3 ms·

Isn't there a risk that in order to, say, stop nonessential air travel, you have to set the tax so high that people can't have spinach anymore? (Leaving aside

by biztos 8y ago

Isn't there a risk that in order to, say, stop nonessential air travel, you have to set the tax so high that people can't have spinach anymore? (Leaving aside the question of how much economic downside there is to stopping, say, nonessential air travel.)

belorn 8y ago
Not a major risk. If you tax based on carbon emissions, the food that don't produce a lot of emissions will become more attractive. If spinach is a high pollution food group then people will switch over to other food groups that has smaller footprint and thus cheaper price. There are crops like seaweed that can even capture carbon, which if we allow for the carbon tax to go negative could maybe become so economical attractive as to change food culture. Food choice is already 100% based on culture and if pollution would be the deciding factor then our plates would look very different from today. Arguing that generating pollution through spinach is more morally right than nonessential air travel will only lead emotional debates over what is essential to one person vs what isn't to someone else (specially for products that not that clean cut). Pollution is bad, and given the threat to the planet it seems like the greater good is better served without trying to distinguish between a moral pollution and a immoral one. I would be a miss if I did not mention that what is even worse than nonessential air travel is nonessential car travel in cities that has every kind of mass transit imaginable. We could turn most cities into a place where cars are not allowed and the most anyone would have to walk would be a few minutes. I would be that would translate to more carbon saved than the combined nonessential air travel, save more lives with cleaner air, reduce noise and increase the average health of people living there. Not going to politically happen but one could always dream.

by biztos 8y ago

belorn 8y ago

Not a major risk. If you tax based on carbon emissions, the food that don't produce a lot of emissions will become more attractive. If spinach is a high pollution food group then people will switch over to other food groups that has smaller footprint and thus cheaper price. There are crops like seaweed that can even capture carbon, which if we allow for the carbon tax to go negative could maybe become so economical attractive as to change food culture. Food choice is already 100% based on culture and if pollution would be the deciding factor then our plates would look very different from today. Arguing that generating pollution through spinach is more morally right than nonessential air travel will only lead emotional debates over what is essential to one person vs what isn't to someone else (specially for products that not that clean cut). Pollution is bad, and given the threat to the planet it seems like the greater good is better served without trying to distinguish between a moral pollution and a immoral one. I would be a miss if I did not mention that what is even worse than nonessential air travel is nonessential car travel in cities that has every kind of mass transit imaginable. We could turn most cities into a place where cars are not allowed and the most anyone would have to walk would be a few minutes. I would be that would translate to more carbon saved than the combined nonessential air travel, save more lives with cleaner air, reduce noise and increase the average health of people living there. Not going to politically happen but one could always dream.