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.
argues that social-safety nets must be customized and targeted to ensure efficiency, advocates a more responsible approach to deficit reduction and fiscal consolidation, describes the complex recipe for helping countries reap the benefits of greater female labor-force participation, and more.
The spectacular rise and fall of FTX and its founder Sam Bankman-Fried were driven by effective marketing, trickery, and financial speculation. In that, they bear a striking resemblance to the disastrous eighteenth-century experiment that fueled the Mississippi Company bubble and created the template for all future Ponzi schemes.
draws parallels between the FTX collapse and economist John Law’s infamous eighteenth-century scheme in France.