3 ms·

> An optimal tax system taxes things and behaviors we don't want Except for that the goal isn't to punish polluters, it's to get carbon to a level that won't r

> An optimal tax system taxes things and behaviors we don't want Except for that the goal isn't to punish polluters, it's to get carbon to a level that won't result in the end of human civilization. By moralizing the issue you're just making it more likely that we won't get there.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Of course the goal isn't to punish polluters. It's to convince them to pollute less. This is why tax things and behaviors we don't want - to make it more expensive, so that there's less of it.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > It's to convince them to pollute less. That's not the goal. What matters is the total amount of pollution, not how much any individual pollutes.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    I'm not sure what the distinction you're trying to make is. The total amount of pollution is the sum total of every individual's pollution. In order to reduce the total amount of pollution, individuals have to pollute less (on average). Conversely, if individuals pollute less (on average), then total pollution goes down.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Raising the price of a thing tends to reduce the quantity demanded. There are perverse cases. Veblen and Giffen goods (higher prices increase consumption). But generally, the relationship holds. A cap-and-trade or carbon tax system, to work, has to establish how much carbon can be emitted (I'm ignoring for the moment the argument that the answer may well be "none"). A tax or trade mechanism both invoke market mechanisms to allow individual carbon emitters or absorbers to determine how much activity they'll undertake, including seeking alternatives. If a tax or C&T at a given level isn't sufficient, then the solution is to change the basis level. The result is still (in theory) achieved in the market. You and ThrustVectoring are arguing two components of the same mechanism. See also the Jevons Paradox: increasing efficiency (without also increasing prices) increases the amount of a good or resource consumed. If you want less of something, raise its price. E.g., tax it.
Retric 10y ago
But 'producers' are not the polluters, it's consumers driving cars that are polluting. The goal is not to punish everyone, it's to get them to make other choices.
- ars 10y ago
  > it's consumers driving cars that are polluting. Cars are not the problem, there is no one thing that is the problem. Simply being alive and doing things uses energy, there is no way around that. And BTW if you do the math a bicyclist (in the US, eating a typical US diet) emits more CO2 per mile than a small car. Assumptions: The bicyclist is riding in addition to any exercise, the riding is not exercise, and the bicyclist eats normal food. A bicyclist who prefers organic, or local, would definitely emit more (both of those emit more CO2 in the growing than regular food). It's a surprising result, I know. But it's because humans are not very efficient in turning food energy into miles, and cars are reasonably efficient. It doesn't help that growing food takes a lot of energy, especially if you force yourself to only eat local, if you do that energy really goes up.
  - EnigmaticLion 10y ago
    Source? This study says bicycling is way better than cars: http://bikeportland.org/2011/12/12/new-study-compares-bicyclings-co2-emissions-to-other-modes-63536 http://bikeportland.org/2011/12/12/new-study-compares-bicycl...
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      I would be rather wary of bike endorsing studies posted on sites called "bikesomething" just as I would be wary of "rightwingnut.com" publishing studies on immigration or any other contentious issue.
      - crottypeter 10y ago
        In this case there isn't even a link to rightwingnut.com though. Just a claim that you need to do math. Parroting climate-denying, anti-intellectual nonsense is worth calling out.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Of course the goal isn't to punish polluters. It's to convince them to pollute less. This is why tax things and behaviors we don't want - to make it more expensive, so that there's less of it.

Alex3917 10y ago
> It's to convince them to pollute less. That's not the goal. What matters is the total amount of pollution, not how much any individual pollutes.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  I'm not sure what the distinction you're trying to make is. The total amount of pollution is the sum total of every individual's pollution. In order to reduce the total amount of pollution, individuals have to pollute less (on average). Conversely, if individuals pollute less (on average), then total pollution goes down.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Raising the price of a thing tends to reduce the quantity demanded. There are perverse cases. Veblen and Giffen goods (higher prices increase consumption). But generally, the relationship holds. A cap-and-trade or carbon tax system, to work, has to establish how much carbon can be emitted (I'm ignoring for the moment the argument that the answer may well be "none"). A tax or trade mechanism both invoke market mechanisms to allow individual carbon emitters or absorbers to determine how much activity they'll undertake, including seeking alternatives. If a tax or C&T at a given level isn't sufficient, then the solution is to change the basis level. The result is still (in theory) achieved in the market. You and ThrustVectoring are arguing two components of the same mechanism. See also the Jevons Paradox: increasing efficiency (without also increasing prices) increases the amount of a good or resource consumed. If you want less of something, raise its price. E.g., tax it.

Retric 10y ago

But 'producers' are not the polluters, it's consumers driving cars that are polluting. The goal is not to punish everyone, it's to get them to make other choices.

ars 10y ago
> it's consumers driving cars that are polluting. Cars are not the problem, there is no one thing that is the problem. Simply being alive and doing things uses energy, there is no way around that. And BTW if you do the math a bicyclist (in the US, eating a typical US diet) emits more CO2 per mile than a small car. Assumptions: The bicyclist is riding in addition to any exercise, the riding is not exercise, and the bicyclist eats normal food. A bicyclist who prefers organic, or local, would definitely emit more (both of those emit more CO2 in the growing than regular food). It's a surprising result, I know. But it's because humans are not very efficient in turning food energy into miles, and cars are reasonably efficient. It doesn't help that growing food takes a lot of energy, especially if you force yourself to only eat local, if you do that energy really goes up.
- EnigmaticLion 10y ago
  Source? This study says bicycling is way better than cars: http://bikeportland.org/2011/12/12/new-study-compares-bicyclings-co2-emissions-to-other-modes-63536 http://bikeportland.org/2011/12/12/new-study-compares-bicycl...
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    I would be rather wary of bike endorsing studies posted on sites called "bikesomething" just as I would be wary of "rightwingnut.com" publishing studies on immigration or any other contentious issue.
    - crottypeter 10y ago
      In this case there isn't even a link to rightwingnut.com though. Just a claim that you need to do math. Parroting climate-denying, anti-intellectual nonsense is worth calling out.