3 ms·
I mostly agree with this, but the digression about carbon pricing in the middle makes absolutely no sense. As long as you auction a fixed pool of carbon credits
by MBlume 9y ago
I mostly agree with this, but the digression about carbon pricing in the middle makes absolutely no sense. As long as you auction a fixed pool of carbon credits, the prices will go up the more people are willing to spend to pollute. This is basically the simplest, most straightforward way to force capitalism to produce the amount of carbon you want.
- anigbrowl 9y agoThat assumes everyone is rational and nobody lies. Neither is true.
- adrianN 9y agoLies can be made expensive via checks and fines. Rationality is not so important if you steadily decrease the amount of available carbon credits and your checking system works well enough to ensure that GHG production falls at roughly the same pace.
- anigbrowl 9y agoFake news How're those checks and balances working out for you these days?
- saas_co_de 9y agoI think the concern is that selling pollution credits is kind of like selling indulgences. If you offer the wealthy a fixed price for which they can destroy the entire planet then what else is not for sale? And since money is just created out of thin air, you can always make enough money to pay the price.
- scatters 9y agoThis enviromnentalism as religion attitude is hugely counterproductive. It might help motivate the believers, but it also contributes to the culture war that sees conservatives denying climate science. Everyone pollutes; when we breathe, when we shit, let alone when we drive or fly, so there is no hard boundary between normal and "sinful" activities. The rest of your comment is simply wrong; Pigovian taxes and auctions are dynamic, so can adjust to any change in price levels, and in any case money supply is governed by central banks, not by polluters.