[dylandrop]

> He has stated he's in favor of agencies which protect environment, health, water, etc. He wants market-based solutions like a carbon tax where they will work better than heavy handed regulation.

I could theoretically get behind some of that. However it doesn't look like Gary Johnson actually supports a carbon tax:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/gary-johnson-no-to-carbon-...

Perhaps the hard political position libertarians put themselves in is between the "no taxes, no regulation, ever!" conservatives and people who aspire to only have regulatory institutions where it makes sense (perhaps such as yourself). Moreover, at a certain point, it seems like market-based solutions and heavy handed regulations become essentially the same. Imagining an extreme scenario: what if you had a carbon tax of $1M per cubic meter of CO2 burned? It would certainly seem a lot like a regulation at that point.

[wallace_f]

> However it doesn't look like Gary Johnson actually supports a carbon tax:

> what if you had a carbon tax of $1M per cubic meter of CO2 burned? It would certainly seem a lot like a regulation at that point.

Wow, good point. I swear I heard him say he was in favor of it, and so I looked at the article and it mentioned he had said he was, but he changed his mind. Hmm. I remember him talking a lot about market-based solutions to environmental problems, but I guess he wasn't as committed to that idea as I thought it sounded like.

So 1 million per cubic meter of C02 = a regulation? You mean, because it would be of great burden to business with a high tax?

The thing about a tax is that it is extraordinarily more efficient than heavy-handed regulation. In-between concepts like cap-and-trade actually have actually rewarded polluters by subsidizing them, which also isn't right.

People should be rewarded for doing good things, and given disincentives for doing bad things. That's a powerful concept and I think the world would be a better place if people would get behind it in politics.

[themckman]

> People should be rewarded for doing good things, and given disincentives for doing bad things. That's a powerful concept and I think the world would be a better place if people would get behind it in politics.

I remember seeing a clip from Bernie criticizing Trump after the news broke about him "saving" (there's obviously a lot to be discuss about what actually happened) the Carrier jobs, basically saying, American companies should want to keep their jobs in America because it is the right thing to do. After hearing that, I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, you know, sure. You're right Bernie. Companies should want to do that because it's the American thing to do, but why is it such a bad idea to give companies incentive to stay?" And for the most part, I believe that's what Trump has been talking about with regards to keeping jobs in the US. It sounds to me that he is just trying to make it more expensive for companies to move their jobs overseas than to keep them here by the way of this import tariff he keeps touting. Now, of course, I have no idea how any of this plays out and turns into actual law, but the basic idea makes sense to me.

[dylandrop]

> So 1 million per cubic meter of C02 = a regulation? You mean, because it would be of great burden to business with a high tax?

I guess what I'm saying is that a tax becomes a regulation at the point where you can't afford it anymore. Also you have to realize that a carbon tax is usually on everyone -- not just corporations. In most cases that affects the lowest people on the totem pole more than the higher ups. You have to realize that for certain people, what you say is "disincentivising" is actually materially affecting their ability to live. If you were to try to distribute that disincentivizing evenly across the totem pole, I'd be on board with it.

[wallace_f]

Ya for that reason most pro-carbon tax economists already are saying it should come with a rebate to lower income groups. That solves that problem (it is well-known).