| >I don’t think taxes would work: they would merely increase prices provide incentives to develop technologies leading to more Javon’s paradox, as you said. The only solution I see is banning extraction. 1. Not all technological developments contribute the the Javon's paradox. I can see how more fuel efficient engines contributes to that, but electric cars (along with renewable energy generation) don't. 2. the point of taxes isn't solely to eliminate fossil fuels, it's also to provide compensation for the damage that fossil fuels create. If we determine that a tonne of carbon emitted causes $100 worth of damage, and we levy a $100 tax on carbon, that means governments can fully offset the damage. That makes for a far better state of affairs, even if we continue burning fossil fuels. I'll even go as far to say that it's a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. >The only solution I see is banning extraction. But banning something? Unthinkable! It's unthinkable for good reason. What do you do about critical industries that depend on fossil fuels? The whole point of carbon pricing is to use the market to force the least efficient/easiest to switch carbon users to stop emitting carbon, so that the costs of transitioning is as low as possible. >I wonder why I still strive to limit my carbon footprint. Nobody’s impressed nor inspired by my behaviour. Most of what you said applies to voting as well. Do you also wonder why you vote in elections? |