3 ms·

Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any ex

Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any extra income from climate taxes on fuel are distributed back to the population in the form of tax breaks or cheaper train tickets :-/

ori_b 10y ago
If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.
- briandear 10y ago
  There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
  - inimino 10y ago
    So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
    - nec4b 10y ago
      Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
      - inimino 10y ago
        Did I say that? No. Maybe you should check your cold war mindset whereby pointing out a limitation of the free market necessarily gets a response about the USSR. As though that were literally the only possible alternative. To recap: ori_b: How to disincentivize fossil fuel use? [a current policy goal] briandear: The free market! All we need is magical energy tech that doesn't exist yet and makes oil obsolete overnight, haha. me: The free market actually doesn't solve the externality problem. you: The USSR wasn't perfect either!
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Didn't downvote you but I for one am totally happy with taxes being used to help speed up this process; that is as long as it isn't just used as an excuse for increasing the general tax burden. This is why I was happy last year when gas taxes were raised and the money fed back to cut taxes and help reduce ticket prices.
  - Floegipoky 10y ago
    The free market is incapable of valuing the environment. How do you place a dollar amount on the survival of our species? Every gallon of petrol burned causes damage to the environment. How do you calculate the cost of that damage? How can the free market ever solve our problem if this very real cost is not reflected in the price of the product? Don't you think it's fishy that oil companies are now actually pushing for more taxes on fossil fuels? It's because they know that they'll get a bargain; the tax will always be lower than the value of the damage they're causing to our planet, and by the time everyone else realizes that it will be too late. They will be even more rich, and our species will be franticly scrambling to deal with the consequences of our inaction. We've seen it time and time again; the free market is prone to the same short-sightedness as the rest of the human race. It will continue advancing in exactly the same way until it is either forced to change or eats itself whole, except instead of a depression we will face extinction.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      The work of Coase and Pigou both imply that the free market is perfectly capable of "valuing the environment" - these things just don't adhere well to states in which identity politics make reasoning about these things in a price way off limits. I freely admit for myself - it seems rather a cold and .. Vulcan way of looking at it, but what other choice is there? It's humanity that is short-sighted ( because of time pressure in decision processes causing things like hyperbolic discounting )and free markets reflect that, as would any thinking other than purest central planning. We're back to "no straight thing was ever constructed from the crooked timber of humanity." Trying to ... sawmill it straight has a pretty poor track record. Meanwhile, the hydrocarbon industry sowed the wind by drinking the zero-coupon bond Kool-Aid and will reap the whirlwind.
      - masklinn 10y ago
        > The work of Coase and Pigou both imply that the free market is perfectly capable of "valuing the environment" […] It's humanity that is short-sighted I'm not sure there's anything more worthless than purely theorical econ, if you assume perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum all economic systems will end up at the same point and it doesn't really matter which one you pick. > We're back to "no straight thing was ever constructed from the crooked timber of humanity." Trying to ... sawmill it straight has a pretty poor track record. And yet that's the entire point of political and economic system, if you unmoor the system from the "crooked timber of humanity" it has no application.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > There is a way: it's called the free market. The free market cares nothing about externalities unless it's forced to. > When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. Case in point. And you're ignoring oil companies fighting tooth and nail to avoid that situation. > The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage. The free market is about making money. An excellent to do that is to suppress innovation so that your product remains relevant.

ori_b 10y ago

If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.

briandear 10y ago
There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
- inimino 10y ago
  So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
  - nec4b 10y ago
    Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Did I say that? No. Maybe you should check your cold war mindset whereby pointing out a limitation of the free market necessarily gets a response about the USSR. As though that were literally the only possible alternative. To recap: ori_b: How to disincentivize fossil fuel use? [a current policy goal] briandear: The free market! All we need is magical energy tech that doesn't exist yet and makes oil obsolete overnight, haha. me: The free market actually doesn't solve the externality problem. you: The USSR wasn't perfect either!
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Didn't downvote you but I for one am totally happy with taxes being used to help speed up this process; that is as long as it isn't just used as an excuse for increasing the general tax burden. This is why I was happy last year when gas taxes were raised and the money fed back to cut taxes and help reduce ticket prices.
- Floegipoky 10y ago
  The free market is incapable of valuing the environment. How do you place a dollar amount on the survival of our species? Every gallon of petrol burned causes damage to the environment. How do you calculate the cost of that damage? How can the free market ever solve our problem if this very real cost is not reflected in the price of the product? Don't you think it's fishy that oil companies are now actually pushing for more taxes on fossil fuels? It's because they know that they'll get a bargain; the tax will always be lower than the value of the damage they're causing to our planet, and by the time everyone else realizes that it will be too late. They will be even more rich, and our species will be franticly scrambling to deal with the consequences of our inaction. We've seen it time and time again; the free market is prone to the same short-sightedness as the rest of the human race. It will continue advancing in exactly the same way until it is either forced to change or eats itself whole, except instead of a depression we will face extinction.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    The work of Coase and Pigou both imply that the free market is perfectly capable of "valuing the environment" - these things just don't adhere well to states in which identity politics make reasoning about these things in a price way off limits. I freely admit for myself - it seems rather a cold and .. Vulcan way of looking at it, but what other choice is there? It's humanity that is short-sighted ( because of time pressure in decision processes causing things like hyperbolic discounting )and free markets reflect that, as would any thinking other than purest central planning. We're back to "no straight thing was ever constructed from the crooked timber of humanity." Trying to ... sawmill it straight has a pretty poor track record. Meanwhile, the hydrocarbon industry sowed the wind by drinking the zero-coupon bond Kool-Aid and will reap the whirlwind.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      > The work of Coase and Pigou both imply that the free market is perfectly capable of "valuing the environment" […] It's humanity that is short-sighted I'm not sure there's anything more worthless than purely theorical econ, if you assume perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum all economic systems will end up at the same point and it doesn't really matter which one you pick. > We're back to "no straight thing was ever constructed from the crooked timber of humanity." Trying to ... sawmill it straight has a pretty poor track record. And yet that's the entire point of political and economic system, if you unmoor the system from the "crooked timber of humanity" it has no application.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > There is a way: it's called the free market. The free market cares nothing about externalities unless it's forced to. > When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. Case in point. And you're ignoring oil companies fighting tooth and nail to avoid that situation. > The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage. The free market is about making money. An excellent to do that is to suppress innovation so that your product remains relevant.