5 ms·

"tax it properly" Define properly. We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5

"tax it properly" Define properly. We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5x what it current is? If emitting CO2 causes unknown massive harm, then it seems sane to figure out a CO2 neutral method to create these liquid fuels that jets require. That would seem very expensive, with current technology.

adrianN 10y ago
Defining "properly" when related to taxes is too difficult for a HN comment. Also, I'm neither a climate scientist nor do I consider myself an expert in economy. I'm rather concerned about climate change, so my numbers would likely be much higher than necessary. But I'd suggest putting a bunch of scientists in a room for a while to figure out the environmental impact and define some acceptable limit of yearly pollution. Then raise taxes until we're under the limit. Or something similar.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mcguire 10y ago
  Have them do it every 2 years to account for changing science. Of course, then you have a de facto regulatory body, which everyone hates, and thus a new problem.
- codecamper 10y ago
  Sounds good to me.
pc2g4d 10y ago
Difficult to define it, but we can be pretty sure we're nowhere close with our current tax policies. In theory you set the tax rate to counteract the net negative externalities. It's estimating those externalities that's the source of contention (as you hint at re: feedback loops). So assign ten teams to estimate it and take the median?
usrusr 10y ago
Properly, in this context, simply means tax it like you tax fuel/energy for other modes of transportation. Airlines have been very successful at getting special treatment by scaremongering "no more connections for you". Which is certainly a mostly empty threat, because connections will only go down by as much as demand elasticity reacts to the price difference.

adrianN 10y ago

Defining "properly" when related to taxes is too difficult for a HN comment. Also, I'm neither a climate scientist nor do I consider myself an expert in economy. I'm rather concerned about climate change, so my numbers would likely be much higher than necessary. But I'd suggest putting a bunch of scientists in a room for a while to figure out the environmental impact and define some acceptable limit of yearly pollution. Then raise taxes until we're under the limit. Or something similar.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 10y ago
Have them do it every 2 years to account for changing science. Of course, then you have a de facto regulatory body, which everyone hates, and thus a new problem.
codecamper 10y ago
Sounds good to me.

pc2g4d 10y ago

Difficult to define it, but we can be pretty sure we're nowhere close with our current tax policies. In theory you set the tax rate to counteract the net negative externalities. It's estimating those externalities that's the source of contention (as you hint at re: feedback loops). So assign ten teams to estimate it and take the median?

usrusr 10y ago

Properly, in this context, simply means tax it like you tax fuel/energy for other modes of transportation. Airlines have been very successful at getting special treatment by scaremongering "no more connections for you". Which is certainly a mostly empty threat, because connections will only go down by as much as demand elasticity reacts to the price difference.