• Flying Squid
    link
    25 months ago

    But that isn’t doing both. This is subsidizing private hydropower. Taxing someone you just subsidized doesn’t make much sense.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      By ‘both’ I mean we don’t have to either not solve this (climate hell) or just subsidize private hydropower, we can overcome both of those.

      But… the point you brought up does lead me to talking about the Norwegian oil strategy that you might be interested in! Norway is doing exactly that: subsidizing private discovery of oil, tax the sale of oil heavily - and it has been very successful (to the detriment of the environment…). The US can learn from that by subsidizing private hydropower development (to incentivize building more of them) and then using targeted taxes when they’re actually operating. It’s the strategy that is often touted as “how Norway avoided Dutch disease / the resource curse”.

      I didn’t actually mean subsidizing private hydropower above, though, I meant the government doing it themselves so that the profits are socialized rather than privatized. That’s mostly what Norway has done with its hydropower strategy. The case for taxes for hydropower, and natural resources in general, is basically the Georgist case: nobody invented or created the nature/land that allowed for that hydropower station, it was already here long before we were, so taxes make sense in that they socialize profits extracted by private companies.