3 ms·

Why not a simple revenue-neutral modest carbon tax? And for countries who do not have a similar paradigm, an import tariff equal to the equivalent embedded CO2

by ghouse 10y ago

Why not a simple revenue-neutral modest carbon tax? And for countries who do not have a similar paradigm, an import tariff equal to the equivalent embedded CO2. It appears much of the world (other than the US) is now headed in this direction.

aetherson 10y ago
Here's an article on Vox about a carbon tax initiative in Washington: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-wash... It's an interesting article and is worth reading in full. But my takeaway from it is "environmentalists, and particularly wonky highly scientific environmentalists, are junior members of the liberal coalition. Their role in the liberal coalition is to follow policy and add support to it. Their coalition members are not interested in narrow environmental initiatives like a revenue-neutral carbon tax." So liberals sink modest wonky proposals like a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Conservatives sink giant omnibuses that include environmental stuff in a package with redistribution and social justice stuff. End result: no environmental legislation. I have a blog post going into more detail on the subject here: https://sandoratthezoo.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/scientific-environmentalists-are-junior-coalition-members/ https://sandoratthezoo.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/scientific-e...
- rch 10y ago
  Thanks for the link and the blog post - the climate justice split is affecting efforts in Colorado as well. However, my impression is that the Washington initiative from the Vox article would have performed well in Colorado, as it tends to lean more pragmatic/conservative pro-environment.
merpnderp 10y ago
Everyone with any brains and/or ethics wanted a carbon tax 15 years ago. But straight taxes don't offer nearly the opportunity for graft and corruption. Which, if looking at the investments of the major players tells us anything, is exactly why we didn't get a carbon tax even climate change skeptics would have been cool with.
ars 10y ago
> an import tariff equal to the equivalent embedded CO2. That's an impossible number to calculate. For example: A plant powered entirely by solar cells. Do you tax them for the CO2 embedded in manufacturing those solar cells? How far down do you go? Do you have to calculate the CO2 emitted by your employees via the money you pay them? Because if you don't your wage costs are lower than wages costs in the US, where you have to pay your employees extra to cover CO2 taxes. Also, don't forget to give American manufacturers CO2 tax credit for exports, or you will make American exporting too expensive. But doing that leads to the insane result that shipping American goods overseas, buying it there, then shipping it back, is cheaper than buying it locally. (No one pays tariffs on small imports when you buy on Ebay for example, only bulk imports are taxed.) That's why "why not" - it's simply too complicated. (I'm all for it mind you, if it could be done. But I don't think it can be done.)

by ghouse 10y ago

aetherson 10y ago

Here's an article on Vox about a carbon tax initiative in Washington: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-wash... It's an interesting article and is worth reading in full. But my takeaway from it is "environmentalists, and particularly wonky highly scientific environmentalists, are junior members of the liberal coalition. Their role in the liberal coalition is to follow policy and add support to it. Their coalition members are not interested in narrow environmental initiatives like a revenue-neutral carbon tax." So liberals sink modest wonky proposals like a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Conservatives sink giant omnibuses that include environmental stuff in a package with redistribution and social justice stuff. End result: no environmental legislation. I have a blog post going into more detail on the subject here: https://sandoratthezoo.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/scientific-environmentalists-are-junior-coalition-members/ https://sandoratthezoo.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/scientific-e...

rch 10y ago
Thanks for the link and the blog post - the climate justice split is affecting efforts in Colorado as well. However, my impression is that the Washington initiative from the Vox article would have performed well in Colorado, as it tends to lean more pragmatic/conservative pro-environment.

merpnderp 10y ago

Everyone with any brains and/or ethics wanted a carbon tax 15 years ago. But straight taxes don't offer nearly the opportunity for graft and corruption. Which, if looking at the investments of the major players tells us anything, is exactly why we didn't get a carbon tax even climate change skeptics would have been cool with.

ars 10y ago

> an import tariff equal to the equivalent embedded CO2. That's an impossible number to calculate. For example: A plant powered entirely by solar cells. Do you tax them for the CO2 embedded in manufacturing those solar cells? How far down do you go? Do you have to calculate the CO2 emitted by your employees via the money you pay them? Because if you don't your wage costs are lower than wages costs in the US, where you have to pay your employees extra to cover CO2 taxes. Also, don't forget to give American manufacturers CO2 tax credit for exports, or you will make American exporting too expensive. But doing that leads to the insane result that shipping American goods overseas, buying it there, then shipping it back, is cheaper than buying it locally. (No one pays tariffs on small imports when you buy on Ebay for example, only bulk imports are taxed.) That's why "why not" - it's simply too complicated. (I'm all for it mind you, if it could be done. But I don't think it can be done.)