• snowdriftissue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Yeah a carbon tax would be much more effective. Policy that only informs consumers is generally not very impactful.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I mean, alternative means of mass transit would be the most effective policy. But we can’t even get a rail line between Houston and Dallas, despite the airspace maxing out and there existing an enormous profitable and general economic benefit to its construction.

      Taxes keep the marginal participant out of the market. But the real goal should be to move people and cargo at maximal efficiency, not just to hobble lower income travelers with a consumption tax.

      • snowdriftissue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        alternative means of mass transit would be the most effective policy.

        Why not both?

        between Houston and Dallas

        Isn’t this article about UK?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Why not both?

          You’d absolutely need to do both, unless you wanted all sorts of malformed incentives.

          Generally speaking, the revenue from a pigouvian tax needs to be spent mitigating the problem that generates the revenue. Otherwise, you end up with something of a Cobra Problem, wherein excess consumption is seen as a revenue driver that the state subtly promotes.

          Isn’t this article about UK?

          I’m just speaking from personal experience.

          If you want to talk shit about the UK, you can always point to HS2. Cancelled out of spite by the outgoing Conservative government. Chronic mismanagement of the rail network has been a lead weight around the British economy for decades.