Is it not essentially a Pigovian tax? I assumed (perhaps naively) that that is exactly what it is. What aspects of it make you think differently?
> It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen
Maybe, but the intention behind it is irrelevant isn't it? If the benefits outweigh the costs then we should do it. If not, not.
Just because some (or most) of the green movement wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption for agrarian-socialist reasons doesn't automatically make reducing fossil fuel consumption a bad idea, does it?
> It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen
Maybe, but the intention behind it is irrelevant isn't it? If the benefits outweigh the costs then we should do it. If not, not.
Just because some (or most) of the green movement wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption for agrarian-socialist reasons doesn't automatically make reducing fossil fuel consumption a bad idea, does it?