This proposal has four issues: 1. the additional tax only makes sense if the existing taxes are inefficiently low; 2. Is this idea not already implemented in the various cap-and-trade agreements? 3. what stops producers from transferring the tax onto consumers? 4. Who is the real polluter? I discuss these questions here: http://wp.me/p3yx1u-9I.
Thank you for these nice insights. An article with similar ideas has been written by Sian Sullivan on http://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/, entitled "Should nature have to prove its value?". A discussion on why nature gets more and more monetarized can be found here http://wp.me/p3yx1u-4A.
Overall I am missing the point that nowadays a price tends to get put on nature in order to efficiently internalize externalities. How is one supposed to be able to know the value of nature if one does not place a price on it?
China is starting that war on subsidies now, or at least trying to rescue its failing solar giants, see http://grist.org/news/china-plans-a-major-solar-spree/#.UeWgL_EHoVQ.twitter and discussions http://wp.me/p3yx1u-48 and http://wp.me/p3yx1u-4y.
Within the space of just weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered how billions of people carry out their day-to-day lives. To understand the sheer scale of these effects, there is no better guide than a map.
maps out the economic, political, and social impact of the COVID-19 crisis worldwide.
After a gradual decade-long
democratization process, Myanmar’s military seized power again in February and is waging a ruthless crackdown against unarmed civilian protesters. A major escalation of the ongoing turmoil – civil war is a growing possibility – would have implications far beyond the country’s borders.