wwhitney
Registered User
I'd probably say yes for Germany, but I'm not an economist, so I don't have a board picture of the German vs the US economy, standard of living, welfare of the citizens, etc.Where has higher taxes and regulation worked so far? Germany?
There are certainly plenty of examples of successful regulation. Overfishing is an easy example--the unfettered free market incentivizes everyone to fish as much as possible, which leads to declining yields year after year. While imposing reasonable fishing quotas generally leads to sustainable fish stocks that end up allowing more fish to be harvested in the long run. See the literature on "tragedy of the commons."
On the other hand, overregulation can be a real problem. Zoning is a good example--overly restrictive zoning requirements are a significant factor in the inflated real estate prices in California.
As to higher taxes, yes higher taxes on carbon is one good approach to carbon pollution, but that doesn't have to mean higher taxes overall. The tax program can be structured to be revenue neutral, coupling it with, e.g., an expansion of the 0% income tax bracket.
Getting back to the OP, I would say that the reason the US has programs like that is because there is such a strong political ethos against taxes. A tax is the economically simplest and most efficient intervention: internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. But if a carbon tax is off the table, then you are left with more complicated interventions like subsidies and regulations.
Cheers, Wayne