In Chapter 7 of my book (pages 160-162), I describe the carbon tax and how it has helped reduce carbon emissions in the countries that have introduced it. I particularly cite the the example of Australia, which introduced a carbon tax in 2012, whilst led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, under a coalition with the Greens. In Australia, the act was very unpopular, particularly amongst business leaders, and it was repealed two years later by Prime Minister, Tony Abbot. In my book, I provide a figure (Figure 67 in chapter 7), showing that during the two years of a carbon tax being in operation, carbon emissions in the country fell, only to start rising again after the act was repealed.
An OECD Environmental Review, published in 2014, describes how Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991. Since that time, their economy has grown by 50% and their emissions of greenhouse gases have declined. See: https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/sweden_ar_brochure_web
Now, new comprehensive research has shown that a carbon tax has the effect of reducing carbon emissions of a country and, at the same time, enabling the growth of the economy in that country. An American study on the effects of a carbon tax has been reported in detail in the Guardian by Dana Nuccitelli on 16th July 2018. See:
The study was carried out by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) project and involved 11 teams who examined the economic and environmental impacts of a carbon tax. The findings consistently showed that a carbon tax is effective at reducing carbon pollution and that it has a very modest impact on the economy, as measured by GDP.
The study looked at four different types of carbon tax policy and the following quote is included in the Guardian article:
“in every policy scenario, in every model, the U.S. economy continues to grow at or near its long-term average baseline rate, deviating from reference growth by no more than about 0.1% points. We find robust evidence that even the most ambitious carbon tax is consistent with long-term positive economic growth, near baseline rates, not even counting the growth benefits of a less-disrupted climate or lower ambient air pollution”
They found that coal power plants would be the biggest losers if the carbon tax were implemented, which may explain the resistance encountered in Australia. In addition, there were substantial cost savings in relationship to health improvements. Some of the pollutants released by burning coal (eg soot, mercury) have a severe impact on health.
The article also argues convincingly that curbing global warming, in line with the Paris agreement, also has a positive economic effect.
So, it sounds like a WIN WIN situation.
The following website gives details of those countries which have implemented a carbon tax: