▲ | jdenning 10 hours ago | |||||||
What's the point of a carbon tax if it's balanced by a government subsidy? Edit: Genuinely curious what I'm missing.. | ||||||||
▲ | addcommitpush 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Low carbon farms balance would be: "low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax High carbon farms balance would be: "high carbon" profit + subsidy - high carbon tax If ["low carbon" profit - small carbon tax] > ["high carbon" profit - high carbon tax] (e.g. if the carbon tax is high enough), farms have an incentive to lower their carbon emissions. The subsidy is here to make sure ["low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax] > 0 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | bramblerose 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
The subsidy could be independent from the carbon emissions (e.g. by subsidies on the produced goods) while the carbon tax isn't, effectively creating an incentive to produce in a less carbon intensive manner. | ||||||||
▲ | dukeyukey an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
You tax the carbon (something you want less of) and you subsidise something else you want more of. So you might end up with the average farmer not having a change of costs, but still disincentivising stuff we don't want e.g. carbon emissions. | ||||||||
▲ | chgs 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
If I can make 1 unit of food for €50 and use 50 tons of carbon, or make it for €60 and use 10 tons of carbon, a carbon tax and food subsidy would allow me to sell that €60 low carbon food for €50 and force me to sell the high carbon food for €60 This gives an economic incentive to use the lower carbon method, funded by those who use more carbon, while not changing the end price or output. | ||||||||
|