4 ms·

Tax carbon more. Then, if people want to pay more for the externalities of their adventures, they can still have them rather than sucking all of the cool out of

Tax carbon more. Then, if people want to pay more for the externalities of their adventures, they can still have them rather than sucking all of the cool out of the world with a "Culture of No." "Anything fun in life is illegal, immoral or fattening." - Anonymous

cortesoft 8y ago
Yeah, I wish this was the approach for more things. There is something in between "free for all" and "no one is allowed to do it".
savanaly 8y ago
I agree; it is not the goverment's role, much less is it actually possible for them, to decide whether the needed cuts in carbon emission come from cars going slower on the roadways, from car buyers favoring hybrid cars or public transportation, from less goods being bought that require carbon to be made, or any of literally a million other options for carbon reduction. They should impose a pigovian tax on carbon, steadily increasing until they have achieved the level of carbon reduction desired, and let the free market sort out the particulars of where the carbon reduction happens.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
In an ideal world, I'd be in favor of increased carbon taxes instead of blanket bans. The tax would need to be both high and broadly enforced, and should preferably offer some sort of subsidy to lower-income individuals to ensure they aren't decimated by the changes. In practice, I'm so desperate for countries to do anything about climate change that I'm disinclined to complain about implementation. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and we need to actually treat it as such.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Carbon taxes do seem regressive and problematic. On the other hand if we wait for an ideal world, it will only be ideal for plants, insects, rodents, and pathogens. Truthfully though, taxing consumers seems half-asses in the extreme. Of course what we need is something the average person is terrified of, which is to say we need nuclear power en masse, and we needed it yesterday. That can give us some breathing room to push hard on solar as wind, as well as using nuclear power to produce hydrogen through electrolysis. It’s not perfect, it’s expensive, it produces waste we need to deal with, but the alternative is going to be waiting for too-slow progress on the renewable end, only to realize it’s too late. That’s when the desperate geoengineering attempts will be made, likely kicking off some very unintended consequences.
  - yholio 8y ago
    Well, carbon taxes are the way to get there by letting the market decide what is preferable technology as opposed to some rando on an internet forum decreeing that we need nukes (not that I disagree). Poor people are actually the most price sensitive and lowest consumers of services and manufactured goods, they would end up paying a smaller portion of the tax. There is nothing stopping the government from reducing other taxes in compensation or using the revenue to provide, say, a minimum level of free health insurance for all.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of carbon taxes. We can use subsidies, largely from the revenue generated, to soften the more regressive properties of the tax. I'm just not going to complain when countries implement alternative measures. At least it's something.
- yholio 8y ago
  It's really not about ideal vs. non-ideal, it's about how to get the largest reduction in the fastest way, for the same public effort, political cost etc. CO2 in automobile fuel is already heavily taxed in EU. Fuel used for aviation - guzzled by definition by the rich - is not taxed at all: https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2453 https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2453 The massive industrial CO2 outputs of cement or steel factories is taxed at negligible levels compared to fuel, EU could easily reduce emissions by increasing the tax while applying a similar levy on imported products. The revenue these taxes could generates could be reinvested in electric transport infrastructure to benefit all, or industrial and technological upgrades for housing, manufacturing etc. These crap policies like speed limits have a single purpose, to avoid tackling the real issues of carbon emissions in the context of international trade, with the largest emitters getting a massive subsidy by destroying the planet.
mr_toad 8y ago
Towards the end of the article they mention the possibility of increasing petrol taxes, but that the government is wary of the political impact (hardly surprising, seeing all those riotous Frenchmen). Unsurprising, the unions favour speed limits over taxes (I doubt many trucks are travelling at 80mph).

cortesoft 8y ago

Yeah, I wish this was the approach for more things. There is something in between "free for all" and "no one is allowed to do it".

savanaly 8y ago

I agree; it is not the goverment's role, much less is it actually possible for them, to decide whether the needed cuts in carbon emission come from cars going slower on the roadways, from car buyers favoring hybrid cars or public transportation, from less goods being bought that require carbon to be made, or any of literally a million other options for carbon reduction. They should impose a pigovian tax on carbon, steadily increasing until they have achieved the level of carbon reduction desired, and let the free market sort out the particulars of where the carbon reduction happens.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

In an ideal world, I'd be in favor of increased carbon taxes instead of blanket bans. The tax would need to be both high and broadly enforced, and should preferably offer some sort of subsidy to lower-income individuals to ensure they aren't decimated by the changes. In practice, I'm so desperate for countries to do anything about climate change that I'm disinclined to complain about implementation. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and we need to actually treat it as such.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
Carbon taxes do seem regressive and problematic. On the other hand if we wait for an ideal world, it will only be ideal for plants, insects, rodents, and pathogens. Truthfully though, taxing consumers seems half-asses in the extreme. Of course what we need is something the average person is terrified of, which is to say we need nuclear power en masse, and we needed it yesterday. That can give us some breathing room to push hard on solar as wind, as well as using nuclear power to produce hydrogen through electrolysis. It’s not perfect, it’s expensive, it produces waste we need to deal with, but the alternative is going to be waiting for too-slow progress on the renewable end, only to realize it’s too late. That’s when the desperate geoengineering attempts will be made, likely kicking off some very unintended consequences.
- yholio 8y ago
  Well, carbon taxes are the way to get there by letting the market decide what is preferable technology as opposed to some rando on an internet forum decreeing that we need nukes (not that I disagree). Poor people are actually the most price sensitive and lowest consumers of services and manufactured goods, they would end up paying a smaller portion of the tax. There is nothing stopping the government from reducing other taxes in compensation or using the revenue to provide, say, a minimum level of free health insurance for all.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of carbon taxes. We can use subsidies, largely from the revenue generated, to soften the more regressive properties of the tax. I'm just not going to complain when countries implement alternative measures. At least it's something.
yholio 8y ago
It's really not about ideal vs. non-ideal, it's about how to get the largest reduction in the fastest way, for the same public effort, political cost etc. CO2 in automobile fuel is already heavily taxed in EU. Fuel used for aviation - guzzled by definition by the rich - is not taxed at all: https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2453 https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2453 The massive industrial CO2 outputs of cement or steel factories is taxed at negligible levels compared to fuel, EU could easily reduce emissions by increasing the tax while applying a similar levy on imported products. The revenue these taxes could generates could be reinvested in electric transport infrastructure to benefit all, or industrial and technological upgrades for housing, manufacturing etc. These crap policies like speed limits have a single purpose, to avoid tackling the real issues of carbon emissions in the context of international trade, with the largest emitters getting a massive subsidy by destroying the planet.

mr_toad 8y ago

Towards the end of the article they mention the possibility of increasing petrol taxes, but that the government is wary of the political impact (hardly surprising, seeing all those riotous Frenchmen). Unsurprising, the unions favour speed limits over taxes (I doubt many trucks are travelling at 80mph).