4 ms·

Part of me believes what really is causing the most issues are the proposed solutions to fix climate change. Most of the recommendations I have read insist on r

by jriot 9y ago

Part of me believes what really is causing the most issues are the proposed solutions to fix climate change. Most of the recommendations I have read insist on raising taxes. I will never vote yes on any tax increase, as I don't trust our politicians enough to see them utilizing the extra tax revenue wisely e.g., R&D for renewable energy etc... Climate change is real, but we can't tax our way to a solution.

Fej 9y ago
I would tend to agree with you on the distrust of politicians; however I believe that it is important to distinguish between taxes primarily meant to raise money and taxes primarily meant to cause a change in behavior. What I am trying to get at is: the income tax, for example, exists so that governments can finance their operations. A heavy tax on cigarettes, on the other hand, is meant to change the population's behavior - to push smokers to quit. The extra revenue is useful but not the main point of the legislation. The goal is to reduce the number of smokers. Such as it would be with a carbon tax. As someone thoroughly concerned with the state of our habitat, I would be thrilled to see a carbon tax here in the US - even if the politicians took the extra money raised by the tax and burned it. The point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions; raised monies are a secondary benefit.
Erem 9y ago
What is a solution you could get behind then? I would love to be proven a fool, but where you see an eagerness to tax I see a lack of free market solutions for tragedies of the commons such as the atmosphere.
flukus 9y ago
> I will never vote yes on any tax increase, as I don't trust our politicians enough to see them utilizing the extra tax revenue wisely e.g., R&D for renewable energy etc... Climate change is real, but we can't tax our way to a solution. Because the is the most cost effective and simplest solution. It has a proven track record with the Montreal protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol I'm certainly not wedded to the idea, but there doesn't seem to be any other viable options on the table.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
You don't really need to raise taxes, just shift them around, so you take some tax away from income and move it to carbon for instance. The difficulty is you need to do this in a coordinated way otherwise you just end up shifting your carbon intensive industries overseas. This is why reaching a global agreement is so important. The R&D thing is a red herring, business will respond to the economic situation it finds itself in.
- Sunset 9y ago
  Have fun convincing China to commit economic suicide.
jriot 9y ago
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/04/some-modest-proposals-to-fight-climate-change-glenn-reynolds-column/102489538/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/04/some-modes... One solution. While a small footprint, it is bigger than the comment section combined (assuming we aren't millionaires with private jets and yachts). When politicians and celebrities promote enacting a carbon tax that reduces our economic activity, while having a negligible effect on them.

by jriot 9y ago

Fej 9y ago

I would tend to agree with you on the distrust of politicians; however I believe that it is important to distinguish between taxes primarily meant to raise money and taxes primarily meant to cause a change in behavior. What I am trying to get at is: the income tax, for example, exists so that governments can finance their operations. A heavy tax on cigarettes, on the other hand, is meant to change the population's behavior - to push smokers to quit. The extra revenue is useful but not the main point of the legislation. The goal is to reduce the number of smokers. Such as it would be with a carbon tax. As someone thoroughly concerned with the state of our habitat, I would be thrilled to see a carbon tax here in the US - even if the politicians took the extra money raised by the tax and burned it. The point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions; raised monies are a secondary benefit.

Erem 9y ago

What is a solution you could get behind then? I would love to be proven a fool, but where you see an eagerness to tax I see a lack of free market solutions for tragedies of the commons such as the atmosphere.

flukus 9y ago

> I will never vote yes on any tax increase, as I don't trust our politicians enough to see them utilizing the extra tax revenue wisely e.g., R&D for renewable energy etc... Climate change is real, but we can't tax our way to a solution. Because the is the most cost effective and simplest solution. It has a proven track record with the Montreal protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol I'm certainly not wedded to the idea, but there doesn't seem to be any other viable options on the table.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

You don't really need to raise taxes, just shift them around, so you take some tax away from income and move it to carbon for instance. The difficulty is you need to do this in a coordinated way otherwise you just end up shifting your carbon intensive industries overseas. This is why reaching a global agreement is so important. The R&D thing is a red herring, business will respond to the economic situation it finds itself in.

Sunset 9y ago
Have fun convincing China to commit economic suicide.

jriot 9y ago

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/04/some-modest-proposals-to-fight-climate-change-glenn-reynolds-column/102489538/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/04/some-modes... One solution. While a small footprint, it is bigger than the comment section combined (assuming we aren't millionaires with private jets and yachts). When politicians and celebrities promote enacting a carbon tax that reduces our economic activity, while having a negligible effect on them.