Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Elon Musk, the renewable energy entrepreneur, has given a speech in which he claims that a robust carbon tax would grossly enlarge his profits speed the global transition to clean energy.
According to The Guardian;
Innovator tells Sorbonne students that failing to price in damage done by carbon pollution is a $5.3tn a year subsidy for the fossil fuel industry
Addressing students at the Sorbonne University on the sidelines of the Paris climate summit, the electric car, Powerwall battery and space tycoon said the obvious solution to runaway global warming was to remove the effective subsidy of not pricing the damage done by carbon pollution, urging the students to campaign and lobby governments to implement the policy.
“To make it neither a left nor right issue we should make it a revenue-neutral carbon tax – increasing carbon tax and reducing tax in other areas like consumption taxes or VAT and in order to give companies time to react it should be a phased in approach,” he said.
“If countries agree to a carbon tax and it’s real and it’s not super watered down and weak we could see a transition [to clean energy] that has a 15- to 20-year timeframe as opposed to a 40- or 50-year timeframe, we could probably cut it in half and that would have a huge impact on the … welfare of the world … it really matters where we do this transition sooner or later.”
“For developing economies, they could leapfrog the fossil fuel situation with power lines, you could have remote villages with solar panels and a battery pack. Just like mobile phones – a lot of countries just didn’t do the landlines, they skipped right over landlines.”
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/elon-musk-says-robust-carbon-tax-would-speed-global-clean-energy-transition
The problem with the “skipping over” theory is it completely ignores the reality of poverty. Poor countries in Africa and elsewhere are struggling to afford what Musk claims is a “subsidised” price for fossil fuel electricity, let alone paying high upfront costs for renewables.
Worse, when energy needs change, heavy dependence on renewables, to the exclusion of other sources of energy, can throttle economic growth.
For example, WUWT recently reported how Zambia is struggling to balance soaring demand for energy from mining companies, energy which is mostly sourced from renewable hydro schemes, with the need to supply water for irrigation and drinking. The obvious solution is for Zambia to use their resources revenue to build a few cheap coal generators, to provide their mining boom with all the energy it needs to flourish, without ruining local farmers. But this solution would be unavailable to Zambia, if Elon Musk has his way.
I love what Musk has done for the space race. I even once wrote a positive article about Musk’s solar business. But to try to bar poor people from access to cheap fossil fuels with a global carbon tax, to condemn them to continued brutal poverty, to palm them off with low intensity local energy solutions, which prevent poor people from experiencing real economic development – in my view, that would just be wrong.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Elon Musk … his business model is one based on billions of dollars of green taxpayer subsidies. How many billions? Best not to check … you’ll have a heart attack. You really will!
When Donald Trump becomes president, Elon Musk’s business will most certainly collapse.
Eric,
Splendid article: your first sentence [The problem with the “skipping over” theory is it completely ignores the reality of poverty.] hits the nail on the head.
Regards,
WL
Musk is just one of many crony capitalists along with politicians and bureaucrats that make up the criminal organization known as the federal government.When they are caught stealing the media is as complicit as they describe “theft and corruption” as “waste and ineffciency”.
I’m not in favor of any tax. They get enough already, borrow even more, and waste a huge portion of both. The “climate consulting” market in the US has grown to $800,000,000 annually, most of which is shouldered by taxpayers or government borrowing. Not to count the other areas of funding waste which we need not detail, with the exception of the related subsidies for ethanol, which have led to an unnecessary distortion of some markets, as well as personally cost me hundreds of dollars in small engine repair, higher food prices, etc., lol. Does this make me biased? Probably. 🙂
Definition of Liberal Tax Subsidy: Allowing you to keep any of the money you make. Allowing you to profit vice taking it all. You, working for anyone other than the almighty state.
“we should make it a revenue-neutral carbon tax – increasing carbon tax and reducing tax in other areas like consumption taxes or VAT”
BWAAAA ha ha ha ha ha.
Unicorns indeed.
“reducing tax in other areas” ha ha ha ha hah ha.
Stop it you’re killing me over here.
ha. You’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath for the tax reductions
As global warming increases due to man made CO2 emissions, the use of fossil fuels will decrease due to less energy required for domestic heating etc. This will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions, a reversal of global warming and eventual global cooling. This application of Le Chatelier’s Principle to climate change means that a cycle of global warming followed by global cooling will be nature’s feedback control mechanism elimunating the need for carbon tax credits; and we can carry on burning fossil fuels for power and heating as we have done in the recent past.