4 ms·

I totally understand the point of view here, and likely agree to an extent, however calling the lack of a tax that has never existed before a subsidy is more th

I totally understand the point of view here, and likely agree to an extent, however calling the lack of a tax that has never existed before a subsidy is more than just a stretch, it’s an outright distortion. I also am not sure that carbon taxes would hit the wealthy in a manner as disproportionate as would seem to make the author happy - everyone drives, and low income earners tend to have older, less fuel efficient cars. In the same way that has taxes are regressive, so would carbon taxes be. The wealthy can simply avoid them by buying EVs and solar panels, while low income earners would be stuck with the tab.

Jweb_Guru 8y ago
> everyone drives That's certainly not true. In some areas of the country, yes. But carbon taxes would not be particularly regressive. And--frankly--the entire point of carbon taxes is to reduce the production of carbon dioxide. At some point you have to actually stop people from using it, whether or not it makes sense economically in the extremely near term.
- djrogers 8y ago
  Fewer than 10% of US families do not have cars so it’s far more accurate to say that it’s true in most areas of the country.
mrpopo 8y ago
> calling the lack of a tax that has never existed before a subsidy is more than just a stretch, it’s an outright distortion. This is not correct, this is simply finally accounting for the negative carbon externality. Industries pay extra for all kinds of negative externalities, and without these regulations, markets are inefficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- jdhn 8y ago
  I really dislike this argument because it implies that as soon as something is deemed "bad", a tax should placed on it.
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    If you put scare quotes around bad then yes it's a bad argument, but the argument is actually "causes harm to others." If you think we should discourage causing harm to others then your choices are roughly: 1. regulation 2. taxation 3. torts (i.e. anyone who is harmed can sue those who did the harm)
addicted 8y ago
Everyone drives is very very far from the truth. In the US as well, but significantly more so globally. And climate change is a global phenomenon. Further, the example given in the article is very accurate. If a city allowed a company to dump their trash in a landfill for free (bonus points if it's toxic trash), would that not be considered a subsidy? In the past we didn't know that there was a cost to allowing carbon dioxide, sourced from fossil fuels, to be emitted into the air. Now we know there is a cost. The subsidy has always existed. We just didn't know it.

Jweb_Guru 8y ago

> everyone drives That's certainly not true. In some areas of the country, yes. But carbon taxes would not be particularly regressive. And--frankly--the entire point of carbon taxes is to reduce the production of carbon dioxide. At some point you have to actually stop people from using it, whether or not it makes sense economically in the extremely near term.

djrogers 8y ago
Fewer than 10% of US families do not have cars so it’s far more accurate to say that it’s true in most areas of the country.

mrpopo 8y ago

> calling the lack of a tax that has never existed before a subsidy is more than just a stretch, it’s an outright distortion. This is not correct, this is simply finally accounting for the negative carbon externality. Industries pay extra for all kinds of negative externalities, and without these regulations, markets are inefficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

jdhn 8y ago
I really dislike this argument because it implies that as soon as something is deemed "bad", a tax should placed on it.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  If you put scare quotes around bad then yes it's a bad argument, but the argument is actually "causes harm to others." If you think we should discourage causing harm to others then your choices are roughly: 1. regulation 2. taxation 3. torts (i.e. anyone who is harmed can sue those who did the harm)

addicted 8y ago

Everyone drives is very very far from the truth. In the US as well, but significantly more so globally. And climate change is a global phenomenon. Further, the example given in the article is very accurate. If a city allowed a company to dump their trash in a landfill for free (bonus points if it's toxic trash), would that not be considered a subsidy? In the past we didn't know that there was a cost to allowing carbon dioxide, sourced from fossil fuels, to be emitted into the air. Now we know there is a cost. The subsidy has always existed. We just didn't know it.