You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

OrphanWilde comments on How should negative externalities be handled? (Warning: politics) - Less Wrong Discussion

-5 Post author: nigerweiss 08 May 2013 09:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (131)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 09 May 2013 05:19:31PM 2 points [-]

If your goal is long-term reduction in CO2 emissions, you've introduced market volatility. The goal of any such measure is to reduce CO2 emissions, but the -mechanism- by which it does so is encouraging research into alternatives. If the market is volatile, the value of any such research is called into question; tomorrow it might be valuable, it might be worthless. A tax, by comparison, has a fairly static value. The cap-and-trade measure, through its volatility, increases the risk of investment into reducing carbon emissions; the value of your investment isn't determined by the degree to which you can reduce carbon, but by the amount of carbon emitted in the market as a whole.

Unless we assume some level of carbon emission is better than no carbon emission, the tax scheme is better.