5 ms·

I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad. I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solu

by NickM 8y ago

I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad. I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far? I mean, it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak. I agree that carbon taxes can potentially hit poor and middle class folks unfairly hard, but this can easily be solved via carbon dividend type schemes.

admax88q 8y ago
> I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak. Most existing schemes seem to have been cleverly designed to avoid hitting certain industries with large enough lobbying power. Taxing/banning/regulating specific polluters rather than pollution itself is just ripe for regulatory capture.
ip26 8y ago
It sounds like he's arguing not that the policies have been lacking oomph, but that the policies could never really hope to handle all the nuance. If you could only set up the incentives right, you'd get the right outcome, but maybe that's a perilous & incredibly difficult task.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?' My theory is that the people push for market based solutions the most are usually the same people that are against regulations and taxes so whatever they come up with will usually be very weak. They certainly won't support taxation of carbon emissions to the degree that's necessary for real behavior.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  I'm one of those people that push for market based solutions. I also support taxation to the degree that it is effective. So your theory is not supported by evidence. I also support the idea of reducing other taxes in concert, so the tax is revenue neutral.
munificent 8y ago
> it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban. We could, for example, discourage smoking by putting a $500 tax on each pack of cigarettes. But at that point, you may as well stop pretending and ban it outright. Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)
- amluto 8y ago
  > One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban. I'm not sure I agree. I could easily imagine a range of carbon taxes applied to vehicles where most, but not all, users would switch to electric. There could easily be people who like taking long trips far from major roads and are willing to pay a large premium to do so. > Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.) That's a fair point, but I'm not sure your example is all that compelling. If a small number of rich people are willing to pay $100 in extra taxes to smoke a cigarette, is that really so bad?
  - secabeen 8y ago
    The advantage of a ban is that you can also eliminate production and importation. If you have a legal path, that path will be diverted into the black market.
    - amluto 8y ago
      Black market cigarettes, sure. But black market cars? Cars are already individually registered and tracked by the states. You can’t just magic up an illegally imported car and get away with driving it for very long.
netcan 8y ago
I don't think the whole idea is bad. Market based public housing schemes can be quite good, for example. I do think that making stuff more market based to avoid "picking winners" is probably a bad idea. We know what the winner is here, more or less. The winner is non-ICE vehicles. We should be backing that, not 25% more efficient engines.

by NickM 8y ago

admax88q 8y ago

> I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak. Most existing schemes seem to have been cleverly designed to avoid hitting certain industries with large enough lobbying power. Taxing/banning/regulating specific polluters rather than pollution itself is just ripe for regulatory capture.

ip26 8y ago

It sounds like he's arguing not that the policies have been lacking oomph, but that the policies could never really hope to handle all the nuance. If you could only set up the incentives right, you'd get the right outcome, but maybe that's a perilous & incredibly difficult task.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?' My theory is that the people push for market based solutions the most are usually the same people that are against regulations and taxes so whatever they come up with will usually be very weak. They certainly won't support taxation of carbon emissions to the degree that's necessary for real behavior.

skookumchuck 8y ago
I'm one of those people that push for market based solutions. I also support taxation to the degree that it is effective. So your theory is not supported by evidence. I also support the idea of reducing other taxes in concert, so the tax is revenue neutral.

munificent 8y ago

> it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban. We could, for example, discourage smoking by putting a $500 tax on each pack of cigarettes. But at that point, you may as well stop pretending and ban it outright. Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)

amluto 8y ago
> One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban. I'm not sure I agree. I could easily imagine a range of carbon taxes applied to vehicles where most, but not all, users would switch to electric. There could easily be people who like taking long trips far from major roads and are willing to pay a large premium to do so. > Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.) That's a fair point, but I'm not sure your example is all that compelling. If a small number of rich people are willing to pay $100 in extra taxes to smoke a cigarette, is that really so bad?
- secabeen 8y ago
  The advantage of a ban is that you can also eliminate production and importation. If you have a legal path, that path will be diverted into the black market.
  - amluto 8y ago
    Black market cigarettes, sure. But black market cars? Cars are already individually registered and tracked by the states. You can’t just magic up an illegally imported car and get away with driving it for very long.

netcan 8y ago

I don't think the whole idea is bad. Market based public housing schemes can be quite good, for example. I do think that making stuff more market based to avoid "picking winners" is probably a bad idea. We know what the winner is here, more or less. The winner is non-ICE vehicles. We should be backing that, not 25% more efficient engines.