Extraction operates on supply and demand. When people stop demanding it, they'll stop digging it out of the ground.
There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper.
You can do both at once. In fact you want to, because the first one gives the second one economies of scale and the second one reduces the economic impact of the first one.
Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one except that instead of the money being collected as a tax that could be refunded to the population as a tax credit, it goes to the people who are still doing the remaining extraction. We could, however, stop subsidizing extraction.
> Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one
Yes, but it might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally. Unless OPEC just compensates by increasing production. IMHO carbon tax indeed better tool for EU/US, given that most of oil production out of "our" control
> There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper.
A market that relies solely on prices as an incentive is unlikely to be the right tool for what's at stake. What would be the price of the natural habitat of the last wild elephants? A billion dollars? Let's hope Elon doesn't feel like building a gigafactory right there.
There's always going to be a market with prices whether you like it or not. The only thing you can do is ensuring that the prices reflect the amount of damage to the environment.
You can have a market without relying solely on it, that's what we do for many things already. Driving everything through a market is quite a recent development. So no, it's not "the only you can do".
Extraction operates on supply and demand. When people stop demanding it, they'll stop digging it out of the ground.
There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper.
You can do both at once. In fact you want to, because the first one gives the second one economies of scale and the second one reduces the economic impact of the first one.
Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one except that instead of the money being collected as a tax that could be refunded to the population as a tax credit, it goes to the people who are still doing the remaining extraction. We could, however, stop subsidizing extraction.