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.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused hunger to spike, highlighting the need for radical reforms of the global food system to ensure its long-term resilience. But many fear that the United Nations Food Systems Summit on September 23 will entrench the current inequitable status quo instead of delivering real change.
Quantitative easing risks generating its own boom-and-bust cycles, and can thus be seen as an example of state-created financial instability. Governments must now abandon the fiction that central banks create money independently from government, and must themselves spend the money created at their behest.
explains why a decade of quantitative easing by central banks has merely fueled financial instability.