10 ms·

Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

41 points by Osiris30 10y ago

tmaly 10y ago
I would expect him to make any argument he can against fossil fuels. He is heavily invested in solar technology.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the direct subsidies he already receives. Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.
  - bergie 10y ago
    In this case it is not about indirect subsidies to his company, but about removing indirect subsidies from the combustion engine industry. Their "freely available externalities" are polluting the place.
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      Uh huh. Funny how a billionaire has so easily convinced you that adding costs to his competitors (and consumers) is really "removing a subsidy".
      - wlesieutre 10y ago
        When we tell coal plants "Hey, you can't dump unlimited amounts of particulate pollution into the air," would you characterize that as an "indirect subsidy for solar power"? Or would you call it "not letting coal plants externalize their costs on everyone else"? Why are carbon emissions any different?
      - justinhensley 10y ago
        Do you believe in global warming/climate change?
        merpnderp 10y ago
        How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought, and we are missing crap tons of data and understanding about how different systems work. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...
        dpark 10y ago
        > How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
        merpnderp 10y ago
        "If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Paul Scherrer Institute, who was an author on all three papers." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
        dpark 10y ago
        Still not supporting your claim. > we don't know by how much This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect. > but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable."" So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
  - jimmytidey 10y ago
    Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - which I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing field. Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      To be fair, in the US almost zero companies pay the corporate tax rate of 35%, the highest in the industrialized world. Thus anyone can point at any industry and point a finger at it in disgust at its "tax breaks".
      - jimmytidey 10y ago
        Fair point. Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement of liberties.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Something can be an indirect subsidy and a Pigouvian tax at the same time; they are non-exclusive options. I see the carbon tax as both, and am opposed to both. There are no 'pure market[s]', and there never have been. The 'pure market' was a straw-man invented by anti-market people.
      - jimmytidey 10y ago
        It seems to me that subsidies and Pigouvian tax are exclusive if they are to mean anything. Perhaps I'm wrong?Can you point me at a discussion of this? I think you are right that few people explicitly say that pure markets exist. But implicitly many people make arguments based on some kind of some unregulated state of nature, for example on this thread.
  - Miner49er 10y ago
    I think you're mistaken. My reading was that he thinks that rather then receiving the subsidies his companies receive, people who emit a lot of greenhouse gases should be taxed. He's not calling for both subsidies and a carbon tax, he's saying a carbon tax makes more sense and is more fair, because the average person already has to pay money for global warming. Fossil fuel companies have an unfair advantage, because they damage other people's property and the people foot the bill.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    If Musk only cared about money he wouldn't be spending so much money on aerospace, automotive, and solar industries. None of them are great money makers.
- nickff 10y ago
  Musk has a history of using any available argument to advocate taxing/banning his competition; he has no intellectually consistent ideology. I say this as someone who believes SpaceX is the most important company founded since 1980, that humans must go to Mars, and will probably do it on Musk's MCT/BFR. On the Tesla side, Musk has advocated subsidies for electric vehicles, taxes, caps, and other limits on gasoline/Diesel vehicles. He has argued that fuel cells are a dead end, and governments should stop supporting them. On the SpaceX side, Musk has advocated open competitions for NASA, USAF, and NRO launches, but also encouraged the government to ban the use of foreign engines and rockets.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    So, you're saying there's no intellectually-consistent reason that anyone would oppose depending on Russian rocket engines for national security-related launches, while being for more competition in the rocket launch market? Also, you should note that the entire point of a carbon tax is to replace everything in your middle paragraph with something that's more intellectually-consistent. Telling someone else that they aren't intellectually consistent almost never works. You'll almost always get a reply, "You're misrepresenting my statements, and failing to understand my argument" -- not a good opening to a good discussion.
    - nickff 10y ago
      There are intellectually consistent frameworks which could justify most of Musk's beliefs, but he doesn't appear to abide by any such framework. He has changed his tune on many issues, and his policy positions always seem to be advantageous to his investments; he probably believes in his arguments, but we should be sanguine about their origins. I happen to agree with him that fuel cells are a bad idea, but I also think that if one is to advocate taxing carbon, they should be advocating the taxation of other emissions and pollution (if they are to be intellectually consistent). I have never heard Musk advocate for something like a battery tax. I would be flattered if Musk ever replied to anything I'd said, and I am not trying to cause any sort of emotional reaction.
      - 10y ago
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
It's fairly easy to spot ideologically consistent libertarians if you ask them about climate change, carbon tax etc. Unfortunately, it turns out that they don't really exist in any great numbers.
- ancap 10y ago
  Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.
      - ancap 10y ago
        > there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights I mostly agree with this part, > If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters but take issue with this part. As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on property and is dealt with through the judicial system. Meaning no regulation or action is needed by government other than the recognition of property rights. This was the position of common law and was abandoned by American courts in the early 20th century. Now, when you refer to the oceans, which due to government action remain un-ownable, it's more complicated and the libertarian position is that they should be privatized.
mikecb 10y ago
Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass.
- nickff 10y ago
  Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty. So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?
    - nickff 10y ago
      You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.
      - fweespeech 10y ago
        > You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was. I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.
JustUhThought 10y ago
"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?
- vorotato 10y ago
  I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?
    - ancap 10y ago
      Yes
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?
      - socialist_coder 10y ago
        Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
      - throwaway2016a 10y ago
        I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
        10y ago
startupdiscuss 10y ago
This is a good argument. It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  You're right, back when carbon credits versus taxes were being argued for, economists seemed to all agree taxes were the far superior choice. But credits allowed businesses and politicians to hand out favors, cut deals, and generally wallow in corruption and graft. Thus credits won out over taxes.
- dharmon 10y ago
  Agreed. If anything, and if I'm reading it correctly, he's actually trying to explain why libertarians would be opposed to this: > "For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are opposed to government intervention."
fncndhdhc 10y ago
More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.
- ancap 10y ago
  How was this an example of how restrictions were lifted and a free market created?
  - fncndhdhc 10y ago
    You're missing the point. If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight, business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before. This is what they do now, this is what they would do then, and this is also why anarcho capitalism is a contradiction.
    - ancap 10y ago
      Anarcho capitalism, which is not necessarily the view of every libertarian (some being "minarchists"), would be the absence of any government authority. Without a government the regulation you speak of is non-existent. There is no contradiction.
      - fncndhdhc 10y ago
        ...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.
        eropple 10y ago
        Precisely. Cartels don't require a government to exist, and the absence of government letting them beat you and kill you and take your stuff makes them easier to entrench. Some of these cartels may even claim land as theirs and exact payments from those under their "protection". We might call them "barons", say, and their henchmen "knights". And these strongmen might, due to relative imbalance of force, have to swear fealty to "counts" and "dukes" and "kings", and whoa I think I just had the weirdest dream, that ancap is an undisguised pathway to corporatist feudalism. Weird.
squozzer 10y ago
Musk leaves out - or maybe he didn't but the reporter did - a couple of things. 1) Most of the subsidy for fossil fuels is actually a subsidy for transportation, which relies mostly on fossil fuels. 2) The production and re-fueling of EVs is primarily a fossil-fuel enabled activity ("EVs just have a longer tailpipe".) Someone really interested in reducing fossil fuel consumption might want instead to subsidize ways of reducing transportation use.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  The longer tail pipe thing is, whater. Annoying. An E.V. can be charged from any source. Electrons don't discriminate as to what excites them. With the purchase of SolarCity by Tesla, the pipe is now super short. From your room to your garage. Blaiming E.V. power source emisions is like blaming people with second hand smoke cause cancer for their ailment. It's gonna take awhile to regulate the smokers out of our shared space.
elgabogringo 10y ago
If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities, we'd put a massive tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2 production continues to grow: http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2014/03/European-Comission-co2-emissions.png http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/...
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  In the larger picture, we hope that as standards of living rise in China and India, carbon use will improve ( decline ).
- dpark 10y ago
  And on services/products from the USA, right? Per capita we're using more energy and producing more CO2 than China and India and almost everywhere else. (Australia looks about the same. The UAE appears to be at the top.) Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not sure why you're lumping them in with China.
billpg 10y ago
Next week, a communist argument for private ownership of the means of production.
bjelkeman-again 10y ago
Three are many others that argue that a price on carbon is the best way. For example: William Nordhaus of Yale University and Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbon-market http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbo...
sandworm101 10y ago
Given the medieval wealth disparities between the billionaire class and the average person, I find it difficult to trust their pontifications on financial and political matters. They are still people, but people operating on a very different moral compass than my own. Living in wealth and comfort is one thing, but the morality needed to acquire and retain billions in the face of all that could be done with it means we operate under very different rules.
binarymax 10y ago
I feel the argument was muddled by the libertarian clauses. It would have been more concise and poignant to make the same argument while leaving that out. He is completely right, that carbon not being taxed like other regulated substances, the fossil fuel businesses have the best subsidy possible, and the economics are completely misaligned.
hartator 10y ago
Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate. > Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained. Ref: http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-arthur-charles-other/ http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-...
- dpark 10y ago
  > Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? Because global warming will probably kill us before oxygen deprivation or the health impact of reduced oxygen. Also, this is perhaps nitpicky, but O2 does not burn.
jalami 10y ago
I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology, libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've always thought, though, that it can only really apply to conscious human adults capable of weighing the pros and cons of their actions and relationships. When consequences or side-effects of their actions are pushed onto external parties incapable of disagreement (eg. the environment, children, animals) it gets murkier as actions become unilaterally beneficial to the party making each proposal. Here I think there is room for public consensus to come in and speak for the parties incapable of doing so. I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say 3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection. Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.
pininja 10y ago
What are the by-products of manufacturing and maintaining batteries and solar panels? I'd like to learn more about the inputs and outputs, then maybe I can learn a better comparison between fossil fuels and solar. What are we transforming in order to create, store, and consume solar energy and fossil fuel energy?
- bhhaskin 10y ago
  Whats worse is the waste left over after a battery is past it life span.
  - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
    Not for Musk's Tesla at least: https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-non-toxic-battery-packs https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-... https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycl...
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  You would want to look at lifecycle analysis studies (here's a few [1][2]). The big problem with fossil fuel is that it takes fuel to extract new fuels (high cost sources like tar sands have a ratio of like 1 fuel unit used to extract 2) AND they have a cost for each unit of power generated. Most renewables (excluding biofuels for example), have a manufacturing cost, but little to no energy generation cost (solar and wind have none, hydropower basins have something like 1/1000th the emissions of coal). [1] http://phys.org/news/2014-10-first-ever-global-life-renewable-energy.html http://phys.org/news/2014-10-first-ever-global-life-renewabl... [2] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
throwaway2016a 10y ago
"[Libertarians] are actually opposed to government intervention because it causes false pricing. " No, Libertarians are opposed to government intervention because it forces individuals to give up liberties. It's right there in the name of the party. You have a right to keep what you earn and choose where you want to spend it. Now if you were to argue that polluting the environment deprives others of their right to breath clean air and that the government should tax carbon in order to protect the rights of the people who want clean air then THAT is a Libertarian argument for carbon tax.

41 points by Osiris30 10y ago

tmaly 10y ago

I would expect him to make any argument he can against fossil fuels. He is heavily invested in solar technology.

elgabogringo 10y ago
Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the direct subsidies he already receives. Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.
- bergie 10y ago
  In this case it is not about indirect subsidies to his company, but about removing indirect subsidies from the combustion engine industry. Their "freely available externalities" are polluting the place.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    Uh huh. Funny how a billionaire has so easily convinced you that adding costs to his competitors (and consumers) is really "removing a subsidy".
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      When we tell coal plants "Hey, you can't dump unlimited amounts of particulate pollution into the air," would you characterize that as an "indirect subsidy for solar power"? Or would you call it "not letting coal plants externalize their costs on everyone else"? Why are carbon emissions any different?
    - justinhensley 10y ago
      Do you believe in global warming/climate change?
      - merpnderp 10y ago
        How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought, and we are missing crap tons of data and understanding about how different systems work. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...
        dpark 10y ago
        > How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
        merpnderp 10y ago
        "If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Paul Scherrer Institute, who was an author on all three papers." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
        dpark 10y ago
        Still not supporting your claim. > we don't know by how much This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect. > but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable."" So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
- jimmytidey 10y ago
  Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - which I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing field. Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    To be fair, in the US almost zero companies pay the corporate tax rate of 35%, the highest in the industrialized world. Thus anyone can point at any industry and point a finger at it in disgust at its "tax breaks".
    - jimmytidey 10y ago
      Fair point. Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement of liberties.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Something can be an indirect subsidy and a Pigouvian tax at the same time; they are non-exclusive options. I see the carbon tax as both, and am opposed to both. There are no 'pure market[s]', and there never have been. The 'pure market' was a straw-man invented by anti-market people.
    - jimmytidey 10y ago
      It seems to me that subsidies and Pigouvian tax are exclusive if they are to mean anything. Perhaps I'm wrong?Can you point me at a discussion of this? I think you are right that few people explicitly say that pure markets exist. But implicitly many people make arguments based on some kind of some unregulated state of nature, for example on this thread.
- Miner49er 10y ago
  I think you're mistaken. My reading was that he thinks that rather then receiving the subsidies his companies receive, people who emit a lot of greenhouse gases should be taxed. He's not calling for both subsidies and a carbon tax, he's saying a carbon tax makes more sense and is more fair, because the average person already has to pay money for global warming. Fossil fuel companies have an unfair advantage, because they damage other people's property and the people foot the bill.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  If Musk only cared about money he wouldn't be spending so much money on aerospace, automotive, and solar industries. None of them are great money makers.
nickff 10y ago
Musk has a history of using any available argument to advocate taxing/banning his competition; he has no intellectually consistent ideology. I say this as someone who believes SpaceX is the most important company founded since 1980, that humans must go to Mars, and will probably do it on Musk's MCT/BFR. On the Tesla side, Musk has advocated subsidies for electric vehicles, taxes, caps, and other limits on gasoline/Diesel vehicles. He has argued that fuel cells are a dead end, and governments should stop supporting them. On the SpaceX side, Musk has advocated open competitions for NASA, USAF, and NRO launches, but also encouraged the government to ban the use of foreign engines and rockets.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  So, you're saying there's no intellectually-consistent reason that anyone would oppose depending on Russian rocket engines for national security-related launches, while being for more competition in the rocket launch market? Also, you should note that the entire point of a carbon tax is to replace everything in your middle paragraph with something that's more intellectually-consistent. Telling someone else that they aren't intellectually consistent almost never works. You'll almost always get a reply, "You're misrepresenting my statements, and failing to understand my argument" -- not a good opening to a good discussion.
  - nickff 10y ago
    There are intellectually consistent frameworks which could justify most of Musk's beliefs, but he doesn't appear to abide by any such framework. He has changed his tune on many issues, and his policy positions always seem to be advantageous to his investments; he probably believes in his arguments, but we should be sanguine about their origins. I happen to agree with him that fuel cells are a bad idea, but I also think that if one is to advocate taxing carbon, they should be advocating the taxation of other emissions and pollution (if they are to be intellectually consistent). I have never heard Musk advocate for something like a battery tax. I would be flattered if Musk ever replied to anything I'd said, and I am not trying to cause any sort of emotional reaction.
    - 10y ago

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

It's fairly easy to spot ideologically consistent libertarians if you ask them about climate change, carbon tax etc. Unfortunately, it turns out that they don't really exist in any great numbers.

ancap 10y ago
Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.
    - ancap 10y ago
      > there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights I mostly agree with this part, > If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters but take issue with this part. As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on property and is dealt with through the judicial system. Meaning no regulation or action is needed by government other than the recognition of property rights. This was the position of common law and was abandoned by American courts in the early 20th century. Now, when you refer to the oceans, which due to government action remain un-ownable, it's more complicated and the libertarian position is that they should be privatized.

mikecb 10y ago

Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass.

nickff 10y ago
Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty. So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?
  - nickff 10y ago
    You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      > You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was. I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.

JustUhThought 10y ago

"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

vorotato 10y ago
I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.
- unprepare 10y ago
  wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?
  - ancap 10y ago
    Yes
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?
    - socialist_coder 10y ago
      Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
      - 10y ago

startupdiscuss 10y ago

This is a good argument. It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.

merpnderp 10y ago
You're right, back when carbon credits versus taxes were being argued for, economists seemed to all agree taxes were the far superior choice. But credits allowed businesses and politicians to hand out favors, cut deals, and generally wallow in corruption and graft. Thus credits won out over taxes.
dharmon 10y ago
Agreed. If anything, and if I'm reading it correctly, he's actually trying to explain why libertarians would be opposed to this: > "For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are opposed to government intervention."

fncndhdhc 10y ago

More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.

ancap 10y ago
How was this an example of how restrictions were lifted and a free market created?
- fncndhdhc 10y ago
  You're missing the point. If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight, business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before. This is what they do now, this is what they would do then, and this is also why anarcho capitalism is a contradiction.
  - ancap 10y ago
    Anarcho capitalism, which is not necessarily the view of every libertarian (some being "minarchists"), would be the absence of any government authority. Without a government the regulation you speak of is non-existent. There is no contradiction.
    - fncndhdhc 10y ago
      ...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.
      - eropple 10y ago
        Precisely. Cartels don't require a government to exist, and the absence of government letting them beat you and kill you and take your stuff makes them easier to entrench. Some of these cartels may even claim land as theirs and exact payments from those under their "protection". We might call them "barons", say, and their henchmen "knights". And these strongmen might, due to relative imbalance of force, have to swear fealty to "counts" and "dukes" and "kings", and whoa I think I just had the weirdest dream, that ancap is an undisguised pathway to corporatist feudalism. Weird.

squozzer 10y ago

Musk leaves out - or maybe he didn't but the reporter did - a couple of things. 1) Most of the subsidy for fossil fuels is actually a subsidy for transportation, which relies mostly on fossil fuels. 2) The production and re-fueling of EVs is primarily a fossil-fuel enabled activity ("EVs just have a longer tailpipe".) Someone really interested in reducing fossil fuel consumption might want instead to subsidize ways of reducing transportation use.

JustUhThought 10y ago
The longer tail pipe thing is, whater. Annoying. An E.V. can be charged from any source. Electrons don't discriminate as to what excites them. With the purchase of SolarCity by Tesla, the pipe is now super short. From your room to your garage. Blaiming E.V. power source emisions is like blaming people with second hand smoke cause cancer for their ailment. It's gonna take awhile to regulate the smokers out of our shared space.

elgabogringo 10y ago

If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities, we'd put a massive tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2 production continues to grow: http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2014/03/European-Comission-co2-emissions.png http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/...

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
In the larger picture, we hope that as standards of living rise in China and India, carbon use will improve ( decline ).
dpark 10y ago
And on services/products from the USA, right? Per capita we're using more energy and producing more CO2 than China and India and almost everywhere else. (Australia looks about the same. The UAE appears to be at the top.) Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not sure why you're lumping them in with China.

billpg 10y ago

Next week, a communist argument for private ownership of the means of production.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago

Three are many others that argue that a price on carbon is the best way. For example: William Nordhaus of Yale University and Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbon-market http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbo...

sandworm101 10y ago

Given the medieval wealth disparities between the billionaire class and the average person, I find it difficult to trust their pontifications on financial and political matters. They are still people, but people operating on a very different moral compass than my own. Living in wealth and comfort is one thing, but the morality needed to acquire and retain billions in the face of all that could be done with it means we operate under very different rules.

binarymax 10y ago

I feel the argument was muddled by the libertarian clauses. It would have been more concise and poignant to make the same argument while leaving that out. He is completely right, that carbon not being taxed like other regulated substances, the fossil fuel businesses have the best subsidy possible, and the economics are completely misaligned.

hartator 10y ago

Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate. > Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained. Ref: http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-arthur-charles-other/ http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-...

dpark 10y ago
> Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? Because global warming will probably kill us before oxygen deprivation or the health impact of reduced oxygen. Also, this is perhaps nitpicky, but O2 does not burn.

jalami 10y ago

I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology, libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've always thought, though, that it can only really apply to conscious human adults capable of weighing the pros and cons of their actions and relationships. When consequences or side-effects of their actions are pushed onto external parties incapable of disagreement (eg. the environment, children, animals) it gets murkier as actions become unilaterally beneficial to the party making each proposal. Here I think there is room for public consensus to come in and speak for the parties incapable of doing so. I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say 3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection. Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.

pininja 10y ago

What are the by-products of manufacturing and maintaining batteries and solar panels? I'd like to learn more about the inputs and outputs, then maybe I can learn a better comparison between fossil fuels and solar. What are we transforming in order to create, store, and consume solar energy and fossil fuel energy?

bhhaskin 10y ago
Whats worse is the waste left over after a battery is past it life span.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  Not for Musk's Tesla at least: https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-non-toxic-battery-packs https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-... https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycl...
sinxoveretothex 10y ago
You would want to look at lifecycle analysis studies (here's a few [1][2]). The big problem with fossil fuel is that it takes fuel to extract new fuels (high cost sources like tar sands have a ratio of like 1 fuel unit used to extract 2) AND they have a cost for each unit of power generated. Most renewables (excluding biofuels for example), have a manufacturing cost, but little to no energy generation cost (solar and wind have none, hydropower basins have something like 1/1000th the emissions of coal). [1] http://phys.org/news/2014-10-first-ever-global-life-renewable-energy.html http://phys.org/news/2014-10-first-ever-global-life-renewabl... [2] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html

throwaway2016a 10y ago

"[Libertarians] are actually opposed to government intervention because it causes false pricing. " No, Libertarians are opposed to government intervention because it forces individuals to give up liberties. It's right there in the name of the party. You have a right to keep what you earn and choose where you want to spend it. Now if you were to argue that polluting the environment deprives others of their right to breath clean air and that the government should tax carbon in order to protect the rights of the people who want clean air then THAT is a Libertarian argument for carbon tax.