Negative externalities such as climate impact are a cost that is not priced in. This results in higher production than is actually economically optimal.
What was the incremental taxation rate that should have been assessed throughout the industrial revolution to price in then-present and then-future externalities?
No one rate would have been perfect over such a long period.
All the way back in the 1600’s coal pollution was considered a significant problem which prompted legislation by King James I to restrict coal burning. There were few effective mitigation strategies, though ultra tall smokestacks were fairly effective in reducing harm to those in the imitate surroundings so very early on that may have been useful etc. Similarly outside of large cities the health effects where less significant.
That said, as recently as 1952 a single 5 day event killed 4,000-12,000 people in London depending on how it’s counted. So, the ideal rate would have been non zero even before climate change was a significant issue.
I agree pollution from the industrial revolution started long ago (i.e. King James I) and it's killed people recently (i.e London 1952). I agree the correct rate is non-zero.
There should be some average rate that approximates whatever instantaneous rate would have been instantaneously perfect.
We have the benefit of being able to look backward on this era with near-perfect information. A proposal for taxation for externalities that is historically calibrated has a chance of being adopted. Otherwise, it's just fist shaking and chanting "externalities".
