3 ms·

I claim no expertise on this issue, but it seems pretty obvious to me (perhaps wrongly, I'll admit) that the only reason carbon taxes are popular as a solution

by drcode 7y ago

I claim no expertise on this issue, but it seems pretty obvious to me (perhaps wrongly, I'll admit) that the only reason carbon taxes are popular as a solution is PRECISELY because they don't work- i.e. they allow oil companies to continue extracting oil and sell it to people who then burn it into CO2. The idea that carbon taxes are a meaningful economic incentive seems mostly like wishful thinking- It seems obvious to me that it just introduces an additional layer of perverse incentives for lobbyists to exploit. The only meaningful "free market" solution that I can see that could work is limiting supply (but nobody want to do that because it would be painful and most people care more about doing things that feel good instead of doing things that actually work)

chris_va 7y ago
I think you maybe (or not, couldn't tell) misunderstand the point of the tax. The point is to build a profitable market they can buy from to avoid paying the tax. With my climate hat on (not to be confused with the environmentalist hat), I have no problem with oil companies continuing to pump out oil as long as they put the Co2 back into the ground. If they prefer to pay a $100/ton tax to pump it out over paying someone else $80/ton offset/sequester the emissions, then they'll quickly go out of business to their competitors. But, they need an incentive to pay that $80/ton. And the companies that want to put the Co2 back underground need the $80/ton to make it profitable. Right now they have none, but if the alternative is a $100/ton tax, then you can be fairly confident that the net emissions will converge towards zero.
- drcode 7y ago
  You have more authority on this subject than I do, given your background, but I remain convinced that any "solution" in which the oil companies take combustible carbon molecules from "below ground" to "above ground" is doomed, even if reasonable carbon sequestration tech is developed.
  - chris_va 7y ago
    You are right that getting every last mole of Co2 in a controlled manner is doomed, but fortunately that is not required. What you really want is for net emissions to go to zero or even negative. If you are just pulling Co2 out of flue gas, that's very difficult (without BECCS, which is a separate thing). However, Direct Air Capture is also economical at some price point (optimistically around $130/ton). At that point, you don't have to nab every last mole of Co2 that the oil companies pump up because you can always pull it back out of the air. You just need a profitable market to make it economical to spend that money.
    - drcode 7y ago
      If this was true, then the oil companies could just build a machine that directly converts hydrocarbons into CO2 underground and extracts the energy in the form of electricity and the hydrocarbons could stay below ground through the entire process. No carbon taxes necessary.

by drcode 7y ago

chris_va 7y ago

I think you maybe (or not, couldn't tell) misunderstand the point of the tax. The point is to build a profitable market they can buy from to avoid paying the tax. With my climate hat on (not to be confused with the environmentalist hat), I have no problem with oil companies continuing to pump out oil as long as they put the Co2 back into the ground. If they prefer to pay a $100/ton tax to pump it out over paying someone else $80/ton offset/sequester the emissions, then they'll quickly go out of business to their competitors. But, they need an incentive to pay that $80/ton. And the companies that want to put the Co2 back underground need the $80/ton to make it profitable. Right now they have none, but if the alternative is a $100/ton tax, then you can be fairly confident that the net emissions will converge towards zero.

drcode 7y ago
You have more authority on this subject than I do, given your background, but I remain convinced that any "solution" in which the oil companies take combustible carbon molecules from "below ground" to "above ground" is doomed, even if reasonable carbon sequestration tech is developed.
- chris_va 7y ago
  You are right that getting every last mole of Co2 in a controlled manner is doomed, but fortunately that is not required. What you really want is for net emissions to go to zero or even negative. If you are just pulling Co2 out of flue gas, that's very difficult (without BECCS, which is a separate thing). However, Direct Air Capture is also economical at some price point (optimistically around $130/ton). At that point, you don't have to nab every last mole of Co2 that the oil companies pump up because you can always pull it back out of the air. You just need a profitable market to make it economical to spend that money.
  - drcode 7y ago
    If this was true, then the oil companies could just build a machine that directly converts hydrocarbons into CO2 underground and extracts the energy in the form of electricity and the hydrocarbons could stay below ground through the entire process. No carbon taxes necessary.