6 ms·

Contrary to what the article claims ("Transportation is a huge, looming, and almost entirely unsolved climate problem") transportation can be a solved problem.

Contrary to what the article claims ("Transportation is a huge, looming, and almost entirely unsolved climate problem") transportation can be a solved problem. If you notice one of the graphs while transportation is the top emitter hasn't increased much since 2005 and it is very sensitive to oil prices. Carbon taxes or excise taxes on fuel are the solution. They are endorsed by most economists (often in addition to emissions trading). Taxes must be imposed on emitting greenhouse gasses or at least on purchasing fuels; in addition a cap must be placed on the total amount of emissions. If you are libertarian and you feel like there are too many taxes already - the carbon tax can either substitute other taxes or the revenue from it can be returned to tax-payers in some form. Vox itself recently had an article about carbon taxes in California, it includes a part where the collected revenue is then redistributed back to citizens: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258...

OneOneOneOne 9y ago
> the carbon tax can either substitute other taxes or the revenue from it can be returned to tax-payers in some form I would be surprised if carbon tax payments offset some other taxes.
- davidw 9y ago
  They're simply saying that in terms of tax policy you can do something like: * Carbon tax forecast for X billion in revenue. * Let's knock X billion off of income taxes (or whatever else you want). This is what Washington State tried, although the measure was sadly opposed by "environmentalist" groups like the Sierra Club.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Technically, they didn't oppose it, but they didn't support it either, as members had mixed feelings about the approach, which I'll paraphrase as it partly being a disguised tax cut for the wealthy rather than a revenue neutral carbon fee. http://www.sierraclub.org/washington/sierra-club-position-carbon-washington-ballot-initiative-732 http://www.sierraclub.org/washington/sierra-club-position-ca... I personally support offsetting carbon taxes against other taxes, but since it would be regressive, I'd lean towards mitigating that in whatever compensatory tax cuts were introduced.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      My preferred solution would be to simply take all of the carbon taxes collected and divide them evenly between all residents.
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        That can work too, though it's still probably regressive, as some people have more resources to adapt than others. And if the policy is regressive then you face the danger of it blowing up in your face. For example, see what happened when the rich in America seized most of the benefits of globalisation, now we have Presidents threatening to burn it all down and being popular in doing so. If you actually want carbon reduce toon to be successful you need to factor in the politics, both getting the wealthy and powerful on board and getting the average man in the street to feel that he's not being screwed (which some people will tell him he is, even if he isn't).
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Maybe, but I would kind of assume that poorer people already end up emitting a lot less carbon since most carbon emitting activities already have a significant cost involved.
        davidw 9y ago
        I'm not so sure: poorer people often have to drive further, in clunkier cars. In any event, it's likely more 'regressive' than income: a rich person might earn 10X, but generate 2X the carbon. I bet there's data for this, though.
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Because of the refund, 2X the carbon doesn't mean 2X the taxes. Someone who emits 120% of the average amount of carbon pays twice as much as someone who emits 110% of the average, but emits less than 10% more.
- dangjc 9y ago
  California is proposing per-capita dividends for their cap and trade auction revenue. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258...
jackfoxy 9y ago
> Electricity wastes two-thirds of its primary energy; transportation wastes about three-quarters. The electricity generation waste I'm willing to take at face value, but only because I am somewhat familiar with the concepts of conversion factor loss and line loss. I find both of these assertions require digging into the footnotes to understand better. Their presentation is a little too hand wavy. I'm really at a loss to understand what the transportation waste means. Sure, you also need to propel the mass of the vehicle. Is it comparing every other vehicle to a bicycle? I don't know.
- bsully 9y ago
  Transportation waste is the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. The presentation isn't "hand wavy", it's just simplified. Most of the confusion in this thread is from users who don't understand relatively simple aspects of how energy is generated and used. Which is fine, but the response to that should be to look something up or ask a question, not attack the graphic.
  - jackfoxy 9y ago
    Well actually there is an article along with the very fine graphic. I think the article could have expended a few more sentences on energy waste. That's all. This wasn't an attack.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 9y ago
  The fact the tailpipe on your car ejects a lot of useless heat is waste. Similarly, a car's radiator is ejecting a lot of useless heat. Sure, tracking this feels hand-wavy but using less fuel because you drive less is different from using less fuel because the engine is more efficient. However, this stuff still very simplified as lighter cars use less fuel even without changing the % of waste energy generated.
  - dibujante 9y ago
strictnein 9y ago
> "If you are libertarian and you feel like there are too many taxes already - the carbon tax can either substitute other taxes or the revenue from it can be returned to tax-payers in some form." If there's one thing libertarians love, it's redistributing money through the government.
- cavanasm 9y ago
  I think the term "redistribution" adds confusion to the issue. The idea behind a carbon tax like that is that polluters owe everyone else something (they're taking from tax payers in various ways: air quality, property value, life expectancy), and the easiest way for them to pay up is through a tax. Viewed through that lens, libertarians may view a carbon tax as getting rid of free-rider pollution producers. The value of those things being given up in exchange for whatever is being produced is no longer being completely ignored. It would also have the effect of restricting the least efficient/profitable pollution producing processes.
  - hammock 9y ago
    You're assuming ignorance on the part of libertarians. However I think you'll find that many understand the problem of externalities fine and simply disagree with the common tax "solution" taught in Econ 101 classes around the country. Some example reading to open your mind: https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument
    - epistasis 9y ago
      Having read that, I'm not finding myself enlightened or my mind opened in the least. What was the point, other than it's hard to calculate externalities? Argument that "it's hard" is not much of an argument at all. It does make me think that there's considerable flexibility in a "libertarian" position on externalities though.
      - hammock 9y ago
        It's not hard, it's impossible. Prices are revealed through transaction only..

OneOneOneOne 9y ago

> the carbon tax can either substitute other taxes or the revenue from it can be returned to tax-payers in some form I would be surprised if carbon tax payments offset some other taxes.

davidw 9y ago
They're simply saying that in terms of tax policy you can do something like: * Carbon tax forecast for X billion in revenue. * Let's knock X billion off of income taxes (or whatever else you want). This is what Washington State tried, although the measure was sadly opposed by "environmentalist" groups like the Sierra Club.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Technically, they didn't oppose it, but they didn't support it either, as members had mixed feelings about the approach, which I'll paraphrase as it partly being a disguised tax cut for the wealthy rather than a revenue neutral carbon fee. http://www.sierraclub.org/washington/sierra-club-position-carbon-washington-ballot-initiative-732 http://www.sierraclub.org/washington/sierra-club-position-ca... I personally support offsetting carbon taxes against other taxes, but since it would be regressive, I'd lean towards mitigating that in whatever compensatory tax cuts were introduced.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    My preferred solution would be to simply take all of the carbon taxes collected and divide them evenly between all residents.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      That can work too, though it's still probably regressive, as some people have more resources to adapt than others. And if the policy is regressive then you face the danger of it blowing up in your face. For example, see what happened when the rich in America seized most of the benefits of globalisation, now we have Presidents threatening to burn it all down and being popular in doing so. If you actually want carbon reduce toon to be successful you need to factor in the politics, both getting the wealthy and powerful on board and getting the average man in the street to feel that he's not being screwed (which some people will tell him he is, even if he isn't).
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Maybe, but I would kind of assume that poorer people already end up emitting a lot less carbon since most carbon emitting activities already have a significant cost involved.
        davidw 9y ago
        I'm not so sure: poorer people often have to drive further, in clunkier cars. In any event, it's likely more 'regressive' than income: a rich person might earn 10X, but generate 2X the carbon. I bet there's data for this, though.
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Because of the refund, 2X the carbon doesn't mean 2X the taxes. Someone who emits 120% of the average amount of carbon pays twice as much as someone who emits 110% of the average, but emits less than 10% more.
dangjc 9y ago
California is proposing per-capita dividends for their cap and trade auction revenue. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258...

jackfoxy 9y ago

> Electricity wastes two-thirds of its primary energy; transportation wastes about three-quarters. The electricity generation waste I'm willing to take at face value, but only because I am somewhat familiar with the concepts of conversion factor loss and line loss. I find both of these assertions require digging into the footnotes to understand better. Their presentation is a little too hand wavy. I'm really at a loss to understand what the transportation waste means. Sure, you also need to propel the mass of the vehicle. Is it comparing every other vehicle to a bicycle? I don't know.

bsully 9y ago
Transportation waste is the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. The presentation isn't "hand wavy", it's just simplified. Most of the confusion in this thread is from users who don't understand relatively simple aspects of how energy is generated and used. Which is fine, but the response to that should be to look something up or ask a question, not attack the graphic.
- jackfoxy 9y ago
  Well actually there is an article along with the very fine graphic. I think the article could have expended a few more sentences on energy waste. That's all. This wasn't an attack.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Retric 9y ago
The fact the tailpipe on your car ejects a lot of useless heat is waste. Similarly, a car's radiator is ejecting a lot of useless heat. Sure, tracking this feels hand-wavy but using less fuel because you drive less is different from using less fuel because the engine is more efficient. However, this stuff still very simplified as lighter cars use less fuel even without changing the % of waste energy generated.
- dibujante 9y ago

strictnein 9y ago

> "If you are libertarian and you feel like there are too many taxes already - the carbon tax can either substitute other taxes or the revenue from it can be returned to tax-payers in some form." If there's one thing libertarians love, it's redistributing money through the government.

cavanasm 9y ago
I think the term "redistribution" adds confusion to the issue. The idea behind a carbon tax like that is that polluters owe everyone else something (they're taking from tax payers in various ways: air quality, property value, life expectancy), and the easiest way for them to pay up is through a tax. Viewed through that lens, libertarians may view a carbon tax as getting rid of free-rider pollution producers. The value of those things being given up in exchange for whatever is being produced is no longer being completely ignored. It would also have the effect of restricting the least efficient/profitable pollution producing processes.
- hammock 9y ago
  You're assuming ignorance on the part of libertarians. However I think you'll find that many understand the problem of externalities fine and simply disagree with the common tax "solution" taught in Econ 101 classes around the country. Some example reading to open your mind: https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument
  - epistasis 9y ago
    Having read that, I'm not finding myself enlightened or my mind opened in the least. What was the point, other than it's hard to calculate externalities? Argument that "it's hard" is not much of an argument at all. It does make me think that there's considerable flexibility in a "libertarian" position on externalities though.
    - hammock 9y ago
      It's not hard, it's impossible. Prices are revealed through transaction only..