I think the cost factor is deterrent in that it contributes a sense of coherency to the policy of diminishing smoking in the society. However it is not sufficient to lead to change, its policy value lies in its effect on behaviour and also that it draws in the Finance dept into the policy-motivate revenue getters and the most effective civil servants. The worry i have is the temptation to use it as a cash cow.

Also look at the excise duty increases through out the years on alcohol no sign f alcohol consumption dropping. Also the rise in petrol simulates the rise in petrol caused by a carbon tax. And nothing has come of it.

As for imoral offences . Drinving an SUV in a city can be construded as being imoral yet people pay more for them at that gas pump and at the VRT and we have never had more of them.

I think that if a carbon tax came in people would just say it was another stealth tax.

also your point doesn’t answer my main point that it is the poor that would suffer the most.

The issue is that tax regimes of that sore give government a vested interest in maintaining a level of bad behaviour as a revenue source. That source is then legitimised by hte view of the majority that polluting is an immoral and taxable offence.

Regulations would have a lot greater effect at reducing carbon emissions for a far less price then a carbon tax would. The cost of the carbon tax like most taxes would not only damage the economic well being of the country but also like most taxes hit the poor hardest.
I think the greens would agree there but would see the carbon tax as part of a plan to jolt this “carbon guzzling” society out of its ways and onto the sustainable track to growth. I believe regulations would work but the most effective department in the country at carrying out policy is Finance. The tax encure maximum compliance and awareness.

I think the point on energy security is not sufficient. there is no alternative in the transport market, its simply the efficient use of fuel versus new fuels. The efficient use of fuels implies public transport on a national basis which is delivered effectively to supportive users. The tax is intended to be a firing shot in what is likely to be the green war on cars.

I would support it as a measuer which shoehorns sustainability onto the agenda but that support stops once government switches to the above cigarette mentality.