This is quite fair. First, the full-cost pricing is quite important. There is market failure when the polluters impose costs on third parties for which they are not responsible. You would get more efficiency if you were to include all the third-party influences where the market fails by building it into a taxation subsidy that would cover the full-cost pricing. You will get more efficient transformations. There is no question about this. There is considerable evidence to suggest this would be appropriate.
What is worrying me is that when the government is seeking multiple objectives, we look at one instrument or one criterion and assume that all other implications are incidental. This is within the context of the things I presented before. Yes, we have to rank things in terms of the carbon emission or carbon reduction, but we also have to look at employment, the socio-economic aspects, and integration of the economy. Several other objectives need to be considered. These should be ranked from top to bottom in terms of every criteria for whatever action you're taking.
In my case, for example, we're talking about the implications of a particular investment. I'm talking about jobs, value-added, wages and salaries, the types of jobs, regional allocation, and the special allocation of these impacts. Some activities might be urban concentrated or would improve the south but completely devour the north.