3 ms·

I don't think an explicit trading scheme is required. Each country needs to put a price on carbon, taxing fossil fuels at the point where they enter the nation

I don't think an explicit trading scheme is required. Each country needs to put a price on carbon, taxing fossil fuels at the point where they enter the national economy (mine, refinery, port, whatever). They also need to put a price on imports that embody carbon emissions (especially steel, cement,...). But if the origin country has already imposed a fee on the emissions, the fee imposed on import can be waived. If a few large countries adopt such a policy, the rest of the world will be incentivised to follow suit, and we'll get a global price on carbon emissions. There's such a bill in the US Congress right now, though one whose chances are abyssmal under the current administration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_Dividend_Act_of_2018 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend

londons_explore 8y ago
I don't think such a scheme is workable because what would the import tax be on a macbook? (it's made from millions of components and hundreds of materials, and the exact quantities aren't known) How about the tax on a google search? (all the energy into that remote datacenter) Also consider where the fee goes... Lets say you're Saudi Arabia. You decide this plan is great, so you stick a massive $50 per barrel fee on oil out of your wells. You then realise that your oil isn't selling great in the world market, so you end up giving the oil industry support in the form of investment to dig new cheaper wells, since to do so is good business for both you and them. As long as you only give them $49 of support, you're still coming out ahead overall. Unless the 'tax' is given to a benevolent world leader, then whoever collects this carbon tax will have an incentive to increase carbon emissions to collect more tax.
- arbitrary_name 8y ago
  Your second example makes no sense. Saudi subsidising their industry to establish new oil and gas wells is not going to happen for the following reasons: there is no lower cost extraction, otherwise it would have already been tapped. Look at the pain us shale extraction is causing saudi and opec. Supply in this context (50 per barrel tax) cannot be provided without increasing prices, which will reduce consumption on a net basis. There is no two ways around it. I drive less when gas is 3.90 a gallon. So will everyone else.
- mac01021 8y ago
  You've raised two different objections here. Both reasonable: > what would the import tax be on a macbook? How about the tax on a google search? This policy, like any other, is less than perfect. In particular, many imports will likely go untaxed. But the administrator of the program can continuously iterate. Start with the obvious things like steel and cars, and then keep attaching prices to the most egregious outstanding goods and services. I'm not saying this is trivial, but there are all ready many scientists who have put a lot of work into calculating the carbon footprints of things like smartphones and agricultural products. > whoever collects this carbon tax will have an incentive to increase carbon emissions to collect more tax. I was (perhaps mistakenly) trying to keep my comment short, and left out one or two crucial aspects of the policy I'm advocating. Definitely read the wiki page and/or the bill if you're interested. They're both quite short. The tax can be revenue-neutral, with the proceeds divided equally among all residents of the country, who can receive it as a monthly check or deposit. People will be paying increased prices for all the goods and services that they consume (energy providers will have raised prices in accordance with the new tax they have to pay). The result of this is that those whose carbon footprint is smaller than average will receive a dividend that is larger than the mark up they have to pay as a consumer, while those whose carbon footprint is above average will receive the same dividend, but will have to endure a markup that is greater.

londons_explore 8y ago

I don't think such a scheme is workable because what would the import tax be on a macbook? (it's made from millions of components and hundreds of materials, and the exact quantities aren't known) How about the tax on a google search? (all the energy into that remote datacenter) Also consider where the fee goes... Lets say you're Saudi Arabia. You decide this plan is great, so you stick a massive $50 per barrel fee on oil out of your wells. You then realise that your oil isn't selling great in the world market, so you end up giving the oil industry support in the form of investment to dig new cheaper wells, since to do so is good business for both you and them. As long as you only give them $49 of support, you're still coming out ahead overall. Unless the 'tax' is given to a benevolent world leader, then whoever collects this carbon tax will have an incentive to increase carbon emissions to collect more tax.

arbitrary_name 8y ago
Your second example makes no sense. Saudi subsidising their industry to establish new oil and gas wells is not going to happen for the following reasons: there is no lower cost extraction, otherwise it would have already been tapped. Look at the pain us shale extraction is causing saudi and opec. Supply in this context (50 per barrel tax) cannot be provided without increasing prices, which will reduce consumption on a net basis. There is no two ways around it. I drive less when gas is 3.90 a gallon. So will everyone else.
mac01021 8y ago
You've raised two different objections here. Both reasonable: > what would the import tax be on a macbook? How about the tax on a google search? This policy, like any other, is less than perfect. In particular, many imports will likely go untaxed. But the administrator of the program can continuously iterate. Start with the obvious things like steel and cars, and then keep attaching prices to the most egregious outstanding goods and services. I'm not saying this is trivial, but there are all ready many scientists who have put a lot of work into calculating the carbon footprints of things like smartphones and agricultural products. > whoever collects this carbon tax will have an incentive to increase carbon emissions to collect more tax. I was (perhaps mistakenly) trying to keep my comment short, and left out one or two crucial aspects of the policy I'm advocating. Definitely read the wiki page and/or the bill if you're interested. They're both quite short. The tax can be revenue-neutral, with the proceeds divided equally among all residents of the country, who can receive it as a monthly check or deposit. People will be paying increased prices for all the goods and services that they consume (energy providers will have raised prices in accordance with the new tax they have to pay). The result of this is that those whose carbon footprint is smaller than average will receive a dividend that is larger than the mark up they have to pay as a consumer, while those whose carbon footprint is above average will receive the same dividend, but will have to endure a markup that is greater.