Every time we mention climate change we get a certain amount of stick from people who insist that it's not a thing, or that catastrophic isn't, or that the temperature numbers have been fiddled and so on. All of which rather means that we've not managed to get across our point and why, thus, we argue for a carbon tax.
That point being that it doesn't actually matter whether any or all of those things are true. Because there's sufficient head of steam up that our government, global governments, governments globally, are going to adopt some policy or other over climate change. Even proof perfect that every thermometer on the planet was being steeped in a nice cup of hot tea before being read would not and will not change that. It's thus necessary to argue for the least bad alternatives out there of what that policy is going to be. And that's the carbon tax.
As rather shown by this:
Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the Government’s failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.
Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme, which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britain’s entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.
Even by government measures £240 million is real money. And this isn't, at all, what was spent on actually alleviating any problem. This is just the administration:
Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million - on average less than £3,600 each.
By contrast the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had spent £240 million – more than £17,000 per household – on setting up, promoting and helping administer the scheme.
This is known as wasting money to no good end: more colloquially as pissing it away. We've expended £240 million of our collective wealth and got nothing for it, we are collectively poorer by £240 million.
So, let's not do this sort of thing. On two grounds, one that pissing it all away isn't a decent justification for anything and also that such waste means we have less to use to solve any real problems there might be with this or anything else. Which, given that we know that some policy is going to be introduced is why we continually call for a carbon tax.
The carbon tax being what all economists propose: Yes, the Stern Review, Richard Tol, John Quiggin, William Nordhaus, any- and every- one who has bothered to study the point. Even James Hansen is on board. More, they all also say that planning lovely little schemes is contra-indicated. Precisely because the carbon tax is the least cost method of dealing with the supposed problem. Thus any other plans or methods mean that we will do less to solve the purported problem as a result of our resources being, as ever, scarce.
And thus our support for said carbon tax. We know that the idiots are going to do something so let's persuade them to do the least idiotic thing.