Home Climate Change If Only Ecologists Understood The Carbon Tax

If Only Ecologists Understood The Carbon Tax



It’s entirely true that there are differences between grey hydrogen, blue and green. The production methods, obviously, given that that’s what those colours are trying to delineate. We can also argue about whether this matters or not. There are some who just say sod the whole idea. Others who wet their pants at the idea that anyone might trade off the boiling future for the sake of warmth now. Chacun a son gout and all that.

What really does annoy though is the manner in which so many fail to understand the solution – if there is a problem there which needs a solution – so many economists agree upon. We have the example of Richard Murphy touting another grant grabbing exercise in his new accounting for climate change, whatever acronym he’s thought up for that.

His insistence is that all companies must detail how they’re to become carbon neutral in their accounts. He also insists that we cannot have a carbon tax. Which is odd. Because a carbon tax immediately puts all emissions into the accounts of companies. That’s actually the point of the carbon tax. The costs of emissions are now in market prices so that the costs of emissions alter peoples’ decisions. Very cool and all that.

But someone worrying about accounts and emissions should be able to make the next step, which is that accounts are done at market prices. So, if market prices now include emissions costs then all accounts now include emissions cost. We immediately see who cannot stay in business as a result of their emissions, whether they’re embedded in their supply chain, their own processes or even in the use of their output – for if users cannot afford the output then they will go bust anyway.

We see this in the maunderings of ecologists too:

In the face of the big push by governments and companies to claim hydrogen as a low carbon fuel, better quality information is needed.

So before a penny is handed to companies producing hydrogen, is no-one going to ask them for a proper inventory of current output? Is anyone going to check what they are doing about their share of the 830 mt a year of CO2 emissions?

Where is the evidence that this hydrogen spending spree would be more effective than demand-side solutions – such as insulating homes so that they don’t need much heat, and providing the heat that’s needed with electric pumps, as trade unionists in Leeds propose?

Unless such questions are asked, we can take the hydrogen hype as a reminder that governments’ decarbonisation strategies are aimed chiefly at concealing the lack of progress towards decarbonisation.

Unless such questions are asked, we can be sure that hydrogen is being used not to cut carbon emissions at the speed required, but to support the powerful companies that use it, and make them look greener than they are.

All of that’s exactly what a carbon tax does. The costs of the emissions to produce the hydrogen are now in market prices. As are the costs of insulation and the costs of not-insulation. Exactly by pricing emissions we gain the answers to all the questions being asked.

Of course, this is the reason why both the dim and the prodnoses refuse to consider a carbon tax. The dim because they can;t see it and the prodnoses because it passes over the prod and the nose to impartial market forces rather than to those who would rule and prod others. Both of which are good reasons to have the carbon tax and declare the problem solved – as it would be with a carbon tax.



  1. Well, when is my petrol gonna get cheaper?

    And..why is there no demonstrated proof of the CO2 warming hypothesis? It can’t be reproduced in the lab or shown in the outside world to be happening as described.

  2. If only people understood the carbon tax is a huge piece of fuckwittery, because it is predicated on a belief that global warming is a bad thing, and it is all caused by burning fossil fuels – which is another level of fuckwittery.

    • If only people understand that if the carbon tax worked at all e.g. a ballpoint has to write and a loo roll has to wipe– if it worked at all then “climate change” would have been solved and sent to the archives. Carbon tax works NAF except as a blunt weapon used by greenies to bash their enemies over the head with.

  3. I think that it has ben well established that CO2 is NOT a driver of global climate change. So the question arises – why should you want to tax it?

    We are carbon-based life-forms, and most processes which we engage in generate CO2 in some way or other. So a tax on it is an all-pervasive tax – practically no human activity is exempt. In this respect it is a bit like VAT.

    Since it is justified by a lie, there is no difficulty in justifying ANY level of the tax that the taxing authority requires. There is no difference in claiming that the people are going to be protected from a 2degree temperature rise, or a 10 degree temperature rise. Both are equally untrue, but can be justified by faked statistics.

    It is ingenuous for Mr Worstall to claim that the ‘carbon tax’ has a point and will adress a measurable issue. I suspect that it is simply intended to be used to foist an unpleasant and dangerous lifestyle on us by a set of single-minded activists.

  4. “the most basic thing about a price system – it is market prices that are the necessary information source, not manipulated ones. ”

    Copied this from some bloke over at the ASI. If he’s right a pigou tax, the very epitome of manipulation, is wrong in principle.

    (And if anyone wanted to claim there were negative externalities, wouldn’t they have to prove it?)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments