4 ms·

This is incorrect - the fact is that we cannot afford it at all A carbon tax of that nature will kill global growth, and our ability to service debt. A carbon

This is incorrect - the fact is that we cannot afford it at all A carbon tax of that nature will kill global growth, and our ability to service debt. A carbon tax will mean many businesses will shut down or have their margins pruned significantly - costs which will be pushed to consumers. This means lower global growth rates, which is not something politicians can sell, especially since the source of funds (corporations) will fund politicians who oppose it. So it’s not just that nobody is willing to put their foot down, it’s that no one can afford to, without suffering huge repercussions.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> A carbon tax of that nature will kill global growth, and our ability to service debt. Any discussion of growth and cost has to be industry-specific. Obviously a carbon tax is bad for the oil industry and good for the solar industry -- that's the whole point. But you're assuming it would be bad for everyone else, which isn't actually true. Consider what happens when you have a cross-subsidy like that. The oil and coal companies have a bunch of known reserves and existing infrastructure -- already explored, already built. When the new policy arrives, suddenly the cost of solar or wind goes from e.g. $.06/KWh to $.04/KWh, meanwhile the total cost of oil or coal-fired power generation goes from $.04/KWh to $.06/KWh -- at the previous market commodity prices. But nobody is going to pay $.06/KWh for oil or coal when they can get solar or wind for $.04/KWh, so if the fossil fuel industry wants to make any use of their existing reserves and existing infrastructure, they have to eat the entire difference out of their profits -- they have to charge $.04/KWh after-tax in order to continue to compete in the market. So the first question is, should we feel sorry for them? No. If you built a coal-fired power plant in 1945 then you've more than recovered your investment already. If you built or acquired one in 2010, decades after we've known this was a problem, you get what you deserve. So the initial effect is a transfer of profits from the fossil fuel industry to the non-fossil fuel energy industry, but no actual change in the price of electricity -- after all, it's revenue neutral. The government isn't keeping any of the money. What happens next is that oil exploration ceases to exist. There is no point in searching for more oil if the pre-tax market price is $10/barrel; it's not profitable. They'll sell the reserves they have for whatever they can get because what else are they going to do with them, but then they're done -- that's the whole idea. Meanwhile there is a huge boom in renewables because all the profits are there now -- all the profits the oil producers would have had are going to install solar panels instead. So what does that make energy costs look like in ten or twenty years? Well, the two effects mostly cancel out. The existing oil and coal reserves get used up and not replaced, but in the meantime we're building non-fossil alternatives to replace them, using the money we're not paying to the oil producers. It's likely that the price would be slightly higher, because otherwise it's what the market would have done without the tax (though that is actually already happening somewhat because the prices are already pretty close), but the net result isn't a huge price differential because they're countervailing forces. The major effect is what happens to the people who own the existing oil reserves. But notice that these are predominantly countries we don't really love, like Russia and Saudi Arabia. So the main effect is to transfer wealth from those countries to the local economy where you create jobs installing renewable energy infrastructure, which is an effect that significantly outweighs -- is net economically positive -- against a slight increase in generating costs, for any country that is not a large net oil exporter. And that's assuming an increase in demand for renewables doesn't bring any economies of scale that could bring the price down below the existing energy market price.
- intended 8y ago
  All of our plastics come from oil though. Renewables will help significantly in reducing the power plant power issue. Sure. But we haven’t solved the storage problem, which means that at night we need gas/coal. When there’s no wind we need gas/coal. Any tax will be passed on to consumers, if not in full then in part. This will of course drive people to use it less, which is good. Except that if people stop consuming, we have a problem.... Human demand for consumables is just starting to ramp up. Total power produced, total plastics produced, total chemicals used, total waste generated are just small portions of what they will end up - based on growth projections for countries like India and China. 7% growth means a doubling of materials use in a decade, over a population much larger than the first world. That means the number of plane tickets, international trips, shipping containers, iPhones, batteries and inflatable mattresses - will go up. The carbon cost for most of these items is never calculated, and it’s convenient to push production to places where the laws can be ignored. Further - Most of that growth investment has been done on the backs of debt. when we tell people that they will become more expensive, people will be unhappy, and they will buy less. Therefore Business owners are unhappy, lenders are unhappy which means politicians are unhappy. Our current consumption patterns are not sustainable, but stopping them is political and economic suicide. The circular loop at play here ensures that nothing will happen, because the costs are too high.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > All of our plastics come from oil though. But that doesn't (inherently) emit CO2 so it isn't subject to a carbon tax. It should actually make plastics cheaper because they won't have to compete with power plants for oil. > Renewables will help significantly in reducing the power plant power issue. Sure. But we haven’t solved the storage problem, which means that at night we need gas/coal. When there’s no wind we need gas/coal. Markets are good at fixing things like this. Nuclear works great at night. Solar works during most of the peak load times (solar generation correlates with air conditioning usage). There is a problematic demand period between when the sun goes down and when people go to sleep, so use pricing to encourage people to do their laundry on Saturday morning instead of Friday night -- this may even save money on net. And there is nothing saying you can't burn any carbon. If it's 9PM on a windless night then you pay the carbon tax for an hour. You're still down 95% from when that plant was operating 24/7. > Any tax will be passed on to consumers, if not in full then in part. It's revenue neutral. You're basically taking money from oil companies and giving it to renewables companies. That doesn't inherently change the market price at all. It's like taking money from Nike and giving it to Reebok. You get a change in the type of shoes but not necessarily the price of shoes. The only price difference is if it costs more to generate with renewables than fossil fuels -- but if that's even true at all anymore, the difference is very small. And again, there is a plausible argument that scaling use of renewables will bring prices down. Once you have a given installed base of solar, it keeps generating power without having to spend additional resources on oil exploration/extraction/refining/distribution/etc.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> A carbon tax of that nature will kill global growth, and our ability to service debt. Any discussion of growth and cost has to be industry-specific. Obviously a carbon tax is bad for the oil industry and good for the solar industry -- that's the whole point. But you're assuming it would be bad for everyone else, which isn't actually true. Consider what happens when you have a cross-subsidy like that. The oil and coal companies have a bunch of known reserves and existing infrastructure -- already explored, already built. When the new policy arrives, suddenly the cost of solar or wind goes from e.g. $.06/KWh to $.04/KWh, meanwhile the total cost of oil or coal-fired power generation goes from $.04/KWh to $.06/KWh -- at the previous market commodity prices. But nobody is going to pay $.06/KWh for oil or coal when they can get solar or wind for $.04/KWh, so if the fossil fuel industry wants to make any use of their existing reserves and existing infrastructure, they have to eat the entire difference out of their profits -- they have to charge $.04/KWh after-tax in order to continue to compete in the market. So the first question is, should we feel sorry for them? No. If you built a coal-fired power plant in 1945 then you've more than recovered your investment already. If you built or acquired one in 2010, decades after we've known this was a problem, you get what you deserve. So the initial effect is a transfer of profits from the fossil fuel industry to the non-fossil fuel energy industry, but no actual change in the price of electricity -- after all, it's revenue neutral. The government isn't keeping any of the money. What happens next is that oil exploration ceases to exist. There is no point in searching for more oil if the pre-tax market price is $10/barrel; it's not profitable. They'll sell the reserves they have for whatever they can get because what else are they going to do with them, but then they're done -- that's the whole idea. Meanwhile there is a huge boom in renewables because all the profits are there now -- all the profits the oil producers would have had are going to install solar panels instead. So what does that make energy costs look like in ten or twenty years? Well, the two effects mostly cancel out. The existing oil and coal reserves get used up and not replaced, but in the meantime we're building non-fossil alternatives to replace them, using the money we're not paying to the oil producers. It's likely that the price would be slightly higher, because otherwise it's what the market would have done without the tax (though that is actually already happening somewhat because the prices are already pretty close), but the net result isn't a huge price differential because they're countervailing forces. The major effect is what happens to the people who own the existing oil reserves. But notice that these are predominantly countries we don't really love, like Russia and Saudi Arabia. So the main effect is to transfer wealth from those countries to the local economy where you create jobs installing renewable energy infrastructure, which is an effect that significantly outweighs -- is net economically positive -- against a slight increase in generating costs, for any country that is not a large net oil exporter. And that's assuming an increase in demand for renewables doesn't bring any economies of scale that could bring the price down below the existing energy market price.

intended 8y ago
All of our plastics come from oil though. Renewables will help significantly in reducing the power plant power issue. Sure. But we haven’t solved the storage problem, which means that at night we need gas/coal. When there’s no wind we need gas/coal. Any tax will be passed on to consumers, if not in full then in part. This will of course drive people to use it less, which is good. Except that if people stop consuming, we have a problem.... Human demand for consumables is just starting to ramp up. Total power produced, total plastics produced, total chemicals used, total waste generated are just small portions of what they will end up - based on growth projections for countries like India and China. 7% growth means a doubling of materials use in a decade, over a population much larger than the first world. That means the number of plane tickets, international trips, shipping containers, iPhones, batteries and inflatable mattresses - will go up. The carbon cost for most of these items is never calculated, and it’s convenient to push production to places where the laws can be ignored. Further - Most of that growth investment has been done on the backs of debt. when we tell people that they will become more expensive, people will be unhappy, and they will buy less. Therefore Business owners are unhappy, lenders are unhappy which means politicians are unhappy. Our current consumption patterns are not sustainable, but stopping them is political and economic suicide. The circular loop at play here ensures that nothing will happen, because the costs are too high.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > All of our plastics come from oil though. But that doesn't (inherently) emit CO2 so it isn't subject to a carbon tax. It should actually make plastics cheaper because they won't have to compete with power plants for oil. > Renewables will help significantly in reducing the power plant power issue. Sure. But we haven’t solved the storage problem, which means that at night we need gas/coal. When there’s no wind we need gas/coal. Markets are good at fixing things like this. Nuclear works great at night. Solar works during most of the peak load times (solar generation correlates with air conditioning usage). There is a problematic demand period between when the sun goes down and when people go to sleep, so use pricing to encourage people to do their laundry on Saturday morning instead of Friday night -- this may even save money on net. And there is nothing saying you can't burn any carbon. If it's 9PM on a windless night then you pay the carbon tax for an hour. You're still down 95% from when that plant was operating 24/7. > Any tax will be passed on to consumers, if not in full then in part. It's revenue neutral. You're basically taking money from oil companies and giving it to renewables companies. That doesn't inherently change the market price at all. It's like taking money from Nike and giving it to Reebok. You get a change in the type of shoes but not necessarily the price of shoes. The only price difference is if it costs more to generate with renewables than fossil fuels -- but if that's even true at all anymore, the difference is very small. And again, there is a plausible argument that scaling use of renewables will bring prices down. Once you have a given installed base of solar, it keeps generating power without having to spend additional resources on oil exploration/extraction/refining/distribution/etc.