4 ms·

Just FYI, a carbon tax can combat climate change while raising revenue.

by wallace_f 10y ago

T-A 10y ago
Thus making you dependent on said revenue, so you end up not wanting to get off carbon.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  It's still brilliantly more efficient and elegant. Plenty of other goods and services are taxed that face this same problem. Cap and Trade has provided subsidies and rewarded some of the biggest polluters. There's a very strong, fair and efficient case to be made for it. It would do a lot to reduce GHG emissions and raise tax revenue in a more socially just way (better than taxing jobs). Further reading: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19499/gores_carbon_tax_shift_beats_capandtrade.html http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19499/gores_... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/a-rorschach-on-cap-and-trade/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/a-rorschach-on-...
  - T-A 10y ago
    > It's still brilliantly more efficient and elegant Than what? The falling cost of alternative energy technologies vs carbon-based energy resources? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/03/doe-charts-show-why-climate-doom-and-gloom-isnt-needed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Ok, let me make you aware that carbon-based energy is still the cheapest energy source.
- witty_username 10y ago
  No, there are different parties involved. Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon taxes. It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this is legal unlike evasion).
  - T-A 10y ago
    > No, there are different parties involved Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like import duties on solar panels. > It's just like any other tax Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow. Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted (other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected). Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at least in theory).
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    And governments are good at counting on that recurring revenue. Do you think the government wants people to stop smoking tomorrow?
    - vinay427 10y ago
      Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. Whether some governments actually want that is an exercise in guesswork.
      - dexterdog 10y ago

Just FYI, a carbon tax can combat climate change while raising revenue.

T-A 10y ago

Thus making you dependent on said revenue, so you end up not wanting to get off carbon.

wallace_f 10y ago
It's still brilliantly more efficient and elegant. Plenty of other goods and services are taxed that face this same problem. Cap and Trade has provided subsidies and rewarded some of the biggest polluters. There's a very strong, fair and efficient case to be made for it. It would do a lot to reduce GHG emissions and raise tax revenue in a more socially just way (better than taxing jobs). Further reading: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19499/gores_carbon_tax_shift_beats_capandtrade.html http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19499/gores_... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/a-rorschach-on-cap-and-trade/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/a-rorschach-on-...
- T-A 10y ago
  > It's still brilliantly more efficient and elegant Than what? The falling cost of alternative energy technologies vs carbon-based energy resources? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/03/doe-charts-show-why-climate-doom-and-gloom-isnt-needed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Ok, let me make you aware that carbon-based energy is still the cheapest energy source.
witty_username 10y ago
No, there are different parties involved. Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon taxes. It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this is legal unlike evasion).
- T-A 10y ago
  > No, there are different parties involved Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like import duties on solar panels. > It's just like any other tax Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow. Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted (other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected). Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at least in theory).
- dexterdog 10y ago
  And governments are good at counting on that recurring revenue. Do you think the government wants people to stop smoking tomorrow?
  - vinay427 10y ago
    Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. Whether some governments actually want that is an exercise in guesswork.
    - dexterdog 10y ago