Subscribe now

Letter: No alternative to tax

Published 15 June 2005

From Andrew Tylecote, University of Sheffield

Your correspondents on 4 June (p 28) are all probably right: the need to cut greenhouse emissions is so grave that nuclear power may well have a role to play; certainly micro-hydro will; and “strong and determined government action” will be required to get a wide range of energy-saving and renewables measures widely adopted.

What neither they nor you in your editorial of 14 May (p 3) mention is the simplest, most effective means to these ends: carbon taxes. High taxes on CO2 emissions, rising steeply, will give all energy producers and users a powerful incentive to use and improve the whole range of relevant technologies. Carbon trading is a poor substitute, ethically and practically: your right to heat up the planet in future is based bizarrely on how much you are doing to heat it up now; and it doesn’t give clear incentives based on predictable prices. But, if governments are brave enough to impose these taxes, and so raise market prices for electricity, they get a compromise option on nuclear power: work out fair charges to impose for radioactive waste disposal and insurance against accident and attack, and then leave the decision to the private sector. The price mechanism is a wonderful thing.

Sheffield, UK

Issue no. 2504 published 18 June 2005

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop