Many points to ponder here in the full article. I'll just pull out a few for now:
A carbon tax is one way of reducing carbon pollution but is “tax” the best term. After the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Telegraph reported BP faces up to $18bn fines after Gulf of Mexico ‘gross negligence’ ruling. The oil spill pollution was fined not taxed. Carbon emissions are similarly pollution. A better word to use here is “fine” not “tax”.
The Kaya identity predicts global CO2 emissions in relation to population,energy and world economic output. An important term in the identity is the one that relates CO2 emissions and energy (CO2/energy). This term may be reducing but this is not reducing fast enough to offset the effect of increased world economic output.
Economic growth is causing increased carbon emissions.
If we are to curb carbon emissions quickly we must almost certainly have a period of significantly reduced economic activity (as measured by conventional means) i.e. a recession.
Need a recession increase unemployment?
A high enough carbon tax will cut carbon emissions and a high enough tax rebate will reduce unemployment – for the low-paid at least.
In my view the big bonus of less consumption (in its current form) is that it increases the chance of the world surviving catastrophic climate change. Do take a quick look at Last Hours and if you have a hour to spend watch the presentation by John Jackson, Common Hour: Ocean Apocalypse Now.
I think it is time to place more emphasis on policies that can cut consumption and still maintain good levels of employment.
Briefly Tax carbon and subsidise jobs but if the carbon tax isn’t enough under the CVR scheme the nominal rate of VAT can be increased to pay for the subsidies.