> What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions?
Eh? Where did I say or imply that it wouldn't? I asked why you're so sure that taxation couldn't be part of the best policy. I didn't say I'm sure that it should be. I don't know what the best policy is.
(In any case, surely what's relevant is not whether any tax revenue would go to purchasing things that increase emissions, but whether the net effect would be an increase in emissions.)
> I never made an axiom. [...] It was your assumption.
You might want to remind yourself of the meaning of the word "if".
> The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.
Eh? Where did I say or imply that it wouldn't? I asked why you're so sure that taxation couldn't be part of the best policy. I didn't say I'm sure that it should be. I don't know what the best policy is.
(In any case, surely what's relevant is not whether any tax revenue would go to purchasing things that increase emissions, but whether the net effect would be an increase in emissions.)
> I never made an axiom. [...] It was your assumption.
You might want to remind yourself of the meaning of the word "if".
> The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.
Curiously, that is exactly what I did.