https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas_Jr.
Pseudo-market solutions do not work. They are quickly gamed by market players. It would be just a waste of precious time.
Pseudo-market solutions in healtcare (pricing procedures with ICD and allowing market participants compete) are currently proved as inefficient. Net gain for market participants but net loss for people and goverment budgets.
So my reservation is for carbon tax as gigantic wealth transfer without real benefits to climate. I am not against urgent action on climate.
But with a tax you can only evade. The income tax still raises revenue and discourages income, even though it can be evaded and often is. I think a carbon tax would similarly raise revenue and discourage carbon, while letting us cut worse taxes like the carbon tax.
I think physicists can say they proven something but it is in principle debatable. Economy is just witchcraft in comparison - please do not give economy more credibility than it deserves.
Not even them. It only makes sense to talk about proof in formal domains such as math and logic.
Science proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that any given scientific theory will not be falsified in the future. In fact, physics was one of the main inspirations for the idea of "paradigm shift" by Thomas Kuhn in his famous work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
Talking about proof in science is damaging, and it conveys the wrong idea about what science actually is.
Is there an argument against carbon tax that can't be said by any other tax?
I would rather side with Naomi Klein that capitalism proved ineffective in solving problems of this scale.
It's also fairly difficult to move a coal mine to another country. Of course, people could import their carbon-intensive goods, but most proposals include tariffs on countries without comparable carbon fees. Tariffs like these are explicitly allowed by trade agreements.