of government). The other problem is that consumers will bear the burden of any carbon tax. That may be a good thing (I think it is in the context of trying to reduce pollution - if I need to pay more for coal electricity than wind electricity because of carbon taxes, I'm purchasing wind electricty). But people inherently don't like to pay more for stuff via taxes (even cigarettes). In any event, as you've noted a revenue-neutral tax is difficult to achieve in Congress. Further, we need only look to the energy generation industry to find issues with rent-seeking.
Metsfanmax wrote:I would say that describing a coal miner or truck driver as "causing" the pollution is simply inappropriate, since they would not be driving the truck or mining the coal if someone else didn't want them to do so. But yes, I understand that some people will have to transition careers. This happens whenever a technology becomes antiquated. I can't control the fact that fossil fuels are dangerous and inherently nonrenewable. Eventually these people will lose their jobs either way -- I just want to speed up the timeline for that transition, for the safety of our species. And it doesn't have to be so bad for the coal miners anyway.
I don't disagree that consumers create the demand fulfilled by coal miners and truck drivers. And ultimately what you're going to tell me is that consumers should pay for retraining of the coal miners and truck drivers that they've demanded over the period of time. I tend to be in favor of retraining programs (generally), but get a little concerned when businesses don't bear the burden of the cost (where the government does). But I like it better than the alternative (which is unemployment compensation).
Metsfanmax wrote:I'm in favor of the market working as it ought to, and it currently doesn't. Pigovian taxation is one of the obvious mechanisms that government actually exists to perform.
At the risk of being BBS-ian (and incurring foe-ish wrath), why do you think the market doesn't work? My theory (untested and unproven) is that the free market doesn't work because the businesses that generate the pollution and the government work in tandem, rather than separately. In other words, I don't blame the market, I blame the individual business's influence on government to prevent competition, especially from cleaner forms of energy usage. As just one example and without getting into details, most electricity generation is highly regulated, including with respect to price. Why? To keep costs down for consumers. Why? So that consumers will continue to buy electricity that is generated by polluters. How does it happen? Lobbying, money, rent-seeking. Until these are removed, the free market cannot work. If my choices are electricity from a polluter that costs $1.00 (because of government intervention) compared to electricity from a wind farm that costs $3.00, I'm buying the former, not the latter.
Another quick example - when the U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry when down the shitter in 2009, the U.S. government bailed it out. Why did it not attach stringent pollution control measures to that bailout?
