[zacherates]

This is actually the beauty of a carbon tax. Instead of trying to figure out all the costs, you tax pumping the carbon out of the ground and then let the prices flow through the economy.

That way you don't have to try to figure it out as an individual you just end up comparing Amazon's delivery prices to a tank of gas, which you're doing anyway because you already have to manage your own budget.

[benhurmarcel]

But then the state needs to estimate the carbon emission of every imported good and service.

[jogjayr]

Nope. Read that comment again. Tax the carbon coming out of the ground. That's easy to measure - it's however many barrels of petroleum or nat gas or coal is being sold. The effects of that tax cascade through the rest of the economy.

[benhurmarcel]

You can't tax carbon coming out of the ground in other countries.

If I produce something and emit carbon in a foreign country, then import that thing into your country, you need to make sure that import gets taxed on the emitted carbon. So you need to estimate that emitted carbon.

Your proposal only works if every single country worldwide agrees to tax carbon at the same rate, and effectively applies it.

[jogjayr]

Levy tariffs against countries that don't tax carbon at the same rate.

[jmole]

A carbon tax is only effective for climate/carbon mitigation if the tax revenue is reserved for those kinds of efforts - which historically has been difficult to achieve.

[davidw]

That doesn't make sense. A carbon tax works because it makes more carbon-intensive activities/goods relatively more expensive compared with less carbon-intensive activities/goods, so you're giving people a financial incentive to use less of it.

[benhurmarcel]

No, that's not the case. A carbon tax is effective regardless of the use of the revenue.