4 ms·

I think you missed his point. The earth's carrying capacity for atmospheric co2 has already been exceeded to the point where we have to achieve zero net carbon

by drewm1980 10y ago

I think you missed his point. The earth's carrying capacity for atmospheric co2 has already been exceeded to the point where we have to achieve zero net carbon emissions. Under that assumption, a carbon tax that is not effectively an outright ban is pointless. Also, he does advocate in the article for carbon neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuel production as one possibility although his point is more general.

dredmorbius 10y ago
No, I agree regarding CO2. I think it's also only one of multiple global binding constraints we're encountering, though possibly the greatest. My point is that in achieving the goal of zero or negative net carbon emissions, changing the economic price structure which allows carbon emissions may prove to be an effective tool. It's not that the market solves all problems (something with which I strongly disagree), or that an unregulated market is the only option (a view I reject absolutely as absolutely false, blatantly ahistorical, and a complete misrepresentation of market theory). But markets are powerful. At a sufficiently high level, and in the case of a carbon tax, that's likely to be exceedingly painful, the option to emit simply doesn't exist. Bake that price structure, through both depletion amortisation (a much stronger update to Hotelling's Rule, which was based on multiple false premises), and an at-the-source sequestered carbon introduction tax, at all levels of international banking, finance, and trade, and you make it a money-losing proposition to mine coal, pump petroleum, or drill natural gas, anywhere. When I say that the taxes would be painful, I mean increasing costs not by a few percent, but by orders of magnitude. That's going to be heavily traumatic -- it's a large part of what's exploded social unrest across the Middle East in the past five years, and is in the process of tearing Venezuela to shreds. Saudi Arabia and Russia are likely next on the block even if only present trends continue. So yes: the carbon tax would be an outright ban, though it might take some time (~10-20 years) to fully reach that stage. I'd prefer faster. Hell, I'd prefer we'd taken this approach in 1960 when the consequences were first becoming apparent. Infrastructure and capital take time to replace. We're looking at rebuilding an airplane in flight. I'm not at all sanguine that we'll succeed. And: if we do address the CO2 problem, there remain numerous others, most reducing to total population and absolute average wealth (which is to say, resource consumption). Which are likely to destroy what we call modern civilisation even if we do manage the carbon crisis.
- drewm1980 10y ago
  Got it. What do you see as our next existential threat? AI and asteroids don't really fit this discussion...
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Us.

dredmorbius 10y ago

No, I agree regarding CO2. I think it's also only one of multiple global binding constraints we're encountering, though possibly the greatest. My point is that in achieving the goal of zero or negative net carbon emissions, changing the economic price structure which allows carbon emissions may prove to be an effective tool. It's not that the market solves all problems (something with which I strongly disagree), or that an unregulated market is the only option (a view I reject absolutely as absolutely false, blatantly ahistorical, and a complete misrepresentation of market theory). But markets are powerful. At a sufficiently high level, and in the case of a carbon tax, that's likely to be exceedingly painful, the option to emit simply doesn't exist. Bake that price structure, through both depletion amortisation (a much stronger update to Hotelling's Rule, which was based on multiple false premises), and an at-the-source sequestered carbon introduction tax, at all levels of international banking, finance, and trade, and you make it a money-losing proposition to mine coal, pump petroleum, or drill natural gas, anywhere. When I say that the taxes would be painful, I mean increasing costs not by a few percent, but by orders of magnitude. That's going to be heavily traumatic -- it's a large part of what's exploded social unrest across the Middle East in the past five years, and is in the process of tearing Venezuela to shreds. Saudi Arabia and Russia are likely next on the block even if only present trends continue. So yes: the carbon tax would be an outright ban, though it might take some time (~10-20 years) to fully reach that stage. I'd prefer faster. Hell, I'd prefer we'd taken this approach in 1960 when the consequences were first becoming apparent. Infrastructure and capital take time to replace. We're looking at rebuilding an airplane in flight. I'm not at all sanguine that we'll succeed. And: if we do address the CO2 problem, there remain numerous others, most reducing to total population and absolute average wealth (which is to say, resource consumption). Which are likely to destroy what we call modern civilisation even if we do manage the carbon crisis.

drewm1980 10y ago
Got it. What do you see as our next existential threat? AI and asteroids don't really fit this discussion...
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Us.