I would expect him to make any argument he can against fossil fuels. He is heavily invested in solar technology.
On the Tesla side, Musk has advocated subsidies for electric vehicles, taxes, caps, and other limits on gasoline/Diesel vehicles. He has argued that fuel cells are a dead end, and governments should stop supporting them.
On the SpaceX side, Musk has advocated open competitions for NASA, USAF, and NRO launches, but also encouraged the government to ban the use of foreign engines and rockets.
Also, you should note that the entire point of a carbon tax is to replace everything in your middle paragraph with something that's more intellectually-consistent.
Telling someone else that they aren't intellectually consistent almost never works. You'll almost always get a reply, "You're misrepresenting my statements, and failing to understand my argument" -- not a good opening to a good discussion.
I happen to agree with him that fuel cells are a bad idea, but I also think that if one is to advocate taxing carbon, they should be advocating the taxation of other emissions and pollution (if they are to be intellectually consistent). I have never heard Musk advocate for something like a battery tax.
I would be flattered if Musk ever replied to anything I'd said, and I am not trying to cause any sort of emotional reaction.
I also agree that 'just the carbon tax' would be more intellectually consistent than the myriad of other automotive propulsion policies Musk has advocated, but he happens to have advocated all those policies in addition to the carbon tax.
What are you looking for in a productive discussion? An apology because I might have offended the great Elon?
Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.
Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?
Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement of liberties.
There are no 'pure market[s]', and there never have been. The 'pure market' was a straw-man invented by anti-market people.
I think you are right that few people explicitly say that pure markets exist. But implicitly many people make arguments based on some kind of some unregulated state of nature, for example on this thread.
Or would you call it "not letting coal plants externalize their costs on everyone else"?
Why are carbon emissions any different?
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...
This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
> we don't know by how much
This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect.
> but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought
FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable.""
So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
And you're misrepresentating what I said. I didn't say our estimates were getting worse. I made it clear they would simply would be lower than before. And both articles I linked made it clear that the new estimates would be improved.
You're splitting hairs about nothing when you aren't representing what I said. Have a good day.
I hope you have a great day, too.