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.
Coordinated cross-border policies are needed to ensure that cryptocurrencies don’t do more harm than good in developing countries. Unless both the public and private sectors embrace critical reforms, people and governments will increasingly be attracted by low-cost, high-risk, and murky alternatives to traditional banking.
questions the wisdom of El Salvador’s recent decision to adopt the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
The United Kingdom’s vote in a referendum on June 23, 2016,to leave the European Union delivered a sharp populist shock to the political establishment there and throughout the West. Five years on, the consequences of that decision, for both the UK and EU, are coming more sharply into focus.