A carbon tax is in itself not that bad on its own . . . it is the capacity of the billions to fall into misuse, corruption, etc. . . who will administer the tax, who will decide to allocate the monies . . . it is all way too complex to work . . . when carbon fuels get too expensive then alternatives will evolve on their own . . . start with removing catalytic converters which produce NOx . . . that would reduce a very destructive greenhouse gas . . .
By the time carbon fuels get too expensive, then it will be too late to do anything about the carbon emissions. The market cannot adjust to this by itself.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm
I'd be happy to put the EPA in charge, and have them mandate emissions reductions like under the clean air act, but if a carbon tax is the only option then I'll take it. It's no more likely to result in corruption than any other tax or excise.External Quote:Putting a price on carbon emissions is often discussed as one of the main solutions to anthropogenic global warming. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and in economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality – a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that climate change represents "the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen."