Well, scr4, then that’s a perfect example of a problem calling out for a “market based solution”. Put a $0.20/gallon tax on fossil fuels but not biofuels and suddenly everyone wants to use biofuels.
Of course, biofuels aren’t exactly a panacea, since lots of energy is expended harvesting that biofuel.
A carbon tax makes perfect sense. This is what we should enact. Except we will never do so, because what people want is for the government to force OTHER people to stop doing things. Everyone wants the US to consume less gasoline, but what they want is for everyone else to stop using so much. And so this is why we have bone-stupid legislation like CAFE standards instead of gasoline taxes.
Tax gasoline and people will use less of it. If there is an externality associated with burning gasoline, tax gasoline enough that consumers of gasoline pay the full cost for buring that gasoline. If we fight wars in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing, then a tax on gasoline to fund the wars is the answer. If kids die from asthma due to pollution, then a tax on gasoline to fund medical care for kids with asthma is the answer. If burning gasoline increases CO2 which causes more intense hurricanes, then a tax on gasoline to pay to relocate those affected is the answer.
If you’re a conservative who hates the idea of taxes, make the carbon tax revenue-neutral. Increase EIC by the amount of the increase in carbon tax revenue. Simple.
Another answer is to stop subsidizing things that don’t make sense. Gee, we’re using fresh water faster than it’s being replenished? Stop subisidizing the farming of rice in drought-ridden California. Hurricanes destroying homes? Stop subsidizing hurricane insurance. CO2 emissions warming the globe? Stop subsidizing carbon emissions!
The trouble is that many people see the global climate change issue as a way to peddle their personal political hobby horses. I can solve the CO2 emission problem with the bone-simple easy to implement carbon tax system. Except this will never happen, because politicians don’t want to make voters pay higher prices at the gas pump, they don’t want to make voters pay higher prices for their winter fuel bills, they don’t want to make voters pay higher prices to truck goods across the country. Instead politicians tend to like the idea of “regulation”, because regulation means power for the regulators.
And heck, big business prefers regulation, because complex regulation is a way for big business to impose barriers to entry against potential competitors. Business isn’t in favor of the free market, they’re in favor of making money, and are more than happy to lobby for increased government meddling if that government meddling means lower competition and a more predictable business climate (see Rent-seeking - Wikipedia for more explanation of this phenomenon).
So since people don’t want to pay higher prices for gasoline but would rather try to force everyone else to use less gasoline but keep the price low, we’re going to get the worst of both worlds…action against global climate change that doesn’t actually do much of anything to mitigate global climate change, but will impose huge hidden regulatory burdens and costs that will inderectly cost much more than simply raising the price of carbon to include the externalities that carbon emissions cause.