Tim Worstall

Alex Hilton

First, he entirely and completely misses the point about Pigouvian taxation. Then he proposes this:

Another step government can take is bold regulation. If a law is passed
banning the sale of domestic combustion engines from 2020 and the use
of such engines from 2025, then the government will have provided a
market for auto manufacturers, enough time in which to prepare for it,
and a statement of global leadership that could influence other
nations. And this is just one of many steps that could be taken.

I think I preferred it when he was on MaggieWatch actually.

In

9 responses

  1. Peter Risdon Avatar
    Peter Risdon

    The “use of” bit is silly, but what’s your objection to the first proposal? I’ve been arguing it around the web for about four years.
    Tim adds: Anyone really want politicians deciding which technologies we may use? Given the idiocies surrounding ethanol and light bulbs, just as recent examples?

    Reply
  2. Peter Risdon Avatar
    Peter Risdon

    That’s the whole point – of course we don’t. But that’s not the suggestion. A nudge towards the next technology shift while staying entirely agnostic about what it might be is a different matter, and wholly preferable to the current crop of anti-CO2 measures. This idea is to announce a future guaranteed market for alternative technologies, then stand back to leave the market to sort it out.
    Tim adds: Yes, but banning an extant technology on hte bureaucrats say so is still silly.

    Reply
  3. Peter Risdon Avatar
    Peter Risdon

    The alternative right now seems to be the regulation and pricing of extant technologies beyond the reach of increasing numbers of people, coupled with deeply intrusive micro-management of people’s lives.

    Reply
  4. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    Argh! Why, when Stern says, and Bruun agrees, that we should put a levy on emitted CO2 and then let the costs wash through the market to find the optimal way of reacting to this, do people insist on this Stalinist central planning?
    Is it perhaps because they believe that Stalinist central planning results in a better working economy, or greater good, or more happiness, or more equality, or something? That they want to be the central planner and are happy to hitch this ideology to any convenient issue?
    The Road to Serfdom..

    Reply
  5. Kit Avatar
    Kit

    Typical, you offer them Pigouvian taxation which has ample opportunity for rent-seeking and bureaucracy. And they are still not satisfied.

    Reply
  6. Alex Hilton Avatar
    Alex Hilton

    Pigou defined his own limits to the practical application of his taxation model.

    Reply
  7. AntiCitizenOne Avatar
    AntiCitizenOne

    Can we ban CO2 production (exhalation) from Authoritarian Socialists?

    Reply
  8. Bishop Hill Avatar
    Bishop Hill

    “Pigou defined his own limits to the practical application of his taxation model.”
    And these were?

    Reply
  9. Alex Hilton Avatar
    Alex Hilton

    Ah Bishop Hill
    They keep that kind of information well concealed. In books.
    Tim adds: Books which we must assume that the August Sir Nicholas Stern has read and understood before he, in his Review, recommended the use of Pigouvian taxation as the solution?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading