Note: think that taxation is theft and there is no legitimate taxation. I object to all efforts at using tax policy to manipulate the economy.
I shall now enter devil's advocate mode.
<devil's advocate mode>
I actually like the philosophy of a carbon tax. Usually, the government uses subsidies and convoluted tax laws that favor certain segments of the economy and result in nasty market distortions. For example, see ethanol subsidies. I don't think the government, or anyone, can plan an economy. So I don't think that specific taxes on specific things can ever work to do something like carbon emissions...the market just adapts. On the other hand, something like a carbon tax is general is the better way to approach manipulating the market. IF (big if) we admit that CO2 emissions really are Killing The World, then taxing carbon emissions directly is the most free-market-friendly thing to do, and much better than a myrid of individual taxes, bans, and subsidys at all layers of the economy that will make no sense, or which made sense at the time, and cause all kinds of nasty market distortions. But a flat carbon tax lets the market adapt at every level, so that the actual bogeyman (carbon emmisions) is taxed, which is better than the government trying to micro-manage the Hot Topic of the Day to look like they are Doing Something to help the environment.
For example, instead of implementing Federal fuel mileage standards, it would be better to tax gasoline, then let people drive gas-guzzling cars if they want to. Even better than taxing gasoline, it would be better to tax carbon or particulate emissions, and let people drive 'clean' or 'dirty' cars as their pocketbook permits.
</devil's advocate mode>
Analogy: Instead of banning large sodas, it would be better to tax obesity.
