Carbon tax made some sense when we were merely trying to reduce the use of carbon-based fuel a little.
It makes no sense when the target is zero carbon-based fuel.
A small tax on carbon-based fuel, when there’s A LOT, generates meaningful revenue. This revenue can be used for new programs, even to subsidize wind and solar, or to reduce other taxes. (I favored the later.)
BUT the tax on carbon-based fuel generates no revenue when the goal is zero use of carbon-based fuel. (This is a general rule in economics, and is called the Laffer Curve. A small tax generates lots of revenue, but a bog tax generates little or no revenue.)
GIVEN the goal of zero, actually, net zero emissions, the strategy should be something like growing trees. Growing trees will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, offsetting the emission of CO2 from the burning of carbon-based fuel, getting us to net zero.
If a carbon tax is for the purpose of, e.g., irrigating deserts and semi-arid regions so as to promote the growth of tress, then a tax of maybe 25 cents per gallon of gasoline would do the job.
We wouldn’t need any subsidies for wind or solar. Plus, we could get America’s energy sector back to work.
Trees.
Remember, Trump committed us to the Trillion Tree March. This commitment, if fulfilled, would totally eliminate all human-emitted CO2 since the industrial revolution got underway.
Trump had climate change right.
Makes no sense since China will keep on polluting the world as fast as countries reduce their carbon.